I am not sure if this has been previously discussed, but my search on the matter was fruitless. So, I will start a new thread.

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



My confusion or consternation may be a better way to put it, comes from the marker disc. Rule 803.02 says you may choose to use either your disc or a mini marker disc to mark your lie.

If your disc comes to rest within 10 centimeters of a solid obstacle and you pick it up to place your mini, you now have a full 30 centimeters behind your marker to make a proper stance.

If your disc comes to rest within 20 centimeters of a solid obstacle and you choose to leave your disc as it lies, you are then afforded relief behind the obstacle.

This came into play at league recently. A disc landed about 10 centimeters in front of a large transformer box. The thrower picked up his disc after marking it with a mini. As he began to take his stance, he was attacked by a swarm of hornets who had made their nest on the side of the transformer box. The other guy in the group made the comment that if he had left his disc in place he could've thrown from behind the transformer, which is actually very preferrable as he was still about 400 feet away from the basket with an uphill elevation change.

Since it was league, we both decided he should just throw from behind the transformer as if he had not picked up his disc.

Any thoughts?

Any thoughts?

I'd say that casual relief from hornets is the applicable rule here...

okay, ignore the hornet's nest.

If it was 30.0+ cm in front it is "tough". Making a stance should be no prob. But as that >>>0.0x [and legal support is not feasible] one can argue for 'behind the object'.

If "behind" is 30.0+ it is again 'tough'. So in essence you're asking, where from 30.0+ >>>0.0x cm can I say it's not feasible to make a stance, and thus revert to a tertiary lie-area, is that what you're saying? :confused:

[side-stepping the casual relief aspect]

I am trying to gather opinions on the difference with relief from an obstacle when using your previously thrown disc as your marker.

In my example, the trailing edge of his disc was within 30 cm of the transformer box. When he placed his mini and picked up his disc, his mini was further than 30 cm from the box.

Taking the lie behind the box was preferable, as it afforded a run-up with no real obstruction to throwing (the box was not tall enough to interfere with his throw). Once he placed his mini, he could no longer take the throw from behind the obstacle.

I could probably think of other similar examples, but this one actually happened.

Does this rule make sense in these types of situations?

Well, you aren't required to use a mini marker, in this instance. It seems alright.

Excepting the hornets which bring the casual relief rules into play, the solid obstacle rule is perfectly applicable. It is the responsibility of the player to know the consequences of using a mini marker versus using the thrown disc when this type of question comes into play.

The mini marker versus thrown disc decision is made on almost every shot and hopefully made to the benefit of the player. This is just an example of how important that decision can be when obstacles are involved.

When you mark with a mini, you must make contact with the disc previously thrown. You can "just barely" touch the disc, or you can let 99% of the mini make contact. In the latter, you may not have 30cm of room for a decent stance and still throw from behind the solid object in question.

Watch people mark their discs. Almost everyone marks incorrectly. ie: no contact with thrown disc

I agree with the mini touching but not the overlap. I believe the word "between" in the rule prevents the overlap concept. The proper way would be to place the mini in front of the thrown disc and slide it back until it touches it.

From 803.02A:
"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."

Interesting take marking, can't say that it's impossible to interpret the rule that way, but it is tough.


803.02.A ...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. ...


The tough part is the wording of the marking rule that states the mini marker is placed between the thrown disc. This seems to be a little more than an implication that the entire mini marker should be in the space between the thrown disc and the target.

But at least it will still be touching the thrown disc.

wrong! the overlap example is CORRECT!

after all, if a dead branch lies partly behind and partly in foront of the disc, it is considered BETWEEN the disc and the target and therefore may not be moved.

same use of the word = same application of the rules

Wrong. The rule you're citing is 803.04 B. Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: not between the disc and hole. The lie is defined in the Glossary as - Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules. The space under the mini is not part of the lie since your support point can't be placed there to make a legal throw.

In each case here, the word 'between' does not necessitate any overlapping. When obstacles like branches extend from behind to in front of the lie, they might be under the mini but they are still between the lie and hole.

I never said that overlapping was incorrect, just that I personally would have a hard time interpretting the rule that way.

I then explained my position.

My closing sentence was meant to be a statement that agreed that if the mini overlapps the thrown disc or is laid beside it, at least it would be touching the thrown disc.

When you mark with a mini, you must make contact with the disc previously thrown. You can "just barely" touch the disc, or you can let 99% of the mini make contact. In the latter, you may not have 30cm of room for a decent stance and still throw from behind the solid object in question.

Watch people mark their discs. Almost everyone marks incorrectly. ie: no contact with thrown disc


"Tombstoning" :o:D

I am not sure if this has been previously discussed, but my search on the matter was fruitless. So, I will start a new thread.

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



My confusion or consternation may be a better way to put it, comes from the marker disc. Rule 803.02 says you may choose to use either your disc or a mini marker disc to mark your lie.

If your disc comes to rest within 10 centimeters of a solid obstacle and you pick it up to place your mini, you now have a full 30 centimeters behind your marker to make a proper stance.

If your disc comes to rest within 20 centimeters of a solid obstacle and you choose to leave your disc as it lies, you are then afforded relief behind the obstacle.

This came into play at league recently. A disc landed about 10 centimeters in front of a large transformer box. The thrower picked up his disc after marking it with a mini. As he began to take his stance, he was attacked by a swarm of hornets who had made their nest on the side of the transformer box. The other guy in the group made the comment that if he had left his disc in place he could've thrown from behind the transformer, which is actually very preferrable as he was still about 400 feet away from the basket with an uphill elevation change.

Since it was league, we both decided he should just throw from behind the transformer as if he had not picked up his disc.

Any thoughts?



<font color="green"> 803.02 MARKING 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.

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

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

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

Chuck is correct about the relief from harmful insects. <font color="green"> 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows: </font>

But since you asked that we ignore that, my ruling would be that the following is incorrect:

�If your disc comes to rest within 20 centimeters of a solid obstacle and you choose to leave your disc as it lies, you are then afforded relief behind the obstacle.�

You would only be afforded such relief <font color="green"> If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc</font>. And since 20 centimeters should be plenty of room to take a legal stance, extending your lie beyond the solid obstacle would not be permitted. The only time it would be is if you could not possibly take a legal stance as marked.
Now, with that being said, if the disc at rest was up against the solid obstacle, there is no rule requiring the use of a mini marker, so the player could take relief immediately behind the solid obstacle.

Hope that was helpful.

What do you mean by "tombstoning"? I'm not familiar with the term.

The mini doesn't necessarily have to go upon the playing surface; it can be inserted INTO the playing surface, and still meet the criteria.

...Innova's Ram is known for 'Tombstoning'. :p

If a disc is 3 meters up in the middle of a dense but not solid bush, how is that correctly handled? I realize there is one penalty for being over 2 meters up but could any "free" relief be taken also? Any difference (except not getting the over 2 meter penalty) if the disc is in the middle of the bush near or on the ground? Thanks.

If a disc is 3 meters up in the middle of a dense but not solid bush, how is that correctly handled? I realize there is one penalty for being over 2 meters up but could any "free" relief be taken also? Any difference (except not getting the over 2 meter penalty) if the disc is in the middle of the bush near or on the ground? Thanks.



If by marking your lie on the playing surface your mark would be in the middle of a "solid obstacle" i.e. the trunk of a bush or tree, then you would be permitted to mark it immediately behind that solid obstacle. No further relief is provided unless stipulated under special conditions by the TD.

Bush branches do not in most cases count as large solid obstacles.

Now if you can't take your stance without damaging the obstacle, which if you do is a penalty throw without warning, then you would be wise to take an unsafe lie throw and get the relief it affords.

So basically it turns out to be a two stroke penalty if the disc is over two meters up?

So basically it turns out to be a two stroke penalty if the disc is over two meters up?



What do you mean?

If (and I am happy to report that as a big "IF") the 2 meter rule is in effect, then it is a one throw penalty for that. If mark on the playing surface below is within a solid obstacle, then you get the first mark behind that obstacle, no penalty throw.

Now, if you can't take a legal stance without damaging the bush or tree, then you can declare an unsafe lie, add a throw to your score and relocate according to that rule.

If you don't take the unsafe lie, step in there and break a branch, are called on it, you get a 1 throw penalty added to your score, AND your lie is still inside that bush so you are still throwing in there and might need to now take an unsafe lie.

There are some interesting angles to this. If we discuss new options for this rule, I'd hope that protection of those lower branches would be a priority.

the real question is--

can an unplayable lie be considered "playing surface"?

in other words, your disc lands above a thorn bush that is entirely impenetrable. are your forced to mark it (taking a stroke for being above the playing surface) and then taking another stroke for it being unplayable?

one more reason the 2m rule needs to go if you ask me.

I believe you mean "unsafe" we don't have an "unplayable" lie (yet).

Interesting thought though.

What if:

<font color="green"> 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. </font>

Was rewriten as:

<font color="green"> 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful plants, insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. </font>

so is there any situation that would warrant 2 stroke penalties for one throw?

i don't believe there should be.

There are rules that provide a 2 throw penalty.

The only way to avoid such problems (as this example) is for TDs to know about such places on their courses and provide relief that results in an appropriate penalty AND PROTECTS the courses obstacles. There are any variety of OB and Special Condition rules that could be utilized.

But if they don't, our rules thankfully do cover such situations, and yes, it might just cost you two throws to get out of them.

no matter how extensive a TD can be about making this that or everything casual or not, distinct situations will arise. laying this situation on the shoulders of the TD is an imcomplete solution and a cop out.

so what you are saying is that you should take two penalty strokes for a disc that is 2m up above an unplayable lie.

if you can mark it, you can play it. what if you can't even mark it?

how can it be above the playing surface when it is an unplayable lie? it's the same logic that tells us a disc stuck in a tree 2m up is not OB, it's above the playing surface. if it's stuck 2m up above OB, it's OB.

There is no such thing as an "unplayable" lie within our rules, I think you mean "unsafe" lie.

The fact that if the 2 meter sentences are in effect at a tournament and your disc comes to rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface, is a separate topic from whether the location below it to be marked is within a large solid obstacle.

Being over 2 meters gets you a penalty throw if that rule is in effect. Period. The only way it doesn�t is if the area below the disc at rest is Out of Bounds, in which case you do not count the fact that it is above 2 meters.

That discs at rest more then 2 meters above the playing surface often have a bad lie is also a different topic.

What we are dealing with here is that the lie on the playing surface is within a large solid obstacle; in which case relief is provided to the first available lie behind that obstacle.

Now if the branches are so thick that the player can�t get in there and take a legal stance they may declare an �unsafe lie� and move to a new lie in compliance with that rule. This involves taking another penalty throw.

If the TD or course designer does not want that sort of double penalty, then they can:

A) Not have the 2 meter rule in effect.
B) Provide relief from such bushes that does not involve further penalty throw.

If you feel this is unjust, what would you suggest we change?

If you feel this is unjust, what would you suggest we change?

i suggest this is one more reason that we should eliminate the two meter rule.

penalyzing one bad throw twice is convoluted, inconsistent and unneccessary.

Being over 2 meters gets you a penalty throw if that rule is in effect. Period. The only way it doesn�t is if the area below the disc at rest is Out of Bounds, in which case you do not count the fact that it is above 2 meters.


Okay, here's a brain twister.

You throw a disc, and the last you think you saw of it, it flew high into a tree leaning over OB, but the disc entered the disc on the non-OB side. When you run up to that tree, you see a similarly colored disc, 40 feet high in the tree, hanging over OB. The 2MR is in effect.

What do you do?

If the group agrees it's your disc, then it's OB. If the group can't determine it's your disc, it's lost and mark it where last seen with one throw penalty. If the last point seen happens to be over OB, then OB takes precedence and is marked accordingly. It's likely all scenarios end up with the lie about the same spot with a 1-throw penalty. 2m was irrelevant.

If the group agrees it's your disc, then it's OB. If the group can't determine it's your disc, it's lost and mark it where last seen with one throw penalty. If the last point seen happens to be over OB, then OB takes precedence and is marked accordingly. It's likely all scenarios end up with the lie about the same spot with a 1-throw penalty. 2m was irrelevant.


Pretty good. I'm thinking of starting a Stump Chuck thread.

Now, let's reverse things. What if the disc appeared to some to have entered the tree from its OB side, but later a similarly colored disc is seen 40 feet high hanging over non-OB. And the 2MR is not in effect!

And to make matters worse, an obstacle lies on the playing surface directly below the similarly-colored disc. (Does this make it an on-topic scenario?)

If the group agrees it's your disc, then it's OB. If the group can't determine it's your disc, it's lost and mark it where last seen with one throw penalty. If the last point seen happens to be over OB, then OB takes precedence and is marked accordingly. It's likely all scenarios end up with the lie about the same spot with a 1-throw penalty. 2m was irrelevant.


Pretty good. I'm thinking of starting a Stump Chuck thread.

Now, let's reverse things. What if the disc appeared to some to have entered the tree from its OB side, but later a similarly colored disc is seen 40 feet high hanging over non-OB. And the 2MR is not in effect!

And to make matters worse, an obstacle lies on the playing surface directly below the similarly-colored disc. (Does this make it an on-topic scenario?)



I can't speak for the PDGA Rules Committee, but this is what I've heard is as a prime example of "what ifs" they purposefully avoid.

It is however perfect fodder for this DISCussion board. :)

Let�s reset this scenario to make sure we all have it correctly:

1) A player throws a tee shot that appears to go out over OB and then vanishes behind a tree some 40 feet up.
2) The 2 meter rule is not in effect.
3) Later a similarly colored disc is seen 40 feet above the playing surface above in bounds.
4) Directly below the disc at rest is a large solid obstacle on the playing surface.

Assuming this is correct, there are two questions that would need to be answered:
1) Was the discs status determined by the group prior to seeing a similarly colored disc 40 feet up above IB?
2) If so, was that similarly colored disc identified as the throwers disc?

Now assuming the answer is yes to both of those questions, here is the correct ruling:
The mark is made on the playing surface immediately below the disc at rest. Being that there is a large solid obstacle directly below it, the lie is marked in the first available location behind that obstacle on the line of play. There is no penalty throw and play proceeds.

If by �later� you mean something else, you will need to specify exactly when in the process it was �seen�. Also, if you mean that the disc was seen but not identified, then it has no relation to this specific issue or ruling. It is not involved.

OK, you guys have moved on but not me

On the local maryland-discgolf.com forum area (general - rules thread) a person said that you were wrong nick /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Anyway, leaving out the, personal attacks on you :Dhere is the gist of that post:

if you take unsafe lie relief (if appropriate which is always debatable) you take that penalty (either one or two strokes depending on distance you need to move it) and ignore the 2 meter stroke. (in effect, the spot directly beneath your disc up in the tree is no longer your lie so becomes immaterial)


Who is correct?

To restate:

You throw into a nasty large bush and end up 3 meters up, if you elect to not throw from the spot beneath the disc what options does the player have and how many penalty strokes?

Thanks.

I am more interested in getting it right than in being right, so no problem.

So Mark, this person, who shall remain nameless, contends that this situation is an �either or� situation similar to being above 2 meters and Out of Bounds, is that correct?

If the status below the disc at rest is in bounds, then the status of the disc being 2 meters above the playing surface is in effect, regardless of whether when the lie is marked it is repositioned due to the obstacles and relief rules. If the 2 meter rule is in effect, it clearly is a violation of that rule and a 1 throw penalty must be added to the players score.

Nowhere in our rules is a player permitted to look up in a bush or tree, see that their disc is more than 2 meters above the playing surface and declare an unsafe lie and avoid the 2 meter rules 1 throw penalty. Or I can�t find it, can you? Can Mr. Nameless?

Similar to OB, the actual lie, from which play will resume, is not determined until the rules pertaining to where the disc actually came to rest are applied. I.e. penalty throws and relocations. Only at that point may an unsafe lie be declared.

I was clearly wrong about one thing though; if the player tries to jam their foot in under those thick branches and damages them, it is not a 1 throw penalty, it is a 2 throw penalty if called by and confirmed by other (2)players or an (1)official! (And the person�s lie �still� is under that bush, so they might �still� need to declare and unsafe lie and take another stroke!)

Here are the related rules as I found them.

<font color="green"> 803.02 MARKING 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.


803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. �If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle.

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

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Casual obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.

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

you're wrong nick.


Nowhere in our rules is a player permitted to look up in a bush or tree, see that their disc is more than 2 meters above the playing surface and declare an unsafe lie and avoid the 2 meter rules 1 throw penalty. Or I can�t find it, can you? Can Mr. Nameless?



where in our rules does it say that 2 strokes can be applied to penalize the same throw?

that's completely absurd. try to justify that. if it isn't explicitly stated in the rule book, it should be.

OK, thanks for the rules snipets with bolding it does help. Anyway, in this particular situation there was no OB anywhere near the lie so that is not a factor. What we actually ended up doing might have been correct it looks like :eek: The player took the one stroke for above 2 meters, then moved the disc to the first playable spot at the rear of the bush and on a line to the basket and played from there with no additional penalty. Is that OK, is a bush considered a casual obstacle? I do agree that if the person wanted to take the unsafe lie rule and move up to 5 meters no closer to the basket (a semi circle) then he would have to take 1 penalty for the over 2 meters and one for the unsafe lie for a total of 2 penalty throws. (Contrary to Mr. Bisc errrr Mr. X's opinion. :D)

You should know better dude, and you are an official, I am shocked :eek: :D

You take an unsafe penalty from a lie, not from where the disc is located. If your disc is above the ground, whether 2 inches or 20 feet, you don't have a lie until you mark it on the ground. If it's above 2m, it's a 1-throw penalty if that rule is in effect. Then, you determine whether you want to play from that lie. If you don't, then you take relief using the Unsafe Lie rule (notice the word 'lie' is in the name of the rule) and add an additional 1 or even 2 throws penalty.

You cannot use the Unsafe Lie rule before you have a lie to avoid the 2m penalty. Where you can avoid double jeopardy is when your disc is 2m in an OB area. OB trumps any other penalty like 2m or lost disc when you're OB and the penalties don't add. Likewise, missing a mando and continuing into OB results in just receiving the missed mando penalty.

OK, thanks for the rules snipets with bolding it does help. Anyway, in this particular situation there was no OB anywhere near the lie so that is not a factor. What we actually ended up doing might have been correct it looks like :eek: The player took the one stroke for above 2 meters, then moved the disc to the first playable spot at the rear of the bush and on a line to the basket and played from there with no additional penalty. Is that OK, is a bush considered a casual obstacle? I do agree that if the person wanted to take the unsafe lie rule and move up to 5 meters no closer to the basket (a semi circle) then he would have to take 1 penalty for the over 2 meters and one for the unsafe lie for a total of 2 penalty throws. (Contrary to Mr. Bisc errrr Mr. X's opinion. :D)



What is "playable lie"? You don't get relocated to the first "playable lie".

<font color="green"> the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle</font>

�Immediately� means the first spot on the playing surface immediately behind the large solid obstacle, not the first unencumbered lie. If they want that, an unencumbered lie, that will cost them another stroke.

you're wrong nick.


Nowhere in our rules is a player permitted to look up in a bush or tree, see that their disc is more than 2 meters above the playing surface and declare an unsafe lie and avoid the 2 meter rules 1 throw penalty. Or I can�t find it, can you? Can Mr. Nameless?



where in our rules does it say that 2 strokes can be applied to penalize the same throw?

that's completely absurd. try to justify that. if it isn't explicitly stated in the rule book, it should be.



All well and good, but please show me where it "does" say that it is not allowed.

In the case of a disc that is both Out of Bounds and more than 2 meters above the playing surface it is 100% covered within our rules, with no doubling up of penalties:

<font color="green"> 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. </font>
It even covers this exact discussion with absolutely �no provision� for avoiding further penalties as concerns a disc above a large solid obstacle:
<font color="green"> 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. </font>

Getting additional relief from the relocated lie should, in my opinion, and in my interpretation of the rules result in an additional penalty throw being added to the players score. Play can proceed from the relocated lie due to the large solid obstacle; whereas it cannot from out of bounds. The choice to move to an even better lie than the rule explicitly provides is clearly penalty throw worthy.

This is my understanding. Feel free to check with the PDGA Rules Committee concerning this. Above is the ruling I would give.

OK, thanks that clears it up for me 100%, I am in your camp on this one. ;)

Bushes that are still attached to their roots and growing are not casual obstacles. The TD can declare additional relief for such bushes if the course layout or desire to protect the bushes warrants such a declaration, but normally the area beneath a bush is in play.

the question is simple--

if you cannot mark your lie because of an impenetrable bush/tree, how can you declare it 2m above the playing surface? it simply wasn't playable, regardless if it was 1m or 3m off the ground.

i would rule to give up to 5m relief, no closer to the hole, as agreed upon by the group, with one stroke penalty. further, if i had to clarify the rule, i would include something that dictates the relief be given the nearest possible spot to get to from where the disc landed.

i would rule to give up to 5m relief, no closer to the hole, as agreed upon by the group, with one stroke penalty. further, if i had to clarify the rule, i would include something that dictates the relief be given the nearest possible spot to get to from where the disc landed.



That may be what you'd like to see but that's not the way it's played under current rules. Just because you cannot access the place on the ground to place a marker and establish the lie, doesn't mean it isn't there and the disc's height above it can't be measured to determine first whether the 2m penalty should be applied if it's in effect and then the Unsafe Lie penalty is applied if relief is needed.

Just because you cannot access the place on the ground to place a marker and establish the lie, doesn't mean it isn't there and the disc's height above it can't be measured to determine first whether the 2m penalty should be applied



oh really? i guess you can just stand back and assume it? if it's not playable (be it unsafe or just plain unreachable) how can it be considered above the playing surface?

this needs to be specifically addressed in the rule book.

the question is simple--

if you cannot mark your lie because of an impenetrable bush/tree, how can you declare it 2m above the playing surface? it simply wasn't playable, regardless if it was 1m or 3m off the ground.



and the answer is just as simple�

It is not a matter of not being able to mark your lie on the playing surface below because of a �large solid obstacle�, it is a matter of correctly marking your lie immediately behind the �large solid obstacle� on the line of play. If you do not do this first than you are not playing disc golf.

Read again:

<font color="green"> 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. </font>
It even covers this exact discussion with absolutely �no provision� for avoiding further penalties as concerns a disc above a large solid obstacle:
<font color="green"> 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. </font>

If there were an option to supercede this rule with �unsafe lie� then it would be mentioned here.


i would rule to give up to 5m relief, no closer to the hole, as agreed upon by the group, with one stroke penalty. further, if i had to clarify the rule, i would include something that dictates the relief be given the nearest possible spot to get to from where the disc landed.



You are citing the �Unsafe Lie� rule, which is not an option until your lie has been first established under our rules of play. What you are saying is like saying your disc is in an out of bounds stream so I�ll declare it an �unsafe lie� and avoid the Out of Bounds penalty. Or to be more precise, you accept the Out of Bounds Stroke but feel that you should be able to apply the �Unsafe Lie� rule and get and additional 5 meters relief, with no additional penalty throw added to your score, rather than the relief that is clearly provided for in the Out of Bounds rule, 1 meter perpendicular, last lie, drop zone plus one throw.

It is a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

This question has gone to the PDGA Rules Committee for clarification. My guess is that no TD would make such a ruling, otherwise all of our rules concerning restricted areas could have their penalties circumvented.

This has already been covered, but:

Some rules deal with a disc at rest as the result of a competitive throw. These rules deal with a disc at rest and deal with placing a "marker disc", "mark", or "lie". They are:
803.02 MARKING THE LIE
803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
803.10 LOST DISC

The rules that deal with an established "mark" or "lie" are:
803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
803.05 UNSAFE LIE
803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE

In order to apply any of the rules that deal with a "lie" one must first be established in accordance one or more of the first four rules. Based on the rules, the unsafe lie rule can be applied with penalty from any established lie.

However, there are no provisions in the rules that allow for penalty strokes received in establishing the lie to be removed prior to the voluntary application of penalty strokes by using the unsafe lie rule.

First, Gary put it the way I wish I could have.
Second, word is in from the PDGA Rules Committee Chair already, and it is a throw penalty for the 2 meter violation AND a throw penalty for declaring an "Unsafe Lie".

Without the 2 meter sentences, it would be a 1 throw penalty for just the "Unsafe Lie".

They also suggest that the TD, if aware of such situations, set up greater relief; for obvious reasons...

fyi... we're talking about a large bush (borderline tree) on the right of hole 15 at druid hill (past the cluster of pines). the thing has gotten huge over the past few years.

i'm not about to remove it because druid doesn't have enough obstacles as it is. making it OB would more often penalyze decent shots unneccasarily than provide relief.

any tournament that i run will not have the 2m rule in effect.

Paul, why not prune the lower part of the bush so you can mark a lie. We've done this to many bushes at Seneca? That's one way to eliminate some of the confusion.

or why not put a second basket under the tree, so those "decent" shots that get caught in the tree will be properly rewarded?

or why not put a second basket under the tree, so those "decent" shots that get caught in the tree will be properly rewarded?



if you reach that bush off the tee, it's a helluva shot that shouldn't be considered OB. you should be allowed to get creative and straddle out of it if at all possible. once again, you chime in when you opinion is of little value. if you've played the course and know what i'm talking about, it's another story.

Paul, why not prune the lower part of the bush so you can mark a lie. We've done this to many bushes at Seneca? That's one way to eliminate some of the confusion.



i'll put rich o on it right away. he's always looking for stuff to cut up. as you know, there isn't much of this stuff at druid.

regardless, no 2 meter rule if i do any more druid tourneys (ice bowl included).

I still don't understand why a inpenetrable bush is not considered a solid obstacle. If you can't get your leg in there without harming the bush, it is inpenetrable. That is the way I would read the rules. If you are in my group and somebody sticks in a bush like you all are describing, I give them the 2meter stroke and allow them to mark behind the obstacle on the line of play. Seems like the only sensical solution.

or why not put a second basket under the tree, so those "decent" shots that get caught in the tree will be properly rewarded?



if you reach that bush off the tee, it's a helluva shot that shouldn't be considered OB. you should be allowed to get creative and straddle out of it if at all possible. once again, you chime in when you opinion is of little value. if you've played the course and know what i'm talking about, it's another story.


I thought what he said was funny. But I also agree that a glossary definition for "playing surface" would be helpful to you, so you can understand if the 2MR has been properly called when a disc comes to rest above an unplayable lie. I think coming to rest over an unplayable or unsafe lie is one of the reasons why even 2MR supporters would like to see some relief added to the 2MR to avoid double penalties.

But even if that relief is added to the 2MR, a glossary definition for playing surface seems long overdue.

I agree that large inpenetratable bushes should be considered solid obstacles, and the TD can state that certain or all bushes of that type on the course should be treated as such.

The TD can also declare any areas as special condition areas and define how discs that land in those areas should be played.

I have seen many scrub bushes and trees in Texas that do not allow a foot or mini to be placed on the ground within the base of the plant, and believe that the solid object rule could be expanded to include the trunks of this type of obstacle. A foot diameter of small trunks growing in a cluster is just as inpenetratable as a foot diameter trunk of a tree.

it is too open to interpretation.. could be too easily abused.

the better to deal with all this is to codify the concept of playing it where it lies - and strengthening the concept of the "lie".

that way if a disc ends up where it cannot be gotten to, relief can be provided in exchange for a penalty stroke.

That would kill the concept of casual relief.

Our courses are not nearly clear enough of obstacles in or near the fairways that are not identifiable from the tee box to make that a fair way to play.

duke,
if you were younger you wouldn't fill that way!
are you a grand master now?

not identifiable from the tee box? good grief... how big does something have to be for you to see it? if you're right in front of a small cactus with a curcumference of 32 cm, and you dont wanna risk a runup, then go into "stand and deliver" mode.

those type of obstacles, if their placement and how they come into play, are truly as random as your post suggests (and i agree they are), then it all balances out in the end.

I agree that large inpenetratable bushes should be considered solid obstacles, and the TD can state that certain or all bushes of that type on the course should be treated as such.

The TD can also declare any areas as special condition areas and define how discs that land in those areas should be played.



For the sake of saving the lower branches of vital course obstacles I'd agree that they likely should be considered as large solid obstacles. The challenge as I see it is judging what is and what is not. A "solid" obstacle does not involve judgment; there simply is no possible way (other than being Superman and walking through walls) to take a legal stance on the playing surface within that obstacle. There isn't.

Where as with a bush, you can in all likelihood mark your lie in there under the bush next to the large solid trunk lie down on you belly and get a supporting point in there on your lie.

The solution, within current rules, is for the TD or Designer to take a walk around their course and see where such instances are possible and provide relief (with or without penalty: OB vs Special Condition). If there are lots of occurances then you could make a course wide special condition (in most cases that would likely be overkill, but if protecting your fragile course obstacles is a priority it might be well worth it).

I do not see this as an area that needs to be address, more than it already is, by the rulebook.