Is a disc that get lost in casual water a stroke?
And if so, where do you have to play it from next?
Back to where you threw it from?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lost is lost. Refer to 803.11

Which makes me wonder what kind of casual water you've got, that a disc can get lost in it?

Regardless, if disc is lost, it's a stroke and re-throw from previous lie.

It's played like the OB versus lost disc rule in terms of reasonable evidence. If reasonable evidence indicates your disc is located in the casual hazard, then you get to play it like casual rather than lost.

All the players in my group saw how one of the guys played his disc in casual water.We knew it went in but we just couldn't find it.I think it isn't a stroke because it is casual water.

That's like saying my disc landed in this big open field, I just can't find it. If you can't find it, (other than in OB/ OB water) It's lost.

You're incorrect Rob. No lost disc in casual water (if disc is known to have flown there) since I started in 1989. We seem to have had more casual relief rulings here in Minnesota with the several marshes on our tournament courses. In fact, those marshes contributed to the introduction of drop zones in the rules including those for casual relief areas where there might be no penalty. See Special Conditions rule 804.01.

This is how we play casual water: If you can stand in the casual water and throw from where it lies you are not assesed a penalty throw. If you do not want to or cannot stand where the disc lies you place a mark no closer to the pin and in a direct line through the original lie, and are assed a penalty throw. So if the disc cannot be found, you would have to re-tee or re-throw from your last lie, whatever the case with a one throw penalty. What I hear you guys saying is as if the old rules of guessing where it was last ect, were still allowed.

So if you are just out playing with friends or during a weekly there are not any special casual water rules stipulated, wouldn't you have consider the disc lost?

You're incorrect Rob. No lost disc in casual water (if disc is known to have flown there) since I started in 1989. We seem to have had more casual relief rulings here in Minnesota with the several marshes on our tournament courses. In fact, those marshes contributed to the introduction of drop zones in the rules including those for casual relief areas where there might be no penalty. See Special Conditions rule 804.01.



That's if the TD had included a drop zone for that special condition. Without a ruling prior to starting the tourny, it seems to me if you can't find it, it's lost. 803.11 and 804.01

The drop zone doesn't matter. It's not lost if disc is seen going in the casual area. That's also casual areas where a disc may be unretrievable such as a bed of poison ivy or other sensitive area that's been called casual instead of OB. In these cases, it may not be safe to even go into the area to search for a disc so the group observing it go in is more than accceptable for the disc not to be lost.

This is how we play casual water: If you can stand in the casual water and throw from where it lies you are not assesed a penalty throw. If you do not want to or cannot stand where the disc lies you place a mark no closer to the pin and in a direct line through the original lie, and are assed a penalty throw. So if the disc cannot be found, you would have to re-tee or re-throw from your last lie, whatever the case with a one throw penalty. What I hear you guys saying is as if the old rules of guessing where it was last ect, were still allowed.




I thought the idea behind casual relief was that you got that relief without a penalty stroke added. Nowhere in 803.05 does it mention a penalty stroke for casual relief. If there is a penalty stroke to be added this needs to be clarified in the rules.

If the player needs more than 5m of relief, then a penalty under unplayable is taken. In addition, if a drop zone is specified for casual relief under Special Conditions 804.01, it may or may not have a penalty attached. You might say, why would you have a casual relief area with a penalty drop zone instead of just calling it OB? Because sometimes the boundaries of a marsh and other areas with high grass may be difficult or impossible to mark. In addition, some parts of that area may be playable sometimes when dry and not when wet. If players can play it or decide to play it whee it lies, they don't get a penalty. If they can't or don't want to play it, they get a penalty and play from the drop zone. Playing from the drop zone with penalty is still better than playing from original lie under lost disc rule if disc is unretrievable but known to have landed in the casual relief area and not lost.

It's played like the OB versus lost disc rule in terms of reasonable evidence. If reasonable evidence indicates your disc is located in the casual hazard, then you get to play it like casual rather than lost.

Play this rule at Highbridge. At the rest of the PDGA tournaments you play, you probably ought to play by PDGA rules. The rules make no exception for discs lost in casual water. Lost is lost.

It's nothing to do with Highbridge. No one is required to produce the disc in a hazardous or inaccessible area, if seen to go in there, that meets the casual relief conditions whether previously identified by TD or not. We've been thru this before regarding whether a disc has to be seen to get the above 2m penalty. Technically, a disc is lost if you don't have it in your possesion but thta's not how we play it.

Here's an excerpt from an email I got from Carlton 2/16/2006 on this exact topic:

CK: All that's required to determine whether the disc has landed in the casual relief area is the agreement of the group or spotter? In other words, since a relief area may be hazardous, wet or protected, such as hornets, pricker field, marsh or bluebell field, it's not a requirement to retrieve or actually see the disc in the area, but just for the group to observe that the disc landed in the casual area?

Carlton: Yes. We (RC) agree that the �reasonable evidence� angle of the new OB rule should extend to cover this situation.

The guy actually took the lost disc penalty but didn't go back to his original Lie.He placed a mini close to the water and in the line of play.Eventhou I am an official,I was outnumbered by the other guys in my group(I couldn't say anything anyway).
But if you would have asked me,I would never gave the guy the penalty.
But I will check this with Carlton because eventhou I agree with Chuck(we oldies just know), I do need an official answer.

Here's an excerpt from an email I got from Carlton 2/16/2006 on this exact topic:

CK: All that's required to determine whether the disc has landed in the casual relief area is the agreement of the group or spotter? In other words, since a relief area may be hazardous, wet or protected, such as hornets, pricker field, marsh or bluebell field, it's not a requirement to retrieve or actually see the disc in the area, but just for the group to observe that the disc landed in the casual area?

Carlton: Yes. We (RC) agree that the �reasonable evidence� angle of the new OB rule should extend to cover this situation.



The text doesn't specifically address the question at hand. I agree that the rule of fairness was properly used to arrive at the appropriate conclusion.

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




I do think that the rule book has a long way to go in terms of addressing situations with greater specificity to minimize the invoking of the ROF.

ehhh, angle of the new ob rule?
Speak english!

*Post deleted for stupidity*

So, What Chuck is saying makes sense. However, the rules are not particularly clear on this matter.

SO....that brings me to another question. How do we request that the rules committee examine and possibly update a rule in the rulebook?

Contact the Rules Committee: http://www.pdga.com/contact.php

We've been thru this before regarding whether a disc has to be seen to get the above 2m penalty.


But with the change to make the 2MR off by default, people have been getting Lost Disc penalties when they're disc is lost in a group of trees and can't be spotted.

Back when we argued this ad nauseum, the prevailing argument said that if you couldn't see the disc, you couldn't spot it properly. This same argument holds true with Casual Water. If you can't see the disc, you don't where the Line Of Play (LOP) is and you don't know where 5 meters from the disc on the LOP is. That means you can't play by the provisions of the Casual Relief rules.

To me, that makes it a lost disc.

5 meters is only a little over 15 feet. What kind of puddles do you have that are that small but eat dscs so they can't be found? Is it moving water? Deep wells? It seems hard to lose a disc in a puddle that small, but I've seen it happen.

There are also "puddles" bigger than 5 meters. Trying to use Casual Relief means than had you found your disc, 5 meters on the LOP might actually still be wet. Where your disc actually is in that puddle determines whether or not you can take casual relief.

In either case, you need to see your disc in order to determine the LOP. Without the LOP, you can't play this rule properly. I say it's a Lost Disc.

If players could estimate a line of play in 1989 they can still do it today. No player has had to go into a casual relief area to find their disc, especially since several casual areas are hazardous to some or all players. The revised rules haven't changed that. Granted, determining the LOP is more challenging than last point IB for OB and you could argue that it's hard to know where the disc is to determine whether 5m back on the LOP gets out of the casual area. That's why the TD should specify that extended relief is allowed with no penalty or mark a drop zone for these areas.

Hello all,
Here is how I see it after perusing all of the applicable rules for Casual relief, OB, and lost disc...If the TD didn't specify any special handling of the casual relief granted...and the group saw the disc go near or in casual water (I wasn't there but I have to assume that casual water must be some shallow puddle or shallow waterway otherwise...it probably shouldn't be considered casual, right?) and after the groups arrival they began to search for the disc...someone should have started the search clock and after the 3 minutes was up, tada, it is a lost disc!
If you try to apply the "disc flew out into the lake OB" rules of fairness doctrine to this situation without special conditions spelled out by the TD beforehand it would seem to me that you could almost always get around the lost disc rule and never have to retee!
EG: My disc went into this stand of bushes, everybody saw it! It must of gone in that puddle of water there in the bushes! Casual relief ROF says I can take my lie here on the line of play by the puddle....etc., etc.,

Just an opinion of a new official. :cool: Of course, the TD could always specify special conditions as was done in one of my recent tournaments for just this situation where a small waterway was deep enough (more than two feet in this instance) for me to consider it OB but the TD wanted it to be casual since it normally didn't have that much water in it, couldn't be seen from the Tee Pad, and was a "normal" spot to putt the hole from even though there is a bridge across it! But if they did not, then the regular rules would apply.

Aces 2 U!
Ben

To me, the rules need cleaning up on this one. Lost is lost, it doesn't matter if it is in the middle of a fairway or a large mud puddle. You need to see, with your own eyes, the actual disc's finishing position to determine what to do next in this situation (casual hazard or not), and if you cannot find said disc, even if every set of eyes in the group thought they saw the same thing from afar, I'm sorry, that disc has been lost.

I'm sorry but the Rules Committee supports the "reasonable evidence" rule for casual areas just like OB. I'm amazed at how many players like to be more punitive than is necessary.

I agree. I don't see how you can possibly take casual relief straight back from a disc in a puddle if you don't know which puddle it is in or exactly where it is. If you have one of Chuck's funky o.b.-without-a-penalty-areas-with-a-drop-zone, then that's something different. Once you've departed that far from rule book disc golf, you can play by any rules the TD wants to.

I agree with the "reasonable evidence" extension of the OB rule. I think the casual relief rule should specifically include such language.

In any case, regardless of your interpretation of the rule, if there's a casual relief area so big as to include the possibility of a disc that can't be found or isn't easily retrievable, the TD should foresee such circumstances and include a drop zone. If there's a chance of not being able to locate the disc, there's also a very good chance that a player won't be able to find dry ground within 5 meters on the LOP. That situation screams for a drop zone.

It's just a matter of communicating smart design choices for TDs to use. Unless it's a flash storm, most casual areas are usually known in advance of events for TDs to make appropriate plans. But I suspect several still don't realize the drop zone option is available.

I still don't agree with your ruling. I think there is a BIG difference between OB/OB water and casual water. Yes, I seen very large areas of casual water, sometimes it is even in a blind spot from the tee. Usually the TD has enough sense to have a drop zone for those areas. But to say "We know it went in there" and take a drop without penalty is "bending" the rules. I think you could apply your line of reasoning to a lost disc in any area of heavy schule. "Well, we all know it went in there, so I'm going to just take a drop right here- w/o penalty-because of reasonable evidence and ROF. Or if my disc flew in the general area of casual water and trees or high grass or leaves on the ground... when my group can't find my disc, I guess I should just say, "Rule of fairness", my disc must be in the casual water and take my free drop. Sorry Chuck. I don't believe this is right. The rules seem pretty clear on this. If you can't find your disc, except with reasonable evidence it's in OB water, it's LOST.

Carlton is in your backyard. Ask him. The text I posted is exactly from the RC regrding this. I've dealt with this issue regularly over the years so using drop zones is well known. The problem with the rules is partly that the casual relief rule covers too wide of a range of circumstances. Loose leaves and branches behind your stance is quite different from hazardous areas such as wasp nests, poison ivy and ill-defined areas like marshes that can't be marked properly. They should really be handled differently and maybe that will happen in a future rules update.

To me, the difference is that you can still usually play from a lie in an area where casual relief is granted... It just isnt preferable. You locate your lie first, then choose whether its worth re-locating on the LOP. Of course there are special circumstances, where you absolutely cant play from a casual obstacle, but you still need to identify the LOP. The "fair" application of casual relief is one that sticks to the "play it where it lies" mentality as much as possible, but prevents dangerous or destructive situations (IMO). If you cant find the disc, you cant re-locate the lie, and you dont have a LOP.

You cant ever play an OB shot where it lies, so it must always be re-located or played from the previous spot anyways. I think that is part of the reason that OB > Lost Disc is easy to swallow.

I fully agree with the use of drop zones. But when you say a disc went into any area, not designated as "special" in any way, if you can't find it, how can you say it's not lost?

But when you say a disc went into any area, not designated as "special" in any way, if you can't find it, how can you say it's not lost?



I'm not making that argument. The area would have to meet the criteria for casual relief and the TD did not identify it in advance. I've had at least three tournament rounds where a hornet's nest was discovered during the round. In one of those cases, the player could not get to their disc in high grass and it couldn't be seen, but the group saw the shot go near the nest. You can get a close enough LOP placement without penalty and going back to the tee.

That's what I want to know as well. How can you just decide it's not lost if you can't find it? If this is really true (that the RC says you can do this), it will cause more problems than it will solve. Plus, since it's not written in the book, how will players be on notice that this ruling is available? Now, on the other hand, if you can see your disc, but it is too entrenched in poison ivy, hornets nest, or alligator den, then I can certainly see using this ruling. But in my book, if you can't locate it, it is lost.

Chuck, you're changing the situation. If a disc goes to an area near a hornets nest, (any potentially dangerous area) I doubt anybody would argue that the player could relocate w/o actually finding their disc (if they just want to leave it, for their own safty!) But you previous rule was about a lost disc in casual water. I was going to call Carlton, but now I'm not. Lost is lost, until the rules change, or I play a round with you :)

Carlton's text was not specific to a situation but the casual relif rule in general. If a TD is not sharp enough to mark a drop zone for a casual relief area, I'm not going to penalize a player including myself for a disc that our group can't see or retrieve, BUT did actually see it go in there. Print out my post above with Carlton's remarks and keep it in your pocket to show your group or the TD in the event you get into this situation. I'll propose that it get included in the Rules Q&A. However, the RC has been reluctant to put things there on this because of the wide range of circumstances that arise and prefer common sense application of equivalent rules like OB and rule of fairness.

It's played like the OB versus lost disc rule in terms of reasonable evidence. If reasonable evidence indicates your disc is located in the casual hazard, then you get to play it like casual rather than lost.



What if you throw around a dog leg, down hill. There is NO OB/water/hazardous areas anywhere on the entire course. When your group gets to where you and your group "knows" where your disc should be, you can't find it. Do you now: A) look for it
B) start the clock-look for 3 min.
C) just evoke the "Rule of Fairness" and mark you lie where you and the group "know" it should have been and play without penality
D) A) then B) then-> suck it up, be a man and take your lost disc penality

Not sure why you're even going this way? We're talking about specific application of a disc seen to go in a location that qualifies for the casual relief rule. Of course the disc is lost in your example.

whats wrong with using the rules to your advantage?

: ) :

I just dont like it because it seems like there could be two nearly identical shots that get penalized in very different ways. Say there is a flooded course with a big area of casual water in the middle of an area with long grass. Two shots look pretty much identical, but the group can see a splash of water when one disc hits. Nobody can find either disc. I would say from the splash that the one disc was definitely in the casual area, but nobody knows for the other one. One guy has to re-tee throwing 3, the other guy is throwing 2 from an approximate lie behind the water.

Before I could use something like this for a general ruling, it would need to be in a Q&A and available for public consumption. Prior to that, it's personal opinion.
It doesn't carry any weight until it's published.


I'm all for anything the TD deems necessary to publish at the players meeting, or any special condition areas on a course, but not blanket free relief from all casual obstacles when a disc can not be found.

It seems this rule for playing with relief from casual obstacles would apply in the original situation described in the thread.


Is a disc that get lost in casual water a stroke?
And if so, where do you have to play it from next?
Back to where you threw it from?



803.5 C (2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole,
the player�s lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06

It seems to me after carefully reading the rules that if you don't have a particular drop zone established by the TD (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director) for a casual water obstacle, then you don't know where the disc has come to rest inside of the casual obsatcle (water in this case), and therefore cannot judge where 5 meters away from the lie is. It seems pretty sticky and I would agree that allowing a player to mark behind the water could play in favor of one player, and against another player, who might have a disc that is visable in another type of casual obsatcle...... So if I were playing in a weekly (which more like the original question), or a money round etc. I would argue that you must be able to see a disc in casual water to be able to mark it. Otherwise you are heading back to the tee with a stroke penalty....

good call gary.

this part of the rules is getting so complicated no wonder the rules committee doesnt want to put it in writing.

whats the diff between estimating the flight path of a disc that got lost in OB and one that got lost in casual area? now we have a case where sometimes its OK to make an estimation and other times you must take stroke plus distance.

and one of the main driver's behind the new stroke-and-distance rule was the perception that groups would estimate differently. the rules are making less sense every day. its a good thing top players are not required to folllow them. :)

You're incorrect Rob. No lost disc in casual water (if disc is known to have flown there) since I started in 1989. We seem to have had more casual relief rulings here in Minnesota with the several marshes on our tournament courses. In fact, those marshes contributed to the introduction of drop zones in the rules including those for casual relief areas where there might be no penalty. See Special Conditions rule 804.01.



At Texas States, discs in casual water that are not found are considered lost. Nez was quite clear in that declaration.

That's because Nez comes from the "penalize the heck out of'em school." :)

:)

I tend to agree with the lost disc call though. It isn't any different than losing the disc in a wide open field.*

*At least at Bass, which is a wide open field when not a wide open casual water zone.

I don't disagree with Dave's call because it is a reasonable interpretation of the rule, but I tend to think in those conditions, Chuck's rule is more fair. I purposely used bright orange plastic to decrease the likelihood of getting lost in those "puddles," but was always worried that I'd lose a disc in the "fairway."

At any rate, I applaud Chuck for using creative thinking to bring some sanity to an unfair ruling, imo.

I still maintain that the original question posted does not have a TD directive and drop zones involved.....


Is a disc that get lost in casual water a stroke?
And if so, where do you have to play it from next?
Back to where you threw it from?



So what is the answer based on the rules, during a weekly or typical skins/money game on courses that have no established drop areas etc.? Lost/stroke penalty or free drop no penalty? I say if you can't determined where to mark the new lie, within 5 meters of the casual obstacle, then you have to follow lost disc procedures.... What say Ye golfers!

Change the lost disc rule back to the rough "play it where last seen" and the discussion is moot. As the rules stand w/o any TD instructions, it should be considered lost.

Rule of Fairness 803.01F plus the additional support from Carlton's email is sufficient to top any other interpretation. It would be hard for a TD to overrule the use of the fairness doctrine since it's usually their fault for not making a drop zone, or other ruling in the case of Nez. Those puddles sound like it was an easy way to get yellow rope OB without rope.

So how would one argue this point given a casual water lost disc situation on a course with no drop zone, with you your buddies and a only a current PDGA rule book?

I agree with Senior that you simply cannot take relief on the line of play if the disc cannot be located.

If we are going to wholly abandon the rules of golf, which we have in this area anyway, we ought to have one rule for unplayable lies and have one penalty for unplayable lies, instead of the multiple rules and penalties we currently have for lies that are unplayable because they are out of bounds, unplayable because they cannot be ascertained, unplayable because they are above the playing surface, or unplayable because the player just doesn't want to play from there.

That a player should be penalized more for a disc lost in bounds than for a disc lost out of bounds makes no sense whatsoever. That he should be penalized more for a disc unplayable caught one meter off the playing surface in a thicket of roses than for a disc caught 15 meters off the playing surface in the top of a maple tree also makes little sense to me. That he should be penalized for a disc he cannot see caught 15 meters up in a tree but not penalized if he can see it is equally inequitable.

Rule of fariness says if the rule is not explicit, then use a logical extension of the closest related rule which would be the 'reasonable evidence' clause in the OB rule. In both cases, a disc is seen by the group to go into a body of water. The only difference is one body has been called OB and the other hasn't been defined, so it's casual by default. It's very clear in the OB rule that if the group sees the shot go in, it's not lost. Seems pretty easy to make the case that fairness would extend the reasonable evidence clause to casual relief. In fact, that's primarily how the RC came to the conclusion in the email I got from Carlton. Keeping things as consistent as possible.

I realize marking the resulting lie is the snag point here. I would like the RC to address that better in the next update.

Thanks Chuck, I think that the 5 meter limit is the issue as well. It does need to be addressed as one could easily argue that point and add a stroke regardless of any other rule, when there is no defined drop zone or special TD rules.....

I agree. I'm not saying the player shouldn't potentially get a 1-throw penalty if the relief is more than 5m. But at least the player gets to throw near the casual relief area rather than go back to the previous lie.

Here is my argument in this case.

You throw a dark purple disc on the hole, and I throw a bright yellow disc. They both are seen landing in a large puddle that covers half od the fairway. The puddle is parrallel to the fairway and is less than 15' wide, but 50' long, muddy and about 1' deep. We both threw about the same distance, and my disc is barely visible in the center of the puddle. Yours is not visible probably because of the color.

Since 5m on LOP will not get me clear of the casual water, my only options are to invoke the unsafe lie rule to the previous lie or get wet.

By your assertion, you have the option of playing from where you were last outside of the casual water.

Which is more fair ?

I'm not saying that at all. If the other disc was seen to land in about the same spot as yours, it would be handled the same way. Considering that most don't carry a 5m tape and going in the water defeats the purpose of taking casual relief, it's all about groups making estimates as it is.

BTW, unplayable still allows you up to 5 meters more on the LOP as an alternative to rethrowing from original lie with the penalty.

10m may reach land, may not.

How are they both treated the same way ?

Are you saying that my disc, though it can be found, is able to take relief that is not on LOP ?

In the instance I listed, both discs were in a linear puddle where it was well over 5m along LOP before you could reach dry land.

How would the disc that could be seen be played, and how would the disc that could not be seen be played ?

The casual relief rule is followed regardless whether the disc is actually seen in a specific spot or if the group says the disc is probably in that same spot but can't be seen. If a lie can be marked within 5m on LOP then no penalty. If lie can be marked within 10m on LOP then 1-shot penalty. If more than 10m on LOP is required to mark a lie, then replay from the original lie with 1-shot penalty.

You're going to have to explain the 10 meter thing again. I remember your twisting logic when you introduced that way to circumvent the rules with it in the past, but I'd like to hear a restatement of your rationalization of cheating. :)

You get free 5m LOP in casual relief rule. If you need more than 5m to get to a suitable lie, you get up to another 5m under the unplayable rule with a 1-shot penalty. If you need more than 10m, you need to rethrow from original lie.

You get free 5m LOP in casual relief rule. If you need more than 5m to get to a suitable lie, you get up to another 5m under the unplayable rule with a 1-shot penalty.


I really don't see how "stacking relief" like that is allowable under the PDGA Rules of Play. Can you please explain? I really don't get it, as in where you are getting it from in the rules. To me, it is pretty cut and dried and that you can only take one or the other, not take one and then apply another.

For all you newbies out there, these rules apply at all events run by Chuck Kennedy because he is exempt from having to apply PDGA rules at his tournaments. At most other tournaments, you're better off sticking to the rules in the book.

The unplayable lie is declared after moving back 5m and still not having a playable lie. That's when you get up to another 5m with penalty. It's no different from trying to mark your disc suspended in a tree, which might even be more than 5m above the ground, then electing to take an unplayable lie and moving back up to 5m out from under the tree with a penalty.

It would be foolish to declare an unplayable right away in a casual relief area and move back 5m with penalty when you get the first 5m free before having to declare the unplayable. If the word "alternatively" that starts the last sentence of 803.05C(2) is throwing you, taking the unplayable is the alternative to extended relief not being provided by the TD, not an alternative to casual relief in the first place. I can understand the confusion.

The unplayable is always an option after other parts of a rule have been applied. It's an option in the suspended disc scenario already mentioned or maybe when trying to mark a lie after OB that would be marked in the middle of a cedar tree on the OB border.

I agree with Chuck on two points. One, a player may use the casual relief rule to get a new lie and then it's a fresh lie with all the options afforded any other lie that may occur during a round. At any point, for any reason or whim, a player may declare his lie to be unplayable and take the appropriate action.

I also agree that this language is possibly confusing and could simply be removed:

Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06.




On a side note: I'd like to see each section that includes a "remedy" have a remedy section that stands out of the text.

Wow! Chuck, are you sure you're not a lawyer? You sure can twist the rules around and make them sound right (almost). No offence, Bruce :)

I know you said that Carlton said it was OK to play a lost disc as "Casual" and get relief, but I think it must have been to a specific situation. Like maybe if a known area (marsh) that should be marked as "casual" or "OB", and you throw into it, fine, you should have a drop zone. If the TD had no forethought to mark it as such prior to teeing off and you lose your disc, I don't see how you can apply any rule for that disc not to be lost. (or OB)
Tell you what, Chuck. I'll agree to disagree with you on this, until I see it written in the Rules.

You're incorrect Rob. No lost disc in casual water (if disc is known to have flown there) since I started in 1989. We seem to have had more casual relief rulings here in Minnesota with the several marshes on our tournament courses. In fact, those marshes contributed to the introduction of drop zones in the rules including those for casual relief areas where there might be no penalty. See Special Conditions rule 804.01.



At Texas States, discs in casual water that are not found are considered lost. Nez was quite clear in that declaration.



Interesting....if those "casual" water areas had been designated OB by the TD, the penalty would not have been as harsh.

Chap

Tell you what, Chuck. I'll agree to disagree with you on this, until I see it written in the Rules.



You make it sound like I made something up. Everything I wrote came from the rules as currently written and was confirmed by the RC. Not sure what other "proof" is necessary.

I agree it could be written more clearly and a Q&A would be helpful. This is just another, I believe, negative impact of the revised and more punitive lost disc rule. If the prior lost disc rule was in place, we wouldn't have as much disparity between possible rulings when a disc is seen to disappear in a casual area.

[/QUOTE] You make it sound like I made something up. Everything I wrote came from the rules as currently written and was confirmed by the RC. Not sure what other "proof" is necessary.

[/QUOTE]

I not saying you made something up. Currently, if a disc goes into a "casual" area, you bring the disc out of said area on the LOP, up to 5 meters, then you may take an unplayable lie-move back on LOP with a stroke. If a disc goes OB, you bring the disc IB where it last went OB or go back to previous lie. If you did not actually see where it went OB and you can not find your disc (lost?), you go back to previous lie. Now you're saying if you throw into a "casual" area, you can not find it AND the TD did not provide a drop zone, that you can just take free relief and place your disc at the last known site prior to entering said "casual" area? So, if I LOSE a disc that was seen flying in the general direction of a "casual" area, I do not get a penality stroke and get a lie out of said "casual" area. But if I can find my disc, in the same "casual" area and it's more than 10 meters from "playable" ground, I would take at least 1 stroke penality to move to "playable" ground? THAT"S FAIR!

You're not paying attention. A player does not get any better treatment for a disc seen thrown into a casual relief area if it's seen in there or not. In one case, the group decides where the disc probably landed in the casual area. In the other case, the group sees it. In both cases, the player gets up to 5m relief free. If a suitable lie still can't be found, in both cases, the player gets up to 5m more with a penalty. In both cases, if a lie still can't be found, the player goes back to the original lie. Both situations are treated the same whether the group actually sees the disc in the casual area or spots the place where the group thinks the disc landed. No special treatment.

Actually, Chuck I think you are missing the point. If you have a 15 m long casual relief area. The guy with the bright neon colored disc 11m in is penalized more than the guy with the camo disc that cannot be found in this special area. That is backwards.

That isn't true. If the group thinks the spot the camo disc landed is where the neon disc is located, the player faces the same choices. Unless the neon disc is retrieved to confirm identity, you're not certain that it is actually the player's disc. Since the judgment is up to the group, it's less likely the player will get a break. Again, I'm not saying this rules area doesn't need improvement. On the other hand, I don't feel players should be penalized more than necessary due to the TD not marking drop zones or when unexpected natural situations arise like a hornet's nest.

I see Chuck's point, but since the "lost disc in casual relief area need not take a penalty" concept is not codified in the rules, I can only imagine this will be problematic if people try to make use of it. What is clear and simple to some may not be so to all.

As Chuck himself has said, the rule needs work.

but since the "lost disc in casual relief area need not take a penalty"



It's more of a "might not take a penalty" situation. It's not an automatic 'no penalty' if the group decides you landed more than 5m in from what would be the LOP edge.

I'm with you! "Need not" is British; "might not" is English for the same thing. :D

I've been around British cars for so long that it has invaded my use of the language. ;)

If the word "alternatively" that starts the last sentence of 803.05C(2) is throwing you, taking the unplayable is the alternative to extended relief not being provided by the TD, not an alternative to casual relief in the first place. I can understand the confusion.


I could not disagree more with your stretch of an interpretation of the term "alternatively"!

Alternatively means "in place of" or "instead of", not "along with" or "also".

IMO, you can not call an unplayable after taking casual relief. "Alternatively" means that you can call an unplayabe lie "instead of" taking casual relief.

There are no "10 meter relief" provisions in the PDGA Rules of Play as currently written. Twisting the rules to generate a convoluted application of rules that results in 10 meter relief is, IMO, tantamount to cheating. It is an intentional perversion of the rules with the solitary aim of gaining an unwarranted competitive advantage.


Look at it this way: if you can take casual relief to establish a new lie and then pretend that the new lie is just like any other lie and apply more rules to it, why can't you just apply casual relief again and take another 5 meters penalty free? And another 5 meters...and another 5 meters...and another?

It's simple: you can't. The casual relief rule even reminds you that INSTEAD OF TAKING 5 METERS CASUAL RELIEF, you can declare an Unplayable Lie and proceed under the provisions of that rule instead.

Rhett, I disagree and Chappy who is on the RC has already read this thread and didn't disagree with my commentary. Like I said, it makes no sense to declare an unplayable from the disc location, but only when moving back 5m still does not get you out. Otherwise, the RC would just have simply said to return to the original lie with a 1-shot penalty, instead of the "Alternatively" line that provides the Unplayable 5m option that would be redundant with your interpretation.

I just went back and read all of the references so far posted here about this situation, and can still not find anything that makes me feel comfortable about allowing someone to take relief from a spot that cannot be seen. I know that the disc went in the casual obstacle, but in my neck of the woods the players in my group would say "sorry", you are going to have to return to your previous lie. I know I could try and argue the some of the points made here, or the fairness rule, but I am sure it would not help at all if I whipped out the book...

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

After reading that I would be forced by my group to fairly flip back to rule 803.11 Lost Disc

A. A disc shall be declared lost if the
player cannot locate it within three
minutes after arriving at the spot where it
was last seen by the group or an official.

Or I might at least get a ruling for an unplayable lie, maybe...

I kind of understand the logic Chuck is presenting, based on TD directives, fairness in certain situations, and established drop zones etc. but when I am out there in a battle for tag No. one, I will be laughed off the course if I tried to argue my case for a free drop 5m from nowhere as I'm sure at the majority of people I shoot with would say there is no way to accurately determined the place to measure from. They might agree that it is definately in the water, but still say "sorry" it is only fair that you throw from your previous lie, because we don't know where your disc is...

So I think it is very important a specific rule be created to cover this area...

Sent to the RC today:

In discussions on the MB, it was posited that a that after taking up to 5m for casual relief, one can take an *additional* 5m on LOP for a one throw penalty under the Unplayable lie Rule (803.06).

The Rule in question:
803.05.C(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole, the player�s lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06.

Should a proper reading of "Alternatively" be "Additionally"? or should the 5m for unplayable lie be measured from the original lie?

The original question on the MB, and what concerns me still,

Is how does one sell this on the course with just you and your current rule book copy? All the discussion here seems to be talking about rules that are subject to vague interpretation and past tournament situations. Items not found in rule book in black and white. So what is the best course of action for the present, like say this weekend? Do you re-tee/go to previous lie, or declare an unplayable lie? Which one is most likely to be the group consensus based on the actual rules?

I will be laughed off the course if I tried to argue my case for a free drop 5m from nowhere as I'm sure at the majority of people I shoot with would say there is no way to accurately determined the place to measure from.



This is also true if you can see the disc in the water. If it looks close to 5.5m, light refraction means the disc is actually closer and could be 4.7m away depending on the water depth which is unknown. Wait to hear them laugh when you whip out the refraction angle aspect. :D

So what is the best course of action for the present, like say this weekend? Do you re-tee/go to previous lie, or declare an unplayable lie? Which one is most likely to be the group consensus based on the actual rules?




Agree on drop zones with your group if it's your home course and these are regular casual areas.

Thanks Chuck /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I am sure I understand how that would slove the issue if we had a drop zone, but that still does not answer my question, because where we are playing the casual water could actually appear during the round if it rains hard enough. I know I am being a bit critical, but given no defined drop zone and no visual, what is the most likely group consensus based on current rules in the actual book? And I know the TD could possibly say, for instance, go to the back edge of the apparent water on the LOP and drop there if it appears by chance, but just say in this case that is not the case, and no actual drop zone is provided and disc was seen going in but cannot be seen.... So, any ideas for a good rule interpretation.....

Usually, a flash storm isn't going to produce a situation where you can't find the disc in a loaction that you normally would find one. Maybe you get a few inches of water. We had an event where it stormed during lunch and the lowlands were completely flooded but only with an inch or two of water. No casual relief from water was allowed that afternoon. The creek boundaries disappeared so OB was suspended there. A few players "disappeared" temporarily while walking near what they thought was edge of the creek looking for their discs. :eek:

Other than hornet's nests, I find it hard to believe that "normal" casual relief areas aren't well known on the course such that everyone on here will go back and make sure there are drop zones marked for casual or at least tournament play. I wouldn't want to be the one being forced to take a lost disc penalty when I knew this rule ahead of time.

I think the more important point is, if there is no drop zone, it is impossible to take casual relief from a disc you have not located. There is nothing in the rules about the line of play being established by the group consensus as to where the disc probably landed. To the contrary, the casual relief must be taken on the "line of play" and the line of play, as defined in the definitions section, can only be established by reference to the center of the target and the center of the mini or disc. There is nowhere to put a mini until you find the disc.

I'll concede that you can tack on as many relief rules as you want to. If, for some reason, ten meters straight back was better than rethrowing from the tee, I suppose you could take two unplayables, too.

Thanks again, I see the point. :cool:I know we could all head straight out and start marking drop zones and notifying the masses as to the intent. But again, it seems that no one can actually answer this one based on the original situation posed on the MB.....

So, I 'guess' the answer as far as a non-tournament, non-existent drop zone, non-visable lie(just happen to get into a casual water and can't find it situation) is the lost disc rule and a one throw penalty. Which is what I think many people are saying would be the most likely consensus from a group armed with only a rule book.

If you can see it, try for a 5m limit relief on LOP, if that doesn't work declare an unplayable lie 10m limit on LOP if possible, and finally if that does not work, re-tee etc.

I think I have a good understanding of what is currently in place for a typical bag tag challenge ruling and no predetermined drop zones. :D

OK folks, I knew I wasn't dreaming on the 10m issue. It comes from the 1993 rulebook for relief. Here's how the rule evolved to currently be less easy to interpret:

"(1993) 803.04E If a suitable lie can't be found within 5m, the player may select a point within 5m of the original lie but not closer to the hole, and declare an "Unsafe Lie" and locate a new lie from that point, and be penalized in accordance with section 803.05."

The Unsafe Lie rule at that time still had the up to 5m in it. But you were allowed to swing in an arc sideways up to 5m in both the Casual Relief and Unsafe Lie rules but no closer to the hole, more like the ball golf options.

So, in 1993, you could swing sideways 5m using the Casual Relief rule then back 5m from that point with a 1-shot penalty using the Unsafe Lie rule. And, if you went back on the LOP 5m using Casual relief you could go back another 5m with 1-shot Unsafe Lie making the 10m I've been discussing.

I believe everyone on the RC was there for the 1993 rules update so that's another reason for the interpretation I provided on the current rules. Of course, back then a lost disc was played from a playable lie near the last point the group saw it. So it would be more like our current OB rule in the case of a lost disc that might have been in casual water.

OK, I'll buy the point that you can at any time for any reason declare an unplayable lie and take up to 5m relief on LOP.

Even if the current lie is the result of you taking relief under the casual relief or unsafe lie rules.

I think someone has been watching this thread, maybe Conrad? I just noticed what I think is a new Q&A in just the last day called Disc Lost in Casual Water. Check it out.

It's good to see that a question brought up on this board can be addressed quickly and become part of the official written record. It's up to all of us to help spread the word about the Q&A section as many players arent' aware of it's existence.

The particular wording of the response, however, doesn't address the issue of how to determine the LOP without seeing the disc. Sure, we can conclude that the disc is in the deep, murky casual water. We can also follow the guideline and use the ROF to extend the OB logic to this case, but I'm guessing that in most cases of this sort, the casual water area will be bigger than 5 meters and it'll be impossible to determine if free relief applies.

The ideal situation, obviously, would be that the TD has foreseen this issue and clearly marked a drop area.

Absent that a group should seek an official or absent an available official utilize a provisional and seek a ruling after the round.

As to the rule, I'd like to see 5 meters relief, not nearer the hole or LOP relief as far back as the player would like to go. Although, allowing greater flexibility in relief options opens up another can of worms in regards to harmful insects. A player could be inside a bush, have a bee buzz by, and take free relief well back of the bush to be able to throw over the obstacle. I think several of the casual reliefs granted, including harmful insects, should be removed as they leave way too much room for interpretation and the possibility for misuse is wide open.

Ahh, the old "I was using a '93 rule book" ploy.
I get it, now.

I just wanted to show the evolution of the current approach. I was on the RC then so that's why I've been so stubborn on the current interpretation. And, someone posted the new Lost in Casual Q&A to continue that support. I'm still not satisfied with the LOP issue like several others.

Unfortunately, this is an area where the old rules mostly hung together with the lost disc rule the way it was. I'm not happy with the new lost disc rule and here's a situation where it falters. If it's OK for the group to estimate where the disc might be in a casual relief area (instead of being lost) under the current rule, why was it any more difficult for the group to estimate where the last point a disc was seen for marking the lie in the old lost disc rule?

Just man up take off your shoes and socks and go in and find that disc, :) also don't throw a camo disc near the water I suggest a bright lime green color of star plastic I can spot from a mile off. :)

Here's the problem with the rules Q&A answer: when I read it, based on the wording it sounds to me like benefit of the doubt absolutely does not go to the thrower. "Reasonable evidence" sounds like someone had to see it enter the puddle. This is based on me reading the Rules Q&A response.

I know that others will read it differently, that a disc lost around a blind corner where a casual puddle lies will be deemed "reasonable evidence" because the disc can't be found therefore it must be in that puddle. We all saw it fly around the corner, so where else could it be?

This will lead to players in different groups throwing the exact same shots and getting different rulings.

If you notice the various posts talking about what rulings have been made by TDs and officials, we know that different calls for the same thing are made all of the time.

If you notice the various posts talking about what rulings have been made by TDs and officials, we know that different calls for the same thing are made all of the time.


Well the, by all means, let make more rulings that encourage this to happen more often!!!

I get something completely different from the Q&A.

Though it is based on the "reasonable evidence" clause from the new OB rule, it clearly states


Of course, it must be clear to the group that the disc went into the puddle. If there is any doubt about that, and the disc cannot be found, it is a lost disc.



which to me means beyond a reasonable doubt (because it is rarely beyond any doubt).

That's what I get.

The second interpretation in my post is what I expect from many many many other disc golfers. I base that expectation on many years of observation in the field. :p

I think I like the notion that we would strictly enforce the rules based on the current PDGA rules book. It seems to me I would have hard time presenting a valid argument with players in my group about some these situations if I had reference MB discussion topics and not yet published rule variations and interpretations.....

The Rules Q&A is considered a valid extension of the current PDGA rulebook. All PDGA marshals carry a copy with them.

I learn something new every day :D

The Rules Q&A is considered a valid extension of the current PDGA rulebook. All PDGA marshals carry a copy with them.


As should all TD's, but many aren't even aware of the Q&A. Definitely need to spread the word. Message board postings, even by members of the RC cannot serve as precedent.

The PDGA should release the Rules Q&A in a pdf, much like the rules are, downloadable from the rules page. This way anyone could print a copy and carry them, not just Marshals.

If I knew who to contact I would request it formally but I don't know who's collateral duty that would fall under. I made my own publication by coping and pasting but I don't think the majority would do so

Contact Dave Gentry to see what he might have available for Q&A doc.

Does it say somewhere in the rule book that supplemental pubblications such as the rules Q&A are a valid source for rules? Just currious.....

The Rules are like laws in the same way Q&As are like completed court cases. Ball golf has a similar supplemental publication that explains various rules and how odd situations have been resolved. So, you can't go wrong following Q&As that match your situation. But they aren't necessarily rules, but just precedents, potentially for rewriting rules in the future.

It would be good if the rule book at least mentioned the Q&A with a statement like:
"In addition to this publication, the rules committee maintains a Q&A file with statements of rule interpretation as applied to specific instances that players and TD's have submitted. These statements set precedent for all future intepretation of the rules under like circumstances. This file can be downloaded directly from the rules tab on pdga.com. It is a TD's responsibility to have an up-to-date, printed copy of the Q&A file available for players to see."

Question....
I was watching the BG final nine of dgtv and one of the players Brendan was putting with one foot in OB and one not. I always thought this was illegal. Watch the video (part II) and let me know if that was wrong. Just wondering and I am aware this is after the fact. thanks

Didn't see the video, but your understanding of the stance rule is correct. All points of contact must be inbounds at the point of release.

Sent to the RC today:

In discussions on the MB, it was posited that a that after taking up to 5m for casual relief, one can take an *additional* 5m on LOP for a one throw penalty under the Unplayable lie Rule (803.06).

The Rule in question:
803.05.C(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole, the player�s lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06.

Should a proper reading of "Alternatively" be "Additionally"? or should the 5m for unplayable lie be measured from the original lie?





The response that I got back from a member of the RC was thus:

No, "Alternatively" means just that. If one can't get clear in the free 5 meters, they can instead choose to go with unplayable. Which they would probably NEVER do, since the only advantage would be to play from their previous lie...with a one throw penalty added.



Sorry Chuck, no 10m w/ a one throw penalty.
IMO If you want to go back 10m with two unplayable lies for the cost of two penalty throws, be my guest.

Sorry Chuck, no 10m w/ a one throw penalty.
IMO If you want to go back 10m with two unplayable lies for the cost of two penalty throws, be my guest.



They apparently have short memories since they are getting older (me, too). But I'll be seeing several of them this week and remind them about how it has been and the inconsistency if it isn't continued. We've been through this before and unless they intended to change how it was handled when I was on the RC in the early 90s and had rulings for PDGA events along these lines, the additional 5m should still be available.

This is a situation that occured yesterday in a mini in Fort Worth. I threw my drive from the tee and it landed in a bushy area. When i went to go find my disc, it wasn't to be found. So I re-teed, shooting three and got the birdie. So I marked a circle 4 on the card. 6 holes later I found that same disc that I threw in a players bag that was playing in the mini.

How should the score have been marked?
2? 3? 4?

803.11.C If it is discovered prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player�s disc that was declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have two throws removed from his or her score.

You should have effectively received a 2 and the person that took your disc would add two to his score. (803.07.C)

and received a wedgie!

Just my take, but I would say that you got a 2 and the other player has a choice, they either played from the wrong disc and get 2 strokes for the action OR they intentionally interfered with another player's shot which is 2 strokes and could be grounds for DQ. The choice of which is the offending player's choice. Obviously if he had your disc he either misplayed his lie or cheated.


This is a situation that occured yesterday in a mini in Fort Worth. I threw my drive from the tee and it landed in a bushy area. When i went to go find my disc, it wasn't to be found. So I re-teed, shooting three and got the birdie. So I marked a circle 4 on the card. 6 holes later I found that same disc that I threw in a players bag that was playing in the mini.

How should the score have been marked?
2? 3? 4?

Is it possible that he played in a group after you and found your disc well after you completed the hole? If that was the case and he was merely intending to turn the disc into L&F, I don't think any penalties are in order and your score would stand.

I don't think there are enough details in your desciption of events to make a judgement.

--Mike

No he was playing on the card in front of us

I assumed he was in your group. If he was not, then several things could happen.

- If it was about the same time (not sure how you determine that) then he could potentionally take a 2 stroke penality for interference and you would get your strokes back.
- If it can be determined to have happened later, then you still "lost" your disc and you would keep the score as is.
- If it was too close to call, I believe the benefit has to go to the player.

This would suck if you were the player that was carrying the disc in, because they were trying to help. I know quite a few people who will not take in any disc to assure they do not get an interference penality.

Question....
I was watching the BG final nine of dgtv and one of the players Brendan was putting with one foot in OB and one not. I always thought this was illegal. Watch the video (part II) and let me know if that was wrong. Just wondering and I am aware this is after the fact. thanks



Good eyes. I spoke with Sylvia Voakes about that later, she was keeping the score for that card. She said that she was not an official (never has been) so could not call it. She did address it with him afterwards, so it was a learning experience.

This would suck if you were the player that was carrying the disc in, because they were trying to help. I know quite a few people who will not take in any disc to assure they do not get an interference penality.



I saw this at BG Ams 2 weeks ago. There was a star wraith (I think) sitting in between 2 fairways with no name on it. I saw it on my out on the front nine at curiacas (or however you spell it) on the side of hole 3, and on my way back through on the adjacent fairway (on hole 8, I believe). The disc was in such a place that every group had to have seen it, but noone would touch it.

No he was playing on the card in front of us


It's still possible then that he found the disc after you had declared it lost. If there is no compelling evidence that a rule was violated, I can't see how any change could have been made. All the other scenarios described are possible if any violation was seen or admitted to.

This is the main reason I never touch any found disc during a tournament. Even trying to be nice can get you in trouble.

Unless the player that is picking up the disc knows beyond any doubt that the disc they are picking up is not in play, it should be left.

The benefit of the doubt must go to the player that lost the disc unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise.

During a recent round this question came up. Can a person use an umbrella/chair as a support point if it is not in front of the marked lie?

The definition of supporting point in the rule book seems to allow that.

I have a rules question regarding Amateur status.

The PDGA states that if a player accepts cash while playing in a Pro division in a PDGA event they are considered a Pro. What if a player has never joined the PDGA and accepts cash at a PDGA event? Would they be able to register as an Am or must they register as a Pro since they did take cash in a PDGA event.


I have looked in the Rules, in the 2007 Tour Standards and in the new Competition Manual and I can't find a definitive answer.

I would say they must register as a Pro since they accepted the cash at a PDGA event. The rules do not seem to differentiate between members and non-members.

They can register as an Am based on past precedents. However, some players who join within a few weeks after playing an event ask to get their points and ratings for the event they played just before joining. PDGA policy will provide a few week grace period to include an event or two within a few weeks before joining or renewing. If this new member wanted to retroactively include an event in which they cashed a few weeks before joining, they would then need to join as a pro.

Thanks Chuck.

Here's a question about reasonable evidence. During a tournament a player's drive goes OB three hundred feet from the tee. The OB is a creek with murky water. The creek has an irregular bank with oak trees. There is a spotter about a hundred feet from where the disc went OB. The player throws a provisional drive. When we arrive at the area where we think his disc went OB, we ask the spotter where it went OB and he says he lost sight of it through the trees but heard it splash. Some in our group thought we he could play where we thought it went OB approximately and others thought that since we couldn't determine where exactly he went OB, he had to play from his provisional drive. Is reasonable evidence being able to see his disc to determine the area where he crossed into OB or is it we knew he went in "about here" and let him throw from "about here"?

Even if the group saw it go in from the tee, they would only be approximating the lie anyway. The fact that the spotter heard the splash would be enough evidence for benefit of the doubt to the player that the disc went OB. The only thing the player should have stated just before throwing the provisional is that it was just to be used if the ruling was his disc was lost and not necessarily if he was ruled OB.

The player threw the provisional drive because the trees obscured our view of where his disc went. If a disc lands OB, but you can't tell where it entered OB and if you can't see the disc in the OB to determine where crossed into OB, how do you determine the spot? What is the reasonable evidence for a spot?

There are many times when a group can't see the disc in OB and yet they are able to determine an appropriate spot. In this case, you said there was even a spotter to help the group find an appropriate spot.

We functioned for many years with approximate lies for lost and OB discs, this is nothing new.

The point I think that Chuck was trying to make is that if the player throws a provisional from the tee in case the disc is OB, his decision on which OB option he is choosing is already made.

He is not allowed to throw a provisional from the tee, see how good or bad it worked out, and then choose to throw from the last point inbounds. If he wants to retain the ability to choose whether to mark at the last point inbounds or the tee, he can not throw a provisional in case of OB.

As Chuck said, if he throws in case it's lost, then he must use that throw if the disc is lost. He will not be able to use that throw if the disc is OB.

As Chuck said, if he throws in case it's lost, then he must use that throw if the disc is lost. He will not be able to use that throw if the disc is OB.




I'm not so sure. The choice to throw a provisional can be specified based on a particular rule. I don't see anything that restricts that choice in the rules such that it would have to be used in the event the ruling was OB instead of lost.

There was a three month discussion on this when the rule changed in 2006. It was generally decided that it is unfair for a player to throw a shot and then decide whether to take that shot after he had full knowledge of the outcome of that shot. The wording of 803.01 is a little vague on the subject.

It is not really fair to give the player a free shot off the tee that he may use or discard as he wishes if his disc is found OB. He would be free to attempt the hero shot with no regard to the outcome if he could just use the last inbounds spot instead.

If a provisional is taken off the tee, the player has made the choice of how the shot will be played if it turns out to be what the provisional was made for. The only situation it makes any sense to throw one is when the disc is OB where there is no choice where the next lie is.

If you recall, the discussion was about using a provisional for an unplayable or OB, not lost disc and OB. The result was that a shot taken as a provisional for one rule could not be used to fulfill another rule. That's exactly what I'm saying here. If the provisional was taken with the intent to speed play in the event a disc is lost, there's no requirement, in fact it's improper, to use the shot as the next throw for an OB ruling.

Question....
I was watching the BG final nine of dgtv and one of the players Brendan was putting with one foot in OB and one not. I always thought this was illegal. Watch the video (part II) and let me know if that was wrong. Just wondering and I am aware this is after the fact. thanks



Good eyes. I spoke with Sylvia Voakes about that later, she was keeping the score for that card. She said that she was not an official (never has been) so could not call it. She did address it with him afterwards, so it was a learning experience.



Not to sound like a know-it-all or an anti-PDGA critic, but it's kinda sad that a lead card in the largest AM field EVER in disc golf would/could not recognize an obvious rules violation..

What would it take for Advanced level players (and up) to be required to be officials (or at the very least be required to carry a rulebook?)

I personally feel ALL sanctioned events should require every group to carry a PDGA rulebook, with a two stroke penalty for every player in a given group for failing to carry one.

Furthermore, I would expect with the sanctioning fees and per-player fees being required for PDGA events, that the PDGA provide at the very least 1 rulebook per hole at any given tournament. At a retail value of $3 per rulebook, I cannot see the PDGA losing an excessive amount of money providing TDs with enough books to cover every group in a tournament.
From a marketing perspective: the more books that are out there means that more books will be read and hopefully more casual or rec players will realize the importance and significance of the PDGA and hopefully become members..

my 4.5 cents..

- doot

There is a big difference between provisionals for unplayable lies and lost or OB discs.

Lost/OB: If a player throws his drive into presumably an OB area, or an area where he might have trouble finding it, he may throw a provisional to save time. In the case of a lost or OB disc, the player really has no choice which lie to play.

1. If the original drive turns out to be lost or OB, the player must re-tee (lost disc),
OR
re-tee OR throw from last place IB OR throw next shot from drop zone, if provided (OB shot)

2. If the disc is found, and found to be in-bounds, the player MUST abandon the provisional throw and play the original shot, unless he subsequently wants to declare his lie to be unplayable.

If he declares his lie unplayable, he must go back to the tee and re-throw, even if he's already played a provisional. This is because he already knows the result of his provisional BEFORE he makes the choice to declare the disc unplayable. In an unplayable lie situation, the player chooses to declare his lie unplayable. In a lost/OB situation, the player doesn't have that choice, the disc is either lost/OB, or it's not. The player doesn't get to choose which one it is.

Clear as mud? :)

Chap

If I throw a shot and I know there is water 15 feet past the basket, I throw past the basket and dont find my disc, but everyone on my card knows its in the water, never saw a splash or seen it enter the water, but can't locate it, Do I throw from my last lie or from where it was last seen in bounds?

If "everyone in the group knows it's in the water," they are satisified there's enough evidence the disc went OB which is enough to call the disc OB. So, you can retee or play from where it went out, your choice. Read the Rules Q&A on lost versus OB for more information.

It's interesting that my question about reasonable evidence took off on a tangent about provisional throws. The player declared a provisional throw in case his disc was lost in the OB. Our group looked at rule book and we had disagreement about what reasonable evidence was. Some thought that where it was last seen inbounds from a hundred yards away we could give the player a spot, which would be an approximation that would be thirty feet one way or the other along the OB line which in this case could have been a somewhat obscured to totally obscured line to the basket. Reasonable evidence suggests that there is evidence as to where the disc crossed into OB. Is reasonable evidence a view from a hundred yards or does it need to be more specific to be reasonable?

The reason for the tangent is that "reasonable evidence" as used in the rules refers to determination of OB vs lost disc. It [reasonable evidence] does not come into play in locating next lie. In that case, only a majority opinion of the group (or determination by an official) is needed.

Stated another way, the reason for the tangent is because you misplayed the provisional rule. If you had played the provisional rule correctly, the issue you raised would have been moot.

"(1) To save time: A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules."

Under that circumstance, whether the disc is lost or out of bounds, the player cannot complete the hole from the original throw. So he must complete the throw from the provisional. Once he has thrown the provisional, it does not matter whether the disc is lost or out of bounds.

That is one of the many reasons why throwing a provisional is always a sucker move, [except when you are talking about a provisional series following a disputed call. Then it's always the right move.] If your primary goal in disc golf is to shoot the lowest score, I don't think you can ever show me a situation where your ability to shoot the lowest score is enhanced by throwing a "disc uncertain" provisional. You're always better off finding out where your disc is and evaluating your options. None of us throw so far that it is a big deal to walk back to the tee and rethrow. Usually you walk back alone and leave three spotters in the fairway.

That was the point of the tangent, and Chuck and I look like we were violently agreeing.

BTW, a disc can't be "lost in the OB" from a rules point of view. It's either lost or OB, but never both. In the case of a possible lost disc (with no OB around), you have no option but to throw from the Tee and a provisional may be advised in the interest of time.

In the case of possible OB, choosing to throw a provisional from the tee constitutes deciding that you have opted to rethrow your OB disc from the tee. You no longer have the option of last spot inbounds if the disc is found to be OB.

In the case of possible OB, choosing to throw a provisional from the tee constitutes deciding that you have opted to rethrow your OB disc from the tee. You no longer have the option of last spot inbounds if the disc is found to be OB.



Maybe it was unclear that I disagree with this. There's no requirement that a provisional cover for both contingencies of a lost or OB disc. If the player specifies the provisional in the event the disc is lost, he has not given up the right to make another choice if the disc is determined to be OB.

For example, let's say that the TD has specified a drop zone down the fairway must be used if a disc goes OB. In this situation, the player and group isn't sure where a shot landed so the player throws a provisional in the event the disc is lost. The disc is found clearly OB. The player must play from the drop zone according to the rules but you claim the player must use the provisional? (As a side note, the RC may consider adding a drop zone option that TDs can use in places where lost discs are common so the rule parallels OB.)

That's why the player has the option to specify whether a provisional is to be used for lost and/or OB and/or unplayable (which can only be done if the 2m rule is not in effect on that hole). What the player can't do, as pointed out by Chap is to declare the provisional be used as the throw following an unplayable call made after the player sees the lie versus from the tee before walking down the fairway.

BTW, a disc can't be "lost in the OB" from a rules point of view. It's either lost or OB, but never both. In the case of a possible lost disc (with no OB around), you have no option but to throw from the Tee and a provisional may be advised in the interest of time.

[emphasis added] Which would matter if he is playing speed golf. But if he is playing for lowest score, he'd be better off looking for the disc and then rethrowing with three spotters out in the fairway.

Ok reasonable evidence that disc went OB was the spotter hearing it splash. He couldn't see where it was last inbounds and we couldn't either. It can't be found in the OB so do we give the player a spot approximating where it went OB even though it's lost? Had the disc landed nearer the bank of the creek in the water and was visible then we could make a determination for last spot in bounds. Giving an arbritrary lie based on where it was last seen inbounds versus where it actually was last inbounds seems like we would be reverting back the "old" lost disc rule. As far as a disc being lost and OB from a rules point of view, it can be both. You can't be penalized for both. Isn't it the same as being over two meters up in a branch hanging OB?

As far as a disc being lost and OB from a rules point of view, it can be both.



No it can't. A disc can be physically lost in OB, but if it's determined that it is in the OB area, then you apply the OB rule not the Lost disc rule. The group deciding where to mark a spot for discs going OB happens all of the time when the disc can't be seen but was seen to go OB by the group. It's not such a big deal. The player has to take a penalty as it is so missing the "true" mark by even 50 feet is no big deal.

Yes, it's the same as a disc above 2m in a tree that's already OB. You apply the OB rule not the 2m rule. Here's the hierarchy of rules when more than one might apply:

Mando
OB
Lost
2 meter

Maybe it was unclear that I disagree with this.



Evidently I was unclear in that I agree with you.

You should be able to specify exactly why you are throwing a provisional shot, in fact it should be required that you specify why you are throwing the provisional.

In the portion you quoted, the provisional was being thrown because of the possibility of OB (as stated), not the possibility of lost disc.

The point I am trying to clearly make is that a thrower choosing to throw a provisional from the tee for the possibility that his disc is OB has chosen his OB option.

If there is a hole where the TD has specified that OB shots must throw from a drop zone, there never was any option for the player to throa again from the tee.

If there is a hole where the TD has specified that OB shots must throw from a drop zone, there never was any option for the player to throw again from the tee.



Unless he specified it was in case the disc was declared lost and couldn't be confirmed OB. Although hopefully the group has a sense about what their opinion will be before they leave the tee.

A disc can be physically lost in OB, but if it's determined that it is in the OB area, then you apply the OB rule not the Lost disc rule.



Chuck,

First of all, after you read all of this, please tell me if I am nit-picking. If a disc is physically lost, there may be some times where it is unclear if the disc is OB or not. Of course, if the OB line is made at the end of a large pond or lake, even though the disc is physically lost, I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the disc is OB. But, what if you have a situation where the OB line is at the edge of a ravine, and right in front of the OB line, paralleling it, is a bunch of nasty bushes and scrub brush? If I threw a roller, and it went screaming toward the ravine, what should be the call? We go over there, and look for 3 minutes. Can I pick whether or not I want the disc to be OB or lost?

And what if there is a 10m-thick growth of nasty bushes in front of the OB line, and my drive went along and very close to the top of the bushes, and I am thinking, "I would much rather play this shot from the tee, rather than having to play it from inside that nastiness". We go down there, and peer in the bushes, not seeing anything, and nobody wants to go in there. I certainly don't want to play it where it was last seen inbounds, so can I claim immediately that the disc is lost, and go retee? And if I am another player on the card, can I say, "No, you have to wait until three minutes has expired until the disc is declared lost." and then I go, very carefully, looking for it. Whether my intent as that player is a "we should play it where it lies, that is the spirit of the game (ala "rule of fairness"), or "I hope he really has a crummy lie", is irrelevant. Do I have a right as another player in the group to demand that three minutes, once the clock has started, must expire before a disc can be declared lost?

The group makes the call for whether there's enough evidence the disc is OB versus lost, not the player.

There's never a reason the player has to play from the nasty bushes. If the call is OB, player can retee. If the disc is called lost, player can retee. If disc is found in the nastiness, player can call an unplayable and retee. Since a player can call an unplayable immediately after teeing on a hole without looking (if 2m isn't in force), so there's no need to necessarily wait for 3 minutes and call it lost.

Chuck is correct there. The penalty for lost and unplayable is the same [usually, assuming there are no drop zones involved] and you cannot stop the player from taking an unplayable. So if he wants to call it lost, let him.

This is what I've always wondered. If the disc is potentially lost somewhere nasty, like in ankle deep casual water or knee deep poison ivy or a thicket of raspberries or a clutch of cacti, how much do we have to help the player look? What if it is merely lost in knee deep grass but it is Canadian blue grass that I'm highly allergic to?

Another question that led to some debate last weekend.
When does the 30 seconds start? I think that if I strictly read the rules, and so long as the area is free of distractions, the clock starts when you mark your lie, or if using a thrown disc to mark then when you take your stance. Am I correct? If so, then would it be wrong to mark your lie before it is your turn?

801.03.A. A maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player to make a throw after:
(1) the previous player has thrown; and,
(2) the player has taken a reasonable time to arrive at the disc and mark the lie; and,
(3) the playing area is clear and free of distractions.



Note that the 30 seconds can't start until it's your turn and you have arrived at your lie. There are also times where a player needs to mark their lie before it is their turn (e.g. two slightly overlapping discs). It is not wrong to mark your lie before your turn, but if you are a distraction to another player who's turn it is, you might get called for a courtesy violation.

(3) the playing area is clear and free of distractions.



As far as I'm concerned, this line makes the rule practically moot. Much as another cannot decide what lie is unplayable, neither can another decide what is a distraction for the shooter. Chirping birds, fluttering leaves, having to fart....all these might be distractions to the shooter that no one else can call.

If we are serious about enforcing a time limit, this loophole has to be removed.

That part of the rule is there for safety. You cannot remove the loophole without adding text for all of the legitimate cases it currently covers. To do so would require a huge tomb that even less players would read and follow.

question about the 30 seconds rule... a player on my card would get very close to the time limit and then decide to change discs and start the whole process over... (this happened on numerous holes) what are your feelings on this. Is that a violation? :confused:

Isnt it also true that if you back away from your mini for a disctration reason--lets say a car... that 30 seconds starts over right?

IMO changing discs does not restart the clock. If I saw a player consistently taking a long time for this reason, I would politely tell him that I will start watching a clock on his subsequent turns. That usually is all it takes for someone to be a little more aware.

On the second question, 30 seconds starts after the area is free from distractions, if a legitimate distraction occurs then the 30 seconds does restart.

thank you! and is that a Chief Mini? I gotta get me one of those!

I understand that the area must be clear for safety reasons, but what does the "free of distractions" part of it have to do with safety? I probably wasn't clear that I agree with the first part of the rule but the second part (FoD) is unenforcable.

Free of distractions, a group of kids, players, geese are behind, in front of, in, the basket and the players decides for wait on them to move, move, move before throwing or putting.


I understand that the area must be clear for safety reasons, but what does the "free of distractions" part of it have to do with safety? I probably wasn't clear that I agree with the first part of the rule but the second part (FoD) is unenforcable.

That part of the rule is there for safety. You cannot remove the loophole without adding text for all of the legitimate cases it currently covers. To do so would require a huge tomb that even less players would read and follow.

Tome, not tomb. :cool: And his avatar is a photo of a disc I dyed. I don't know if he bought the disc or if he just likes the avatar.

I always find the 30 second discussions very interesting. For the most part my impression is that players are hoofing it through their drive, much to their loss. The only players I see push the time limit consistently are pros. They spend their time wisely checking conditions and setting up their shots.

My advice is, rather than worry about the other guy using his 30 seconds, something taking you out of your metal game, use your 30 seconds fully to your advantage.

As a matter of courtesy I always tell my group when I am waiting to clear a distraction. Then everyone knows what I'm doing.

I think it is best to tell the group that I am waiting for some one to clear an area before I throw, and I know quite a few players who do the same. However, I do know one player who once said that he intentionally used all the time available to distract the other players in his group. I have played several rounds with him and it becomes a distraction all it's own when he does this.


As a matter of courtesy I always tell my group when I am waiting to clear a distraction. Then everyone knows what I'm doing.