In playing a round yesterday a player threw their disc into the middle of a bush where the branches were stretched out about 3 feet over and around the disc. For him to get his foot behind the disc he would have had to moved lots of branches with his leg. I think it was an unplayable lie but we let it go after looking at the rule cause the rule isn't precise enough to make a ruling. Two things the rule is not explaining what a "legal stance" or " least movement" is, it just says "Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle" Does that mean I can slightly move or can I use force to get my leg through the branches to get to the disc. Ok if we can slightly move branchs how much movement is that. Is least movement just enough as to not break the branch? or ?? I think the rule needs to define "least movement" or get rid of the turm all together. My thought is you can not go in for a legal stance if your going to touch any branch on the way in. Thus keeping people from breaking shrubs and bushes to the ground. Can someone give some input. Thanks in advance.

803.05 Obstacles and Relief
A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.05 C. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player�s throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.


/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Least movement means the least movement required to obtain a legal stance. There is also a rule against moving anything between the lie and the target. So if going in from the target side of the lie requires that anything between the lie and the hole has to be moved, the lie must be approached from another direction.

There has been some discussion here in the past about players backing in to a bush or shrub from the target side of the lie to get a stance where the branches of the bush are not in your way. I think the general consensus was that it was illegal to do, but that it was common practice and not called as a violation of 803.05(B). Though the one rule says "least movement", 803.05(B) says that you may not move, alter bend, break or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole. When you back into such a lie as described, you are bending back the branches with your backside.

Agreed! but here is the rub "Once a legal stance is taken" and in this situation the bush was between the basket and the stance therfore the player had to approach the stance from the side or the back of the bush. The disc being in the middle of the bush made it imposable to get a stance without bending branches. I think the rule covers this situation but it needs to be clearer to the reader. The question still remains, What is a legal stance?

There are two separate questions here now.

If it is physically impossible to reach the playing surface directly behind the marker disc because to the density of the "trunk" of the bush, there is a likelyhood that the area where multiple trunks are coming out of the ground can be treated as a large solid obstacle and a stance taken directly behind the center clump.

On the other question, If parts of the obstacle must be moved in order to reach and take a legal stance, the lie can not be approached from the target side.

First off this is a throw gone wild, certainly not done with purpose. In other words this is a bad throw and a bad throw does not get rewarded. This is not a trunk of a tree and doesnt come close to the same idea. It could have gone into the water and again that is a bad throw and is not rewarded. But the question here is what is a "legal stance".

Intentions are not rewarded nor punished, results are.

I've seen too many beautiful shots down tight fairways barely nick a tree and end up deep in the shule while very errant shots hit something out in the woods and end up in the fairway to put any value in the good shot/bad shot punishment/reward argument.

A player must be able to put a point of contact on the playing surface within 30cm of the rear edge of the marker disc on the LOP and with all points of contact inbounds to take a legal stance. He must also manage to do this while not moving anything between the lie and the target and causing minimal movement of any obstacle not between the lie and the target. The player is also allowed more than 30cm if there is a large solid (impenetrable ?) object that prevents taking a legal stance within 30cm of the marker disc. In this case the lie/marker is not relocated.

There are certain circumstance where the lie may be relocated without penalty as explained in 803.05.

If none of those options are suitable, then an unsafe lie can be declared and the lie relocated with penalty in accordance with 803.06.

I'm not going to argue whether the shot was beautiful or not, if it lands in an area such as a bush, which is what I'm talking about there are possible penalties. WTS this lie I think is an un playable lie or maybe an unsafe lie. Too many players are trampling our ferns, shrubs, bushes and tree for the sake of a stroke and this rules needs to be written in accordance IMO

The rules are written to take that into effect, but the TD/ Course Pro has to put in the effort required to protect fragile areas. 804.01 allows for any area do be declared a special condition area and the options for how to play the disc are fairly flexible. An easy example are the flower beds along the left side of 18's fairway at Veteran's park in Arlington. These have been played as special condition areas for years. All of the locals know to bring the disc straight out to the fairway and play on.

The areas need to be clearly demarked from the course, but this should not be a major poblem.

I would like to stay on the present subject, please. This is a question that needs to be addressed by the rule, and the rule lacks an answer. IMO

I would like to stay on the present subject, please.



Then stop bringing up things that are not directly related to the topic. :D

No, There is no definition of least movement.

The definition of least movement is going to be different from player to player and group to group. It appears from the example that there was clean ground upon which to take a stance behind the disc (no solid obstacle question), but that these branches were, within three feet, hovering over, around, and in front of the lie. If the player cannot take a stance without violating the least movement requirement, however that may be defined within the group or by an official, then a case could be made for taking an unplayable lie penalty and moving on. In the alternative, they could lie down on the ground, placing their contact point behind the lie and underneath the branches, and throw from there.

The definition of least movement is going to be different from player to player and group to group. It appears from the example that there was clean ground upon which to take a stance behind the disc (no solid obstacle question), but that these branches were, within three feet, hovering over, around, and in front of the lie. If the player cannot take a stance without violating the least movement requirement, however that may be defined within the group or by an official, then a case could be made for taking an unplayable lie penalty and moving on. In the alternative, they could lie down on the ground, placing their contact point behind the lie and underneath the branches, and throw from there.



I think the real rule there would be the holding back or bending rule. If a player was able to get in underneath the branches and then try to stand to make the shot, anything he moved he would probably be holding back with his body. Not important, but it is a clearer line. You can argue what constitutes least movement, but you can't really argue that you are not holding back something that is out of place because it's in contact with your body or equipment.

If the player can not stand without impacting the branches bove his lie, the only options in this case would be to come in underneath the branches and get a point of contact behind his marker, or declare an unplayable lie and take a penalty or maybe 2 depending on how bad the new lie (within 5m on LOP) would be.

I would really like to see the wording around "once a legal stance is taken" cleaned up so it was clearer. Either it means you can hold back and bend things in order to obtain a legal stance and from that point on, you are not allowed to hold back anything else, or that once you take your stance you must not be holding anything back or bending anything.

It also specifically addresses your throwing motion, and not your stance, so there are a few points to argue in the wording.

I think the intent that you are allowed to move things in order to reach your lie, but only as much as is absolutely required to reach your lie and take a stance. Once you are in your stance, you must not be bending or holding back any part of the obstacle.

That would be a good way to clarify it. Add language saying that once you have taken a legal stance, though your throwing motion may make incidental movement of an obstacle, you may not bend back or hold any obstacle, whether it be with your body, hand, leg, etc.

Agreed !!!! It really needs to be specifically defined in the rules.

Agreed!

So who's going to request that the RC put together a Q&A entry until the next rules rewrite ? :cool:

I would say that you can move branches in order to get to your lie, but they have to be back in their original position before the shot is executed. This definitely isn't a solid trunk/obstacle situation.

Yes, I would agree that this is what the rules allow.

Gary, I would suggest someone with experience drafting letters/proposals to the RC should do that.

So you have struggled to make/take a legal stance and you ask, "Am I legal?" Can your cardmates withhold their opinion(s) until after your 'illegal' shot? I would think not...but a 'snake in the grass' might just do that...though it would require 2 snakes, right?

Happy B-Day, Kenny!

Best to know the rules so you don't have to ask and give them the opportunity to say "no".

Happy B-Day, Kenny!



Thanks, Rock, and nice victory last week in New Mexico!!!

There is a inherent problem with that situation as I see it. You, might be a careful player and not force your way down threw the branches to get to your lie, even if I was watching, but the next guy might not be that careful. I think the thought of rule was made for a reason(save plant life or whatever it is). If we let the idea that you can move a branch or branches as long as they return to their original spot be the rule, it will end up being the same as letting someone force their way to the disc. Because the branches will be still as long as your still, and any damage will have been made unless I personaly am watching. In other words, people will possibly break branches to get to their lie. The rule needs to be written stronger, "if you cannot reach your lie without contact to any object, it will be classified an unplayable lie". This will save a lot of damage and arguments. or some thing written better than that.

In other words, people will possibly break branches to get to their lie.



Why make another rule when he existing rules already cover the situation (rather emphatically) just because you are afraid someone will fail to call the rule properly.

What makes you think the new rule will be called any more properly or effectively than the current rule that already prohibits the actions you profess to be afraid of ?


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

804.05 - Disqualification and Suspension
(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.



If you willingly climb into a bush and break it's branches, you have violated at least 803.05.F and possible 804.05.A.2

Players are careful going into the bushes/trees because they know it's 2 strokes if they happen to break anything.

Not to just drag this on and on, but the reality is seen on too many courses, broken small trees, bushes and shrubs busted to the ground and not nessisarly on purpose but by accident by both pros and ams. Its a dream to think all people play by the rules but I have talked with many pros who have no idea what many of the simple rules are like the penalty if you don't hole out in a tourney, much less what is considered Willful and overt destruction. It broke by accident? Why give that excuse a chance.

I think Gary has covered this pretty well.

I'm not a fan of the idea that we need rules to make ourselves call the rules. If we don't know, practice and call the rules already then those sorts of rules will be meaningless anyway. What we need to develop is the unpopular attitude of high standards of excellence in sportsmenship. Where all players take pride in knowing, playing and calling the rules properly. Where players stepping into a bush or tree are hyper aware of damage they might be doing to it and taking an unplayable rather than break a branch.

More than this, TDs could do quite a bit by making such , likely, situations either OB or Casual Areas with relief to protect fagile growth. Next time you're out playing your home course look around at the low branches that come into play and see if makign immediately below them a hazard of some sort wouldn't protect them in some significant way.

It only takes a moment to break a branch, but it takes months or years to grow one... as the saying goes.

Disc golf would do well to be known for super high standards of sportsmenship as well as high standards of stewardship of the land and plants on our many public courses...

I agree with that completely, and it would be a great assist if the rules were clear and players play the game with the attitude you have written. This is the best way I can think of making Disc Golf a respectable sport. Thank you for your thoughts.

The way the rules are written saying that you can't "move" things in front of the lie seems to be the problem. What are we playing? Operation. Is a little buzzer going to sound if we "move" a branch in front of us with a little nudge while trying to get to our lie. The wording should be "remove", if you ask me. Too bad the rule book won't get a makeover for a while now.

If the wording were remove, then players could roll them around or twist them or lay them flat, or drag them 20' away, as long as they remained between the lie and the target they would not have been removed.

As it is, If you can not approach your lie from the target sise without moving part of the obstacle, you must find a way to approach your lie from behind.

If this were not worded this way, too many golfers would take advantage of "having to get to my lie" in tall weeds of thick underbrush and clear a throwing lane out on the way to their lie.

Ya, all the people 2 feet tall would probably really get an advantage that way.

Agreed, and the TD could give instruction that any shrub, bush, flower bed, ferns, or any thing they would not like to be destroyed is casual and you may take a lie directly behind those objects with out a stroke. We could go one step further and post a sign on hole ones with a set of rules and state this instruction also so that even in casual play this is how we need to play. This would be a good thing for our parks. :D

Good topic
Haven't been online in awhile.
Nice to see more civilized behavior than the last time I was looking online.
I saw this quote today:

Fighting in a forum is like participating in the special olympics... Win or lose, you're still retarded

Good topic
Haven't been online in awhile.
Nice to see more civilized behavior than the last time I was looking online.
I saw this quote today:

Fighting in a forum is like participating in the special olympics... Win or lose, you're still retarded



Sounds like a Pablo quote to me :D