If a disc that is thrown into <font color="red"> Casual Water </font> is NOT found is it considered a <font color="red"> Lost Disc </font>?

Also, Is a branch/log/downed tree that is unattached and in your stance movable if part of the branch/log/downed tree extends outward and upward into the flight path?

1. Only after 3 minutes.
2. Sometimes.

If a disc that is thrown into <font color="red"> Casual Water </font> is NOT found is it considered a <font color="red"> Lost Disc </font>?

Also, Is a branch/log/downed tree that is unattached and in your stance movable if part of the branch/log/downed tree extends outward and upward into the flight path?



A lost disc is a lost disc. You don't have to be able to recover it, but you do have to identify it.

You may not move anything between you lie and the hole no matter if it is in your stance or flight path. Relief is provided within our rules other than moving it. Do a search for "solid" objects in your stance.

That is the general gist. To move something it must be completely behind your lie and in your stance or throwing motion. Lost discs are ones that are not found.

You want a grey area try "playing surface" or "at rest". Or the biggy, "amateur".

If a disc that is thrown into Casual Water is NOT found is it considered a Lost Disc ?



It could be. However, a case could be made that it's a 'benefit of the doubt' to the player since other types of casual relief involving hazards like poison ivy, bee or hornet's nests might involve risk finding the disc in the hazard to be avoided. What constitutes a lost disc needs to fully defined in the next rules revision since we'll now have more situtations with potentially lost discs on courses where the 2m rule is set aside.


Also, Is a branch/log/downed tree that is unattached and in your stance movable if part of the branch/log/downed tree extends outward and upward into the flight path?



No. But you can take stance relief by moving back on the LOP. 803.04C (2)

What if you can prove it fell during the round, wouldn't that be an exception?

If you throw into casual water and cannot see/find your disc, how do you mark your next lie ?

More importantly, is it a stroke penalty for a lost disc in casual water ?

You want a grey area try "playing surface" or "at rest". Or the biggy, "amateur".

That's funny! :DBut how does one 'identify' a lost disc; was that serious? :confused:

More importantly, is it a stroke penalty for a lost disc in casual water ?



This is why I lobbied the Rules Committee for the Special Condition drop zone rule in the current rules 804.01B. We have large marshes that are hard to mark clear borders for an OB line so they have usually been casual relief. However, under the older rules, you could end up with a 3-throw penalty if you throw into the middle of the marsh, the disc is lost (in terms of possession but everyone saw roughly where it went in) and it takes more than 10m to move back on the LOP. This is ridiculous. Using a drop zone and 804.01B, you avoid a 3-throw penalty and it's assumed a disc thrown in there is not really 'lost' but players shouldn't take the time to retrieve it during the round.

More specific question.

There is a ditch that holds water crossing the fairway and close to a basket on Bear Creek #15. It was muddy and deep enough that discs that entered could very easily disappear. The ditch was declared casual.

Several players lost discs in that muddy water. We all agreed there was no penalty for the casual water, but could not come to agreement on the question of whether there should be a lost disc penalty applied to those that could not find their disc.

More specific question.

There is a ditch that holds water crossing the fairway and close to a basket on Bear Creek #15. It was muddy and deep enough that discs that entered could very easily disappear. The ditch was declared casual.

Several players lost discs in that muddy water. We all agreed there was no penalty for the casual water, but could not come to agreement on the question of whether there should be a lost disc penalty applied to those that could not find their disc.



Clarifying question: Gary, if it had been OB water, would you have declared the shot as OB or lost?

For me, if I saw the disc enter the water completely, I would tend to call it OB (or casual), if I didn't see it then it would be a lost disc. Remember even a lost discs lie is not marked where you "think" it went, it is where you "last saw" it.

...could not come to agreement on the question of whether there should be a lost disc penalty applied to those that could not find their disc.



Just curious, what COULD be a ruling besides 803.10[B], placing an appproximate lie 'where last seen'?

If the group could actually see during the throw where the disc disappeared into the ditch, then I would say no penalty. It's similar to our 'no lost disc' penalty in the winter if your group sees where your drive dove into the snow but you can't find it. However, if your group can't see throws that might go in the ditch, you wouldn't know that it was in there if you can't find it. So, you would get a penalty and need to mark it where last seen which could be where it disappears from view on a turnover, let's say.

This brings up an issue that also needs to be clarified in the next revision and that pertains to spotters in your group. Just like the rules say the group has to help find a lost disc, should the rules require that players in the group spot for a player if requested? That could be important in cases like this where the lie for a potential lost disc might be marked.

Slow NFL Sat night eh, Chuck?

Rooting for a double underdog win today but my T-Wolves are struggling.

Now here's my question My Hero. Did you possibly mean "superseding"?

LOL. I'm just glad i didn't throw into the casual abyss that caused a lot of people grief.

Problem fixed. Now it looks like everyone else misspelled it.

It's still 'superceding' which is going to show up in a search, Hero...forever. :D

Spelling Stud

D'Oh! Just like my 2nd to 6th place slide today. :confused:

I'm just hoping a guy with a belly like that isn't out there 'superseeding'...

I've been 'supereating' lately...

So even though the disc is lost in a very specific small area and not in a large undefined area of forest it should be treated differently ?

Is there any wording in the rules to back that up or just the concept that lost disc means a disc that flew so far off the course that it can't be found ?

This is my concern regarding the need for a Lost Disc definition in the Glossary. I can think of three levels of 'lostness.' Should each be handled the same way in our rules?

1) You can see the disc but can't currently get to it because it's too high, too deep (water), too risky (bees/cliff).

2) The disc is not visible but you, the group and/or spotter saw clearly where and what it disappeared into.

3) The disc is not visible and no one in the group has a clue where it really is.

This is my concern regarding the need for a Lost Disc definition in the Glossary. I can think of three levels of 'lostness.' Should each be handled the same way in our rules?

1) You can see the disc but can't currently get to it because it's too high, too deep (water), too risky (bees/cliff).

2) The disc is not visible but you, the group and/or spotter saw clearly where and what it disappeared into.

3) The disc is not visible and no one in the group has a clue where it really is.



Between 2 and 3 there are a variety of shades of certainty or uncertainty. And then there is 4: Two members of your group are equally certain they know right where it went and they are looking in radically unrelated locations.

5) I forgot about psychic locators, too :D

Clarifying question: Gary, if it had been OB water, would you have declared the shot as OB or lost?

who gives a crap? thats not the question. your question is not "clarifying", it is confusing the straightfoward question that gary posed

1) You can see the disc but can't currently get to it because it's too high, too deep (water), too risky (bees/cliff).

certainly not lost, not not retrievable. no lost disc penalty.


2) The disc is not visible but you, the group and/or spotter saw clearly where and what it disappeared into.

lost disc penalty, play it where last seen. this one is the most clear in the rules.


3) The disc is not visible and no one in the group has a clue where it really is.

definitely lost disc with penalty. gotta group decide where it was last seen and play from there. if that happens to be 20M in front of the teepad, then so be it.

2) lost disc penalty, play it where last seen. this one is the most clear in the rules.




No. I believe this is specifically the problem scenario. If it lands in a casual relief area, especially a hazardous one, then the bias is toward no penalty. So, if you get no penalty in hazardous casual relief, why not in any casual relief area?

LOL. This is great.

Obviously we need the rules to be a little more clear. Better yet, why don't we just keep the disc in plain sight, in the middle of the fairway, under 2 meters. :D

And for Nick, Forget about defining the "playing surface!" :D

I could be wrong but I am not getting the explanation that made it clear to me from your discussion. I was the TD that had to deal with this and here is what I was told that made it clear to me. That being, in order to play it as casual you must know where the disc is to mark the casual relief.

Here is another example tat should make it clear, if you are playing a hole and your disc lands in a tree and it is up say 15 to 20 feet. You and your group search and the disc is not found. The 2M rule has been suspended and you are not OB, but if you can't find the disc how do you make your casual relief? You can't there fore it is a lost disc and not eligible for relief

2) lost disc penalty, play it where last seen. this one is the most clear in the rules.




No. I believe this is specifically the problem scenario. If it lands in a casual relief area, especially a hazardous one, then the bias is toward no penalty. So, if you get no penalty in hazardous casual relief, why not in any casual relief area?



if you cannot see it, you do not know its in casual relief area. you might know that you saw it disappear into casual relief, but that puppy is lost. i believe brian made the correct call.

now, if its a huge casual relief area and the TD issues an instruction to play discs that are last seen entering that area with no lost disc penalty, then fine.

i guess the question is does the lost disc or casual relief rule apply. the tendency should be to give benefit of doubt to the player in grey areas (and believe me, that water was grey!), but a) doubt existed regarding the discs final resting place, and b) no doubt existed that it was lost. in this case, the certainty trumps the uncertainty, and benefit of the doubt does not apply.

if you cannot see it, you do not know its in casual relief area.



That isn't true and that's the specific statement in item 2). I realize there are several degrees of uncertainty between 2) and 3) as mentioned by Bruce. I played an event where there was a spotter near a bee hive surrounded by poison ivy declared a casual relief area, but the boundary was too big to be marked. Several discs went into this that could not be seen but the spotter saw them land within say 3 feet accuracy. No lost disc penalty was assessed. Discs were retrieved later by a brave soul.

on hole #15, my shot slid into the black hole after hitting a tree near the basket. I could not see my disc in the water, but played it from behind where I thought it went into the water. After throwing my upshot and taking my 3, I looked for my disc while others were finishing the hole. It only took aboiut a minuet, but I found my disc in about 1 1/2 foot deep and about 1 foot out from the edge. (boy that water was cold, and my arm and hand were red after I found it)

Luckly, no one in either group that played that hole lost a disc.

But in the second round, one guy in our group threw over the trees on #6. The spotter said the disc went right over the basket. The group on the tee box from #7 told us all different things. One guy said it was just behind the basket, another said it went into the creek and yet another said it flew all the way over the creek.

We looked for about 5 min before declaring the disc lost. The question is, where do you mark it. Some said behind the basket where the spotter last saw it. I thought it should be marked a meter in from the water, because that was the only place left we did not look. (water was deep and dirty)

We wound up marking it as a lost disc about 1/2 way between the basket and the creek. (he then canned the 50ft uphill putt)

The question is, where do you mark it.

Depends on whether or not the spotter was acting at the direction of the TD: if the spotter was empowered by the TD for that purpose, the spotter's ruling trumps that of the group (804.09.D); if not, it's the group's decision (803.10.B).

803.00[C]. Appeals:
(1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower. However, any player may seek the ruling of an official, and the official's ruling shall supersede the group's ruling.

It doesn't actually say it, but after an official is consulted, the "benefit of doubt" part no longer applies, right?

...and the player can STILL throw a provisional, right right? :confused:

...what if that official happens to be the TD, the one who will make the ultimate decision...wouldn't the provisional be redundant?

803.00[C]. Appeals:
(1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower. However, any player may seek the ruling of an official, and the official's ruling shall supersede the group's ruling.

It doesn't actually say it, but after an official is consulted, the "benefit of doubt" part no longer applies, right?

Only in the sense that granting benefit of doubt is not mandatory in making official rulings. OTOH, there is nothing in the rules that prevents an official from granting benefit of doubt when asked to make a ruling.


...and the player can STILL throw a provisional, right right? :confused:

Yes:
803.00.C(3) ... The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where the thrower questions the group's or official's rulings.




...what if that official happens to be the TD, the one who will make the ultimate decision...wouldn't the provisional be redundant?

Not necessarily: a TD who is also competing may wish to suspend final judgment until s/he has had a chance to consult with other certified officials after the round, especially if the ruling occurs within his/her division. (Also, by rule(804.09.D), officials are prohibited from officiating for rulings within their own division, but as the "court of final appeal," TDs may find themselves in a position where they are forced to make just such a ruling. I am also aware of one tournament at which the TD who planned to compete intentionally chose an assistant TD from another division who would have handle appeals within the TD's division, had they been necessary; and I suspect that no small part of the motivation for establishing the Marshal program was to avoid just such dilemmas.) And even in situations where a TD makes a ruling outside of her/his division (or is not even competing), s/he may consider it prudent to consult other certified officials before making a final determination.

:cool:

OK, I've got a general leaning toward "If it disappeared into a casual relief area then there is no penalty" versus a clear reading of the rules that says there is a penalty.

I'd have to go with the clear reading versus the non-commital leaning. The lost disc penalty does not have to be lost over OB of anything else the would cost a stroke. If it is lost, it is lost and gets a penalty. I got a lost disc penalty the last time I played Live Oak. There was a patch of unmowed grass 10' by 20' between 2 fairways. Everyone on my card saw my disc land in the tall grass. Everyone on my card trampled all of that grass down looking for my disc. It was not found. We all had a very clear idea of where it landed. It was an overhead shot and was coming almost straight down. The disc was lost, I took a penalty, end of discussion.

Why is this different, or should I have not taken a penalty for losing a disc in a non-OB area ?

I think the difference has to do with whether you and the group have the reasonable option to look for the disc at that time. The casual examples I gave all required a risky, wet or time consuming venture into the area where casual relief was granted. So, no searching would be done or be 'required.' In your case, it was 'confirmed' as lost by the searching process in a non-casual area.

Clarifying question: Gary, if it had been OB water, would you have declared the shot as OB or lost?

who gives a crap? thats not the question. your question is not "clarifying", it is confusing the straightfoward question that gary posed



Obviously I give a crap, and obviously I think it is related. What got caught in your digestive track today?

I guess that's where we differ. Is it the option of the player to assume it went in the casual area and play it that way without searching for it?

Also, where is the mark if the disc can't be seen ?

If the lost disc rules had to be used to mark the lie, it follows (at least to me) that the lost disc penalty would be appropriate.

I'm not really trying to be difficult, but I would like a clear determination on the call for future reference. I like to be clear in my answers when asked after the round to help make determinations as I was in this case.

Entering a casual "dry" area is different than entering a casual wet area, same with OB areas. The distinction is made within our rules as follows:


803.00 GENERAL
E. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.



It is not fair to issue a "lost disc" penalty when you know that the disc entered the water, as soon as it does, it's status changes to OB or qualifying for casual relief. This is different than seeing a disc enter a tree, where it is possible that it exited the tree unseen, it is not possible that the disc will completely exit the water after it's motion is altered by the action of the water.

Now if it is not seen to enter the water "at all" by anyone, then there is no conclusive evidence that it did enter the water(a splash would even qualify IMO).

Oh, and Pat, that goes to the relevance and clarifying nature of my question. :p

If it's not apparent, I'm agreeing that the definition of 'lost disc' is still slippery. I'm just mentioning the casual scenarios where it seems 'wrong' to apply the lost disc penalty. As far as marking the lie, that's why I strongly recommend that TDs mark drop zones for casual relief areas that are large enough or hazardous enough where discs might disappear from view.

Also, where is the mark if the disc can't be seen ?



If the disc was "seen" to enter the water, the mark is as follows:


803.04 OBSTACLES &amp; RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water... 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:
(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). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.



If it is an OB area see OB rules.

(for water ob or casual only) You would use the spot where the disc entered the water, that is the "original lie".

Again this is different than dry OB or casual areas.

That is my point, The sight lines on the hole do not allow the player to see the shot enter the water, but even if you do see the disc enter the water, the marking rules for casual relief (in the absence of a drop zone) require locating the disc to establish LOP.

If the disc can not be located, then have to use the lost disc rules (last place seen) to estblish a lie.

There is a difference between knowing where your disc is, but deciding not to retreive it and being confident of the general area where your disc is but not being able to find it.

That is my point, The sight lines on the hole do not allow the player to see the shot enter the water, but even if you do see the disc enter the water, the marking rules for casual relief (in the absence of a drop zone) require locating the disc to establish LOP.



Gary, no it does not. If you saw where it entered the water, that spot is where you mark the LOP from. That is the "original lie".

I think you are on to something though as concerns dry casual areas though, where the location of the original lie must be specified by where the disc actually came to rest. In that case, the disc would be lost. I'd like to see the rule changed to act 100% similarly to OB relief and determination of lie (last place in bounds, throw and distance or drop zone. This would both simplify and clarify our rules I believe.

I just said that you can't see the water from the Tee just the ditch.

And where the disc entered the water (event if that could be seen accurately) is not where the disc came to rest from it's own momentum (the casual water is standing water and has no current with which to move discs). I am not sure what rule you are getting the point of entry into the casual area as the proper point to determine LOP, but the wording of the casual relief rule does not allow for that interpretation.

if you cannot see it, you do not know its in casual relief area.



That isn't true and that's the specific statement in item 2). I realize there are several degrees of uncertainty between 2) and 3) as mentioned by Bruce. I played an event where there was a spotter near a bee hive surrounded by poison ivy declared a casual relief area, but the boundary was too big to be marked. Several discs went into this that could not be seen but the spotter saw them land within say 3 feet accuracy. No lost disc penalty was assessed. Discs were retrieved later by a brave soul.



I don't think you can say it isn't true that a disc "missing" in a casual relief area is there. Here's why; I have had numerous cases where I threw a disc into the schule. I knew it was there, I saw it go in. I dug in, looked for 15 minutes, crawled out and found the disc 20 feet away in a completely different area. The eye can deceive. Unless you can see the disc, you can't with all certainty say it is there. I fully admit there are cases where a spotter can say with full certainty that a disc is within a small area, however, a spotter is not a universal case. I think a better example is the case where a disc must come to rest in the basket. You might feel the disc has landed in the basket and then fallen out but you can't be sure. Therefore the rule reads that the disc must come to rest in the basket. This is the same; unless you can guarantee in every case that the location of the disc is well know you have to structure any rule around this issue as if you don't know. For simplicity the best structure is to assume you don't know. If you have several rules then you are going to have an argument. "I know my disc is in position X vs. I saw your disc skip over the casual water into position Y.

Based on this I don't think the lost disc rule is slippery any more than I feel the disc in the basket rule is slippery. Either you can see the disc or you can't.

I just said that you can't see the water from the Tee just the ditch.

And where the disc entered the water (event if that could be seen accurately) is not where the disc came to rest from it's own momentum (the casual water is standing water and has no current with which to move discs). I am not sure what rule you are getting the point of entry into the casual area as the proper point to determine LOP, but the wording of the casual relief rule does not allow for that interpretation.



You may be correct. I stand by my statement that there is no need for handling casual obstacles or areas differently than OB. One entails a penalty stroke, the other not.

If you couldn't see the disc enter the water and you can't find it, then it is a lost disc.

Water by it's very nature will stop the momentum of a 180 gram disc within a foot of entering it, particularly near the end of it's flight. Wherever that momentum is stopped and the action of the water (which need not be "the current") takes over is where the "original lie" is. It is like a disc coming to rest on the playing surface and then being blown 30 feet away. You return it to it's original lie because the action of wind and water on a disc at rest can not move the lie (except in special situations like above 2 meters or in the basket - which are not likely to be affected by water - I hope, though I did have this dream one time... :o)

I stand by my statement that there is no need for handling casual obstacles or areas differently than OB. One entails a penalty stroke, the other not.



Except for the marking of the next lie. OB gives the player the option of marking the lie where the disc was last over IB territory, the casual relief rules do not allow for this.

This is the only reason I would lean toward the lost disc rule. This is the only rule that provides a means of determining a lie for the next shot. Now if I can get a firm declaration that knowing whether the disc is in this murky water 35' from the basket or it slid/skipped to this area 15' from the basket is not important and there should be no penalty applied event if the exact location of the disc is unknown then I will be happy with that and use it in the future. I haven't gotten that from this discussion.

Hate to be dense and perhaps I am misunderstanding but are you suggesting that the disc be treated as lost thus placing it in the last position seen but since it disappeared casual you treat it as such? If so, I don't like that solution because again you don't know in all cases that the disc has remained in bounds. If you treat it as a lost disc then everything is equivacal. Everyone gets the same treatment, it's a lost disc unless you can see it.

This may already have been said but what is the difference between a disc lost in bounds, out of bounds, or in casual water? It's lost. I agree with slo, in casual water you have 3 minutes to find the disc and if you can't then it's lost. It's just your bad throw that put it there.

In the case Chuck mentions I tend to treat that as a stroke also. If I throw into a hornets nest I have a dangerous lie. I move back and take my stroke. I have the choice of playing the lie where it is but am stupid to do so just as in any dangerous lie. I understand Chuck's point that you are harshly punishing someone who throws in a marsh but that is a bad design. If you have an area that can't be crossed to find a disc it should be out of bounds. If the margin is undefined then you use rope, paint, string etc. If you can walk in and look for your disc then you have three minutes. If it is lost then you throw from the last seen position. If that is knee deep in a marsh then you throw from there.

We suffer from this problem greatly in Houston. All of our courses are built in areas that flood when it rains. This is how we've played it in every case that I've been exposed to. I've seen guys get stroked throwing into large mud puddles, including myself.

You're still stuck with an undetermined rule precedent to avoid compound penalties that needs to be resolved. If your disc is lost having last been seen over OB, the OB rule takes precedence and you get a 1-throw penalty for OB, not for being lost. If the same lost disc happens over a casual relief marsh, shouldn't the casual relief ruling take precedence over lost disc in the same way? In which case, if the casual area had a drop zone where you could go with no penalty, the lost disc penalty wouldn't count. If you don't agree with this assumption of precedence, since it's not in the rules, then how about rule about 'benefit to the player' which would still grant them the least penalizing option.

In the case where, there's a large casual relief area with no drop zone, you could end up with a 3-shot peanlty if you have a lost disc in the middle and it takes more than 10m to get back to the LOP dry lie. If the disc is visible out there, then it would only be a 2-shot penalty.

It dosen't make sense that the scenario of "a throw lands in the middle of a casual relief area" be treated differently regardless what the status of the thrown disc is in the middle of it, lost or not. It's bad enough that some TDs currently might not recognize the wide ranging difference in penalties that could arise if they designate a drop zone or not, independent of the lost disc issue.

Lyle,

That's pretty much what I am saying except for the hornet's nest which is specifically declared as a casual obstacle in the rules (803.04.C).

Chuck.
Except in this case, you are not sure from the tee if you are in the casual area or not or even exactly where you went into the casual area. Since the caasual area crosses from one side of the fairway to the other, and then on to OB just beyond the basket, it is possible to drop from sight over the casual area and skip OB.

But all of that is really beside the point. If there is a drop zone for anything in the casual area, then the drop zone is the spot. No need to locate the lost disc. The TD has declared anything in a large area casual and provided a method to mark the lie. But in the case of a narrow linear casual area (running parrallel to the fairway) with no drop zone, the exact location of the disc has signifcant impact on how the hole is played.

We know that the disc was moving toward the casual area when last seen and probably came to rest within it since the disc is not readily visible anywhere else, but does that exempt it from the lost disc and casual spotting rules ?

This is why I'd love to see a revision where casual areas are played the same way as OB, minus the penalty throw.

And yes, bees and harmful animal relief would need to be included elsewhere. But it would simplify our rules by 3 or 4 paragraphs at least and eliminate this particular confusing or gray area.

I think I understand what you're saying Chuck, and hopefully I'm not simply repeating what Gary and Nick said if I say that I like OB taking precedence over lost disc, but I prefer lost disc over casual relief. I agree with you that regardless of which way that gets defined you have to write it into the rules.

I prefer that lost disc take precedence over casual relief because my belief has always been that the lost disc rule's goal was to enhance the speed of play. If casual relief takes precedence, then you lose that aspect of the lost disc rule.

But there are casual relief areas where looking for your disc in the 3 minutes isn't safe by definition. Are you willing to risk the liability for encouraging players to enter unsafe area to save a 1-throw lost disc penalty?

But there are casual relief areas where looking for your disc in the 3 minutes isn't safe by definition. Are you willing to risk the liability for encouraging players to enter unsafe area to save a 1-throw lost disc penalty?

The concept of 'unsafe casual relief areas' is puzzling. Call me gentrified, but I don't see that where I usually play. I'm not saying there aren't, but it seems any unsafe lie calls for the unsafe lie ruling.

...but then I'm still stuck on lost=lost, too. I'm going to go sit in the back, now, and not get in anyone's way...

<font size=-4>...I have a second-hand apron...</font>

No, I would mark them OB and forbid entry. We have that exact problem here. At Tom Bass Regional Park there are several ponds that have snakes and nasty things in them. It is supposed to be a DQ if you are caught in one. For sure the Park Police will ticket you. Of course people go into them but at their own risk.

BTW Chuck. Someone went into one of our ponds a year ago at Texas States and almost died from the infection he got. You can't make everyone utilize common sense but you get mark off unsafe areas.

I also wouldn't have a problem with those areas being declared special off limits areas with or without a drop zone and no penalty as long as method to determine the next lie was provided. It is just something that the TD/course designer must take into account before the tournament starts.

It would be a case of knowing your disc was over there, but you are not permitted to search for it. In that case you should not be charged a lost disc penalty.

The marsh areas we are talking about are too large 0.25-0,75 acre to mark and the water/land boundaries are too ill-defined to be used as a PDGA valid OB demarcation. The cost would be prohibitive to permanently mark them. And even if it were attempted, players will be ticked off when a marked line is 25 feet from the current water/land mushy area as the water level rises and falls during the season and even during the day (which I suspect you've seen happen on the course in Houston).

Casual relief with a drop zone is the best option with no lost disc penalty. I'm saying this should be standardized within the rules in some fashion because there are areas where walking to retrieve may put some at risk.

Sounds like a wetlands area. Don't let the EPA see it or you won't be able to tramp in there to look for discs anymore.

Some might be but at least one is a holding area for storm drain runoff. The others are in an active use park area with this same disc golf course for at least 25 years so something would have been said by now if it were a problem.

O.K., now I'm starting to understand the difficulty of your marshes... It is still a little hard to envision without seeing it since our parks literally become a marsh when it rains. We simply slog through in our dry, heh heh, socks. Just to make sure I understand, the solution then is to create a rule to be used at the discretion of the TD that allows for the treatment of certain dangerous/casual areas as a casual only area and provide a drop zone; and in those specific cases the casual rule supercedes the lost disc rule. Is this correct and if so would a player be required to circle the casual area to make sure his/her disc stayed in that area?

The marsh areas we are talking about are too large 0.25-0,75 acre to mark and the water/land boundaries are too ill-defined to be used as a PDGA valid OB demarcation. The cost would be prohibitive to permanently mark them. And even if it were attempted, players will be ticked off when a marked line is 25 feet from the current water/land mushy area as the water level rises and falls during the season and even during the day (which I suspect you've seen happen on the course in Houston).




We don't permanently mark these areas for the same reason that you don't... although you could make the argument that the judicious use of artificial lakes can make a course more effective. What is done here is that on tourney days someone goes out with ribbon or spray paint and marks the current edge. This takes some doing I agree, but is a normal part of course preparation that is under-appreciated by the players.

Is this correct and if so would a player be required to circle the casual area to make sure his/her disc stayed in that area?




Players still take their full 3 minutes to find their disc since they don't want to lose it. And if they find it, they may prefer to play from its location in the mush/mud/water rather than go back to the drop zone, even without a penalty.

Alright, I'm about half sold. :D What happens if they opt to look and the disc can't be found. Seems like you might be giving a player an advantage, look and if you don't find declare it casual and throw from the drop zone.

In the larger areas, sometimes there's a 1-throw penalty, regardless whether a disc is lost or not, to play from the drop zone. Thus, if a player finds their disc, they can choose to wade in there to play it without penalty or play from the drop zone with penalty. For these hazards, the drop zone is much closer to the hole than on the no penalty ones.

Sounds like a wetlands area. Don't let the EPA see it or you won't be able to tramp in there to look for discs anymore.



But building refineries and developments are fine. Pull-ease.

Sounds like a wetlands area. Don't let the EPA see it or you won't be able to tramp in there to look for discs anymore.



But building refineries and developments are fine. Pull-ease.


Disc golf players have been abusing their 3-minute allotment for searching for lost discs by instead building refineries and developments in wetland areas?

That's just wrong. Maybe we do need to tighten up the rules a bit.

Okay....this has come up twice in the last few months at local minis.

Lets say a bunch of branches and sticks are in your lie, impeding your stance. And lets say that one, or more of these branches extends outward and is in between you and the basket, yet on the ground. Are you allowed to remove all of the sticks/branches in order to take a stance? Or must you leave the stick or two that is penetrating outward in between you and the basket....even though it is on the ground far away from being in the line of flight?

Which rule supersedes the other. The stance rule, or the Do not remove anything in between you and the basket rule?

I hope i helped make the right call.

I personally don't touch anything in between me and the basket, even if its in my stance, whether it be on the ground, or way up in a tree, ....etc.

My impression is that you are correct: if part of the stick is closer to the basket than your lie, then the stick cannot be moved.

in the words of John Houck "if it was there before you threw your disc, it stays where it is"

in the words of John Houck "if it was there before you threw your disc, it stays where it is"



unless it's in your stance and doesn't petrude outward in between you and the basket. :D :p

John, How exactly does the branches on the ground conflict with not being able to move those that stretch between the lie and the basket ?

Any debris that you are moving on the course is a casual obstacle (or else you are not allowed to move it in any case). As a casual obstacle, all parts of 803.04.C apply. Since the obstacle is between your lie and the basket, it can not be moved. Therefore 803.04.C.2 comes into play <font color="blue">"... 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, ..."</font>. It is impractical to move the obstacle because doing so would be a violation of the rules.

................X...............


............/
.......... /
..........o
........ /
........./


"x" is the target
"o" is the mini
"/" are all connected and represent a large stick

From the Website Rule Q&A


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

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard




In your drawing John, the player would either play it from the mini or hope the branch isn't 5 meters long as measured from the mini to the end furthest from the basket.

This concludes "Discraft's....You Make The Call"

Looks like i made the right call both times. It's pretty simple really....YOU CANT TOUCH ANYTHING THAT IS IN BETWEEN YOU AND THE TARGET.....even if half of it is in your stance and behind you. :D

This concludes "Discraft's....You Make The Call"

Looks like i made the right call both times. It's pretty simple really....YOU CANT TOUCH ANYTHING THAT IS IN BETWEEN YOU AND THE TARGET.....even if half of it is in your stance and behind you. :D



Silly Hero, of course you can move things that are between you and the basket. Sometimes, you can even break branches!

Yours truly,
Pete Middlecamp - Team Discraft ;)

Ouch. :D

Tony or someone, could y'all give examples of where someone could relocate (within 5m, no closer, etc) if moving the obstacle is impractical? If there is a log in their stance and they couldn't move it, I have always been under the impression that was tough, and they best play it from there.

This concludes "Discraft's....You Make The Call"

Looks like i made the right call both times. It's pretty simple really....YOU CANT TOUCH ANYTHING THAT IS IN BETWEEN YOU AND THE TARGET.....even if half of it is in your stance and behind you. :D



Silly Hero, of course you can move things that are between you and the basket. Sometimes, you can even break branches!

Yours truly,
Pete Middlecamp - Team Discraft ;)




Pete,

The funny thing about the 2 players that were arguing about which rule supersedes the other was.......The stick in question only pertuded 4 inches in front of the mini. :D As the mediator, i made the right call....even though it was only 4 inches, it's still in between the player and the basket. Silly Newbies....Tricks are for whores. :eek:

If there is a log in their stance and they couldn't move it, I have always been under the impression that was tough, and they best play it from there.




I agree James. I didn't know that it was considered "casual" just b/c it's debris. :confused:

Ouch. :D

Tony or someone, could y'all give examples of where someone could relocate (within 5m, no closer, etc) if moving the obstacle is impractical? If there is a log in their stance and they couldn't move it, I have always been under the impression that was tough, and they best play it from there.



Big freakin' brushpiles, large (half-the-tree) branches.

Is that the rule that Gary Duke quoted a page back?

It's weird, but I would never allow anyone to move back from a brush pile or a big limb, strictly because I see it as something that can be moved, even though the player may not have the time or muscle. I'm not saying you're wrong, cause you're probably right, but the only instance I have ever seen this rule used was for a car (but first the player must attempt to remove it). ;)

John, How exactly does the branches on the ground conflict with not being able to move those that stretch between the lie and the basket ?

Any debris that you are moving on the course is a casual obstacle (or else you are not allowed to move it in any case). As a casual obstacle, all parts of 803.04.C apply. Since the obstacle is between your lie and the basket, it can not be moved. Therefore 803.04.C.2 comes into play <font color="blue">"... 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, ..."</font>. It is impractical to move the obstacle because doing so would be a violation of the rules.



100% accurate. No grey area.

There are 2 basic types of obstacles, casual and everything else. The type relief granted depends on the type of obstacle. If it is casual, it may be moved unless it extends into an area between the mark and the target. If it can not be moved, relief is granted up to 5m on line of play.

A partial list of casual obstacles are listed in 803.04.C

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.



In the everything else category, we have large solid obstacles that prevent taking a legal stance. With these, the lie is marked as normal, but the stance is taken immediately behind the large obstacle on LOP. There is no distance limit listed in the rule.


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.



It is questionable whether a tree that has fallen is considered a branch that is no longer connected (to the roots), and obstacle to run-up, or as a solid obstacle.

In the first case (casual obstacle) you are allowed to reposition up to 5m back along LOP.

In the second case (obstacle to run up) you are not allowed any relief.

In the third (solid obstacle) you are allowed to take a stance directly behind the obstacle.

Lets say a bunch of branches and sticks are in your lie, impeding your stance. And lets say that one, or more of these branches extends outward and is in between you and the basket, yet on the ground. Are you allowed to remove all of the sticks/branches in order to take a stance? Or must you leave the stick or two that is penetrating outward in between you and the basket....even though it is on the ground far away from being in the line of flight?


In my experience, this is one of the most common causes of rule confusion during tourneys. I even had a then-current BOD member in another group get this wrong at Worlds in Iowa. (The Course TD also was clueless about how this rule works.) His group got worked up into such a frenzy that I was almost jumped in the parking lot after the round.

And I considered the call so blatantly obvious that it just had to be called.

Attention TD's


What would you do in this situation? A scorecard is turned in without the score recorded for hole 18. The Total score is correct and there is a player from the card present to attest to the accuracy of the total score, however the actual player is not present. What action would you take?

The Total score is correct and there is a player from the card present to attest to the accuracy of the total score, however the actual player is not present.



Technically, the total score isn't correct since it can't be confirmed by looking at the scorecard as turned in without a score for hole 18. Should be 2-throw penalty for incorrect score due to incomplete scorecard. The other player(s) can confirm what the correct score is so the TD knows what score to add the 2-throw penalty to.

There's a sudden death playoff. Player 1 aces. Player two missed an ace. Does player two have to hole out?

No. He couldn't better the score of the player that holed out.

There is not a definate answer Chuck. It is up to the TD's discretion. Here is what the rules committe says.

<font color="red"> Here are three examples of how a TD could handle this situation under the current rules:

1) TD notices that there are only scores listed for 16 (for example) holes on the card. It is an 18 hole course. The TD notices the total score (let's say it is 54). The 16 scores listed total 48. It seems obvious to the TD that the scorer(s) forgot to card two of the hole scores. The TD then gathers the group, recreates the two holes and adds these two scores (3s in both cases, let's say) to the incomplete card. The total of the hole scores now matches the listed total of 54. No penalty because the TD is a nice guy.

2) TD notices that there are only scores listed for 16 (for example) holes on the card. It is an 18 hole course. The TD notices the total score (let's say it is 54). The 16 scores listed total 48. It seems obvious to the TD that the scorer(s) forgot to card two of the hole scores. However, the TD knows that it is each player's responsibility to check their own card to make sure that the individual hole scores and the total score are accurate. Since the player did not do this, the TD arbitrarily decides to levy a (fill in the number of penalty throws you'd like here!) stroke penalty. A penalty of the TD's choosing because the rules do not expressly list the appropriate penalty nor do the rules prohibit the TD from levying a penalty.

3) TD notices that there are only scores listed for 16 (for example) holes on the card. It is an 18 hole course. The TD notices the total score (let's say it is 54). The 16 scores listed total 48. It seems obvious to the TD that the scorer(s) forgot to card two of the hole scores. However, the golfer did indeed sign the card so he has signed an incorrect card. The TD then gathers the group, recreates the two holes and adds these two scores (3s in both cases, let's say) to the incomplete card. The total of the hole scores now matches the listed total of 54. But the player has signed for an incorrect total score. So two penalty throws are added and the golfer gets a 56 for the round. A two throw penalty given for an incorrectly totaled card.

</font>

According to option three you would be incorrect Chuck.

Playoff question:
No, the acing player won the hole when player 2 could not better or tie his score thus ending the playoff.


Score question:
Chuck, I agreed with that take on the rules. Until I re-read that rule this weekend. The Q&A is undecided.

The Rules Q&A list three different actions that the TD can take varying from no penalty to as many as he can justify.

The one thing that I would like to point out is that a player can't stop playing in the middle of a round and start taking par+4 on holes they don't complete. The scores of par+4 are only applicable to players that do not start a round(804.02).

I looked and didn't see the Q&A since I was looking for something under the word Scoring Error not Missing Scores. Regardless, the RC implies that turning in the card without signature is not the same as turning it in with a sig. I believe the rule indicates they are the same thing, unless the card was turned in by another player in the group without my consent to check the scores first. If the card goes in with my acceptance and no signature, it's as if I signed it, and in the example for this thread, the player should get a 2-shot penalty for correct score plus 2. Since the player in this example left, you could instead consider the 2-shot penalty for a late scorecard since presumably, he wouldn't be back until after lunch to confirm the scores. Either way, a 2-throw penalty seems like the appropriate call.

I don't see how a signed card is different from a non-signed card either.

I seem to remember reading wording at one point that said the scorekeeper was to put the score of each hole on the card and then the total of the listed scores was entered on the card. Was this ever there?

With that wording, any combination of missing holes/total score would lead to a clear penalty in all cases.

1) The total of the listed scores is incorrect (though the total for the round is correct).
2) The total of the listed scores is correct, but the total for the round is incorrect (once the missed holes are added back in),
3) The total for the listed scores is incorrect, and the total for the round is incorrect (misadded).

Without that wording there is an ambiguity.