This is another situation where too much is a bad thing. Unplayable lie is described in both the glossary and in the rules (803.06).

The 2 definitions, while not in direct contradiction, are not exactly equal. According to 803.06, the player may declare an unplayable lie with no restrictions or considerations. The definition in the glossary provides some reasons. I would always rule in favor of the rules over the glossary when there is a difference between the two.

According to rule 803.06 "A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable."

Surely that's for the player's own decision of what is SAFE?!?



I can think of -several- holes at Santa Cruz where one could possibly take advantage of the rule this way.

Your disc hits a tree and travels a couple hundred feet down a raveen. Most people make the hike and play these shots and it typically takes two or more throws to get back in fairway. What if you just stand at edge of raveen and say "hiking down that thing is unsafe, I could fall... therefore I declare it unsafe and take the stroke from my last lie."

Only downside to the player is sacrificing the disc.

The new rule is usually less punitive than the old rule, for those of you who are encountering this rule for the first time. Under the old rule the player could walk his disc back to the fairway, no closer to the basket from where it landed, and be throwing three, or two if he walked less than 5 meters back. Now he has to go back to the tee to throw three.

When my girls were small they made liberal use of this rule. When you are twenty throws back from first and have a ten throw lead on third, it sometimes makes more sense to poke the disc out of the thorns with a long stick and take your penalty. It also really speeds up play in really high scoring divisions when you can take the lateral relief with a one stroke penalty JUST LIKE BALL GOLF.

It's pretty specific in its ambiguity, so I just have to accept it was intended that way. Meaning, "unplayable" is supposed to mean "not to be played". Whatever.

I guess "eschewable lie" is not-quite satisfactory, either, for different reasons?

undesirable lie would have been nice.

Nice!

"Undesirable" merely assumes that one set of values cannot be shown to be of greater validity than another, and that the values of the thrower should prevail over the values of the group. If you want to get really philosophical about it. I think when you are surrounded by wild roses that's a very desirable lie, especially under the new rule!

A better name for the rule would be, "Declared Do-Over with Penalty."

Technically, that application of when to use of the rule was available hasn't changed, only the types of relief availble.

Hey Pat - I am not trying to be a smarty pants: Were you asking me to clarify my response or telling me what what you think my repsonse implies?

Take cre,
Harold

probably a bit of both. i was saying that if it CAN happen, then benefit of the doubt should be given, regardless of pretty much anything else. (i'm not trying to be smartypants either at least with you :D)

probably a bit of both. i was saying that if it CAN happen, then benefit of the doubt should be given, regardless of pretty much anything else. (i'm not trying to be smartypants either at least with you :D)



So because you CAN purposefully not be a smartypants, that we should give you the benefit of the doubt even when all imperical evidence is that you are being a smartypants and consider you not a smartypants. :confused: LOL!

Nice one.

"Undesirable" merely assumes that one set of values cannot be shown to be of greater validity than another, and that the values of the thrower should prevail over the values of the group. If you want to get really philosophical about it. I think when you are surrounded by wild roses that's a very desirable lie, especially under the new rule!

A better name for the rule would be, "Declared Do-Over with Penalty."


If that's the intent of the rule, I think you're right, Bruce, a name like that or "Replay with Penalty" would even be better than "Unplayable".

I once suggested that someone could interpret the unsafe lie rule this way, much as Nick interpreted it above, and I think I was told by James McCaine that if a thorny scratch on the arm caused a player to use the unsafe lie rule, he'd call that player unethical. He wanted to see unsafe mean something like OSHA-unsafe, like you could twist an ankle or break a hand. It seemed the name of the rule drove his argument more than the text describing how it could be used, and you could see what he was getting at. (But I was so surprised that a bloody scratch wasn't enough to call a lie unsafe that I used a purple heart analogy rather than OSHA to figure out where the threshold should be, which got him so mad at me he started calling me unethical for even suggesting such an interpretation of this rule in the first place.)

I'm all for changing the name of the rule to something that permits whatever its supposed to permit (or change the wording of the text to prohibit whatever it should prohibit), so that we're all on the same page. Given the reaction I received just suggesting a possible interpretation, I always thought this rule had the longest to go to get corrected, and it looks like it still has a little ways left before we can say it's a well-written rule.

Yes, perhaps it would be nice to change the name, but I'm not convinced it is necessary.

What ever you call it the rule clearly states that it is completely up to the player to decide, without condition. Let's not forget the penalty throw or 2 accessed for using this rule...

I thought the two stroke penalty for this rule had been eliminated.

People have been telling me I have to RE-Take the Officials Test since there were Rule Changes. Is this true? I have received NO correspondence from the PDGA on this matter.
What's the DEAL-E-O?

not true

I thought the two stroke penalty for this rule had been eliminated.



<font color="blue"> 803.06 Unplayable Lie:
A. A player may declare his or her lie to
be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole
judge as to whether the lie is unplayable.
The unplayable lie may be relocated to a
new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole,
on the line of play and within five meters
of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous
lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if
the marker disc has been moved, from
an approximate lie as agreed to by the
majority of the group or an official. The
original throw plus one penalty throw are
counted in the player�s score. </font>

If neither of the options are acceptable the player could declare a second Unplayable Lie and get two penalty throws plus...

This is similar to as before only now the previous lie is an option, making such situations less likely (using a double unplayable lie rule that is...).

I am confused now If you go back to your previous lie (which you just threw from) how can that lie be unplayable?

What he's saying is you take the unplayable penalty, move back up to 5m and the lie is still in a pricker bush area. But rather than going back to the previous lie, you decide to take another unplayable penalty and move back another 5m where you're out of the prickers. So, the net effect is a 2-shot penalty with 10m relief on the line of play.

I am confused now If you go back to your previous lie (which you just threw from) how can that lie be unplayable?



<font color="blue"> The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. </font>

Though of course I am talking about the 5 meters back on the LOP not the previous lie.

Depends on how unplayable the lie is ..............say next to a cliff , cactus , river etc..

bob weston writes:
"in this case there is the potential for penalizing (in a way that in more cases will not be intended by the course design) people who throw rollers that end up leaning on the fence."

unless you throw your roller OVER the ob fence it would NOT BE OB under the new rule as leaning on the fence doesn't keep it from touching the ground somewhere which would keep it from being COMPLETELY surrounded by ob(unless the fence was laying down or not straight as in chuck's leaning fence manifesto :p)
:D

I think that was in response to Nick's suggestion that the TD mark the OB line several inches on the inbound side of the fence to prevent any arguments about the fence flexing or the disc sticking through gaps in the fence to the IB side whne it strikes the OB side.

I think that was in response to Nick's suggestion that the TD mark the OB line several inches on the inbound side of the fence to prevent any arguments about the fence flexing or the disc sticking through gaps in the fence to the IB side whne it strikes the OB side.



The best solution in such instances is allowing only the previous lie and drop zone options. If your disc is OB you don't have to take a philosophy & physics 101 course to know the correct ruling.

Truth be told, I have never really liked the "last place in bounds" option. It is too lenient and too open to bias and possible favoritism or vindictiveness. Folks accused me of trying to make the sport too easy by removing the completely luck based 2MR, yet are crying like swaddlings over previous lie and drop zone rules. Rules that eliminate any and all argument or judgment calls (other than the disc being OB).

If TDs make the conscious decision to use such objects as OB lines, then they should be equally prepared to deal with all of the rules discussions that go with it. Such things can not, and should not, be detailed within our rules more than they already are, else we will need a pack mule to carry our rulebooks around for us during rounds.

Nick,

You are of course assuming that most players carry their rule books...... didn't this get discussed somewhere else?


Such things can not, and should not, be detailed within our rules more than they already are, else we will need a pack mule to carry our rulebooks around for us during rounds.

Nick,

You are of course assuming that most players carry their rule books...... didn't this get discussed somewhere else?


Such things can not, and should not, be detailed within our rules more than they already are, else we will need a pack mule to carry our rulebooks around for us during rounds.





I was speaking of folks that already carry them. It is not required.




Yet.

It is required for certified officials (804.09.C)

Whilest we are nitpicking:

<font color="blue"> 804.09 Officials:
A. To be eligible to serve as an official, an
individual must </font>

So a non-eligible official is permitted to compete and even attend an event, they just are non-eligible (like everyone else). Fair enough?

Whilest we are nitpicking:

804.09 Officials:
A. To be eligible to serve as an official, an
individual must

So a non-eligible official is permitted to compete and even attend an event, they just are non-eligible (like everyone else). Fair enough?



Fair enough for what ?


804.09 Officials:
A. To be eligible to serve as an official, an individual must be a current PDGA member and have demonstrated knowledge of the rules by passing the PDGA Official�s Exam. Upon significant changes to the Rules of Play, the PDGA Board of Directors may require officials to pass an updated Official�s Exam to retain certification as an official.



By your reference to 804.09.A, non-eligible officials would be those that failed to meet some of the requirements of that rule.

There are really only two requirements of 804.09.
1. That an official pass the current PDGA Official's Exam.
2. That an official must maintain active status in the PDGA.

Since there has not been a new Official's test in quite a while, the only way to move from eligible to ineligible is to let your membership lapse.

So I would have to agree that you could be a non-eligible official and play where ever you would like.

So I would have to agree that you could be a non-eligible official and play where ever they would like.



Not in an A-Tier (since we contintue to pick the nit, **** those head lice!)

Why? Are rulebooks required for all players at an A-Tier? I haven't read that, but I have no problem with it.

PS: Gary, I am nominating you for either Oversight or Communication Director. Which do you prefer?


(Nobody let him know but I am using the ancient "under 5 year old menu trick" on him.)

Since there has not been a new Official's test in quite a while, the only way to move from eligible to ineligible is to let your membership lapse.


You don't need a rule book, but you do need to be a current member.

There is also no provision in the rules for a certified official to ever be without a copy of the rules, either on or off the course. Fortunately, there is no penalty defined for the offense. If you are guilty, no one knows what to do to you.

<font color="pink">Don't tell Nick, I am using a 5 year old's trick of ignoring a question I don't want to answer.</font>

Since there has not been a new Official's test in quite a while, the only way to move from eligible to ineligible is to let your membership lapse.


You don't need a rule book, but you do need to be a current member.

There is also no provision in the rules for a certified official to ever be without a copy of the rules, either on or off the course. Fortunately, there is no penalty defined for the offense. If you are guilty, no one knows what to do to you.

<font color="pink">Don't tell Nick, I am using a 5 year old's trick of ignoring a question I don't want to answer.</font>



Oh, I have a pretty good idea of what to do with you...

<font color="lightgray"> Lucky for Gary I am not the persistant sort... </font>

Why? Are rulebooks required for all players at an A-Tier? I haven't read that, but I have no problem with it....




NO, just being a current PDGA member is :cool:

I think that was in response to Nick's suggestion that the TD mark the OB line several inches on the inbound side of the fence to prevent any arguments about the fence flexing or the disc sticking through gaps in the fence to the IB side whne it strikes the OB side.



The best solution in such instances is allowing only the previous lie and drop zone options. If your disc is OB you don't have to take a philosophy & physics 101 course to know the correct ruling.

Truth be told, I have never really liked the "last place in bounds" option. It is too lenient and too open to bias and possible favoritism or vindictiveness. Folks accused me of trying to make the sport too easy by removing the completely luck based 2MR, yet are crying like swaddlings over previous lie and drop zone rules. Rules that eliminate any and all argument or judgment calls (other than the disc being OB).

If TDs make the conscious decision to use such objects as OB lines, then they should be equally prepared to deal with all of the rules discussions that go with it. Such things can not, and should not, be detailed within our rules more than they already are, else we will need a pack mule to carry our rulebooks around for us during rounds.



I suppose I see where you're coming from, but I learned the last-place-in-bounds clause as part of the very first batch of rules anyone told me about and have pretty much taken it for granted ever since. The part I dislike is the drop zone. A drop zone option for an OB area just doesn't seem right to me at all...probably because a lot of the OB areas I've seen run along the side of a fairway. To me, it seems less fair to make a shank that goes OB right off the tee play from the same place on such a hole as a shot that skips out from just next to the green than it is to have either shot play from an approximated location. And since most of the holes I've seen that use a fence as an OB line are of that nature, I didn't really give any serious consideration to the idea of having a drop zone.

Most of our drop zone OBs are used on holes with water crossings. On holes crossing a creek, the drop zone is usually the tee box, on holes with lateral water or long over water shots, the drop zone is the red tee.

Bob,

Just as rules enforcement is up to players, getting courses set up for fair play is up to TDs. Rules themselves can't accomplish either of these things on their own.

This is off topic, but if the TD goes with drop zone rather than last place over in bounds, then it really is on them to make sure that those drop zones are as fair as they can make them. I.e. is not overly punitive or overly generous. Finding the right balance is the directors responsibility. This is pretty much as it should be considering the PDGA Rules Committee is not able to be at every course and observe every situations and provide an appropriate rule to cover it. They provide general rules, which the director then must specify so that there are no holes. Otherwise our rulebook would be become the Library of Congress in size, and we don't want that.

Regards,
Nick

Drop zones make the most sense when it's hard to determine the last point IB. OB areas like fences that parallel a fairway or OB areas that are far from the tee and parallel the fairway are candidates for drop zones. It's kind of a compromise between using last point IB and returning to the tee when the last point IB could vary possibly 80 feet based on poor judgment when the disc flight can follow right along the OB line. We look for these situations when working with local people on setting OBs for Worlds courses like Lehigh 2 and 7.

Does anyone know if current Certified Officials will have to re-test for the '06 rules changes?

No. But apparently a new test is getting ready for those who want to become officials.

after reading all these pages, i've come up with the following,
please correct if i'm missing something.
thanks in advance, Brock

PDGA Summary of Rules Changes for 2006


*Out of Bounds (2 meter rule) : The default is now NO two meter rule. Of course, the TD has the option of making two meters a penalty if they wish. The TD can also apply this rule to certain, designated obstacles and/or hole(s). Rule 803.08 Disc above surface

*Out-of-bounds. The OB line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon.
Think of this: you hyzer bomb out over an OB fenceline and on its way back in towards the fairway/basket, the disc hits the fence and falls OB. Since the new rule says the OB line is OUT, your disc is OB as it never touched inbounds. You must either re-throw from the last place it crossed inbounds or from your previous lie (both with a one stroke penalty.) As before, if ANY part of the disc is touching IN bounds, your disc is IN. Rule 803.09 O.B.

*Lost disc. The player re-throws from their previous lie with 1 penalty stroke added (throw &amp; distance), this gets rid of that contentious �where it was last seen� judgment call. Although, when this applies to approach shots, the group must still decide where the last throw was from (if the marker was picked up already.) Rule 803.11 lost disc

The TD can declare a drop-zone, OB, hazard, casual obstacle, etc. at his whim. Rule 804.01 special conditions

Clarified that a line has no thickness under �Line of Play� (LOP). This means that a player�s support point must be directly behind the center of the marker, regardless of the size of the marker. Rule 803.04 stance

Made players responsible for the actions of their caddies. Rule 801 Conduct

When recording scores, clarified that numbers (no slashes!) must be used and anyone in the group can pick up/return the cards; must be returned within 25 minutes of last hole (or suffer 2 stroke penalty each!) Rule 804.03 Scoring

Clarified and expanded the explanation of Provisional Throws. You can use them to play holes in alternate ways (carding both scores) to settle rules disputes and you can use them when you think it might save time. (Lost disc, OB disc, etc.) Rule 800 definitions

Clarified that casual obstacles (casual water, loose leaves and debris, harmful insects or animals, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, players equipment, spectators, or any item designated by the TD) can not be moved if any part of the obstacle is between you and the hole. Play it where you threw it or move back 5 meters in the line of play without a penalty. Rule 803.05 Obstacles

Changed Unsafe Lie to Unplayable Lie. A player may now relocate within 5 meters (directly back from LOP, not to the sides) or re-throw from the previous lie with a one stroke penalty. Rule 803.06 Unplayable

(from below) Stated that players shall (801.04.A) attend the player�s meeting and that they are responsible for knowing what is mentioned at it.

The glossary was moved to the front of the book. Good stuff in there that helps to fully explain certain rules situations. ex) unplayable lie, provisional, stance, OB, etc. Rule 800 definitions

You must be a current PDGA member to post online messages in the discussion forum. Rule "BOD" vote

If you have a current medical marijuana license, you can smoke during rounds. Rule 420 prescriptions*



.............................................. *OK, I made that last one up ;)

also:

Stated that players shall (801.04.A) attend the player�s meeting and that they are responsible for knowing what is mentioned at it.

i'm also not clear on the provisional adjustment.
i read the other thread, and am more confused...

in simple terms, how does the new provisional rule work?

In cases where the group and the player are unable to agree on a ruling, the remainder of the hole is played from both lies. Both scores are recorded in the margin for each ruling and the TD makes the final decision as to which is correct.

In cases where it is used as to speed up play (not for a rules dispute), taking a provisional may reduce the options available to the player. If the player takes a provisional shot from the previous lie in case the disc is OB, they must play that shot if the disc is found to be OB. They no longer have the option of the spot 1m in from where the disc was last in bounds. If the TD has declared a drop zone, the provisional for OB may not be an option.

In the case of a lost disc/unplayable lie where the 2m rule is in effect, if the disc is found and is over 2m, the 2m penalty applies as well as the unplayable lie penalty (the disc has been found so the lost disc ruling does not apply).

thanks duke!

is there a rule for cheating or circumventing rules to gain a player advantage? couldn't find it in the new edition.

Gary, do you remember what the rule priority system is? Chuck posted something about which rules trump other rules something like:
Missed Mando
Lost Disc
OB
2 meters
:confused:

Missed Mando
OB
Casual Relief (to be determined)
Lost Disc
2 meter (to be determined)

An interesting issue that comes up under the new lost disc rule is that if you pass the mando properly and your disc is lost, you return to your original lie. Then, you don't have to pass the mando on the proper side on your next throw because the new mando rule states that once you've crossed the line on the good side, the mando is completed. This undermines the value of mandos done for safety reasons and/or allows a short cut the rest of the way.

How can the mando be completed if the disc is lost?

thanks Chuck.

so does that list mean if you miss a mando, it does not matter if your disc is OB, in a (stipulated) casual relief area, Lost, or above 2 meters (if 2 meter rule was declared as being in effect by the TD)? iow, the top most rule on the list trumps all the ones below it such that they don't apply?

as far as your mando interpretation, that reading seems awfully literal to me. regardless of that strict reading of the letter of the rule, doesn't the spirit of the rule suggest you still must pass the Mando on the correct side :confused:

Read 803.12A. Once the line is crossed properly, the mando has been completed even if the disc whacks a tree and bounces back across the line. Likewise, if the group sees your disc fly past the line properly and then it flies into some schule where you can't find it, you have passed the mando. Even though you take the Lost Disc penalty and go back to the tee (or original lie), the mando doesn't exist for you for any more throws on that hole. If your disc ended up OB after passing the mando, you take the penalty then mark your lie based on your options allowed for the OB area whether 1 meter in, drop zone or original lie.

BTW, the bounceback doesn't count on the missed mando side, just the "good" side. If your disc rolls across the missed mando line but continues rolling and ends up back on the tee side of the line, you haven't made or missed the mando yet. It's just as if you laid up on the shot so you could cross it on the next throw. If you roll across the good side of the mando line and it curls around the mando tree and comes back across the line on the missed side and ends up short of the line, you have made the mando in this case.

Just need to break the mando plane.

is there a rule for cheating or circumventing rules to gain a player advantage? couldn't find it in the new edition.



804.05(3)

It is still in 804.05. While the rules remain in a pdf format, you can search them by

a) go to the cover page
b) holding down the Ctrl key type f.
c) you'll get a little pop-up box. Type a word, like cheating, in the Find What box and click Find Next.

You can do that on any web page, pretty much, but with the rules in a pdf they are all on the same page right now.

so today on the first hole an open player crushes a drive that flies over the pin. no one else on the card is close, as there is a fair amount of shule trouble on the hole. everyone plays up to pin, fully expecting to find the other disc close to the pin.

it isnt found.

so back to the tee he goes. of course by this time the card behind is holing out and walking over to his tee.

he throws again, plays his upshot, and finished his hole. by that time the second following card is stacked up on the same tee.

and this rule is supposed to improve speed of play? got that that wrong!

the rest is rumor: i heard the story a second time and the story is that after 1 1/2 minutes of searching, the player hustled back to the tee and played a "provisional" in case the disc was not ultimately found.

guess what - at some point in the sequence AFTER his second drive, his frist drive was found. the story goes that he played out that first drive also. i have no idea what he recorded as his official score.

these new rules need a review, and a review NOW. not in four years or so when a new rulebook is released.

Wow, this sounds like a nightmare. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/thelung-Detroit.jpg

Can you see the shule beyond the basket from the tee pad?

I am guessing you can if the pin can be overshot in one throw.

"The faster" way to play in this situation would to have had been the player throwing a provisional before everyone left the teebox. This way insuring proper speed of play.

Of course, like in your situation, the first shot was presumed to be easily located. And unfortunately was not.

Since all members of a group must be searching for a disc for the 3 minutes is started/inacted, ideally the player should walk back to the tee box, throw a provisional, and once back at the green, start searching for the disc. Once the player is back, then the 3 minutes would start. And the rest of the group would have nearly 10 minutes to find the disc legally.

This of course does not speed up play, but it does however create a situation where a lost disc penalty is not applied, 10 minutes is a lot of time to look for a disc.

The lost disc rule is pretty dumb. Especially when you lose the disc from distances of over 300ft. That is a long miserable walk back to the your previous lie.

theres shule to the left short, along the back behind, and a clump short right. and you threowover water, altho with our drought there is not a lot of water in the pond at the moment. some though.

to answer the question, yes you can see the varius shules form the pad.

as you mentioned there was absolutely NO reason to throw a provisional before advancing because the entire group thought he had like a 15 footer.

you interpretation that all carmates must be searching before the 3 minutes start seems incorrect. my understanding is that any cardmate can refuse to or just plain not search, but of course they could be called for a courtesy waning/violation for such behaviour. the 3 minutes starts when it is his turn to throw - or when it is determined his disc is not readily located and some searching begins.

runningback to the tee at 1.5 minutes to throw a provie seems wierd also. you either declare it lost or not. (or "should" do it that way.)

regardless, this rule needlessly complicates playing decisions, is overly punitive, and slows play throughout the course.

How about you get everyone on that card to meet again same place and clean up the shule -- not to make it less of an obstacle but to make it easier to find discs? don't throw and lose your disc if you don't want to deal with the lost disc rule...

rob, i would have expected a better reaponse from you. who said anything about the lost disc being found in the shule? the shule in this case is trees from an inch to a foot in diameters. vines, thorns, etc and all sorts of underbrush abound. it is a wildlife/nature preserve and we are rather adverse to going in and wiping out broad swaths of native flora. the pond is formed by a beaver dam, complete with live beavers. its overflows into a much larger pond that has what must be a beaver condo or mansion which even has an outbuilding (maybe an beaver inlaw house?). we have seen upwards to three dozen turtles sunning themselves on a fallen log in the middle of the pond. the hawk family lives in the tree over number five's teepad has completely accepted discgolfers over the 1.5-2 years since the installation of the course. if you see would be the place you would understand how perverse the concept of "cleaning up the shule" is. is your idea of a good course one with no trees, short trimmed grass and no shrubs of any kind? if so may i suggest that you perhaps are better fitted for the other form of golf - the one that involves skinny sticks and teeny little balls.

this isnt about the shule - its about the rule. and we DID give ti time. today we gave it about 10+ minutes on the first hole of the event! :eek:

Pat, i am all for protecting habitat, but a disc golf course is an area where the impact of human travel and hurled plastic is to be expected. Cleaning up the shule does not imply clearcutting. However, removing thorns and reducing the amount of tree density per square foot imo is recommended.

On the first leg of hole 10 at Idlewild, we cleaned up the honeysuckle (bushes) and thorns (wild roses and blackberries) turning thick shule into shule you can see into and play out of as long as you're not too greedy (in which case it's risk/reward with an emphasis on risk). When we started doing that thinning, some were concerned it would make the hole play too easy. Au contraire. While it greatly enhances speed of play and user friendliness by better enabling off fairway discs to be quickly located and pitched back on fairway -- it also allowed errant throws to penetrate farther off course without being impeded by high density shule. So while it is easy to find errant throws, they get penalized worse by cleaner shule. the following pic doesn't reveal exactly what i am talking about because it looks down fairway rather than to the sides and the leaves are thick.
http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild10.jpg
this second pic of Idlewild hole 10 is taken from the first landing area where there has just occured a 90 degree dogleg right and now the pin is straight ahead about 325 ft and just to the left. you can see in this shot that the thorns and undergrowth to the immediate right and left of the fairway as well as in between the tree clusters along the fairway has been cleaned up.
http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild10a.jpg
however i am not sure how well these pic.s convey my points.
here is the pin. we are continuing to groom this course (Idlewild) to enhance speed of play and reduce lost disc scenarios (except for those who choose to take the risk/reward gambles -- then they know the rules if they throw their disc where it can't be found).
http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild10b.jpg

Granted, the greater Cincinnati area is not Texas. do you have pic.s of the shule and course that you are discussing in terms of the new lost disc rule?
In a tournament, if cleaning up the shule isn't an option sounds like that hole needs a spotter...

Rob, thats a nice looking golf hole, no doubt. but we are not talking about the shule here. my use of the term was to describe the layout of the hoe where the new overly punitive stroke and distance rule was applied. i dont know if the lost disc was found in or out of the shule. the point was that even with a player hustling back to the tee after 1.5 minutes of searching to throw a provi, there was a two card backup behind him. if he had not hustled but waited til the search was completely over, then more caually returned to the tee, it would have been worse.

this has nothing to do with course design philosophy. we probably agree on that. it does have to do with another case of a rule change having a result that most golfers predicted but that the RC could not foresee (or choose to ignore, but i am givingthem the benefit of the doubt here :D)

Well, I think looking for your disc for less than three minutes and then taking your provisional is pretty clever! Did he follow the rule and get a group determination that throwing the provisional would save time? I'm guessing not.

Wow.............I have helped , looking for a disc , maybe 5 minutes !!!!

yes i agree it was about as brilliant as one can be when it comes to the rules! very celver indeed :cool:

i'm not sure if they "determined" a provi would save time. if they did, then it was extra clever. not too mention generous of the group. if not then i guess we'd have to know for certain the rest of the sequence. the variations make my head hurt.

This rule was proposed during those five minutes or so that I was on the PDGA board. At the time I questioned how getting a group determination as to whether a provisional would save time would ever save time.

Thrower: I want to throw a provisional. Does everyone agree it would save time?
Player 2: You want to throw a what? Didn't you already throw?
Player 3: A provisional. He wants to throw a provisional.
Player 4: What for? It landed right by that oak tree.
Player 2: What oak tree?
Player 4: The really big oak tree kind of lined up with the picnic table but like 150 feet back in the woods.
Player 3: That's not an oak tree. That's a walnut.
Player 2: You mean the tree that has the path going back to it?
Player 4: Yeah.
Player 2: Dude, that's the 420 tree! It has acorns the size of a fist!
Player 3: Those are walnuts.
Player 2: No way. They smell like pine-sol!
Player 3: Walnuts have a husk. They do kind of smell like pine-sol.
Player 2: So are you going to throw your provisional or what?
Thrower: First I need a group decision it will save time.
Player 2: F the group decision. Why do you need a group decision?
Thrower: It is a new rule. I can't throw a provisional unless you all agree it would save time.
Player 2: Well, if its right next to the 420 tree, wouldn't it save time to just go over there and throw?

I wish I could figure out how to type true laughter cause that was extremely funny to me.

Pat, while i agree there will be times whent he Lost Disc rule change will be problematic -- such is the case with every single rule. You can always site scenarios where a rule is less than perfect. however, to single out only the bad aspect of a rule change and ignore the good aspects of it it seems imbalanced.

there will be those times when the new lost disc rule will seem punitive when compared to the old rule, however there will also be times when the old rule would have been more punitive. the advantage to the new rule is that where the subsequent shot gets played from is now less subjective and less subject to salesmanship. if you don't want to suffer the stroke and distance consequences of losing a disc -- be careful where you throw. watch where you throw. provide or encourage spotters where appropriate. clean up areas where discs are easily lost. if you are really worried about the lost disc rule change negatively affecting your rounds -- pay some kid to caddy and have him spot for you when you throw. that will introduce a kid to disc golf and take a load off your back :p

"however there will also be times when the old rule would have been more punitive"

only one time - when you threw the disc on a route that exposed you to that risk

"there will be those times when the new lost disc rule will seem punitive when compared to the old rule"

yes, every single other case.

"provide or encourage spotters where appropriate." naive.

"clean up areas where discs are easily lost." naive and impractical

"if you are really worried about the lost disc rule change negatively affecting your rounds -- pay some kid to caddy and have him spot for you when you throw. that will introduce a kid to disc golf and take a load off your back" naive, impractical and condescending

Pat, you should probably preface all of your posts that put down rule changes like the 2 meter rule or lost disc rule with
"A Fair and Balanced look at ..."

oh wait, that wouldn't be accurate :eek:

maybe so... after all i am the only golfer who thinks the stroke and distance rule is stoopid. funny though how the TDs in this region all seem to understand (and continue to use) the appropriateness of the 2MR. we'll have to work that ot before we can really say Fair and Balanced :D

Your not alone in that thinking Pat, I too think the stroke and distance is silly. I still dont see how the RC could have thought this is a time saver. 3 mins to find a disc and another 5 mins back to the last lie or tee pad vs......"that looks about right....right there......throw from there dude!"

The TD of our Ice Bowl tried to inform us on the new rules, after the dust settled, we just played ob the way it was last year. Good thing it wasn't sanctioned.

Does anyone else thinks its silly that a message board is the place we go to find rules clarification?

New rules went over well :

we didn't penalize for 2 meters (to much applause)

used speed of play when putting out, no problem

TD ignored new LOST rule, and stated that he didn't understand it (nor really want to), didn't seem to be an issue

Casual object between player and hole was used several times.
I had to drop back a meter to avoid standing on a loose branch.
*still don't understand WHY we can't move casual objects anymore

players liked scoring with numbers, not slashes

do we still circle 2s? what about OBs? use P's?

cheers

you interpretation that all carmates must be searching before the 3 minutes start seems incorrect. my understanding is that any cardmate can refuse to or just plain not search, but of course they could be called for a courtesy waning/violation for such behaviour. the 3 minutes starts when it is his turn to throw - or when it is determined his disc is not readily located and some searching begins.



Wow, I never thought of interpreting the rule that way. Thought that it SHOULD be written that way, maybe, but not that it WAS.

According to the rule, the three minutes starts as soon as the player arrives at the last spot the disc was seen, two players or an official must note when the timing begins, and if the group is requested to assist (which request, of course, does not have to come from the player whose disc is lost) the entire group must search for the entire three minutes before the disc can be declared lost.

I suppose, now that you point it out, following the entirety of the rule to the letter may require that part of the group learn to travel back in time.

Casual object between player and hole was used several times.
I had to drop back a meter to avoid standing on a loose branch.
*still don't understand WHY we can't move casual objects anymore



This was not a change, just a clarification. You were never allowed to move anything between the lie and the hole. Many players did not think this applied to objects that were also behind the lie. If you check the rules Q&amp;A the old clarification (Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path) is still there.


do we still circle 2s? what about OBs? use P's?



There is no required method to indicate play related penalty throws (OB, 2M, Lost disc). All penalty throws from non-play related actions (courtesy violation, stance violation, practice throw, etc) should be noted on the scorecard. In Texas we have never circled birdies, only circled to indicate penalty throws, and largely don't even do that anymore.

we didn't penalize for 2 meters (to much applause)

to each their own


used speed of play when putting out, no problem)

not a new rule


TD ignored new LOST rule, and stated that he didn't understand it (nor really want to), didn't seem to be an issue)

no, but violating the sanctioning agreement is now an issue. welcome to X TIER STATUS for that event! :D


Casual object between player and hole was used several times.)

not a new rule


I had to drop back a meter to avoid standing on a loose branch.)

that branch was completely behind your lie, right?


*still don't understand WHY we can't move casual objects anymore)

always HAS been that way.


players liked scoring with numbers, not slashes)

where do you live???


do we still circle 2s?)

doesnt matter


what about OBs?)

doesnt matter


use P's?)

how can you add up a bunch of P's? do two P's equal a D? (ie, NO)


cheers

ditto!

thanks for the love Pat!

this was not a PDGA event, a local festivus event (in the rain) where 92 people showed up and we had to add 4 holes to accommodate.

i guess i don't know the casual object rule, better revoke my official's license. Ever since i've been playing sanctioned events(5 years now), I've seen many players pick up leaves, sticks,rocks, disconnected branches in their face, etc. in front of their lie so they don't follow through and twist an ankle. It's common sense, no?

slashes are a funny thing, either you love them or hate em...
i think it's comical there's slash factions forming

i used to circle deuces and circle OBs(2 ob's, circle twice).... no biggie, just be consistent. Don't like the "6PP" thing

i love this game

The slashers must also believe all holes are par 3s. Do you not have par 4s and 5s around there so the problems with slashing would be obvious?

just kiddin ya know. (btw, i thought you meant P was for Par.) about a year ago some of us around here started educating other players about the "stuff in front of the lie" rule. you shoulda heard all the resistance we got! some of it was hilarious. but it really was a rule - just one of the most broken ones. (still is, for all i know)

i think the only real par 4 and 5 holes are at Milo McIver (riverbend)

seriously though, i pass out rule books at my events in the players package and i just want to be able to answer questions that may arise. This forum is providing answers, thanks to all.


remember the +/- scoring method?? that trumps the slash

I dig the / method of scoring when we play par 3 courses. When Milo has been played recently (Beaver State Fling NT 2005), all the holes were counted as par 3's despite the fact that many of them are 4's and 5's. TD's decision, and it really didn't make any sort of tangible difference, since no one showed up late (par + 4).

Slashes make the scoring quite easy. Not that simple arithmatic is that difficult with numbers, but hey, it's disc golfer's were talking about here. :D