First the rule.


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:
.
.
.
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, <font color="blue">the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie</font> 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.
.
.
.




This came up recently. There was casual water in a little ravine and a player landed in it. On the LOP behind the water was a muddy and steep bank. Within 5 meters was nice grass at the top.

Where can the player relocate to? We as a group decided that the top was good, but we weren't really sure. There was no official around and it was taking us a long time to decide, so we gave benefit of the doubt, made a group decision, and moved on.

But now I am wondering about it. If the water is the casual obstacle, does the player have to take relief at the first spot on the LOP that is "not water"? I think that blue text in the rule above says that, so I guess we didn't get the call right.

What do y'all think?

Who knows, appears to be a gray hole to me :eek:

The issue would revolve around what is an accetable lie, it could be argued that the area on the muddy, steep bank is not a safe lie......

BTW pretty nice shooting at the USDGC by you.

since apparently the "lie" is where the player marks it, the concept of "nearest" means in effect wherever the player marks it within the 5 meters. because until he marks the position, the position is not a/the "lie"

if the wording was "nearest potential lie" then it would be different.

We had this issue come up just this past weekend. The fairways in the woods are lined with large branches that define where we spread the wood chips, and we did not want players dragging those all over to get them out of their lie so we declared them to be a nonmoveable obstacle from which they could take casual relief. I told them it was up to five meters relief straight back from the basket to get off one of those, if you wanted to get your stance off it. I left it to the player's discretion how far he wanted to go back. Reading the rule now, maybe the answer is only as far back as is necessary.

Wasn't the mud 'casual' as well? Casual water + regulation dirt = casual mud [http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif]. Sounds like you got it OK, from a safety viewpoint. :)

Sounds like you got it OK, from a safety viewpoint. :)


Not really a safety issue. The choices were either "down in the hole with no runup" or else "up on the top with a full runup".

I think we can boil this down to a simple question:

Using casual relief, can a player elect to take up to the full 5 meters in all cases?

actusally, in a serious reading/response i would say the rule is clear that the mark must be made immediately behind the border of the casual obstacle. this means that my card misapplied the rule in a round this last weekend. the obstacle was a flower bed ranging from 7 to 15 meters in front of the tee box. someone wormburned into it. problem was that directly behind the flowerbed is a 10foot tall stone pillar. we allowed 5M behind the bed which got him away from the pillar. according to the letter of the rule he should have been forced to play up against the pillar. i led the argument to give him "up to" 5m relief, which allowed him to play a second shot without too much interference from the pillars.

I might have given the player the top grassy area but said he had to stand and deliver. Or, he could play from the mud, his choice...

I might have given the player the top grassy area but said he had to stand and deliver. Or, he could play from the mud, his choice...


Chuck, I do not believe that there is anything in the current PDGA Rules of Play that allows a ruling of "play from the top with no runup."

Sandal, I think I am in agreement with you due to the wording of the rule.

It's partly to tweak the discussion. But with the move toward using 'equity' for rulings similar to ball golf, I think the RC might consider the 'stand and deliver' a reasonable option based on safety. Mud used to be considered casual if you check an older rule book. But I guess the RC felt people were taking advantage of it and stripped it from the current rule. I think it's somewhat unclear whether you can go the full 5m but I probably would have allowed the player to take the top position in this example.

Isn't casual relief for safety? Is it for $150 sneakers?

I'm thinking the grassy spot is the FIRST safe spot, if safety is the issue.

WHY is there penalty-free casual relief, anyways?

The choice of an appropriate playing surface lie in Sandals' instance isn't so...muddy. That just called for a "tough" lie.

Using casual relief, can a player elect to take up to the full 5 meters in all cases?


I would think "not".

Mud used to be considered casual if you check an older rule book. But I guess the RC felt people were taking advantage of it and stripped it from the current rule.



this came up last month in a pdga event. there was a puddle on flat land surrounded by mud, the disc landed in the mud out of the water puddle but the thrower argued the mud was part of the "casual relief from standing water" as stated by the td. i disagreed, and pointed out even if the disc had landed in the standing water, he would not get relief from the mud surrounding the water to throw. unless he wanted to take an unsafe lie (803.05) and a penalty stroke. the thrower argued the "mud" wasnt dry and constituted casual water by "water content" in the mud. :confused: i thought mud was mud and water was water. if we were to give them free relief from mud wouldnt that be comparable to foot faults on fairway foot placement behind the marker which is a stance violation, and seems to be a big issue on this discussion board?

i thought mud was mud and water was water.


There is basis for that argument in the Rules Q&A where the RC states that water is water, and that snow and ice are not water.

803.04c doesn't list "mud", this is true. It might fall under the "or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round." heading. But even lacking this [overt designation], I still hold that mud is dirt before the introduction of casual water. :)

<font color="green"> (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.</font>



Where is the grey area? Safety is not an issue, if the first available lie is unsafe then our current rules provide for that situation in the Unsafe Lie rule, as provided in the above rule. If the TD is aware of the situation on their course and knows the mud to be unsafe near water areas then they can include them in the defining of their special conditions announcements. This is also mentioned in the above rule and in greater detail elsewhere in our rulebook.

Again, if the TD wants to provide greater casual (no penalty) relief then they are completely free to announced such relief to everyone at the players meeting or the event course special conditions and rules. Players and even officials do not have any such powers during a round. The few they have are listed by name in our rulebook.


<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>



Where is the grey area?

Lastly, I saw no "new" provision for wider interpretations by players during a round concerning greater casual relief within the 2006 Rules Update that I recently reviewed. If there is to be, again, it has to come from the TD prior to the round starting and announced to all players.

There is no grey area.

If I was in Rhett's described situation and the entire group wanted to put the lie up on the dry flat, with run up, lie, I would have shown in the rulebook where that is not allowed. If they insisted I would suggest that the player play a provisional shot from 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). And from this other lie the group feels the player can play without penalty. If he and they refuse, then I would bring it to the TDs attention that the lie was from the wrong lie and that a 2 penalty throw need be added to the players throw and possible that another for turning in a wrong score (if not caught prior to handing in the card).

Nick, I know this is going to bug you all next year to no end but the provision that's currently in the rules 803.00E pertaining to fairness (called 'equity' in BG) is going to creep into rulings more and more from what it sounds like. In this particular instance, I believe the RC would accept the lie on top (fairness) without prior approval from the TD for special relief. I could also cite 803.04C(2) that mud is an obstacle to my stance or throwing motion. Just because we normally think of arm swing doesn't mean an obstacle under our feet doesn't count here. I could first attempt to scoop the mud away per that rule and then take relief per that rule. Granted, it's an unusual interpretation but I'm not sure it's invalid.

I believe that that would represent an attempt to purposefully circumvent the spirit of the rules. It is one thing to build up your lie (of which there is no rule against) and quite another to move your lie when there is no provision for it within our rules nor did the TD provide "greater casual relief".

Now if it is your intention, or the Rules Committee's, to have groups going around making up their own special condition rulings, you are right, I will have great difficulty with such a mistaken change to our rules.

At any rate, the interpretation you have presented is not available under current rules, and I don't see it being available, without penalty throw for the new "Unplayable Lie", in 2006 under the updates.

I mean, what would be the point of having an "Unplayable Lie" rule if groups could just decide that something was a casual obstacle and move without penalty? Doesn't make any sense Chuck.

Pricker bushes are attached and mud could be considered not attached. The Unsafe Lie rule would still be needed.

Why is this even a question?

http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/alien.gif

Isn't casual relief for safety? Is it for $150 sneakers?



It must be the shoes. :(

Otherwise, the first available lie is...right where it is.

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier, but is unfair to those that were close to the casual puddle, but not in it.

I think the ruling should be the first point along LOP, not in the hazard. From there the unsafe lie rule could be invoked to get out to the top of the hill. The problem being that I think mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones. It doesn't have to be on the top with a good run up, a good flat spot at the bottom of the bank would work if there was a safe way in and out.

Why is this even a question?


Because I thought my group might have ruled it wrong, and now I'm sure we did. Funny thing is, we were looking at the rule book and we couldn't even find the 5 meter language even though we were on the right page. :confused:

Oh well. We tried.

And to Nick: no, you would not have done all that. You would've not said a word and then come on here and said something like "Next time, I'm gonna make that call."

In my humble opinion, the right decision was made. If a player did not have full use of the five meters, then why put it in at all and just say the nearest lie from the casual object.
If we follow your latest interpretation, maybe the rule should have been worded "nearest relief". The lie is not established until his marker is placed and the rule allows for this spot to be determined by a majority of the group which I believe was done.
If we allow that a player does not have full use of the five meters in this case, then does it also mean a player does not have full use of one meter from OB. The rule says up to a full meter. If a player can be in bounds and throw from half a meter, is that all they are allowed? Who would decide where it should be placed? A majority of the group decision? As long as it was within one meter it would be within the intent of the rules.
I also think, if there was any doubt, then a provisional might have been in order and have the director make the final decision.

Why is this even a question?


And to Nick: no, you would not have done all that. You would've not said a word and then come on here and said something like "Next time, I'm gonna make that call."




stop stealing MY lines rhett!!! :D

...If a player did not have full use of the five meters, then why put it in at all and just say the nearest lie from the casual object. <font color="blue"> Because it's "up to" 5 meters. After that, it's over five meters. And it costs you, because it's magically 'unsafe' at-that-point. Except that everyone denys it's unsafe. But it is/isn't. Clear?</font> :p :confused:

...just don't get your sneakers wet; that's the spirit of the rule! :)

If a player did not have full use of the five meters, then why put it in at all and just say the nearest lie from the casual object.


Well.....because you get 5 meters from where your disc currently is, and if it's at the wrong end of a 6 meter casual puddle, you are out of luck in staying dry without a penalty.

I think the ruling we made was wrong. In order to use the full 5 meters all the time, then to be fair you would have to get that same 5 meters even if you weren't in the casual obstacle. And the rules make no provision for that. You get relief from OB whether you are OB or not, up to 1 meter. You don't get that from casual obstacles.

Live and learn. We were having a hard time coming to a decision, it was taking a long time, and went with a "most beneficial to the thrower" decision. No one was calling anyone on anything; we were juts trying to come up with the right decision.

very good thread. this is an area of the rules that many players do not know by heart.

even with a rule book in hand there are times when well-intentioned, intelligent people may disagree.

i believe the 803-C appeals section covers many situations, although i have heard of many instances where the "majority of the group" turns into the "tyranny of the group". (this is a general comment, not one about rhett's specific situation) just because the majority has either willfully or through ignorance circumvented the rules does not mean that a player that does know the rule should go along with the majority.

"Any player desiring an appeal of the group's decision SHALL PROMPTLY and clearly express that desire to the group."

if a player believes that the majority decision may be wrong, it it their responsibility to call for an appeal to an official. our tradition of "group officiating" in the ultimate frisbee vein is great as long as all players learn and respect the rules. otherwise we may face a future where sports writers are allowed to make our rules decisions and players end up being DQ'd for playing a 50 yard shot from 11 inches closer to the hole.

oh yea, and mud is not water, it is mud. if you think it's muddy water and not just plain mud, but aren't sure then see section 803 - C

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier, but is unfair to those that were close to the casual puddle, but not in it.

I think the ruling should be the first point along LOP, not in the hazard. From there the unsafe lie rule could be invoked to get out to the top of the hill. The problem being that I think mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones. It doesn't have to be on the top with a good run up, a good flat spot at the bottom of the bank would work if there was a safe way in and out.



I'm pretty sure that is the rule.

Why is this even a question?


Because I thought my group might have ruled it wrong, and now I'm sure we did. Funny thing is, we were looking at the rule book and we couldn't even find the 5 meter language even though we were on the right page. :confused:

Oh well. We tried.

And to Nick: no, you would not have done all that. You would've not said a word and then come on here and said something like "Next time, I'm gonna make that call."



I'm certain you call 100% of the violations you see Rhett. My goodness how nice it must be to be you, and perfect. :p

If the TD specifies that the mud is part of the casual area then

well

it is part of the casual area. If they don't, then

well

it is not part of the casual area.

Not sure what the confusion is about here.

Intellegence has nothing to do with knowing the rules. Rhett is proof of that either way you slice it. ;)

I would prefer to see the casual relief rule read simliar to regular OB in that you can take up to 1 m from the OB line. This would help make it easier to know the rules w/o having to double check the rule book.

My goodness how nice it must be to be you, and perfect. :p


That would be really funny coming from Nick, it it weren't in fact so sad.

I would prefer to see the casual relief rule read simliar to regular OB in that you can take up to 1 m from the OB line. This would help make it easier to know the rules w/o having to double check the rule book.



Forget double checking it, I'd settle for just reading it one time. Besides, what is wrong with checking the rulebook? The only game where you don't have to do that is tic tac toe and checkers.

Next event I run will absolutely include a PDGA Rulebook in every players package. Almost same cost as a mini...

My goodness how nice it must be to be you, and perfect. :p


That would be really funny coming from Nick, it it weren't in fact so sad.



I'd continue this titfortat but folks might get the wrong idea; that we actually like each other... :D

<font color="blue">the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie</font> 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[/b]


Seems to me those semi-colons do not indicate mutual exclusivity...so your agreed-upon call is legal & w/in the rule as printed.

However, the part in rule re: "loose leaves (and debris)" being a casual obstacle make playing disc golf in the Autumn quite a feat!

<font color="blue">the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie</font> 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[/b]


Seems to me those semi-colons do not indicate mutual exclusivity...so your agreed-upon call is legal & w/in the rule as printed.


The semi-colons are just commas because there is a comma in the third part. It is a list of requirements that must all be met. IMNSHO.

I agree with Rhett that I think they made the wrong decision initially; play from the nearest lie and up to five meters. As Rhett said safe or unsafe didn't come into it. Also, I don't know about the courses everyone else plays on but most of the courses I play on, I throw from mud much of the time when it's wet out. Is mud without grass different than mud with grass? JM2CW

Ya, Rhett, you blew that call. :o Safety isn't the issue. I've thrown from mud hundreds of times.

Nick is correct again!

Disc golf could use some "winter" rules.

Ya, Rhett, you blew that call. :o Safety isn't the issue. I've thrown from mud hundreds of times.

Nick is correct again!

Disc golf could use some "winter" rules.



Indeed! "Winter Rules" should otherwise be named TD specified "Special Conditions". Don't blame the rules for TD laziness... If there is something like lots of mud on a course, a TD can provide relief (with or without penalty) from just about any area and for nearly any reason (within the rest of the rules) from it.

Is it too much to ask that they have some general knowledge of the conditions on their course?

I'm afraid I must intimidate that puppet.

I guess Mike is back for more fun and games...

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier,.....mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones.

Play it where it lies, you p u ssies!!

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier,.....mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones.

Play it where it lies, you p u ssies!!



That ain't my quote. If the TD wants a drop zone or for a steep bank to be casual relief areas then power to them. Know your course and make appropriate special conditions where needed. The rules are what they are for good reason, they can't possibly account for all special conditions, that's why they include special conditions section for TDs, who should be able to account for special conditions.

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier,.....mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones.

Play it where it lies, you !!



That ain't my quote. If the TD wants a drop zone or for a steep bank to be casual relief areas then power to them. Know your course and make appropriate special conditions where needed. The rules are what they are for good reason, they can't possibly account for all special conditions, that's why they include special conditions section for TDs, who should be able to account for special conditions.



Like for example , a broken sprinkler or water main , a Giant Tree that has fallen .....

I would prefer to play anywhere within 5m, it makes life easier,.....mud surrounding casual water should normally be considered part of the casual obstacle. I also think that all steep dangerous banks should have drop zones.

Play it where it lies, you !!



That ain't my quote. If the TD wants a drop zone or for a steep bank to be casual relief areas then power to them. Know your course and make appropriate special conditions where needed. The rules are what they are for good reason, they can't possibly account for all special conditions, that's why they include special conditions section for TDs, who should be able to account for special conditions.



Like for example , a broken sprinkler or water main , a Giant Tree that has fallen .....

Bees !!!!!!!! :eek:

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles:
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, <font color="blue">the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie</font> 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


Why would mention of a group-call even be in the rules, if not for a judgement call?

When a disc goes OB there might be a NEED for a group agreement of WHERE the disc outbounded, but the disc is typically IB, and at-rest, in the casual relief situation. Yet a heads-together is not just a precaution, but an expectation in what should be a simple math observation, which uses a fixed starting point, a self-defining direction, and a given maximum distance. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :confused:

If the basket is not visible, perhaps a dogleg into the woods, the LOP might not be immediately obvious, especially for a player less familiar with the hole.

As a related issue, it's not uncommon to see players take the wrong stance on wooded dogleg holes like Hornet's 16. You'll see players standing behind their marker when they're still on the first leg of a dogleg as it relates to the current direction of the fairway rather than standing to the side of the disc on release when the basket is off thru the woods on an angle.