Can a player get casual relief from a fallen tree? The disc is in front of the fallen tree about 2 feet and no part of the tree is in the lie. The tree has fell years before and did not become a factor in the round. The fallen tree is preventing a run-up for the player.

I did not specifically see "dead tree" in the list for casual obstacles but I did see "broken branches no longer connected to a tree".

My home course is completely wooded with many fallen trees so I would like to know exactly how this situation should be handled.

A run-up is not a guaranteed right. If you cannot get your a supporting point behind the disc (or marker) without being in front of your lie, then you can use the solid obstacle relief (803.04.E)

If the TD specifically designates it as something from which relief is granted (pursuant to 803.05C), then yes. Under the circumstances you state, there is no relief granted. Players are not guaranteed a clear run-up space, except perhaps on the tee. Two feet sounds like plenty of space to take a legal stance.

If the tree was preventing the player from taking a legal stance, then the stance could be taken directly behind the tree.

I'm still trying to make sense of the rules, thanks for your help!

I do have a couple of addition things:

803.05 C(3) - Casual obstacles to a run-up: The player may move the obstacle provided no part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole. No other relief is provided.

So a "fallen tree" could not be moved but if it was a "broken branches no longer connected to a tree", it could be moved to provide a path for a run-up.

Since a fallen tree could be a pine tree about 6 inches in diameter and a branch could be from an oak with a much larger diameter, I don't see why a fallen tree, if it can physically bemoved, could not be moved the same way a tree branch could.

Just my take, thanks for the input!

Just play it where it lies. I'm not too fond of the "let me clear a path out for me to run-up" method. I have no problem with moving small stuff so that you can get your foot firmly on the playing surface, but creating a runway is not in the spirit of the game (IMHO).

Well looks like we have a difference of opinion :)

Not allowing a player a run-up would be forcing that player to change the style that they are used to. I use a run-up on my tee off every time and on long holes I also use it on the up shot. I don't have big arms so I need the x step to get some extra distance.

For what it is worth, I also think that the course shouldn't be altered, just play it where it lies MOST of the time. The exception being when there are rules allowing the removal of casual items.

Not allowing a player a run-up would be forcing that player to change the style that they are used to.



That's golf, isn't it?

Not allowing a player a run-up would be forcing that player to change the style that they are used to.



That's golf, isn't it?



It is! I most certainly agree. I completely understand that if I plunk my plastic in front of a solid obstacle and have to play my lie behind a big ole tree, an X step is NOT going to happen.

I was just wondering that since if I plunked my disc down in front of a branch, I would be perfectly within the rules to move that branch, but if it was a fallen tree, I couldn't, at least not by my current interpretation of the rules.

Good discussion, thanks for the input everyone :D

I'm not saying not that run-ups shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying that a run-up should not be a guaranteed right. I think it would be great if course designers created areas that made run-ups difficult. For example: uneven terrain that looks sort of like waves where it rises and falls one foot with about four feet between peaks.

It's not the size of the tree or branch that matters, other than whether it's too heavy to move, but whether any part of it is in front of your lie, dead or not. If any part is closer to the target, then you can't move it, no matter how light.

I believe the rule reads:

Obstacles may not be moved if any part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole.

emphasis added
Not:

If any part is closer to the target, then you can't move it

emphasis also added
As there are myriad potential situations where a part of an obstacle could be closer to the target than the lie without being between the target and the lie, that difference in wording could prove <u>extremely</u> important in a dispute over such a situation as Ken_McKinney describes.

Already determined from RC that "between" means "closer" since I had the same thought.

Is that in an as-yet-published update to the rule book or in the online rules Q&amp;A? Or does one just have to take your word for it?

As a Worlds TD and former RC member, I try to post what has been the case on decisions I'm familiar with. I also agree that the RC needs to do a little better job posting Q&amp;As so everyone gets the benefit. The RC is open for players to suggest wording for new Q&amp;As and submit them to make their job a little easier to consider posting the clarification.

Chuck,
I am not questioning your credentials nor your ability to know RC decisions. The problem is that I, and many other disc golfers, play quite a few tournament rounds without you (or any other former or current RC member) tagging along, so I need a document to be my guide as to what the rules are. How the heck is anybody supposed to know that "between" <u>really</u> means "closer to" if there is no mention of it in the rulebook nor on the Q&amp;A? That's way beyond the lack of clarity that MANY of the rules display; it is downright contradictory, as "between" &amp; "closer to" have wildly different literal meanings.

It seems to me that you have to be able to determine whether the dead tree is a casual obstacle. I do not see a definition of a "casual obstacle" in the rules. I agree that recently fallen branches, sticks, leaves etc would qualify and can be moved. What is a branch? What is a tree? I think its somewhat open to interpretation. Your scenario paints that tree as having been on the course for a while. It does not seem casual to me and I think unless the TD made a ruling before the round, you have to play it as it lies. If the tree fell during the round it might be causal. What if it fell last night or in the past couple days? I don't know.

Chuck, I disagree about the size issue. In this situation we know the obstacle is behind the lie. Thus, we need to figure out whether its casual or in essence become a fixture of the course. I think the size of the obstacle and its duration should be factors but really see no guidance in ye olde rulebook unless I am missing something. (and I'm sure thats a likely scenario)

I don't disagree that it could be more clear. On the other hand, the very fact they used between versus line of play indicates the intent for players to not mess with anything closer to the target than their lie. Since several rules have evolved from the overall spirit of the game, that's the orientation you need to take where a written rule might seem like it has a gray area.

Since a fallen tree could be a pine tree about 6 inches in diameter and a branch could be from an oak with a much larger diameter, I don't see why a fallen tree, if it can physically bemoved, could not be moved the same way a tree branch could.



True, but the reason a tree can't be moved under the casual obstacle rule is because it is not listed. A six-inch pine tree that has fallen is still a tree, while a ten-inch oak branch that fell from a tree is still a branch. Tree would have to be added to the list before it could be moved as a casual obstacle.

Sounds like your best option is to get a chain saw before the tournament and clean up the fairways. :D

I believe the rule reads:

Obstacles may not be moved if any part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole.

emphasis added
Not:

If any part is closer to the target, then you can't move it

emphasis also added
As there are myriad potential situations where a part of an obstacle could be closer to the target than the lie without being between the target and the lie, that difference in wording could prove <u>extremely</u> important in a dispute over such a situation as Ken_McKinney describes.



Why would you need or want to move something during a tournament that is not between the lie and the target, for the purpose of making a shot?

There is NO gray area. "Between" means "at, into, or across the space separating two objects", not "closer than". (Do I need to whip out the cute diagrams again?)

If the intention is "closer than" (and I believe it should be), the rule needs to be rewritten or, at the absolute minimum, a Q&amp;A defining the novel PDGA definition of "between" must be published.

It seems to me that you have to be able to determine whether the dead tree is a casual obstacle.



If you read 803.05B regarding moving an obstacle between the lie and hole, it specifically names both general "obstacles" and "casual obstacles" defined separately. And the term "obstacle" is defined as any object that might impede play. Casual obstacles are a subset of that. Since that whole 803.05 section jumps fluidly between using the terms casual obstacles and obstacles, I think it can be confusing if the rules specifically treat one versus the other in a different way.

Look at the 1st post of this thread, Mike. I wouldn't want to do that typically (because I'm from the Steve Dodge grip 'n rip school) but someone might.

Look at the 1st post of this thread, Mike. I wouldn't want to do that typically (because I'm from the Steve Dodge grip 'n rip school) but someone might.



Right, I'm familiar with the initial post, which involves a fallen tree two feet behind a lie. If it's two feet directly behind the lie, it cannot be closer to the target than the lie, nor between the lie and the target.

I'm trying to imagine the situation you proffered, where an obstacle is not between the lie and the target, yet closer to the target than the lie and you need to move it to make your shot. I'm not invisioning that at the moment, but I thought you might have a real life example.

Look at the 1st post of this thread, Mike. I wouldn't want to do that typically (because I'm from the Steve Dodge grip 'n rip school) but someone might.



Right, I'm familiar with the initial post, which involves a fallen tree two feet behind a lie. If it's two feet directly behind the lie, it cannot be closer to the target than the lie, nor between the lie and the target.

I'm trying to imagine the situation you proffered, where an obstacle is not between the lie and the target, yet closer to the target than the lie and you need to move it to make your shot. I'm not invisioning that at the moment, but I thought you might have a real life example.


Consider the following overhead view:
http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/august.jpg
Point L is the lie. Point B is the target. The brown branch with spindly sub-branches is evident. Distance L-&gt;2 is 2 feet. Distance L-&gt;B is, let's say, 50 feet. Distance B-&gt;1 is 2 feet, the closest point of the obstacle to the target. Obstacle is closer to target than lie, obstacle is not between target &amp; lie, a player may want to move the obstacle to allow for stance or runup.

Probably don't need a run-up from 50 feet and there's a good chance a tree like that fell during the round versus being there before the round started (or at least I would hope so).

Excellent discussion! So from what I have read, essentially the common sense rule is a tree is not a branch and does not allow the same relief afforded a branch.

I have moved branches for my x step and I know I have moved a small fallen tree or 2 for the same. Now that I know it's not allowed, I'll just have to eat my Wheaties and get me some "big arms" :D

"Probably", "good chance", and "hope so" have no place in any decent hypothetical. A player <u>IS</u> asking for a casual relief ruling from lie L, and the branch (not tree, if you read carefully) <u>DID</u> fall as the player was approaching his lie.

Way to avoid the question.

in your hypo, the player may not move any of that stuff. some of it is in front of the.

if the large branch is a course feature, it cannot be moved, even if no part of it is in front of the lie. unless you are positive it was never a factor during the round.

Yes, I have been told that is the RC interpretation (though I see no record or document to back that up), but my illustration was to answer Mike August's query &amp; show how the "between" wording can be problematic in that the obstacle (which, the player having watched fall from the sky, is definitely not an integral part of the course and definitely is eligible for looking at relief possibilities) is certainly closer than the lie, but certainly not between the target &amp; the lie.

One might also argue that ANY fallen anything in the woods might constitue "debris" - from which casual relief is granted. Just because the rules do not define every possible casual obstacle, does not mean they are limited to those listed.

Common sense might suggest that 805.03.C.2 could be used to allow the player to move back on the line of play to allow for a run-up - as the movement of the (in this case) large casual obstacle is impractical. Why would you allow someone up to 5meters relief for the same object lying across his lie - and no relief when it's 2 feet behind the lie?

The 5m relief is not automatic. The group has to agree how far back. If your disc is on the edge a few inches into casual water, I doubt the group is going to give you a full 5m back from that spot, just enough to get out of the water.

Was there some part of "up to" that was confusing Chuck? Or does your need for the last word outweigh your desire to discuss the rules question at hand?

Your argument that because the casual rule allows 5m relief that we should allow relief for a downed tree 2ft behind a lie is as valid as the argument that players should get to release up to 3m behind any lie because that's what we allow on a grass tee area.

You don't necessarily get a full 5m, you only get enough to go "to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play". The point is that you are given enough latitude to take a stance, not necessarily enough to make a runway.

Come on guys - lets put it into perspective. If there's a large object that's unmoveable and prevents a stance we allow relief. If there's a large puddle we allow relief (even a small one for that matter). If we see a branch fall 100' in front of us we're allowed to move it as it "might" affect our intended roller path.

I'm not necessarily advocating the need for a run-up - but am willing to consider MORE than what is specifically listed, as qualifying as a casual obstacle from which relief can be granted.

Who's to say that granting a lie behind the log (or downed tree) will guarantee an obstacle free run-up? And what exactly is the difference between allowing someone the chance to stand and deliver with feet a normal distance apart (2' is barely shoulder width) when moving back on the line of play - when the player moves back from a puddle, or back behind a log? I personally don't see any difference.

Let's put it yet another way. Why do we allow casual relief in any instance? From a puddle, loose leaves, debris, bees, whatever? My experience has been that casual relief is granted as a convenience. and sometimes as a matter of basic safety. Well I threw it in that puddle - but I shouldn't have to get my foot wet........., I might slip if a plant my foot in that muddy spot................ The trade off for taking casual relief is that you have to throw from further away - isn't a chance for a clean release taking the same advantage whether avoiding a wet spot or a log in the runup?

Bottom line - either write the rule to be specific - or be ready to have rules interpretations be subject to variations.

The solid object rule handles issues when a player can't even take a stance. By going behind say a tree trunk, the player would possibly get somewhat of a run-up. Most of the time, a live tree is going to have branches hanging closer to the basket than the lie and we aren't allowed to move the tree or branches (cut the tree down). Why would we use a different rule for a dead tree lying sideways with the trunk in the same position relative to the live tree scenario above and dead branches closer to the hole? Seems like the solid object rule works perfectly well here, assuming the tree can't be moved and was there before the event started.

A couple of things. First of all, if you go back and read the original question, it states the tree has been there for several years. Now I don't know if the club has decided the downed tree makes the hole more difficult or simply the parks department will not allow the tree to be cut up and removed, but regardless, at several years the downed tree is a part of the course and according to below, no relief can be taken. I don't think I am stretching this rule by including the tree. I understand the concern for safety, but a 2 foot stance is safe. The real question is not whether the lie is safe, but if it is convenient.

The second point is from a line I once heard John Houk use at worlds doubles..... "if you don't want to throw from the cactus don't throw into the cactus" I think the same holds for a downed tree.

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

You can't use just part of the rule - you need to consider it all.
(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.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run-up: The player may move the obstacle provided no part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole. No other relief is provided.

This is not a permanent obstacle - as it will degrade and change over time. It could legitimately be argued that the tree is an obstacle to both stance and throwing motion. I don't buy the argument that a downed tree is the same as park equipment. How bout back to why we allow casual relief - and what exactly the difference is between allowing it for one type of "obstacle" and not another - when both can be considered "casual". (Just for a second - ignore the original scenario if it keeps you from considering the question).

Oh - and by the way - I don't disagree with the John Houck quote - but what we may agree on in principle is not always what is necessarily allowed by the rules.

Craig,

I understand what you mean about considering the rule as a whole, but there is also a precidence. Part 1) talks about permenant parts of the course. Regardless of whether the tree may be degrading over time, the same can be said of picnic tables and swing sets, it is all just a matter of timing. Some hardwoods may even last longer than pine picnic tables, but that is neither here nor there. The tree has been in place for years, by default it has become a permenant part of the course. What if the obstacle had been a 200 lb rock? Could the player get relief for that? I understand that it is in the run up, however part 1) says no.

If it was a branch, then I could see your argument. It is not.

Really the question should be is it dangerous or not. Clearly the player has space to place their feet, it is not a casual object, therefore it is played as it lies. On the other hand if the player wants to say it is not safe for them then there is a rule that allows them to call it unplayable. There is no group decision on that one, the player takes a stroke and moves up to 5 meters back.

I see the question differently.

I see it as a question of whether 803.05.C.2 allows for any desired stance and any desired throwing motion or is limited to any possible (or reasonable) stance and any possible (or reasonable) throwing motion.

If you accept the "desired" options, the rule clearly allows for relocation if the desired stance or throwing motion are impeded by the obstacle and it can not be moved.

However, I have normally seen the rule interpreted using the "possible" options and the player is limited to what ever their creative minds can come up with if any possible stance and throwing motion can be achieved without relief.

Good illustration Ray and thanks.

Since the player saw the branch fall during the round, it can be moved without question. If it hadn't, I think you could still move it. The rule currently says "between" not "closer" and since none of the branch is between the lie and the target, I think you could legally move it out of your way.

If the RC wants the rule to include "closer" then they should revise the rule or publish an opinion rather than opine in a sidebar conversation with individuals.

I'm not sure what "up to" refers to Craig. The wording in the rule is "not more than five meters", which is similar to "up to". However, I see the wording of the rule as requiring the group to agree on 1) where the nearest lie upon which a legal stance can be taken is, 2) how far five meters is from the original lie and 3) where the line of play is. Line of play is a no-brainer. Five meters could be an argument if you don't have a meter stick. The part that seems most susceptible to debate is the nearest lie point. I feel that the rule requires the player to take the nearest lie on the LOP where a legal stance can be taken. I don't think one is entitled to the full five meters if there's a closer spot on the LOP where a legal stance can be taken. If it said "a" lie instead of "nearest" lie, then that would allow the full five meters regardless.

On the other hand, you are infinitely more familiar with common practice than I since you play a lot of tournaments and I don't play any. :D If the wording of the rule conflicts with common practice, that's something that should be rectified, by either changing the rule to reflect the practice, or changing the practice to adhere to the rule.

in your hypo, the player may not move any of that stuff. some of it is in front of the.

if the large branch is a course feature, it cannot be moved, even if no part of it is in front of the lie. unless you are positive it was never a factor during the round.



In front of the what? I think you left off "lie". However, in front of the lie is not mentioned in the rule. None of the branch in Ray's diagram is between the lie and the target.

Again, if the intent is to prevent moving branches that are not only between the lie and the target, but also those that are closer to the target and in front of the target, then let the RC revise the rules or publish an opinion to include such.

You can't use just part of the rule - you need to consider it all.
(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.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run-up: The player may move the obstacle provided no part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole. No other relief is provided.

This is not a permanent obstacle - as it will degrade and change over time. It could legitimately be argued that the tree is an obstacle to both stance and throwing motion. I don't buy the argument that a downed tree is the same as park equipment. How bout back to why we allow casual relief - and what exactly the difference is between allowing it for one type of "obstacle" and not another - when both can be considered "casual". (Just for a second - ignore the original scenario if it keeps you from considering the question).

Oh - and by the way - I don't disagree with the John Houck quote - but what we may agree on in principle is not always what is necessarily allowed by the rules.



I have a hard time considering a tree that has been lying there for a while to be impermanent. I think it has become a part of the course by its duration. Sure, Disc golfers 100 years from now will not likely see that tree. However, disc golfers 10 years from now will see that tree unless somebody moves it.Given that it has not been moved it seems like the intent is for it to become an element of the course. I chided Chuck earlier in the discussion for referring to obstacles between the lie and the target when our example here is an obstacle behind the lie. However, his reference to 803.05c makes sense. The rule tries to define casual obstacles. The rule notes that a motor vehicle would be a casual obstacle. What if that vehicle was sitting on the course rusting and getting vandalized for a few months? Is it now becoming a trash/art piece of course decoration? I think so. Its now long past the time when it could have been removed. Same for the tree. Of course a devil's advocate could say that the "tree" laying on the course is no longer in the ground and itself is no longer connected to the "tree." In my view time makes it less casual.

I would hope that a decaying car would be removed from the course before it became an issue :D

Seriously though, the branch v. tree issue seems to be a matter of size. There are fallen trees at New Quarter Park (VA) that are part of the course. On the other hand, there are smaller "branches" that fall on a regular basis and should be removed from the fairway. Where do you draw the line? I don't know that we have decided yet collectively.

Sandy Point has an old car on the edge of the fairway that comes into play if you mess up your righty turnover shot. Not moveable though.

Here's a question for you rule enthusiasts...
One of the biggest parts of my game is the jump putt. So lets say I'm playing on a course filled with buckeye/horse chestnut trees. There are buckeyes ALL OVER the ground in front of my lie, 40 feet out.

May I swipe aside the buckeyes on the ground to provide a safe landing area for my jump putt, in order to avoid injuring my ankles?

Nope, you're not guaranteed a safe place to follow thru. You're just allowed to move loose items fully behind your lie to take a stance. Now, if you're around any gators, they could take care of the buckeyes for you... (including illini with a former gator coach). :D

Any weekend those bastards up North lose is a happy weekend in Buckeye country. We're sadistic like that.

Here's a question for you rule enthusiasts...
One of the biggest parts of my game is the jump putt. So lets say I'm playing on a course filled with buckeye/horse chestnut trees. There are buckeyes ALL OVER the ground in front of my lie, 40 feet out.

May I swipe aside the buckeyes on the ground to provide a safe landing area for my jump putt, in order to avoid injuring my ankles?



Nope.

Ooops, missed CK1's post. :o