First of all, my apologies if these have already been answered in the past.

1. If player 1 has a disc at rest and player 2 has a throw that moves the disc at rest, where is player 1's spot for the next shot? Does it matter if player 1's disc was OB and moves IB? Vice versa? What if player 1 had a mini marking the spot, and the mini is moved by the disc of player 2?

2. If a disc straddles a 10 m circle (clearly marked by paint), can the player opt to NOT mark the spot, and play from the back of the disc, and hence be out of the circle, allowing for the player to "jump" putt?

3. Can amatuer players be sponsored (e.g., have their entry fee paid for by someone else) and retain their AM status?

4. If an AM player cashes in a pro event, but does not accept the cash, where does it go? Related to question #3, can a sponsor receive the cash? Or is the money distributed at the discretion of the TD?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Steve

First of all, my apologies if these have already been answered in the past.

1. If player 1 has a disc at rest and player 2 has a throw that moves the disc at rest, where is player 1's spot for the next shot? Does it matter if player 1's disc was OB and moves IB? Vice versa? What if player 1 had a mini marking the spot, and the mini is moved by the disc of player 2?




<font color="blue"> If a disc is moved then it is replaced to its original placment as determined by the group </font>




2. If a disc straddles a 10 m circle (clearly marked by paint), can the player opt to NOT mark the spot, and play from the back of the disc, and hence be out of the circle, allowing for the player to "jump" putt?




<font color="blue"> Interesting situation. I would think that by NOT marking your disc your stance would be OUTSIDE the 10m and "falling putts" would not apply </font>




3. Can amatuer players be sponsored (e.g., have their entry fee paid for by someone else) and retain their AM status?




<font color="blue"> Sure, why not? You arent a "True Am" anyway...Right Nick /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>




4. If an AM player cashes in a pro event, but does not accept the cash, where does it go? Related to question #3, can a sponsor receive the cash? Or is the money distributed at the discretion of the TD?




<font color="blue"> Any "cash" turned down goes to the next player in line....ie field of 15 pays 5 spots, i fyou take 4th and turn down cash then the 5th place gets 4th money and 6th place nows cashes and gets 5th's money </font>




Thanks in advance for your help!
Steve

Oh Yea....

BAGGER :D

First of all, my apologies if these have already been answered in the past.

1. If player 1 has a disc at rest and player 2 has a throw that moves the disc at rest, where is player 1's spot for the next shot? Does it matter if player 1's disc was OB and moves IB? Vice versa? What if player 1 had a mini marking the spot, and the mini is moved by the disc of player 2?
<font color="red"> Put the disc back where it was. </font>

2. If a disc straddles a 10 m circle (clearly marked by paint), can the player opt to NOT mark the spot, and play from the back of the disc, and hence be out of the circle, allowing for the player to "jump" putt?
<font color="red">If your foot is behind the line then jump away. </font>

3. Can amatuer players be sponsored (e.g., have their entry fee paid for by someone else) and retain their AM status?
<font color="red"> Yes you can be sponcered if your an Am. Mark Macalester is sponcered by Discraft. </font>

4. If an AM player cashes in a pro event, but does not accept the cash, where does it go? Related to question #3, can a sponsor receive the cash? Or is the money distributed at the discretion of the TD?
<font color="red"> By the PDGA's roles it goes to the next player in line. </font>

Thanks in advance for your help!
Steve


I hope this helps.

Now for the long version, but the short versions were correct.

First of all, my apologies if these have already been answered in the past.

1. If player 1 has a disc at rest and player 2 has a throw that moves the disc at rest, where is player 1's spot for the next shot? Does it matter if player 1's disc was OB and moves IB? Vice versa? What if player 1 had a mini marking the spot, and the mini is moved by the disc of player 2?


803.06 Interference
B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. If a marker disc is moved, the marker disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.

<font color="blue">Anything first at rest that then moves is put back where it was.</font>




2. If a disc straddles a 10 m circle (clearly marked by paint), can the player opt to NOT mark the spot, and play from the back of the disc, and hence be out of the circle, allowing for the player to "jump" putt?


803.02 Makring the Lie
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown disc. A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker. The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location.

B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unsafe lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of- bounds line.

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
B. Stepping past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting within 10 meters.

<font color="blue">Since there is no requirement to use a marker for a disk laying on the playing surface, the mark is more than 10 meters from the target, and falling putts are allowed.</font>



3. Can amatuer players be sponsored (e.g., have their entry fee paid for by someone else) and retain their AM status?

<font color="blue">See below.</font>

4. If an AM player cashes in a pro event, but does not accept the cash, where does it go? Related to question #3, can a sponsor receive the cash? Or is the money distributed at the discretion of the TD?

<font color="blue"> 3 & 4 are under the same rule</font>

804.08 CLASSIFICATION OF PLAYERS
F. Amateur Status: A player relinquishes amateur status by competing in a Professional division of a PDGA sanctioned event and accepting prize money for finishing in that professional division. A player also relinquishes amateur status by accepting prizes in lieu of prize money for finishing in that professional division. Accepting money for winning an ancillary contest such as an ace pool does not cause a player to relinquish his or her amateur status. A player may also relinquish amateur status by registering in a professional division with the PDGA. See 804.08 H for eligibility in the PDGA Amateur World Championships. Any prize money that is declined by an amateur player shall pass down to the next finishing position.

<font color="blue">As shown above there are 3 ways to become a Pro (or not be an Am) accept cash, accept prizes for competing in a pro division, or register as a Pro player. Nothing else will do it.

Second question, No. Either the player accepts the cash and becomes a Pro or the cash goes to the next highest finishing competitor. The player would have to accept the cash and give it to the sponsor for it to go to the sponsor.</font>



Thanks in advance for your help!
Steve

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I would think that it doesn't matter if you mark your lie or not, as long as the 10m line is inside of 30cm of the back of your lie. Right? :confused:

Reading the rule carefully, it implies that the lie be more than 10 meters from the target, but really says "putting" from outside of 10 meters.

That opens room for argument that the actual placement of the lead foot determines the 10 meter point. So if your lie is such that you can stand within 30cm of your marker and be outside of 10 meters, you are allowed to step past your marker after your putt.

Other opinions ?

the lie is where you will play from, and the lie is the point with which the 10M rule is concerned.

when a disc comes to rest, the player can choose to make the lie at either a) the front of the disc, by marking it with a mini, or b) at the rear of the disc, by leaving it on the ground.

in the event b) is chosen, the lie is behind the 10M circle, and there are no restrictions on the style of throw.

similarly, lets say an OB line is 10.5 meters from the pole. a disc coming to rest OB or between 9.5 and 10.5 meters from the basket can be marked up to one meter in from the OB line. but it doesnt need to be! if the player wishes to fall thru his putt, he could mark his lie just barely in bounds (within .5 meters of the OB line) and proceed to putt however he wishes.

note: this assumes "lines" exist in your universe. please consult your nearest 2nd grade science teacher for clairification and/or guidance.

That's what I said before. It's all about foot placement and where you end up.

Does the interference rule cover a disc that is >2 m above the ground (e.g., in a tree) that subsequently is knocked out of the tree and safely onto the ground by another player's disc/throw? I've heard that the disc goes from being OB to safe in that case. Correct?

I guess the question is whether the tree is considered part of the playing surface or not...

And thanks to all of you for the great answers!
Cheers,
Steve

You ask good questions, but most of them are explicitly covered in the rule book.

the lie is where you will play from, and the lie is the point with which the 10M rule is concerned.



Not to pick nits (ok ok, maybe I like picking nits), but that's not what the rule says.


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



It says nothing about the "lie". It may be implied, but there is nothing explicit about it.

Yeah, maybe it should say "except when putting from a lie within ten meters".

I guess it is just me, but the language Any prize money that is declined by an amateur player shall pass down to the next finishing position seems open to interpretation. I assume it means that the declining am is passed over and all the money spots are shifted downward. However, it kind of reads that the next person in line gets the decliner's money. In other words, they receive both their payout plus the declining am's payout. It would be a nice windfall to finish right behind the decliner.

Howdy.


1. If player 1 has a disc at rest and player 2 has a throw that moves the disc at rest, where is player 1's spot for the next shot? Does it matter if player 1's disc was OB and moves IB? Vice versa? What if player 1 had a mini marking the spot, and the mini is moved by the disc of player 2?



I'm not exaclty in accrodance with Magilla, in this example, but I am probably wrong? again? dang it!

If your drive sticks in a tree OB, and before you touch it, another players drive hits the same tree or your disc and knocks it down, you play it from where it comes down and there for is no longer a penalty. At least that is my understanding ? Rhett Or Nick .. attack now :D



If a disc straddles a 10 m circle (clearly marked by paint), can the player opt to NOT mark the spot, and play from the back of the disc, and hence be out of the circle, allowing for the player to "jump" putt?



You can always opt to play from the back of the disc as opposed to marking it, and this can often provide an advatage to the angel of the shot, or allow you to jump putt. :D


3. Can amatuer players be sponsored (e.g., have their entry fee paid for by someone else) and retain their AM status?



Certainley, how do you think i got here :D


4. If an AM player cashes in a pro event, but does not accept the cash, where does it go? Related to question #3, can a sponsor receive the cash? Or is the money distributed at the discretion of the TD?



Magilla is correct again. Typically the cash goes to the next spot. I do not know if that is a hrd set rule? Magilla?

I know that in some sports, like skatebaording and surfing, the money can be putt into a trust fund in the winner name, and collected when they turn true Pro

But that really shouldn't be an issue for you any more Steve

:D

I'm not exaclty in accrodance with Magilla, in this example, but I am probably wrong? again? dang it!

If your drive sticks in a tree OB, and before you touch it, another players drive hits the same tree or your disc and knocks it down, you play it from where it comes down and there for is no longer a penalty. At least that is my understanding ? Rhett Or Nick .. attack now




Its all in the definition of the "playing surface".

AND how you interpit the wording of the rule.

I believe it says "comes to rest on the playing surface", or something to that effect. If you are OB then it has been determined that you are 2 or more Meters ABOVE the "playing surface" So in effect, your disc has not come to rest until you get there to mark it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If it falls out before you get there then "WHOO HOO" :D

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I would think that it doesn't matter if you mark your lie or not, as long as the 10m line is inside of 30cm of the back of your lie. Right? :confused:

Wrong on two counts: first, except when throwing from a teebox or a designated drop zone, you cannot make a legal throw without first establishing your lie, either by marking it with a mini marker disc or by electing to use the thrown disc as the marker disc (803.02.A); second, since the lie is established at the rear edge of the marker disc regardless of which method a player chooses to mark the lie, if the 10m line is within 30cm behind the marker disc, the lie must necessarily be inside the 10m line. If the rear edge of the marker disc (= lie) is outside 10m, you may follow through beyond the marker disc; if it's within 10m, you may not.

I'm not exaclty in accrodance with Magilla, in this example, but I am probably wrong? again? dang it!

If your drive sticks in a tree OB, and before you touch it, another players drive hits the same tree or your disc and knocks it down, you play it from where it comes down and there for is no longer a penalty. At least that is my understanding ? Rhett Or Nick .. attack now




Its all in the definition of the "playing surface".

AND how you interpit the wording of the rule.

I believe it says "comes to rest on the playing surface", or something to that effect. If you are OB then it has been determined that you are 2 or more Meters ABOVE the "playing surface" So in effect, your disc has not come to rest until you get there to mark it. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If it falls out before you get there then "WHOO HOO" :D


Ahem. A disc above the playing surface is not OB. OB is under a different section of the rules than disc above the playing surface. This is the exact scenario that illustrates why you should not juts lump them together. Doing so leads you to incorrectly apply all the terms of OB to a disc above the playing surface.

If your drive sticks in a tree OB, and before you touch it, another players drive hits the same tree or your disc and knocks it down, you play it from where it comes down and there for is no longer a penalty. At least that is my understanding ? Rhett Or Nick .. attack now


Above 2m (803.07) is not OB (803.08); if it were, there would be no need for 803.07 to stipulate that a disc at rest suspended above an OB area is penalized in accordance with 803.08 rather than 803.07.

The Rules Q&A addresses the issue of a disc knocked out of a tree. Based on that, if your drive sticks in a tree OB and another player's disc knocks it down, how you play it depends on where the disc comes to rest: if it's stil OB when it comes to rest, you would play it according to 803.08.B; if it comes to rest IB, you would play it where it lies.

Lonhart knows the rules. He's just pretending to be a rube so when he "turns" pro everyone will underestimate him! :D

Lonhart knows the rules. He's just pretending to be a rube so when he "turns" pro everyone will underestimate him! :D



Like I said..... <font color="red"> BAGGER
:D </font>

Hi Magilla et al.,

Thanks for all the great discussion on this issue of being up a tree, above 2 m, and over a playing surface that is in-bounds. The reason I bring it up is that we talked about this at the MCup in my group and no one could agree on the correct ruling.

With regard to the "playing surface", this quote from the rules suggests that being in a tree, < 2 m above the ground, and over an area in bounds, is NOT part of the playing surface.

"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."

So based on the quote above, if a disc fell in the manner described to a height <2 m, no penalty stroke is given; however, it is still "above the playing surface", which suggests the playing surface is defined by the ground (or solid, benthic structures such as cement blocks, stumps, etc.).

It also seems like the interference rule allows movement of an already played disc in some cases (e.g., unintentional knocking of a treed disc by another player) but not in others (e.g., a disc resting atop the basket that is subsequently jarred free).

And thanks for all the wonderful characterizations--I do deserve them, to a certain extent. But Kenny gets the prize for using "rube"--excellent diction, amigo!

Cheers,
Steve

It looks like discs can not be at rest above the playing surface since we allow discs that eventually fall to the playing surface to be marked where they fall.

I say this because discs that are at rest must be replaced if they are moved. If a suspended disc does not have to be replaced, it must not have been considered at rest.

Now, is the top of the basket a playing surface, and if not would a drot that falls in before it is marked count ?

The rules committe chimed in on this once, but I don't want to search the message board for it.

IIRC, they said that a disc suspended less than two meters above the playing surface should be replaced if moved. A disc more that 2 meters above the playing surface, being that it is in a penalty situation, should be played wherever it comes to rest. Worst case is that it rolls OB and it's still a penalty, "good luck" case being that it ends up fair and there is no penalty.

Now that a disc above 2 meters is no longer automatically in a penalty situation, the RC should probably revisit this scenarion.

Now, is the top of the basket a playing surface, and if not would a drot that falls in before it is marked count ?



Yes, that happend to everybody's favorite poster at the BG Am's. #15 at Lovers Lane Park, Steve Mills' third shot lands right on top of the Discatcher. He has to wait until everyone putts out, but as the third person in his group putts, the shock of disc hitting the chains knocked Steves disc loose and falls into the basket which subsequently gave him a three for the hole. Lucky son of a (something I cannot say on the boards).

The rules committe chimed in on this once, but I don't want to search the message board for it.

IIRC, they said that a disc suspended less than two meters above the playing surface should be replaced if moved. A disc more that 2 meters above the playing surface, being that it is in a penalty situation, should be played wherever it comes to rest. Worst case is that it rolls OB and it's still a penalty, "good luck" case being that it ends up fair and there is no penalty.

Now that a disc above 2 meters is no longer automatically in a penalty situation, the RC should probably revisit this scenarion.

What the Rules Committee said was:
Rule Question: Disc knocked out of tree
Question:
"In previous versions of the rule book, a disc above two meters that was knocked out of the tree by a competitively thrown disc was played at its new location. In the 1997 book, this exception has been removed. Does that mean that a disc that comes to rest above 2 meters and is hit by another disc and falls below 2 meters should be played as if it were still at its original lie above 2 meters (thus taking a lie below the spot in the tree and a penalty stroke?).

Summary: "What is the ruling when a disc that is stuck in a tree is knocked out of the tree by another competitors throw during play?"

Applicable Rules:

803.07 Disc Above the Playing Surface
803.06 Interference

Discussion:
Take a close look at 803.07(C). This says if a disc falls "unassisted by a player or spectator" it is not penalized. In this case it was moved by a disc, not a player. One could argue that the disc was thrown by a player, hence was ultimately moved by that player. That is a tough scenario to "buy" however, because there is no way the player could have known his disc would knock the other one out of a tree. It was pure chance. The intent of 803.07(C) is to prevent buddies or fans from moving the player's disc before a 2-meter determination is made (giving the player an advantage). A disc being hit by another disc is no different than a disc being blown down by a gust of wind.

There's no penalty stroke for a lie above the playing surface until you walk up to it, determine that it's over two meters, and mark it. Common sense tells us what's a lucky break and what's not. Another player's shot knocking it down is a lucky break, and it's unlikely someone could do that intentionally without it being obvious. Perhaps the disc was already falling, or would have in a few moments, before the second disc hit it. If we interpret the rule the other way, then it becomes an unlucky break because as soon as the second disc hits it, it has no chance to come down on its own. Its two-meter status before it was hit is not necessarily clear, either, making a correct ruling in this scenario even more difficult.

Our reading of "unassisted by a player or spectator" infers intent and direct action.

Conclusion:
It's a lucky break for the golfer whose shot was originally stuck in the tree! He gets to play his disc where it now lies.

Yes, that happend to everybody's favorite poster at the BG Am's. #15 at Lovers Lane Park, Steve Mills' third shot lands right on top of the Discatcher. He has to wait until everyone putts out, but as the third person in his group putts, the shock of disc hitting the chains knocked Steves disc loose and falls into the basket which subsequently gave him a three for the hole. Lucky son of a (something I cannot say on the boards).

What? i thought a DROT was a DROT... not over 2M for sure... if it is at rest by any reasonable standrd (and that is implied by the other players putting out) then even if it falls it must be marked as a DROT and the player must putt out.

This is where the RULES BECOME STUPID!!!!!!!!!! How can you have 2 rules for the SAME SITUATION!!!!!!!! Resting on the basket and knocked off must be replaced. Resting in a tree and knocked out can be played where it lies. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!!!!!!!! I mean seriously that is ludacris. What does it being above 2 meters or below 2 meters have to do with it. Both discs were at rest and moved by another discs. SAME SITUATION should have the SAME RULE!!!!!!! This DROT crap is rediculous. Why is a disc resting on top of the basket any different then a disc resting on top of a stump or a rock or anything else. Those automatically become the playing surface why wouldnt the top of the basket be considered the playing surface as well???

exactly. i believe the DROT that fell in after a minute should have, by the rules, not counted.

exactly. i believe the DROT that fell in after a minute should have, by the rules, not counted.



Well we now know that but I dont think anyone understand why???

The thing is EVERYONE in my group agreed it was a three and EVERYONE we talked to after the round agreed it was a three and untill brought it up on HERE there was no dispute about the call what so ever. Even a World Champion sided with me on this ruling so I really dont think ANYONE knows that this is a new rule yet since it obviously isnt in the NEW oh wait there isnt a new rule book yet. Thats not due out untill 2006 so the only way to know that it was a rule would have been to check the internet which we OBVIOUSLY didnt have on the course at the time of the putt.

This rule gets thrown in with a disc that STICKS in the side of a basket counts but one that lands on top does not. JUST PLAIN ILLOGICAL RULES!!!!!!!

this one has always been that way. not new.

Pimp,

Imagine this scenario: your disc at BG is DROT. The third putt knocks it loose, but instead of falling the basket, it "tinks" off the lip, hits the ground, and rolls 200 feet away, inconveniently wedging itself inside the canopy of a gigantic tree where you have no look to get out except to use a stroke to pitch out.

How bad would you be crying on here if you had to take that crappy lie inside that tree after your disc came to rest on top of the basket?

exactly. i believe the DROT that fell in after a minute should have, by the rules, not counted.



Well we now know that but I dont think anyone understand why???

The thing is EVERYONE in my group agreed it was a three and EVERYONE we talked to after the round agreed it was a three and untill brought it up on HERE there was no dispute about the call what so ever. Even a World Champion sided with me on this ruling so I really dont think ANYONE knows that this is a new rule yet since it obviously isnt in the NEW oh wait there isnt a new rule book yet. Thats not due out untill 2006 so the only way to know that it was a rule would have been to check the internet which we OBVIOUSLY didnt have on the course at the time of the putt.

This rule gets thrown in with a disc that STICKS in the side of a basket counts but one that lands on top does not. JUST PLAIN ILLOGICAL RULES!!!!!!!



I think "PIMP Todd" er "Cam Mills" CHEATED :D

He knew the rule but took the "3" anyway /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



<font color="red"> BAGGER </font>

DQ...Take points away...etc.....Dont try that garbage in NorCal :D

I'm sorry, I can't find rule that makes the top of the basket a playing surface. As a matter of fact, DROTs must be marked on the playing surface below the suspended disc and then putted.

If that's the case, any disc that remains on top of the basket is the same as a disc suspended in a tree or top of a building. If it finds it's way down before the player marks it, it plays from where it comes to rest on the playing surface.

If you want to risk the roll away, leave it up there (unless another player requests that you mark your lie to remove the distraction).

Chimp(not dissin' ya, just internet jousting),
That was your best post ever! :) You've come a long way.

And Steve, are you planning on playing in the Open at Masters Cup or something like that?

The thing is EVERYONE in my group agreed it was a three



I was in the group and I can verify that. What was cool was that everyone in the group was hoping it would fall in. I still believe we made the right call. Maybe someone should ask the RC to weigh in on this.... (or I'd like to hear Felix Sung's -- aka: 'fore's -- take on this). Doesn't the benefit of the doubt go to the player if a clear ruling is unavailable?

well i think you are supposed to take a provisional if you don't want to give the benefit of doubt to the player...

and the top of the basket is not a playing surface. If it is, then you would have to mark a DROT on top of the basket, climb on top of the basket, make a legal stance, and then try to drop it into the basket, without falling before the disc stops moving.

The thing is EVERYONE in my group agreed it was a three



I was in the group and I can verify that. What was cool was that everyone in the group was hoping it would fall in. I still believe we made the right call. Maybe someone should ask the RC to weigh in on this.... (or I'd like to hear Felix Sung's -- aka: 'fore's -- take on this). Doesn't the benefit of the doubt go to the player if a clear ruling is unavailable?

Robj, the RC has already weighed in on this scenario. My take is that I accede to the RC's wisdom, despite what I believe to a fairly egregious logical inconsistency in their ruling. :)


Rule Question: Disc resting on top (DROT)

Question: I putted and my disc stayed on top of the basket. Now what?

Applicable rules: 803.12, 803.06.B

The short answer is that it will take you one more throw to complete the hole. Formerly, you could leave it up there and give other players the chance to save you a stroke, but the rule that allowed that (in which a disc struck by another disc was played from its new lie) has been changed. Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.

Since the person whose disc is on top has no chance of saving the stroke, it is reasonable to ask him to mark it if it may become a distraction.

Yours Sincerely, The PDGA Rules Committee

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



:D

[not a rebutal, but an adjunct] No case for a provisional, if player's lie is accepted as-is. A majority have to decide, then the thrower has to disagree with the majority, before a provisional can happen. The player, not the group, is the only one who can call this [not even the td]. [To]"play under a provisional" is how that appears.

Ok...well the RC needs to update that answer now that the 2M rule is no longer in effect.

To make it easier, they should just say if a disc or mini that is on a playing surface is moved by another disc, player, etc after it is at rest shall be moved back to where it came to rest(where the group agrees the original lie was).

I'd like to hear Felix Sung's -- aka: 'fore's -- take on this). Doesn't the benefit of the doubt go to the player if a clear ruling is unavailable?

Robj, the RC has already weighed in on this scenario. My take is that I accede to the RC's wisdom, despite what I believe to a fairly egregious logical inconsistency in their ruling. :)

[/QUOTE]

<font color="blue"> Felix! thanks for weighing in :D
while i hesitate :eek: to criticize the RC given my LOVE for their recent decision with regard to the 2 meter rule -- i would love to hear you elaborate on what you are describing as a 'fairly egregious logical inconsistency in their ruling' on this DROT issue. Also what was the date of this RC response? :D) </font>


Rule Question: Disc resting on top (DROT)

Question: I putted and my disc stayed on top of the basket. Now what?

Applicable rules: 803.12, 803.06.B

The short answer is that it will take you one more throw to complete the hole. Formerly, you could leave it up there and give other players the chance to save you a stroke, but the rule that allowed that (in which a disc struck by another disc was played from its new lie) has been changed. Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.

Since the person whose disc is on top has no chance of saving the stroke, it is reasonable to ask him to mark it if it may become a distraction.

Yours Sincerely, The PDGA Rules Committee

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



:D

[/QUOTE]

:D

<font color="blue"> thanks for posting the names of the RC members who are so woefully underpaid and underappreciated</font>

Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.



Still not applicable, If I read the circumstances correctly, the disc was not struck by another competitively thrown disc, but started moving from the vibrations caused by that disc hitting the basket.

The quote you are attributing to me wasn't mine. I'm inclined to agree with you :D

Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.



Still not applicable, If I read the circumstances correctly, the disc was not struck by another competitively thrown disc, but started moving from the vibrations caused by that disc hitting the basket.

It's called "agency." The disc hitting the basket is the agent of the DROT's movement.

The RC specifically states that under the current rule, the "the person whose disc is on top has no chance of saving the stroke," ergo, it necessarily follows that, in the case of a DROT, the disc must be returned to its original lie, regardless of the agency that caused it to move from its original resting place.

[QUOTE]
<font color="blue">while i hesitate :eek: to criticize the RC given my LOVE for their recent decision with regard to the 2 meter rule -- i would love to hear you elaborate on what you are describing as a 'fairly egregious logical inconsistency in their ruling' on this DROT issue. Also what was the date of this RC response? :D) </font>

As with all rulings provided on the Rules Q&A webpage, the ruling is undated.

The egregious logical inconsistency is that the RC cites 803.06.B as being applicable rule.

I thought you might have been referring to the inconsistency between a disc suspended above 2 meters verses one suspended on top of a target, when falling from discgrace.

if you were to humor me and play RC, how would you have resolved this question?

Ok...well the RC needs to update that answer now that the 2M rule is no longer in effect.

first, this really didnt have anything to do with the 2MR

second, and most importantly, the 2MR is STILL in effect!!! . the TD must specifically state that the event will be played without the 2MR - otherwise 2M and above is, as it should be according to natural law, logic, and just plain ol' common sense, a STROKE!

Pimp,

Imagine this scenario: your disc at BG is DROT. The third putt knocks it loose, but instead of falling the basket, it "tinks" off the lip, hits the ground, and rolls 200 feet away, inconveniently wedging itself inside the canopy of a gigantic tree where you have no look to get out except to use a stroke to pitch out.

How bad would you be crying on here if you had to take that crappy lie inside that tree after your disc came to rest on top of the basket?




I would just be saying that i got the worst tournament roll ever. OH well that [*****] happens. That exactly what I would have said so I dont want to hear anything about that.

and the top of the basket is not a playing surface. If it is, then you would have to mark a DROT on top of the basket, climb on top of the basket, make a legal stance, and then try to drop it into the basket, without falling before the disc stops moving.




This is untrue because you could putt your hand behind your mini on top of the basket and that would be one of your supporting points then you drop the putt in like you normaly would :D

yes thats true. but since the top of the basket isnt the playing surface, that would be wrong.

I thought you might have been referring to the inconsistency between a disc suspended above 2 meters verses one suspended on top of a target, when falling from discgrace.

I don't consider the different procedures to be necessarily inconsistent since the circumstances of a disc suspended in a tree or a non-target object are materially different from those of a disc resting on top of a a target, i.e., players do not, as a rule, intentionally throw discs at a tree or other non-target object, whereas players do intentionally throw discs at a target. Given that it is highly improbable that, in any group, multiple players' discs will successively strike the same non-target object on which a thrown disc is at rest, but that it is highly probable that multiple players' discs will successively strike the same target object, it is reasonable, IMO, to specify a different procedure for discs at rest on/in non-target objects and discs at rest on targets.


if you were to humor me and play RC, how would you have resolved this question?

My quibble is not with the RC's resolution, but with the rules upon which they based their resolution. Were I asked to rule, I would base my ruling on 803.06.A:

803.06 Interference
A. A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur. The away player may require other players to mark their lies or move their equipment before making a throw if the player believes that either could interfere with his or her throw.

803.07.C:
803.07 Disc Above the Playing Surface
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.

and 801.02.C:
801.01 Order of Play
C. After all the players in a group have teed off, the player farthest from the hole (the away player) throws first. To facilitate flow of play, a player who is not farthest away may play next if the away player consents.



Conclusion: mark (or hole out) the DROT before the away player throws.

but since the top of the basket isnt the playing surface, that would be wrong.

Based on the RC's application of 803.06.B to DROTS, the top of the basket IS a playing surface, since 803.06.B specifically applies "If a disc at rest on the playing surface is moved." By invoking 803.06.B, the RC implicitly defines the top of a disc entrapment device/objet target as a playing surface.

i see your point, but since the top of the basket is NOT the playing surface, rule 803.06.B is not applicable to DROTS. at least according to its literal wording.

Ok...well the RC needs to update that answer now that the 2M rule is no longer in effect.

first, this really didnt have anything to do with the 2MR



<font color="blue"> i think his point is that now that the 2 meter rule is [at times] no longer in effect (and now that it not being in effect will be the default scenario starting in 2006 with the printing of the new PDGA Rules Book) it makes sense for the PDGA to update their answer to this question </font>

I thought you might have been referring to the inconsistency between a disc suspended above 2 meters verses one suspended on top of a target, when falling from discgrace.

I don't consider the different procedures to be necessarily inconsistent since the circumstances of a disc suspended in a tree or a non-target object are materially different from those of a disc resting on top of a a target, i.e., players do not, as a rule, intentionally throw discs at a tree or other non-target object, whereas players do intentionally throw discs at a target. Given that it is highly improbable that, in any group, multiple players' discs will successively strike the same non-target object on which a thrown disc is at rest, but that it is highly probable that multiple players' discs will successively strike the same target object, it is reasonable, IMO, to specify a different procedure for discs at rest on/in non-target objects and discs at rest on targets.


if you were to humor me and play RC, how would you have resolved this question?

My quibble is not with the RC's resolution, but with the rules upon which they based their resolution. Were I asked to rule, I would base my ruling on 803.06.A:

803.06 Interference
A. A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur. The away player may require other players to mark their lies or move their equipment before making a throw if the player believes that either could interfere with his or her throw.

803.07.C:
803.07 Disc Above the Playing Surface
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.

and 801.02.C:
801.01 Order of Play
C. After all the players in a group have teed off, the player farthest from the hole (the away player) throws first. To facilitate flow of play, a player who is not farthest away may play next if the away player consents.



Conclusion: mark (or hole out) the DROT before the away player throws.



<font color="blue"> Felix, given the rules you've cited wouldn't it be equally reasonable to not mark the disc nor hole out if noone in the group requested it? (suppose even that the player with a DROT asks the group if they'd like him to mark his disc or putt out and the group says no thanks).

it doesn't seem to me to be intentionally delaying unless the player with the DROT takes more than 30 seconds after marking his disc or walks i n c r e d i b l y s l o w l y to his disc in an efort to buy time for the disc to move. as long as noone intentionally deflects the disc i don't see a DROT as a resting spot where interference with another disc is likely to occur...

i think it makes the most sense to rule based on the present rule which says a disc suspended less than 2 meters above the playing surface and then falls from suspension is played from whereever it comes to rest. when the 2 meter rule is not in effect -- which will be the norm beginning next year -- then it makes sense to me to get rid of the 2 meter limit and say a suspended disc which drops is played from where it lies.

or we could just redefine holing out as having the disc supported by the target :D
</font>

i see your point, but since the top of the basket is NOT the playing surface, rule 803.06.B is not applicable to DROTS. at least according to its literal wording.

That's why I said in an earlier post that the ruling contained an egregious logical inconsistency.

Felix, given the rules you've cited wouldn't it be equally reasonable to not mark the disc nor hole out if noone in the group requested it? (suppose even that the player with a DROT asks the group if they'd like him to mark his disc or putt out and the group says no thanks).

My ruling would remove the option of leaving the DROT in place, i.e., a DROT must be marked and removed before the away player throws.


it doesn't seem to me to be intentionally delaying unless the player with the DROT takes more than 30 seconds after marking his disc or walks i n c r e d i b l y s l o w l y to his disc in an efort to buy time for the disc to move. as long as noone intentionally deflects the disc i don't see a DROT as a resting spot where interference with another disc is likely to occur...

A player who leaves a DROT is, by definition, unnecessarily delaying in order to allow the position of the disc to improve since the primary, if not the sole, rationale for leaving it there is the possibility that a competitor's thrown disc will knock it down into the basket. Since there is ZERO possibility of saving a stroke under the current rules, there is no justification for leaving a DROT in place while the away players make their throws.

I reject the notion that a DROT is not in a position where interference with another disc is likely to occur. Few, if any, of the DROTS I have witnessed have lain flat on top of and completely within the circumference of the basket, making it not only possible, but probable, that the DROT will deflect a putt that is missed high. That deflection, by definition, would constitute interference with the flight or path of a disc.

Furthermore, a disc on top of a basket, even a disc lying flat, if visible--as would be the case with DGA's M-14 and Mach series of baskets--constitutes, de facto, a visual distraction to the away player, irregardless of whether the away player considers the distraction to be major or minor. Simple courtesy dictates that the distraction be removed before the away player is required to throw.


i think it makes the most sense to rule based on the present rule which says a disc suspended less than 2 meters above the playing surface and then falls from suspension is played from whereever it comes to rest. when the 2 meter rule is not in effect -- which will be the norm beginning next year -- then it makes sense to me to get rid of the 2 meter limit and say a suspended disc which drops is played from where it lies.

The crucial word being "played." A disc that is holed cannot subsequently be played because, holing out, by definition, ends play on the hole. Since a disc that is at rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections is, by definition, holed out, the player whose DROT is knocked into the basket as the result of another player's throw is incapable of fulfilling the requirement that the disc be played from where it lies; consequently, absent a rule amendment specifically excepting a suspended disc that falls or is caused to fall into the basket from the requirement of being played from where it lies, the player cannot comply with the requirement to play the disc where it now lies, and must be penalized for a rules violation.

just as a disc that rolls off the top of a target and into a lake where it is subsequently swallowed by a large mouthed alligator cannot be literally played where it lies -- but is instead played where it lies by assessing an OB penalty stroke and playing on -- a disc that falls in the target is played where it lies by picking it up and counting it as in.

i follow your logic and see what you are saying about a DROT, but I still say it can be reasonably argued it is not retsing in a place where it is *likely* to interfere with another's disc. maybe the best resolution would be to specificly say in the rules that a DROT, once sighted, must be marked before play can continue ...?

Item 1: DROT must be marked.
There is currently no precedence for forcing a player to mark a lie unless the currently away player declares that the disc in question is a distraction or likely to cause interference. The currently away player makes the decision, not the player whose disc is stuck.

The player stuck on top can ask that he be allowed to mark the disc before another disc can knock it further away, but no where in the rules does it way that a player that is not away is allowed to proceed further up the fairway in order to mark a lie before it is their turn to throw.

Item 2: Player who leaves a DROT is delaying
A player who is away and throws a competitive throw is then supposed to by rule wait until they are again the away player to approach and mark their disc. Any other activity unless requested or allowed by the currently away player would be interfering with the natural flow of the game. SO walking up to mark a DROT when it was not requested (or OKed) by the away player would be delaying the game.

Item 3: Zero chance of saving a stroke.
Under the current Q&A there is zero chance of saving a stroke by having another disc strike the DROT disc. There are instances (wind, vibration) where the disc is moved without being struck by another disc in play.

Item 4: Distraction/Deflection
Whether an item is a distraction or likely to cause interference is decided by the currently away player. The player preparing to throw can ask for such items to be moved.

Item 5: Holed out discs can not be played where they lie.
A simple test of this statement would be to have a disc stuck in a tree above while the rest of the card threw their apporach shots that falls into the basket before the players can reach the basket. There is no question that the disc would count as in the basket on a continuation of the previous throw. The same whould be true of a drot that falls in without being struck by another disc.

A disc is not holed out until it is removed from the basket (by a player). The only play appropriate for a disc in the basket is to remove it.

I think the Q&A is flawed even though it is signed by many RC members.
The problem is that the top of the target is not a playing surface and as such, the disc on top of the target is suspended above the playing surface just as if it were in a tree or atop a picnic table.

The rule allowing for the replacement of moved discs is within the interference section of the rule book, and only applies to discs or markers at rest on the playing surface.

The additional problem this would lead to is that some away players would want the DROT removed, and some would not care. Any attempt to intentionally strike the DROT disc could constitute interference. Just as a disc hanging in the chains is not holed out and can be knocked out of the basket by the next putt, a disc on top can be knocked off the basket and end up in trouble if left on top.

A player who leaves a DROT is, by definition, unnecessarily delaying in order to allow the position of the disc to improve since the primary, if not the sole, rationale for leaving it there is the possibility that a competitor's thrown disc will knock it down into the basket. Since there is ZERO possibility of saving a stroke under the current rules, there is no justification for leaving a DROT in place while the away players make their throws.

I agree it would be a keen idea to mark DROTS, but...'no justification' for not doing so? Etiquette aside, the DROT is more-than-likely the CTP disc; not being a distraction to many, and with a known contingency should it move, it doesn't seem egeregious to just leave it be.

...if that's not good enough, plain ol' sloth could be the primary reason. :oIs sloth justifiable? :eek: :D

thanks for making a lot of great points, that as far as i am concerned are virtually unassailable :D.

the simplest way to eliminate controversy would be to define holing out as having the disc completely supported by the target (i doubt we would get many people trying to hole out via DROT's -- but if we did that would be entertaining) :D

i am sure some purists would vehemently oppose counting DROT's though, so while simplifying the rules it would stir up some controversy...

in the absence of such a change, i think the RC needs to re-visit this question in light of gnduke's points above

The player stuck on top can ask that he be allowed to mark the disc before another disc can knock it further away, but no where in the rules does it way that a player that is not away is allowed to proceed further up the fairway in order to mark a lie before it is their turn to throw.

803.06.A:

A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur. The away player may require other players to mark their lies or move their equipment before making a throw if the player believes that either could interfere with his or her throw.

Note that it is the player to whom the equipment--in this case, the disc--belongs who is responsible not to leave the equipment in a place where it may interfere with the flight or path of the disc. The final sentence grants the away player the power to compel the equipment be moved if a player does not do so voluntarily.


Item 2: Player who leaves a DROT is delaying
A player who is away and throws a competitive throw is then supposed to by rule wait until they are again the away player to approach and mark their disc. Any other activity unless requested or allowed by the currently away player would be interfering with the natural flow of the game. SO walking up to mark a DROT when it was not requested (or OKed) by the away player would be delaying the game.

See interference, above.


Item 3: Zero chance of saving a stroke.
Under the current Q&A there is zero chance of saving a stroke by having another disc strike the DROT disc. There are instances (wind, vibration) where the disc is moved without being struck by another disc in play.

The material circumstances of a disc resting on an object at which players intentionally throw with the intention of strike are sufficiently different from the circumstances of a disc resting on an object at which players do not intentionally throw with the intention of striking to justify different procedures for playing those situations.

In this particular instance, it is necessary to distinguish between necessary (required by the rules of the game) and unnecessary (not required by the rules of the game) actions as well as proximate and remote causes. The nature of disc golf makes striking a target object necessary. Consequently, in the case of a DROT moved by vibration caused by a thrown disc striking the target object, the cause of the movement is a necessary competitive action, and therefore proximate; in the case of a DROT moved by wind or vibration caused by, e.g. a passing dumptruck, the cause of the movement is a non-competitive action, and therefore, remote; in the case of a thrown disc striking a non-target object on which a disc rests, resulting in the movement of the disc at rest, the action, though competitive, is not necessary; therefore, the cause of the movement is remote. Given the issue at hand and the object (goal) of disc golf, it is appropriate to treat movement resulting from necessary and unnecessary actions differently.


Item 4: Distraction/Deflection
Whether an item is a distraction or likely to cause interference is decided by the currently away player. The player preparing to throw can ask for such items to be moved.

803.06.A: "Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could occur."


Item 5: Holed out discs can not be played where they lie.
A simple test of this statement would be to have a disc stuck in a tree above while the rest of the card threw their apporach shots that falls into the basket before the players can reach the basket. There is no question that the disc would count as in the basket on a continuation of the previous throw. The same whould be true of a drot that falls in without being struck by another disc.


See reply to item 3, above.


A disc is not holed out until it is removed from the basket (by a player). The only play appropriate for a disc in the basket is to remove it.

The playing of a disc presumes the accrual of an additional throw, since a disc cannot be legally played except from a legal stance, be it on the teepad or subsequent to teeing off, and playing from a legal stance requires the release of a disc, which incurs an additional throw. Since the removal of a disc from the basket does not incur an additional throw, the removal cannot be construed as fulfilling the requirement of "playing a disc where it now lies."


I think the Q&A is flawed even though it is signed by many RC members.
The problem is that the top of the target is not a playing surface and as such, the disc on top of the target is suspended above the playing surface just as if it were in a tree or atop a picnic table.

The rule allowing for the replacement of moved discs is within the interference section of the rule book, and only applies to discs or markers at rest on the playing surface.

The ruling is flawed, but notwithstanding the fact that the top of a target has not heretofore been, and perhaps should not be, considered a playing surface, by virtue of the fact that the RC has applied 803.06.B to DROTS and by virtue of the fact that formal rulings by the RC are necessarily definitive and binding, until such time as the RC either rescinds the ruling or revises it to eliminate the inconsistency, the top of a target is considered a playing surface.

So the next time I get a DROT, I can declare the disc the marker, place a support point behind it, and hole out with another disc?

the simplest way to eliminate controversy would be to define holing out as having the disc completely supported by the target (i doubt we would get many people trying to hole out via DROT's -- but if we did that would be entertaining)

i am sure some purists would vehemently oppose counting DROT's though, so while simplifying the rules it would stir up some controversy...



Funny you say purists complaining because I dont hear any of them complaining about discs stuck in the cage counting but ones on top do not. The one STUCK IN THE SIDE of the cage NEVER had a chance to go in because it was ALWAYS to low but the disc resting on top atleast had enough height to go into the basket. Why do stuck in the sides count and resting on top does not??? Makes no sence to me. I know I know some people will say maybe it was inside the basket on a drive and pushed threw and now looks stuck in the side. If that were the case you would be able to TELL if it pushed threw from the inside and SERIOUSLY how many times has that EVER HAPPEND???

the simplest way to eliminate controversy would be to define holing out as having the disc completely supported by the target (i doubt we would get many people trying to hole out via DROT's -- but if we did that would be entertaining)

i am sure some purists would vehemently oppose counting DROT's though, so while simplifying the rules it would stir up some controversy...



Funny you say purists complaining because I dont hear any of them complaining about discs stuck in the cage counting but ones on top do not. The one STUCK IN THE SIDE of the cage NEVER had a chance to go in because it was ALWAYS to low but the disc resting on top atleast had enough height to go into the basket. Why do stuck in the sides count and resting on top does not??? Makes no sence to me. I know I know some people will say maybe it was inside the basket on a drive and pushed threw and now looks stuck in the side. If that were the case you would be able to TELL if it pushed threw from the inside and SERIOUSLY how many times has that EVER HAPPEND???



I agree with you Steve, by 'purists' i really meant those who want to conserve the status quo and argue "but that's how we've always played.' I don't feel like wading thru the DROT thread(s), but if someone really wants to argue that a DROT should not count i think guidelines for targets should be adopted which force basket manufacturers to make a sloped dome top that shed discs like a sloped roof sheds rain.

I still prefer a re-write of the definition of holing out to say: that the disc must be completely supported by the target so that the whole DROT issue falls right off the proverbial slippery slope :D

<font color="blue"> I wasn't going to reply, but I can't stand it.</font>


The player stuck on top can ask that he be allowed to mark the disc before another disc can knock it further away, but no where in the rules does it (s)ay that a player that is not away is allowed to proceed further up the fairway in order to mark a lie before it is their turn to throw.

803.06.A:

<font color="blue">801.01 Courtesy - B. Players should take care not to produce any distracting noises or any potential visual distractions for other players who are throwing. Examples of discourteous actions are: shouting, cursing, freestyling, slapping course equipment, throwing out of turn, throwing or kicking golf bags, and advancing on the fairway beyond the away player. Shouting at an appropriate time to warn someone in danger of being struck by a disc is not a violation of courtesy.</font>

A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur. The away player may require other players to mark their lies or move their equipment before making a throw if the player believes that either could interfere with his or her throw.

Note that it is the player to whom the equipment--in this case, the disc--belongs who is responsible not to leave the equipment in a place where it may interfere with the flight or path of the disc. The final sentence grants the away player the power to compel the equipment be moved if a player does not do so voluntarily.


Item 2: Player who leaves a DROT is delaying
A player who is away and throws a competitive throw is then supposed to by rule wait until they are again the away player to approach and mark their disc. Any other activity unless requested or allowed by the currently away player would be interfering with the natural flow of the game. SO walking up to mark a DROT when it was not requested (or OKed) by the away player would be delaying the game.

See interference, above.
<font color="blue">I looked, I saw nothing that related to delay. The player either has to ask permission from the away player to mark the disc, or be asked by the away player to mark the disc or he is committing a courtesy violation.</font>


Item 3: Zero chance of saving a stroke.
Under the current Q&A there is zero chance of saving a stroke by having another disc strike the DROT disc. There are instances (wind, vibration) where the disc is moved without being struck by another disc in play.

The material circumstances of a disc resting on an object at which players intentionally throw with the intention of strike are sufficiently different from the circumstances of a disc resting on an object at which players do not intentionally throw with the intention of striking to justify different procedures for playing those situations.

In this particular instance, it is necessary to distinguish between necessary (required by the rules of the game) and unnecessary (not required by the rules of the game) actions as well as proximate and remote causes. The nature of disc golf makes striking a target object necessary. Consequently, in the case of a DROT moved by vibration caused by a thrown disc striking the target object, the cause of the movement is a necessary competitive action, and therefore proximate; in the case of a DROT moved by wind or vibration caused by, e.g. a passing dumptruck, the cause of the movement is a non-competitive action, and therefore, remote; in the case of a thrown disc striking a non-target object on which a disc rests, resulting in the movement of the disc at rest, the action, though competitive, is not necessary; therefore, the cause of the movement is remote. Given the issue at hand and the object (goal) of disc golf, it is appropriate to treat movement resulting from necessary and unnecessary actions differently.

<font color="blue">If I was putting, I would no more consider a disc laying on top of the basket likely to be hit by my putt than my own cart left just beside me. In the event of a poor putt either may end up in the way, but neither should be in the way. And to imply that my putt will likely go awry and hit a disc that is above the target is insulting and a form of working me to disrupt my concentration.</font>


Item 4: Distraction/Deflection
Whether an item is a distraction or likely to cause interference is decided by the currently away player. The player preparing to throw can ask for such items to be moved.

803.06.A: "Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could occur."

<font color="blue">See above response. It is not likely that my putt will hit anything above the basket, more normally the fromt pf the pan.</font>


Item 5: Holed out discs can not be played where they lie.
A simple test of this statement would be to have a disc stuck in a tree above while the rest of the card threw their apporach shots that falls into the basket before the players can reach the basket. There is no question that the disc would count as in the basket on a continuation of the previous throw. The same whould be true of a drot that falls in without being struck by another disc.


See reply to item 3, above.


A disc is not holed out until it is removed from the basket (by a player). The only play appropriate for a disc in the basket is to remove it.

The playing of a disc presumes the accrual of an additional throw, since a disc cannot be legally played except from a legal stance, be it on the teepad or subsequent to teeing off, and playing from a legal stance requires the release of a disc, which incurs an additional throw. Since the removal of a disc from the basket does not incur an additional throw, the removal cannot be construed as fulfilling the requirement of "playing a disc where it now lies."

<font color="blue">Again, in the case of a disc suspended in a tree, and not on top of the basket. If the disc falls into the basket before the player arrives there, does the disc count as in the basket ? A DROT is a continuation of the same rule.</font>


I think the Q&A is flawed even though it is signed by many RC members.
The problem is that the top of the target is not a playing surface and as such, the disc on top of the target is suspended above the playing surface just as if it were in a tree or atop a picnic table.

The rule allowing for the replacement of moved discs is within the interference section of the rule book, and only applies to discs or markers at rest on the playing surface.

The ruling is flawed, but notwithstanding the fact that the top of a target has not heretofore been, and perhaps should not be, considered a playing surface, by virtue of the fact that the RC has applied 803.06.B to DROTS and by virtue of the fact that formal rulings by the RC are necessarily definitive and binding, until such time as the RC either rescinds the ruling or revises it to eliminate the inconsistency, the top of a target is considered a playing surface.



<font color="blue">The Q&A ruling specifically states a scenario where the disc on top is struck by another disc. If the group allows the disc on top to remain on top without marking and it manages to drop without being struck by another disc, the Q&A ruling does not apply. It will have to be played from where it ends up, In the basket or on the playing surface.

The Q&A ruling is also about whether it is reasonable to request a player mark their lie or leave the disc where it is.</font>

similarly, lets say an OB line is 10.5 meters from the pole. a disc coming to rest OB or between 9.5 and 10.5 meters from the basket can be marked up to one meter in from the OB line. but it doesnt need to be! if the player wishes to fall thru his putt, he could mark his lie just barely in bounds (within .5 meters of the OB line) and proceed to putt however he wishes.

note: this assumes "lines" exist in your universe. please consult your nearest 2nd grade science teacher for clairification and/or guidance.




True, you may take UP TO 1 meter relief from OB --- BUT
you must be.... :cool:like totally in bounds, dude:cool:
when you assume your stance for the next shot.

So the next time I get a DROT, I can declare the disc the marker, place a support point behind it, and hole out with another disc?



No 803.07A

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.


Unless your pole hole is VERY tall, then DROT is over 2m,
and THEN you get a chance for lucky relief :D

Right, that's a rule for above the playing surface...what I'm seeing in this thread is the Rules Committee is declaring the 'lid' as the playing surface. Even though it's an obstacle to holing out, on most targets. I just want to know one way/other. :confused:

So, based on the RC answer, one could climb the target and putt from atop the basket? :eek: :confused:

I was thinking something a tad less histrionic, like a finger for a 'support point,' but the door appears open.

"Rule Question: Disc resting on top (DROT)
Question: I putted and my disc stayed on top of the basket. Now what?
Applicable rules: 803.12, 803.06.B

The short answer is that it will take you one more throw to complete the hole. Formerly, you could leave it up there and give other players the chance to save you a stroke, but the rule that allowed that (in which a disc struck by another disc was played from its new lie) has been changed. Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.

Since the person whose disc is on top has no chance of saving the stroke, it is reasonable to ask him to mark it if it may become a distraction.

Yours Sincerely, The PDGA Rules Committee"

Ok, it seems to me like if we take this literally, then a DROT can fall into the basket and remain there (i.e. not be returned to its original DROT spot) if it fell in for some reason OTHER than a disc hitting it. Hence the missed putt is now "in."

If a putt has been successfully made, and the next away player does not ask to have the disc removed, or--for some odd reason--denies the other player's request to remove the disc, then what happens if the disc already "in" (possibly hanging in the chains) is subsequently knocked out of the basket and onto the ground? I would assume the disc that was knocked out must be replaced where it was (hanging in the chains).

And is a disc hanging on the outside of the lower entrapment considered "in" (this is different from being literally stuck in the lower section, and is not hanging from the upper entrapment--which is not "in")?

BTW, I have on two occasions sent my putter completely THROUGH the cage of the lower entrapment (hot day, floppy APX swirl). So it is possible...
Thanks,
Steve

I asked the rues committee about that, and they are looking at doing something with the Q&A to clear up the impression that the top of the basket is a playing surface.

In order for a disc to be holed out, it must remain "in" until removed. The removal of a successful putt is continuation of the putting process, and does not require the away players permission.

Only discs at rest on the playing surface are replaced if they move. Since the basket is not a playing surface, a disc that is moved does not get replaced. If it falls out of the target before it is removed, it has to be marked play continued.

A disc completely supported by the lower entrapment section is considered in if it is removed before it is no longer supported by the lower entrapment section.

"In order for a disc to be holed out, it must remain "in" until removed. The removal of a successful putt is continuation of the putting process, and does not require the away players permission.--gnduke"

I could not find this in the rules. Would you mind referring to where this is stated?

"Only discs at rest on the playing surface are replaced if they move. Since the basket is not a playing surface, a disc that is moved does not get replaced. If it falls out of the target before it is removed, it has to be marked play continued.--gnduke"

So if a disc resting on top is moved by any legal agent other than a disc, it is not replaced and must be played from where it finally came to rest after having been disturbed. For example, a putt that does not directly contact the DROT cuases vibrations that shake it loose and it falls to the ground and rolls 50 ft away. The player must now play from that spot 50 ft away? And if it fell into the basket, no further strokes are needed to complete the hole? To eliminate both scenarios, the away player (assuming there is one) may ask to have the DROT marked with a mini since it is a distraction to the away player. In this case, the DROT player loses the chance of having the disc dislodged by a legal agent (wind, vibration, etc.).

802.12 Holing Out
B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.



By requiring the disc to be removed before it is considered to be holed out, it becomes a required part of a successful putt. It is often deferred until everyone putts, but it is still a requirement to complete the final throw. It is in your best interest to remove the disc immediately if the disc is in a possibly unstable position. This is also the case in Aces where players will often run the length of the hole to remove their discs before the next player throws.

The problem with the DROT Q&A is that the top of the basket is not a playing surface, and the replacement rule specifically applies to discs at rest on the playing surface. The away player does have the option of having the disc in question marked if it is a distraction. The player with the DROT can ask permission to mark the disc before it has a chance to roll away. There is also nothing in the current rule book that makes being hit by another disc illegal. The previous rule was that a disc at rest struck by another disc was played from where the disc at rest moved to, the new rules do not have that provision. This explains some of the wording of the Q&A.

So, based on the RC answer, [for a DROT] one could climb the target and putt from atop the basket?




I was thinking something a tad less histrionic, like a finger for a 'support point,' but the door appears open.



my thinking was along the lines of a DROT on a basket surrounded beneathe by OB water. In this case you couldn't take a legal stance beneathe the basket (since part or all of you would be OB), but if the ruling is that the top of the basket is a playing surface you could climb atop and hole out without an OB penalty :D

Bottom Line:

DROT is ambiguous and it would be much easier if it were eliminated so that any putt supported by the target in whatever manner was considered "holed out"

It makes little physical sense that a disc stuck in the side of the basket counts, while a disc on top does not. It's actually harder to achieve DROT And DROT is closer to "in" if marked and played.

Nice simple wording with no ambiguity. Let DROTs count and simplify the rules. Fully supported by any entrapment section is successful.

whoo hooo

Some one agree'dwith me :D

Thanks Nuke.

It seems simple to me.

Now all I need is the endorsement of one Kurt Bayne :D

You've got a lot more than one supporter on that point. If you've got a spare three weeks, you should search the archives for DROT discussion. :)

Nice simple wording with no ambiguity. Let DROTs count and simplify the rules. Fully supported by any entrapment section is successful.



i concur. either change the definition of holing out to having the disc completely supported by the target (we have to eliminate disc leaning against pole being interpreted as supported by the target) *or* have targets required to have sloped lids on them which shed DROT's like a sloped roof sheds rain :D

If the disc falls out of the tree due to another player's (non-thrower's) attempt to determine whether it is below/at/or above 2 m, and this was not intentional (e.g., we often have the guy who is close to 2 m tall stand next to it, and in trying to do so, they often move branches (in spite of being careful not to disturb the disc), especially in the oak trees we have here in CA), then is anyone penalized?

"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."--from the rules

But when you look at these rules (B and C), C states "C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player's thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official."

What is "the process of identification"--does that refer to locating the disc, or does it refer to determining whether the disc is below 2 m? Or both?

In this scenario, if the non-thrower during his attempt to establish the height of the disc knocks it out accidentally, then it is assumed <2 m, and no one is penalized, not even for intereference.

Right?