Scenario: your Disc comes to rest in the crotch of a tree about 4 feet above the playing surface. However, the tree is right on the edge of an OB creek that is OB. so marking your disc immediately behind the obstacle lands you OB. The tree is also old and a little more than 1 meters wide in diameter ;)

Do you have only 2 options? --

Climb the tree and play with a support point behind the disc or marker disc?

relocate immediately behind the obstacle (tree) and taking a penalty? (however the girth of the tree would prevent relocating 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line so i guess the only real option is call Unplayable Lie and relocate up to 5 meters back on the LOP. (hopefully that creek isn't 6 meters wide) :eek:

sorry, couldn't resist ... let me know if i am missing an obvious remedy...

- - - -

803.04 E says: 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 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

Best Thread Title EVER!

If someone wants to use that for the name of a Band, that's okay with me :D

If the disc is only four feet off the ground, leave it there, place a hand behind the disc, place your feet anywhere on the ground no closer to the target than your disc, and pitch out with your other hand.

Just because the disc is in the tree, does not mean you can't leave it there and use your hand as the support point directly behind your lie.

--Josh

Two problems: I don't believe the crotch qualifies as a Playing Surface (there's a Groucho line there) and he said the tree is right on the creek OB line so there's no room to stand behind the tree IB.

With the standard options being blocked in some way or another, I think you default to the Fairness Rule 803.01F with "marking it where it lies" when possible being a prime directive for disc golf. So, I would have no problems marking the lie beside the tree within one meter of the creek OB line on the side of the tree farther from the basket if there's a difference.

Marking one meter from the OB line was what I had in mind as well.

With the standard options being blocked in some way or another, I think you default to the Fairness Rule 803.01F with "marking it where it lies" when possible being a prime directive for disc golf. So, I would have no problems marking the lie beside the tree within one meter of the creek OB line on the side of the tree farther from the basket if there's a difference.



I actually seen this happen !!!!! We told the guy , play the disc where it lies , just behind where it was wedged into the tree.

Yeah, I purposely put the tree right on a creek to take away the option of playing directly behind the obstacle (since you'd be in the OB creek if you stood immediately behind the tree). :D

Scenario: your Disc comes to rest in the crotch of a tree about 4 feet above the playing surface. However, the tree is right on the edge of an OB creek that is OB. so marking your disc immediately behind the obstacle lands you OB. The tree is also old and a little more than 1 meters wide in diameter

Do you have only 2 options? --


Climb the tree and play with a support point behind the disc or marker disc? <font color="green">Not an option.</font>


relocate immediately behind the obstacle (tree) and taking a penalty? (however the girth of the tree would prevent relocating 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line so i guess the only real option is call Unplayable Lie and relocate up to 5 meters back on the LOP. (hopefully that creek isn't 6 meters wide) <font color="green">Not a correct interpretation. Though the Unplayable Lie rule is an option.</font>

sorry, couldn't resist ... let me know if i am missing an obvious remedy...

- - - -

803.04 E says: 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 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.



That is the correct rule. The first place the player can take a legal stance is on the other side of the creek. There is no 5 meter limitation in this rule.

What if the creek or road is the OB boundary for the park or there's no way to cross the creek there?

I think my suggestion of up to 1m from the OB line next to the tree is more in the spirit of play. The solid object rule isn't intended to give you unhindered throwing, just a way to take a stance. The solid object should still be a factor where relief doesn't completely get you away from it without penalty.

What if the creek or road is the OB boundary for the park or there's no way to cross the creek there?



What if the cow jumped over the moon? ;)

What if the creek or road is the OB boundary for the park or there's no way to cross the creek there?



What if the cow jumped over the moon? ;)



Also , didn't the chicken cross the road.....................just to lay an egg ?

If a chicken in a half , can lay an egg in a half , in a day in a half , how many seeds can a monkey with a wooden leg , kick out of a dill pickle ? :D

Scenario: your Disc comes to rest in the crotch of a tree about 4 feet above the playing surface. However, the tree is right on the edge of an OB creek that is OB. so marking your disc immediately behind the obstacle lands you OB. The tree is also old and a little more than 1 meters wide in diameter

Do you have only 2 options? --


Climb the tree and play with a support point behind the disc or marker disc?
<font color="green">Not an option.</font>
<font color="blue"> okay, what rule disallows it? if it were a large rock, i could climb onto it and play from there, yes? </font>


relocate immediately behind the obstacle (tree) and taking a penalty? (however the girth of the tree would prevent relocating 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line so i guess the only real option is call Unplayable Lie and relocate up to 5 meters back on the LOP. (hopefully that creek isn't 6 meters wide)
<font color="green">Not a correct interpretation. Though the Unplayable Lie rule is an option.</font>
<font color="blue"> what is the correct interpretation and what did i fail to consider? </font>

sorry, couldn't resist ... let me know if i am missing an obvious remedy...

- - - -

803.04 E says: 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 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.



<font color="green"> That is the correct rule. The first place the player can take a legal stance is on the other side of the creek. There is no 5 meter limitation in this rule. </font>



<font color="blue"> can you cite me where in the rules i can point when i try to rule this way when i am on the course? if you are saying that immediately behind the obstacle means immediately behind the obstacle in terms of the first available IB spot on the LOP (with the customary leeway of up to 1 meter parallel from OB for stance room) -- that's great. is there somewhere this is clarified? </font>

803.04 E says: 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 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.



<font color="green"> That is the correct rule. The first place the player can take a legal stance is on the other side of the creek. There is no 5 meter limitation in this rule. </font>



<font color="blue"> can you cite me where in the rules i can point when i try to rule this way when i am on the course? if you are saying that immediately behind the obstacle means immediately behind the obstacle in terms of the first available IB spot on the LOP (with the customary leeway of up to 1 meter parallel from OB for stance room) -- that's great. is there somewhere this is clarified? </font>


(See Above)

Nick, what i asked was for you to be more explicit. What I want to know is what in the RuleBook do i show someone who argues that the rule says your lie is immediately behind the obstacle and if that is OB then you have to take a penalty stroke to get to the IB side of the creek?

Also, to help me understand the ins and outs of this -- what if you hit that tree and fall OB? the tree itself prevents 1 meter in from and perpendicular to the OB line. do i get it to the side (a la Chuck's fairness call) or do i have to go back to the other side of the creek?

the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play.



I think the words "immediately behind" implies that you should be close to the object. It doesn't say "until you get to a legal stance." There are many places where a fence is the OB line for the course property and a structure or tree is very close to it. Marking the lie within 1m of the fence beside the tree, on the side farthest from the pin, would be the logical ruling when going back on the LOP does not provide a spot that's "immediately behind the object."

The relief you get will be the relief your TD allows, not the relief allowed by Nick. When Jon is playing I think Brett or I would rule that both the large solid obstacle and the o.b. line relief apply if you were in a rare situation where you were on a large solid obstacle within 1 meter of o.b., or if your one meter relief from the fence line puts you in the solid obstacle, or if your relief from the obstacle puts you o.b. Take either or both until you have a legal stance.

I don't need to argue with Nick or Pat or anybody else about this because they don't volunteer as TDs at Jon's tournaments. The rules are what the TD says they are if you are a player.

Not quite, but in effect yes.

The TD can't change a rule, but they pretty much make the final decision on how a rule is applied.

The relief you get will be the relief your TD allows,



true, but wouldn't it be nice to hash out some foreseen scenarios ahead of time to standardize how TD's handle similar scenarios in order to optimize consistency across the nation/globe? I suppose touring players at big events can count on a well-considered ruling -- what i would like to see is less scenarios where the card determines the ruling 'on-the-fly' with a great deal of variation based on who is in the group (sometimes the swaying vote is a function of who in the group is the best salesman or believes they know the rules best, even if in actuality they don't) . I also would prefer not to have to consult the TD if at all possible -- sometimes they are on goodness only knows what hole...

Asking and getting the opinions of Nick, Gary, Chuck, etc. is helpful to me -- i can weigh what they say and make decisions less on the fly if such a scenario arises during casual or sanctioned play and i am involved. Plus, i would rather vet my intuitive interpretations here before arguing them in actuality because i don't want my interpretation to prevail unless it is correct.

The only problem is that all we have to offer are opinions, and I don't recall very many situations where we all agreed on all of the specifics of our contrived scenarios.

Most of the questions that get asked here are ones that fail to be addressed directly in the rules in an intuitive manner, and quite often, the logical solutions are carefully blocked by the scenario. I try to explain how I would approach the issue if I were asked to make a ruling on the course, which rules I think apply and why I think they apply.

It's just my interpretation, and I have no illusions that my interpretation is the correct one. I have new perspectives pointed out to me all the time. Some of them are quite interesting and force me to change the way I look at the rules.

I just wish there was an intentions section somewhere so that adaptations could better keep with the spirit of the rules.

Gary, that is what makes your perspective so valuable. You have the requisite axiomatic humility to be a good judge and/or leader.

Unfortunately politics often seems to attract a different sort of 'lead'er... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I have no problem with the arguments, but only the RC can resolve anything, and even then, if you want the ruling to go your way you better print out the RC ruling.

When I know there is one of these tricky situations on the course, like bridges, or really big puddles, or things which may or may not be playing surfaces, or ambiguously defined o.b., I ask in the player meeting. And then I just go with whatever the TD says.

I've seen plenty of times where an issue has been completely hashed out here, and the RC has written it up officially on the rules FAQs, and you still get a different ruling from the TD.

And that's why we don't have million dollar sponsors or network TV coverage. :cool:

<font color="blue"> 803.04 E says: 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 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc. </font>

I am weary of being more explicit than the rule already is. But if immediately behind is an OB area, then immediately behind that obstacle (preventing you from taking a stance), seems reasonable.

If it is a border situation, to address the cow jumping over the moon scenario, then unplayable lie would be your only alternative left.

If I were you I'd shoot an message off to the RC and see what you get.

Why do you repeatedly neglect using the Fairness rule 803.01F? I believe most know that attempting to play the disc where it lies is a rock solid fundamental goal of the rules. Everything starts from that premise. The disc position is only shifted when playing from there is not inbounds or it's in a position where it's not possible to play it either physically or safely. Even then, the rules try to mark the lie on the ground as close as possible to where the disc is located or was last inbounds. (As an aside, I believe the kneejerk reaction to the changed lost disc rule emanates from the RC violating this fundamental principle that provides the option to mark and play a shot where it lies or close to it.)

In our crotch tree example, "no penalty" relief is provided immediately behind the tree, but this clashes with the OB line which provides relief up to 1m from the line. Going across the OB area to the other side on the LOP violates the words "immediately behind the solid object" and our fundamental concept of "playing it near where the disc landed," oh yeah, and how about common sense, too.

If players watched the disc roll out of the crotch and down the back side of the tree into OB as they were walking toward it, what would you do? Nick might make you go back to the previous lie and throw. I think you could get up to 1m inbounds beside the tree on the side farthest away from the pin if there's a difference. That's the spirit of "play it where it lies," 803.01F Fairness and, oh yeah, common sense. That's also where I believe the shot should be marked in this example with a disc in the tree.

<font color="blue">803.01 General
F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.</font>

The Rule of Fairness only comes into effect if the �dispute is not covered by the rules�. In this case it is covered by the rules. It is covered by the obstacles and relief rules in that you play it from immediately behind the object, with no limit to distance other than it being the first available legal lie. If that is not possible then it is covered by the unplayable lie rule with the relief provided therein.

Now I understand that some players, including Chuck, may feel that these rules are unfair or undesirable, but the fact remains that they are the rules. So Rule of Fairness does not come into play.

This all, by the way, is not a �new rule� issue. It has always been this way, and I see no need for change.

If a disc comes to rest in a tree and the two meter rule is not in effect, and as you are walking up to it, it drops and rolls OB, then you would return it to it�s original position. If the two meter rule is in effect and the disc was above two meters (as decided by the group or an official) then the disc is considered OB and play proceeds from that ruling.

Again, Rule of Fairness has no baring in this situation either because the rules cover it.

You're wrong on both counts here. What about "immediately behind the solid object" in 803.04E is unclear to you? How big the object is may not be limited but "immediately behind" is very clear to most folks. It's definitely not more than the size of a mini or so. Since marking "immediately behind" is not possible, you're in the realm of using the 803.01F Fairness to make an appropriate ruling.

The disc in the tree rolling down into OB as the group walks up is OB regardless whether the 2m rule is in effect or not. A suspended disc is not on a "playing surface" whether in the crotch or in the branches. Rule 803.07B on Interference only allows moving discs at rest on a "playing surface" (or supported by the target) back to their orginal positions if moved.

You're wrong on both counts here. What about "immediately behind the solid object" in 803.04E is unclear to you? How big the object is may not be limited but "immediately behind" is very clear to most folks. It's definitely not more than the size of a mini or so. Since marking "immediately behind" is not possible, you're in the realm of using the 803.01F Fairness to make an appropriate ruling.
<font color="green"> No you are not. A. any obstacle, including OB or casual relief areas that keep you from marking your lie are included and there is no reasonable limit to distance. B. the thrower ALWAYS has the option to declare an "Unplayable Lie". Problem solved. If the director provides some other form of relief within our rules of play great! No need for some as yet unfathomable addition to our rules for such a rare situation.</font>

The disc in the tree rolling down into OB as the group walks up is OB regardless whether the 2m rule is in effect or not. A suspended disc is not on a "playing surface" whether in the crotch or in the branches. Rule 803.07B on Interference only allows moving discs at rest on a "playing surface" (or supported by the target) back to their orginal positions if moved. <font color="green"> As far as the rules are concerned, anything below 2 meters when the 2 meter rule is in effect, is treated as playing surface as positioning of the disc rules are concerned (not stance, where you have to mark it on the playing surface...), even the top of a basket. If the 2 meter rule is not in effect, that would make all things behave (as far as positioning of the lie is concerned) as playing surface; thereby allowing the disc to be returned to it's orginal position. I know this from discussions of the 2 meter rule, where if a disc is above 2 meters, when the rule is on, you take wherever it winds up, but if it is below (but still above the playing surface) you return it to where it was. This was also later covered with the on the basket rules discussion where if a disc is at rest on the top of the basket and gets struck by another disc and rolls away, you return it to it's original position, because on the basket and not in the basket is concidered as being an above the playing surface lie but below 2 meters.</font>



But why argue with me when the PDGA Rules Committee can provide you with an absolute answer? Just curious...

You're just making stuff up with no rules support for either position. The "immediately behind a solid object" is very clear 803.08A and 803.04E, and except for the basket, which is explicitly stated, a disc not at rest on a playing surface is "live" until you get there to mark it. If it drops to the ground and rolls, your lie is based from where it lands. There's a gap in the rules here because it only explicitly states this for discs above 2m dropping down before reaching them (803.08C). But it's more logical to extend this rule to all (temporary) positions above the playing surface (except the basket as stated in 803.07B) than it is to call those suspended lies "playing surfaces" and use 803.07B for the purpose of dealing with this issue.

Chuck, thanks for making the exact point about the meaning of "immediately behind" that i wished to make. Nick, where precisely do you get the idea that if immediately behind is OB you get to keep going back on the LOP until you are IB (without invoking an unplayable lie penalty)?

Chuck, thanks too for citing the disc being suspended in a tree as different that a disc resting on top of the target (DROT). Last year at Bowling Green Am.s -- a guy had a DROT and we decided to putt out before having him mark it. It went in on one of the putts, and we all thought that meant he had holed out. Whoops! :o


803.07 Interference
A. A thrown disc that hits another player, spectator, or animal shall be played where it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected or was caught and moved shall be marked as close as possible to the point of contact, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. Alternatively, for intentional interference only, the thrower has the option of taking a <font color="blue"> re-throw</font>. Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur. The away player may require other players to mark their lies or move their equipment before making a throw if the player believes that either could interfere with his or her throw.

B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. If a marker disc is moved, the marker disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. (If the two meter penalty is in effect, see also 803.08 C and D for movement of a disc above the playing surface.)

C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player�s thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.

The rule changed from last year to this year. In 2005, the disc at rest supported by the basket was not part of the rule. A DROT knocked in would count because it was like being in a tree. But now, it is not because a DROT is treated like a disc on the playing surface. There's even an updated Q&A on this.

There's an interesting twist now that the Interference rule 803.07B includes discs supported by the basket. Wedgies in the side of the basket would now be "good" without having to run to the basket before it pops out. There's still probably a group timing thing though because if it pops out within maybe a count of three (just making this up), I think a reasonable person would believe the disc was never at rest. But if the disc is there for more than a count of three, then I beleive most would consider the disc being at rest, even if it pops out a few minutes later.

The RC may need to formalize when a disc is at rest. It comes into play in several spots. On windy days, how long does a disc need to be at rest on the ground before it gets to be replaced if a wind gust picks it up and moves it before the group gets there? A disc suspended in the chains and moving around in the wind has always been a little dicey with regard to being at rest. Players seem to have an innate sense of fairness in these situations and will let a player remove the disc swinging in there after what seems to be a reasonable wait (three count?) to make sure it's legitimately caught.

Nick, you may want to read the updated Q&A regarding suspended in a tree. The last statement in the Disc Knocked Out of Tree Q&A says - "Conclusion: It's a lucky break for the golfer whose shot was originally stuck in the tree! He gets to play his disc where it now lies." Of course, if it rolls OB, it's not so lucky but it is where the disc is supposed to be marked from.

Sent to PDGA Rules Committee today:


A disc comes to rest directly above a 1.5 meter thick tree trunk and the line of play behind the tree is against an OB creek. The other side of the creek is in bounds.

Where should the proper lie be marked according to our rules?

What if the other side is not in bounds? What is the proper ruling?

Is there more than one option?

Also sent to the PDGA RC today:


Situation 1:
The 2 meter rule is turned on.
A disc comes to rest above 2 meters.
As the group approaches the disc it falls and rolls OB.
What is the correct ruling?

Situation 2:
The 2 meter rule is turned on.
A disc comes to rest above the playing surface but below 2 meters.
As the group approaches the disc it falls and rolls OB.
What is the correct ruling?

Situation 3:
The 2 meter rule is off by default.
A disc comes to rest above the playing surface.
As the group approaches the disc it falls and rolls OB.
What is the correct ruling?

I'll let Carlton and the RC do the talking for me from now on when it comes to these discussions.

I believe that you are incorrect about a disc getting knocked in from on top of the basket being considered as holed out.

The Q&As will be updated shortly. They are largely based on our previous rules.

Wha't the question, and what does 2m being in effect or not have to do with it ?

In the Q&A, the disc is played from the new location, in the cases listed, the new location is OB.

I'll be seeing Carlton, Chapman and Gentry in person all next week in Phoenix at the Summit and Memorial. Should be some interesting discussions.

I believe the Interference rule was changed for 2006 specifically to prevent the DROT from getting knocked into or off of the basket. I believe prior to 2006, the RC had to treat discs supported by, but not in the basket, like a disc above the playing surface in the 2m rule section where the disc was "live" until the player got there to mark it. If it got moved by forces other than physical grabbing, where it ended up was the new lie, which could be in the basket.

Wha't the question, and what does 2m being in effect or not have to do with it ?
<font color="green"> It might not have anything to do with it, I just want to find out if it does. I believe it did in the past according to discussions with Carlton about a disc getting knocked off or out of a basket by another disc. Also concerning discs stuck in a tree above and below 2 meters. The rule as I recall is that if it is below 2 meters you return it to it's orginal position, if above you take the resulting lie (good or bad luck...). </font>

In the Q&A, the disc is played from the new location, in the cases listed, the new location is OB.

<font color="green"> As mentioned the Q & As are scheduled for an overhaul in the next couple of weeks to conform with the new rules. </font>

Let's see what they say, shall we?

If you notice, these we've been talking about have been updated already since they reference 2006 rules in the "question" part. That's why I quoted it.

My mistake.

Just to clarify, does this mean that every player that has a disc land above the playing surface from the tee near OB should run ahead and mark their disc so that it can't drop and roll OB?

This makes little sense to me.

Just to clarify, does this mean that every player that has a disc land above the playing surface from the tee near OB should run ahead and mark their disc so that it can't drop and roll OB?




I think so. On the other hand, I can't remember a suspended disc even dropping from a tree between the time our group teed off and got to the tree in 15 years. On the other hand, I've seen several wedgies over the years and now it looks like you won't need to run for those, at least once we find out how long you need to wait before "at rest" status can be established. That's a technicality that probably needs to be formally addressed.

oh rules zealots, please answer my conundrum!

what should a poor offical do when a disc passes between the two main splits of a tree that is marked a mando? mando sign is on main trunk. tree splits into two main branches and the disc passed directly through them even though it can't be more than a foot between. since it obviously didn't pass left of the mando tree we concluded it had made the mando, but were curious of an official ruling...

First, probably poor choice for mando tree. Second, course pro or TD should have made determination ahead of time how it would be handled. Third, the one time I've seen it, the disc had to pass inside the most inside tree such that going thru the split was not good. I don't believe the rules provide a default ruling.

Just to clarify, does this mean that every player that has a disc land above the playing surface from the tee near OB should run ahead and mark their disc so that it can't drop and roll OB?




I think so. On the other hand, I can't remember a suspended disc even dropping from a tree between the time our group teed off and got to the tree in 15 years. On the other hand, I've seen several wedgies over the years and now it looks like you won't need to run for those, at least once we find out how long you need to wait before "at rest" status can be established. That's a technicality that probably needs to be formally addressed.



I agree "at rest" should be defined separately. I think there are many hints within the rules already, none of which conflict with one another, however having it written in one place would be a good thing. I'd be interested in the PDGA RC take on that.

As to this new interpretation it seems unintuitive and unelegant to me. Seems better that once a disc is at rest, regardless of location, the spot on the playing surface below should be its lie. Even if wind, the movement of water, a bird, car, player, spectator, or a competitively thrown disc hits it and moves it, it should be returned to its original lie under judgment of the group or an official.

First, probably poor choice for mando tree. Second, course pro or TD should have made determination ahead of time how it would be handled. Third, the one time I've seen it, the disc had to pass inside the most inside tree such that going thru the split was not good. I don't believe the rules provide a default ruling.



I agree with this interpretation. Another example of directors needing to know their course and then firming up course specific rules at the players meeting.

. On the other hand, I can't remember a suspended disc even dropping from a tree between the time our group teed off and got to the tree in 15 years.



I've seen that happen several times in my ten year career. Especially on windy days.

I didn't say it never happened, just that I couldn't remember any (consider my age :D)

I didn't say it never happened, just that I couldn't remember any (consider my age :D)



I've only seen that twice plus one time I saw a disc shoot another out...that was kind of interesting.

We had a disc drop out of a honeysuckle at league just a couple of weeks ago. It was best shot, and not the shot they were taking.

Diana is taking the officials test and we were both surprised by how the current rules treat the "drop and roll." Maybe that has always been the rule. I thought I read something to the contrary out here recently.

Ah, I found what everyone was talking about, there is a new FAQ that does not seem to understand the question asked and does not seem to quite answer it. It would be funny if the answer the rules committee intended contradicts the rule they just issued.

I don't see the confusion. Disc drops out of tree before group gets there to mark it. Where it ends up becomes the location from where the lie is determined, regardless of its original height in the tree or in any other suspended position, other than the basket. Do you read it some other way?

That is exactly the problem.

First, the only place where the rule says you mark a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface is directly underneath it on the playing surface. 803.08(A).

Second, the only place in the rules where we have a rule addressing what to do if the disc comes to rest and then falls, says absolutely nothing about the falling and rolling establishing a new lie. 803.08(C). Moreover, the rules state twice that this rule applies only when the two-meter penalty is in effect.

Third, the only rules addressing what to do if a disc comes to rest and then is moved deal with discs at rest on the playing surface, 803.07(B), or discs which come to rest out of bounds, 803.09(A).

So, what we are left with is a very clear rule with no exceptions that says you mark the disc under where it came to rest in the tree, and a flippant conclusion in a rules FAQ citing no rule whatsoever that the disc is played at the new lie.

The rules FAQ contradicts the written rule and cites no reason for its conclusion that the written rule does not mean what it plainly says.

If we were to argue the evident intent of the rules, a disc that comes to rest on the playing surface and then is moved is put back where it was. 803.07(B). If a disc comes to rest on the playing surface and a dog runs off with it or a gust of wind picks it up, neither of those events creates a new lie. So why should a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface be treated differently when no rule suggests that it should? If a disc gets blown out of a tree and rolls, shouldn't the correct answer be that it is marked underneath where it came to rest?

What is troubling is that the rules committee would not address any of these rules but would simply jump to a conclusion that you get the new lie determined by where the disc ended up after falling to the ground.

The only problem I see, if any, is that 803.07(B) only says "if a disc at rest.....is moved" and doesn't clarify whether that means by natural or unnatural forces. Even so, this amounts to a request for relief from the effects of wind and gravity on the disc at rest.

The problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that the rule clearly says one thing and makes no exceptions while the rules committee says something else without citing any rule for their conclusion.

A disc is NOT at rest in terms of how it's handled unless it's on a playing surface, supported by the basket or until you arrive at the disc's location. It's not at rest before you arrive at its location if it's above the playing surface other than the basket. Seems pretty straightforward although I agree it would be better if it were this clear in the rules rather than needing the Q&A.

It's not at rest before you arrive at its location if it's above the playing surface other than the basket. Seems pretty straightforward




803.08A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course,...



The rules seem to indicate that it can come to rest above the playing surface.

I checked the rules Q & A and couldn't find anything related to this that was a flippant conclusion without a rule cite. Can you cite the instance or provide a link? Not tyring to be flippant myself, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

The rules seem to indicate that it can come to rest above the playing surface.




Yes, but it's not officially at rest above the ground until the group arrives there. It can be officially at rest on the basket or on the playing surface before the group gets there. And, as I mentioned further upthread, the RC hasn't specified how long you have to wait before a disc can be considered at rest. A disc swinging in the chains has been considered as "holing out" although is it really "at rest?" I don't think the rules cover this directly.

I'm pretty sure that this is an incorrect interpretation of the rules Chuck. I have a question into the RC to make sure, but my understanding is that before the "default 2MR off" change, any disc below 2M above the playing surface would be returned to it's original lie if it moved after coming to rest. If a disc was 1M off the playing surface, and blew out of the tree and went OB, you would return it to it's original lie. If (with the 2MR on) it blew out and rolled OB, then the new lie would be OB (tough break).

Now that the 2MR is off by default it makes intuitive sense that all discs at rest above the playing surface, regardless of distance from the playing surface, would be returned to their original lie if moved after coming to a complete rest.

The need to have "at rest" defined is not an argument against using the understanding of the rule described above, if it were it would also undermine the same rules for discs on the playing surface, wouldn't it?

A disc is NOT at rest in terms of how it's handled unless it's on a playing surface, supported by the basket or until you arrive at the disc's location. It's not at rest before you arrive at its location if it's above the playing surface other than the basket. Seems pretty straightforward although I agree it would be better if it were this clear in the rules rather than needing the Q&A.

Clearly not true. The rules specifically refer to discs that come to rest above the playing surface and discs that come to rest out of bounds. Neither of those are playing surfaces. Under the rules as written it is very clear that a disc can come to rest in at least three places: on the playing surface, out of bounds and above the playing surface. The rules also specifically contemplate that the disc can come to rest before you've arrived at it, because the two-meter no-penalty drop rule refers to that situation. The phrase "comes to rest" is used in all those rules.

You would have to actually read the rules to see this. I cited the rules in a longer post last night, not so far back on this thread.

Go to the FAQ about disc knocked out of the tree. The question seems to be about how to treat a disc that falls out of a tree not by the wind but by the act of another player in throwing a disc. I think the questioner was trying to get at whether this is player interference or what, and whether the two meter penalty should apply or be waived.

The answer kind of weaves these themes in. Then in the conclusion they state two things: no two meter penalty AND your new lie is where he disc now lies. No two meter penalty is clearly the rule. It is equally clear that the lie is under where the disc came to rest in the tree, not where it might have happened to roll off to.

Philosophically, I would have no problem with giving the player the benefit, detriment or penalty of the roll, if the rule said that. You would be incorporating another freaky thing into the way we play the game, but if the rules are clear the philosophy does not have to be consistent. Clearly, the rule does not say you play the disc where it rolled. There is no exception given for the marking rule, only for the two-meter penalty rule.

The rules do not address what happens when a disc suspended at 1m drops to the ground before the group gets to it, just those on the basket or above 2m when that rule is in effect. Since it's silent on this condition, I would extend 803.01F on fairness to follow what is proscribed in the disc suspended above 2m text as the closest rule. That would mean the disc is played where it ends up on the ground whether IB or OB.

I would really like the rules to state that a disc can only come to rest on the playing surface, OB, or on the basket (or not).

Or say that they can come to rest anywhere.

My previous understanding was that a disc could not come to rest above the playing surface, the wording of the rules uses "comes to rest" to describe a suspended disc. That directly contradicts my previous understanding.

The entire point is moot if a disc can not come to rest suspended above the playing surface. The disc will always be played where it comes to rest on the playing surface if it falls to the playing surface before it is marked. If the player reaches a disc that is suspended and it has stopped moving under it's own power (like a disc in water), then the lie is marked directly below the suspended disc. A penalty is assessed if the disc is above 2m and the 2m rule is in effect.

I believe I see your point now Bruce. The Q & A at hand says that if the 2MR is in effect and the disc falls to the ground before you get there, you play from where you find it. But actually, the rule doesn't say that. The rule only states that no penalty shall be incurred. It does not say that play shall resume from where you find the disc. However, I do believe that is the inference.

After reading 803.07(B), I am convinced that there is no specific provision for a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface and is then moved, when the 2MR is not being used. It only references discs at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target. The most logical approach appears to be to read 803.07(B) along with 803.08(A) and mark the lie underneath the point where the disc was before it was moved.

Perhaps 803.07(B) should only say"disc at rest inbounds" regardless of whether it is on or above the playing surface or supported by the target. Perhaps there should also be something in 803.08(C) that says play shall resume from where the disc lands. Definitions of "at rest" and "moved" would probably be helpful as well.

Perhaps 803.07(B) should only say"disc at rest inbounds" regardless of whether it is on or above the playing surface or supported by the target. Perhaps there should also be something in 803.08(C) that says play shall resume from where the disc lands. Definitions of "at rest" and "moved" would probably be helpful as well.



Yes, perhaps. Hopefully I'll get an answer soon from the PDGA RC. But I agree with your assessment, though I'm not sure of all the implications of changing the wording.

I admit that that was by understanding prior to even any rule changes from conversations with Carlton concerning a disc knocked out of the chains or from on top the basket, as well as from above the playing surface. I remember him saying that in regards to a disc in or on the basket that it is too be treated as if it were on the playing surface; AND same goes for anything below 2M. That is what leads me to believe that now that the 2MR is off, the same now holds true for discs even above 2M; that it should be returned to it's original lie that is.

hear anything back from the RC yet, Nick?

Not yet. I'll resend the request soon.

Resent today:

If a disc comes to rest 2 meters above the playing surface, then when the group is approaching it, it drops to the ground and rolls OB where is the proper lie?

If a disc comes to rest below 2 meters above the playing surface, then when the group is approaching it, it drops to the ground and rolls OB where is the proper lie?

Now what if the 2MR has been turned on by the director?

Your question makes a good point Nick. The rules seem to only address this situation when the 2MR is in use. And even then, it only says that no penalty shall be incurred, and is silent on from where the lie shall be played. I suppose by default, since it's now less than 2M, you mark it below. Probably something that ought to be unified for the two situations. I don't have much faith in default deductions. It needs to be clarified.

Since I didn't ask for permission to quote my answer, I'll just paraphrase.

Basically, if there is no interference and the disc just falls and rolls away the new lie is where the disc comes to rest. It is in OB then the disc is OB. Bad luck.

This is true even if the 2M rule is in effect.

I am waiting for an answer about when there IS interference (like another disc striking it).

Not unexpectedly the answer has turned out to be far simplier than all the complex questions.

Carlton is heading to the VTI so I won't likely get an answer until Mon or Tues.

I don't think you need to wait. The nature of his answer indicates that the disc is not considered at rest until the group arrives. Thus, the RC's ruling that if the disc falls out of the tree, regardless how it happens, as long as it happens before you mark it, where it ends up is the new lie (which is what I had posted a while ago).

Actually he shot it back to me before heading out the door.

And...

I think you were right Chuck, if that is what you said. The only time a disc is put back where it came to rest after being interfered with is the "playing surface" (now defined within our rules). (I think before the 2 meter rule was made optional, obstacles within 2 meters of the playing surface were considered "like" playing surface, now they are not. I'm going to check on this even though it is of no importance to current rulings...)

Any disc above the playing surface, regardless of how high (except for in the basket), is not considered at rest until the lie is marked on the playing surface below.

If a disc at rest above 2M, with the 2M rule on, get's struck by another disc and falls below 2M it is considered good luck; if it is above 2MR or below 2M above the playing surface and is struck by another disc and rolls OB then it is considered bad luck with or without the 2MR on.

The only time interference can't change the lie of a disc at rest is if it is on the playing surface or in the basket.

Reference:
803.07 Interference B.
And
Disc Golf Rules: Questions and Answers "Rule Question: Disc knocked out of tree"

I strongly suspect that this is not a widely known or understood ruling. I hope everyone here does their best to spread the news about it.

DGRZ Mini Test:
1. If a disc flies and lands and comes to rest OB on a road and a car hits it and it rolls back IB what is the correct ruling?
2. If a disc is at rest in the chains of a basket and another disc strikes it and knocks it out what is the correct ruling?
3. If a disc is at rest in a bush, above the playing surface, and is struck by another disc and rolls OB what is the correct ruling?
4. If a disc is at rest in a tree near 2M above the playing surface and is struck by another disc and then comes to rest above 2M, and the 2M rule is on what is the correct ruling?
5. If a disc is at rest in a tree above 2M and as you are walking up it drops on it's own and rolls OB what is the correct ruling?

Extra Credit: A thrown disc comes to rest above the playing surface OB about a foot off the ground in a bush and is subsequently struck by another disc and rolls IB what is the correct ruling? What about one that was OB on the playing surface?

Good luck!

You forgot one of your favorite topics, DROTs. Same rule as if disc in basket.

We still need the timing thing clarified. How long do you have to wait before a disc is considered at rest on the ground on a really windy day or nestled in the swinging chains securely enough that it is "at rest" relative to the wind aided movement of the chains?

Chuck, Carlton actually covered that. He said that a few years back, it would have to be when I was in Japan or before I joined the PDGA, that they tried to add an exact amount of time to the rule for "at rest" and it only created more trouble than it was worth so they removed it at the next opportunity.

I think they want folks to use their own judgment about such things. Like when a disc stops moving under its own power and starts moving by the force of water. I trust folks to make the right call.

And yes, if a disc at rest on top of a basket is knocked off and either falls in the basket or rolls OB, you put it back on top of the basket and mark it on the playing surface just as if it had been on the playing surface to begin with.

The basket is in essence considered the playing surface.

I just sent a note to Carlton regarding the timing issue with a suggestion to deal with it that doesn't involve an exact time. We'll see what they say when he gets back.

I'll be interested in the answer.

Was this issue never clarified in the official Rules book?

I can't find the Rules Q&amp;A after the new website went up... anyone have a copy? Is this site current:
http://krupicka.org/discgolf/rule_casebook.080218.htm

ERic

The book hasn't been updated since then. Q&amp;A hasn't been put back online yet. But Dave is working on getting documents uploaded in several places within the next week.

The book hasn't been updated since then.


Please forgive the noob questions but, why not?
What event triggers an updated Rule book?
Will the Q&amp;A be included as an appendix in future versions?

ERic

The PDGA Board initiates a request to the Rules Committee to do an update. Since they apparently haven't asked yet (not sure if it's planned), I suspect that 2011 will now be the earliest effective date for the next update with 2010 the year the Rules Committee works on proposed revisions. Status of Q&amp;A is still up for discussion whether it will be an official extension of the rules or just an advisory document.

I think they [the RC] want folks to use their own judgment about such things. Like when a disc stops moving under its own power and starts moving by the force of water. I trust folks to make the right call.



if a disc flies into a casual creek that has moving water in it due to snow melt (or heavy rainfall) and starts immediately flowing downstream -- is it marked where it first landed, or where it ends up (in a scenario where the water flows perpendicular to the direction the thrown disc had been traveling)?

Nick above suggests where it initially flew into the running water is the mark and that makes sense to me but i have heard arguments to the contrary on the course...

i guess you could also fly into an OB creek and then go downstream and get tossed back IB closer to the pin by the running water...
LOL ... that doesn't seem likely to happen to me though unless the ruling is to return the disc to where it initially went OB :confused:

i guess you could also fly into an OB creek and then go downstream and get tossed back IB closer to the pin by the running water...
LOL ... that doesn't seem likely to happen to me though unless the ruling is to return the disc to where it initially went OB :confused:



If it's an OB creek, your disc is OB as soon as it starts floating.

a roller can roll OB and then back in and be IB right? why can't a roller theoretically roll on water in a U and come back IB? :confused:

If the disc skips off the water and back in, you're good. If the disc is only moving courtesy of the current/waves, then you mark it where it stopped moving on its own power. It's like if the disc hits a truck on the road. If it bounces off, you mark it where the disc lands. If it lands in the truck bed, you do not mark the disc at the pub down the road.

pretty tough call to say when the disc stopped moving on its own and when the water started moving it.

if it hits a 5 ft wide creek and when you get there its just barely touching on the far bank inbounds about 5 feet downstream of where you saw it hit, there is no way you can tell me if it got there by floating or on its own.

Common sense + benefit of doubt to the player when its questionable.

of course, benefit of the doubt. but i am saying that there will always be doubt, even if the disc is 20 feet downstream, so the statement above that says its ob as soon as it starts floating would never come into play. no one is close enough or clear enough to make that call.

I have made this call before during a tourney. You are correct, who would know if nobody is there spotting? I happened to be on the hole ahead of the thrower and witnessed it. I marked it on the bank for them where it went OB and they never questioned the call. Spotting should be mandatory on these quickly moving creeks.