When landing in a pond that is casual water and you don't want to go into the water and play from your lie, don't you have to play from directly behind the disc? Or can you take your lie left or right of the pond as long as it's no closer to the basket?

I dont know. Does this question have anything to do with you losing to Scott Slater this weekend at No Foolin :o

Within 5 meters on the Line of Play or (at the area designated by the TD)

803.04 C (2)

DGRZ's will correct me, I'm sure....

I dont know. Does this question have anything to do with you losing to Scott Slater this weekend at No Foolin :o



No, I believe that has to do with the fact that I played like complete s*** :p er I mean I blame it on the wind . . . . ya thats it!

This has something to do with me and Al Schack losing a tournament by 2 strokes to a guy who thinks you can move a lie left or right of casual water instead of directly behind it. I tried looking in the rule book for this situation but I couldn't find a clear answer. Just wondering what the 'offical' ruling is.

Casual relief is on the LOP. No left or right allowed.

Without looking to make sure I'm right...

Casual relief MUST be on the line of play and within 5 meters; I'm pretty sure there is no provision for "the area designated by the TD.

Amendment: I decided to look it up after all. The rule says "unless greater casual relief is announced by the director." Without a contrary interpretation from a rules committee member I would assume that this means the TD may allow more than five meters of relief (unseasonably heavy rains and bad drainage have resulted in a 7 meter wide puddle that isn't supposed to be a hazard, maybe? I don't know...) but NOT that the TD may allow casual relief that is not along the LOP.

...Alternatively, the player may take a 1 stroke penalty to declare an Unsafe Lie, allowing relocation within 5 meters and no closer to the hole, or a 2 stroke penalty to declare an Unplayable Lie and play from anywhere on the fairway and no closer to the hole.

A Drop Zone can be specified by the TD for casual relief areas, similar to OB, but with no penalty. See 804.01 B and definition of Drop Zone in Glossary.

Thanks. However...in that situation, it appears to me that, if one wished to be precise, a Special Condition involving a Drop Zone is not -technically- casual relief, which leads me to wonder whether the phrase I quoted from the casual relief rule refers to Special Conditions or whether it does actually mean that a TD can specify extended casual relief on the LOP. I've actually thought of a case where this could be useful, too...I've played a few courses that have creek beds that are played as casual water when they are not dry, but there are places where they run toward or away from the pin for more than 15 feet.

I actually was in a tournament recently with a player who had been under the impression that casual relief was taken where the disc entered the casual water/obstacle area, rather than on the LOP...I didn't even have to feel sorry for him when I pointed it out either, because the place he'd been going to take it was a worse lie. At least I think it was.

That reminds me, I need to figure out where my rulebook is...another guy in the group had one and I double-checked in his, but I thought I had mine in my bag, in a ziploc to keep it dry, and I don't think it's there anymore...maybe I should tuck it in with my Ript cards so they'll both be easier to find.

I tried looking in the rule book for this situation but I couldn't find a clear answer.

:confused: :confused: :confused:


803.04 Obstacles and Relief
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.
(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; <font color="red">is on the line of play</font>; 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.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.



What part of "is on the line of play" is unclear to you?

Well here is what happened at a tournament I played this weekend . . . . .

During the first round the TD announced that all water not connected to the main river was "casual water" this included a pond that was over 100' in length and several feet deep, keep in mind this is in MI and there was still a thin layer of ice. ( A bad call on the TDs part ) This pond was 10' behind one of the baskets. I threw my drive past the basket and about 10' into the water. Knowing that the casual water rule only allowed you to take relief directly behind the basket I decided to take off my shoes and socks and putt from the middle of the ice pond :) it was only about a 20' putt and made it without a problem, had I chose to take my relief I would have had to putt from the other side of the pond which was about 80' away. Then as we went to the next hole we watched the group behind us drive that hole. One of the guys happen to land right in the middle of the pond ( 30-40' ) away from the basket. However, he decided that he could take his lie directly left of where his disc had landed, but no closer to the basket. ( Pretty much the OB rule, he took it from the last spot it had went over land before it crossed into the water ) As we watched him mark his lie I told him he could not do that. He had to either walk into the pond and putt from his lie like I did or take the casual relief and putt from the other side of the pond. Al Schack was also there and also agreed that he could not putt from that lie. However, the other guys in his group thought that it was alright and told him he could putt from the lie 30� away from the basket. I told him he should at least take a provisional shot across the pond and ask the TD afterwards but he chose not to and continued to hole out for a birdie, then went on to the next hole. After the round, I went up to the TD and asked about the rule, he said he did not know the exact ruling. After about 5 minutes of 5-6 people arguing back and forth the TD came to the conclusion that it was an illegal shot and probably should be stroked, however the cards were already made out for the next round and he didn�t want to stroke him since the cards would get messed up. I thought that was unbelievable that a TD would declare it an illegal shot and not stroke the player, but whatever. We then played the next round and it turned out the guy won by 2 strokes over me and Al Schack. Now that Al realized it was a different between 1st and 2nd place he went back to the TD and told him that this was not fair and he should have been stroked. Then there was another 10 minutes of arguing between people and the TD came to the conclusion that it was a �group decision� and therefore made the shot ok, even though several other groups told them it was an illegal shot including a certified official ( me ). What should have happened in this situation?

1) Group Majority my *****. If the majority says I made an ace on a hole, does it actually mean I did?

2) The score should have been fixed. Plus since he didn't take a provisional, I think that means his score card was turned with the wrong score(hence another penalty).

3) The TD should know the rules.

4) Even though you are an official, you can't make rulings in your own division.

This is where many TDs get into trouble because they don't want to be Richard Head to any particular player and give them any penalty throws. Players know this and argue vehemently against penalty throws even when they know they should get them. The TD that caves to the player ends up screwing over the rest of the division, but frequently the other players on the offending players card don't want to make the call and also argue against the TD.

It's a crappy situation to be in.

As for the actual call....yes it should have been stroked. I would say two strokes for course misplay at least, with a possibility of DQ for intentionally circumventing the rules because the other group made the player aware of the correct rule. Almost.

In that situation the player does not get to go 80' to the other side of the pond. Casual relief is only 5 meters behind the lie on the LOP. Your description says that the TD declared the pond casual, but you didn't say anything about him declaring "extended relief". So if he didn't decalre extended relief, then you and the offending player had only two options: go in the water or else declare an unsafe lie. (5 meters behind the disc for casual relief is still in the water.) It also sounds like 5 meters to the side of either disc was also wet, so the true options were to get wet or else take a 2-throw unsafe lie penalty.

I also disagree with trying to get penalty strokes added after the competition was over. The time to argue was before the second round. If you let it go then, you can't really in good faith bring it back up after you find out that those strokes cost you position in the finish. The rules should be stood up for on their own merit, not just fo your own advantage. Once you let it go between rounds, you decided it wasn't improtant enough to fight for.

or else take a 2-throw unsafe lie penalty.




That's only a 1-throw penalty for up to 5 more meters, then 2 throws if the player wants to take a lie no closer to the basket in any direction from it. Don't forget to add the lost disc penalty if the group can't see the disc out there in the water.

It's unfortunate that the Rules Committee didn't place the optional use of a drop zone for casual relief directly in that section of the rules because it would save TDs from having to figure out they can do it by using the Special Conditions rule. I was behind the use of drop zones for casual relief because of our large marshes with ill-defined boundaries in MN. Here's an example where this TD and all TDs should be using drop zones for casual relief areas that are bigger than a puddle or wider than a gully.

or else take a 2-throw unsafe lie penalty.




That's only a 1-throw penalty for up to 5 more meters, then 2 throws if the player wants to take a lie no closer to the basket in any direction from it.



You should read and quote all the pertinent info from my post:

It also sounds like 5 meters to the side of either disc was also wet, so the true options were to get wet or else take a 2-throw unsafe lie penalty.


:)

Your post implied the 1-throw penalty was not an option and the lost disc also might have to be added.

No it didn't. :) The situation makes no sense for casual relief or 1-stroke unsafe lie because either of those options leaves your feet just as wet as simply playing from your lie. So the options were to take 2-stroke unsafe lie or get wet. :D

The original post indicated that the water might be several feet deep in the middle. However, it's possible 10m behind that position was not wet or only a few inches deep making it a better choice than a 2-throw penalty out to either the side.

The original post indicated that the water might be several feet deep in the middle. However, it's possible 10m behind that position was not wet or only a few inches deep making it a better choice than a 2-throw penalty out to either the side.


From the original post, the far edge of the pond was 100 feet from the basket. One throw was 10 feet from the close edge and the other was right in the middle of the pond. Therefore neither disc was within 5 meters (16 feet 5 inches) of the far edge and the disputed disc, that was thrown into the middle of this 40 foot radius pond, was not within 5 meters of any edge. Therefore taking casual relief or 1-stroke unsafe lie relocation would still make you get yout feet wet. And if you are going ot get your feet wet anyway, just throw from the lie.

You rerefence 10 meters in your post for no apparant reason, as 10 meters is not a measure that comes into play at all in this scenario. For the player to relocate 10 meters away, they would have to take 2-stroke unsafe lie relocation, which you are claiming moving 10 meters would be better than. :confused:

Chuck, it is perfectly okay for you to admit you are wrong. (Twice even, if you count the 10 meter thing.) :D

Here's a note for TD's in the future . . . when you have a pond, not a puddle. Make the water OB! It doesn't matter if the water is not usually there, it's there for the tournament and not going anywhere anytime soon. Also, this pond wasn't perfectly round. In one situation, a guy in my group would have had to play his lie nearly 150' backwards inorder to play directly inline with the basket and play on dry land had he not went into the water. The guy who won it however, had dry land within 5 meters left of his lie.

I also disagree with trying to get penalty strokes added after the competition was over. The time to argue was before the second round. If you let it go then, you can't really in good faith bring it back up after you find out that those strokes cost you position in the finish. The rules should be stood up for on their own merit, not just fo your own advantage. Once you let it go between rounds, you decided it wasn't improtant enough to fight for.

Not sure I agree, Rhett. Depends on what you mean by "competition." Rule 804.03.F(2) specifically permits penalty throws to be assessed at whatever time the infraction is discovered prior to the tournament officially being declared over or all awards have been distributed. (Presumably, the last clause allows the results to be revised if an infraction is discovered during the awards ceremony!)

I was talking about this case specifically, where the infraction was brougth to the TDs attention between rounds and the ruling made and discussion dropped. Then afterwards the guy in question beats another guy by a stroke or two and suddenly it's a huge deal again. My personal belief is that you argue for the proper call when it was originally brought up (at halftime in this case) and settle it then. Which they apparantly did.

If the infraction first comes to light afterwards, then that's different.

You rerefence 10 meters in your post for no apparant reason, as 10 meters is not a measure that comes into play at all in this scenario.



You don't win this one, Rhett. Player gets up to 5m on LOP then up to 5m more for unsafe lie with 1-shot penalty giving the player just under 10m on LOP behind place disc landed in the water. If water is waist high or more in the middle, it might not be more than a few inches deep within the last 15-20 feet of other side. I sure would be looking to see if this is feasible since I'd have my rubber boots on anyway vs take a 2-shot penalty off to the side. We already know it wasn't too deep 10-15 ft in where Chris took his shot by wading in the water but he might not have gone to the middle where it was deeper.

After the round, I went up to the TD and asked about the rule, he said he did not know the exact ruling. After about 5 minutes of 5-6 people arguing back and forth the TD came to the conclusion that it was an illegal shot and probably should be stroked, however the cards were already made out for the next round and he didn�t want to stroke him since the cards would get messed up. I thought that was unbelievable that a TD would declare it an illegal shot and not stroke the player, but whatever.



He did argue over this between rounds. But what are you supposed to do if the TD doesn't do anything about it? Sit there and argue until your face turns blue?

Son of a gun. I guess you really could relocate under casual relief to an unsafe lie and take 5 more meters. :) Except you would get 10 meters, not "almost 10 meters". :)

But on count number one you are still wrong, newly revealed details not withstanding.

That's an interesting twist, using the casual relief and unsafe lie rules together to gain additional relief. I wouldn't come into play very often, but I don't see anything to prevent it. I just wouldn't have thought to use it that way.

I have to agree with Rhett on the timing of the call. Once it was brought up and a ruling made by the TD, it is decided. That is the highest point of appeal available at the course.

I hear everyone refer to 1 and 2 shot penalty!! Is there actually a 2 shot penalty? Your initial throw is not counted as a penalty is it? please clarify!!

Prior to the Drop Zone rule, we had PDGA events where we had to assess a 3-throw penalty on occasion in a giant marsh that was too big to mark well defined boundaries for OB, so it was casual. One player put a disc above 2m in a tree in the middle of the marsh then had to take another 2-shot penalty to get out to the side. That scenario triggered my strong lobby for getting the drop zone rule included and being used for casual relief in these situations.

Read the text of the Unsafe Lie rule, E.

I'm still confused about that. Is there actually explicit provision for using a drop zone in conjunction with casual relief or is that an application of the Special Conditions rule and a separate issue? Is that what is meant by the TD specifying extended relief or does that in fact mean that a TD could allow casual relief to a greater distance but that it would still have to be on the line of play, as I interpreted it to begin with?

The TD can allow players to move back more than 5m without penalty but still on the LOP in a casual relief area.

The TD can declare what might normally be considered a casual relief area as a Special Conditions area and specify a drop zone. As I understand the Special Conditions rule, the player has no choice but to play from the drop zone if she lands in this area.

What I'd like to see is the drop zone option wording included in the casual relief section of the rules in the next update.

I was talking about this case specifically, where the infraction was brougth to the TDs attention between rounds and the ruling made and discussion dropped. Then afterwards the guy in question beats another guy by a stroke or two and suddenly it's a huge deal again. My personal belief is that you argue for the proper call when it was originally brought up (at halftime in this case) and settle it then. Which they apparantly did.

If the infraction first comes to light afterwards, then that's different.

Ordinarily I would agree with you. In this case, however, if the facts were as Chris eported, the issue is that the TD apparently agreed that the player violated the casual relief rule, but refused to penalize the player for the violation.

Given that, I would consider any player adversely affected by the TD's failure to penalize what s/he ruled to be a violation (despite the TD's agreement, via the Sanctioning Agreement, to enforce the Rules) more than justified in raising the matter again.

Chris, at this point, your (and Al's) beef is not with the player ho committed the infraction, but with the TD for not enforcing the Rules. Have you raised or are you planning to raise the issue with either the Commissioner or the Competition Director/Committee? If not, why not?

At Bowling Green AM.s it rained a lot prior to the tourney and there was casual water in places. Someone in my group tried to argue one could take relief to the side of casual water and I said the rule was on the line of play up to 5 meters behind the lie. He looked it up in the rule book and saw I was right. Someone else in the group commented: "well, then someone in the group I was in last round played it wrong."

Chris, you should of pulled out your rule book.

Yes, that is correct. Although, at the very end of the tournament the TD decided that it was a group decision and that it was the correct play and he will not be stroked. What is the rule about group decisions? Is this even the right call? P.S. I defintally was not impressed with this TD, this situation should have never came up in the first place had he called the pond OB.

Yes, that is correct. Although, at the very end of the tournament the TD decided that it was a group decision and that it was the correct play and he will not be stroked. What is the rule about group decisions? Is this even the right call?

It was definitely not the correct call. When a group decision is made, it CANNOT contravene the Rules; otherwise, a group could decide not to penalize OB, stance. lost disc, or mando violations.

There is no "rule" per se on group decisions, save that when a group is unable to reach a majority decision, the thrower receives the benefit of doubt. "Benefit of doubt," however, means only that, given disagreement over which and how a rule (or rules) apply to a situation, the least burdensome interpretation that fully conforms to the requirements of the applicable rule(s) is the one under which play proceeds. So, e.g., if genuine doubt exists whether or not a disc is "clearly and completely surrounded" by OB, "benefit of doubt" means that it is presumed to be IB; if, on an island hole where there is no requirement that the thrown disc come to rest in bounds for the purpose of establishing where the subsequent throw shall be taken, there is doubt whether or not a throw disc passed over the green before coming to rest OB, "benefit of doubt" means it is presumed to have passed over the green; it does not mean that a group can ignore the requirements of a rule to make it easier for the thrower.

You're right Chris; Slater should have been stroked for his ****-interpretation of the rule and subsequent shoot. Especially, since he is a former Jr's world champ, USADGC champ and a Professional Disc golfer. If he doesn't know the rules by now he should learn them fast and if he doesn�t learn them stork him until he does.

heh, this has nothing to do with Slater, but yes, he should be strokes at least 2 strokes! Then I would have beat him :p

You're right Chris; Slater should have been stroked for his ****-interpretation of the rule and subsequent shoot. Especially, since he is a former Jr's world champ, USADGC champ and a Professional Disc golfer. If he doesn't know the rules by now he should learn them fast and if he doesn�t learn them stork him until he does.



I meant to type miss-interpretation, Not ****-interpretation. :o

I meant to type miss-interpretation, Not ****-interpretation. :o


I prefer the original version. :cool: