A player throws a tee shot to a lie within .9 meters of an OB line. Due to a tree immediately infront of the lie he/she relocates their lie to .3 meters of the OB line on the same perpendicular line and throws from there?

Is this a violation of disc golf's rules of play?

Only IFF they are touching OB when the disc is released.

803.02C seems to allow repositioning the lie as long as the player can keep their feet inbounds upon release.

I thought you knew the rules. :p

I can't really find the pertinent rule that allows you to move it, so until it is pointed out to me, I would say that you cannot move the mark.

Interestingly, I also cannot find the flipside rule that allows you to mark a disc up to 1 meter perpendicular to OB, when the disc comes to rest IB and is less than 1 meter from OB.

I assume this rule exists, I just can't find it.

803.02C seems to allow repositioning the lie as long as the player can keep their feet inbounds upon release.



That is my recollection as well. I have done this before to improve my lie, and never thought twice about it.

Yeah, after reading Chuck's response, I'd say a player can do what Nick was asking. Seems kind of cheesy to me though.

803.02 MARKING THE LIE

C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie is marked by placing a mini marker disc up to one meter away from, and perpendicular to, the nearest out-of-bounds line. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole. See the following sections for other consideration in marking a thrown disc:
(1) Relocated for relief - 803.04 C (2)
(2) Interference - 803.06 A, B
(3) Above the playing surface - 803.07 A
(4) Out-of-bounds - 803.08 B
(5) Lost - 803.10 B

The language 'up to' allows to anything between 0.001 and 1m provided you arn't violating any other rules (closer to the basket, support points in bounds etc).

803.02 MARKING THE LIE

C. .... This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

The language 'up to' allows to anything between 0.001 and 1m provided you arn't violating any other rules (closer to the basket, support points in bounds etc).



The rule says you can move it closer to the basket. I have also done this a few times. Basket lies on opposite side of small creek from the tee pad. Shank a drive short of the creek, but within 1 meter, place my marker disc at water's edge to gain 2 or so feet on my putt. Doesn't mean much most of the time, but in my reading of the rules is legal.

When I am on the other side of the creek and close to water's edge, you can sure bet I take the meter relief for the full meter. Doing so totally changes your lie, allowing for a much easier putt.

I don't think this manner of 'reposition' is cheesy; the "leeway" in marking is to ensure 'legal' support points. :)

Correct - o - mundo!

There is no indication concerning the restriction of direction one may relocate ones lie within the 1 meter. This can be a valuable rule to know in certain situations.

To my knowledge, the PDGA Rules Committee is not even looking at this rule, though I did shoot it to them for consideration, I suspect that there are good reasons for allowing that freedom.

This is certainly a good rule to know; possibly the one I get asked the most ["can I move this..."]. Also remember that you CAN'T get that 1 m from an object, just OB.

...another good rule to know is that if a shot goes OB, you might have a choice of where to place the lie: Where it last went out, or from the previous lie [per 80x.xx]. ;)

The trickier situation that TDs would do well to address is situations where a strip of land say 3 feet wide is inbounds. If a disc goes OB or even lands IB on the strip, can you come completely out to either end of the strip because there's nowhere on the strip you can mark your lie 1m from OB if that's what you want to do?

There's a hole at Sandy Point where the tee shot goes over water for righty hyzers to a pin on a peninsula. If you go OB by not making it to the pin or hyzering back onto land, your last point inbounds has traditionally been to throw from the dock which your disc likely flew over during the drive. The dock is maybe 5 feet wide so there's no place on it that's fully 1m from all OB (this is also a case of IB over OB). I figure the TD can avoid the up to 1m relief by specifying that the dock happens to be the drop zone for that OB. I would assume that once a drop zone is specified, that the requirement to get up to 1m relief is void. Otherwise, tee pads like #17 at Wintrhop would be inappropriate because there's no place on the pad that's at least 1m from all OB.

Just my gut feeling the 1.0 option is a luxury, not a right. Now, 30cm, that's a 'right'!

I suspect the intent of the rule was to allow footing within bounds, therefore you can move it 1 meter. The rule should be reviewed and perhaps re-written. I don't think it is right to be able to move your lie towards the OB for a better lie. I can think of a few times I could have done that. It pays to know the rules I guess, but I don't think I would do it. I would feel quilty even if it is the way the rule is written.

The real question should be, not do you feel guilty if you move your lie closer to OB for a better lie, or is the rule fair?

Another example, sometimes by leaving your disc on the ground instead of using a mini you can get a better lie. The extra 20 or so centimeters of the disc really can change a lie underneath shubbery.

803.02 A. ....A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker.


So, you are allowed to chose a lie that is 20 centimeters (the width of a disc give or take) different on all throws that lie on the playing surface. Most of the time the 1 meter relief does not change your lie by more than about 20 centimeters anyway.

I have no problem whatsoever marking my lie anywhere I wish within 1 meter of OB, whether I thru OB or anywhere within 1 meter it matters not to me, none, 0, now go back to your quilting :eek: :D

I believe this entire rule should be stricken from the rule book due to the purely random nature of treatment for discs that skip off the ground (when they land) and end up .99 meters from OB and those that end up 1.01 meters from OB. Especially in light of the fact that the release of those two discs are in essence indescernible. This pure luck factor and unfair treatment of the one disc indicates that the rule should be done away with.

------------------------------------------------------
What is “arbitrary” is the nature with which a disc tumbles down through a tree and penalizing one and not another even though the difference in inception and execution of the throw were indiscernible, one tumbled to 2.01 meters while the other tumbled to 1.99 meters.

Solution: Change it from a height, to a definite line. What line could serve this purpose?

Out of Bounds

--------------------------------------------------
ooops... :D

Hey, are you the same Sharky that designed the stamps for the worlds discs?

I suspect the intent of the rule was to allow footing within bounds, therefore you can move it 1 meter. The rule should be reviewed and perhaps re-written. I don't think it is right to be able to move your lie towards the OB for a better lie. I can think of a few times I could have done that. It pays to know the rules I guess, but I don't think I would do it. I would feel quilty even if it is the way the rule is written.



I know what you are saying Jeannie and it makes sense. I sent this off to the RC for their thoughts, perhaps it will be disallowed in the 2006 update. For now, use it with a clear conscience.

I suspect the intent of the rule was to allow footing within bounds, therefore you can move it 1 meter. The rule should be reviewed and perhaps re-written. I don't think it is right to be able to move your lie towards the OB for a better lie. I can think of a few times I could have done that. It pays to know the rules I guess, but I don't think I would do it. I would feel quilty even if it is the way the rule is written.



I know what you are saying Jeannie and it makes sense. I sent this off to the RC for their thoughts, perhaps it will be disallowed in the 2006 update. For now, use it with a clear conscience.



Why would you want to rewrite this rule? Cripes, talk about OCD. Let's use common sense, of course the reason the rule is there is so that the player can make a legal stance. IMO, if a player is smart enough to cut himself/herself some slack on an O.B. I'd call that good management of the course and rules! More power to 'em!

As for feeling guilty about it, well, I feel guilty about that extra desert I ate for lunch... does that count?

Did it ever occur to you guys that the person who wrote the rule intended that the player have the option of moving their disc over the range of a meter? That in fact they were thinking of exactly the issue that Nick has run into? "Up to" isn't easily missused or misinterpreted. In fact, it's pretty clear. My guess is that the RC wanted this rule the way it is.

Sometimes rules or laws or whatever are written with specific intent that over time through use may need to be changed. All I am saying is that the intent of the rule is not to give one an advantage by being able to move their disc all around within 1 meter of any OB to get a better lie, but to get a legal stance. There are always going to be ways of working the rules to your advantage and I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, being that is how it is written. It's just not my way of playing. If my disc lands behind a tree that happens to be almost 1 meter away from an OB, and I can still get footing within the bounds, that's where I would play it. I would not move my lie closer to the OB so the tree is no longer in the way.Call me what you want.
This kind of reminds me of Pizza Gods post about his grease trap. Tell me that law doesn't need some rethinking.

OK Chuck, I'll bite.

The rule as written only specifies the OB line nearest to where the disc came to rest, unless the disc came to rest precisely in the center of the 3 foot wide strip of land, the rule can only be applied to one side or the other.

The rule also does not guarantee a suitable stance can be found within the 1 meter or even that the full meter will be inbounds. That is why there is a list of other considerations. I've looked through the list, and none seem to apply in this case, the player is left with accepting the best lie they can find within 1 meter perpindicular to the OB line or declaring an unsafe lie.

Now comes the question: Is 803.04 valid in whole or part for consideration of relief from OB instead of casual obstables.

In the case of the 5 foot wide dock, the player can easily mark the lie a full meter from the OB line nearest to where the disc came to rest. Since the rule applies to where the disc came to rest, and not the mark, the fact that the mark is now within 1 meter of the other OB line does not matter.

All I am saying is that the intent of the rule is not to give one an advantage by being able to move their disc all around within 1 meter of any OB to get a better lie, but to get a legal stance.



We are generally speaking of a difference of a foot or two. Once the width of the disc is taken into consideration, nine times out of ten the movement of the lie is negligable (sp?).

In my example of moving closer to the creek before putting, I am sure this is merely a psychological advantage. The same as if you put down a mini on a ten foot putt rather than leaving your disc where it landed.

To have to RC rewrite this rule would only cause confusion and divisiness(sp?). The rule is very clear and well written the way it is. I think the rule is fair. Noone will gain a clear advantage from being 1.01 meters away from OB or right on the creek's edge.

Additionally, if you were to go out-of-bounds on the teepad side of a creek would you mark your lie exactly 1 meter from the water's edge? Or would you place your marker as close as possible to the creek?

If you rewrite the relief from OB for the inbounds case, you had better rewrite the rule for the OB case as well.

In the case of actually going OB, I can see the OB line crossed could be the primary reference. However, the relief within 1m when landing IB near OB implies that ANY OB nearby is subject to the 1m relief independent whether it was involved in an OB penalty. Interestingly, a player threw in his shot from the dock about 150' from the pin for one of the coolest circle 3s I've heard about.

A difference of a foot or two is huge in most cases in my opinion. Maybe you are a better player and don't have a knack for landing directly behind trees like I do. :D

In the case of actually going OB, I can see the OB line crossed could be the primary reference. However, the relief within 1m when landing IB near OB implies that ANY OB nearby is subject to the 1m relief independent whether it was involved in an OB penalty. Interestingly, a player threw in his shot from the dock about 150' from the pin for one of the coolest circle 3s I've heard about.



Since our rule book is not the encyclopedia that some other sports rules are, we have to do some interpretation in order to apply them fairly under all the unusual circumstances that may happen. For a known condition such as the IB area of a small strip like Chuck talks about, I think the TD ought to have a drop zone or explain what should be done in that special situation. For conditions that were unknown to the TD until a problem arises, he or she needs to interpret the rules as fairly as possible and consider explaining the situation at the next player's meeting.

I would agree with you that the implication is any OB line if it were not stated in a clear manner that the OB line nearest where the disc came to rest was the OB line of reference.

It also is pretty clear that where the disc came to rest is the point from which relief is given, not the newly marked lie.

I had always looked at it the way you are describing it, now I'll have to look at it differently. Why did you make me read the book again ?

Hey Jeannie, No I am not that Sharky. I do snap a few pics though and actually have a web site with some of my shots. I play in Maryland but like to make journies to other states to play too, West Virginia Open is next up, then the Patapsco Picnic, USDGC spectating road trip a maybe for me, then the Hawk Hollow turnie, whooo hoooo! BTW my pic site is www.Sharkysshots.com (http://www.sharkysshots.com)

Nice pics. I like the one of you and your group at Tinicum.

Disc Golf

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

A difference of a foot or two is huge in most cases in my opinion. Maybe you are a better player and don't have a knack for landing directly behind trees like I do. :D



I think I understand the points you are trying to make but in this case I have to disagree.

A player that is good enough to take advantage of that small difference probably won't need to. As for a bad player, the play in the rule is not going to be sufficient to make a difference.

Not to support Nick or anything, but if I put on my Nick hat (better known as the I hate the 2M rule hat) I might say that my toss out of bounds has been penalized, i.e. I get a stroke. My O.B. throw may have been O.B., but in the clear. Now my move in bounds puts me behind a tree.
Is it fair to penalize me a second time by making me throw from a lousy lie?

I reitterate, I think the RC put the play in the rule for a reason - I think the rule allows enough play to prevent, or at least mitigate double jeapordy.

Hey Jeannie, No I am not that Sharky. I do snap a few pics though and actually have a web site with some of my shots. I play in Maryland but like to make journies to other states to play too, West Virginia Open is next up, then the Patapsco Picnic, USDGC spectating road trip a maybe for me, then the Hawk Hollow turnie, whooo hoooo! BTW my pic site is www.Sharkysshots.com (http://www.sharkysshots.com)



Jeannie, this is the Mark that first brought this rule to my attention last year at Patapsco. At first I took an identical tact you are now taking. I was puzzled enough to ask the PDGA RC, and the answer was that yes, you are permitted to mark your lie anywhere within the 1 meter area even if it takes you closer to the OB. This rule is not in the OB section of our rules.

I can't say whether there are more reasons for keeping it as is or making it so that that is not possible, I can say that I am quite sure that it is in fact the correct interpretation of the rules.

I did ask the PDGA RC to review it, in case your suspicions are correct and there really is no significant reason to leave it the way it is. If they don't find one this could well be another of the updates for 2006.

And Lyle, I don't hate the 2 meter sentences (I don't really "hate" anything, other than a missed 10 footer), I've played with them in effect as long as anyone; I just don't, and have never seen the necessity for them. And this is now being bore out on the courses at events with out the rule in effect.

which is another way for Nick to say "i dont understand it and i dont like it so it must be striken"

This statement is interesting. I have actually been in a similar situation. " You are permitted to mark your lie anywhere within the 1 meter area even if it takes you closer to the OB. This rule is not in the OB section of our rules."

As long as your not touching OB with any part of your body and/or Feet. :D

Sharkey - Darn, I was going to offer you one of my quilts for some of your artwork /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Thanks for the link.

Lyle -
[QUOTE]
I think I understand the points you are trying to make but in this case I have to disagree. <font color="red">OK </font>

A player that is good enough to take advantage of that small difference probably won't need to. <font color="red"> I think I would have to disagree </font> As for a bad player, the play in the rule is not going to be sufficient to make a difference. <font color="red">I don't think it has to do with ability. I am quite sure good players go OB or land IB within 1 meter of the OB.</font>

Not to support Nick or anything, but if I put on my Nick hat (better known as the I hate the 2M rule hat) I might say that my toss out of bounds <font color="red"> It wasn't out of bounds </font> has been penalized, i.e. I get a stroke. My O.B. throw may have been O.B., but in the clear. Now my move in bounds puts me behind a tree.
Is it fair to penalize me a second time by making me throw from a lousy lie? <font color="red">I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The throw wasn't OB. It was IB and .9 meters from the OB line. He then moved it closer to the OB line to get a better throw having nothing to do with a proper stance. I understand it is within the rules to do this and that is why I said I think the rule might need some rewording or additional wording. That's all :D </font>

Sharkey - Darn, I was going to offer you one of my quilts for some of your artwork /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Thanks for the link.

Lyle -
[QUOTE]
I think I understand the points you are trying to make but in this case I have to disagree. <font color="red">OK </font>

A player that is good enough to take advantage of that small difference probably won't need to. <font color="red"> I think I would have to disagree </font> As for a bad player, the play in the rule is not going to be sufficient to make a difference. <font color="red">I don't think it has to do with ability. I am quite sure good players go OB or land IB within 1 meter of the OB.</font>

Not to support Nick or anything, but if I put on my Nick hat (better known as the I hate the 2M rule hat) I might say that my toss out of bounds <font color="red"> It wasn't out of bounds </font> has been penalized, i.e. I get a stroke. My O.B. throw may have been O.B., but in the clear. Now my move in bounds puts me behind a tree.
Is it fair to penalize me a second time by making me throw from a lousy lie? <font color="red">I think you may have misunderstood what I said. The throw wasn't OB. It was IB and .9 meters from the OB line. He then moved it closer to the OB line to get a better throw having nothing to do with a proper stance. I understand it is within the rules to do this and that is why I said I think the rule might need some rewording or additional wording. That's all :D </font>



To be completely accurate, the disc was 2 feet from OB, I announced that I was going to move it closer to the OB as that is permitted under the rules, but being that it is a little known rule, I'll take a provisional from where it came to rest if anyone in the group would prefer. Someone did (understandably), and I took a provisional then move the mark to about 1 foot from the OB and threw again.

This rule is rarely used. It is however, according to the PDGA Rules Committee an indisputably "correct" interpretation and everyone should be aware of it. Whether or not you choose to use it, according to your own moral or ethical compass, is up to you. But until otherwise clarified or changed by the PDGA Rules Committee, no one should ever rule against such a usage. Otherwise we will have two different rulings for the same rule at different times, which is, of course, unfair.

Let's see if the RC changes it, until that time, be aware of this ruling.

we use that rule all the time in texas. i would bet that 90% of our established players know about the 1M leeway thing, and every one of them would be aware enough to use it to improve their lie if such a possibility arose.

we use that rule all the time in texas. i would bet that 90% of our established players know about the 1M leeway thing, and every one of them would be aware enough to use it to improve their lie if such a possibility arose.



The Pride of Texas! :D

Agreed. It pays to know the rules. I actually had the opportunity to use it this weekend at the MSDGC but didn't. Probably should have too. :(