I heard from a player the other day that if you throw a disc OB you have the option to rethrow. He siad that you can use this if say.. You are putting down hill and you go through chains, the disc stands up and rolls another 30 ft. OB. According to this player you can reputt your original putt for your 4 (assuming you were originally putting for 2). Is this true?

yes

you always have the option to re-throw from your last lie. About the only time you see this is a roll away that goes behind the player into OB, when someone goes OB right off the tee and gives up the 10 - 15 feet of distance to throw from the tee again b/c of footing, or if someone is just really upset :D

Tin Cup

:cool:

Or when the o.b. is lined with dense schule.

Is the rule that allows you to do this....

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

I never thought about a re-throw and taking the stroke and distance. I have been in several instances where the penalty stroke and loss of distance would have been better than where I ended up during the natural course of play. But it seems like the "spirit" of doing this is using the rules to your advantage (potentially saving at least a stroke) and moving away from the "play it where it lies" kind of attitude.

Is the above rule the appropriately applied one in the original example?

Thanks,
Steve

No, rule 803.09 is the rule:
B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or

If you are OB, you don't need to use the unplayable lie rule to return to your original lie to throw again. For example, if after going OB, marking your lie one meter in from where it went out would put you in the middle of a pine tree or other shule, it would be foolish to take another penalty for unplayable lie and return to the original lie, when the OB rule would have gotten you back to the original lie without an unplayable penalty tacked on.

As a general concept though, any time you throw into an IB location where it might take you more than one throw to escape or your body will get ripped up even just retriveing the disc, that's a good time to take the unplayable and rethrow.

As far as I know, there is absolutely no reason not to use the rules to your advantage when the opportunity presents itself. The opportunities are few and just rewards for knowing the rules well enough to recognize those situations.

Thanks, that clarifies it for me--I was not thinking about the OB clearly.

Let me modify Jordan's scenario: hole #21 at DeLaveaga is a very short drive but it has a nasty drop off behind the pin. My buddy drives within 20 ft of the pin. The putt falls out, catches an edge, and rolls about 120 feet downhill through a small forest. The player then takes three (poorly thrown) shots to get back up the hill and holes out for a six.

Being down the hill is bad, since there are virtually no windows to get back up the hill, and discs often catch an edge and roll back down. This risk is why many opt to lay up from outside 40 ft, when normally they'd make a run at that distance.

Granted my buddy was frustrated and did not play back up the hillside very well, but had he declared an unplayable lie after missing the birdie putt, he could have--conceivably--laid up from 20 ft and taken the 5. Or, he could have gone for the putt again, and maybe scored a 4 (had he nailed it).

Going down the hill is bad, but not dangerous. There is no OB. It seems like invoking an unplayable lie in the above situation circumvents the spirit of the game, since the person is not in any kind of danger/harm. I feel this gives the player a chance to "save" some strokes by using their "get out of jail card" and at their own discretion.

Cheers,
Steve

When you see how hard players argue to get out of taking a 1-throw penalty, it's not a "get out of jail free" card for taking the unplayable plus penalty any time. The Dela hole is the perfect place for that option to be used. I'm surprised it's not a rule the locals use regularly considering the number of top pros in the area who might have pointed it out.

What is unplayable is completely within the discretion of the player. The best way to think of it is this way:

If the best scenario from where you threw your disc would be to merely be able to get back to where you threw it from, the unplayable lie rule will get you there in the same number of throws.

About the only time that happens is when you go off a cliff or go into schule so thick it might actually be an outer plane of Hades.

About the only time that happens is when you go off a cliff or go into schule so thick it might actually be an outer plane of Hades.



Or said schule is filled with ginsu briars...

Bruce wrote:
"If the best scenario from where you threw your disc would be to merely be able to get back to where you threw it from, the unplayable lie rule will get you there in the same number of throws."

I think there are several opportunities at DeLaveaga where declaring an unplayable lie gives the player a very good chance of letting you complete the hole **in fewer total strokes** than if you had to play from down the cliff. Birdie to bogey (or double bogey) is a common call at this course due to the roll aways down a slope. The reward of a second putt at 20 ft (to finish at 4 strokes) may outweigh the risk of missing the same putt.

Granted, no one knows a priori how well they will get themselves back up to the pin (should they choose to play it where it lies), nor do they know if they will sink the 20 ft putt given a second chance. But I've played this course a lot, and invoking the unplayable lie rule can help your score on those holes when all Hades does break loose. :)

Just strikes me as a potentially unfair situation--saving strokes through self-discretionary use of the rules. :D

It's really an application of the same fair play rules that governed the 2m rule. Is it the expected result of the 20' putt (or flubbed lay-up attempt) that it will roll down the cliff ? Or is it just bad luck that sometimes you will catch an edge no matter how careful you are ?

IMHO, Anything that adds more than 2 strokes to your score based almost entirely on luck is a bit too punitive.

The problem is course situations where more than 'shot and distance' is the potential penalty. No where in ball golf is there a situation that produces more than the equivalent of a 2-shot penalty (other than DQ). There's no reason we need to be more punitive.

Take out the cliff and trees.

I have played a course where a 20ft putt could hit the basket, and roll 100ft down a steep hill, and still be in the (relatively) wide open. Can the player declare an 'unplayable lie' and take a stroke to retry the 20fter?

Rules say yes. If your moral compass says, "Yes," (mine would) then do it. But only a shrewd play if you don't think you can get a wide-open 100-footer closer than 20 ft. (I wouldn't).

I have played a course where a 20ft putt could hit the basket, and roll 100ft down a steep hill, and still be in the (relatively) wide open. Can the player declare an 'unplayable lie' and take a stroke to retry the 20fter?


Yes, it is 1 stroke. *I* realy should try to read the rule before I comment. :o:o:o

The rule used to be called the "Unsafe Lie" rule, so "unplayable lie" is a better name. Since it is solely up to the player to declare an "unplayable lie", and any player can declare any lie "unplayable" at any time, I still think naming it "The Undesirable Lie" rule would be even better. :)

It sounds really dorky, but it definitely takes all the "moral compass" stuff out of the decision. As was mentioned upthread, if you get an extremely unlucky kick and roll such that your 20 foot putt attempt ends up 100+ feet away down a steep grade, there's nothing morally wrong with paying the ultra-steep price of 2 strokes for that bad luck and putting again from the same spot. Having to call the lie "unsafe" or "unplayable" when it is simply extremely undesirable is the only problem with using this rule.

I believe it is just one stroke:

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



As far as the "moral compass" and the name of the rule go, I'm with Rhett. As long as I'm staying within the letter of the rules, I'll take whatever advantage presents itself to me. I can see that some folks may have moral problems with declaring a 100-footer in the middle of the fairway (or whatever) "unplayable". Maybe a different name would alleviate that dilemma, or the more morally persnickety could just not avail themselves of the relief that a playable "unplayable lie" might provide once every 1000 rounds. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

"The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player�s score."

That means you only take one penalty stroke to bring the disc back for the 20 footer. If he was shooting for a deuce from 20' and rolled to 100', called an unplayable lie, re-threw the 20' and nailed it, his score for the hole would be a 4.

But if he sank the 100-footer, he'd get a 3 :eek:

Right. One throw penalty. He threw three times & wrote down a 4. Just as I said.

W3rd!!!!

But if he sank the 100-footer, he'd get a 3 :eek:



You've obviously never seen me play :D

Steve wrote: "I think there are several opportunities at DeLaveaga where declaring an unplayable lie gives the player a very good chance of letting you complete the hole **in fewer total strokes** than if you had to play from down the cliff. Birdie to bogey (or double bogey) is a common call at this course due to the roll aways down a slope. The reward of a second putt at 20 ft (to finish at 4 strokes) may outweigh the risk of missing the same putt."

Same for Napa and Stafford and I've never heard this called. It would eliminate the napa roller?

Having a pin placement where a putt can roll away very far, either from a shot hitting a basket or landing near it, is starting to be considered weaker design and should be avoided if possible, especially if the rollaway can easily go OB. Experienced designers are starting to do things such as place sand or wood chips around sloped pin placements or have a barrier like a log 20-30 feet below a basket to stop most rollaways or leave the grass uncut 20-30 feet away.

So, the unplayable rule is a way to not be brutalized too badly where expensive landscaping would be required to prevent rollaways like Dela. It's still a penalty if a rollaway happens. It's not like there's some great benefit in having that situation arise in your round where you get to take an unplayable penalty.

Have you played Dela, Chuck? ;)

Yes. And I'm not a fan of the risky rollaways but I understand the thinking behind it plus what you had to work with there.

I hope I have read this thread correctly and not glossed over it to quickly. I think I could have used this rule last year when I was playing a round at IOS #7 with Bruce's youngest daughter. I threw in the middle of an enchanted forest right off the tee on #7. On finding my disc it was clear it would take numerous throws to get it anywhere. I wound up taking a 7 on the hole. On seeing my disc surrounded by Ents could I have simply replayed my tee shot with that shot being 4?

A retee would only have been your third throw. One shot into the enchanted forest and 1-shot penalty to come back to the tee for a do-over.

Looks like I'm way over due for a cover-to-cover reading of the latest rule book. :o

I didn't realize that the 2-stroke penalty option of the "Unsafe Lie" re-write to "Unplayable Lie" had been removed. I need to have one stroke removed from my total at last year's Evergreen Open. :D

It used to be, one throw penalty for up to five meters of lateral relief no closer to the basket and two throws for infinite lateral relief no closer to the basket. Now it is one throw for up to five meters straight back from the basket or one throw to return to your previous lie. No lateral relief is allowed anymore at anytime.

I incorrectly thought it was 2-strokes to re-throw from your previous lie.

I will be much more inclined to exercise this option now that I know it is the relatively cheap price of 1 stroke.

Having a pin placement where a putt can roll away very far, either from a shot hitting a basket or landing near it, is starting to be considered weaker design and should be avoided if possible, especially if the rollaway can easily go OB. Experienced designers are starting to do things such as place sand or wood chips around sloped pin placements or have a barrier like a log 20-30 feet below a basket to stop most rollaways or leave the grass uncut 20-30 feet away.



I totally disagree. Elevation changes in many parts of the country are rare, and flat greens are boring. These are what is known as "fast greens." The decision making between agressive & conservative and laying up is what makes both ball golf and disc golf the exciting sports they are. You are removing an essential part of the game by recomending that course designers avoid these situations. Fast greens should almost be used as much as possible.

With that being said, I could see where having an entire course full of these greens would be annoying and possibly gimmicky. Delaveaga has a lot of these greens amongst its 27 holes but doesn't come close to that. Additionally, though sloped, there should be no debris or obstacles so that if thrown correctly, the intended lay-up is almost guaranteed to stay close to the basket. The idea is to punish aggressive shots that miss the polehole, or hit the basket and land on edge. The object is not to make an intended lay-up hit an item of debris or trough near the basket and get up and roll away, which would be overly punitive.

Like I said, the unplayable lie rule now offsets poor design of punitive rollaways, so design away. But these types of holes will be given lower evaluations.

It's rare to see a putt end up OB in ball golf because they give the golfer a chance to play safely. Even on challenging pin locations, you won't see the pin on the face of a curved slope (like some miniature golf holes) so much as perched on top or the bottom of a curving slope so there's a side of the pin to play safely.

Dela and some other locations have bare dirt with little to hold even a flat layup and nothing to prevent rollaways. We shouldn't have as many discs that hit baskets and roll away but that's the nature of our hole design relative to a circular hole in BG. Lip outs in ball golf never go farther than the momentum the putter imparted. If a lipout really runs past, it would have also run past about that amount if it had missed the cup completely with the exception of a few redirects toward a downslope. Good DG putts with just the right amount of energy to reach the basket can stand up and rollaway much farther because the orientation the disc itself is changed from flat to circular relative to the ground. That "shape shifting" effect doesn't happen in ball golf.

Designers should still try to find some opportunities for fast greens. But they should also try to protect players from the very unlucky aspects of our equipment geometry where possible. If someone gets a 30-ft rollaway and has to make the putt, then fine. No need to make the penalty OB or a 60 ft rollaway when better design barriers can avoid that. Now, if the player makes a throw that flies over the barrier down the hill or OB, that's the player's fault and they shouldn't be protected from that poor play.

The idea is to design the green for challenge, reward smart play, penalize poor play and reduce the overly punitive luck aspects where possible.

It's rare to see a putt end up OB in ball golf because they give the golfer a chance to play safely. Even on challenging pin locations, you won't see the pin on the face of a curved slope (like some miniature golf holes) so much as perched on top or the bottom of a curving slope so there's a side of the pin to play safely.

Dela and some other locations have bare dirt with little to hold even a flat layup and nothing to prevent rollaways. We shouldn't have as many discs that hit baskets and roll away but that's the nature of our hole design relative to a circular hole in BG. Lip outs in ball golf never go farther than the momentum the putter imparted. If a lipout really runs past, it would have also run past about that amount if it had missed the cup completely with the exception of a few redirects toward a downslope. Good DG putts with just the right amount of energy to reach the basket can stand up and rollaway much farther because the orientation the disc itself is changed from flat to circular relative to the ground. That "shape shifting" effect doesn't happen in ball golf.



Off the top of my head I can think of the greens at Pinehurt #2 where putts carry past the hole and right off the green. And there's the hole at Augusta where Tiger putted into the water last year, took an unplayable lie, and putted again from the same lie. And then there's all the other greens I see at PGA events where long putts or even short chip shots that miss the area by the cup by less than a foot will roll down steep hills off the green into collecton areas. That shape shifting effect absolutely occurs in ball golf, and all the time.

The difference is that a place to make the safe play in BG is visible and the exact risk is known for a misplay. In disc golf, it's not like a player can hit the left side of the basket and know that's "safer" than hitting the right side of the basket. There is no safe play if our whole green is on a slope, even if the player is absolutely certain to throw the disc flat for a "safe" landing.

In ball golf, if you hit the same putt in the same direction with the same amount of energy, you will get the same result, time after time. If we had equipment to do the best job possible to repeatedly throw the same layup or 'go for it' putt with the same direction and same energy, the results are much less predictable. We need to minimize that flukiness inherent in the physics of these situations simply for fairness, not to some how dumb down the challenge of the game.

Does Harold know that he's a bad dg course designer? Maybe you should tell him to stop putting baskets on hills or close to water. Then, maybe people would actually want to play in the USDGC

Harold is doing exactly what good designers have been doing to reduce flukey rollaways and is an inspiration for my comments. USDGC has sand by the pin on #6 (good job), has wood chips and ledges behind the basket on #18 (good job), has a few pins on elevated mounds on #9 & #10 that have flat landing spots under the pins and quickly drop down to flat ground (good job). Old #15 was perched on the edge of a grassy slope but there was enough flat landing zone on the approach for a safe landing onto a nice grassy surface (good job).

The only pin that I believe is more flukey than necessary is the new one on hole 11, not so much because it's a challenging angle to the pin but because rollaways can easily end up OB. Without OB, rollaways there would still be within a reasonable range 20-40 ft for a saving putt.

I believe Chuck's point is that good design will allow the green to be fast, but will put a "collection area" of woodchips, sand, tall grass, etc. to stop the disc at a reasonable distance (maybe 30-80 ft. depending on skill level). I think that's a reasonable penalty compared to rolling 200 ft. away (or OB) after you rimmed out on the basket.

Say you hit the basket on a 20 footer and rolled into a collection area and were left with a 40 footer. You would probably play that lie, rather than taking an "unplayable lie" and shooting from 20 again after a stroke penalty. If you missed the same 20 footer and rolled 250 feet down a steep green, an "unplayable lie" would be then be the smart decision.

Good course design would hope to eliminate the need to use the "unplayable lie" in those type of situations.

The idea is to design the green for challenge, reward smart play, penalize poor play and reduce the overly punitive luck aspects where possible.



That's what I said. Find or create challenging pin placements, but at the same time, take responsibilty to make them as fair as possible to account for the flukier aspects of our equipment combination versus ball golf.

The idea is to design the green for challenge, reward smart play, penalize poor play and reduce the overly punitive luck aspects where possible.



That's what I said. Find or create challenging pin placements, but at the same time, take responsibilty to make them as fair as possible to account for the flukier aspects of our equipment combination versus ball golf.


/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Here is another rollaway quesiton. At Water Works in KC, on more than one occasion, someone in my group has had a putt hit the chains and come out for 200+ feet rollaways.

When it is apparent the disc is not ever coming back towards the basket, or is already OB and rolling downhill, does the thrower have to wait for the disc to stop before recovering it, or can they snag it to save time and a longer walk back up a hill?

When it is apparent the disc is not ever coming back towards the basket, or is already OB and rolling downhill, does the thrower have to wait for the disc to stop before recovering it, or can they snag it to save time and a longer walk back up a hill?


That's a great question. I would say it is fair for a player to concede the unplayable lie penalty and stop the disc, take the penatly throw, and re-throw from the previous spot.

But that's just me. This would be a good question for the Rules Q&A since technically it is a 2-throw penalty for interference per 803.07.C

Wait a minute....

It works the same either way. Say your drive is 20 feet from the pin and you are putting for birdie. You doink the tray and the disc starts to roll down the hill. You run over and grab it.

Per the Unplayable Lie rule, you count your drive plus the throw plus a penalty and you are now throwing 4 from the previous spot where your drive landed.

Per the Interference Rule, since your disc was intentionally interfered with (by you) you may elect to rethrow your second shot. So you count your drive, YOU DO NOT COUNT THE DOINKED SHOT, you give yourself two penalty throws for intentionally interfering with a moving disc, and you are now throwing 4 from the spot where your drive landed.

:)

Good call, now the question is can you tell a player in your group to stop your disc and you take the two strokes and not them.

Of course.

Since the other player was performing a DG related task at your request, they are temporarily acting as your caddie, and players are responsible for the actions of thier caddies.

Just be careful when you ask someone to give you a disc from your bag and you're more than 2m away. :cool:

Are you really in THAT much of a hurry or have to conserve every last calorie of energy that you can't wait to truck down the hill and get your own disc once it comes to rest?? :p

Are you really in THAT much of a hurry or have to conserve every last calorie of energy that you can't wait to truck down the hill and get your own disc once it comes to rest?? :p



Yes :D

If its a busy day on the course, and figuring that I, nor my group, are the best disc golfers in the world, we like to keep things moving and make sure we don't hold each other up or other groups on the course. So yes, I am in a hurry and walking uphill sucks. :D

It's rare to see a putt end up OB in ball golf because they give the golfer a chance to play safely. Even on challenging pin locations, you won't see the pin on the face of a curved slope (like some miniature golf holes) so much as perched on top or the bottom of a curving slope so there's a side of the pin to play safely.

Dela and some other locations have bare dirt with little to hold even a flat layup and nothing to prevent rollaways. We shouldn't have as many discs that hit baskets and roll away but that's the nature of our hole design relative to a circular hole in BG. Lip outs in ball golf never go farther than the momentum the putter imparted. If a lipout really runs past, it would have also run past about that amount if it had missed the cup completely with the exception of a few redirects toward a downslope. Good DG putts with just the right amount of energy to reach the basket can stand up and rollaway much farther because the orientation the disc itself is changed from flat to circular relative to the ground. That "shape shifting" effect doesn't happen in ball golf.



Off the top of my head I can think of the greens at Pinehurt #2 where putts carry past the hole and right off the green. And there's the hole at Augusta where Tiger putted into the water last year, took an unplayable lie, and putted again from the same lie. And then there's all the other greens I see at PGA events where long putts or even short chip shots that miss the area by the cup by less than a foot will roll down steep hills off the green into collecton areas. That shape shifting effect absolutely occurs in ball golf, and all the time.



At the WGC event at Doral today, Mark Calcavecchia putted just past the cup, where it proceeded to pick up speed and run off the green and into the lake; he took a snowman 8. Later Tiger had the same putt but lagged it properly. That shape shifting effect absolutely occurs in ball golf, and all the time.

http://www.worldgolfchampionships.com/players/00/11/61/scorecards/2007/r473.html

he took a snowman 8. Later Tiger had the same putt but lagged it properly. That shape shifting effect absolutely occurs in ball golf, and all the time.




Not the same. Tiger's putt, if duplicated in terms of energy and angle would repeatedly end up in the same spot. The "same" disc golf shot hitting the edge of a basket and dropping can have a widely varying end result. Our ability to repeat the same shot is virtually non-duplicatable to the extent possible in ball golf due to the nature of our mechanics and wind effects involved. However, shots that attempt to be as close as possible to being repeated should not have a widely varying result due to luck not skill.

Hi Chuck,

Are you saying that a ball hit with exactly the same angle, energy etc. will always do the same thing, whereas a disc thrown with the same angle, energy etc. will not? Of course, I would add the caveat--in both cases--that the physical conditions are exactly the same within each trial for either the ball or the disc. All of this is hypothetical, of course, but I don't understand why duplicating an event (were that physically possible) does not end in the same result.

Now on the other hand, if you are arguing that the realm of variation is greater for a disc than for a golf ball, and that external physical forces (e.g., wind, gravity--I mean those not imparted by the player) can influence a disc in more ways and to differing degrees than a golf ball, then I would agree with your argument.

Cheers,
Steve

Now on the other hand, if you are arguing that the realm of variation is greater for a disc than for a golf ball, and that external physical forces (e.g., wind, gravity--I mean those not imparted by the player) can influence a disc in more ways and to differing degrees than a golf ball, then I would agree with your argument.




Yes. If you think about the contact point in a BG putt and the surface it travels, there's more reproducibility in both the attack and the characteristics of the path it travels than in DG. A disc golfer who can get "locked in" by attempting to repeat the "same" layup putt 10 times on a treacherous green will come nowhere near the same tightness of resulting lie distribution as 10 repeats in ball golf putting. Part of that is the discs. Even if there were a way to rapidly rethrow the same disc 10 times, its characteristics can even change just enough over those ten throws from contact to potentially cause some shots to flip up, even with no wind.

How often do players look where the lock is on the basket and decide to lay up on one side versus the other to avoid it? (Actually, I might pay more attention to that now that I wrote this :)) How consistent is the landing surface around our baskets compared with a golf green? It's just one of the challenges different in our sport versus ball golf and designs should try to counteract the negative aspect of that to not make shot results more variable than they already are due to factors outside the golfer's control.

I think a solid example for this point would be disc golfers rarely stand behind the the person putting to tell which way the disc is going to roll away from when it strikes the basket or how much the head wind is going to float the disc. In ball golf, watching someone make a putt on a similar line can provide a great advantage (or sometimes disadvantage) only because that same line is easier to emulate. Watching the wind affect the disc on a putt is probably not going to help only because the wind could die or gust by the time you putt. In ball golf, that green is not moving.

If its a busy day on the course, and figuring that I, nor my group, are the best disc golfers in the world, we like to keep things moving and make sure we don't hold each other up or other groups on the course. So yes, I am in a hurry and walking uphill sucks. :D

Besides, we don't play disc golf for EXERCISE! That's what running, swimming and basketball are for!

That shape shifting effect absolutely occurs in ball golf, and all the time.

I think you are not understanding what Chuck is saying about "shape shifting". He is referring to the orientation of the disc to the landing surface. Typically a putt will land with the disc hitting the ground flat. But a number of factors can cause the disc orientation to change so the disc is perpendicular to the ground and able to roll away from the basket. In BG, the ball is always round...rolling is always expected since the shape of the ball never shifts. Disc orientation is important...but it means nothing in ball golf.

The slope of the landing area and the orientation of your disc as it makes contact are humongous factors in what kind of "luck" you will get on the potential roll-a-way. Learning to recognize that is an important skill in disc golf.

Design mandates that minimize that skill are not a good thing, IMHO.

If its a busy day on the course, and figuring that I, nor my group, are the best disc golfers in the world, we like to keep things moving and make sure we don't hold each other up or other groups on the course. So yes, I am in a hurry and walking uphill sucks. :D



Ah yes, Kansas... probably the one state flatter than Nebraska. Once on "Car Talk", someone proved (using math) that Kansas was flatter than a pancake. :D

The walk up the hill will do you good.

Design mandates that minimize that skill are not a good thing, IMHO



If it's not a skill that can consistently produce repeatable results, it's not a skill.

Design mandates that minimize that skill are not a good thing, IMHO



If it's not a skill that can consistently produce repeatable results, it's not a skill.






The slope of the landing area and the orientation of your disc as it makes contact are humongous factors in what kind of "luck" you will get on the potential roll-a-way. Learning to recognize that is an important skill in disc golf.

Recognition of the risks is teachable. Executing repeatable throws with repeatable results, even at the highest skill level is not.

Recognition of the risks is teachable. Executing repeatable throws with repeatable results, even at the highest skill level is not.


???

Wait a minute....

It works the same either way. Say your drive is 20 feet from the pin and you are putting for birdie. You doink the tray and the disc starts to roll down the hill. You run over and grab it.

Per the Unplayable Lie rule, you count your drive plus the throw plus a penalty and you are now throwing 4 from the previous spot where your drive landed.

Per the Interference Rule, since your disc was intentionally interfered with (by you) you may elect to rethrow your second shot. So you count your drive, YOU DO NOT COUNT THE DOINKED SHOT, you give yourself two penalty throws for intentionally interfering with a moving disc, and you are now throwing 4 from the spot where your drive landed.

:)



I feel like I am taking crazy pills, doesn't anyone else object to this logic!

Sorry but if you did this I would have to say that you interfered with the disc to gain an advantage and thus circumvented the rules which is cheating and is punishable under 804.05, at the very least you throw would be an active throw regardless of your interference and would be played from the point of interference with a 3 stroke worse score putting for 5!

What advantage was trying to be gained ?

Avoiding going down the hill to retrieve the disc ?

You do not know what the intent of the disc is, it may stop rolling after two feet or ten feet or never! Unless you can predict the outcome I would say you are trying to take an advantage by preventing the disc to complete its course of action.

I may have a different picture in my head than you do of this situation, but unless you can guarantee with certainty that the disc will end up in a particular location your interference is gaining an advantage as was so whimsically explained above!

You do not know what the intent of the disc is, it may stop rolling after two feet or ten feet or never! Unless you can predict the outcome I would say you are trying to take an advantage by preventing the disc to complete its course of action.

I may have a different picture in my head than you do of this situation, but unless you can guarantee with certainty that the disc will end up in a particular location your interference is gaining an advantage as was so whimsically explained above!


If you are calling an unplayable lie, what advantage have you gained???

The disc might, on a windy day, kick up on a roc and get blown back into the basket. Oops, you stopped it and declared an unplayable lie, wherever that lie might've ended up, and you re-throw counting the thrwo you interfered with and adding a penalty throw.

I agree that it is currently against the rules, but as I pointed out upthread, the score ends up the same whether you call an Interference penalty or an Unplayable Lie penalty. (Hey, this one would actually be an Unplayable Lie since no lie was ever establihed! :) )

I don't see where intentionally interfering with your own throw, and then taking the interference penalty, gets you an advantage. Unless maybe the disc could've rolled into a nasty lake and you might lose that disc for the rest of the round. But if you are going to argue that trying to not lose a disc is grounds for DQ, then I will call you a rules dick-head.

Whos said anything about stopping someone from preventing them from loosing a prized disc, and why are you resorting to name calling. Is that what you would do because someone does not see it your way? There is no way I ever want to see a disc lost during a round expecially one that could be saved from eminent drowning, but water was not the intial situation and now I feel you are contriving any situation to make your point more solid.

What I said and would argue is that in a situation where stopping your disc prior to its decent down a hill is advantageous then call it what it is, I would also argue that in that advantageous act your throw would be a live throw and count towards your score along with the 2 stroke penalty.

Lets not make this discussion about what if or one & a million chances, lets keep it close to what we have seen and could see on a disc golf course.

OK, one more time.

There is no question that anyone at any time may call any lie unplayable for whatever reason they deem appropriate. They have a choice of counting the throw that resulted in the unplayable lie, 1 penalty throw, and then throw again from the previous lie. If you are OB, you get the same choice.

Now, if your disc is intentionally interfered with, you have the option of a rethrow. If you (or your caddy) were the person to intentionally interfere with the disc, you receive a 2 throw penalty to go along with your re-throw.

The only exception is when the 2m rule is in effect, there may be an additional penalty throw required.

So, there is no advantage to be gained one way or the other. Stopping the disc or allowing the disc to roll back to the tee makes no difference in the next shot (unless it can roll above 2m somewhere along the way).


I would agree with you if the player chased the disc to the basket and tried to exercise the interference option of marking the disc at the point of contact if that was closer than the previous lie.