Situation: Player A is throwing an approach uphill through trees. His disc hits a tree and starts rolling back towards his bag, which he is standing next to. Player B calls 'Bag!', pauses, then calls 'Bag!" again. Player A allows the disc to hit his bag, and when challenged declared that he was under no responsibilty to move his bag.
Player B reported this to the Tournament rules committee. Having consulted the rules, our decision was to give Player A a 2-shot penalty. He was furious about it, and I want to know if we were right!

The relevant rules are:

From 803.07 A "Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur."

803.07 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."

Our take was that the responsibility for your equipment does not simply involve where you initially place it, but also if it is clearly going to interfere whilst a disc is in motion, avoidable contact should be, well, avoided!

As he chose not to move his bag (he had time and warning), he was therefore conciously altering the path of the disc, hence the 2 shots.

If he had made an attempt to move his bag, or it had been several yards away, out of reach, we wouldn't have penalised him.

Waddaya'll think?

Waddaya'll think?



Great call. That player has likely learned his lesson and will never do so again.

While he followed the first rule (his bag was in a position where it would not "easily" interfere) it's the second rule he broke. Like you said... it sounds like he was given ample warning before contact occured and even defended his position that he was "not obligated" to move his bag. That sounds to me like willful intervention of a thrown disc, so I think the 2 strokes was the right call.

bad luck for player A. Someone knew the rules, called them,
and followed them. That happens sometimes on a disc golf course. 2 strokes + a courtesy warning.
I like the call.

That is an honest, fair interpretation of the rule under those circumstances, provided someone tried to impose the penalty at the time and the player refused to take the penalty, and they said they were going to take it to an official.

As a procedural matter, if there is a disagreement about the rules, and a player wants to take the issue to an official, he has to indicate that right there. That is in the appeal section of the rule called General, but i'm not looking it up right now. I'm just certain it is there because procedure is my thing.

That is an honest, fair interpretation of the rule under those circumstances, provided someone tried to impose the penalty at the time and the player refused to take the penalty, and they said they were going to take it to an official.

As a procedural matter, if there is a disagreement about the rules, and a player wants to take the issue to an official, he has to indicate that right there. That is in the appeal section of the rule called General, but i'm not looking it up right now. I'm just certain it is there because procedure is my thing.



here...


D. Appeals:
(1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower. However, any player may seek the ruling of an official, and the official�s ruling shall supersede the group�s ruling. Any player desiring an appeal of the group�s decision shall promptly and clearly express that desire to the group.

so as to not deviate from my SOP, i have to disagree :eek:

803.07 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."

In this case the course of the thrown disc is to continue rolling down the hill. If the disc is rolling and the object (bag, rock, log, whatever) is moved then the course has been consciously altered. The rule does not say that players have any responsibility for a disc that ends up hitting their equipment, given that they did not leave their equipment where interference could "easily" occur.

Now, if you wanted to say that leaving a bag on the ground constituted leaving equipment where a disc could "easily" roll back and strike the bag I might agree with you, BUT, the rule 803.07 A stipulates no penalty. The only course of action, penalty-wise, would be if the director felt that by leaving the bag exactly where it was the player was willfully attempting to circumvent the rules of play, and a DQ would be appropriate. I definitely do not think that would apply in this case.

This is another example of how our rules could be further clarified by, for example, making the rule similar to ball golf where a competitor whose ball hits themselves, their caddie, or their equipment is penalized.

I think there are plenty of circumstances where the director must use their abilities to gather information about a particular incident, interpret the rules, and apply them for a just outcome. I definitely do not think that directors should be in the business of inventing rules that are not written and/or assigning players unwritten responsibilities.

If it's not written in the rules, then it's not a rule!

If the disc is rolling and the object (bag, rock, log, whatever) is moved then the course has been consciously altered.



However, the item to be moved (the bag) is an item that was placed in that position during the round and was not there before the round. So, it can be moved without altering the course. 2-shot penalty seems like the right call.

However, the item to be moved (the bag) is an item that was placed in that position during the round and was not there before the round. So, it can be moved without altering the course. 2-shot penalty seems like the right call.


That refers to moving an obstacle to stance or throwing motion. The fact that it's legal to move something under one set of circumstances does not necessarily mean that it's legal to move the same thing under different circumstances.

Also, even if it were legal to move a bag that's in the path of a rolling disc, there is no duty specified in the rules to move one's equipment out of the flight or path of a moving disc.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with a stance or throwing motion. Read 803.05B regarding moving equipment that became a factor during the round. Seems pretty specific to this situation, especially if requested to be moved.

It seems to me that there would be a difference between moving something prior to attempting a shot and moving something while a disc is in motion.

I'm not sure which side of this call I would agree with, but tend to go along with the bag remaining in place. What if the player had attempted to move the bag, and the rolling disc hit either him or the bag while he was attempting to get out of the way. I have seen some very comical and unsuccessful attempts to avoid discs that are rolling downhill.

In my case, it would be a cart, and not very easily picked up. On a treed hillside, it is not very mobile. I would have a rather difficult time successfully avoiding a disc wobbling back down the hill towards it.

yes that does say you may move obstacles "between the lie and the hole" referring to pre-shot activities. in this case there is no lie. there was a lie where the disc was thrown from and there will be a new lie once the disc has come to rest.

the rule that applies is 803.07 C regarding interference: "consciously alters the course of a thrown disc". the disc is rolling, without outside interference it will strike the bag, moving the bag would be a consious action that would alter the course of a thrown disc. as much as it would be intuitive for me to move my bag in that situation and it would seem to be the right thing to do, according to the rules it is not.

The rule distinguishes between intentional and unintentional contact. The act of ignoring the request puts the lack of attempting to move it an intentional interference. If the player at least made an attempt to move the bag or cart, then any contact would seem to be unintentional.

"intentional interference" could be construed if there were logs behind the player that blocked a drop-off over an OB cliff, but there was a gap between the logs conveniently the same size as a disc golf back and the player put his bag in that gap, "just in case the disc rolled back down the hill towards the gap".

you're assigning a duty to the player that does not exist and asking him to break the rules in order to avoid being penalized for a rule that maybe should be incorporated into some future version of the rules.

By your logic, a player should not move out of the way if another player's throw deflects toward them, and in fact, needs to freeze any motion during the full flight of another player's throw because any repositioning of your body or equipment would potentially be consciously altering the the course of the thrown disc and penalized by 2-throws according to 803.07C. You either take action to move yourself and equipment out of the way or not. You can't have it both ways. I believe we know which way the RC would rule.

now you're getting silly. jumping out of the way of a moving object is a natural reaction and there's no aspect of the game of disc golf to dictate otherwise. the conscious choice would be simply to get out of the way. it would not be, "i'm not going to let this disc hit me, because it might bounce into a position that would be less favorable to me".

since there is no rule penalizing someone for having their disc hit their person, their caddie, or their equipment there's no verbage as to whether there is or is not a difference between having a disc hit the person or the equipment.

once a player has taken their stance and thrown their shot there is neither any allowance nor any requirement to move objects in the path of the disc.


I believe we know which way the RC would rule.


i believe that you think you're right and that you think the committee would take your side.

i also believe that a td does not have the authority to impose penalities on players for rules that do not exist.

It's not silly. It's very clear. Either moving out of the way is consciously altering the flight or not moving is consciously altering the flight. That's extended to the bag. If the bag must be left at rest, then the person must not move either. I believe in both cases, the opposite is the case. If the player is supposed to try and dodge the disc, then the player is obligated to attempt to move their bag out of the way if possible, especially if requested. 2-throw penalty for not doing it.

you can't say whether or not moving or not moving the person is extended to the bag, because in all cases it's not in the rulebook.

if you want a player to receive a penalty if his disc hits his golf bag, then lobby for the rule to be written into the rule book. in the meantime don't impose rules that don't exist simply because they could or should exist.

Have you ever seen someone toss a disc or hat up in the air to knock a buddy's disc out of the air just for fun? If someone did that in a torunament, I'd say 803.07C extends to equipment for conscious or intentional action, or in the case of the bag in this thread, inaction.

my point is that you cannot "alter" by innaction. it takes action to alter the course of a thrown disc. if the disc is rolling towards a bag then it's course would be to roll into the bag, wobble a bit, and fall down. the only way a penalty could properly be assessed here would be if the player "knew" exactly what the course of the disc would be before he threw it and purposely placed the bag in the line that the disc would roll back on in order to stop it from rolling further down the hill.

is there a system in place for a player to appeal a td's decision to the rules committee for purposes of rules clarification?

my point is that you cannot "alter" by innaction. it takes action to alter the course of a thrown disc. if the disc is rolling towards a bag then it's course would be to roll into the bag, wobble a bit, and fall down. the only way a penalty could properly be assessed here would be if the player "knew" exactly what the course of the disc would be before he threw it and purposely placed the bag in the line that the disc would roll back on in order to stop it from rolling further down the hill.

is there a system in place for a player to appeal a td's decision to the rules committee for purposes of rules clarification?



This is where I totally disagree with you. It hinges on the word 'leave' as regards leaving your equipment where interference may occur. "Leave" directly implies inaction. If you see a disc heading towards your bag, and choose to leave it there, you are conciously altering the course of the disc, given that at the start of the Interference rule you are told not to do so!

Your contention is that your responsibility for where you leave your bag ends as soon as you've thrown the disc, I believe it extends to any avoidable contact.

You cannot dismiss Chuck's comments about a disc heading for yourself with the 'reflex' arguement either. The rule states, in the same sentence, that you should not stand or leave your equipment where interference could easily occur. Clearly you and your equipment are related, and your responsibility.
Ignore the disc heading for your body/face, how about it rolling slowly towards your foot. Would you move your foot? Of course you would. If it's rolling slowly towards your bag, you should (at least attempt to) move that too.

By your argument, standing is also inaction, so if you let it hit your foot you haven't altered the path?

With the working assumption that a bag behind the lie was not left were interference could easily occur (803.07.A) the main question has been wehther inaction constituted "Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc"(803.07.C)

The problem is that there are way too many scenarios that could go into someone not moving their bag in time. Then there is a larger judgement call for assessing a +2 for inaction.

Couple examples:

If a player leaves their bag downhill behind the lie on the fairway, climbs into the rough tosses their disc into a tree and have it roll back toward the bag. Do they need to make a running grab with the slo-mo "Noooooo!!!!" going as they dive over a bush and save their bag from the disc. I think not.

If they are like a deer in the headlights because their disc hit a tree and starts rolling back down the hill towards them, their reaction time may be barely enough to move themselves, but that's it. Is that a conscious action to not move the bag?

Or what would be the ruling if someone tried to move their bag out of the way, but the disc takes a hop and hits them instead. Now, do they still suffer a +2 penatly in addition to having to make the shot again?

I think it best that it is left that they keep themselves out of the way of the disc and not mess with anything else after the throw.

I am not sure where I stand on this question. Did you ask the player if he knew the disc was going to hit his bag and he left it to stop the roll? Otherwise, how do you know the intent? I believe that most of us have had similar events and when you see that disc that should be flying toward the basket, rolling back at you, a kind of shock can set in. If the player had dropped his bag to stop the disc, there would be little to question. However, if the player did not realize the disc was going to hit his bag this is a different question. During a tournament we once called out foot fault to a player that was preparing to throw from a tee box. He was placing one of his feet outsied the box BEFORE he threw. The term foot fault was called out twice, but he was so into the moment that he did not realize he was committing a foot fault. I believe he heard us, but I don't believe that it registered with him.

There is a difference with intent. I think that if the player admitted that was his plan then it is a different situation. Otherwise the benefit goes to the player.

With that said, you as the TD made a call and it was right for what you saw.

With the working assumption that a bag behind the lie was not left were interference could easily occur (803.07.A) the main question has been wehther inaction constituted "Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc"(803.07.C)

The problem is that there are way too many scenarios that could go into someone not moving their bag in time. Then there is a larger judgement call for assessing a +2 for inaction.

Couple examples:

If a player leaves their bag downhill behind the lie on the fairway, climbs into the rough tosses their disc into a tree and have it roll back toward the bag. Do they need to make a running grab with the slo-mo "Noooooo!!!!" going as they dive over a bush and save their bag from the disc. I think not.

If they are like a deer in the headlights because their disc hit a tree and starts rolling back down the hill towards them, their reaction time may be barely enough to move themselves, but that's it. Is that a conscious action to not move the bag?

Or what would be the ruling if someone tried to move their bag out of the way, but the disc takes a hop and hits them instead. Now, do they still suffer a +2 penatly in addition to having to make the shot again?

I think it best that it is left that they keep themselves out of the way of the disc and not mess with anything else after the throw.



I disagree with your very first statement.
803.07A. 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 re-throw. 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.

Where in there does it suggest that the responsibility ends when you throw the disc? It says not to leave it where interference could occur. If a disc is heading towards your bag and you don't move it, you're leaving it where interference could easily occur.

Everyone seems happy that they should move themselves, but the only line in the rulebook that suggests you should is the very same one that refers to not leaving your equipment!

I know I've dashed a couple of yards to shift my bag if my roll-away was heading towards it, and I've seen others do the same to get out of the way of my roll-aways. On the other hand, I've seen discs roll past someone and hit their bag 15 feet behind them, and never even considered that they should be penalized, as they could clearly do nothing about it.

Intent is key here. In the case last weekend, the guy clearly knew his lie was going to be greatly improved if he didn't move his bag. There was every chance the disc could have rolled another 90 foot down the hill, not to mention off into the heavy shule. Instead he got a second bite at the up-shot he'd missed.

I am not sure where I stand on this question. Did you ask the player if he knew the disc was going to hit his bag and he left it to stop the roll? Otherwise, how do you know the intent? I believe that most of us have had similar events and when you see that disc that should be flying toward the basket, rolling back at you, a kind of shock can set in. If the player had dropped his bag to stop the disc, there would be little to question. However, if the player did not realize the disc was going to hit his bag this is a different question. During a tournament we once called out foot fault to a player that was preparing to throw from a tee box. He was placing one of his feet outsied the box BEFORE he threw. The term foot fault was called out twice, but he was so into the moment that he did not realize he was committing a foot fault. I believe he heard us, but I don't believe that it registered with him.

There is a difference with intent. I think that if the player admitted that was his plan then it is a different situation. Otherwise the benefit goes to the player.

With that said, you as the TD made a call and it was right for what you saw.



He stated that he left the bag there as he was under no obligation to move it, and challenged me (pretty agressively) to find a rule that proved him wrong. As it turns out, I'm not the best person to challenge in that way :D

I find myself on the fence in this matter. I think 99% of the time, it would be impossible to locate your golf bag in a spot where you know it will help you out after you throw. So I can't find that there was any pre-meditation in this case. On the other hand, watching the disc roll and seeing that it was going to hit your bag and help you out seems to be deliberate.

If he knew then his intent was to effect the roll of the disc. 2 strokes may not have been enough.




He stated that he left the bag there as he was under no obligation to move it, and challenged me (pretty agressively) to find a rule that proved him wrong. As it turns out, I'm not the best person to challenge in that way :D

synopsis of my view:

to "alter" requires action.
there is no stated duty to attempt to move one's equipment out of the way of a moving disc.
there is no penalty for having your disc hit yourself, your caddie, or your equipment.

the player made the conscious choice to act and place his bag on the ground. once that was done, the conditions for the throw had been "set". the player had completed their duty to not stand or leave their equipment where interference could easily occcur. the duty does not extend beyond that simple act.

sure, it could be stated "all players have a duty to attempt to move themselves and their equipment out of the way of any moving disc. failure to make such attempt will result in a two stroke penalty."

or, "if a player's disc thrown as a shot strikes any part of their person, their equipment, or their caddie, then that player shall be penalized two strokes", but it does NOT.

yes, there's good logic behind the "exception" for moving a body out of the way of a moving disc. it appears that somewhere it should read, "players shall make every effort to avoid a moving disc. in the case of a disc striking a competitor that failed to make a reasonable effort to get out of the path of the moving disc, that player will be considered to have consciously altered the course of a thrown disc."

our rules will continue to evolve over time, but that needs to happen systematically at the committee level. while i don't think that this particular decision was by any means an egregious use of td discretion, i do hope that the committee will make some sort of statement of clarification on this topic.

on a side note (nothing to do with the case at hand): i also hope that the committee will make a statement of clarification on the issue of td's that willfully elect to not follow all pdga rules without seeking prior approval from the competition director, i.e. a big A-tier event td that decided to not utilize any of the new rules for '06 in his event earlier this year.

Denny,

All of your arguments make sense IF intent was unknown. Reread 803.7 C

Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, � shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.

By admitting his intent was to stop the disc he consciously altered the course of the thrown disc. If he had said that he did not think it was going to hit his bag or if he had stated he was struck dumb by the approaching disc then I believe your points are correct. But he admitted it was his intent to stop the disc and defied the group and then TD to show that his intent was in the wrong.

Now if he had not developed the plan to stop the disc I would be agreeing with you and granted that his plan was formulated at the last minute he made a mistake in stating it was done on purpose. If he had even argued that he had no idea that it was going to hit his bag and asked for a ruling I would be on your side of the argument.

Where in there does it suggest that the responsibility ends when you throw the disc? It says not to leave it where interference could occur. If a disc is heading towards your bag and you don't move it, you're leaving it where interference could easily occur.



I agree with this. The rulebook doesnt say anything about leaving equipment where interference could easily occur, before the throw is made. It just says "where interference... could easily occur."

Think about this - your responsibility to avoid interference doesnt only apply to your throws and the throws of people on your card. It applies to the throws of everyone on the course. If we were required to have set, "unlikely to interfere" positions for any equipment that could possibly come into play on any given throw, half the people on the course would have to hide behind trees and freeze any time someone was about to throw.

If you know a disc is going to hit you or your bag and you choose not to move yourself or the bag, you have altered its path.

Mike,

Did the player consciously alter the movement of the disc by leaving his bag in play? Apperantly the player left his bag in place specifically to stop the disc. Once again it has to do with intent. If he had stated "I didn't even think about it hitting my bag" then you have a valid point. He said it was done on purpose.




The rulebook doesnt say anything about leaving equipment where interference could easily occur, before the throw is made. It just says "where interference... could easily occur."

Think about this - your responsibility to avoid interference doesnt only apply to your throws and the throws of people on your card. It applies to the throws of everyone on the course. If we were required to have set, "unlikely to interfere" positions for any equipment that could possibly come into play on any given throw, half the people on the course would have to hide behind trees and freeze any time someone was about to throw.

If you know a disc is going to hit you or your bag and you choose not to move yourself or the bag, you have altered its path.

If you know a disc is going to hit you or your bag and you choose not to move yourself or the bag, you have altered its path.


that's not any different than saying, "if you know a disc is going to hit a park trash can and you choose not to move the trash can, you have altered its path." you'd never here anyone say, "that guy should be stroked for not moving that trash can out of the way that prevented his disc from rolling OB."

there is no duty for a player to move a trash can out of the way of a moving disc just like there is no duty to move a disc golf bag out of the way.

if you want there to be a duty to move a golf bag out of the way, then get it added into the rules. it's very simple, create a rule penalizing a player two strokes for his disc hitting himself, his caddie, or his equipment.

the bag was placed on the ground legally. there is no rule stating an obligation or duty to move it. does it makes sense that maybe there should be a rule requiring a player to attempt to move his equipment out of the way of a moving disc: sure, but in the meantime the rule DOES NOT EXIST!

Denny,

It is not quite the same thing, partly because the trash can is part of the park equipment and if it was there for other players then it should remain inplace for the thrower as well. But for the sake of discussion, if the trash can was in front of the player then he could throw off the trash can. No penality. If the trash can was behind him, similar to the place his bag was sitting, then since the trash can is considered part of park equipment, by rule it cannot be moved. See 803.05 A

So your comparison is not the same.



that's not any different than saying, "if you know a disc is going to hit a park trash can and you choose not to move the trash can, you have altered its path." you'd never here anyone say, "that guy should be stroked for not moving that trash can out of the way that prevented his disc from rolling OB."
the bag was placed on the ground legally. there is no rule stating an obligation or duty to move it. does it makes sense that maybe there should be a rule requiring a player to attempt to move his equipment out of the way of a moving disc: sure, but in the meantime the rule DOES NOT EXIST!

1) it is impossible to alter the course of a disc through inaction. moving the bag, just like moving any other object that's in the path of the disc alters the disc's course.

2) there is no penalty in the current rules for hitting your own equipment. there is no requirement under the current rules to attempt to move any equipment out of the way of a moving disc.

3) it is not fair for td's to penalize players for rules that do not currently exist. it's sort of like if george bush pro-actively gave tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of americans on all the billions they'll make over the course of their lives to come and paid them the money today by eliminating all the outdated relics of the great society.

You're incorrect on all three counts:

1) If a player has enough time to move out of the way, is warned the disc is coming at them and they choose not to move, they can be stroked. For example, a player stops a buddy's slow roller from going in the water by standing there so the disc hits him.

2) 803.07A states "...shall not stand or leave equipment where interference..." then 803.07C states the penalty for the infraction. this sequence of stating an action or result that's a problem then the rulke containing the penalty is followed elsewhere such as 803.11A then 803.11B, 803.12A & 803.12C, 803.09A & 803.09B.

3. The rules exist. See above.

I don't see any portion of the rule that requires players to move equipment after the thrower has allowed it to remain as not being likely to interfere with the throw. Additionally, I see nothing that allows for other players to require anything to be moved prior to the throw, but even if that was the case, no other player required anything be moved prior to the throw. Once the throw takes place, the course is set and things should remain in place until the disc comes to rest. This would include players. If a player was standing still from the time the thrower made the throw until the time the disc hit them, they should not be called for interference.

Of course that is based on a literal reading of the rule, common sense would be that players would move themselves and their equipment out of the way if they saw there was a chance of a moving disc hitting them. Common experience is that very few players stay still after another player has thrown waiting to make sure the disc does not roll back toward them.

GD: I don't see any portion of the rule that requires players to move equipment after the thrower has allowed it to remain as not being likely to interfere with the throw.
CK: 803.07A (second sentence) A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected...

GD: Additionally, I see nothing that allows for other players to require anything to be moved prior to the throw, but even if that was the case, no other player required anything be moved prior to the throw.
CK: 803.05B A player may move obstacles... that became a factor during the round such as spectators, players' equipment...

GD: Once the throw takes place, the course is set and things should remain in place until the disc comes to rest.
CK: 803.07A (second sentence) A thrown disc that is intentionally deflected... (which of course happens after the throw is made) Intent can be actually moving yourself or equipment into the way to hit the disc OR not moving yourself or equipment out of the way. "Intent" indicates a human choice. Whether you execute that choice with your body or actions with other items doesn't change the intent and the application of this rule. Being a "klutz" while trying to avoid getting hit and still getting hit wouldn't be penalized nor would getting hit when someone yells 'fore' too late to duck. These results either indicate intent to avoid or no ability to make a choice before being struck.

801.01C indicates that if players are asked to move equipment, they are expected to do so. Refusal to do so is a courtesy violation. The indication does not specify whether this expectaion of equipment removal is before or after the throw has been made, so I have to assume it is not time specific and is an "at all times" requirement.

This is not a black and white issue. It has to be decided on a case by case basis. It's a judgement call on whether or not the action is intentional.

From the RC. I cut and paste my original post from this thread to them

"Dear Neil,

Thanks for writing!!!

The call is correct as made. Yall were right. The player has a burden to avoid any interference, if possible. Failure to do, when possible (not to mention when "asked/warned"), results in an interference call. This interference is clearly intentional.

It would have been interesting to see the Player A's reaction had OB been beyond the path of the rolling disc...and it was Player B's disc doing the rolling towards OB!

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman"

Another chink in the armour!

Yeah, I think in this case the call was correct. If the guy had made even a half-arsed attempt to move the bag, he would have saved himself two stroles.

First of all let us consider the types of obstacles that can cause interference. There are two types of obstacles, both of which are called out in the rules. To simplify we shall refer to the two types as stationary and moving. Stationary items are fairly well defined in 803.05 under Obstacles and Relief. In no case is a player's equipment defined as a stationary object. Relief can be obtained or not as defined in 803.05. Note that some stationary objects can become movable objects as defined by the rules. No where does 803.05 state that moveable objects can become stationary. The only governance we have would have to be under interferences 803.07.
This rule states that as long as a movable object is hit WITHOUT intent, no penalty is incurred to either the thrower or the object struck. The movable object can be a player, animal, equipment, etc. If you look at 803.07A:

�.Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur.

First of all the term "leave" is not past tense, "left" is. The only thing left to determine is intent and under rule 803.07 whether it was conscious. Intent of course implies conscious.

Intent
- Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.
- Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
- Meaning; purport

The first question I asked was if the player's "intent" was for the disc to be stopped by his bag and the answer was that the player admitted that it was. So look at the word conscious:

Conscious

- Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate

803.07 says nothing about leaving equipment on a roll back, as you have stated, but 803.07C does say that if the player consciously alters the path of the disc then it is a penalty. Since stationary obstacles have been defined as being unmovable in this situation, the player's inaction to move a trash can would be perfectly legal. Player's equipment, however, does not fit in this category. The term leave does not imply at the beginning of the throw since it is not a past tense. So as per 803.07A, intent has been verified, as per 803.07C conscious decision has been established to alter the path, and since player's equipment is clearly not a stationary object the player should be penalized.

<~~ See that? That's my 'I got it rii-ight!" dance :D

i'm glad to hear back from the rules committee on this one. it certainly appears that i've a much stricter, literal interpretation of the rules than most here. (it's kinda fun playing the other side of the fence after being accused of favoring "liberal, activist judges" for so long)

the reason i was so adamant about defending my view is because i believe that, as much as possible, the rules should be specific. i see players having to jump, duck, and roll to get out of the way of discs as a common occurence. i just think a specific line like, "all players have the responsibility to attempt to move themselves and their equipment out of the way of a moving disc. breach of this duty . . . two penalty throws . . ." would be an improvement.

also, i think it'd be great if the r.c. could keep an updated file on the website with it's "findings" on questions that pop up during the year. td's could then print out a copy of the file just before their event in case any of those issues come up during the tournament. at the end of the year those findings could then be incorporated into the next version and the file could start over for the next year.

it's been fun playing the "don't let that disc hit your bag game", do i get a turn to spin that really big wheel for a chance to get in the showcase showdown?

No you lost. :eek: But I understand what you are saying and you did put up a good fight. :cool:

that's fine, i can live without spinning the big wheel, i know it's all fixed anyway, but i refuse to get my pet spayed!

Vanna whar are our przies for the departing contestent!!!

Denny I have done the same thing......


that's fine, i can live without spinning the big wheel, i know it's all fixed anyway, but i refuse to get my pet spayed!

Seen a guy just decided to park his car on the fairway.

If you decide to throw , that's currently part of the course and you take your chances.

Or wait and/or ask him to move.

http://members.tripod.com/~rowenlee/wheel.gif
Small wheel turn by the fire and rod
Big wheel turn by the grace of God
Everytime that wheel turn round
bound to cover just a little more ground

The wheel is turning
and you can't slow down
You can't let go
and you can't hold on
You can't go back
and you can't stand still
If the thunder don't get you
then the lightning will
http://www.marxmuseum.com/images/bw.JPG

Another chink in the armour!

Yeah, I think in this case the call was correct. If the guy had made even a half-arsed attempt to move the bag, he would have saved himself two stroles.



or been in a daze, or not said 'I don't have too'.
Intention is often key, and since officials are not
mind-readers, we just have to read all of the available
information. It does appear that he did
(thru his deliberate inaction) alter the course
of a moving disc.


bad luck for player A. Someone knew the rules, called them,
and followed them. That happens sometimes on a disc golf course. 2 strokes + a courtesy warning.
I like the call.

I like it even more now
:cool:

Bowler