Are you allowed to remove a fallen branch or obstacles that is in your stance, even if the limb or obstacle extends beyond (in front of) your lie?

Read the Rules Q&A on this site called: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path

Basically, the Rules Committee feels that you can't move an item in your stance if part of it is in front of your lie. However, you are allowed to move back in line with the pin up to 5 meters without penalty which will hopefully provide a spot with room for your stance.

ty chuck!!

Already covered. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=223519&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=13&vc=1)

Here is the newly updated Q & A for this rule (available in Rules/Q&As):

Rule Question: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path
Question: Steve throws his drive under a large fallen tree branch. The branch is clearly dead and unattached from the tree it formerly came from. Steve knows that he can normally move casual obstacles that interfere with his stance, throwing motion, and/or run-up under PDGA rule 803.04c2 and 803.04c3. However, the branch is quite large, and part of the branch lies between Steve's lie and the hole. Can Steve legally move this branch?
Applicable Rules:
803:04 Obstacles and Relief

Answer: No. It is the interpretation of the rules committee that PDGA rule 803.04c(1) takes precedence here. No relief is granted from casual obstacles between the lie and the hole. Steve needs to avoid throwing next to such obstacles if he doesn't want to have to negotiate them! If the branch is such that Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also appiles, even if the obstacle in question is NOT in the flight path between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty.



Where does the 5 meters come from?

Also, will someone advocate the need for such an interpretation? This situation will most likely occur when (remember, this is where I cannot take a LEGAL stance so a stick or log will not apply) a disc is leaning on the front side of a large tree or boulder. Allowing me 5 meters rather than the first place I can take a stance is a big advantage with a tree in front of me.

It says closest point of relief up to 5 meters. You don't get the full 5 meters unless you need it.

Sorry Chuck. I should read alot closer before I type. And to think it was in capital letters in the sentence I quoted. ;)

I have some problems with this interpretation of the rules.

I agree with the thinking that we don�t want to alter the course during play. However, by combining the casual relief rule with this �don�t alter the course� thinking, I feel it has become against the spirit of the casual relief rule.

The reason you do not want players to move obstacles in front of the lie is because that will change the playability of the course during an event. The casual relief rule was originally intended to give relief when you were up against a tree or an object and couldn�t take a stance behind your lie. It wasn�t about twigs or branches extending in front of your lie.

Also, what determines �take a stance�? I don�t think people should get �up to 5 meters� because they can�t take a �comfortable� stance. Hey, if you have to lie down or kneel that is your stance. You shouldn�t be able to get a better lie because some branch is in your way and also happens to be in front of your lie. In my opinion that is against the original intent of the rule. You should never get a better route to the basket just because a tree, stick, puddle, pile of leaves or debris is interfering with your stance.

I think the casual relief rule should be rewritten to prevent �getting a better line to the basket�. Perhaps it should be removed all together because players will simply use it to gain an advantage like the one described above. In the absense of the casual relief rule a player will have to use the unsafe lie rule and take a stroke if they want to move back up to five meters and get a better lie.

I for one appreciate where you are coming from, Discette. Thanks for saying that, because even if it is not taken into consideration, it needed to be said. :)

I think that you guys need to go back and read the Q & A. You are not allowed to just move your lie because you can't take a "comfortable stance", it is only if you can take no stance at all (i.e. there is no physical way of getting a supporting point on the lie while in a legal stance). In other words it is like a "large solid object".

If you can take a legal stance but choose not to, then you have the option of declaring an unsafe lie and taking a stroke.

I'm quite certain that is the correct interpretation of the Q & A.

As noted previously, the relief rule says "closest" available stance within 5 meters, not the easiest/best stance within 5 meters. I've always understood this to mean that if you can get any legal stance by moving your disc back by the least distance possible, then you must take it whether you like it or not.

Example: a disc leaning against a tree on the side of the tree closet to the basket -- Move your stance to the far side of the tree and set your stance against the tree whether it interferes with your throwing motion or not.

Is this an incorrect interpretation?

Nick, I think players are trying to use this new interpretation to their advantage. Here is a quote from a message posted on MFAonline.



Just got confirmation from the PDGA Rules Committee on the Obstacle Relief rule I discussed a week or so ago. It came up at the Mider Cup with (Player name deleted) where a 5-ft branch was laying over his disc extending in front of it about a foot. He was about to move it when I mentioned the new rules clarification. He couldn't move it if any part of it was in front of his lie (which it was). He was allowed to move back up to 5 meters (16.5 ft) in line with the basket to get relief with no penalty. I think he moved his lie back about 8 feet and threw from there. Interestingly, he may have had a better angle than had he been allowed to move the branch. That's why it's helpful to know the rules because sometimes you can get a break.



This post makes it clear that this rule is being used to gain an advantage perhaps in ways that were not intended.

A disc leaning against a tree is not eligible for casual relief of any kind.

There is a very specific list of items that can be casual obstacles (including anything the TD wishes to declare) and living trees are not among them.

In fact, the marker is not moved to the back side of the obstacle, the stance is taken behind the obstruction, and the 30 cm rule is waived. The rule is in the Stance subsequent to teeing off section of the rules, not in a section dealing with relief.


803.03.E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

I believe that you are correct.

What this Q & A does is make it illegal (perhaps it always has been) to move obstacles that are both on your lie and between the lie and the hole. If you can take your stance, whether it interferes with your throwing motion or not (tough beans) you have to use the closest possible one, not the one that gives you an unencumbered throwing motion (now that really would be cheating).

If the player wants an unencumbered throwing motion they'd have to declare an unsafe lie:

803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.

Again, as is stated clearly several times in our rule book and now in this Q & A: THERE IS NO RELIEF FROM OBSTACLES BETWEEN THE LIE AND HOLE.

Unless:
a. The TD creates and announces it under special conditions.
b. The obstacle became a factor during the round.

This does protect the course from changing drastically during a round, but the main thing is to stop players from unfairly "improving their lie" by clearing a path to the hole or fairway or throwing motion or perhaps even improving their footing or body positioning (all of which give an advantage that is not permitted within our rules).

As the PDGA RC says,"If you don't want to deal with that sort of situation, then next time don't throw into that sort of situation."

I hope that the PDGA RC takes this another step and does not allow this for run-up or behind the lie in the next Rule Book update. Moving all of that major stuff around to give yourself a better lie, body position, run-up and throwing motion is just too obvious an improvement of your lie.

I don't see this branch relief as necessarily producing any more benefit than say relief from casual water. It's pretty much the same thing. If you have a damp creek bed like on #10 at Pickard, you can take relief up on the bank in spots where the standing water was up against the creek bed wall. Why is that any different from an improved angle when moving back a foot or two behind a branch as allowed with this new Q&A?

Discette, we're talking about casual obstacles here, nothing else.

First line of relief for a casual obstacle (to your stance) is to move it. This is perfectly fine.

However, since it is also between the lie and the hole, the committee is saying you can't move it. Therefore, you can move back on the line of play.

Note that the player MUST try to move the casual obstacle. But since the committee is saying they CAN'T move the obstacle, they are then allowed to move back on the line of play.

(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director).

One other point, I don't recall it being stated anywhere in the rules that a player when taking legal relief is required to relocate their lie to an equally unsatisfactory location.

Having the option of either re-throwing from the last lie, or going to the last place a disc was inbounds after an out of bounds throw indicates that the player should choose the option that gives them the better lie. It is not circumventing the rules to gain an advantage, it is using the rules to prevent further damage after an errant shot.

Suzette,

As Gary explains it is not really relief, the player simply must use the closest available point along the line of play within 5 meters. An extension of the 30 cm so to speak.

If the player was able to take a legal stance, even encumbered by the branch, but decided to move back along the line of play to have an unencumbered or improved stance and lie, then they would have to declare an unsafe lie and take a penalty stroke for it.

The only way that player could do what he did, and play by our rules, is if there was simply no physical way to take a legal stance at 30 cm behind his lie.

This is actually pretty clear as rules go, but then again many folks thought that about the "Speed of Rudeness" and "Everyone Had A 3, Right?" rules that are even easier to understand, if you give them a moments consideration.

Rules of Play are only as good or bad as the players knowledge of them, adherence to them and willingness to protect fair play are. Rules don't call themselves.

a couple (or three) questions:

1) Are these Q & A rulings like de facto rules. Do we also need to carry around the Q & A book along with our rulebooks?

2) Why does 803.04 c1 exist. I presume it was to stop people from moving things in their stance that also had large limbs attached that might block flight paths or affect throwing motions. But, the normal scenario is a stick or rock that merely juts out in front of the disc. Why not change the rule to allow the removal of normal sticks and rocks (exactly like you can when they are in your stance but not in front of the disc) UNLESS the to-be-removed obastacle is in the throwing motion or blocks flight paths.

3) One of the problems I encountered when reading this Q & A answer is its premise: "If the branch is such that Steve cannot take a stance." I start to envision a branch that prohibitted me from taking a stance and had trouble calling one from memory unless I really changed my idea of what "cannot take a stance" means. So, what does "cannot take a stance" mean?

One other point, I don't recall it being stated anywhere in the rules that a player when taking legal relief is required to relocate their lie to an equally unsatisfactory location.



No but I believe at one time the rules did include wording that stated a player could not improve his line to the target.


As I stated before I believe the casual relief rule should be removed or rewritten so that players can not be allowed to improve their line to the target without penalty.

If they can't take a stance, (except for 803.03E) they should have to take a penalty stroke to relocate the lie.

One other point, I don't recall it being stated anywhere in the rules that a player when taking legal relief is required to relocate their lie to an equally unsatisfactory location.



No but I believe at one time the rules did include wording that stated a player could not improve his line to the target.


As I stated before I believe the casual relief rule should be removed or rewritten so that players can not be allowed to improve their line to the target without penalty.

If they can't take a stance, (except for 803.03E) they should have to take a penalty stroke to relocate the lie.



Hold on to your monitor folks, I 100% agree with Suzette. ;)

BTW, that is exactly what this new Q & A does. But when it is just flat out physically impossible, such as leaning against a tree trunk, our rules have allowed us to extend the line of play to the closest stance on the line of play.

Perhaps it should not, interesting.

It's all pointless anyway. Until we create a unified approach to stance that is consistent across all circumstances there is no way that stance rules will be followed or stance violations called.

Currently there are a heck of a lot golfers that don't think it matters if you miss your mark on a fairway runup. As long as that is a prevailing attitude, then why does it matter if you toe your mark anywhere else, either? Hard to call one when you don't believe in the other, and hard to call either one if you are just trying to make sense of the rules.

Know what I mean?

**** you Rhett. :D

I'm sure that my viewpoint can be viewed as hypocritical since I don't care much about fairway foot faults, but I do take "moving your lie to get an easier shot" seriously. Don't let this thread drift into a fairway lie argument. This question is important. :p

By the way, Nick or Chuck or rule writer folks. Language about "first playable stance" needs to be added. I think it is strange to a have a premise that you cannot play with a foot on a branch, but then assume that the nearest playable lie will include places that are similar. In y'alls responses, you tend to assume that a difficult lie at 32 cm on top of a rock would have to be played prior to taking the rock/branch free lie at 80cm which also gets you a better angle to the basket.

The rule already prevents a player from arbitrarily relocating his lie to a better spot. It pure random chance, just like a disk landing behind a tree, or just to the side of the tree.

You are allowed relief from casual obstacles along the line of play until a lie cna be established and it can not be more than 5 meters away from the original spot.

You have already covered the fact that you do no get to pick and choose where along that 5 meter line you get to place your lie, it all falls to random chance. You might get a better line, you might get a worse line, but the player really has no say in which one he gets. It is all a matter of chance.

How can that be construed as cheating to improve your lie? You do what the rule says, and take what you get.

You might get a better line, you might get a worse line, but the player really has no say in which one he gets.



Maybe in theory. The rub lies in the premise "If the branch is such that Steve cannot take a stance." You may think that that is an objective premise, but I've played with plenty of "Steves" that will find that they CAN take a stance on the branch if that lie gives them a better angle, but that they CANNOT take a stance if the "closest point of relief" gives them a much better angle/option.

This is related thread drift but what about the rule pertaining to minimum disturbance to foliage when taking a stance? Most will allow a "gentle" backing into say pine boughs if it doesn't look like too much bending versus making someone lie on the ground so no boughs are bent.

Nothing in the rule says they must take relief. The rule does say that they must not move any obstacle between the lie and the hole, and have a supporting point on the playing surface within 30 cm behind their mark, and not cause any movement in the obstacle while taking their stance.

If they are able to get a supporting point in contact with the playing surface in the middle of a fallen branch without causing it to roll around while they are climbing into it, have at it. If they are having to hold part of it back, or have to stand on top of the obstacle, or are causing it to move by trying to get to the playing surface within it, they need to take relief.

I am just saying that it is not really up to the player whether relief is granted or not, nor the amount of relief granted.

Where the lie ends up is a matter of rule, not preference, unless an unsafe lie is declared.

If they are able to get a supporting point in contact with the playing surface in the middle of a fallen branch without causing it to roll around while they are climbing into it, have at it. If they are having to hold part of it back, or have to stand on top of the obstacle, or are causing it to move by trying to get to the playing surface within it, they need to take relief.




Well, if they defined "cannot take a stance" with this language (of course they would have to define playing surface), it would be less of a problem.


Anyway, my biggest concern with this is that it is unnecessary. Just allow people to move anything in their stance unless its removal creates an advantage via more flightpaths and/or freer swing. I see no need to treat one stick in a common sense way, but another stick as something that can't be touched.

My philosophy is "If you have to step on it to throw, you should move it out of the way." This keeps ankles intact and is preferable to allowing lies to be moved.

Nick, I think players are trying to use this new interpretation to their advantage. Here is a quote from a message posted on MFAonline.


Just got confirmation from the PDGA Rules Committee on the Obstacle Relief rule I discussed a week or so ago. It came up at the Mider Cup with (Player name deleted) where a 5-ft branch was laying over his disc extending in front of it about a foot. He was about to move it when I mentioned the new rules clarification. He couldn't move it if any part of it was in front of his lie (which it was). He was allowed to move back up to 5 meters (16.5 ft) in line with the basket to get relief with no penalty. I think he moved his lie back about 8 feet and threw from there. Interestingly, he may have had a better angle than had he been allowed to move the branch. That's why it's helpful to know the rules because sometimes you can get a break.



This post makes it clear that this rule is being used to gain an advantage perhaps in ways that were not intended.

Actually, what that post makes clear is that the player misrepresented the ruling.

The ruling allows relocation of the lie to "the CLOSEST (capitalized in the ruling) point of relief" within 5m on the LOP, not relocation anywhere on the LOP within 5m.

I hope someone with access to MFAonline will correct the misrepresentation.

I was there and made the post on MFA-online. He moved back only as far as necessary. The branch was 8 ft and he moved back 5 ft so I reversed the lengths.

Nick said:


Hold on to your monitor folks, I 100% agree with Suzette.



Proof the Apocalypse is near.

Summary: All the new Q & A does, in essense, is clarify that the rule not permitting the moving of obstacles between the lie and hole take precidence over rules allowing removal of obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion. DO NOT MOVE THEM! Our rules have other options for you to utilize, always have...

The new Q & A clarifies:
A) That players may not move obstacles between their lie and the hole regardless of its effect on stance or throwing motion.
B) If it is impossible to take a legal stance that you may use the pre-existing rules for playing a lie obstructed by �solid objects�( 803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off and 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE) to move their lie back along the line of play.
C) If within that 5 meters along the line of play no legal stance is possible then there is (also pre-existing rule) 803.05 UNSAFE LIE, to give the player more options (with a stroke add however).

Here again is the new Q & A for your review with comments and related rules for your immediate reference.

Rule Question: Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path
Question: Steve throws his drive under a large fallen tree branch. The branch is clearly dead and unattached from the tree it formerly came from. Steve knows that he can normally move casual obstacles that interfere with his stance, throwing motion, and/or run-up under PDGA rule 803.04c2 and 803.04c3. However, the branch is quite large, and part of the branch lies between Steve's lie and the hole. Can Steve legally move this branch?
Applicable Rules:
803:04 Obstacles and Relief

Answer: No. It is the interpretation of the rules committee that PDGA rule 803.04c(1) takes precedence here. No relief is granted from casual obstacles between the lie and the hole. Steve needs to avoid throwing next to such obstacles if he doesn't want to have to negotiate them! If the branch is such that Steve cannot take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie to the CLOSEST point of relief on the line of play that is no more than 5 meters away from the original lie with no penalty. Steve could also declare an unsafe lie under 803.05. This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is NOT in the flight path between the lie and the hole. Steve is not allowed to move any obstacle that is totally or partially between his lie and the hole.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Here is the rule they site as taking precedence over 803.04c(2) and (3) which allow you to move casual objects:

�C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Casual obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.�

How about obstacles that are not on the path to the hole? Well, the PDGA Rules Committee seem to be pretty clear about this:

�This ruling also applies, even if the obstacle in question is NOT in the flight path between the lie and the hole.�

As for treating the top of some casual obstacles as the playing surface, yes, we do need a clear definition of playing surface for this rule to work properly. It's not going to be easy, but it is needed so that players can clearly know when something is playing surface and when something is obstacle. Players should not be permitted to take stances on obstacles, unless they can do so without �may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole�.

I am, as stated many times, in favor of not allowing the intentional movement of ANY obstacle on a course unless it becomes a factor during the round. It is the only way to ensure that everyone plays, as close to possible, the same course and does not improve their lie.

Relief in the form of extending the 30 cm along the line of play to the CLOSEST lie is reasonable for obstacles that simply do not allow a player to take a legal stance (note I did not say a "comfortable" or "advantageous" stance); this is already in our rulebook, it is not new.

For reference:

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.03 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

B. Stepping past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting within 10 meters.

C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

D. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.

E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

G. Any throw that involves a validly called and seconded stance violation may not be used by the thrower. Re-throws must be taken from the original lie. Re-throws must be taken prior to subsequent play by others in the group.

H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw, except in the case of a putt from within 10 meters. Where a disc is retrieved in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning.

803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle.

B.If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.07 A.

C. No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve.

D. If the two-meter status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination. If the thrower moves the disc before determination has been made, the disc shall be considered above two meters and the thrower shall proceed in accordance with 803.07 A and B. If a player other than the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered below two meters and the interference rule shall be applied as it relates to the thrower and the player. See sections 803.06 B and C.

803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.

Okay, I found the problem, and I think it's confusing some of you. :)

Here is the rule - "(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director)."

The problem is the poor wording of the rule.

It SHOULD NOT say "nearest lie". It SHOULD say "nearest point of relief".

Note
....A player is granted full relief from a casual obstacle to stance (either by moving the obstacle, or by moving back up to 5m).
....A player is granted no relief from an obstacle between the lie and the hole.

In this case, the player CAN'T move the branch, because it is between the lie and the hole. Therefore, the only relief from the casual obstacle to stance is to move back on the line of play. THE PLAYER CAN MOVE BACK AS FAR AS IT TAKES TO GET FULL RELIEF FROM THE BRANCH (as long as they stay within 5m and they take the nearest lie that has full relief).

This is clearly the intent of the rule. However by saying "nearest lie" instead of "nearest point of relief" the waters are muddied.

It only makes sense. If the first course of relief is to COMPLETELY MOVE the obstacle to stance, then it only makes sense that in cases where moving it is impractical, that you still get FULL RELIEF by moving back on the line of play. Remember, it's a CASUAL OBSTACLE.

This is fully different than a normal obstacle or an integral part of the course. I wholly agree that with non-casual obstacles, you MUST take the stance that "will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course".

Remember, for CASUAL OBSTACLES, you get FULL RELIEF (without penalty)within the bounds of (1) moving the obstacle or (2) moving back on the line of play.

Glad I could clear that up for you all. :) :D :cool:

These rules discussions usually drive me nuts. Questions are usually not addressed directly, but "answered" by quoting the rules in question. In my case, I sort of assume those who answer my questions with rule quotations or intellectual expansion of the language represent the PDGA's stance. This assumption may be dead wrong and thus I should retain some hope.

However, assuming that this is truly the PDGA's stance, it is eroding my faith in the rules and the rule process. Based on my playing experience, I do not think I am alone. In fact, I suspect the majority of players don't actually follow many of the rules closely, not because they are outlaws or cheaters or lazy, but simply because the rules are either obviously unclear or more importantly, the rules do not match the players inate reasoning for insuring fair play.

I know, it's no big deal that I get frustrated with the rules zealots, but the next time the rules zealots get frustrated with those that do not call rules or do not closely follow rules, just entertain the possibility that the problem might lie with the rules themselves, not with the "lazy, cheating underclass of non-rule-enforcing players." People tend to follow and enforce rules that are clear and match their own inate sense of fair play.

These rules discussions usually drive me nuts. Questions are usually not addressed directly, but "answered" by quoting the rules in question. In my case, I sort of assume those who answer my questions with rule quotations or intellectual expansion of the language represent the PDGA's stance. This assumption may be dead wrong and thus I should retain some hope.

However, assuming that this is truly the PDGA's stance, it is eroding my faith in the rules and the rule process. Based on my playing experience, I do not think I am alone. In fact, I suspect the majority of players don't actually follow many of the rules closely, not because they are outlaws or cheaters or lazy, but simply because the rules are either obviously unclear or more importantly, the rules do not match the players inate reasoning for insuring fair play.

I know, it's no big deal that I get frustrated with the rules zealots, but the next time the rules zealots get frustrated with those that do not call rules or do not closely follow rules, just entertain the possibility that the problem might lie with the rules themselves, not with the "lazy, cheating underclass of non-rule-enforcing players." People tend to follow and enforce rules that are clear and match their own inate sense of fair play.



James, which question of yours did we not address?

How can clarifying that a certain rule (not moving anything between your lie and hole) has precedence over other rules erode your faith in our rules and the rules process?

You many not be alone in your experience of ignorance, non-compliance and fear of calling our rules, but none of this is a responsibility of the PDGA. It is all on you to know, follow and call our rules of play. Why? Because there is no �rule� in the world that can force folks to know, follow and call the rules; only people can do that.

As far as DGRZ �entertaining the possibility that the problem might lie with the rules themselves�, I have to seriously wonder if you have ever read any of our posts. WE ARE THE SUPER CRITICAL BUNCH HERE CONCERNING THE RULES. No one, other than the members of the PDGA Rules Committee, look at our rules with a finer microscope, searching for inconsistencies and loop holes, than the Disc Golf Rules Zealots.

Do I think the PDGA and PDGA Rules Committee could do a better job of nurturing a culture where knowledge, adherence and enforcement replace ignorance, non-compliance and fear of making a call? ABSOLUTELY! But as a volunteer on a much smaller scale I know that it would involve my participation (and the participation of many other concerned folks) to make headway in this.


People tend to follow and enforce rules that are clear and match their own inate sense of fair play.



If that were true, and it could be for many players, then they are �Cheaters�. Yes, judgment is needed in calling the rules, it is not however needed in knowing and following the rules. If a player knows that they have to hit their mark on fairway shots yet either choose not to follow or not to accept being called on hitting it, then no ethical gymnastics make what they did acceptable behavior. Otherwise we would have to open a new section in our rules pages called, �Good Excuses For Not Following Our Rules�.

Not going to happen.

Your response is exactly what I'm talking about: You see rules. If I see a question, you see a rule. If I see a rule that makes little sense, you see a rule.

My question, and everyone elses who will actually enforce this rule, has already been asked. How do you determine that "Steve cannot take a stance"? Every player on the card will have a different answer to this. On some cards, I predict someone will use the term "playing surface" in their answer just to further muddy the waters.


Anyway, my more important point will never enter into your head, but it is understood by most people who write successful rules/laws/whatever. If you want people to follow rules, the best strategy is to create rules that are clear, consistent and mirror people's actual beliefs. If you don't follow this little advice, don't decry the fact that people don't call the rules. This topic is a case in point. We have a rule where a stick can be moved from beneath your feet in one instance, but an almost identically lieing stick cannot be moved. Most people tend to think "why, that makes no sense." They then tend to hold that "rule" in lower esteem and are less likely to enforce it.

Most people tend to think "why, that makes no sense." They then tend to hold that "rule" in lower esteem and are less likely to enforce it.



Then they are not following the rules. Again, rules CAN NOT MAKE FOLKS FOLLOW THEM. It is a choice. This discussion is about clarifying what the rule is, not whether rules philosophically can be written so that everyone naturally follows them, if it were, there would be no need to discuss anything because everyone would just "naturally" follow them James!

The rule is clear as it is, other than "playing surface" could use some clarification. But using your argument of "natural" understanding, then you should have no problem understanding what "playing surface" "naturally" means, right? (That which is intended and able to be stood upon and is not a separate obstacle.)

You want to know why a stick on the ground can be moved in one situation and not in another? Simple, one is between the lie and hole while the other is not.

Do you want to discuss why the rule is the way it is? Because it is unfair to be able to move an obstacle to stance, throwing motion or run up that may in any way also present an obstacle to you being able to make your throw successfully.

I mean think about it: You throw in a pile of branches, the other guy throws in the middle of the fairway; you get to move all of the branches on your run up, lie and infront of your lie, so why can't the guy in the fairway run up and clear sticks out of the way of the roller he wants to throw. Because that has "correctly" and "naturally" been concluded to be unfair. It also happens to change the course for everyone who follows.

And James, not all rules are just "naturally" evident, many have to be learned, that is what makes it a game. Not just rules that seem strange like 2 meters, falling putts or mandatories but rules that make our game what it is, like order of play, holing out, keeping score properly.


If you want people to follow rules, the best strategy is to create rules that are clear, consistent and mirror people's actual beliefs.



I'd like to see you write a rule book that can fully detail people's actual beliefs that is less than 600 pages long.

Actually, I would like to see you just write this rule so that it meets your criteria. I anxiously await it in fact. Just one rule, you can do it.

If the rules mirror people's actual beliefs, then everybody will be playing a different game. The rules CANNOT mirror everybody's actual beliefs. They must be common ground; everyone must play by the same rules. That means that some people must play by rules that they don't like. If you choose to let some rules slide because you don't like them, then you are not playing the same game that everyone else is playing, and that is unfair. In some circumstances, it would be called "cheating."

whenever i play baseball, i like to swing at the ball as many times as it takes until i hit the ball. it's my belief that it's not fair that i can miss three times and I'm "out", but someone else gets to hit the ball.

When I bowl, it's my personal belief that gutter balls don't count.

If a drive goes off the fairway when I'm disc golfing, I give myself at least 2 meters of relief onto the fairway with no penalty. I don't like throwing from the trees and think being forced to do so takes away from the sport.

When I'm running a race, I think it's ok to trip other runners. If they didnt want to be tripped, they wouldnt run in front of me.

Don't agree with me? Too bad, these are my personal beliefs. The "rules" of the games don't matter to me, and really if you ask me the rules should have been written with me and my beliefs in mind.

:p

You want to know why a stick on the ground can be moved in one situation and not in another? Simple, one is between the lie and hole while the other is not.



Shocking, I never would have anticipated this response.


Do you want to discuss why the rule is the way it is? Because it is unfair to be able to move an obstacle to stance, throwing motion or run up that may in any way also present an obstacle to you being able to make your throw successfully.



Huh. I can move a stick from underneath my foot, as long as part of the stick isn't closer to the basket. By the way, I'm giving you an additional "huh" for the statement about being "fair." I'm aware that "fairness" is not a universal truth, but most people I play with don't think it is unfair to move a stick or rock from your stance. In fact, most people (IMO) think it makes perfect sense simply to prevent injuries. I thankfully have not played with a player who was whining about getting beat because someone kicked a rock from their stance. I'm sure they exist, but they are not common.

Anyway, my fix that you anxiuosly await could be done by changing 803.04 to allow two exceptions. The second exception would allow movement of obstacles between the lie and the hole if the obstacle was in the player's stance as long as no part of the obstacle was in the players throwing motion or in obvious flightpaths.

I'm sure that this language should be finetuned, but the benefit is that it provides consistency to similar situations and does not allow lies to change based on someone's perception of whether they can take a stance. All sticks and stones are treated the same which just makes sense.

In other words (this is probably my gut level explanation and most meaningful to me) If I can prevent an injury without gaining what I feel is advantage, I should be able to do it and allow everyone else to do it also.

In anticipation of your argument. I know you feel kicking that rock away is an advantage. Well, I don't. Like I said earlier, I have never felt I lost cause someone moved a rock or stick from their stance. That's just not the way I perceive the game.

Yes, this mockery is persuasive, but give me some persuasive examples and I might be swayed.

I'm not a fool. I understand your point. Just be honest. There are many things that most people think is fair. Your examples, well only you think they are fair.

I'm not going to tone down my argument because there is not a universally held belief of fairness. Just because common sense is not held by everyone, doesn't diminish its value.

In other words (this is probably my gut level explanation and most meaningful to me) If I can prevent an injury without gaining what I feel is advantage, I should be able to do it and allow everyone else to do it also.

In anticipation of your argument. I know you feel kicking that rock away is an advantage. Well, I don't. Like I said earlier, I have never felt I lost cause someone moved a rock or stick from their stance. That's just not the way I perceive the game.



Your perception is in error then James; and here is why?

Preventing injury is a worthy motivation, and for that we have a rule called �UNSAFE LIE�.

Moving sticks, rocks and other debris (as well as major obstacles) to your run up, stance and throwing motion to accomplish what the UNSAFE LIE rule provides at the cost of one stroke is not in concert, unity, congruity with the basic tenet of golf:

�Play it where it lies.�

You said �If I can prevent an injury without gaining what I feel is advantage, I should be able to do it and allow everyone else to do it also.�

I honestly can not understand the logic (or even emotional feeling) that being able to move obstacles around (any obstacles) is not the most clear case of getting an unfair advantage over all those who did not throw into the pile of junk you did. But more than this, please consider the following:

You throw a drive on a 666 foot uphill hole and land in the rough 8 feet off the fairway on a 6 inch thick log that extends in front of your lie, other than that log your shot is wide open to the hole. Another player throws a shot of the same distance right in the middle of the fairway with only cut grass beneath his disc. You both have 330 feet, through a gap, to the hole to go.

The other player goes first and makes it through the gap. Now it is your turn:

Now from this Q & A discussion and that the rule against moving things between the lie and hole takes precedence over the rule that allows you to remove casual obstacles; You:

A) Kick the log gently to one side only moving it about 1 foot to the left, back up do a full run up and kill a shot through the gap.
B) You take the CLOSEST point of relief along the line of play, this being 2 feet back, but still can not move the log and will have to limit your run up so that you can hit the lie and not tumble forward after the release.

James, is there an advantage besides safety to moving that log or stick regardless of its size or obstruction to your flight path? Answer honestly please. Is there a competitive advantage?

Or how about this one where everything is the same only there are several branches off of the main downed one under your thrown disc that reach up to obstruct your run up and (or) throwing motion:

A) Drag the log 6 feet to the left, back up do a full run up and kill a shot through the gap.
B) You take the CLOSEST point of relief along the line of play, this being 2 feet back, but because the branches reach up into your normal stance and stop any kind of run up you have to take a stationary stance reaching out to the right and throw only a partial power flick so that you do not damage the obstacle or your hand.

James, is there any competitive advantage to moving those casual obstacles? What if they were not casual, but living trees and bushes? Do you think disc golfers should be able to carry saws and clippers with them in their bags?

Please explain exactly how moving obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion so that you can throw without heed to them is not a 100% clear cut competitive advantage? Now throw on the fact that this has always been the case within our rules and this Q & A only represents confirmation of its correct priority over lesser relief rules?

(This is strangely similar to the discussion about folks not having to hit their mark on fairway run ups, only multiply it by a factor of 100. The advantage to those who give it no thought, or actually �perceive� it as not cheating to pay it no heed is emphatic to those who are aware of their lie, have practiced hitting their lie, and make a conscious effort to hit their lie within the bounds of our rules of play.)

If you want an even simpler example to comprehend the advantage of clearing obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion, consider the game of pig. If the first player throws a between the legs flick from 15 feet and it goes in, then the next player stands their in a normal putting style and throws a normal put (no problemo), is there an advantage for the player who skips the part of the rules concerning dealing with the constrictions of the throw. Or one guy crawls under a picnic table and drills a skip shot off the ground and into the basket form 10 feet, the next guy moves the table and throws the disc straight in.

Is their no advantage from not following the rules? Or does your "way of percieving the game" preclude you from understanding the advantage? (That is not a dig, but I am too lazy to word it more PCly)

Since the rules will be going thru a rewrite relatively soon (year?), it would be interesting to go back and start over on why we have any relief at all for dead versus living elements on a course. When the rules were first written, was it because dead stuff could be moved without cutting/killing anything? I'm not sure I see any merit for moving ANYTHING that was on the course as the round started. Moving items which clearly entered the course after the round started makes sense. But otherwise, why not be consistent and not move anything, even loose items behind your lie? If you threw there, you play it there.

The only issue would then be whether relief under certain circumstances would involve a penalty or not. Casual water as a default makes sense for minimum movement back without penalty since you don't know if the water might be deeper than someone can stand in. Minimal relief for stinging insect or animal dens also makes sense because they can come after you. However, it seems like everything else, including poison ivy (which doesn't come after you), should provide no relief without penalty unless the TD specifies a 'No penalty' drop zone for a known area where relief is standard (sensitive plant area). Why do you currently get minimal relief from poison ivy and not itch weed or pricker thickets?

It seems like these changes would be along the lines of James commentary where the consistency of not moving anything would be easier to remember. And if you choose to move back, it's just a matter of knowing whether the situation is one of the few where you get to move without penalty (up to 5m).

I agree with you Chuck. There is no reason for doing course maintanence during PDGA rounds. If you don't want to be in a pile of sticks, then don't throw there. Simple.

If you do throw there, don't expect the rules to bail you out.

(I just know this is going to come back and bite me in the arsh some day...) ;)

Moving sticks, rocks and other debris (as well as major obstacles) to your run up, stance and throwing motion to accomplish what the UNSAFE LIE rule provides at the cost of one stroke is not in concert, unity, congruity with the basic tenet of golf:

�Play it where it lies.�




I don't agree with that kicking a rock out of the way has much to do with "play it where it lies." Anyway, you are a rules-minded person. I can kick the stone or stick out of my stance and my runup. (Oh, I forgot to qualify this question with "as long as part of the rock and stone are not closer to the pin)") Right?


You throw a drive on a 666 foot uphill hole and land in the rough 8 feet off the fairway on a 6 inch thick log that extends in front of your lie, other than that log your shot is wide open to the hole.



I'm just wondering, do you feel this question is just as persuasive if the log was under the beautiful fairway shot and the rough shot was obstacle free?


A) Kick the log gently to one side only moving it about 1 foot to the left, back up do a full run up and kill a shot through the gap.
B) You take the CLOSEST point of relief along the line of play, this being 2 feet back, but still can not move the log and will have to limit your run up so that you can hit the lie and not tumble forward after the release.




what about (C) where I determine that playing on top of the log is preferable to going two feet back.

To answer your question, I will first ask the group if this is a log that prevents me from taking a stance. :eek: After the first two people say "I don't know" and the third incorrectly says that I cannot take a stance there since it is not the playing surface, I guess I can wait for the TD or official to "makeup" a ruling about whether I can or can't take a stance there.

Just kidding, kind of. I would follow the rule and play it from the first playable lie. Probably use a runup and hope I did not hurt myself. If I hurt myself, I would cuss Nick Kight at the top of my lungs, which might be a courtesy violation, but luckily, two other people on my card would be too afraid to call me on it. :D


Or how about this one where everything is the same only there are several branches off of the main downed one under your thrown disc that reach up to obstruct your run up and (or) throwing motion:

A) Drag the log 6 feet to the left, back up do a full run up and kill a shot through the gap.
B) You take the CLOSEST point of relief along the line of play, this being 2 feet back, but because the branches reach up into your normal stance and stop any kind of run up you have to take a stationary stance reaching out to the right and throw only a partial power flick so that you do not damage the obstacle or your hand.




Regarding the log effecting your throwing motion, we are in agreement here. I would not move the log since moving it is against the rules and because it is obviously cheating since moving it makes it an easier shot. I understand the need for this rule, I just want to limit it to situations where the person gains a real advantage.


Please explain exactly how moving obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion so that you can throw without heed to them is not a 100% clear cut competitive advantage?



If everyone can move rocks and sticks from there stance and runup, it's not an advantage. As for the throwing motion, I've never advocated (nor ever practiced) ripping limbs and such from my motion.

We are not playing pig, we are playing disc golf. Comparing the two makes little sense.


Is their no advantage from not following the rules? Or does your "way of percieving the game" preclude you from understanding the advantage? (That is not a dig, but I am too lazy to word it more PCly)



Depends on the rule and on the mindset. Like I said. I don't feel that moving a rock from my stance is an advantage. I don't feel that if you move a rock from your stance, you are gaining an advantage. I will not complain about you moving a rock and it won't even cross my mind at the end of the day. Golf to me is about the skill of executing shots from your lie, not the skill of avoiding rocks when you step. I also don't think "this perception" is that uncommon.

James,

I think that we have made our points clearly enough. The important thing is to be aware of the rule and to do our best to play by it and educate others about it.

In all likelihood I will not call someone for flicking a tiny stick that is under their mini and back in their line of play. I will however warn them not to move anything large and certainly anything that extends up and into their throwing motion or up and in between the lie and the hole.

I view such behavior, as do our rules, as cheating.

It puzzles me that people feel they are entitled to a full runup and nice solid footing on every shot. If you land on a log and can place a supporting point within 30 cm of your lie you should have to throw from there. Period.

It's like removing the tall grass or sand from behind a golf ball before hitting it. You don't get to. You need to swing away and hope for the best.

Sometimes you need to pitch out. even in the opposite direction of the target. That's golf.

I bet nobody would have a problem finding a way to putt from a log if they were 10' out. but if they had to move back another 5 meters to get to the end of the log to putt.....

but when that log is in the rough it suddenly becomes 'unplayable'??

But what if the obstacle came into play during the round?

Example: During Sneeky Pete a pro was about to putt and a limb fell down right infront of him and landed on his foot. Part of the limb was infront of his lie. When he was telling me this story, I informed him that he could because "it came into play during the round." And I showed/read him the rule(I can't recall which rule it is off of the top of my head).

So did this change too?

Still there:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. [b]A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole which became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches which fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

...one advantage of the online rules is the search box. This rule came up in a search for...obstacles ;)

during PGA tournaments, it is common that a TD will allow golfers to clean and place their ball at any time when the fairways are extremely muddy or the like.

My point is that on a PGA course, the fairway is likely in excellent shape. But a disc golf course is played (in some cases) where even in the fairway, your disc lands in brush, stones, etc. Would it not be prudent to allow you to "clean" your lie, where your foot will land to prevent an inadvertant ankle twist or break?

I am not suggesting moving a 6" log. Just enough to prevent injury. And wouldn't this be fair if everyone was allowed to do it?

during PGA tournaments, it is common that a TD will allow golfers to clean and place their ball at any time when the fairways are extremely muddy or the like.

My point is that on a PGA course, the fairway is likely in excellent shape. But a disc golf course is played (in some cases) where even in the fairway, your disc lands in brush, stones, etc. Would it not be prudent to allow you to "clean" your lie, where your foot will land to prevent an inadvertant ankle twist or break?

I am not suggesting moving a 6" log. Just enough to prevent injury. And wouldn't this be fair if everyone was allowed to do it?



Dan,

I can�t speak for the framers of our rules or even our current rules committee, but my understanding of our rules is that they are there to ensure fair play, and in a �golf� like game such as disc golf a fundamental principle is �to play it where it lies�. But let�s stay away from ball golf like analogies, regardless of how useful they may be, and focus on fairness.

If everyone can fling obstacles around on the course so that they can get a �comfortable�, �more safe� and �easier� run up, stance and throwing motion then what is the good of having obstacles on our courses at all? Why would a player choose to throw to one lie rather than another? The matter of presenting uniform and fair rules of play goes right to this point.

Consider: Player A surveys the fairway, decides on a disc, a throw (has practiced this throw endlessly and knows that to land in a certain lie is an instant bogie), runs up on the tee and executes the perfect throw landing in the middle of the fairway with a perfect window to the green.

Player B has done everything the same but hooks the shot to the left and onto a pile of sticks with vines dangling down just in front of the lie (a few strands hanging back behind his lie).

Is it �fair� (or in continuity with �play it where it lies�) that Player B be able to heave the hip high pile of logs to one side and knock down the vines so that he can have a comfortable run up, stance and throwing motion in light of the fact that he threw the disc into that situation in the first place? This while Player A executed a perfect throw and has no need to move anything in order to have a perfect run up, stance and throwing motion? Is there no significant advantage extended to Player B that is not to Player A (who actually made a good shot)?

Now James raised the question about what if Player A having executed the perfect shot and landed in the perfect spot on the fairway, yet their was a 5 inch thick log just under his thrown disc (extending towards the hole between his lie and the hole)? What then? Well, it would seem clear that his shot was not all that perfect after all; or he would have avoided landing on that log; this whether the log is part of the course or from lack of maintenance. The log was there prior to the round starting and it is the responsibility of the player to avoid landing on it.

Courses should present as close, as we can manage to provide under our rules of play, the exact same challenge to all players; to do otherwise is to create an �unfair� competitive situation.

Yes, yes, yes, I know �life is not fair�; well, that is no excuse not to try to create as level and fair a competitive situation as we can possibly manage through our rules of play. Our rules of play are in place to do this as best as we can, to throw up our hands and allow folks to manipulate their lie for easier run up, stance and throwing motion to the detriment of how the course plays for all subsequent golfers, is not in lines with the purpose of our rules (and never has been), let alone to the players who purposefully avoid those obstacles successfully.

This new Q & A does not really represent a �change� of any kind to our rules of play, it represents a �clarification� and �strengthening� of the principles behind and the application of our rules, to further ensure that play is fair. This is a good thing in my opinion.

Note: Safety issues as concern this rule and the proposed removal of any ability to remove casual obstacles from ones lie, whether between the hole and lie or not (this is proposed not rule for casual obstacles completely behind your lie, yet):

Answer this, when a player throws a drive and lands up against a large bolder, yet still has a 300 foot up hill throw to the pin, and the player can not, by rule or practicality, move the bolder, and the danger of smacking their hand, elbow or knee on that bolder is extremely likely if they do a full run up hit their mark and do a full throwing motion to have enough power to reach the hole; so instead they have to use the full 30 cm of their lie, stand in a stationary position and throw a baseball throw instead; how is this any different than landing against a downed 6 inch thick log, that has branches reaching up and into the throwing motion of the run up, stance and throwing motion?

Doesn�t the thrower have to deal with the situation without moving the obstacle? Don�t they have to assume a stance that as much as possible removes the chance of injury? And if it is impossible to avoid injury, isn't there an option within our rules to avoid injury (Unsafe Lie)? Don�t they have to give up the additional power of a run up? Don�t they have to give up their preferred throwing technique?

That is not unfair, that is what we like to call �Golf�.

Nick, I was going to stop posting, but you've done ****** me off again. :D


If everyone can fling obstacles around on the course so that they can get a �comfortable�, �more safe� and �easier� run up, stance and throwing motion then what is the good of having obstacles on our courses at all? Why would a player choose to throw to one lie rather than another? The matter of presenting uniform and fair rules of play goes right to this point.



I think you really have ball golf in your head. The "lie" in ball golf is not analogous to the "lie" in disc golf, at least not in the way you commonly suggest. I argue that the importance of the lie in DG is the angles and such you are given and the obstacles in front of you. The importance of the lie in BG is mainly how the ball sits and to a much lesser extent, the obstacles in front of you. Therefore, I feel that moving sticks and stones from your stance is not changing your lie, since you still have the same paths available and same trees, etc. in your way.


Now James raised the question about what if Player A having executed the perfect shot and landed in the perfect spot on the fairway, yet their was a 5 inch thick log just under his thrown disc (extending towards the hole between his lie and the hole)? What then? Well, it would seem clear that his shot was not all that perfect after all; or he would have avoided landing on that log; this whether the log is part of the course or from lack of maintenance. The log was there prior to the round starting and it is the responsibility of the player to avoid landing on it.




This mentality is warped because I have heard both you and Chuck now advocate that no branches, stones, etc. should be allowed to be moved. It scares me as I fear the rule-writers might think like you. People generally throw from 250-500 feet. Honestly, noone can survey every friggin branch and stone on the course and "place" their shot in the exact location from 500 feet, or 250 feet for that matter.

Please rule-makers, do not follow Nick down this dark path :D, continue to allow people to move sticks and stones from their stance.

As much as this thread is discussing movement of obstacles to get better footing, somewhat safety related, I believe the more important issue has to do with moving things such that players in groups behind you having a "different" course. Although it's a little dicey to write this rule, I could see being allowed to move items behind your stance if they were replaced in the same positions so everyone has the same obstacle positioning, whatever that is, before the round starts.

It looks like you are arguing 2 different points. One where James is talking about impediments to stance (rocks, twigs, and small sticks that can result in a twisted ankle) and objects to represent an obstacle to discs in flight or that are of sufficient size to present an obstacle to run-up, not the placement of the plant foot.

Is it Nick's proposal that individual rocks and small twigs in the plant area can not be moved? I agree that items large enough to stop a disc are considered obstacles, but are loose rocks and small debris on the course given the same status?

think you really have ball golf in your head. The "lie" in ball golf is not analogous to the "lie" in disc golf, at least not in the way you commonly suggest. I argue that the importance of the lie in DG is the angles and such you are given and the obstacles in front of you. The importance of the lie in BG is mainly how the ball sits and to a much lesser extent, the obstacles in front of you. Therefore, I feel that moving sticks and stones from your stance is not changing your lie, since you still have the same paths available and same trees, etc. in your way.



Actually, James, I avoided ball golf analogies, but if your are going to bring them up�

The truth is that I am interested in �Golf� analogies. We play golf. There are differences between �Ball� and �Disc�, major ones. But the difference between the games of �Golf� are minimal, other than the reality of our courses being mostly pitch and putts and the nature of our putts being, generally accepted, as easier.

In �Golf�, playing it where it lies implies not only the angles given to you by the obstacles between you and the hole, but also the specific conditions of �where your projectile came to rest� (the footing, the obstacles to swing, the low ceiling, etc.). These are �Golf� considerations. In golf, �building up a lie� basically, means that you have created a situation different from the original one your projectile landed in, in order to have an easier, less encumbered and more advantageous swing and chance of successful shot out of the lie.

The �Conditions of Your Lie� are not ONLY the angles you have to the hole, they include such things as wind direction, elevation, and certainly footing and freedom of movement in making your swing. As Disc Golf stands now, we have rules that allow players to greatly �Build Up Their Lie� or �Improve Their Lie�, and it is an �indisputable fact� that such behavior, and it�s sanctioning by our rules of play, changes (to the detriment of fair play and the alteration of our courses) the nature of the challenge within our brand of �Golf� clearly and significantly.

Chuck and I have dissected �Lie� to the nth degree in disc golf and how it is different than ball golf�s. Yet similarities persist in many significant ways. The most significant is that �All� conditions of the method of propelling the projectile, as concern the physicality of the human form and motion, are dictated by the conditions and situation of the lie. That is, that the resulting propulsion of the projectile is the direct result of the human interface with the specific conditions of the place from which the act occurs.

My contention, well founded in the concepts of �Golf� (separate from �Disc� of �Ball�), is that to �change those specific conditions�, or to have rules that allow the extreme changing of those specific conditions, has a profound effect upon the very nature of our game; particularly as it pertains to fairness and presentation of uniform challenge.

If I had to break down the difference in our positions on this topic James, it would be this:
For you, the lie�s only significance in relation to the challenge of making a good throw according to its position in relation to obstacles between the hole and the lie.

For me, that is only one aspect of the challenge presented by the lie. The rest include the actual physical aspects and interface between the player�s body and motion with the immediate surroundings. The traction of the surface, the elevation differences in support points, the encumbering protrusions to throwing motion and basically everything else that is an element related to the conditions of the lie.

It is understandable that you hold the position you do; I mean disc golf has perpetuated this disregard for the exact nature of the lie for most of its history, and I imagine this had in large part to do with the �raw� and �un-maintained� nature of many of our early courses. But it is time for organized disc golf to grow up and bring itself more closely aligned with the basic tenets of the game of �GOLF� (not �ball� golf but �GOLF�).

On the simplest level, the stuff was already there when you threw your disc and it landed there; so it is completely upon you to deal with it as best you can. Kind of like �real life� when you think about it.

Nick,
Are you advocating that NOTHING be moved in your stance? Even for small things, rocks, twigs, etc., that do not extend in front of your marker.
I completely agree with your points about moving vines and brush and boulders that effect your stance that extend in front of your lie.
But if you mean to say that moving a 1" across stone that is under your foot during a legal stance should be considered breaking the rules, I'm not sure I can go along with that.

On the simplest level, the stuff was already there when you threw your disc and it landed there; so it is completely upon you to deal with it as best you can. Kind of like �real life� when you think about it.



You've gone mad. :eek: Noone knows, nor can they plan for, where every rock and stick may lie. By saying that nothing can be moved from your stance, you are trying to institute an uncontrollable uncertainty into the game. That's right, I said "uncontrollable," and I don't care how many times you state "Well, you should've avoided the pebble patch 350 down the fairway," I will never be convinced.

Where do you draw the line on size of obstacle that can be moved if you allow it at all? If there's a rock about a foot in diameter in the fairway, most would feel that could affect shots, especially rollers, and shouldn't be moved once the round is underway. OK, how about a 6" rock? A 1" rock? How many have had just the tiniest tip of a branch significantly redirect a throw? Is it OK to walk along and snip an inch or two off of branches?

It should be all or nothing. If you can move a 6" rock behind your lie in your stance, you should also be able to move the same rock during the round regardless where it is. You shouldn't have different rules for behind the lie than anywhere on the course since every item, even the smallest, might change a shot.

James, I don't expect you to know where every rock or pebble is located on each hole. However, shouldn't all of our discs traverse obstacles in the same positions and take our chances for the round?

On the simplest level, the stuff was already there when you threw your disc and it landed there; so it is completely upon you to deal with it as best you can. Kind of like �real life� when you think about it.



You've gone mad. :eek: Noone knows, nor can they plan for, where every rock and stick may lie. By saying that nothing can be moved from your stance, you are trying to institute an uncontrollable uncertainty into the game. That's right, I said "uncontrollable," and I don't care how many times you state "Well, you should've avoided the pebble patch 350 down the fairway," I will never be convinced.



That is fine. I suspected that you had a block concerning this anyway.

Thing is, even without moving any obstacles to stance or throwing motion, "disc" golf still, due to our ability to utilize almost an infinite variety or throwing techniques, is far far far far less stringent when it comes to playing a lie and dealing with the "real" conditions of the lie.

To be clear, current rules do not allow the moving of any obstacles between the lie and hole, ANY! The proposal is to not allow the moving of any obstacles at all anywhere, anytime, other than ones known to have become a factor during the round.

And hey! I didn't create the various conditions, I just think that out of respect to the game of golf and fairness, that you should have to deal with "ALL" of the conditions you yourself threw into. This to be fair to the folks that didn't throw into that situation or might end up in the same one next round.

It should be all or nothing. If you can move a 6" rock behind your lie in your stance, you should also be able to move the same rock during the round regardless where it is. You shouldn't have different rules for behind the lie than anywhere on the course since every item, even the smallest, might change a shot.




This makes sense if your only concern is to have the exact same course for every player (virtually impossible if you think about it). I'm all for "attempting" to keep "significant" objects in the exact same place. However, placing something like that in the rules would create chaos. Do we really need players bickering over the exact replacement location for the stick?

To sum it up, I am much more comfortable with the random "unfairness" created by stick and pebble moving then I am with constantly stepping on rocks and sticks because their movement changes the setting for the subsequent players.

Also, I would never advocate the removal of objects down the fairway unless they fit into "not natural and not there when the round started" category. The common scenarios really only effect rollers and I am not bothered by the fact that a stick or stone was "there" for him but "two feet from there" for me.

This new rule change would give players with more upper body strength an advantage (on long holes). As it is now, I can move (lets say for this example) branches behind my mini, and have a run up. If rule is changed, then I would probably have to stand and throw. Some of us can only throw 200 feet or less this way. But some can throw over 400 feet by just standing there (Blake Needles from NE). This would be a huge advantage for some people! And I am not even refering to those shots off the fairway. I am talkin about small, 1"-2" in diameter branchs that fell years ago and are covered by grass, that you know you would slip or twisy your ankle on if you did a normal run up without moving them. I like it the way it is now, but would like to hear more discussion on this subject.

These last two posts explain why it's difficult to write the rules because you want these exceptions. Then you wonder why players don't comply because each has a different opinion of 'what makes sense'. James, you were asking for consistency or 'common sense' but then aren't willing to accept a more streamlined and simple rule such as "don't move anything"

This new rule change would give players with more upper body strength an advantage (on long holes). As it is now, I can move (lets say for this example) branches behind my mini, and have a run up. If rule is changed, then I would probably have to stand and throw. Some of us can only throw 200 feet or less this way. But some can throw over 400 feet by just standing there (Blake Needles from NE). This would be a huge advantage for some people! And I am not even refering to those shots off the fairway. I am talkin about small, 1"-2" in diameter branchs that fell years ago and are covered by grass, that you know you would slip or twisy your ankle on if you did a normal run up without moving them. I like it the way it is now, but would like to hear more discussion on this subject.



A players physical, mental and skill advantages ARE a part of the game no matter the rules (well, existing ones anyway). There is no way around that.

What is fair about having rules that negate those advantages?

I suspect course maintanence would become a more important issue for PDGA events if we moved to a more "golf" like rule concerning moving obstacles to stance and throwing motion. I'm pretty sure that would be a good thing.

Do I understand you correctly Nick - that in essence you are now advocating eliminating all casual relief rules?

Or are you saying it's still ok to move back from a puddle of casual water - but it's not ok to remove "debris" from beneath your feet?

Either way - it sounds pretty extreme and unnecessary to me. The notion that
1) someone gains significant advantage by removing debris is pretty ludicrous to begin with
2) Someone could either control where said debris is (or even know where it is to avoid it) - and should take steps to avoid it or suffer the consequences This just plain ignores the nature of where we put DG courses. It also puts the onus on course pros to maintain their courses to avoid having such obstacles in play - also not reasonable.
3) Comparing debris like broken branches, and pebbles, to "obstacles" in the true sense of what affects the flight of a disc doesn't jive with either your stated desire to simplify the rules, or to the rules you focus on in your argument. When you quote the rules having to do with obstacles between the lie and the hole - you present a misleading argument - because stuff under your feet is addressed separately and specifically as "debris", loose leaves, or broken branches.

If in fact you are an advocate for eliminating casual relief - and "play it where it lies" - you would have to eliminate ALL forms of casual relief - not do it slectively - to make it truly "fair". I guess I would question the motivation for doing so. Don't you think that everyone benefits equally when it comes to casual relief? I would think it has a cumulative effect - everyone benefits at some point during play - just not at the same time on the same shot. How does that create a "significant advantage" for any one player?

arguing that youre not "good enough" to throw more than 200' at a standstill is an issue YOU need to address, not the rules. That's like saying it's not fair that someone else can drive further than you even with a runup, or that can bang more 30' putts than you can. Developing technique and a better game is part of the sport.

While I agree no player should be granted a "perfect lie" every time, I do agree with James on this discussion that you cannot know that your disc is going to land in front of a small stick or stones 200'+ down the fairway. What that comes down to is "luck", which while it is a factor of the game, should only in my opinion factor in sometimes and should not apply in this situation. I think pushing small debris aside is fine for placing your supporting point on your lie, but in no way do i believe a player is ever entitled to a runup or should be allowed to clear away a 5' circle for their entire stance..

arguing that youre not "good enough" to throw more than 200' at a standstill is an issue YOU need to address, not the rules. That's like saying it's not fair that someone else can drive further than you even with a runup, or that can bang more 30' putts than you can. Developing technique and a better game is part of the sport.

While I agree no player should be granted a "perfect lie" every time, I do agree with James on this discussion that you cannot know that your disc is going to land in front of a small stick or stones 200'+ down the fairway. What that comes down to is "luck", which while it is a factor of the game, should only in my opinion factor in sometimes and should not apply in this situation. I think pushing small debris aside is fine for placing your supporting point on your lie, but in no way do i believe a player is ever entitled to a runup or should be allowed to clear away a 5' circle for their entire stance..



Crom, our current rule allows up to 5 meters on the line of play with which the player can place their supporting point on playing surface. There is no need to move anything to get your supporting point on terra firma. Once you have that spot the rest is on you to deal with the best that you can.

This is no different than having to deal with permanent �attached� obstacles on the course during play. You simply must do the best you can under the �actual� and �pre-existing� circumstances.

The proposal is to not allow the moving of any obstacles at all anywhere, anytime, other than ones known to have become a factor during the round.



I agree with this statement. Especially if it is saying 803.04 C(3) should be removed from the rules.

However, that still does not deal with the orginal point of my post that I disagree with giving a player relief from obstacles to stance such as twigs, rocks etc. And specifically that the player can get a better line to the hole simply because there is a branch underfoot that extends in front of the lie.

There is simply no good reason or need to provide this type of "stroke free" relief from "loose leaves or debris, or broken branches no longer connected to a tree". A player should not be allowed to move his lie without taking a stroke except as provided in 803.03E.

What's the difference if there's a one foot tall pine seedling 3" behind your marker and a one foot long piece of a dead pine branch also 3" behind your marker, both half the diameter of your pinkie? Current rules allow you to remove the dead branch and, although it's stretching the definition of large object relief, most would let you take a stance right behind the living seedling. Why should these situations be handled differently? In one case, you move your lie and the other changes the course for the next person.

actually nick, the core of this argument that i have gathered from reading lies in the moving of small obstacles, not the "take up to 5m of relief" area. In the small obstacles situation, you aren't being granted movement relief but can *currently* move small objects out of the way. What I'm suggesting is that this should be the case solely for the 30cm area behind your lie and nothing more.

actually nick, the core of this argument that i have gathered from reading lies in the moving of small obstacles, not the "take up to 5m of relief" area. In the small obstacles situation, you aren't being granted movement relief but can *currently* move small objects out of the way. What I'm suggesting is that this should be the case solely for the 30cm area behind your lie and nothing more.



An interesting idea, but why, when you can avoid moving anything at all, keeping the course as unchanged as possible. If they really are tiny little obstacles then just play with them there... Under our current rules "It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle."

Issues being debated.

1- Moving of junk changes the course for others.

2- Throw it where it lies. A run-up is a luxury not a right. If you think you will bust your ankle, don't do a run-up.

3- Moving up to 5m back on the LOP for 'relief' may open up a better line to the hole.


Now what would solve these issues? Don't move stuff, and you don't get relief just because you have 350' to the basket and you want to do a 360 for your runup.

im also allowed incidental movement of obstacles while taking a legal stance. if my foot is allowed to "incidentally" (something that could rarely be proven if it was incidental or intentional) move a rock/stick/pebble out of the way of where i want to stand, why not let me bend down and move those same casual obstacles off my supporting point area anyway?

i guess since my home course is on top of a landfill with rocks, glass, metal and gopher holes everywhere that pop up before, during and after a round, that i'll have to just stop playing to follow the rules....there is nowhere on the course to take a nick kight proposed legal stance without twisting an ankle....and on 90% of the "a" course i just stand still and throw from the teepads...but then when the disc lands by the basket....no man's land...
anyways i'll just keep playing the way it is by clearing little rocks from beneath where my foot goes and see if nick calls me on it at the old dominion... :D

im also allowed incidental movement of obstacles while taking a legal stance. if my foot is allowed to "incidentally" (something that could rarely be proven if it was incidental or intentional) move a rock/stick/pebble out of the way of where i want to stand, why not let me bend down and move those same casual obstacles off my supporting point area anyway?



Actually, you are not allowed incidental movement of obstacles while taking a legal stance. That is one of the most misunderstood and widely abused rules in our rule book.

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off states that you must choose a stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.
803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C.
Which still does not include anything between the lie and hole, and I support a simplification of this to nothing regardless of where it is, and certainly not an intentional attempt to improve ones lie. And It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

There is nothing about allowing incidental movement of obstacles while taking a legal stance.

Now you might be asking: Does Nick really want us all to be THAT careful about how we move around the course and take our stances?

Answer: Hail YES! There is little in the disc golf world you should take more care with and be more hyper aware of than the well-being and preservation of our courses. Breaking off one branch means years of time to grow back and more than minimal movement of ANY obstacle during PDGA rounds absolutely changes the challenge presented by the course.

So if you don�t want to deal with 1 inch thick by 2 feet long sticks under your lie then I suggest you get out their at your courses next work day, roll up your sleeves and have at it clearing the fairways.

PDGA Rounds are not the time or place for doing course maintenance.

1- Moving of junk changes the course for others.



This argument seems unpersuasive.

Cromwell mentions one below: Regardless if it is legal to move a pebble, it will indeed move when you step on it. Since this act will likely determine the winner of the tournament, we must do everything to prevent it. Also, since I presume the pebble must be placed in the exact spot it was in, we can have lengthy discussions/warnings/suspensions over the fact that Joe didn't return the rock to its proper spot.

Another reason this goal is unattainable is that people actually hit and knock off branches during a round. Must they try to replace these in the name of fairness or is that just written off while the stick 400 feet down the fairway must be re-placed if moved.

Another reason is natural factors such as wind act differently throughout the round, thereby effecting each player differently. We accept this factor and move on. Why can't we accept the fact that the stick in fairway has moved?


Throw it where it lies. A run-up is a luxury not a right. If you think you will bust your ankle, don't do a run-up.



What does moving sticks and rocks from your stance and runup have to do with "play it where it lies"?

The statement that a runup is a "luxury" is merely your belief. Everyone I see plays has been using runups for years, if the shot calls for it and they have room.

By the way, I do appreciate the calculus that people's ankles are nothing when compared to the "fairness of not moving rocks."

i guess since my home course is on top of a landfill with rocks, glass, metal and gopher holes everywhere that pop up before, during and after a round, that i'll have to just stop playing to follow the rules....there is nowhere on the course to take a nick kight proposed legal stance without twisting an ankle....and on 90% of the "a" course i just stand still and throw from the teepads...but then when the disc lands by the basket....no man's land...
anyways i'll just keep playing the way it is by clearing little rocks from beneath where my foot goes and see if nick calls me on it at the old dominion... :D



Keith, if you ever took the time to actually read any of these posts you would know that this is a proposal, not a rule. You can still move stuff that is COMPLETELY behind your lie; you just can't move stuff between the lie and hole just because it messes with your stance, run up or throwing motion. Not moving the obstacle between the lie and hole takes precedence over the other relief rules.

Now if you move an obstacle that is between your lie and the hole, you can count on me calling you on it. And did you know that it is a 1 stroke penalty without warning for such a violation?

James,

We're not talking about deciding the winner, we're talking about providing as fair and level a competition as we can manage under the abstraction of organized ideas and communication. In other words providing rules.

Really, I thought that sarcasm would be more effective. ;)

Suffice it to say that I believe you can have a fair competition and still allow people to move rocks from their stance.

Once again, I will pose this question because it illustrates my core belief and I think provides a useful litmus test for when a rule is needed.

Do you actually know people that at the end of the round felt they got beat because someone moved a rock from their stance. Unless most people feel it is an important factor in their defeat, we probably don't need a rule for it.

Do you actually know people that at the end of the round felt they got beat because someone moved a rock from their stance.



You haven't defined how big a rock or stick you can move. Is it by weight? circumference? State a rule on what's too big, or can you move anything as long as it's all behind your lie and you can do it in 30 seconds?

Sure, since I prefer that golfers carry scales rather than calipers and a book of formulas for odd shapes, I will choose weight. :D Also, since us americans must join with the rest of the world, I will choose an unfamiliar weight such as 5 kg. Oh wait, I should probably find out how much portable scales can normally weigh and choose that weight. ;)

I'll let you fill in the blank for the weight, it does not matter to me. All I care is that I do not create new pathways to the basket by removing the rock. Not many rocks that can be physically moved fit that criteria.

nick, "least movement" allows for incidental movement since typically "incidental movement" can be defined as a *temporary* moving infraction. Backing into a branch that bends and then moving forward slightly to avoid bending the branch is perfectly legal. At this point it sounds like you're merely trying to pick a fight rather than back a valid cause.

Also, the rule DOES state, as you pointed out, that you can move casual obstacles that are not permanent or integral parts of the course. If I go to stand on my spot and there's a twig lying directly behind my mini and is not protruding ahead of my lie, I may or may not be inclined to move it. And I'd like to see you argue that a broken twig is either a "permanent" OR "integral" part of the course's design. No TD designs a hole by going into the woods and says "you know, this area looks like it'd make a great fairway, and that 2" twig lying RIGHT THERE makes this fairway a real challenge".

As much as this thread is discussing movement of obstacles to get better footing, somewhat safety related, I believe the more important issue has to do with moving things such that players in groups behind you having a "different" course. Although it's a little dicey to write this rule, I could see being allowed to move items behind your stance if they were replaced in the same positions so everyone has the same obstacle positioning, whatever that is, before the round starts.

Does that include straightening up the grass or weeds that you happened to tramp down as you walked to your thrown disc or made your fairway run-up? Does it include repositioning leaves/pine needles/dirt/gravel/sand that were moved by your pivot foot when you threw? What if your disc knocks off a cluster of leaves from an overhanging branch? Do you have to gather up the leaves, climb the tree, crawl out on the branch, and reattach them "so everyone has the same obstacle positioning, whatever that is, before the round starts"?

Re: the proposal to prohibit moving branches, stones, loose impediments, etc.: if your disc ends up buried under a pile of fallen leaves/pine needles, are you permitted to move the leaves/needles around to find it? if so, at what point does moving leaves/leaves to find a disc become moving impediments to improve one's footing? once you've found the disc, are you required to replace the leaves/needles before your next throw?

The simple difference is some actions are required or a result of playing the game and other actions require a deliberate and "unnecessary" choice to move items. The idea should be to limit choices to move things around.

The statement that a runup is a "luxury" is merely your belief. Everyone I see plays has been using runups for years, if the shot calls for it and they have room.

By the way, I do appreciate the calculus that people's ankles are nothing when compared to the "fairness of not moving rocks."



This is the issue that is most annoying to me. I don't think you should be guaranteed a runup on every shot. Why is that such a bad statement to make?

If you land somewhere that you might roll your ankle with a runup..... don't do a runup. It's your choice to risk injury for the shot. If you have weak baby squirrel ankles like me, you might have to just take your stance and throw. It may not be your most prefered shot but guess what.... That's what obstacles on the course are for.

I'm not saying eliminate runups. I'm saying stop making rules or amendments to rules just to make runups easier.

Another ball golf analogy would be allowing players to use a tee in the fairways.

- Cleaning the toy (ball or disc) is ok in either sport.

- What if all obstacles should remain were they fall during a round. Two exceptions are if they fall: 1) on the tee pad, 2) on or against the basket assembly?

- The fallen object is just another obstacle. As the wind or rain can change during a round, giving some players a disadvantage, objects falling from trees can do the same.

- Some are advocating it's ok to move an easily movable branch that falls during a round, but what about larger branches, what about a space ship? :) Let's just hope a spaceship doesn't crash on the tee pad, or basket, it blows this logic to hail.

The simple difference is some actions are required or a result of playing the game and other actions require a deliberate and "unnecessary" choice to move items. The idea should be to limit choices to move things around.



What is "required" about a fairway run-up? As has been argued ad nauseum in other threads, players are permitted, but not entitled to, a run-up. If that thesis is true, then a run-up is both a deliberate and an unnecessary choice, so the logic of limiting choices to move things around should prohibit fairway run-ups.

In the case of searching for a disc buried under leaves/pine needles, when does moving the leaves/needles cross the line from "necessary" to "unnecessary"? Can a player sweep her feet back and forth, clearing an ever-widening circle until she finds her disc, or is she limited to sweeping only small, non-contiguous areas, or, yet again, are fallen leaves/pine needles non-casual obstacles, subject to the "least movement" clause?

nick, "least movement" allows for incidental movement since typically "incidental movement" can be defined as a *temporary* moving infraction. Backing into a branch that bends and then moving forward slightly to avoid bending the branch is perfectly legal. At this point it sounds like you're merely trying to pick a fight rather than back a valid cause.

Also, the rule DOES state, as you pointed out, that you can move casual obstacles that are not permanent or integral parts of the course. If I go to stand on my spot and there's a twig lying directly behind my mini and is not protruding ahead of my lie, I may or may not be inclined to move it. And I'd like to see you argue that a broken twig is either a "permanent" OR "integral" part of the course's design. No TD designs a hole by going into the woods and says "you know, this area looks like it'd make a great fairway, and that 2" twig lying RIGHT THERE makes this fairway a real challenge".



Crom, it would be nice to know who you are so I could take your comments a little more seriously.

I think that it is ok if we disagree on some of these things but in order for our rules to function properly, we need to understand and be on the same page with rules as they exist (as opposed to my proposal to strengthen the relief from obstacles rule).

Our rules say (several times) that it is illegal to move anything that is between your lie and the hole and the new Q & A further clarifies that it doesn�t matter if the obstacle is also in your lie, throwing motion or run up. You simply must deal with it. Giving precedent to not moving obstacles between the lie and target over and above the other relief rules that allow moving of casual obstacles. The only exception being obstacles �that are known� to have become a factor during the round.

This much is not debatable. It needs to be fully known, followed and called if necessary.

Where we disagree is whether our rules should be changed so that it is never ok to move casual obstacles regardless of their position as relates to your lie, stance or run up.

Your position (and correct me if I am wrong):
1) It is a safety issue. Players need to clear debris and even larger obstacles so that they do not have to worry about and to reduce the possibility of twisting an ankle or smacking their hand, elbow or knee on a casual obstacle that is completely behind their lie.
My position
1) That moving any obstacles large or small, whether in front, behind, above, or to the sides represents a clear case of intentionally improving your lie and the conditions under which you have to make your throw as well as in some cases the flight path of your disc.

My question to you is this: What is the actual difference, other than dead and unattached, between a casual obstacle and a permanent obstacle, specifically in instances where the obstacle is between the lie and hole and not also on or behind your lie? Do you deal with those casual obstacles any differently than you deal with permanent ones?

My other question is this: Why should one obstacle to stance, throwing motion and run up be treated any differently than another? What makes one less crucial to fair play than another? Why do we protect one obstacle and not the other?

Another question is: Why do you draw a distinction between (casual obstacles that are both between the lie and hole and on your lie) smallish debris that only effects your footing and run up as not worthy of protection yet the larger multi-dimensional obstacle that effects your throwing motion and run up (or flight path) should not be moved; doesn�t our rule need to be consistent for both? If not, specifically how would your cover one and not the other in an elegant fashion within our rules?

Yet another question: You seem to hold the position that the �lie� in disc golf is only the relative physical location between your thrown disc and the hole; is not the �lie� also the physical interface of your body and movements as you play the next shot with all of the surrounding phenomenon? I mean it is when they are permanent obstacles, right? Why does safety override having to deal with these situational realities in one instance yet not in another?

Last question: Your position clearly places the right to an unencumbered throw as having precedence over efforts to preserve the consistency of challenge a course presents over a competitive round of golf for all players on the course. Why do our rules attempt to preserve permanent course obstacles that directly effect competitive play, yet have an exception for casual obstacles in only certain conditions (on your lie, throwing motion or run up) that allows us to �actually� change the challenge presented to all players on that hole that follow? Why is one seen as crucial to the preservation of competitive fairness, yet the other is shrugged off as justifiable under safety concerns; particularly in light of safety concerns not taking precedence when they are permanent obstacles (and what is permanent anyway, shouldn�t it just say �slightly� more permanent)?

Either way you come down on this rule, 2 things need clarification in our rules that would help quite a bit (other than more folks knowing, following and calling our rules):
1) �Playing Surface�, �Loose Debris� and the distinction between �Ground Covering� and �Obstacle� must be defined clearly in our rulebook rules and glossary.
2) An increased level of concern and care needs to be given to situations where �any obstacles� are moved on a course. Preservation of our disc golf courses has got to be one of, if not, our top priorities.

A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.



Seems clear to me you can take relief from a spaceship :cool:

edit: seems we simulposted, nick. ill be more than happy to respond in a bit once ive done some things at work this morning - but don't insinuate that I'm "hiding" my identity or anything like that just because I didnt choose to use my name as my forum identity. Dave McHale, pdga #18715, dmchale@gmail.com, you can find me over on the nefa.com forums posting as cromwell as well. If that was a shallow dig to call me out for "anonymous posting", I'm sorry to disappoint you.

- Cleaning the toy (ball or disc) is ok in either sport.



In a PGA tournament you are only allowed to clean the ball when you are on the green.

Unless they've allowed the "lift, clean, and cheat" rule. :)

i guess since my home course is on top of a landfill with rocks, glass, metal and gopher holes everywhere that pop up before, during and after a round, that i'll have to just stop playing to follow the rules....there is nowhere on the course to take a nick kight proposed legal stance without twisting an ankle....and on 90% of the "a" course i just stand still and throw from the teepads...but then when the disc lands by the basket....no man's land...
anyways i'll just keep playing the way it is by clearing little rocks from beneath where my foot goes and see if nick calls me on it at the old dominion... :D



Keith, if you ever took the time to actually read any of these posts you would know that this is a proposal, not a rule. You can still move stuff that is COMPLETELY behind your lie; you just can't move stuff between the lie and hole just because it messes with your stance, run up or throwing motion. Not moving the obstacle between the lie and hole takes precedence over the other relief rules.

Now if you move an obstacle that is between your lie and the hole, you can count on me calling you on it. And did you know that it is a 1 stroke penalty without warning for such a violation?




you're no fun.... i try livening things up a bit and you get all serious on me :D


obviously i DON'T move anything between the lie and the hole and stance stuff is a stickler with me as ever since i started playing i have helped people with stance on second,third, etc.. throws being where they should be standing....
in miami the guys there in league would make sure they were "keith legal" before making their next throws....

so just lighten up already will ya :D
and i'll see you in a couple of weeks....
keith

From my experience this weekend at a Super Tour it is clear that folks need a lot of education about this new prioritization of not moving obstacles between the lie and hole over stance, run up and throwing motion rules.

If the obstacle you want to move is (at all) between the lie and the hole YOU MAY NOT MOVE IT.

I played completely in compliance with this rule all weekend and it was hardly a factor at all, even for little sticks that went under my mini I could just step on them or move back a little. Not a big deal. One guy moved a log that went infront of their lie, and I failed to call him on it (yes, shame on me), but most folks asked if it was ok and I explained the new priority of not moving anything between the lie and hole and they had no problem with it.

You spend literally HOURS typing, retyping, and re-re-typing this argument about not moving stuff between the lie and the hole - and when confronted with it on the course you say NOTHING? What are you Nick? A politician?

Nick,
Are you serious? You have been bemoaning that fact that this rule is continually abused. You had clear knowledge that a rule was being broken, i.e. you saw it happening and you knew the correct call, yet you did nothing. Not just shame on you, but shut your pie hole concerning this argument. The one in which you recently said "Now if you move an obstacle that is between your lie and the hole, you can count on me calling you on it. And did you know that it is a 1 stroke penalty without warning for such a violation?"
I am just having a hard time believing that the most ardent supporter of this rule, when given a perfect opportunity to set precedent, backed down. If anyone is going to make hard-line statements they should stick to their guns, if not for the sake of the game at least for the sake of their integrity.

- Cleaning the toy (ball or disc) is ok in either sport.



In a PGA tournament you are only allowed to clean the ball when you are on the green.



Since someone brought up the PGA, I'll share a stance story I witnessed at the Memorial in Columbus, OH 10 or so years ago.

Payne Stewart hit a drive on a hole that landed about 6 inches to the right side of a tree. It had been raining there so casual puddles were just about everywhere. He could not take a stance to hit his ball so he flipped a wedge upside down and started to hit it left handed. In doing this he was standing in a puddle as he took his LEFT handed stance. He got the official who ruled that since his stance was in standing water, he could drop at the nearest relief. He dropped, turned back around and hit his RIGHT handed shot onto the green. Rules can work both ways :D

Sorry to disappoint. It was a failure on my part for sure. But perhaps a greater failure on the player who did not know or follow the rule; which does not excuse me for not making the call.

I do feel bad about it. The issue that came to mind was a selfish one: How far out of my game would it take me if I called every infraction I witness? Poor excuse I know, but let yee who have not sinned cast the first ROC.

The good side is that many folks who had know idea about it, now are aware of it and educating others; so hopefully with knowledge further compliance will result making calling such violations less frequent.

Craig, are you ready to comply with this new prioritization of "moving nothing" between the lie and hole, regardless of it's affect on your stance, run up or throwing motion? I recall you arguing strongly against it.

My actions, words, or opinions about what the rules is, does, or does not include are not in question Nick. I see no new "priority". I understand what the rule is, what it says, and how to play within its bounds. It is you - the man of 10000 words on this topic, who has judged it to be a new priority, deserving of more attention and enforcement. And you who has subsequently failed to live up to your own words. Don't put it on me.

And just for the sake of discussion. You say your motives were personal - didn't want it to affect the mood in the group, or your own game. But in retrospect - did the "infraction" you spoke of provide the player with an advantage? What sort of "obstacle" was moved? Or was it "debris" that could have been easily avoided by moving back 6-12"? And if it wasn't significant enough for you to call under these circumstances - how "significant" a "priority" is it REALLY?? Doesn't sound like much of an earth shaker to me.

Craig, I was going to pick your posts (note first one on this thread) to pieces demonstrating how you apparently did not understand the ramifications of the new Q & A, but that would likely be a waste of time. To be fair, it is clear that you no more understood that there was no relief from obstacles between the lie and hole regardless of their affect on your stance, run up or throwing motion than me or anyone else.

The PDGA Rules Committee only takes action on things they feel meet a level of importance and frequency in competition. Last week they created a new PDGA Rules Question and Answer to state emphatically that there is no relief from obstacles between your lie and hole. None.

That I saw a rules infraction, of this fresh out prioritization of no relief from obstacles that are both in your stance and between your lie and hole, and did not call it and admitted so on this thread has nothing to do with whether you now �get it� or not. My question goes straight to the heart of the matter: DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THE RULE AND WILL YOU COMPLY AND CALL IT?

In the situation that I did not call it was a serious advantage to move the obstacle that was both in his lie and between the lie and hole. A 6 inch thick log laying across his lie and toward the hole. His lie 45 feet with a low tight window to the hole. By moving the log he significantly improved the footing of his straddle putt, rather than having to balance the line of play support point on the log. In this situation it is also arguable that this log was an integral part of the course as erosion control.

I didn�t make the call, I felt and feel bad about it, but rather than put on a front, I thought it might do some good to show that even a Zealot feels the same inhibitions about making calls that others talk about. Perhaps I should not have, considering how side tracked this discussion has become.

Discussion of the proposed removal of almost all casual relief probably did the same thing (confused the issue at hand).

Am I in favor of removing all casual relief, yes I am. But it has nothing to do with knowing, following and calling our rules as they currently are written and intended to be used.

The point is, and has always been, that moving casual obstacles that are between your lie and hole are strictly forbidden. So long as you understand this there is little here to discuss.

If you'd like to discuss hypothetical changes to the rules let's start a new thread.

45 feet low and tight, straddle. Did he make the putt? That's what I thought - made a significant difference in the outcome didn't it? You've been harping on this subject for weeks, on multiple message boards. To you it is important, dramatically so by some of your posts. Yet when confronted with it - you shy away from "educating" a person who obviously needed it.

For all your ten thousand words - the end result is that it just doesn't matter.................. much.
In the situation that I did not call it was a serious advantage to move the obstacle that was both in his lie and between the lie and hole. A 6 inch thick log laying across his lie and toward the hole. His lie 45 feet with a low tight window to the hole. By moving the log he significantly improved the footing of his straddle putt, rather than having to balance the line of play support point on the log. In this situation it is also arguable that this log was an integral part of the course as erosion control.



If I understand correctly - taking a correct stance would have moved him backwards approximately..............6" (the size of the log)? A little more than half his shoe size?
It's a shame that all the energy you put into this topic wasn't used for something more substantive.

45 feet low and tight, straddle. Did he make the putt? That's what I thought - made a significant difference in the outcome didn't it? You've been harping on this subject for weeks, on multiple message boards. To you it is important, dramatically so by some of your posts. Yet when confronted with it - you shy away from "educating" a person who obviously needed it.

For all your ten thousand words - the end result is that it just doesn't matter.................. much.
In the situation that I did not call it was a serious advantage to move the obstacle that was both in his lie and between the lie and hole. A 6 inch thick log laying across his lie and toward the hole. His lie 45 feet with a low tight window to the hole. By moving the log he significantly improved the footing of his straddle putt, rather than having to balance the line of play support point on the log. In this situation it is also arguable that this log was an integral part of the course as erosion control.



If I understand correctly - taking a correct stance would have moved him backwards approximately..............6" (the size of the log)? A little more than half his shoe size?
It's a shame that all the energy you put into this topic wasn't used for something more substantive.



Actually he did make the putt and he would have moved back about 2 feet because there were about 3 more 6 inch logs laying flat on the ground behind it. (Though he could have moved the last one because it was completely behind his lie.)

Regardless of this, that or the other thing, do you get it? Don't move that log. If it is debris, like you like to call it, of little consequence then just step on or in back of it and throw. What's the big deal?

And Craig, we are having a discussion here; don't get huffy just because you don't have much to add to it, just skip it.

If you won't make the obvious call now, why would you make the obvious call if the rule were changed?

Just curious. I recommend against making any calls now. It isn't fun. Not only is it not fun, you are an ******* for making calls in the culture of disc golf as it exists now. Until that changes it really isn't fair to make calls like this because almost every other player that does the same thing will not get called on it, thus putting the unlucky player that gets called for breaking the rules at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

If you won't make the obvious call now, why would you make the obvious call if the rule were changed?



Rhett, seems pretty clear that you are being facetious, but I am not saying that I need the rule to change to make a call, I take full responsibility for chickening out on calling an existing rule. All I can say is I'll do my best not to chicken out in the future.

I'm not being facetious. This is the real problem with our rules right now. It's not the rules, it's the fact that anyone who calls anything is seen as big fat *******.

I thought you pointed out this scenario so demonstrate the need for this rule to change. That's why I asked the question. Otherwise the fact that you didn't make an obvious call is off-topic and should probably be the topic for new thread.

I take full responsibility for chickening out on calling an existing rule.



"Chickening out"??????? I'm pretty sure you called me a "cheater" for similar non-calls. ;)

and Rhett, is this really true


Not only is it not fun, you are an ******* for making calls in the culture of disc golf as it exists now.



I doubt anyone thinks it is aholish to call out a pencil whipper, or someone who purposely misplays their lie to avoid obstacles. The rules that rarely get called are the rules that most people think are unimportant.

I doubt anyone thinks it is aholish to call out a pencil whipper, or someone who purposely misplays their lie to avoid obstacles. The rules that rarely get called are the rules that most people think are unimportant.



So what should we do then?

How would we play our game with no stance or obstacle rules?

James, seems like you are saying that we should give up on compliance to rules, or get rid of the rules that are too difficult for most people to follow. If that is the case, after we lower the bar, how do we know that these new standards will just set compliance even further out of folks minds?

LOL! I don't know why I even care what folks that don't know, don't follow and don't call the rules think? They are the problem, particularly when they happen to be me... :D :(

I doubt anyone thinks it is aholish to call out a pencil whipper, or someone who purposely misplays their lie to avoid obstacles. The rules that rarely get called are the rules that most people think are unimportant.




I agree, no one thinks that it is aholeish to call out a pencil whipper. But at an amateur event this past weekend I had the pleasure of playing with the Men's intermediates. A fine group of young and old who enjoy the game. It was a light and friendly round and I tend to notice things - I'm aware of my surroundings - I'm aware of rules infractions.

I pointed out to one player, after he had made his throw - that he should pay attention to where he places his foot on a fairway run-up with regards to his mark. He immediately took offense and offered to "take a penalty throw". I informed him that I was not giving him a stroke - mearly pointing out that his foot had come to rest about one foot to the fairway side of his mini that was slightly in the rough. I just wanted him to know the rule and follow it.

I have made calls in the past (with regards to mandos and players playing the stipulated course during a tourney) and been told that I'd better "watch out or people might start calling me Nick Kight" :eek:. And to think this was meant as an insult!

Calling the rules is something that will certainly get you noticed and 9 times out of 10 - people will NOT be cheering you on for doing it.

How would we play our game with no stance or obstacle rules?

James, seems like you are saying that we should give up on compliance to rules, or get rid of the rules that are too difficult for most people to follow. If that is the case, after we lower the bar, how do we know that these new standards will just set compliance even further out of folks minds?



You are a very stubborn man. :)

I know this will go right through your head but I've got the time. Stance and obstacle rules are needed. However, there are some situations where they are needed more than others. We each have a different idea of where to draw the line. However, I maintain that the "collective line" is pretty obvious: it is where the rules are called and coincidentally, the line that most pro players will not cross.

Anyway, I don't see "lack of rule calling" or cheating for that matter to be a big issue in the pro divisions. There are, of course, a few people that will cross that line, but if caught, the rules will be called and noone will think the caller is an *****, they will think they are a responsible player.

I doubt anyone thinks it is aholish to call out...someone who purposely misplays their lie to avoid obstacles.



I respectfully disagree with that statement. Please read my post about the call I made at Worlds where a player moved an obstacle that was in front of his lie so that he could get a better stance.

and i second rhett's answer also...as i have been called that and worse when letting people know about rules...even if i let them know ahead of time...including top players in the country (several times in the last 4 years)i have called out rules violations for various things and i have had them called on me when i've had falling putts....

i'm going to call nick on a courtesy violation right now for not following the rules (by failing to call out rules violations) so that this weekend he'll be mad at me :p

How would we play our game with no stance or obstacle rules?

James, seems like you are saying that we should give up on compliance to rules, or get rid of the rules that are too difficult for most people to follow. If that is the case, after we lower the bar, how do we know that these new standards will just set compliance even further out of folks minds?



You are a very stubborn man. :)



I prefer the word �resolute�.


I know this will go right through your head but I've got the time.



Now that�s not very nice. I read and consider every post regardless of how I might disagree with it in the end.


Stance and obstacle rules are needed. However, there are some situations where they are needed more than others. We each have a different idea of where to draw the line. However, I maintain that the "collective line" is pretty obvious: it is where the rules are called and coincidentally, the line that most pro players will not cross.



Though I am sure I will be accused of �putting words in your mouth�; your above statement amounts to saying, �Our stance and obstacle rules are necessary, but collectively we should not enforce them unless the violation is extreme�.

James, this might surprise you, but I actually agree with this to a degree. The thing is that this can not become the outward policy. Full and complete compliance must be the target, both for players doing their very best to know and follow and for players and officials making the calls. I am not ready at this point to say that every foot fault should be called, judgment is necessary; HOWEVER (and I hope that we can agree on this) that judgment must be based on a concrete knowledge of the rule as it �is�, and within a conscious effort (in practice and competition) to �comply� with it. And lastly, and most importantly in the battle to change the culture of disc golf to one of a higher standard of sportsmanship, in judging and calling violations, that players prepare within their games to both make the call when necessary AND prepare to be called and accept graciously the ruling of the other players and officials.

Are we together in this?


Anyway, I don't see "lack of rule calling" or cheating for that matter to be a big issue in the pro divisions. There are, of course, a few people that will cross that line, but if caught, the rules will be called and noone will think the caller is an *****, they will think they are a responsible player.



This in my experience is not the case. I agree with you that �cheating� is not a �major� problem in the Open Division; however the lack of rule calling is very apparent to anyone watching and knowing the rules; and the fear of making a call to confront rare occasions of violations is very very real.

Consider the last 10 violations you saw, minor and major, how many did you call?

I called none of them, in perhaps a 3rd, I mentioned the violation for the players future consideration, yet even with this my name invokes some kind of �tight arsed rules zealot� within my region!?!

And so, James, what you say about �we need to not be strict followers of the rules, but use our judgment� though true enough, in light of a competitive culture that �FEARS� making ANY call at all, then we, in my opinion, have a big problem; mainly having to do with a lack of high standard of sportsmanship.

Somehow, we must all work together in raising the standard of KNOWING, FOLLOWING AND CALLING our rules of play; and create a culture of high standards of compliance and sportsmanship. Where the expectation within our competitive disc golf culture is that every player have a firm and solid understanding of our rules of play, has worked as hard on playing within bounds of those rules as they have worked on their putting and who have such a high standard of sportsmanship that when found to be in violation of the rules by their peers or an official is actually appreciative rather than P.O.ed about it.

Again, are we together on this?

Somehow, we must all work together in raising the standard of KNOWING, FOLLOWING AND CALLING our rules of play; and create a culture of high standards of compliance and sportsmanship. Where the expectation within our competitive disc golf culture is that every player have a firm and solid understanding of our rules of play, has worked as hard on playing within bounds of those rules as they have worked on their putting and who have such a high standard of sportsmanship that when found to be in violation of the rules by their peers or an official is actually appreciative rather than P.O.ed about it.

Again, are we together on this?



I agree that everyone should know all the rules. I do see this as an important issue. I often cringe when I witness seasoned players who don't know the rules. Mind you, these are usually the rules that surface very infrequently, but still, we should know the rules.

I have also heard some good ideas on this message board about player education. It might be wise to require TDs to teach at least one rule before the tournament. Like the sesame street word of the day thing.

I also agree that every player should do their best to follow all rules, as if it was their duty.

Again, I maintain that most rules that are relevant to the final outcome (just my opinion) ARE CALLED and rarely violated. But honestly, if some guy kicks a stick or rock out of the way to get a stance, I don't really care. I might tell him on the side that is against the rules, but I would never tell him in a manner where I implied he was cheating. (I think that is one of our differences)

I might tell him on the side that is against the rules, but I would never tell him in a manner where I implied he was cheating. (I think that is one of our differences)



Not really. I never take that tone either. But where we differ is that by not knowing, following and calling the rules it most certainly is a competitive advantage for those who do none of the above or who only give it passing attention (or worse, just excuse themselves because they think everyone is doing it so it is ok).

Again, I maintain that most rules that are relevant to the final outcome (just my opinion) ARE CALLED and rarely violated. But honestly, if some guy kicks a stick or rock out of the way to get a stance, I don't really care. I might tell him on the side that is against the rules, but I would never tell him in a manner where I implied he was cheating. (I think that is one of our differences)



I still disagree with this. As Nick pointed out, people don't have to be deliberately "cheating" (as in they know the rule but choose to ignore it) in order to gain a very real and tangible competitive advantage. I don't like the term "cheating" unless someone is intentionally violating the rules, and with that understanding I feel "cheating" should be a DQ. But missing your mark to the good side by a foot so you can get past a tree in your way, even when unintentional, is an advantage and should be called. And I don't see it being called very often at all.

I did see a pro women's card last weekend where one player called another for a foot fault on the tee. It was very professional. The offender missed the end mark of the tee-area by a good foot or foot-and-a-half. Another player made the call very nicely. The called player simply said "I did? Okay." They marked the warning on the scorecard and the player re-teed without incident. It was great!

Chicks rock. :)

Hey, I'm with you on people that miss their marker and it gives them a nice angle around a tree or something.


I did see a pro women's card last weekend where one player called another for a foot fault on the tee. It was very professional. The offender missed the end mark of the tee-area by a good foot or foot-and-a-half. Another player made the call very nicely. The called player simply said "I did? Okay." They marked the warning on the scorecard and the player re-teed without incident. It was great!




You see, all is well. What are you and Nick worried about. ;)

You see, all is well. What are you and Nick worried about.



The unfortunate other 99% of the time, where that is not the result of a call.

Dang! There's so much material here to shoot at it's almost painful!

James Mc-
However, there are some situations where they are needed more than others. We each have a different idea of where to draw the line.



Isn't that the entire problem James? You think fairway stance violations are unimportant, but others do. You might think falling putts are important, but the folks on another card think they aren't. Isn't that precisely why we have a framework called "rules" wrapped around competitive play in our sport? To establish what is, and what isn't in-bounds for example? What constitutes a foot-fault and not? Isn't that the whole purpose of rules so we don't have some people playing it one way, and another set playing it another?

Nick - I am stunned that you didn't make a call on such an obvious infraction...especially in light of the way some of us view you as a Zealot...I guess you were zealous about just the rules you think are important. :(

I don't think we can operate as a bonafide sport without the "buy-in" of the majority of players...after all, who is gonna enforce the rules if we don't do it ourselves? This does mean that we'll all have to enforce some rules which aren't all that popular though. Nick was a guy I thought worked very dilligently to get rules changed from within the framework of the governing body, but now I'm afraid it only shows up as being selfishly motivated on his part. He only is concerned about seeing a change in the rules that are most important to him. (That's ok with me because at least that sounds more honest.)

I don't understand why calling each other on rules violations isn't more common given the frequency of infractions. Why isn't it like getting a fault on a serve in tennis, or a foul in basketball?

I am a certified official. I think that I ethically have an obligation to call every rules infraction I see. I may give someone a couple of warnings sometimes, but I pretty much insist that folks playing on my card are playing by the rules of disc golf. If you aren't calling open fairway foot-faults, or obstacle relief violations, then you aren't playing disc golf...you might be playing something similar to, but it ain't disc golf.

Nick - I am stunned that you didn't make a call on such an obvious infraction...especially in light of the way some of us view you as a Zealot...I guess you were zealous about just the rules you think are important.




Nick was a guy I thought worked very dilligently to get rules changed from within the framework of the governing body, but now I'm afraid it only shows up as being selfishly motivated on his part. He only is concerned about seeing a change in the rules that are most important to him. (That's ok with me because at least that sounds more honest.)



There is no short or easy response to this. So if you have a distaste for long posts I advise you to skip this one.

Larry, sorry to disappoint you, but nowhere near as sorry as I am to disappoint myself. All I can offer is excuses as to why I didn�t make the call so I won�t and haven�t. But more than just getting our rules to function more logically and fairly what I see as my task is to get the culture of disc golf to change from one where making calls is �feared� for what ever reasons, to one where making calls is as �normal� and �comfortable� as marking your lie.

As someone not unfamiliar to organizational disc golf I know that it will take the understanding and commitment of more than 4 or 5 folks to change this culture, that not only will the efforts of a majority of our organizers be crucial but so will the efforts of the vast majority of players.

Unfortunately, there is nothing �easy� about making this change. From unclear rules to professed �nice guys� who think they can �ethically excuse� rules violations because they believe that the violations �do not really affect the outcome of the competition�, we have a vast array of challenges to overcome in changing the culture of disc golf as concerns our rules.

In my opinion, this change, is absolutely necessary to our greater goals as a developing sport. If I had to assess the stage of our development right now, I would have to, in all honesty, say that we are not far from 6 year olds playing checkers; who make up their own rules as they go along. The only evidence I see that we could be slightly beyond that is within myself; that I simply could not go on playing if I knowingly cheated in any way what so ever (even taking an extra � inch to one side on marking my lie), and so I assume that other disc golfers proceed similarly. (The challenge with this is that even those guys and gals, I find, simply do not have a basic knowledge of our rules. It takes a lot of effort to know them, effort most folks, apparently, are unwilling to give.

I completely, 100% understand, the feeling of futility that Rhett and Bill have expressed recently concerning why bother to call or follow the rules, when the prevailing mindset and culture on tour is one where everyone has �their own� level of �need to know, follow and certainly to call� our rules. Some blame the �rules� for this, and there are some areas where improved language is needed, but not enough to disregard the ones that are clear, particularly if one has the mindset, proper mindset I believe, that all of our rules are �there to ensure a fair competitive atmosphere�. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, the folks that feel that way are considered to be �dics� or �zealots� or to not understand the �true intent� of our rules.

So where does that leave us?

To put it succinctly, it leaves us right where we are; at a crossroads. A crossroads where we have to decide whether we are going to become a sport governed by rules of fair play in a culture of very high standards of compliance and sportsmanship, or a game where everyone creates their own standards of compliance and sportsmanship.

So where does that leave you?

Where do you stand on this issue and what can you do on a personal level to affect the change you feel is necessary for the future success of our sport?

I can�t answer that for you, and it wouldn�t do any good if I could. You have to look at all that is going on and decide for yourself.

So where does that leave me?

(Deep sigh) Hopefully, in the same position as the majority of competitive disc golfers and disc golf organizers, a very deep dilemma of facing a choice concerning self-determined commitment to our sport. A decision as to whether:

A) You are prepared, and strong enough to face the fire, if you believe that we are or should be a sport where our competitions are governed by rules of fair play, of players and organizers who disagree with you that either our game �is just fine as is� or �is already to pre-occupied with adherence to rules� and that to remain true to �our history� we must continue to promote �loose compliance� to our rules because quote unquote �we are a casual bunch of folks out to just have fun� and �compliance to rules� is �the man� and �we are a counter culture�.
B) You are prepared, and strong enough to face the fire of working hard at knowing our rules.
C) You are prepared, and strong enough to face the fire of working hard at following our rules.
D) You are prepared, and strong enough to face the fire of working hard at having the inner strength and conviction of making calling our rules an equal part of your game as is knowing and following them.

It is a choice. I�d like to reassure you that it is an easy choice, that once made, life gets easier, but I have found that it does not. It is a source of considerable consternation. And when you factor in that many folk, understandably, find a variety of excuses not to make the choice to know, follow and call the rules, that making the decision to know, follow and call the rules can and is often a competitive disadvantage, most choose the path of least resistance. (My admission to not making that call attests to that and I view that as a failing.)

Nick - Rhett and Bill aren't the only ones out here wrestling constantly with calling rules violations (or not.)

Do I like making calls? Heck no!

Do I try to play by the rules of the game? Yep.

Do I still miss my mark sometimes? Yep.

Do I expect to get called for it? Yep.

The rules of our game should be fairly simple...throw the disc as far as you can, walk up to the place right behind it and throw again. We don't need no stinking relief - because we're disc golfers! Stand there and throw again.

No relief from things that are part of the course.

If two drives land in an open fairway near no obvious obstacles, why should the one that landed just in front of a few loose stones be punished ?

If it is a part of the course, leave it alone, if it is debris move it as little as possible (and still remain safe), if it is trash, pick it up.

The current rules work to preserve the course and provide safety options. They just need to be called consistently.

Under current rules, Gary, casual obstacles ARE part of the course. Furthermore, in there behavior on the course and in affecting thrown discs they are "ABSOLUTELY THE SAME".

The only difference under current rules between casual obstacles and permanent ones is that one can be moved (if completely behind the lie) or avoided (if stipulated by the TD as an option). And why?

Why can a large log, anywhere from 6" to 20" thick and 2' to 25' long can be moved yet an attached tree of the same dimensions is considered to be so important to the course and should be forcefully protected?

Why is it against the rules to step on a small bush and snap it�s branches to take a stance, yet a pile of sticks can be kicked aside (if COMPLETELY behind the lie)?

Do these obstacles have any less affect on thrown discs than permanent obstacles? Why can�t we move permanent obstacles yet can move �casual� obstacles when both �ABSOLUTELY DO AFFECT PLAY ON THE COURSE�.

Is it really �SAFETY�? Or is it �COMFORT� in stance and �OLD THINKING�?
Can you define �DEBRIS� in a way that could be written within our rulebook?

This being said I believe that some �debris� should be allowed to be moved, but ONLY with the approval of the group or and official, and ONLY debris that is very tiny and inconsequential to �how the course plays�. No logs, no piles of sticks, no large stones, no hanging branches or vines; only stuff that is as innocuous as ground covering foliage.

Furthermore, I believe that TDs should be able to set the standard for what is permitted and what is not at their course below a certain threshold (finger sized sticks and stones smaller than your fist) and again any moving of these obstacles should be declared and approved by the group or an official.

Casual obstacles are already defined.
casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

de�bris also d�bris n.
1. The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage.
2. Carelessly discarded refuse; litter.

I think the loose should apply to branches as well so that nothing that is partly under the soil can be pulled out and moved, but anything loose and laying on the playing surface should be considered casual.

If things are so large as to be considered part of the course, they should be partially buried to prevent random movement by natural forces. If they aren't part of the course they should be moved from the fairway. If the obstruction was removed from the fairway, it was placed where it should not come into play. If you still manage to land behind it and it still comes into play, that was not the intent of those clearing the course. It is not part of the course design.

Not bad Gary,

You should test this out at one of your events to see how it works in reality.

But don't forget to mention that under the PDGA's new clarification that "ANY" obstacle between your lie and the hole MAY NOT BE MOVED, regardless of it's relation to your stance, run up or throwing motion.

Just out of curiosity Gary, how do you explain this new clarification in light of also continuing to allow players to be little bulldozers with debris large and small completely behind their lie?

Also, just out of curiosity, does "debris" act any differently than permanent obstacles as concerns a thrown disc or in getting good footing, and easy run up or a full and unencumbered throwing motion?

I test this out everytime I step onto the course.

I have never forgotten that obstacles between the lie and hole can not be moved, and it is not a new rule, just a rule that has recently been emphasised by a Q&A entry.

Nobody says you get an easy run-up, or even any run-up at all. If there are casual obstacles to your run-up and you can move them in time, go for it.

Relief from permanent obstacles and casual obstacles are 2 seperate portions of the rules. There is no relief from permanent obstacles except for 2 cases.

One is covered in the Stance section 803.03.E for large solid objects that prevent a legal stance behind the marker disc and require that the stance be taken immediately behind the obstacle on LOP (no distance limit).

The other is declaring an unsafe lie (803.05.A).

The main difference is that one type of obstacle is a permanent part of the course whose location and obstructing properties was known to the course designer and intended to be played around. The other represents natural and manmade clutter that are randomly scattered around the course with no regard to how it effects play.

If the obstacle looks like it was placed with care (ligns up with other similar obstacles) it is probably a permanent part of the course. If the obstacle is a random peice of trash, stick, or loose rock it probably is a casual obstacle.

The term impractical comes into play. If there is so much debris that the lie can not be cleared and the throw made in 30 seconds, it is impractical to move anything, and relief should be taken. If there are a few rocks or sticks in the lie, they should be moved and no relief taken.

Practicality and time limits define whether debris can be moved, or the lie relocated. Your time starts from when you have a reasonable amount of time to reach your lie and mark it. Not after you have moved a brush pile after arriving in the general vicinity of your lie.

OK but:


Also, just out of curiosity, does "debris" act any differently than permanent obstacles as concerns a thrown disc or in getting good footing, and easy run up or a full and unencumbered throwing motion?

OK but:



Also, just out of curiosity, does "debris" act any differently than permanent obstacles as concerns a thrown disc or in getting good footing, and easy run up or a full and unencumbered throwing motion?






But what?

I covered that as well. There is no relief allowed in the rules for permanent obstacles. Those should be known and readily visible. If you don't want to throw from there, don't throw to there.

OK but:



Also, just out of curiosity, does "debris" act any differently than permanent obstacles as concerns a thrown disc or in getting good footing, and easy run up or a full and unencumbered throwing motion?






But what?

I covered that as well. There is no relief allowed in the rules for permanent obstacles. Those should be known and readily visible. If you don't want to throw from there, don't throw to there.



Actually you did not and have not. Perhaps you didn't understand the question, let me rephrase:

Do casual and permanent obstacles behave differently in relation to a thrown disc?

And further:

If it is exactly the same, how can you justify moving them when this will clearly change the play of the course?

Do we allow folks to break of little branches on trees or bushes? Why? How are they any different to flight of a disc than a vine hanging loosely from a branch? How are piles of stones or sticks any different from a mound on the playing surface?

And please don't bring up "Safety" again, otherwise we'd have relief from permanent obstacles too.

Who and what are we protecting with our rules?

The comfort level of players and old incomplete logic?

Or

The course and a level and fair challenge to all competitors?

No, the thrown disc in flight has no knowledge of the casual status of any object it encounters. It will just as quickly cut a living branch off a tree as scatter a pile of loose gravel on the ground.

We are not discussing the actions of an inanimate flying disc, but the considered actions of generally rational humans playing Disc Golf (hopefully in accordance with the rules of the sport).

Permanent obstacles are those that the course is designed around. Things that are supposed to be in a specific place all of the time. Logs that are placed on the side of a hill to stop erosion are permanent obstacles. Branches laying in the rough or even in the fairway are not part of the design of the course. BTW, It is debatable by the definition of attached as to whether dead vines intertwined or hanging in the branches of a tree are attached or not. To me if it suspended above the playing surface, it is somehow attached, and unless there is a safety issue of it falling on a player, should remain suspended.

Things that are not part of the design of the course and are on the limited list of casual obstacles should not effect the outcome of the competition. Unless of course, you are unlucky enough to land behind one instead of successfully throwing past it.

Branches laying in the rough or even in the fairway are not part of the design of the course.



I disagree. Designers decide how wide a fairway should be, sometimes whether it should be left rough or wood chips added, how wide the fairway should be for mowing and where the schule boundaries are. If we put wood chips in an area, we don't place each chip but rely on the overall characteristics of the material. If every player tossed one chip into another place, how long would it be before the character of that fairway changed? There are places where we leave the loose branches laying around, not in a particular pattern but knowing it provides a certain type of challenging rough.

Chuck, are you serious about the loose branches left laying around as an intentional hazard ?

Generally I have seen work days scheduled to remove loose branches from around the fairways, and woodchips are not an obstacle, but an improved playing surface.

BTW, just by walking the course, people do move a few chips every time they pass and the chips have to be replaced.

Wouldn't shrubs (something durable like Abelia, Hawthorne, or Oleander) work better and improve the appearance of the park as well ?

Chuck, are you serious about the loose branches left laying around as an intentional hazard ?



It's not specific loose branches that are hazards but the area itself is known to have those kinds of hazards to be avoided. At the new Lake Nockmixon course, there are some holes where there are "loose" rock areas with a mix of 3"-18" diameter rocks. It's an ankle bending area you don't want to throw into, let alone dodge the occasional snake. No particular rock is a design feature but the hazardous area is a design element taken as a whole. Yes, some of the rocks will get moved inadvertently and some advertently (is that a word?). But I think Nick and I are saying maybe none of them should get moved if at all possible to retain some level of terrain integrity for everyone.

I'm not entirely sure I completely understand the environment, but if the entire area is covered in loose stone, there is no point in moving any of it, and you certainly can't clear a run-up area in 30 seconds. Maybe just enough to get a firm stance, and I would recommend that the stones moved be replaced when you are finished d moving them made a noticable difference to the area.

I have certainly played in areas where is was pointless to try and clear an area any larger than where you were placing your foot. You are forced to stand and deliver in those cases. But in the vast majority of cases, the casual obstacle is the anomaly, not the norm.

No, the thrown disc in flight has no knowledge of the casual status of any object it encounters. It will just as quickly cut a living branch off a tree as scatter a pile of loose gravel on the ground.



So in relation to a thrown disc �Casual Obstacles� interact the exact same way as �Permanent Obstacles�. If a branch is leaning against another tree and is moved because it is behind the lie and in the throwing motion of a player right in the middle of the fairway, how can you claim that be (currently) legally moving that branch you are not changing the competitive challenge of the course? And how can you argue that moving casual obstacles has no effect on the outcome of competition?


Permanent obstacles are those that the course is designed around. Things that are supposed to be in a specific place all of the time. Logs that are placed on the side of a hill to stop erosion are permanent obstacles. Branches laying in the rough or even in the fairway are not part of the design of the course. BTW, It is debatable by the definition of attached as to whether dead vines intertwined or hanging in the branches of a tree are attached or not. To me if it suspended above the playing surface, it is somehow attached, and unless there is a safety issue of it falling on a player, should remain suspended.



Why rely on tenuous wording and concepts like �permanent�, �temporary� and �attached� in our rules when none are needed at all? What is �permanent� anyway? God? Your statement above indicates a self-limited view of what a course is and what an obstacle is. �EVERYTHING� on a course is an obstacle, from ground covering to wires up in the air, all are in a constant state of change, even trees and stone walls change. If you as a course pro do not want loose sticks and stones as part of the challenge your course presents to competitors then it is up to you to go out and clean them up. If this is not practical then guess what? Rules or no rules those casual obstacles ARE part of the challenge your course presents.

Gary, have you considered the affect �footing� has on competitions? Are a clear, unencumbered run up and throwing motion not an advantage? A very significant one in many instances? How exactly can you argue that moving stuff so that you can change your lie from uneven ground cover and clutter and encumbered throwing motion and run up that you are �not gaining a competitive advantage�?


Things that are not part of the design of the course and are on the limited list of casual obstacles should not effect the outcome of the competition.



Gary, what �should� happen and what �actually� happens are often completely separate animals. Sure �casual obstacles should not affect the outcome of competitions�, thing is there is absolute certitude that they �do affect the outcome of competitions�.

There is a reason the word �obstacles� appears in the phrase �casual obstacles�. What I want to see is that during rounds the vast majority of what are now called �casual obstacles� be redefined as just plain old �obstacles� and treated in the same fashion as all other obstacles (because their affect on competitive play is identical to all other obstacles). I would be open to discussing the �redefinition� of �casual obstacles� to a far far narrower definition; like overgrown ground covering plants, loose leaves, sticks thinner than your thumb, and stones smaller than your fist, but those would have to be in areas designated by the TD and any movement of them would need to be approved by the group or an official.

Gary, the main point in all of this is to:

A) Maintain as similar a competitive challenge as possible on our courses (certainly within a single round).
B) Have rules that protect our courses and instill as much as possible a respect for preserving the integrity of the course.
C) Unifying all �Major Obstacles� into a single protected category and understanding.

Man, y'all scare me. I never knew this was a problem. All you will create is a rule that very few will enforce. You know why: because it is unnecessary and has only a tenuous (very tenuous) connection to fair play.

You've made your position clear, I think I've made my postion clear. It is also clear neither of us is going to change the mind of the other. I do not feel that stuff cluttering up the otherwise clear areas of the course can be considered an integral part of the course. I do not feel that ground clutter that is small enough to cause a twisted ankle when stepped upon is something that can be avoided from the tee box.

I do not feel that ground clutter that is small enough to cause a twisted ankle when stepped upon is something that can be avoided from the tee box.



Which are you referring to, casual obstacles or obstacles that are an integral part of the course? It is up to the thrower to avoid twisting their ankle (and course designer to a degree) NOT OUR RULES to fish them out of a difficult spot (other than unsafe lie).

In area that the ground is generally covered in loose gravel, rocks, or branches, the offending material is not ground clutter, but the general charateristic of the area.

In an area where the ground is generally free of gravel, rocks, and branches, it is ground clutter.

The unfortunate part is that it requires common sense to tell the difference.

If I throw my disc into an area that basically has no clear ground, then that is what I deal with. If I throw my disc into an area that is basically clear ground, then that is what I expect to use.

If the ground around my lie is clear and there is a rock or stick in my lie or run-up, I will move it. If I throw into the shule where there are loose limbs everywhere, I will generally not even move the ones in my lie. There is no real need to do so since I can't take a run-up and there is little danger of twisting an ankle standing still.

In area that the ground is generally covered in loose gravel, rocks, or branches, the offending material is not ground clutter, but the general charateristic of the area.

In an area where the ground is generally free of gravel, rocks, and branches, it is ground clutter.

The unfortunate part is that it requires common sense to tell the difference.

If I throw my disc into an area that basically has no clear ground, then that is what I deal with. If I throw my disc into an area that is basically clear ground, then that is what I expect to use.

If the ground around my lie is clear and there is a rock or stick in my lie or run-up, I will move it. If I throw into the shule where there are loose limbs everywhere, I will generally not even move the ones in my lie. There is no real need to do so since I can't take a run-up and there is little danger of twisting an ankle standing still.



Yet, Gary, the reality of the world in which we live is that things are not black and white; areas are more often varying mixes of ground cover and obstacles.

If it is such common sense, can you write a rule that covers it clearly and elegantly?

Better than "No course obstacles may be moved unless they are known to have become a factor during the round. Inadvertantly moving obstacles during run up, stance or throwing motion is permitted."

Again, I am open to adding language that defines tiny ground covering debris that can be moved, but that is easier said than done.

I am against anything that results in the movement of major to minor course obstacles (permanent or casual) for reasons already stated.

The time for course maintanence is not during PDGA rounds, once the round starts any change to the course should be minimized as much as is possible for our rules and our players to humanly manage. It's good for our courses and it is good for our competitions.

And common sense says it is no different (or more dangerous) than what we currently deal with when throwing around permanent obstacles.

You keep dragging me back.

Common sense says that permanent obstacles are not things that can roll out from under your foot if stepped upon. They are trees, concrete, buildings, boulders, retaining walls, and other things secured to the course by containment areas or by being attached firmly to something not easily moved.

I will never be in favor of a rule that prevents me from moving small limbs or rocks from a fairway lie to allow for a clean run-up and throw. If I excute a throw that lands in the middle of the fairway, I expect to have a clear postion to throw from. If chance has it that there is a small stick or rock that interferes with my run-up, I will in accordance with the rules move it.

If I throw deep in the woods, the same principle applies. If the area is covered with branches and rocks, I will play it that way. If the ground is clear of obstructions except for the spot I am trying to stand in I will clear it if the rules allow.

If you are saying that moving a small stick or rock that is 300' off the tee and invisible from more than 100' away is dramatically altering the lay of the course, I can't endorse your point of view. If you are saying there is debris in the fairway that is larger than this, then much more course maintenance needs to be performed before a sanctioned event is played on that course.

You keep dragging me back.



Yeah, you seem real reluctant�


Common sense says that permanent obstacles are not things that can roll out from under your foot if stepped upon. They are trees, concrete, buildings, boulders, retaining walls, and other things secured to the course by containment areas or by being attached firmly to something not easily moved.



Gary, this is no more common sense than considering everything that is on the course during a round is �in fact and actuality� an obstacle. You have created an artificial distinction between permanent and impermanent obstacles that defies all logic of the way the universe and everything, short of God, behave in it. You have created an artificial distinction that somehow makes it right to move obstacles to not only the run up, stance and throwing motion but even to the disc in flight or rolling! These are �contrivances� not �common sense�.


I will never be in favor of a rule that prevents me from moving small limbs or rocks from a fairway lie to allow for a clean run-up and throw. If I excute a throw that lands in the middle of the fairway, I expect to have a clear postion to throw from. If chance has it that there is a small stick or rock that interferes with my run-up, I will in accordance with the rules move it.



Wouldn�t the world be a grand place if our �expectation� always equaled our �result�.

Gary, what about in the rough? And what about moving large solid objects completely up and in the way of not only your throwing motion, stance and run up, but in the way of every persons thrown disc prior to you moving it and those who will not have to deal with it after you move it? Does you distinction, your demand, to have a stance, run up and throwing motion justify moving obstacles like that?


If I throw deep in the woods, the same principle applies. If the area is covered with branches and rocks, I will play it that way. If the ground is clear of obstructions except for the spot I am trying to stand in I will clear it if the rules allow.



Why, the rules of play have not changed. Have at it. Start throwing branches, stones, vines, leaves and sticks in every direction. Again, expectation doesn�t apply to our rules.


If you are saying that moving a small stick or rock that is 300' off the tee and invisible from more than 100' away is dramatically altering the lay of the course, I can't endorse your point of view. If you are saying there is debris in the fairway that is larger than this, then much more course maintenance needs to be performed before a sanctioned event is played on that course.



Actually, Gary, for a black and white guy, you are being incredibly gray about this. Which is it? Obstacles that are dead and unattached �ARE� obstacles to play on a course; or they are not? Which? We use words like �debris�, but what exactly and specific is debris? Can you define it in a way that is 100% consistent? How about in a way that does not significantly change the course when they get moved in a single round?

Can you? I am open to discussing that. What I am not open to discussing is that any obstacles on our course are not �obstacles on our course� due to some cognitive gymnastics (other than ones that became a factor during the round), or that they do not affect the ease/difficulty with which a player may throw shots. I don�t see anywhere in golf or ball golf where good footing and unhindered swing is guaranteed. If you want good footing and an unhindered approach shot or putt, then I suggest you practice throwing to such landing areas and stop relying on the rules to save your arse. Dealing with these challenges has been, is and will always be a part of the game of golf, and no concept protects play it where it lies more than rules protecting the obstacles on our courses.

I am not a big play it where it lies no matter what kind of guy. We have relief rules, and I use them.

The difference between permanent and casual is really very simple and you are now just being purposefully obtuse. You want a rule that makes not differentiation between the two, and I way that until the courses are always manicured and groomed prior to an event, there is still a need for casual obstacle relief.

One more time.

If there is something on the course that either nature or man placed there that is secured in place, it is a permanent part of the course. Event things that are not secured, but are evidently stategically placed (logs lining a path, or aligned along a hilside to stop erosion) are parts of the permanent design of the course. These are normally readily evident from the tee, and can be intentionally avoided (or at least attempted to be avoided). If there is a reasonable expectation that this same object will be in the same place 1,2 or 5 years from now, it is a permanent thing.

If it is other than that and it is on the fairway, it is temporary debris that is littering the course.

Whatever is off the fairways is off the fairways. The rough should be consistent whether it be trashy or clear, but rarely is.

I don't think that I feel as strongly about this rule and its relationship to fair play as you two do, but I think I understand both of your points. I think our rules should just define what should be moved, if any thing. Such as objects that are no more than Xcm in diameter and no longer than Xcm would make sense to me as far as sticks and stick-like objects go. As for rocks or other objects, maybe a general circumference maximum would be applicable.

The way Nick interprets the rule, I'd be afraid to move a discarded water bottle from my stance if part of it was laying in front of my lie.

If you want good footing and an unhindered approach shot or putt, then I suggest you practice throwing to such landing areas and stop relying on the rules to save your arse. Dealing with these challenges has been, is and will always be a part of the game of golf, and no concept protects play it where it lies more than rules protecting the obstacles on our courses.



Pretty contradictory there Nick. Rules have been put in place to deal with the inherent variety of the lay of the land that may be present on a DGC. Also inherent in the game is the players dependency on the rules to dictate what they may or may not do in negotiating the course.

Sweeping aside debris (however it may be defined) is no more arbitrary than a branch blowing out of a tree during a round. Was it witnessed? Should it matter? The obstacles on the course have changed!! Oh my god!!! If one player moves it from where it was witnessed as falling - but doesn't remove it from play - isn't that equally disturbing to you? The obstacles on the course HAVE CHANGED!!!!!!! :eek: This happens on every single windy day - and nobody seems terribly disenfranchised because of it.

The basic tenet of your proposal is that no relief should be granted - period. And while this may make the game more challenging, I don't understand how it is useful in any way shape or form. Yet another example of Nick's Disc Golf World; if anyone disagrees - it lacks any common sense or rational basis for being.

Where in the rule book is the rule called "play it where it lies"? I see rules for marking a lie, taking a stance, etc. You attack me regularly when I talk about intent, and concepts for applying the rules - yet here you are doing the exact same thing just to suit your own purposes. Pretty convenient don't you think?

You want to go to every wooded course and remove all "debris" that you would rather see classified as an obstacle? Didn't think so. Would you expect a course pro to do this? Didn't think so. So shed your sanctimony of those that play who happen to land on a stick (that's everybody) and just accept that relief benefits all players - and that it is a benefit deemed acceptable and desirable for basically the life of the game as we know it.

Where in the rule book is the rule called "play it where it lies"?

Craig, strictly speaking, the rule is found in 803.00.A, which states, inter alia,
Players shall play the course as they find it and the disc where it lies.

It must be noted, however, that the sentence continues,
unless allowed otherwise by the Rules.

Suffice it to say that 803.04 is one of the "unless allowed otherwise"-es.

Craig, I don't attack you, I attack your weakly formed arguments.

For me this is as clear a case of entrenched thinking concerning existing rules as any. Somewhere in our development of rules we decided that there were two kinds of obstacles, permanent and casual(?). The rules do not differentiate between them until they are completely behind your lie and in you run up stance or throwing motion, until that point there is NO DIFFERENTIATION.

I fully understand the logic that made the rules the way they are, and the things (on topic) you guys are arguing on behalf of, I simply think that they are ill advised and create a differentiation not in keeping with the basic tenets of the game of "golf". Namely, "changing the course" and "improving your lie".

If "ALL OBSTACLES" were considered an integral part of the course, which they are up until your disc lands completely between them and the hole, then ALL of your arguments would be completely moot. The existance of this contrived differentiation is all that substantiates the rules concerning relief from "casual obstacles".

One thing you guys have repetitively ignored is my invitation to create a rule that would allow for relief (movement of) tiny ground covering obstacles but protect the larger more substantial obstacles that happen not to be attached to the playing surface (and what is "attached" anyway?). I have offered at least twice an example, and Jon one, but if you think that good footing is a right even when you land on or within course obstacles then let's here what you are talking about. Do you really think we should be able to move large multibranched downed trees around on our fairways during PDGA rounds?

To me it is a conscious attempt to close one eye to the reality of the challenges presented and worth preserving on our courses. If those larger than tiny debris objects need to be removed from the course then it is the responsibility of the course pro to do so between official rounds and not the players responsibility during competitive rounds.

Aware as I am of this rule as it currently exists, I will, prior to all competitive rounds, remind those in my group that in compliance with the rules they may not purposefully move anything between their lie and the hole at anytime, and that if they do so it is a penalty stroke without warning if called, and I will call it.

I will offer to come back with them, with the approval of the TD, and clean up that area between rounds, but that during competitive rounds such maintanence is not permitted.

In my experience, this understanding of our rules, made recently clear by the PDGA Rules Committee Q & A, is not widely know, followed or called.

Preservation of our courses and particularly the exact challenge they present during competition has got to be one of the most important tasks our rules of play can hope to accomplish. This rule does that, and can do it even better, if a new definition of casual obstacle is introduced.

Again, take it easy there Craig, we're just talking here. There is nothing personal about it.

\Aware as I am of this rule as it currently exists, I will, prior to all competitive rounds, remind those in my group that in compliance with the rules they may not purposefully move anything between their lie and the hole at anytime, and that if they do so it is a penalty stroke without warning if called, and I will call it.

Yeah. Right. Just like you called the guy at the Super Tour, right?

There is no reason to differentiate between casual and permanent obstacles between the lie and the hole. The player does not stand in the area between the lie and the hole (except for follow-thru?). The condition of the ground between the lie and hole does not matter, so there is no need to consider casual obstacles btween the lie and the hole.

All of the things listed in the casual obstacle list are impediments to safe and stable footing behind the lie. Water, loose leaves, loose debris, broken branches no longer connected..... It looks like the rule is put in place to allow a fairer more level playing field. Where a player even though he is in a bad spot, does not have to risk injury to have a chance for a heroic recovery. Or is not penalized for landing in just front of the only piece of wood in the fairway.

I offer no changes to the rule because the rule is fine the way it is. It needs no clarifications nor changes.

The only change I would offer is a statement that anything partially buried is in fact attached to the course and must be considered a part of the course.

There is no reason to differentiate between casual and permanent obstacles between the lie and the hole. The player does not stand in the area between the lie and the hole (except for follow-thru?). The condition of the ground between the lie and hole does not matter, so there is no need to consider casual obstacles btween the lie and the hole.

All of the things listed in the casual obstacle list are impediments to safe and stable footing behind the lie. Water, loose leaves, loose debris, broken branches no longer connected..... It looks like the rule is put in place to allow a fairer more level playing field. Where a player even though he is in a bad spot, does not have to risk injury to have a chance for a heroic recovery. Or is not penalized for landing in just front of the only piece of wood in the fairway.

I offer no changes to the rule because the rule is fine the way it is. It needs no clarifications nor changes.

The only change I would offer is a statement that anything partially buried is in fact attached to the course and must be considered a part of the course.



Gary, do you get relief from permanent course obstacles for safety reasons or to allow a heroic shot?

I rest my case.

\Aware as I am of this rule as it currently exists, I will, prior to all competitive rounds, remind those in my group that in compliance with the rules they may not purposefully move anything between their lie and the hole at anytime, and that if they do so it is a penalty stroke without warning if called, and I will call it.

Yeah. Right. Just like you called the guy at the Super Tour, right?



Telling the truth, admitting a mistake, discussion of the "true nature" of the situation, resolving oneself to do better, informing oneself to what is really happening; are these things alein to you?

Besides, was it me who didn't know or play by the rules? My failure was in not enforcing them. I suspect that I am not alone in that failure. Though that is no excuse.

What are you resting it on ?

Permanent obstacles are always in the same place every time you play a course, they are designed into the course, or the course is designed around them. You should know what type they are, and where they are. They can be avoided by good play.

Casual obstacles are those things that just happen to a good course. You can not avoid them with a good shot because they aren't supposed to be there, and probably can't be seen from the last lie.

Let's say we have a crew to groom the course before a round. In the process of grooming the course, debris is removed and gopher holes are filled. The course is manicured for "park disc golf".

On another course there is no crew, except the TD. The course is over-grown, a lot of debris on the ground and hanging from branches. Given the budget, the TD would like to have the course groomed to high quality standards. Plain and simple, it's not in the budget.

From the perspective of the jungle golf TD, look at 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF and 803.03 D STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off, A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.

The jungle golf TD views the players as helping themselves and each other by moving debris aside.

Here is the actual language of the revision I endorse:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Run Up, Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for unintentional obstacles by 803.04 B or for loose debris by 803.04 C. Once a legal stance is taken, no relief is granted from any intentional or natural obstacles as they are all considered part of the course. A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle in order to make room for a run up, stance or throwing motion.

B. Unintentional Obstacles: A player may move obstacles that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

C. Loose Debris: A player may obtain relief from loose debris by moving the debris within the time allowed to throw by 801.03 (Excessive Time). Loose debris is not considered by the rules a distraction, so it may not be used to restart the time allowed to throw.

D. Director Designated Areas of Relief: A player may take relief from any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round, such as unintended water, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment and spectators. A player may obtain relief to obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion as follows: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official. Intentional movement of any object without a majority group or official determination shall be considered a violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

F. A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

806 Glossary

Intentional Obstacle: All obstacles on the course that are considered as an integral part of the course, including but not limited to trees, bushes, walls, stones, logs or sticks intentionally placed for erosion control, large unattached branches or vines that fell prior to the start of the round.

Unintentional Obstacles: All obstacles that became a factor during the round.

Loose Debris: Small debris located on the playing surface that may have become a factor prior or during the round that is not considered an integral part of the course, such as sticks and vines no thicker than 2 centimeters or longer than 1 meter, loose stones and rocks no larger than 10 centimeters round and garbage. Relief from these obstacles is generally granted for safetly concerns surrounding the footing of run up and stance. No relief is provided for throwing motion.

What is "unintended water" ?

I do like the clarification that there is no additional time allowed for clearing debris.

I do like specific measurements, but don't know how much contention it will cause in application.

-----------------------------------------------
I don't see a great need to change the wording from permanent and casual to intentional and unintentional.

If there is a great need, then the definition of intentional should include those things actually intended by the TD or designer, and not those things blown down by the storm last night or last week.

I am concerned with the wording around the TD designated areas. Specifically still grouping them with other obstacles where the first act of relief is to move the obstacle. This may be better grouped with speical conditions under 804.01. I think this was discussed to some length earlier this year and would allow for nonplayable areas with/without penalty that allow either relocation along LOP or a drop zone.

I really don't like the automatic penalty for not getting everyone on the card to come and look at the small rock in my stance and OK it before I move it.

**** you Nick, just leave it alone. IT AIN'T BROKE.

Here is the actual language of the revision I endorse:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Run Up, Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for unintentional obstacles by 803.04 B or for loose debris by 803.04 C. Once a legal stance is taken, no relief is granted from any intentional or natural obstacles, as they are all considered part of the course. A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle in order to make room for a run up, stance or throwing motion.

B. Unintentional Obstacles: A player may move obstacles that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

C. Loose Debris: A player may obtain relief from loose debris by moving the debris within the time allowed to throw by 801.03 (Excessive Time). Loose debris is not considered by the rules a distraction, so it may not be used to restart the time allowed to throw.

D. Director Designated Areas of Relief: A player may take relief from any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round, such as unintended water, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment and spectators. A player may obtain relief to obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion as follows: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official. Intentional movement of any object without a majority group or official determination shall be considered a violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

F. A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

806 Glossary

Intentional Obstacle: All obstacles on the course that are considered as an integral part of the course, including but not limited to trees, bushes, walls, stones, logs or sticks intentionally placed for erosion control, large unattached branches or vines that fell prior to the start of the round.

Unintentional Obstacles: All obstacles that became a factor during the round.

Loose Debris: Small debris located on the playing surface that may have become a factor prior or during the round that is not considered an integral part of the course, such as sticks and vines no thicker than 2 centimeters or longer than 1 meter, loose stones and rocks no larger than 10 centimeters round and garbage. Relief from these obstacles is generally granted for safety concerns surrounding the footing of run up and stance. No relief is provided for throwing motion.


What is "unintended water" ?[\quote]

Water that was not intended to be a part of the course design.

[QUOTE]
I do like the clarification that there is no additional time allowed for clearing debris.



Me too.


I do like specific measurements, but don't know how much contention it will cause in application.



I'd be satisfied with it even occurring to people that they should consider the status of obstacles before they just start kicking them around or pulling them out of a position they�ve been in for weeks, months or even years and throwing them aside. Dealing with measurements is already a requirement throughout our rules, this should not be an overburden.

-----------------------------------------------

I don't see a great need to change the wording from permanent and casual to intentional and unintentional.



I know. However, �permanent� is less accurate and clear than �intended� (if you�ve been in DG as long as I have you know that nothing on a course is �permanent�. Holes come and go, trees come and go, even creeks and ponds move). Intended clarifies the challenge the Director meant to present.


If there is a great need, then the definition of intentional should include those things actually intended by the TD or designer, and not those things blown down by the storm last night or last week.



I think that you are assuming something in that statement Gary. You are assuming that the TD did or does not �intend� for the normal fallout from trees to be part of their course. Deep woods courses often have a fairly even ground covering of smallish sticks or pine needles. If I were the Director of a course that had a 3 inch thick layer of pine needles on a specific fairway I would like to protect those needles from being dug up and kicked around down to the dirt, particularly if rollers are the preferred flight. Directors may well want to protect the debris or obstacles that fall from trees during their event, this just gives them the option. They can still say that �loose debris� rules are in affect everywhere or on certain holes.


I am concerned with the wording around the TD designated areas. Specifically still grouping them with other obstacles where the first act of relief is to move the obstacle. This may be better grouped with speical conditions under 804.01. I think this was discussed to some length earlier this year and would allow for nonplayable areas with/without penalty that allow either relocation along LOP or a drop zone.



I�m not sure I agree. This has more to do with obstacles and relief than it has to do with special conditions. I think it is fine here and mentioned there.


I really don't like the automatic penalty for not getting everyone on the card to come and look at the small rock in my stance and OK it before I move it.



I am open to modifying this, the key is to make our rules encourage folks to take more care in moving obstacles of any kind. Have you ever seen in BG when a player is in the rough and they want to move a stick or something? They have to call over an official and they usually have a discussion about how to properly deal with the situation.

I�ve been playing by the new clarification for 3 or so weeks now, and even by my preferred future revision (of not moving anything whether completely behind the lie or not), and am pleased to report that it really is not as intrusive on safe play as most people think.

Take the small stick that is under your mini and also on your lies line of play; I have been able to find a point of contact with the line of play without difficulty, and I consider movement of the obstacle by my throwing motion to be legal. (Note �warm up� or �practice� throwing motion IS ILLEGAL to move obstacles, they can only be inadvertently moved during the ACTUAL throwing motion.)

Larger obstacles are even easier to deal with because I can either move to the first place I can get my point of contact on the line of play or in some cases (stacks of sticks or logs, the obstacle really takes on the characteristics of a playing surface [intended to be walked on]).

When the need arises to move something it really is not much bother to just ask the group real quickly whether it�s ok, they don�t need to come over and examine the situation with a microscope, trust remains an important part of our rules, but the rules would be a strong reminder that moving stuff should only be done with careful consideration and as rarely as possible.

Nick,

I can see some minor flaws with the revisions you have proposed.

How would you address pine cones, nuts and fruits that routinely fall from trees? How do we know if they fell before or during the round? Your size constraints don't take into account that a pinecone can be the size of a football.

Next,


A player may obtain relief to obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion as follows: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director).



I highly disagree with the part about "obstacles to run up". I don't think you players should get relief because they can't run-up to the lie. That is not a given.

Perhaps only granting the ability to move loose debris or minor obstacles in a set area behind the lie would be better IMO.

I also don't like the fact that you kept that five meter relief without a penalty throw.

How about something like: (This is not actual rule writing, but a quick example to show my thinking.)

"You may clear loose debris from an area up to 40cm directly behind your lie to allow the placement of one supporting point behind such lie. If objects can not be moved because it is impractical(water, size), they extend in front of the lie, or because movement will change the layout of the course, you must take a stance without any relief or choose to take an unsafe lie to gain any further relief."

This would mean if you are going to relocate your lie because of natural type obstacles you will need to take a stroke. I imagine a lot of golfers might suddenly learn how to stand on a wood pile, a large branch, a rock, or put their foot in a puddle if it meant taking a penalty throw to get relief.

This rule would require a better definition of loose debris to include the fruits, nuts and pinecones plus sticks, twigs, branches or rocks of a certain size or diameter.

Of course, TD's could always grant free 5 meter relief from puddles, wood piles or other obstacles.

Suzette,

This is, and I am, completely open to getting it right. How exactly would you add wording to these rules to accomplish your suggestions?

Regards,
Nick

You want to get it right - change your approach!!! Relief benefits EVERYBODY - that's why it's in the rule book - that's why it's fair. You want events to run without any relief - run non-sanctioned events!! Oh that's right - you don't run events - you just want to tell everyone else how to run theirs!!

Relief that moves substantial obstacles into the path of following competitors that was not there at the start of the round does "NOT" benefit everyone and certainly does not benefit "fair play".

You sound a little angry Craig. It doesn't have to do with you losing the 2 Meter argument does it? Or this one for that matter...

Suzette,

This is, and I am, completely open to getting it right. How exactly would you add wording to these rules to accomplish your suggestions?

Regards,
Nick



How about: Move nothing except loose debris within the area designated for a supporting point. Play it where it is, move it up to five meters and take a one-throw penalty, or move it anywhere no closer to the target and take a two-throw penalty.

Do you think we ought to have a rule regarding building a lie?

Nick, I informally surveyed an admittedly small sample of people. Noone knew this was a problem; Noone was in favor of a rule change; and everyone assumed that the author must not play the types of courses we normally play.

Your argument about fair play is absurd. This rule would simply institutionalize unforeseen bad luck, increase the amount of injuries, and leave a large percentage of the golfers wondering "how the hell did this rule change happen?"

What was the reason again?

Where's Randy when you need him ?

If you move a stick out of your way, the course is then changed for every player that plays the hole after you.


Of course, if a branch blows down while you are playing the hole, the course is changed for every player behind you.

so am i supposed to clear unwanted rocks, trash, branches..whatever, when i am walking to my lie? or is that altering the course too? did i save someone's ankle or break the rules?

ex. san saba

Y'alls example are just one of the reasons his premise (at least one of the ones he mentioned) is nonsensical. The mere act of using a course changes the placement of rocks and sticks.

This weekend on a course with the fewest rocks of any I normally play, I thought of Nick's fallacy everytime I "accidentally" kicked a pine cone while I walked, or heaven forbid, when I stepped on a stick that the previous groups had to deal with. ;)

Do I sound a little angry? Perhaps. Why do you suppose that is Nick? Could it be the profound absurdity of your encyclopedia length evaluation of what constitutes debris? Or the total lack of comprehension that sticks and rocks and such are a natural part of virtually every DGC on the planet, and that trying to "legislate" them by claiming them as "significant obstacles" is a total waste of time and energy?

The notion that a player that brushes aside a stick to take a reasonable stance having committed some aggregious crime against his fellow players who have a statistically minimal chance of being affected by that action is what is absurd in your approach to this topic Nick. How do you differentiate between that action and the normal rate and quantity of sticks falling from trees naturally? I would venture a guess that the natural rate of falling debris in wooded areas far surpasses the quantity of (in your words) "significant obstacles" being moved by competitors during play. (Gee how did those pesky sticks get there in the first place?) Not only that - but the NATURE of those "significant obstacles" seldom changes by being moved a foot or two - merely their exact location. And I would also venture to guess that such a movement affects all other players in a statistically insignificant manner. (How many times a round do you find evidence that you have landed exactly where someone else has cleared a spot to mark their disc?)

Part of your argument seems to be about "the right" to a stance or run-up. You claim it is inconsistent in the rules. But at the same time - it seems that the tee shot is in a designated clear and unencumbered area. How can it be fair to have an unencumbered place to throw from on one shot and not on the next? By removing relief from casual obstacles - you create an inconsistency while claiming to be trying to remove one!! (gee how can we get rid of all these pesky inconsistencies?).

But of course - it's not really about the rules, or any perceived inconsistencies is it Nick? It's more about you - and how you think things should be. This issue is not a pressing need, it holds no moral imperative, or ghastly consequences. Your suggestion of basically "sticking" it to someone (pun intended) without warning goes directly against the imperative that you yourself have claimed as the most important aspect of the rules. That people need to be encouraged to actually know, follow, and call the rules. In one breath you tell us you can't bring yourself to call someone on a rule that is already in place (it might affect your game, or the mood in the group) - and in the next breath you advocate changing a rule that would multiply the contentious nature of enforcing the rules by a factor of 10000. Do you truly believe that this change would provide any sort of encouragement for MORE people to call the rules? This is why I come off as angry - because you talk and talk and talk in one big gigantic unproductive circle.

James you need to reread the proposal:

Picking up trash and moving defined "loose debris" is no problem. What is a problem is "Changing the Course" or "Significantly Improving Your Lie", both of which clearly have an impact on "Fair Play".


Here is the actual language of the revision I endorse:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
A. Obstacles to a Run Up, Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for unintentional obstacles by 803.04 B or for loose debris by 803.04 C. Once a legal stance is taken, no relief is granted from any intentional or natural obstacles as they are all considered part of the course. A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle in order to make room for a run up, stance or throwing motion.

B. Unintentional Obstacles: A player may move obstacles that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.

C. Loose Debris: A player may obtain relief from loose debris by moving the debris within the time allowed to throw by 801.03 (Excessive Time). Loose debris is not considered by the rules a distraction, so it may not be used to restart the time allowed to throw.

D. Director Designated Areas of Relief: A player may take relief from any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round, such as unintended water, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment and spectators. A player may obtain relief to obstacles to run up, stance and throwing motion as follows: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official. Intentional movement of any object without a majority group or official determination shall be considered a violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

F. A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

806 Glossary

Intentional Obstacle: All obstacles on the course that are considered as an integral part of the course, including but not limited to trees, bushes, walls, stones, logs or sticks intentionally placed for erosion control, large unattached branches or vines that fell prior to the start of the round.

Unintentional Obstacles: All obstacles that became a factor during the round.

Loose Debris: Small debris located on the playing surface that may have become a factor prior or during the round that is not considered an integral part of the course, such as sticks and vines no thicker than 2 centimeters or longer than 1 meter, loose stones and rocks no larger than 10 centimeters round and garbage. Relief from these obstacles is generally granted for safetly concerns surrounding the footing of run up and stance. No relief is provided for throwing motion.

The professed desire is that nothing should be moved. Ever.

Not your lie, and certainly nothing on the course. No matter how small the pebble, or how far from the fairway the branch is. If it was there before you threw, you have to deal with it.

If you throw a beautiful shot right down the middle of the fairway and end up with a 1/2"x10" stick behind your lie, it's up to you to decide if you want to risk a twisted ankle by performing a run-up, or play it safe by using a stand and deliver approach.

Craig, I don't know what to say to that. Anger is not going to get us anywhere and it clouds your points of contention in my opinion. I cannot very well apologize for my opinions making you angry, but they were not intended to make you angry (lightly rib you perhaps, but not anger).

The one thing that I do not think any of you who oppose more stringent and clear obstacle/relief rules are considering is this: "Casual Obstacles" is a concept made up of whole cloth (ask the folks on the PDGA Rules Committee) settled on because a distinction was deemed necessary back then, it was not introduced without reservation. Those obstacles currently defined as "Casual" behave in EVERY WAY the same as ones defined as "Permanent", until your disc lands between them and the hole. Then suddenly you are allowed to become a one-man wrecking crew and move whatever is "practical" to move. No size consideration, no consideration to it's affect on how the hole or course playes, or whether the course pro placed it there for a reason or not, no consideration other than "is it possible to move.

If we applied the same criteria to "permanent" obstacles, where would the play of our game be?

We need to have a 100% consistant approach to protecting the obstacles on our courses. What can be moved at any time and what should remain as close to as we found it (if not cleaner).

Think about it.

so like it was said, the beautiful drive that ends up right in the middle of the fairway is punished for having the "obsticle" in their way which cannot be moved and has to risk their health or alter his run-up.

on the other hand, the guy who shanks his drive and somehow avoids the creek by an inch gets to have his meter just because the creek is defined OB and now has a safe lie. does he also get to move any "obsticle" since the OB was defined? not sure.

not saying the good drive gets a meter but wondering if this applies. does the shank drive get to move objects since the OB was defined?

If you throw a beautiful shot right down the middle of the fairway and end up with a 1/2"x10" stick behind your lie, it's up to you to decide if you want to risk a twisted ankle by performing a run-up, or play it safe by using a stand and deliver approach.



Other than the contrived rule, what is the difference between that and what is below?

If you throw a beautiful shot right down the middle of the fairway and end up with a 1/2"x10" root behind your lie, it's up to you to decide if you want to risk a twisted ankle by performing a run-up, or play it safe by using a stand and deliver approach.

The difference is the stick a broken piece of tree lying on the ground and the root is a living piece of tree that attached to (partially in) the ground. Do I get a cookie? :D

The difference is the stick a broken piece of tree lying on the ground and the root is a living piece of tree that attached to (partially in) the ground. Do I get a cookie? :D



Sure, but what is the difference to the point of contention: Safety/Footing?

Both would get in the way of a run up.

BUT, when your powerful arm is tossing a disc 350+ ft you can surely place your shot to avoid any large trees as they are easy to spot from the tee pad - you have the grace of "planning your lie" away from root growing living things. Sticks tend to scatter everywhere - not only directly around trees - how do you "plan your lie" to avoid a stick that you can't see from the tee?

PS. I like chocolate chunk :D

Both would get in the way of a run up.

BUT, when your powerful arm is tossing a disc 350+ ft you can surely place your shot to avoid any large trees as they are easy to spot from the tee pad - you have the grace of "planning your lie" away from root growing living things. Sticks tend to scatter everywhere - not only directly around trees - how do you "plan your lie" to avoid a stick that you can't see from the tee?

PS. I like chocolate chunk :D



What about stones in the ground? And where do sticks come from again? Isn't the same place as roots? :o :D;)

Don't know what to say Nick? How about you don't know how to recognize extreme sarcasm. How about addressing any of the points I brought up?

Why is it that a clear and unencumbered throwing area can be allowed for teeing off - and not for every other shot? Isn't that inconsistent? Doesn't that inconsistency trouble you? As evidenced by each volume of your encyclopedia - it certainly should.

Since you seem so worried about how moving a 12"x1/2" stick might affect another player - please tell us so we can be comfortable with some reasonable evaluative method - if Craig moves a 12"x1/2" stick 2 feet to the side during a round of play - how many players will actually be affected by said action? I know it's rhetorical - there is no way to know!! Suffice it to say it is a fair assumption that the number would be very low if existent at all.

So if you are unable to offer any realistic evaluation for who or how many players might be affected - how can you possibly stand by a claim that a change in the rule holds any imperative or even practical purpose?

Again it comes down to Nick's Disc Golf World!! Because you choose to pick apart the rule book and extrapolate scenarios from every twist you can put on the wording - any "whole cloth" considerations discussed and inserted in the rules by the RC that you deem aberrant automatically become fodder for your disdain.

Please address the last point of my last post. Being that you are an advocate for people knowing, following AND CALLING the rules, how can you support a change that would so very obviously be a source of contention? Knowing full well that the current rules environment discourages player participation in calling the rules - doesn't this change exacerbate that problem - instead of helping it? Where is your self proclaimed common sense in this Nick?

Nick said:


Picking up trash and moving defined "loose debris" is no problem. What is a problem is "Changing the Course" or "Significantly Improving Your Lie", both of which clearly have an impact on "Fair Play".




First, I was not talking about "trash" and "loose debris." I was talking about sticks and stones in my stance and runup. You know the things we have been able to move for years until Nick decides there is something wrong with it.

Secondly, "significantly improving your lie" is merely your perception. My perception (based on years of playing under the current rules) is that my lie is free of sticks and stones that effect my stance and runup. All of a sudden, you declare that "lie" means something new.

Thirdly, like Craig stated. The present rule is arguably more fair because everyone is treated the same rather then someone being screwed by that unforeseen rock 400 feet away.

You baffle me, like I asked upthread: Have you ever thought you lost because someone (and you) was allowed to move stuff from their stance? It has never crossed my mind, nor have I ever heard anyone whine that they lost due to others kicking rocks and sticks from their stance.

The biggest point is that the root is not likely to roll out from under your foot when you release. The stick will almost always roll out from under your foot. Then the obstacle would be legally moved by the throwing motion, and the course is changed anyway.

I would merely add verbage that states anything partially buried or attached is considered permanent. Anything loose and completely unattached is casual. Then if the TD/course Pro wants something to become or be treated as permanent, he needs only to bury part of it, or attach it in place with stakes and twine.

This would consider branches tangled with living vines or dead vines tangled in living trees as permanent obstacles.

Nick said:


Picking up trash and moving defined "loose debris" is no problem. What is a problem is "Changing the Course" or "Significantly Improving Your Lie", both of which clearly have an impact on "Fair Play".




First, I was not talking about "trash" and "loose debris." I was talking about sticks and stones in my stance and runup. You know the things we have been able to move for years until Nick decides there is something wrong with it.



First, you were talking about �loose debris� as defined in my proposal (read it). And I am by no means the only disc golfer in favor of stricter obstacle relief rules, and am certainly in no position in disc golf to �decide� anything for anyone.


Secondly, "significantly improving your lie" is merely your perception. My perception (based on years of playing under the current rules) is that my lie is free of sticks and stones that effect my stance and runup. All of a sudden, you declare that "lie" means something new.



Secondly, �significantly improving your lie� by moving stuff out of your run up stance and throwing motion most certainly IS more than just my perception. It is undisputable fact. James, I fully understand your �perception (based on years of playing under the current rules) is that my lie is free of sticks and stones that effect my stance and runup�. I�ve been right there with you in that perception; but that perception does not substitute for the reality that we have been, in many instances, drastically improving our lies, when others who have successfully avoided such obstacles gain no advantage. That is not fair or proportionally rewarding.


Thirdly, like Craig stated. The present rule is arguably more fair because everyone is treated the same rather then someone being screwed by that unforeseen rock 400 feet away.



I would agree with you and Craig, if fairness was based on expectation and a perfect world where challenges were all known. They are not, and it is not realistic to expect them to be so. The course is the course, with all the maintenance or lack there of that has gone into it prior to the start of the official round, and it is up to our rules to preserve the courses challenge as evenly and as fairly as they can so that everyone faces as close as possible to the same challenge. Moving a big log, pile of sticks, 25 foot downed branch leaning on another tree or rock in a fairway on the 4th hole of the round during a PDGA event IS INARGUABLY changing the challenge the course presents (not to mention inarguably making your lie vastly improved).


You baffle me, like I asked upthread: Have you ever thought you lost because someone (and you) was allowed to move stuff from their stance? It has never crossed my mind, nor have I ever heard anyone whine that they lost due to others kicking rocks and sticks from their stance.



Kicking rocks and sticks (loose debris) is not what I am talking about (though currently you are not allowed to do that with anything between your lie and hole, even if it is also behind your lie). And no it does not cross my mind during rounds often because I am playing within the rules as they are not as they could be or should be. If I did, I can think of many occasions where the advantage gained by current relief rules would impact where I finish in an event, where every stroke counts.

Saying that moving around significant obstacles on a course during PDGA competition is fair because everyone is allowed to do it is not far from saying that it would be fair if everyone was able to move their lie up to 3 meters from where it landed. Hey! Everyone can do it so it must be fair, right?

The point again that makes it clearly �unfair� to build up your lie or improve it by moving stuff (particularly large stuff) is that the player who did not throw into that situation and has successfully landed in a location with good run up stance and throwing motion space did so for no advantage if you can land in an area with encumbered run up stance and throwing motion and just move all the obstacles.

Besides James, you should be completely familiar with the situation of playing with obstacles to run up stance and throwing motion, shouldn�t you? After all, you�ve been dealing with it, concerning permanent obstacles, since you first started playing, right?

Saying that moving around significant obstacles on a course during PDGA competition is fair because everyone is allowed to do it is not far from saying that it would be fair if everyone was able to move their lie up to 3 meters from where it landed. Hey! Everyone can do it so it must be fair, right?



It would most certainly be fair if everyone was allowed to do it. Not very rewarding to players that can actually hit the fairway, but fair.

Saying that moving around significant obstacles on a course during PDGA competition is fair because everyone is allowed to do it is not far from saying that it would be fair if everyone was able to move their lie up to 3 meters from where it landed. Hey! Everyone can do it so it must be fair, right?



It would most certainly be fair if everyone was allowed to do it. Not very rewarding to players that can actually hit the fairway, but fair.



I'd substitute:

Not very fair to players that can actually hit the fairway, but fair.

Clarifying the lack of logic...

I disagree, it is equally fair to all players, it just places no emphasis on ending up in the fairway. All the emphasis would be on how much distance could be covered with each shot. Where the disc ended up wouldn't be as important because you are almost always guaranteed a good look for your next shot.

Nick, I am talking about sticks that are "thicker" than 2 cm.


Secondly, �significantly improving your lie� by moving stuff out of your run up stance and throwing motion most certainly IS more than just my perception. It is undisputable fact.



Huh, if you state it, it is fact? "Lie" in disc golf rules includes BOTH where the disc is marked and the ALLOWANCE that certain debris can be moved. Hell, I can argue that your proposal to not allow debris removal is changing the "lie" as traditionally played. The concept of lie is a concept, not a fact. My concept is based on years of experience; your concept only exists in your head, not in the rules or traditions of disc golf.

Your argument of fairnes is so unpersuasive, why do you even continue with it? Noone knows the sticks and stones 400 feet away; they can't plan for it and it is out of their control, therefore it is almost by definition "luck" as the term is commonly used. Why unnecessarily introduce it into the game? I call it "fair" because the present rules eleminate that "luck" from the game.


Besides James, you should be completely familiar with the situation of playing with obstacles to run up stance and throwing motion, shouldn�t you? After all, you�ve been dealing with it, concerning permanent obstacles, since you first started playing, right?



What is your point? The common "permanent obstacles" can be seen and avoided. They are hardly comparable to sticks and stones.

I like what Bruce said:


How about: Move nothing except loose debris within the area designated for a supporting point. Play it where it is, move it up to five meters and take a one-throw penalty, or move it anywhere no closer to the target and take a two-throw penalty.




Craig it appears both Nick and you agree that a player should be allowed a clear area for a run up, I however do not necessarily agree that a player should be allowed a run up ESPECIALLY if they are not in the fairway. I think that a player should be guaranteed a run up for a tee shot, but not necesarily for secondary shots. The logic here is that a tee shot actually may require the full run up as you have the entire length of the hole to complete. A secondary shot should have a player closer to the hole and thus probably only require an upshot or even putt. An exception would be a true par five hole that actually requires two full strength drives to reach the putting circle.

If you wanted to allow players to clear debris for the entire run up, perhaps there could be wording in the rules that states:

"If a player's lie is clearly in the fairway, loose debris up to three meters behind the lie that restricts a players ability to stance or run-up can be moved, but not more than one foot to either side from the original location of said debris. If a player is no longer in the fairway, a player may only clear loose debris from an area 40cm (appx 15 inches) directly behind the lie to accomodate a supporting point. If player wishes to relocate the lie within 5 meters stright back from the original lie they will incur one penalty shot or a player may relocate anywhere no closer to the target and incur two penalty shots. A TD or Course Director has the option of allowing specific casual relief to players without penalty." (Of course all this would assume none of the loose objects are in front of the lie or permanently attached, etc, etc.)

Craig, I don't think Nick is alone on this issue, and I don't think he is talking in circles. I support a rules change to the Casual Relief rule primarily to prevent a player from relocating the lie up to five meters without incurring a penalty shot. (Even though I don't think Nick has actually supported this particular statement.) This bit about allowing or not allowing players to move loose debris is inherent when talking about gaining "casual relief" so it must be taken into account when rewriting this rule for clarity. It is not arbitrary.

(Dear God, I can't believe I not only agree with Nick, but I am actually defending his views!)

You have 2 almost identical drives from the tee box that land within 3 feet of each other in the middle of what is thought to be a clean fairway. Neither disc is near anything that can be seen as an obstacle from the teebox. When the player approach the discs, one is just in front of couple broken branches, the other is on clear grass.

Is it fair that one player gets an unincumbered full strength drive while the other has to either stumble through the loose stuff on the ground and risk injury or pulling his shot (certainly not able to concentrate fully on executing the shot) or stand and deliver a lower powered throw.

Your drive is thrown into the rough, or kicks off a tree in the fairway into the rough and comes to rest inside a 6' tall 10' wide pile of branches, logs, and debris that has been cleaned from the fairway over time. This pile may very well include snakes, and most certainly sharp items that can cause cuts.

You think it is more important that a player play from on top, or inside the pile of debris than risk improving their lie by taking a stance behind the pile of debris?

I can see the point if the rule had always been that way. I can't see the point in changing an existing rule to prevent this type of relief until all courses are cleared of dangerous obstacles. Just do like Hole 1 at Z-Boaz. Plant about 50 Cedar trees in the open rough area and wait a few years.

You have 3 almost identical drives from the tee box that land within 3 feet of each other in the middle of what is thought to be a clean fairway. None of the discs are near anything that can be seen as an obstacle from the teebox. When the players approach the discs, one is just in front of couple broken branches, one is just in front of some stones and the other is on clear grass.

Is it fair that one player gets an unincumbered full strength drive, the other can fling the obstacles off into the shule while the other has to either stumble through the stones on the ground and risk injury or pulling his shot (certainly not able to concentrate fully on executing the shot) or stand and deliver a lower powered throw.

Why is the player with the sticks entitled to an unencumbered throw while the one with the embedded stones is not? Is that fair? Is it fair that the player that landed on the unobstructed grass not have an advantage over the one who landed in front of the sticks?

It is not fair that anyone of the three nearly identical drives to an area supposedly clear of obstructions has to deal with any more obstacles than any other.

What is more troubleing is that it is not fair that a shot right downthe edge of a fairway that is heading for the basket get kicked deep into the rough and have to pithc back to the fairway while a drive that is shanked deep into the rough off the tee is kicked under the basket. Why is the bad shot rewarded while the nearly perfect shot is penalized ?

Discette,
The problem I see with your verbage is that it does not seem to address the fact that you have multiple supporting points. Casual relief is designed so that it is possible to take a stance. A players stance can involve supporting points in a full straddle, on one or both knees, etc etc. So if you want to limit what people can move in order to take a stance, it should be written in a way that would accomodate those variations. It's not necessarily just about a "run-up" or being fully unencumbered - but about having a reasonable means to execute a shot without moving a permanent part of the course. Nick's notion that EVERYTHING is permanent (or most everything) discounts so many common sense aspects of the current rule - its laughable that the RC would even consider it.

But given that Nick emails Carlton 3-4 times weekly - and that CHH has had to tell him he's got a weekly limit - it's not surprising that their ears are getting bent.

Having a fun and safe means of play is at the heart of the casual relief rule. Everyone benefits from it at some point - so it's certainly not unfair to anyone. I'm relatively sure that it also includes a sense that safety should be a built in part of the rules. If something as simple as saying you don't have to stand on marbles if you land on them can be construed as being unfair - instead of being recognized as providing for a fair and reasonable stance for all players on all shots - there's something wrong with that logic. The irony is that Nick's circle jerk is to say that the 2meter rule should go because it's all a matter of luck whether you stick 1.99 or 2.01meters in a tree. Then he turns around with this rule and says that the luck involved with landing on innocuous debris has a detrimental effect on competitive play when it's moved. I say landing in a tree is much more the result of an errant shot, than landing on sticks in the woods!!

It is not fair that anyone of the three nearly identical drives to an area supposedly clear of obstructions has to deal with any more obstacles than any other.



I disagree. For it to be completely fair, each player should be required to deal with the exact conditions of their lie. To allow one to move something while the other can't or doesn't need to creates an unfair situation.

Furthermore, if that player moves those sticks over and another player in a later group throws there, then it is unfair to him/her.

Again, I have provided for the movement of tiny unintended surface obstacles, but what I am not willing to support is when players want to move substantial obstacles, that were there prior to the round starting, to run up stance or throwing motion, just as I would not support players being able to break off little branches, dig up retaining stones, or leave big holes everywhere on the course in ground covering.

Just ignoring me Nick? Or just refusing to engage in the same sort of Q&A as you pose to others?

Suzette,

I think you understand what I am getting at here. The idea is not so much to put people in dangerous situations as it is to preserve the integrity and challenge of the course. It is to provide advantage where advantage is warranted and not where it is not.

It is Craigs lack of logical approach that allows him to compare this with the dying 2 meter rule when it is not in any way related to the heart of this matter (that improving ones lie, particularly in light of changing the course, is as clear a case of "ungolflike" and short of the rule that allows it is as close to "cheating" our rules allow. The funny thing is that I'm just chatting about things that interest me, if the logic or ideas influence the folks on the PDGA RC what am I supposed to do? Maybe Craig just needs to make a little more sense and they'd listen to him too.

Anyhow, I think that in some shape or another this rule will be altered to better protect our courses and be "truer" to the principles of the game of golf and I think that the same folks that have difficulty handling any change at all will have difficulty with it, regardless of its immediate or long term benefits to our sport. It's just the nature of most groups to function that way...

I think you missed this one:


I would merely add verbage that states anything partially buried or attached is considered permanent. Anything loose and completely unattached is casual. Then if the TD/course Pro wants something to become or be treated as permanent, he needs only to bury part of it, or attach it in place with stakes and twine.

This would consider branches tangled with living vines or dead vines tangled in living trees as permanent obstacles.



Would this work, or does the idea of partially buried rocks disrupt the continuity?

Nick, I think the comparison to the two meter rule is on point. The difference between 1.99 meters and 2.01 meters seems just as arbitrary as the difference between 1 cm and 3 cm.

Also, why do you never address the FACT that noone knows the lay of every stick and stone greater than 2 cm, and intentional avoidance of them is impossible. You seem afraid to actually address this obvious flaw in your logic.

Also, don't give me this luddite crap because it begs the question. People might oppose this change because they feel it is unwarranted, not because all change is bad.

James, please explain exactly how 2 meters is related to moving obstacles on a course.

Gary, I read it, will you read the part of my proposal about defining loose debris please?

Suzette,

It is Craigs lack of logical approach that allows him to compare this with the dying 2 meter rule when it is not in any way related to the heart of this matter (that improving ones lie, particularly in light of changing the course, is as clear a case of "ungolflike" and short of the rule that allows it is as close to "cheating" our rules allow.



The comparison Nick (Mr. King of the illogical) is not to the 2 meter rule, but your approach to it. Your claim for the 2 meter rule is that it is pure luck whether or not you lan above or below 2 meters - and that is the main justification for you to see it changed - that luck should have less of a role in the game of DG. Conversely, your approach to relief from casual obstacles takes the opposite approach - stating that when a player has the inadvertant bad luck to land on a stick - that the player should be punished for that luck. Those two opinions are at odds with one another - 180 degrees. How pointing this out represents a lack of logic - I'm not quite sure.

You've yet to address any one of my points Nick. Is it because you have no means to answer them? Let me refresh you memory.
1) How do you justify having an unencumbered throwing area on the tee and no where else?
2) If everyone benefits from casual relief at some point during play - how does any one player gain a significant advantage?
3) Compare and contrast any statistical evaluation of how a player might be affected by the moving of an object (any object) with the natural changes that happens on a course every day.
4) Comment on the "rules calling" environment in sanctioned play. And tell us how altering this rule to be more strict will help promote more people calling the rules.
5) How can you brush aside the safety issue of basic footing when so many common injuries happen when a player slips while trying to throw?

I�ll oblige Craig, but watch your tone please.


1) How do you justify having an unencumbered throwing area on the tee and no where else?



The tee by design is create to present no challenge as far as run up, stance or throwing motion (yet as we all know that is not always the case, many tee pads offer significant challenges to run up, stance and throwing motion. Kind of funny how Reality surprises us like that all the time�). I�m really not sure what you mean about not having an unencumbered throwing area justified elsewhere on the course. Courses by definition provide varying obstacles to run up, stance, throwing motion, flight paths and roll paths; that is the nature of the game of golf. There is no justification necessary; the challenge is the challenge.


2) If everyone benefits from casual relief at some point during play - how does any one player gain a significant advantage?



Your initial assumption is in error: Everyone does not benefit and certainly everyone does not benefit equally; AND when our rules can eliminate purposeful/intentional inequitable actions they should. This ensures as far as possible a fair competition. The player who never has to move, or does not move any obstacles, does not benefit, they in fact are put at a scoring disadvantage.

And again, I am NOT against all forms of relief, just the ones detailed in my proposal (i.e. ones that are significant and clear obstacles to play on the course).


3) Compare and contrast any statistical evaluation of how a player might be affected by the moving of an object (any object) with the natural changes that happens on a course every day.



One is human action within a 2 to 3 hour period in which competition is going on that will immediately affect the play of the course; the other is act of God and goes on all the time. We can legislate human action not acts of God. (At least I am unable to, Craig on the other hand�)


4) Comment on the "rules calling" environment in sanctioned play. And tell us how altering this rule to be more strict will help promote more people calling the rules.



Rules do not call themselves, people do. That people currently do not is not an excuse to leave obvious holes in our rules of play or not improve them when we clearly can.


5) How can you brush aside the safety issue of basic footing when so many common injuries happen when a player slips while trying to throw?



How? Are we allowed to snap live branches off because they might poke us in our eye as we do our �preferred� run up? Are we allowed to dig up and move terrible teepads because they were improperly installed and may case slipping or tripping? Are we allowed to cut out roots because we might trip on them on our run up? How about even cutting thorn bushes? Can we pull stone walls down because our throwing motion might put our hand at risk of damage?

How do we deal with all of these obstacles Craig?

Well, the same EXACT safety issues exist for large unattached obstacles also, but because they are easier to move than teepads, thorn bushes and branches we call them �casual� when they are really no more casual than the permanent obstacles, they�re just easier to move.

And again, please read the proposal, I want to allow the movement of ALL loose debris EVERYWHERE to improve unseen tiny obstacles directly related to footing.

Well, there it is Craig. Answers to your questions. Unfortunately they don�t agree with your position so they are like the weather report of Tokyo to a guy in Paw Paw WV, but I figured I�d give it a shot.

Regards,
Nick

Nick,
You double speaking poison ivy fireant!

In reference to the 2m rule

Make the rules simpler?
Seems like more rules and paragraphs will be needed

OB is a better solution?
Everything above 2m is OB. Where did the disc go OB? On the overhand, could be 20' from the thrower (crosses into 2m land and never gets back) or is it considered below the resting place 20' up in the tree?

or

disc lands in branches WAY above basket but away from tree base. Also lands in such a way that it is outside the band but inside the basket, mark it in the basket? (The disc was in the air suspended and on the way to marking it on the ground the basket got in the way; ACE BABY)

Save our poor trees
Give me a break!
Rid the 2m rule and watch the destruction of trees. Your promoting chucking one in the tree. And you think that someone will leave $15 worth of plastic in a tree to save a tree because of no penalty? HA!

Luck
Try to tell me that a disc stuck 30' up in a treebranch 5' from the basket with no penalty isn't luck. No rule will EVER eliminate some form of luck in disc golf

Bad Course Design
Many courses were built with the 2m rule in mind. Now these courses are bad designs? Change a rule then tell a designer that the course they worked so hard on is garbage?

Skill
The safe landing area is inside the OB's and below 2m. Rather simple for any course anywhere. People must learn to hit that area or find a forum and have the rules changed for them.

Rules
They are very easy to understand as is, even to a newby. Why overcomplicate them for lack of disc control by others. No more rules are needed

Remember not everyone plays tourneys but likes the challenge of the game and play by tourney rules.

Mike Shaw
aka "Stick" #19436
non-current member
pedestal preaching by others led me to leave

Rules do not call themselves, people do.



People call themselves? I always get a busy tone when I do that.

In reference to the 2m rule

Make the rules simpler?
Seems like more rules and paragraphs will be needed



How so Mike? We can completely cut out all of the paragraphs having to do with 2 meters and just let OB rules as they are cover any situation where a director doesn't want players throwing into a specific tree.

disc lands in branches WAY above basket but away from tree base. Also lands in such a way that it is outside the band but inside the basket, mark it in the basket? (The disc was in the air suspended and on the way to marking it on the ground the basket got in the way; ACE BABY)



Apparently you need to first read our rules of play, Mike, prior to commenting. Inside the catching device is not considered "playing surface", the marker would be placed on the "playing surface" beneath the basket.

Furthermore, if (and that is an "if" the rule is changed to remove all 2 meter language, which is not currently proposed) OB is used rather than the 2 meter rule, a tree that is declared OB and the line being where the tree roots meet the playing surface, then every disc at rest competely supported by any surface of that OB tree is OB and must be played accordingly.

Under the revision, if a director says an area or hole has the 2 meter rule in affect then it behaves just as it did before.

I understand how this can be a little confusing. Asking questions and getting answers from those in the know can clarify a lot of this for you.

Luck
Try to tell me that a disc stuck 30' up in a treebranch 5' from the basket with no penalty isn't luck. No rule will EVER eliminate some form of luck in disc golf



Our rules do not "eliminate" luck from our game, they attempt, where possible, to make our game more fair. Killing the 2 meter rule accomplishes this.

Bad Course Design
Many courses were built with the 2m rule in mind. Now these courses are bad designs? Change a rule then tell a designer that the course they worked so hard on is garbage?




Many courses were poorly designed then, putting many of their natural resources in the direct path of harm and making luck rather than skill the primary design element.

Again, OB can accomplish everything 2 meters does, AND BETTER!

(Related to Nick's proposal, not the 2 meter rule)

Nick, you continue to maintain that your proposal takes luck out of the game. I hope the rules committee is more honest than you.

ps. What's behind this anyway, have you been perfecting a no step shot? ;)

Skill
The safe landing area is inside the OB's and below 2m. Rather simple for any course anywhere. People must learn to hit that area or find a forum and have the rules changed for them.



This has nothing to do with 2 meters, it does have to do with avoiding obstacles and expecting uneared relief when a player does not avoid them.


Rules
They are very easy to understand as is, even to a newby. Why overcomplicate them for lack of disc control by others. No more rules are needed



The 2 meter rule and relief rules "ARE" over complications. We need definitions for "Playing Surface" and "Loose Debris" anyway; they will clarify a great many other rules in one simple stroke.


Remember not everyone plays tourneys but likes the challenge of the game and play by tourney rules.



Then they should learn them first before commenting on them. Ask questions, read your rule book, practice playing by them, note when you have a question about them out on the course, watch other players and educate them about them. (Nothing helps you learn something better than teaching others about them.)


Mike Shaw
aka "Stick" #19436
non-current member
pedestal preaching by others led me to leave



But "pedestal preaching by yourself is ok, right? ;)

James,

I am not trying to remove "luck" from disc golf. That would be like trying to remove "illogic" from certain users posts on this bored mess (impossible).

I just want our rules to be consistant and as close as possible to following principles that protect our courses, increase sportsmenship, and that adhere to the concepts of the game of "GOLF".

Again, and I'd like some acknowledgment of this considering I a have now pointed it out at least 5 times, I favor defining exactly what is "loose debris" and allowing anyone at any time to move it regardless of whether it is in your run up stance or throwing motion. But what I would like to protect, just for the 3 hours of the competitive round are elements and obstacles that can and do have a direct impact on the manner and technique used to propell a disc as well as the affect these obstacles have on a disc in motion (whether through the air or on the ground).

What this seems to come down to is something very similar to the entitlement problems we are having with What We Currently Call Amateur divisions wanting protection from better players but also wanting huge disproportionate to performance awards; our relief rule has historically allowed for the vast "Improvement of Our Lie" so now we are a little spoiled and think that it is somehow "An Important Part of Our Game", even though it is a complete and total abomination to the very game of "Golf".

Regards,
Nick

Well Nick - at least you gave it a shot. Unfortunately, I think your shot is stuck over 2meters :)


1) How do you justify having an unencumbered throwing area on the tee and no where else?



The tee by design is created to present no challenge as far as run up, stance or throwing motion (yet as we all know that is not always the case, many tee pads offer significant challenges to run up, stance and throwing motion.


I think you've started off on the wrong foot Nick - as a teepad is specifically designed to present a specific challenge for shot execution, including run up and throwing motion. What it does not do is include obstacles to footing and safety(when properly installed), which your proposal unnecessarily imposes.


2) If everyone benefits from casual relief at some point during play - how does any one player gain a significant advantage?



Your initial assumption is in error: Everyone does not benefit and certainly everyone does not benefit equally; AND when our rules can eliminate purposeful/intentional inequitable actions they should. This ensures as far as possible a fair competition. The player who never has to move, or does not move any obstacles, does not benefit, they in fact are put at a scoring disadvantage.



Guess we'll have to disagree on this one Nick - I think most people would agree that all players benefit at some point from casual relief during a round of play - in some form or fashion. Saying it isn't so is sort of like saying "mission accomplished".

3) Compare and contrast any statistical evaluation of how a player might be affected by the moving of an object (any object) with the natural changes that happens on a course every day.



One is human action within a 2 to 3 hour period in which competition is going on that will immediately affect the play of the course; the other is act of God and goes on all the time. We can legislate human action not acts of God. (At least I am unable to, Craig on the other hand�)



Nice avoidance of the question there Nicky :) The point of the question is that there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle. Go back to the 1st way I asked the question - how many times during a competitive round of golf, have you found evidence that your disc has landed exactly where someone elses has? Or close enough to such a spot as to have been affected by the movement of a casual obstacle? If you can't come up with ready examples (multiple and abundant), then you don't have much back up for your argument of detriment or unfairness to the rest of the playing field.

4) Comment on the "rules calling" environment in sanctioned play. And tell us how altering this rule to be more strict will help promote more people calling the rules.



Rules do not call themselves, people do. That people currently do not is not an excuse to leave obvious holes in our rules of play or not improve them when we clearly can.



Another avoidance Nick. You know the reality (people aren't encouraged or willing most of the time to call rules violations) and you have included yourself recently amongst this group. So how can you advocate a rules change that would make this condition worse and not better? And in the same breath claim that it makes the rules better? I think you're in denial about this issue Nick.


5) How can you brush aside the safety issue of basic footing when so many common injuries happen when a player slips while trying to throw?



How? Are we allowed to snap live branches off because they might poke us in our eye as we do our �preferred� run up? Are we allowed to dig up and move terrible teepads because they were improperly installed and may case slipping or tripping? Are we allowed to cut out roots because we might trip on them on our run up? How about even cutting thorn bushes? Can we pull stone walls down because our throwing motion might put our hand at risk of damage?



You're not even trying to answer the question Nick-just throwing up a smoke screen.


How do we deal with all of these obstacles Craig?



Read the rule book Nick - it's spelled out there for you. When an obstacle is permanent and attached (like several of your examples) the rules are different than when they are not. Your proposal sacrifices player safety in both instances of footing, and in throwing motion, for a perceived - statistically minimal effect on other players. I find that to lack common sense - and be generally "player unfriendly" - a characteristic our rules should not espouse.


Well, there it is Craig. Answers to your questions. Unfortunately they don�t agree with your position so they are like the weather report of Tokyo to a guy in Paw Paw WV, but I figured I�d give it a shot.


You gave it a shot Nick - next time try and answer more directly - as you avoided the substance in at least half of what was directed towards you. Sorry if my "tone" is too abrupt for you Nick - but your proposal lacks an imperative, and will cause more problems than it will solve.

"Sportsmanship." Nick, your justifications for this proposal are ever shifting. You are bobbing and weaving and I am therefore unable to deliver a direct hit.

I don't see your proposal as improving consistency. As I stated before, it merely forces everybody to deal with unforeseen circumstances (illogically, this is what you call eliminating luck) and will increase injuries. All for no good reason.

By the way. I went to play my home course yesterday. I'd honestly estimate that there are at least 100,000 objects on that course that are "thicker than 2 cm." I attempted to survey the location of every one so that I could purposely avoid them. Then, everytime one of those objects got moved by my disc or by my walking, I lamented the fact that the course was changed forever and no subsequent score could ever be compared to that round. :)

Well Nick - at least you gave it a shot. Unfortunately, I think your shot is stuck over 2meters
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) How do you justify having an unencumbered throwing area on the tee and no where else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tee by design is created to present no challenge as far as run up, stance or throwing motion (yet as we all know that is not always the case, many tee pads offer significant challenges to run up, stance and throwing motion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you've started off on the wrong foot Nick - as a teepad is specifically designed to present a specific challenge for shot execution, including run up and throwing motion. What it does not do is include obstacles to footing and safety(when properly installed), which your proposal unnecessarily imposes.



Craig,

Tee pads are designed to not present a challenge to run up stance or throwing motion. The challenge to the disc in flight or rolling is of course considered. What you need to come to terms with is that the Tee pads also (regardless of design) do in fact present challenges to run up stance and throwing motion.

There is no guarantee of unencumbered run up stance or throwing motion on the rest of the course (there isn�t even really any guarantee on the tee pad�). These �impediments� are what we in the game of �golf� like to call �challenges�. They�re a big part of what makes our game �disc golf� in particular so very interesting and fun to play. Having rules that institutionalize our ability to significantly change those challenges during a competitive round should be reduced wherever possible.

Regards,
Nick

The key word being "significant" Nick. Few if any casual obstacles capable of being moved can be considered significant. Mainly because moving them will have no significant effect on other players. Hence the term "casual".

By the way - go back and read your last response - and note that your words in bold are nearly an exact replication of my own words - once again - you avoided the issue - I'm starting to think you don't pay as much attention when you read as you would have us believe.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) If everyone benefits from casual relief at some point during play - how does any one player gain a significant advantage?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your initial assumption is in error: Everyone does not benefit and certainly everyone does not benefit equally; AND when our rules can eliminate purposeful/intentional inequitable actions they should. This ensures as far as possible a fair competition. The player who never has to move, or does not move any obstacles, does not benefit, they in fact are put at a scoring disadvantage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess we'll have to disagree on this one Nick - I think most people would agree that all players benefit at some point from casual relief during a round of play - in some form or fashion. Saying it isn't so is sort of like saying "mission accomplished".



Craig,

There is nothing to disagree with. It is not even plausible that everyone on the course benefits from casual relief during a specific (and real) round of play, because it can be proven that some gain more relief than others and some gain no relief at all (because they do not need it). Besides, this does not even address the central issue concerning �the degree of relief� and its �appropriateness within the context of the game of GOLF�.

Regards,
Nick

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Compare and contrast any statistical evaluation of how a player might be affected by the moving of an object (any object) with the natural changes that happens on a course every day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is human action within a 2 to 3 hour period in which competition is going on that will immediately affect the play of the course; the other is act of God and goes on all the time. We can legislate human action not acts of God. (At least I am unable to, Craig on the other hand�)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice avoidance of the question there Nicky The point of the question is that there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle. Go back to the 1st way I asked the question - how many times during a competitive round of golf, have you found evidence that your disc has landed exactly where someone elses has? Or close enough to such a spot as to have been affected by the movement of a casual obstacle? If you can't come up with ready examples (multiple and abundant), then you don't have much back up for your argument of detriment or unfairness to the rest of the playing field..



Craig,

If �there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle� then there is equally no means to assume that all players will benefit either, now is there?

The answer to your question about the frequency of �movement of obstacles due to the preceding play of players in front of you� is directly apropos to this topic. Examples: One where a vine was pulled down in the shule between the lie and the hole and one where little sticks and vines (still attached) were kicked out of the way be repeatedly getting in and out of a stance, in each case clearing a path for the throwing motion and flight path of the disc. Everyone, not only in that round but until the end of time will never have to deal with those obstacles again (and these were not even legally moved). These incidents were in the same round by the way.

More? How about the Bresky ditches at Lums and Killens? Have you ever seen the little ditches he leaves wherever his past lies were?

Specific instances that I have experienced? Paw Paw, Whipping Post, hole 6, I threw my 2nd throw and went just off the fairway beneath a downed tree and in high grass and loose branches and thorns (beautiful lie), someone had obviously visited this spot before because right where my disc was all of tall grass was matted down, the torn branches bent and snapped down, and the tiny (still attached) branches had been snapped off.

Remember the story last year about the guy in front of me who moved the log just prior to my roller at the Jersey Jam allowing me to pin the hole?

If you have no stories of your own concerning advantages or disadvantages of players using casual relief to significantly alter the challenge presented by the course, then I have to wonder how conscious you are of your surroundings and what is going on during rounds.

Regards,
Nick

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Comment on the "rules calling" environment in sanctioned play. And tell us how altering this rule to be more strict will help promote more people calling the rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules do not call themselves, people do. That people currently do not is not an excuse to leave obvious holes in our rules of play or not improve them when we clearly can.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another avoidance Nick. You know the reality (people aren't encouraged or willing most of the time to call rules violations) and you have included yourself recently amongst this group. So how can you advocate a rules change that would make this condition worse and not better? And in the same breath claim that it makes the rules better? I think you're in denial about this issue Nick.



Craig,

There is no avoidance on my part what so ever. We cannot blame rules for people not calling them. (I did not, you should not.) And people�s current reluctance to call rules is not an excuse not to improve them where it is very clear that they need improvement.

You don�t like it, because it does not support your point. Which, to be honest, is not my problem�

Regards,
Nick

Craig,

The remainder of your post says little more than "The rule as it is currently is the reason the rule as it is currently is, is right." Sorry Craig. That is a non-argument.

And where in our rules does it say relief from "casual obstacles" is to avoid injury? Or are you saying that is the intent?

If you are saying that is its "intent", then you must also consider the more important "intent" of all GOLF rules which come down to playing it where it lies. If that concept, that "intent", is unfamiliar to you then perhaps it gives us all some insight into why you have such difficulty understanding other fundamental principles that underlie all "golf" rules.

Regards,
Nick

James,


"Sportsmanship." Nick, your justifications for this proposal are ever shifting. You are bobbing and weaving and I am therefore unable to deliver a direct hit.



James, I am, and have always been standing squarely in front of you. Bring it!


I don't see your proposal as improving consistency. As I stated before, it merely forces everybody to deal with unforeseen circumstances (illogically, this is what you call eliminating luck) and will increase injuries. All for no good reason.



James, please explain to us how the preservation (where possible � having to do with conscious human decision making and action taking) of our courses obstacles to not only a disc in flight or rolling but also to run up stance and throwing motion, does not �improve consistency�?

�Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is not something our rules are intended to or should help us to avoid. �Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is part of the game of Golf. It is what keeps us coming back. Unpredictability and the challenge of the entire course is what it is all about. If you want everything to be predictable �sports� is not for you.


By the way. I went to play my home course yesterday. I'd honestly estimate that there are at least 100,000 objects on that course that are "thicker than 2 cm." I attempted to survey the location of every one so that I could purposely avoid them. Then, everytime one of those objects got moved by my disc or by my walking, I lamented the fact that the course was changed forever and no subsequent score could ever be compared to that round. :)



Funny James. I am not proposing to stop the earth from spinning or limbs, branches or sticks from falling from trees; these are acts of God. What I am proposing is that we reduce as much as possible OUR involvement in the process of �changing the challenge presented by a course during a single competitive round�.

Regards,
Nick

The key word being "significant" Nick. Few if any casual obstacles capable of being moved can be considered significant. Mainly because moving them will have no significant effect on other players. Hence the term "casual".

By the way - go back and read your last response - and note that your words in bold are nearly an exact replication of my own words - once again - you avoided the issue - I'm starting to think you don't pay as much attention when you read as you would have us believe.



SO YOU ADMIT EVEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT "NON_PERMANENT" OBSTACLES CAN AFFECT FAIR PLAY!

Now we are getting somewhere.

SO YOU ADMIT EVEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT "NON_PERMANENT" OBSTACLES CAN AFFECT FAIR PLAY!



Great justification there Nick, "There might be a remote chance that somebody sometime might be affected in some minor way - so let's change the rule to make more people risk getting hurt". And no I made no such admission.

Never seen a "Bresky trench" - do they affect how someones disc acts?

Let's see - you came up with 3 examples that you could remember landing near where there was evidence someone else had been - and they span 2-3 years worth of events. Sounds like you are supporting my argument that it doesn't happen with any great frequency. You must also be admitting that is has no SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON FAIR PLAY AS A RESULT!!!! NOW WE"RE GETTING SOMEWHERE :)

What is wrong with requiring that permanent obstacles be attached (partially buried, staked, strapped, or cabled) and loose stuff be casual. Then if a log is in the path of a roller line, we will know if the TD/course Pro intended that log to be in that spot. If it is not buried or tied down, it belongs in the rough where it is just part of the general obstacle of the "rough" and it's specific location is no longer crucial to the play of the hole. That way if Nick wants to put a log in a specific place to stop rollers, all he has to do is stake and wire it in place, or bury one end and a permanent obstacle is born.

Vines are always attached if they are above the ground. Just because it's not growing doesn't mean it's unattached.

Vines are always attached if they are above the ground. Just because it's not growing doesn't mean it's unattached.



Not true Gary - I once had an official at Worlds (Port Arthur '95) allow me to move a dead thorny vine (behind my lie, but in my stance) because it was not physically attached to anything (not the ground, not the other vine it was looped over, or the tree that the other vine WAS attached to) - it was just hanging there. In this instance I believe the casual relief rule is supported by the player friendly view of "no need to bleed".

That is true. but I was thinking more of the non-thorny vines that are growing up into trees. Often the roots will be cut off, but the vines remain in the tree. Because they are not attached to the roots and are dead, some people think that they can be removed. The rule does not state attached to the root, merely attached.

Now someone please tell me why it is a bad idea to give a TD/Course Pro a method to positively identify anything on the course that they want to be treated as a permanent obstacle.

Nick just like to argue to try and **** people off. :( He starts out with a proposition that he likes, and then slowly lures you in until he eventually plays the "you're and idiot" card when he can't close the argument.

Nick, please address the following. It's been asked several times, but you just blow over it and reply to it with unrelated inflammatory stuff and people have stopped asking.

Your arguments against the 2m rule are all about "luck" and the arbitrary height of 2 meters. (Please reference yoru use of the 1.99 meter versus 2.01 meter thing.) But now you argue vehemently in favor of the arbitrary size limitation of 2 cm being casual and bigger than 2cm being no relief. This 2cm thing means if you are lucky enough to land in front on a stick 1.99 cm in diameter you get a break but 2.01 cm you are screwed. Pure luck and purely arbitrary. More luck that the 2 meter rule because you can throw the disc so it doens't hit a tree above the 2 meter line, but you can't identify 2 meter debris from 300 feet away.

How do you justify this total contradiction in arguments? I say it is because you don't like the 2 meter rule and you will say anything you can to try denigrate it, whether it makes sense or not.

Now someone please tell me why it is a bad idea to give a TD/Course Pro a method to positively identify anything on the course that they want to be treated as a permanent obstacle.



That method is already in the rules. The TD can already designate where relief is allowed or not. Changing the rule puts the onus on the TD to HAVE TO designate such things.

Sort of like if the TD does not designate the OB side of the fence as being OB - people can claim that striking the wrong side of the fence was striking the OB line - and therefore was technically "in bounds" when in most cases - the thrower failed to achieve the challenge of avoiding the obstacle - and gains significant advantage.

This seems to be the key point in Nicks argument - that someone is somehow gaining a significant advantage. How? By not being forced to stand on a moss covered rock? By not being forced to rip their arm through dead unattached thorns? Casual relief is all about providing a reasonable and safe place from which to continue play. Extreme conditions are emphasized by the "unsafe lie" rule - and are categorized as such for more extreme circumstances. Casual obstacles are cconsidered so because NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IS GAINED when their positions are altered.

I'm fine with the notion that "SIGNIFICANT" obstacles not be moved. I just have a problem with how they are being defined under the current (cough cough) "proposal".

Nick says:


�Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is not something our rules are intended to or should help us to avoid. �Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is part of the game of Golf. It is what keeps us coming back. Unpredictability and the challenge of the entire course is what it is all about. If you want everything to be predictable �sports� is not for you.



More nonsense.

Why don't they randomly place four inch holes in golf fairways? Think people would go for that? Apparently, you would, and then tell the golfer that they should have known about that four inch hole and avoided it.

Why do most people consider it poor hole design when there is no foreseen path, but instead the final outcome is basically random luck? You apparently would appreciate a goony golf course where the obstacles pop up out the ground and then back into the ground again, entirely at random.

I don't tackle your consistency argument because it has no meaning. The present rule was historically consistent. Then someone decided to add the caveat about not moving stuff that extended closer to the hole. That created the complete uncertainty and associated problems addressed earlier in this thread. Instead of rectifying that mistake, you instead want to compound it.

I think we all agree that we want to keep the course the same way throughout a tournament, but that just can't happen because this is not a perfect world. Wind blows, rain falls and people just walking on a course can change it. (Tall grass gets matted down, loose dirt becomes compacted, mud gets ruts and footprints, small sticks and stones become scattered, etc.) So lets keep movement of loose debris to the absolute minimum. Could this be an acceptable compromise for everyone?

Let's try this rewrite:

Definition of loose debris: Loose debris constists of objects that fall from trees that are not attached and are not a permanent part of the course design. (Example: logs that are used to mark the edge of fairways or to control erosion are a permanent part of the course.) Rocks that are on top of an otherwise smooth playing surface.

Loose debris must not be moved any farther than a one meter area directly behind OR to either side of the lie. Moving of loose debris must be completed within 30 seconds of arriving at the lie, and will be considered part of the throw. (In other words if it takes you 25 seconds to move the debris, you have 5 seconds to throw.)

If a player is unable to take a stance, because objects are attached, too large, or there is not enough time to remove from the one meter area, the player may take one penalty stroke and relocate the lie up to five meters back on the line of play, or a player may take two penalty throws and relocate the lie anywhere no closer to the target.


NOTE: If you land in a gravel pile or a pile of rocks or a rocky area of the course, you can't move all the rocks from the one meter area.

NOTE: By not stating how big pine cones, branches or rocks are, the "random 2 meter" type argument is muted.


Could you please take a minute to give me your opinions about removing the ability to have a penalty free 5 meter relief and about not having a guaranteed run up but only a one meter area to clear the debris?

Thanks

Craig,

If �there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle� then there is equally no means to assume that all players will benefit either, now is there?



Easy there Nick - you can't have it both ways. Much of your premise for this argument in the first place has claimed that there is an unevenly weighted benefit - and that it is unfair - and that's why the rule should be changed. So you can't very well use that as a claim - be confronted with the unassailable fact that there is little or no provable detriment - and then counter that there's no benefit either!! Circle jerk!!!! I think it's statistically a pretty high probability that if you surveyed even 1% of tournament players, 100%of them would say that they have benefitted from casual relief in some way during sanctioned play. So your logic is............not coherent.


Specific instances that I have experienced? Paw Paw, Whipping Post, hole 6, I threw my 2nd throw and went just off the fairway beneath a downed tree and in high grass and loose branches and thorns (beautiful lie), someone had obviously visited this spot before because right where my disc was all of tall grass was matted down, the torn branches bent and snapped down, and the tiny (still attached) branches had been snapped off.



Good example Nick. Can you say for certain that this had happened during tournament play and not a casual round or practice? Good example for another reason - at Paw Paw there are multiple species of poisonous snakes. Such species (Copperheads and Rattlesnakes) are known to enjoy the comfort and shade of things like high grass and stick piles or in your case downed trees (Spencer kills them regularly in such places.) Your proposal would put players in jeapordy by not allowing them to clear a place to stand and throw, in favor of jamming their foot into a potential snake den. Good, sound, forward thinking Nick.


Remember the story last year about the guy in front of me who moved the log just prior to my roller at the Jersey Jam allowing me to pin the hole?


Vaguely. But as it seems - both you and the other player benefitted - he from being able to take a stance, and you from being lucky enough to hit the object that was moved. Can you be so sure that it was moved in a way where your errant shot wouldn't have hit it anyway? If that log was close enough behind the basket to stop your roller - would it not have stopped someone elses in a similar fashion? Was the change in the course significant enough to even care? Perhaps the log was there to keep pedestrians from getting hit by errant throws? In that case - it should have been anchored in some way to be a permanent obstacle. Otherwise - your example is like an old dixie cup - it'll only hold water for a minute or two .

If you have no stories of your own concerning advantages or disadvantages of players using casual relief to significantly alter the challenge presented by the course, then I have to wonder how conscious you are of your surroundings and what is going on during rounds.


I guess that's where we differ Nick - I see such things collectively. And in large part I recognize a collective benefit, and not a collective detriment. If you benefit one way - and I another, and Breske another - doesn't it all even out? It goes back to another discussion of this topic on another thread - enforcing and interpreting the rules of play should be tempered with common sense and good judgement. No rule should be put in place that jeopardizes the well being of the player. Casual relief rules are in place for preceisely that concept - to help insure (within reasonable bounds) the well being of the player.

Current relief options of no stance can be taken:

Unable to take a stance at the mark.
up to 5 meters back along LOP.

Unsafe lie 1 stroke:
within 5 meters of the bad lie, no closer to the pin.

Unsafe lie 2 strokes:
no closer to the pin.

Your proposal overly restricts the 1 stroke unsafe lie.
If you wish to remove the up to 5 meters along LOP, don't change the unsafe lie rule. Though I strongly disagree with removing the up to 5 meters relief rule.

What is all of this crap about "safety?"

Adopting a "no-free-relief" rule doesn't have to make the game unsafer Craig. Every player always has a choice to take relief at the cost of a stroke. If you can't safely make a throw by playing your disc from where it lies, take a stroke and up to 5 meters relief on LOP and move on.

To me, this has always been one of the biggest "bragging" points of disc golf as opposed to ball golf. We didn't think we were a bunch of sissys that have a bevy of complicated rules/conditions governing ways to improve a bad/difficult lie. We play it from where the disc comes to rest...regardless of how awkward or difficult it might be.

Crap folks! If you want to keep trying to define ways to improve a crummy lie, then next thing you know, you'll be wearing white and beige oxford shoes with little tassles on the laces!

Just play it where it lies or take all the relief you need for the price of a stroke...or maybe two and bring it back into the fairway if you don't want to snag your tassles on a stick!

People that know nothing about disc golf will often laugh at the idea/vision they have of folks throwing frisbees around on a golf course.

Many of those people are amazed once they've seen the game played. When they see how we play from wherever our disc comes to rest...particularly when they see the array of trick shots being thrown by the masters of our game to escape from their predicaments.

If you can't safely make a throw by playing your disc from where it lies, take a stroke and up to 5 meters relief on LOP and move on.



ahem, ahem.

great points otherwise. :)

Our relief rules are NOT for improving the line to the basket, but for allowing resonable footing on the lie. If this is not intended for safety more than anything else, why was it added to the rule book in the first place ?

Play it where it lies, unless it is impossible to stand behind it. If the stuff behind it is casual, you get to try and move it. If not, you get the same relief that you would get if the back side of your disc was leaning against a building. Well you are limited to 5 meters with casual obstacles, for solid obstacles, you are not limited.

If you want to take a stroke, you are not limited to LOP, If you want to take 2, you are not limited in direction, just distance. If you are 200' below the basket on a steep slope, you can move to 200' or 250' above the basket. You can go back to the tee box if that makes it easier.

Of course, if a branch blows down while you are playing the hole, the course is changed for every player behind you.



No offense, but it doesn't apply to the last hole of the round.


Couldn't take anymore of the thread after the IS and IS NOTs.

Nick just like to argue to try and **** people off. :( He starts out with a proposition that he likes, and then slowly lures you in until he eventually plays the "you're and idiot" card when he can't close the argument.

Nick, please address the following. It's been asked several times, but you just blow over it and reply to it with unrelated inflammatory stuff and people have stopped asking.

Your arguments against the 2m rule are all about "luck" and the arbitrary height of 2 meters. (Please reference yoru use of the 1.99 meter versus 2.01 meter thing.) But now you argue vehemently in favor of the arbitrary size limitation of 2 cm being casual and bigger than 2cm being no relief. This 2cm thing means if you are lucky enough to land in front on a stick 1.99 cm in diameter you get a break but 2.01 cm you are screwed. Pure luck and purely arbitrary. More luck that the 2 meter rule because you can throw the disc so it doens't hit a tree above the 2 meter line, but you can't identify 2 meter debris from 300 feet away.

How do you justify this total contradiction in arguments? I say it is because you don't like the 2 meter rule and you will say anything you can to try denigrate it, whether it makes sense or not.



Dear Rhett,

Pissing you off is not something I need to try and do, it is a given. I suspect you find some enjoyment in it, though I can not imagine why.

Actually Rhett, I have addressed this inappropriate comparison several times. It is an apples and oranges comparison. But if you insist:

The 2 meter rule requires that a disc thrown not come to rest 2 meters above the playing surface or a penalty stroke is issued. The measurement, in other people�s substantiation of the rule (not in the rule itself), is that 2 meters is about the height most folks can easily reach. It has nothing to do with obstructions to run up, stance or throwing motion since the lie is (just as when the disc is at 1.99 meters) marked on the playing surface and play continues.

Creating standards for �Loose Debris� will allow some, tiny surface obstacles, to be moved, while protecting all other obstacles on the course, permanent or what we currently call casual during competitive play. The measurements of this loose debris has nothing to do with the position of a thrown disc. I propose that we allow loose debris to be moved regardless of where they are on the course.

The relationship between the thrown disc to larger than 2 centimeter obstacles is different than the one of a thrown disc that is above 2 meters. The one above two meters is a penalty stroke. The one near or on top of a larger than 2 centimeter round obstacle needs to be played with that obstacle in mind without penalty stroke; perhaps a less �advantageous� run up, stance or throwing motion (similar to obstacles still attached to the course) but �no penalty stroke�.

I think your argument would hold some water if there was a penalty stroke issued for landing on or near �loose debris� or larger obstacles, there is not so the comparison, though fun for you guys is not apropos.

In actuality I would much prefer the 100% simplicity and clarity of not permitting �ANY� relief from any obstacle on the course (other than stipulated by the director or harmful or dangerous animals or insects), even any defined �loose debris�. I suggested that standard of �loose debris� and permission to move it anywhere on the course as an attempt to appease those who will find it difficult, if not impossible, to wean themselves from dependence on our current obstacle and relief rule.

The �loose debris� definition offered is only a proposal, a starting point. I�m sure there are better ones that would allow tiny surface debris to be kicked aside while protecting �ALL� of the more substantial obstacles to play. (By �play� I mean not only a thrown disc, but the human form that propels it and it�s relation to the environment.)

I suspect, from past experience, that like Craiger, you will not acknowledge this as an answer to your question because it does not support your position, never the less it is a direct and specific response.

Regards,
Nick

You still managed to avoid his point.

Direct questions.

Why is 2 meters more of an arbitrary number thatn 2 cm ?

Why is one arbitrary number good and the other bad ?

I suspect, from past experience, that like Craiger, you will not acknowledge this as an answer to your question because it does not support your position, never the less it is a direct and specific response.



It's a response to having been addressed by name - just not a response to the comparison being asked about - which had to do with your statements and logic of how luck is involved with both scenarios.

This seems to be the key point in Nicks argument - that someone is somehow gaining a significant advantage. How? By not being forced to stand on a moss covered rock? By not being forced to rip their arm through dead unattached thorns? Casual relief is all about providing a reasonable and safe place from which to continue play. Extreme conditions are emphasized by the "unsafe lie" rule - and are categorized as such for more extreme circumstances. Casual obstacles are cconsidered so because NO SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE IS GAINED when their positions are altered.

I'm fine with the notion that "SIGNIFICANT" obstacles not be moved. I just have a problem with how they are being defined under the current (cough cough) "proposal".



Craig,

That is idiotic. Your comments are equivalent to saying that our rules require players to smack their hands on trees when they land next to them, or to jump off of a cliff if their lie is right on the edge. Players are no more �FORCED� to break their arm on trees with their throwing motion, than they are to jump off cliffs because their lie is dangerously close to the edge, than they are to �rip their arm through dead unattached (or live and attached) thorns�, than they are to slip on �moss covered rock�. Safety is the concern of the director and the player when it comes to run up, stance and throwing motion; if that weren�t the case then people would never hurt themselves in perfectly unencumbered throwing conditions, yet they do.

If you are fine with the notion that �SIGNIFICANT� obstacles not be moved, yet do not like my proposal, then let�s see yours already! I�m not sure I have ever seen a proposal by you Craig, just criticisms of others. Curious that.

Regards,
Nick

What is wrong with requiring that permanent obstacles be attached (partially buried, staked, strapped, or cabled) and loose stuff be casual. Then if a log is in the path of a roller line, we will know if the TD/course Pro intended that log to be in that spot. If it is not buried or tied down, it belongs in the rough where it is just part of the general obstacle of the "rough" and it's specific location is no longer crucial to the play of the hole. That way if Nick wants to put a log in a specific place to stop rollers, all he has to do is stake and wire it in place, or bury one end and a permanent obstacle is born.



Gary,

I like the idea of better defining "attached" Gary, but I still think it is better to err on the side of protecting the challenge of all but "loose debris" obstacles on a course "during competitive play".

I'd be interested to see the exact wording you would use within our rules of play to accomplish your proposal.

Regards,
Nick

Nick says:


�Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is not something our rules are intended to or should help us to avoid. �Deal with unforeseen circumstances� is part of the game of Golf. It is what keeps us coming back. Unpredictability and the challenge of the entire course is what it is all about. If you want everything to be predictable �sports� is not for you.



More nonsense.

Why don't they randomly place four inch holes in golf fairways? Think people would go for that? Apparently, you would, and then tell the golfer that they should have known about that four inch hole and avoided it.

Why do most people consider it poor hole design when there is no foreseen path, but instead the final outcome is basically random luck? You apparently would appreciate a goony golf course where the obstacles pop up out the ground and then back into the ground again, entirely at random.

I don't tackle your consistency argument because it has no meaning. The present rule was historically consistent. Then someone decided to add the caveat about not moving stuff that extended closer to the hole. That created the complete uncertainty and associated problems addressed earlier in this thread. Instead of rectifying that mistake, you instead want to compound it.



James,

I think you are confusing the concepts of good and proper course design with the concepts of good and proper rules of play.

Regards,
Nick

Prior post by Craig:
3) Compare and contrast any statistical evaluation of how a player might be affected by the moving of an object (any object) with the natural changes that happens on a course every day.


One is human action within a 2 to 3 hour period in which competition is going on that will immediately affect the play of the course; the other is act of God and goes on all the time. We can legislate human action not acts of God. (At least I am unable to, Craig on the other hand�)



Nice avoidance of the question there Nicky The point of the question is that there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle. Go back to the 1st way I asked the question - how many times during a competitive round of golf, have you found evidence that your disc has landed exactly where someone elses has? Or close enough to such a spot as to have been affected by the movement of a casual obstacle? If you can't come up with ready examples (multiple and abundant), then you don't have much back up for your argument of detriment or unfairness to the rest of the playing field..




[QUOTE]
Craig,

If �there is no statistical evidence, nor is there a reasonable statistically based means to assume that one player will suffer, or be negatively affected in any way by another player moving what is now considered a casual obstacle� then there is equally no means to assume that all players will benefit either, now is there?



Easy there Nick - you can't have it both ways.



But apparently you can Craig?

Our relief rules are NOT for improving the line to the basket, but for allowing resonable footing on the lie. If this is not intended for safety more than anything else, why was it added to the rule book in the first place ?

Play it where it lies, unless it is impossible to stand behind it. If the stuff behind it is casual, you get to try and move it. If not, you get the same relief that you would get if the back side of your disc was leaning against a building. Well you are limited to 5 meters with casual obstacles, for solid obstacles, you are not limited.

If you want to take a stroke, you are not limited to LOP, If you want to take 2, you are not limited in direction, just distance. If you are 200' below the basket on a steep slope, you can move to 200' or 250' above the basket. You can go back to the tee box if that makes it easier.



Gary,

That is completely logical and correct under current rules of play. It is completely illogical and incorrect under the golf precept of "Play It Where It Lies".

Regards,
Nick

Of course, if a branch blows down while you are playing the hole, the course is changed for every player behind you.



No offense, but it doesn't apply to the last hole of the round.


Couldn't take anymore of the thread after the IS and IS NOTs.



You can move obstacles that became a factor during the round.

I suspect, from past experience, that like Craiger, you will not acknowledge this as an answer to your question because it does not support your position, never the less it is a direct and specific response.



It's a response to having been addressed by name - just not a response to the comparison being asked about - which had to do with your statements and logic of how luck is involved with both scenarios.



Craig,

What are you talking about? Is there luck involved with landing anywhere on the course within run up, stance or throwing motion of obstacles (substantial and intended vs loose debris and unintended)?

Sure, but the same could be said about waking up in the morning!

The application of rules(2 meters and "loose debris") to the 2 different situations is simply not related, no matter how clever you think you're being, they remain unrelated.

If you want to remain in this discussion Craig, throw us a bone. You're usual "Cloud and Obscure" tactic is getting a little old.

Attempting to decipher anything out of your posts is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm guessing that your main concern is for "safety" as relates to run up, stance and throwing motion. I'm not going to ask for confirmation because you'll probably deny it and head off in another unrelated direction.

If it is "safety" then please explain why safety is not a substantiation for gaining relief from what are currently defined as permanent course obstacles?

...so safety really isn't the issue is it Craig. You can find an inventive way to get out of that situation with what we currently call casual obstacles the same way you could with what we currently call permanent obstacles.

What it comes down to, really, is that you have grown accustomed to our rules saving you from the trouble, making the game easier for you, improving your lie and path to the hole; in short you don't want to loose what you view as an entitlement within our rules. And all this regardless of the fact that it reduces our rules ability to ensure fair play (at whatever level you or anyone is willing to admit, it does reduce fair play).

Regards,
Nick

But apparently you can Craig?



How is it that I'm trying to have it both ways Nick? I have stated repeatedly that everyone benefits. I think it's highly probable, expectable, and reasonable that a survey of players would show that a majority of players would say they have benefitted from casual relief. Conversely that same majority would say that they have not been adversely affected by someone else moving a casual obstacle. What I have stated is that you could not come up with similar information (through survey, observation, or otherwise) to support your contention that there is a detriment. Someone who knows how to post a survey PLEASE put one up here.

Question 1: Have you ever benefitted from casual relief during sanctioned competition?
Question 2: Have you ever been negatively affected by another player benefitting from casual relief?

Craig,
That is idiotic. Your comments are equivalent to saying that our rules require players to smack their hands on trees when they land next to them, or to jump off of a cliff if their lie is right on the edge. Players are no more �FORCED� to break their arm on trees with their throwing motion, than they are to jump off cliffs because their lie is dangerously close to the edge, than they are to �rip their arm through dead unattached (or live and attached) thorns�, than they are to slip on �moss covered rock�. Safety is the concern of the director and the player when it comes to run up, stance and throwing motion; if that weren�t the case then people would never hurt themselves in perfectly unencumbered throwing conditions, yet they do.




OK Nick - you must be right - players are NEVER put in the position of having only one option for taking a stance to deliver their next shot without penalty. And those lies are NEVER affected by casual obstacles. What game have YOU been playing the last 16 years?

Relief rules for casual obstacles are there for exactly these sorts of instances - to provide a modicum of safety considerations to encumbered throwing areas based on the permanence or lack thereof of the obstacles surrounding the lie. You discount this very real and recurring scenario out of hand - which I contend unneccesarily compromises the well being of the player.

If you are fine with the notion that �SIGNIFICANT� obstacles not be moved, yet do not like my proposal, then let�s see yours already! I�m not sure I have ever seen a proposal by you Craig, just criticisms of others. Curious that.




Yeah real curious that I need a proposal for a rule I don't think needs changing.

In a sense Nick - I appreciate the thought that you put into some of these topics. I think you could be much more effective working on the glossary though - and helping to adequately define terms already in the rule book that need clarifying - instead of making up new ones, and trying to change the rules of play. If you spent your limitless interest and energy on those things - you could be immensely more productive. (How's that for a proposal? :) )

I have stated repeatedly that everyone benefits.



Stating something repeatedly does not make it true or statistically validated, regardless of what you and Bush think. Besides it is clear that it does not benefit everyone and it certainly does not benefit everyone uniformly. Deal with it.

The only way to make it uniform is to not allow the movement of substantial obstacles to run up, stance, throwing motion and flight path.

Stating something repeatedly does not make it true



Nick, I finally agree with you: repeatedly stating that your proposal adds fairness does not make it true.

Craig,
What are you talking about? Is there luck involved with landing anywhere on the course within run up, stance or throwing motion of obstacles (substantial and intended vs loose debris and unintended)?



Nick - Noone has stated that the rules are related - only that your method of argument regarding the rules is related. You really don't read what people say to you do you?


If you want to remain in this discussion Craig, throw us a bone. You're usual "Cloud and Obscure" tactic is getting a little old.



If anybody else out here thinks I have been unclear - please say so. And whaddya gonna do - ban me from the discussion? :confused:


Attempting to decipher anything out of your posts is becoming increasingly difficult. I'm guessing that your main concern is for "safety" as relates to run up, stance and throwing motion. I'm not going to ask for confirmation because you'll probably deny it and head off in another unrelated direction.


Funny Nick - that might be the first time you've come close to interpreting me correctly. I only had to say it 6 times or so though.


If it is "safety" then please explain why safety is not a substantiation for gaining relief from what are currently defined as permanent course obstacles?


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... I dunno George - because they're PERMANENT???? If a permanent obstacle provides an unreasonably unsafe lie from which to attempt a throw - that's what the unsafe lie rule is for. That's why casual and permanent obstacles are specifically treated differently in the rules, because they are DIFFERENT!! Casual obstacles run a wide range of how they may affect play - from brushing aside a stick to avoid teeter tottering behind you mini, to dead hanging thorns capable of tearing flesh or clothing. Where they are dead and unattached - they have been deemed to be neither permanent, intentional, or integral to course integrity. You just claiming that they fit all those conditions doesn't make it so.


...so safety really isn't the issue is it Craig. You can find an inventive way to get out of that situation with what we currently call casual obstacles the same way you could with what we currently call permanent obstacles.



You've played with me enough to know Nick - that I have more trick shots in my bag than most people - and try a lot of things other people wouldn't even consider. Needing "additional" relief is not necessary for me. Using "allowable and reasonable" relief is just part of the game. I'm sorry if after 16 years you now feel slighted in some way - or that it all of a sudden is unevenly fair or overly detrimental to course integrity - to use your words - deal with it.

So in essence I have had you pegged from the start on this:

The rule is right because it is the rule. No other logical reason or intent to adhere to the tenets of the game of "golf" apply. Our rule is right because it is, and has been, our rule.

Not exactly Nick - more like the rule is reasonable the way it is because it has taken the well being of the player into account. But we've certainly got you pegged on it Nick. I don't like the rule because it doesn't fit my definition of what I think golf should be.

Not exactly Nick - more like the rule is reasonable the way it is because it has taken the well being of the player into account.



Prove it! So far you have not. It only benefits players who throw into encumbered situations and it absolutely does change the challenge presented by the course(at whatever level you are willing to admit).


But we've certainly got you pegged on it Nick. I don't like the rule because it doesn't fit my definition of what I think golf should be.



That is correct. "Improving your lie" does not fit within my definition of what golf is or what disc golf should be.

[QUOTE]
Not exactly Nick - more like the rule is reasonable the way it is because it has taken the well being of the player into account.




Prove it! So far you have not. It only benefits players who throw into encumbered situations and it absolutely does change the challenge presented by the course(at whatever level you are willing to admit).



How much proof do you need Nick? Are you suggesting that ANY player you ask will tell you they have not benefitted from a safety stand point from casual relief? Are you saying there is ANY player who has not thrown into the shule? You know how - DO THE SURVEY!!!!! (Try and keep the questions simple and unbiased as I tried to phrase them earlier)

[QUOTE]
Not exactly Nick - more like the rule is reasonable the way it is because it has taken the well being of the player into account.




Prove it! So far you have not. It only benefits players who throw into encumbered situations and it absolutely does change the challenge presented by the course(at whatever level you are willing to admit).



How much proof do you need Nick? Are you suggesting that ANY player you ask will tell you they have not benefitted from a safety stand point from casual relief? Are you saying there is ANY player who has not thrown into the shule? You know how - DO THE SURVEY!!!!! (Try and keep the questions simple and unbiased as I tried to phrase them earlier)



The way you phrase it, of course players will say they benefit. It's like asking:

If you could take 3 steps towards the hole on every throw from your lie would that benefit you?

Of course it would.

The question, in accordance with refining our rules to ensure fair play and defend the game of golf is this:

Should improving your lie so that you have an unencumbered run up, stance, throwing motion and flight path to the hole be permitted. If not how do we word the rules to not permit it. If so what are appropriate limitations.

The difference, as I can tell it, is that you support far "looser" restrictions on movement of course obstacles and definitions of what are course obstacles, while I support "stricter" restrictions on movement of course obstacles and definitions of what are course obstacles.

I am willing to compromise (hence "loose debris" option), but I feel strongly that our rules, as concern this specific rule, need to move towards a position of strengthening the language that discourages moving stuff around to improve run up, stance, throwing motion or flight path to hole, while encouraging competitors to learn to deal with "playing it where it lies". (This not being an alein concept in the game of golf.)