I recently played in a tournament that had the 2-meter rule in effect. On my third hole of the second round I put my drive about 20' up in a tree. Obviously over 2 meters. The last guy to tee off hit the same tree and knocked my disc to the ground changing the lie. Am I just lucky? Do I get to proceed from the new lie and play without a stroke? What if the wind was the reason that the disc came down?

From the Rules Q&A:

""In previous versions of the rule book, a disc above two meters that was knocked out of the tree by a competitively thrown disc was played at its new location. In the 2006 book, this exception has been removed. Does that mean that a disc that comes to rest above 2 meters and is hit by another disc and falls below 2 meters should be played as if it were still at its original lie above 2 meters (thus taking a lie below the spot in the tree and a penalty stroke?).

Response
Summary: "What is the ruling when a disc that is stuck in a tree is knocked out of the tree by another competitors throw during play?"

Applicable Rules:


803.08 Disc Above the Playing Surface
803.07 Interference

Discussion:

If the 2 meter rule is not in affect, it�s a moot point, as there�s no penalty to deal with.

If the two meter rule IS in affect: Take a close look at 803.08(C). This says if a disc falls "unassisted by a player or spectator" it is not penalized. In this case it was moved by a disc, not a player. One could argue that the disc was thrown by a player, hence was ultimately moved by that player. That is a tough scenario to "buy" however, because there is no way the player could have known his disc would knock the other one out of a tree. It was pure chance. The intent of 803.08(C) is to prevent buddies or fans from moving the player's disc before a 2-meter determination is made (giving the player an advantage). A disc being hit by another disc is no different than a disc being blown down by a gust of wind.

There's no penalty stroke for a lie above the playing surface until you walk up to it, determine that it's over two meters, and mark it. Common sense tells us what's a lucky break and what's not. Another player's shot knocking it down is a lucky break, and it's unlikely someone could do that intentionally without it being obvious. Perhaps the disc was already falling, or would have in a few moments, before the second disc hit it. If we interpret the rule the other way, then it becomes an unlucky break because as soon as the second disc hits it, it has no chance to come down on its own. Its two-meter status before it was hit is not necessarily clear, either, making a correct ruling in this scenario even more difficult.

Our reading of "unassisted by a player or spectator" infers intent and direct action.

Conclusion: It's a lucky break for the golfer whose shot was originally stuck in the tree! He gets to play his disc where it now lies.

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes"

Cheers

Thanks.

bad rule- lucky you! i really don't see why some td's still cling to the darn 2 meter rule.

Because good shots don't land in trees :p.

...but 2 bad shots can land in the same one with vastly different results.

One is just worse than the other. :D

i luv the 2MR, but even i only use it around the basket/over the green.

...but 2 bad shots can land in the same one with vastly different results.

That's true whether you land in a tree, or land ob, or land in disc eating schule or land in nasty schule. The proto-rule is that you play it where it lies. The two-meter rule is just one logical extension of this rule, like the o.b. and lost disc and unplayable rules.

There are a lot of threads on this. Can someone just provide ten or twelve links and we can pretend we went through this again? :D

That's true whether you land in a tree, or land ob, or land in disc eating schule or land in nasty schule.



Disc-eating schule usually treats all shots the same. OB definitely does.

What is a "proto-rule" of play it where it lies? I always chuckle when that argument is invoked: like it is some inviolate rule of ball golf that play it where it lies is set in stone, unless of course the ball lands in one of the areas where the ball golfers get a drop so that they can play it where it don't lie. In short, "play it where it lies" is a myth, in that it does not charaterize ball golf's actual rules.

Common sense and fairness always exert a greater pull on rules and the eventual rule changes than any axiom could ever exert. If we feel a need to establish proto-rules, they are it.

Because good shots don't land in trees :p.



That should read ... Good shots don't stay in trees.

The way I have been ruled on this one in the past, was that if a another players disc unintentionally interferes with another disc, (even if it is in a tree and O.B. due to the two meter rule) it will be replaced to it's original lie as close as possible. In this case that would be O.B. in a tree. This is similar to DROTB situations where a disc knocks the disc resting on top off. You would put it back by the interference rule. But if it is O.B. so it is....



803.07 Interference
A. A thrown disc that hits another player,
spectator, or animal shall be played where
it comes to rest. A thrown disc that is
intentionally defl ected or was caught and
moved shall be marked as close as possible
to the point of contact, as determined
by a majority of the group or an offi cial.
Alternatively, for intentional interference
only, the thrower has the option of taking
a re-throw. Players shall not stand or leave
their equipment where interference with
the fl ight or path of a disc could easily
occur. The away player may require other
players to mark their lies or move their
equipment before making a throw if the
player believes that either could interfere
with his or her throw.
B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface
or supported by the target is moved, the
disc shall be replaced as close as possible
to its original location, as determined by
a majority of the group or an offi cial. If
a marker disc is moved, the marker disc
shall be replaced as close as possible to
its original location, as determined by a
majority of the group or an official. (If
the two meter penalty is in effect, see also
803.08 C and D for movement of a disc
above the playing surface.)




Now based on this rule:


803.08 Disc Above
The Playing Surface
A. If a disc comes to rest above the
playing surface in a tree or other obstacle
on the course, its lie shall be marked on
the playing surface directly below it. If
the point directly below the disc above
the playing surface is an out-of-bounds
area, the disc shall be declared out-ofbounds
and marked and penalized in
accordance with 803.09. If the playing
surface directly below the disc is inside a
tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall
be marked on the line of play immediately
behind the tree or other solid obstacle.
The director may designate a one throw
penalty for discs that come to rest two
meters or higher above the playing
surface. The director may declare the two
meter rule to be in effect for the entire
course, or just for individual obstacles.
(Sections B through D are only used if the
two meter penalty is in effect.)
B. If a disc has come to rest above two
meters, as measured from the lowest
point of the disc to the playing surface
directly below it, the player shall be
assessed a one-throw penalty. This
penalty applies only if the disc is above inbounds.
The player shall proceed from a
lie marked in accordance with 803.08 A.
C. No penalty shall be incurred if the disc
falls, unassisted by a player or spectator,
to a position less than two meters above
the playing surface before the thrower
arrives at the disc. The thrower may not
delay in order to allow the position of the
disc to improve.
D. If the two-meter status of a disc
is uncertain, either a majority of the
group or an offi cial shall make the
determination. If the thrower moves the
disc before determination has been made,
the disc shall be considered above two
meters and the thrower shall proceed
in accordance with 803.08 A and B. If
a player other than the thrower moves
the disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered below
two meters and the interference rule shall
be applied as it relates to the thrower and
the player. See sections 803.07 B and C.



If it was moved intentionally, the player can opt for a rethrow and the O.B. could then be nullified if the disc now lands fair. But if it was an unitentional disc to disc contact, then the interference rules apply and you are stuck with a penalty..

A disc comes to rest right under a basket. Another throw hits the first disc, which then rolls into a creek.

If the guy in the tree gets a lucky break, and takes his lie where his disc was knocked to, then the guy in the creek gets an unlucky break, and must take his lie from OB. Right?

bad rule- lucky you! i really don't see why some td's still cling to the darn 2 meter rule.



Personally I think it rediclous that it is up to the TD. Either it is or isn't in play. A player should have to wait unit 5 minutes before a tourney starts to learn if the TD is going to use the rule.

Come on PDGA ... step up and manage the rules of the game .. no more optional rules ... it either is or isn't a rule! You wouldn't see the NFL say that pass interference is a rule in some games but not in others.

Read my post above.....

I read the initial answer where it says you are lucky, but the way I have been ruled on by an official in my group is how I described it. So if your disc gets knocked unintentionally into a creek from under the basket by another disc, it comes back with no penalty and you are putting....

In the NFL all of the fields are the same. Our courses aren't.

Even if it is 5 minutes before, you know it before your first shot. Same rule for everyone at the event. ;)

I've played tournaments with the rule and without, personally I like it.

Water is not automatically OB. TDs have to specify each body of water as OB or casual. Using the 2m rule or not is just like specifying OB areas and casual relief areas. Just part of course design.

Chuck, does the rules committee reference allow you to ignore the interference rule?

I have been wronged, and seen others wronged if that is the case. I have seen this happen twice and each time the disc was marked under the original OB lie with a penalty accessed. It is hard to climb eighty feet up a tree and put the disc back!

It's pretty clear that a disc can only be AT REST on the playing surface or on the basket and any actions that move it before it's marked allows the player to return it to that position. All other disc positions above the playing surface are "live" until marked except where noted such as movement based solely on water when a disc is floating. The RC has concluded that it's more fair to allow a disc that's still "live" to have its position changed by any action except deliberate interference before it is marked. Getting a disc knocked down by another player's official throw is not considered deliberate interference. Not sure why you would not want to use the Interference rule? Seems as fair to me as allowing a disc sticking in the side of a basket to count...

Chuck,

I see where you are going with this, and it seems good. But there are still some holes.

Two meters in effect. A disc lodges 3m high in a tree which is close to the basket. A subsequent throw hits the first disc, which drops next to the basket but then rolls 100 feet downhill into a lake.

Where is the lie?

Or what if the disc was "lodged" one meter high and was hit and rolled 700 feet away. :p

It really doesn't matter whether a disc is any meters above the playing surface and whether the 2m rule is in effect. Based on 803.07B, if it's not on the playing surface or basket, the disc is "live" until marked. Otherwise, there's no need to specify these exact places where interference can occur and the disc's position returned if moved. The implication is that discs not in these places are live and their positions are not fixed until marked, unless deliberately interfered with. So in both examples above, the lie is where those discs ended up under current rules.

is tall grass considered above the playing surface? how about short grass? if a disc can get knocked off of pampas grass and roll 700 feet away and i need to play from there... then shouldnt the same be true for bermuda grass?

Depends on what the group determines is the playing surface. How close to touching dirt does it have to be? It's unlikely a group would be able to see a disc contact another one in high grass from the tee without X-ray vision. However, if you see a disc thrown into the schule and another player's disc pops up in the air and starts moving, I'm thinking the player whose disc got moved gets to replace it.

I guess the question raised here is how would you write these rules differently to reduce your perception of unfairness or inconsistency in the way it is now?

"once a disc is no longer moving under it's own momentum it is considered at rest. any disc which is at rest and moved through an exterior force shall be replaced as close to its original location as possible."

803.07(B) says nothing of the sort. The part pertaining to disc above the playing surface says:


(If the two meter penalty is in effect, see also 803.08 C and D for movement of a disc above the playing surface.)




C and D in 803.08 simply state that a player won't be penalized if a disc falls unassisted to below two meters, that a group or official determines the height, a player is penalized for throwing before getting group verification, and should another player interfere before a verification is made, it is consisdered interference.

The pertinant rule, imo, for the disc "at rest" above the playing surface in my scenario (one meter high) is 803.08(A) which states that the disc will be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If I see a disc resting one meter above the ground, get smacked and roll 700 feet away, I would allow the player to mark it directly below where it rested, as 803.08(A) states.

I guess the question raised here is how would you write these rules differently to reduce your perception of unfairness or inconsistency in the way it is now?



Actually, I think the rules are fine as written. If you see a disc was at rest above the playing surface, you mark it on the playing surface directly below the disc. However, if that disc is above two meters AND the two meter rule is in effect, AND it falls before the player reasonably makes his way up there, then 803.08(c) takes precedence, or I would let the player pick their own poison in the case where the disc rolls 700 feet away, over a cliff, and into cow poo.

The interference rule trumps it. And the Rules Q&A supports that interpretation.

The interference rule trumps it. And the Rules Q&A supports that interpretation.



How so? I read nothing like that in the Q&A.

There are four pairs of options possible for a disc at rest, in theory, that is not marked yet:
A. Disc is on or not on the playing surface (or basket).
B. Interference has occurred deliberately or not.
- If interference occurs deliberately, disc goes back/remains at location regardless whether on playing surface, basket or suspended at any height then 2m penalty applied if relevant.
- If disc on playing surface/basket and interference not intentional, disc returns to same position
- If disc is at rest (or not) and NOT on playing surface or basket, disc is marked wherever it happens to be when the player gets to it to mark it.
That covers the grid of options. 2m rule or not makes no difference from a marking standpoint, just the penalty.

So to clarify, in order for a disc to be interfered and returned to it's original position it must have not been marked and it must be on the playing surface at rest[i]?


B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface
or supported by the target is moved, the
disc shall be replaced as close as possible
to its original location, as determined by
a majority of the group or an offi cial. [i]
If a marker disc is moved, the marker disc
shall be replaced as close as possible to
its original location determined by a
majority of the group or an official.

Yet, If a disc comes to rest in a tree (not on the playing surface, esentially still in play and hypthetically flying) over two meters and is moved "before" it has been marked and even though it is clearly O.B. by a disc that comes flying out of nowhere and hits it out, you get to play it where it lies, no matter where it lies.... Unless you declare and un-playable lie....

Is this right?

Yep

So is there such thing as a provisional mark??/

In other words:

Can you run 200 feet into the fairway and mark your disc after your drive and before someone elses drive if it is hanging in a tree over a cliff on the edge before someone else drives and it falls out in order to avoid marking it at the bottom of a 100 foot deep ravine?

It seems to me that the interpretation that I got from the official to place it back in the tree with a penalty stroke makes some sense....

In the same way you are expected to clear a basket after you complete a putt, you could indicate that you want to mark your lie to make sure your disc doesn't interfere with the next person's throw. Then, you could remain there as a spotter. Seems reasonable.

There are four pairs of options possible for a disc at rest, in theory, that is not marked yet:
A. Disc is on or not on the playing surface (or basket).
B. Interference has occurred deliberately or not.
- If interference occurs deliberately, disc goes back/remains at location regardless whether on playing surface, basket or suspended at any height then 2m penalty applied if relevant.
- If disc on playing surface/basket and interference not intentional, disc returns to same position
- <font color="red"> If disc is at rest (or not) and NOT on playing surface or basket, disc is marked wherever it happens to be when the player gets to it to mark it. </font>
That covers the grid of options. 2m rule or not makes no difference from a marking standpoint, just the penalty.



You have simply repeated your position, one which I do not agree with, and have cited rules to argue with. For example, I have cited 803.08 (A) which states, in part:


A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it.


Nothing in this language requires the player to have gotten to the location yet, or to have marked it. Nothing in the remaining text implies that either.

I agree, and my point for bringing up the running up and marking it idea is in violation with the order of play rule. So to me it makes since that if a disc in interfered with by another players disc it should be returned to it original position as close as possible in order to mark the lie. That is how I have had the rule interpreted on my group and I think it was correct, especially considering common sense. Mother nature is one thing. If it falls on its own so be it. But if it is assisted, it should be returned....

That's true whether you land in a tree, or land ob, or land in disc eating schule or land in nasty schule.



Disc-eating schule usually treats all shots the same. OB definitely does.

Not at all. You can land in the one spot in the disc eating schule where a deer camped the night before and the grass is flattened and there you are: no lost disc. I have. Sometimes you skip off o.b. Sometimes you get that one in a million shot that hits a crack in the o.b. pavement or a passing turtle in the o.b. pond and you don't skip at all.

How would a round of golf go if everyone in the group kept running up to mark their lie every time it landed in a shrub, tree or other type of above the playinfg surface object? Not very fast, and with many arguments....

A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nothing in this language requires the player to have gotten to the location yet, or to have marked it. Nothing in the remaining text implies that either.


It very much does matter because this phrase is only valid at the point in time that the player is prepared to mark it. That's the part you're missing along with the Disc Knocked from the Tree Q&amp;A which indicates a disc dropping down from above the playing surface before it's marked is still changing its lie. The rule you mention can't be applied until you reach it. It's time dependent just like you can't call a foot fault until someone is throwing. It's similar to the reason you move quickly to retrieve your disc if it's stuck in the side of the basket. If it pops out, you haven't holed out.

So how about order of play?

The answer to all of these questions is clear ... banish the 2 meter rule. The idea that it is like OB and can be at the TD's decision is absurd. Can a TD make some tres with 2 meter and some without it? Again ... either it is or it isn't a rule. Come on PDGA ... step up the plate here and banish the rule!

Can a TD make some trees with 2 meter and some without it?


Yes, exactly like they have to do with bodies of water.

Yes it states this clearly in the rules. The two meter rule can be for all obsacles or just one or whatever in particular

So how about order of play?



What about it? Your throw is not over until it's marked, if it's necessary to do so by the choice of any player in the group.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Chuck, you just keep repeating things like "this phrase is only valid at the time the player is prepared to mark it" like it is truth. It is your interpretation, not stated in either the rule itself, or in the Q&amp;A. I agree that there may well be arguments within a group about whether a disc 300 feet away is at rest or not, but if there is agreement, they can certainly use 803.08 (A) to mark the disc below the disc came to rest.

Furthermore, I would argue that if the two meter rule is not in effect, then 803.08 (B - D) are not in effect, and in no way could be used to argue anything about intent, and also take the Q&amp;A out of the equation, leaving one with the language in A for guidance, the same language that states that if a disc comes to rest above the playing surface, its lie SHALL be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the group makes the determination that the disc was at rest, at any time after the throw, one correctly marks it below the disc, no matter what happens later, unless (C) is invoked, which trumps A, in my way of seeing things at least.

edited to note that (C) can only be invoked if the 2-meter rule was in effect. Poor writing.

It's an incorrect interpretation James and the correct logic sequence has been presented. Your rules are red herrings in relation to the core factors which were presented in the grid. It's not restating my position but echoing the interpretation of the RC. DIsc knocked out of the tree is not just the ruling in relation to whether 2m is in force but any disc not on the playing surface. I think they made that clear.

"Shall be marked" indicates it shall be done "at the time" it can be done which can't happen until you are ready to mark it.

As pointed out, players may go to their disc and mark it if they or the group wishes that it be done before the next player throws. However, if the player is walking to mark it and the disc drops down and rolls, where it ends up is where it will be marked.

Round and round we go. ;)

You have presented me with a Q&amp;A that requires the 2 meter rule to be in effect in the first place, and essentially restates 803.08(C), which not coincidentally also requires the 2 meter rule to be in place AND requires that the disc is above meters. The whole ruling, or more specifically, the actual rule 803.08(C) is in my view, an attempt to formally recognize a unique set of circumstances, and more specifically to institutionlize a benefit of the doubt ruling when the following conditions apply:
1. The 2 meter rule is in effect;

2. The disc falls to below 2 meters before the a non-delaying player has marked it.

Nothing more can be inferred from the rule (and Q&amp;A). They are merely guidance for a specific set of circumstances. If we want to infer, why not infer that the rule used to be that the disc was played at a new location, but that rule was taken out. Therefore, I infer that the RC wanted the disc to be marked where it came to rest, unless of course, the conditions set out in (C) are met.

ps. I have no idea what the RC intended, all I know is that the present rules language in no way prevents a player from marking his disc below where it came to rest, even if it later rolled 700 feet away, as long as the group agreed that the disc came to rest .

all I know is that the present rules language in no way prevents a player from marking his disc below where it came to rest, even if it later rolled 700 feet away, as long as the group agreed that the disc came to rest.



Only if the player is in position to mark is that rule used. The group can't truly see if a disc is at rest until they are as close as they can get to it. If a squirrel knocks the disc down as the player is standing under it about to place a marker, then your rule is in effect and the player gets the mark straight down, not where the fallen disc ends up. Your interpretation is inconsistent with the other rules and would create a scenario where the same throw and interference may be treated differently whether the 2m penalty is being used or not.

There is no inconsistency with the grid as presented and supported by the RC. You want to narrow the Q&amp;A only to 2m even though the title is "disc knocked out of tree." But the only difference in the two scenarios is whether a penalty is called, not whether a disc is suspended at any height. Per 803.10F on fairness, the logical extension of an existing rule, i.e. the 2m disc suspended rule, generalizes it to all lies above the playing surface (other than on the basket) regardless whether the 2m penalty is in effect.

I'm not very bright when it comes to all of these rules, but I would like to pose another scenario. Last year at Hotlanta we were faced with a similar situation. All four players in my group put there drives within 30 ft. The guy furthest out took his shot. His putt came to rest hanging on the nubs at the top of the discatcher. It was supported by the basket, but hanging outside. The player chose to not mark his lie and left the disc hanging. Me and player #3 putted, made our putts and didn't change his lie. The last guy to putt hit player #1's disc. The disc fell into the basket and player #4's putt missed. What is the ruling?

We scored it as a birdie for players 1-3 and a par for player 4. Since player 1 didn't mark his lie and caused player 4 to miss his putt, should we have stroked him for interference?

Player 4 caused player 4 to potentially miss the putt. P4 needed to ask P1 to remove his disc which would complete the hole and remove the interference. Player 1 had technically holed out as soon as player 2 putted. But if it fell off the nubs before player 2 putted, it would have been a miss for P1 by not removing the shot from the basket to complete the hole. Once P2 putted, the P1 disc was officially at rest and its position couldn't be changed by the action of another player or even wind.

So player 1 should have taken a three? Or should he have been penalized for not finishing the hole properly? He took a 2, but maybe it should have been a 5.

There's no penalty involved at all for anyone. The only one who was foolish is the player whose putt hung on the nubs and didn't retrieve his disc. Player 2 made it easy for him though since as soon as P2 putted, P1 had essentially holed out no matter what happened.

Where was the hanging putt?
On the top assembly or the basket?

It sounds like it was hanging off the top, but discatchers don't have nubs on the top.

Top assembly. It wasn't supported by the actual basket. It may not have been a discatcher. It was an older basket that we used to have at Lenora Park in Atlanta.

In that case, Player 1 also got a par 3 not a 2 since the position of his disc hanging from the top could not be changed by any action even if knocked in the basket by another player's putt per Interference rule. Still no interference penalty. My original explanation was based on Player 1's disc hanging from the nubs on the basket itself.

Player 1 never finished the hole though. Shouldn't he have still marked his lie, picked up his disc out of the basket and then proceeded to hole out. The way it was, player 4 holed out for him. Player 1 just picked his disc out of the basket and went to the next hole.

Player 1 never finished the hole though. Shouldn't he have still marked his lie, picked up his disc out of the basket and then proceeded to hole out.


Yes. That's what I just posted so he would get the 3.

Maybe I misunderstand. How does he get the 3 if he never officially holed out? His second shot was left hanging on the upper part of the basket. Had he marked that shot and proceeded to hole out then a 3 is right. The fact is he never marked his disc and allowed somebody else to hole out for him. If you don't complete a hole isn't that a 2 stroke penalty?

I'm sorry. I meant he did need to mark and drop in like you said to get the 3. Since he didn't hole out properly, he would get a 4. Since he was presumed to have holed out for a 2 which was found to be incorrect, he gets that score plus a 2-shot penalty for a 4 per 803.13.

Thanks. I won't let that happen again. My confusion came because I assumed the top of the basket was above the "playing surface" and it was still a live disc. As a courtesy, and assuming we knew the rules, should player 1 have marked his disc prior to player 2 putting? Is there any rule that requires someone to mark there disc in this situation?

As a courtesy, and assuming we knew the rules, should player 1 have marked his disc prior to player 2 putting? Is there any rule that requires someone to mark there disc in this situation?


Player 1 isn't required to mark unless another player asks but is allowed to do it as a courtesy. Player 1 has no risk because their disc location is fixed regardless if it gets hit by another player's throw. The other players would be smart to request player 1 to mark for the very reason you posted where player 4 hit the disc and missed the putt.

Just sounds like one more reason to get rid of the rule that DROTs don't count.

Karl

Yes it states this clearly in the rules. The two meter rule can be for all obsacles or just one or whatever in particular



That is rediculous in my opinion. Either it is or it isn't. Water is different becuase you are talking about casual versus a regualr body of water. Nobody would ever say a lake is not OB. Again I think optional rules are dumb. Either it is or it isn't.

No mando rule then? No choices on where to take your lie on going OB? All water is automatically OB, even when it rains and leaves puddles?

Nice subtle shift there Chuck. At first, you argued that the disc had to be marked before it fell, or it would be played from where it fell and rolled to. Now, you state


The group can't truly see if a disc is at rest until they are as close as they can get to it. If a squirrel knocks the disc down as the player is standing under it about to place a marker, then your rule is in effect and the player gets the mark straight down, not where the fallen disc ends up.


Apparently, you now recognize that "marking the disc" is not the important point of time. In this, you are correct. As long as the group, at some point in time, makes the determination that the disc was at rest, it may be marked below where it was at rest.

You assume that a group cannot make that determination unless they are "as close as they can get to it," whatever that means. The reality is that the determination of whether a disc has come to rest is made by each individual, using their own judgement. Nothing prevents an individual from making that call 30 feet away or 200 feet away. If someone concludes that the disc wedged in that tree is at rest, they can do it from whereever they choose.

So, if a group determines that the disc was at rest, the player shall mark it on the playing surface beneath that spot, even if the disc falls out and rolls 700 feet away as the group approaches it. The only exception to the previous statement is when the two meter ruling is in effect, and the disc falls, unassisted, to a position below two meters before a non-delaying player gets to the spot below the suspended disc.

"It's similar to the reason you move quickly to retrieve your disc if it's stuck in the side of the basket. If it pops out, you haven't holed out."

Doesn't this count as holing out? That is the way I have played it, according to 803.07B. Scenario: my putt sticks in the side of the basket, it definitely comes to rest for a moment, no need to run and grab it since if it were to fall it gets replaced.

No need to argue. I'll be talking with Carlton soon about other items and will bring this up. I'm pretty sure he won't provide the inconsistent answer you're proposing but we'll see.

Doesn't this count as holing out? That is the way I have played it, according to 803.07B. Scenario: my putt sticks in the side of the basket, it definitely comes to rest for a moment, no need to run and grab it since if it were to fall it gets replaced.


If you ask the group to agree the disc is at rest, then you don't need to move quickly. However, if it pops out before getting that 'at rest' call from the group, then the assumption is the disc was not at rest and doesn't count as holing out. I realize that James is attempting the same argument. However, the difference is that one location is the basket which is specifically mentioned as equivalent to the playing surface. However, a disc not on the playing surface is treated differently.

What exactly are you going to ask? In order for you to actually have a position different from mine, you need to define a point in time for making the determination, like you first did with the act of marking; otherwise, you are just asking him "How far away from the disc can a player be before they determine it is at rest?" I doubt anyone wants to go there.

I suspect there will be logistical problems with the "marking it" approach. Something of a chicken-egg scenario: the player can't mark it until the group decides, and the group cannot technically decide until the player has marked it.

The RC already has a position different from yours as expressed in the Q&amp;A which you are limiting to only 2m situations. I expect them to say exactly what I've stated which is that a lie of a disc not on the basket or playing surface is not fixed until player is in a position to mark it and it's declared at rest (unless deliberately interfered with).

I read this whole thread and don't even know what you are arguing about. :p

Ask them to define what "position to mark it" means and fully describe the acceptable logistics of group decisions. For example, if I am supported by a bush, or high grass as Pat has pointed out, must I call the entire group over to determine if the disc is at rest, do they all have to right under it, or next to it, as you implied earlier? What is the exact distance they can be from the disc in order to make that determination? What happens when I run up there and mark it, but the other players tool around, and by the time I can get them within the prescribed distance, it falls and rolls away? These questions don't normally arise when the disc rests on the playing surface, why is that?

The reason I pursue this debate is that I see relatively little difference from the disc on the playing surface, at rest, which gets hit and rolls away and the situation we are discussing. In the first scenario, the group must decide if the disc was at rest. In my experience, this is not difficult and is almost always done from afar. If it was determined to be at rest, then it is marked where it was at rest. If the disc is suspended above the playing surface, you are suggesting that the act of determining if it is at rest must somehow be more complicated.

In summary, in making the determination of whether a disc is at rest, why should a disc resting on tall grass above the surface, resting in a small bush, or resting high up in a tree be treated any differently than the disc resting on the playing surface? That is inconsistent, imo.

No mando rule then? No choices on where to take your lie on going OB? All water is automatically OB, even when it rains and leaves puddles?



Regarding Mandos ...
Those are rediculous too ... design the course so that you can't throw is a specific direction otherwise there shouldn't be a mando. I throw a lot of thumbers and I've seen some courses where the designer or TD just wants to eliminate that shot so they make a mando through some tunnel. That is bad design, change the hole so that the thumber isn't there, don't make some arbitrary mando. The only exception is if it is dangerous to another tee box or something (I only agree to that because a lot of these courses aren't design with safety in mind).

Regarding the OB rain puddles ...
That's an absurd assumption. Of course casual water isn't OB. That is different than a tree. A tree can't grow up out of the ground in the middle of the round or right before an event.

Again ... either it is a rule or it isn't. Just make up your (PDGA) mind.

In summary, in making the determination of whether a disc is at rest, why should a disc resting on tall grass above the surface, resting in a small bush, or resting high up in a tree be treated any differently than the disc resting on the playing surface? That is inconsistent, imo.



i am in agreement with james here. at rest should be at rest, meaning no longer moving under it's own momentum.

It is a rule. The designer and TD determines where to apply it like many other choices for what or where will be OB. They decide what branches and brush and trees will be removed, grass will be cut, the location of tees and location of the pins. These are all options provided by the rules and the 2m is just one of several.

i am in agreement with james here. at rest should be at rest, meaning no longer moving under it's own momentum.


I don't disagree nor does the RC. However, the call is made at the time a player is in position to mark below it or remove the disc from the basket. Until that time, the 'at rest' call isn't needed. That's really the fundamental disagreement is when the 'at rest' call can be made.

Here's an example of inconsistency for the same shot. Player tees off on a hole where an IB tree is near OB and the 2m penalty in effect. Throw disappears high in the tree. The other three in the group call the disc at rest with thrower protesting. Before they get to the tree, the disc falls to the ground safe inbounds. Player forced to take 2m penalty due to being out voted in the group.

Same situation but no 2m penalty. Thrower asks group for an 'at rest' call for his disc high in the tree because he's worried the disc might drop and roll into the OB water. Group won't give it to him saying they can't see it. Halfway to the tree the disc drops down and the group sees it land IB half in the water. The thrower wants an 'at rest' call but the group can't see it well and won't call it. By the time they get there a small wave from a passing boat had pulled the disc fully into the water OB. Is it right that the player gets the OB penalty?

My point is there's too much power given to the group over the fate of the player if the 'at rest' call is given any time before the group can see it well AND the player can take action to mark it or remove it.

It is a rule. The designer and TD determines where to apply it like many other choices for what or where will be OB. They decide what branches and brush and trees will be removed, grass will be cut, the location of tees and location of the pins. These are all options provided by the rules and the 2m is just one of several.



Not debating weather or not it is a rule. Just saying in my opinion it is a bad one.

Here's an example of inconsistency for the same shot. Player tees off on a hole where an IB tree is near OB and the 2m penalty in effect. Throw disappears high in the tree. The other three in the group call the disc at rest with thrower protesting. Before they get to the tree, the disc falls to the ground safe inbounds. Player forced to take 2m penalty due to being out voted in the group.


This scenario violates the established rule, which, as you know, specifically allows for the determination of "at rest" by the group to be delayed until the thrower has reached their disc. If the thrower was a masochist, or wanted to tank their rating, they could sprint to the disc, and the group could make the call from 200 feet away. It only requires the thrower to be at the disc.



Same situation but no 2m penalty. Thrower asks group for an 'at rest' call for his disc high in the tree because he's worried the disc might drop and roll into the OB water. Group won't give it to him saying they can't see it. Halfway to the tree the disc drops down and the group sees it land IB half in the water. The thrower wants an 'at rest' call but the group can't see it well and won't call it. By the time they get there a small wave from a passing boat had pulled the disc fully into the water OB. Is it right that the player gets the OB penalty?


What is your concern here?. The rules, nor I, have ever claimed that the group must make the call from afar. If they cannot, they cannot; but if they can, they can.


My point is there's too much power given to the group over the fate of the player if the 'at rest' call is given any time before the group can see it well AND the player can take action to mark it or remove it.



Are you also worried that there is too much power given to the group to determine if a disc on the playing surface is at rest? or to make any other call for that matter? It's the nature of our rules: group determinations always exert a power on the thrower. Foot faults, OB determinations, 2 meter determinations. "At rest" calls are no different.

The inconsistency of rulings introduced by allowing the group to make 'at rest' calls from any distance before the player is ready to take action for retieval or marking is minimized if the interference rules are followed per the rule Q&amp;A and the location of the disc on the playing surface / basket vs suspended as I clarified in the grid posted earlier. Since we rely on judgment calls as it is for rulings, your insistence that a long range 'at rest' call is allowed is trumped by the consistency of what the RC properly indicated in their interpretations. But we'll see from the RC.

As I stated earlier, your concern about consistency between calls on suspended discs only introduces an inconsistency between at rest calls for suspended discs and discs on the surface. Your interpretation also adds needless confusion. Here is an example. A disc is thrown and lands in the high grass on the edge of the slope, visably at rest to all reasonable players. The next disc hits it and the disc rolls down the slope into the water. Using your interpretation, the group is left wondering: "well, we know the disc was at rest, but we don't know if it was on the playing surface, what do we do?"

Your interpretation needlessly complicates things. Mine treats all "at rest" calls the same, with the one logical exception, when the 2-meter rule is in effect and the disc in question appears to be suspended above two meters. Waiting to make the call until the group is there makes sense for these unique situations because 2 meter rulings, unlike "at rest" rulibngs, often require closer inspection and it clarifies that in this particular case, the benefit goes to the player.

I don't disagree that the 'at rest' rule produces confusion such as this and apparently conflicts with the rule regarding a disc on the playing surface or not. The RC hasn't directly made it clear which takes precedence other than their hint with the Rule Q&amp;A. In your example, the concept that allows the player to get the benefit of the doubt would favor use of the 'at rest' rule as backup for that call since the group couldn't tell whether the disc was suspended or not.

It's a matter of logical rule precedence in the same way the missing a mando call takes precedence over the OB rule when a disc misses a mando and lands OB on the same throw. The rules don't expressly indicate this priority but its apparent because the disc missed the mando first during its flight but OB can't be called until the disc has landed. In the same way, the call for disc being on playing surface or not needs to be made, IF POSSIBLE, before the 'at rest' call with the 'at rest' call backing up the playing surface call if it can't be made. This time sequence is the core disagreement here to be cleared up with the RC.

I'm not only worried about logistical consistencies, I'm worried about philsopical and fairness inconsistencies. Namely, why is a disc on the ground that is hit and rolls away marked where it rested while one two inches up in a bush is not. In order to explain this to a newbie requires some contorted explanation which takes me to a RC ruling and extrapolates, but never gives me any logical explanation. By logical explanation, I mean one where the newbie goes "Yes, that makes sense."

Alternatively, I can tell the newbie, that "All discs determined to be at rest before they rolled away are marked either where they were or below where they were, with one exception. The reason for this one exception is that the determination of 2 meters usually requires closer inspection, when compared to a determination of "at rest." The newbie will go "Yes, that makes sense."

Because there is no rule that allows a player to put the disc back where it was.

The basic rule is 803.03.A. The rule states that the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until lie is established by placing the marker disc on the playing surface touching the edge of the thrown disc. This would be where the disc was at rest when the player reached the disc, since the physical presence of the thrown disc is needed and that the disc must be left before marking.

There are then two exceptions added later in the rules for situations where the above general rule is not in force.

One is when a disc is at rest but suspended above the playing surface when the player reaches it (803.08.A). The player is then unable to place a marker on the playing surface touching the edge so additional instructions are required. He places the marker directly beneath the center of the disc, not touching the edge.

The other is when the the disc is at rest on the playing surface or target (804.07.B) and is moved. The RC has granted relief from subsequent movement in these two specific situations, no other situations are protected from movement by the rules.

Namely, why is a disc on the ground that is hit and rolls away marked where it rested while one two inches up in a bush is not.


In the field, it's unlikely these would be called differently because it's unlikely the group could see the difference whether this disc was on the playing surface or not. If that disc that was a few inches above the playing surface was struck and moved, the call would likely be in favor of the 'at rest on the playing surface' and moved back to its approximate location, that's assuming players could even observe that one disc hit another and moved in the first place.

I tried to get the RC to specify a time such as a three count when a disc could be declared at rest, but they refused to do so. Part of the problem is that it's hard to write words to define the complete meaning of 'at rest' even though it might seem simple. When a disc is captured by the chains and they are both swinging with the wind, the disc is not 'at rest' per some normal definition and yet we accept that as functionally at rest so the player can remove the disc.

OK, what if the disc was six inches up, and clear enough for the group to tell is wasn't on the surface. Now, we are right back to treating them differently. I see no reason why you wouldn't want to embrace an interpretation that brings consistency to the game, rather than embrace one that introduces inconsistency.

Our game is played in reference to the playing surface and rules are oriented that way. So the rules bias is towards any disc not on it as fair game for moving until it's time to mark it on the playing surface. You can disagree with that point of view but we'll see what the RC has to say about it. I understand the apparent inconsistencey where 'at rest' should result in the same consequences if the disc is then moved regardless where it is. But I believe the RC has made the distinction between on vs above the playing surface a higher priority.

Fair enough assessment. I think that would be a misplaced priority, and needlessly creates confusion, but sometimes things go that way.

"At rest" would most consistently be interpreted like GPS. That way altitude doesn't matter and position would be consistent with the no two meter rule. We have previously been biased by the "Play it where it lies" mentality of ball golf. This was never applicable to disc golf anyway. We never play it where it lies. We mark a foot placement where the disc was globally positioned. Changing position (east, west, north, south) matters. Falling from a tree would not.

As to the call when the 2 meter rule is in effect: historically, it was...you took a "reasonable" amount of time to get to your lie. Then 30 seconds to throw. If your disc fell and you could mark it and throw within that same 30 seconds, no penalty. Another interpretation was, "once you mark it, play it". No clue what it is now.

What ever happened to common sense....

On this one, I don't much care what the RC says. Disc in tree, disc on grass, disc on dirt. If it gets moved you put it back as close as possible. If it is in a tree, you put it back where it would have been spotted after the 2M penalty, or as close as possible. Why do we insist on making this hard?

Why do we insist on making this hard?



Because then everyone would know the rules and then no one could find a loophole to wiggle through.

/conspiracy theory off

Mikey's dying to post that the rule is twisted that way because more Innova discs fall out of trees than any others...

(and it's likely that's true :D)

LOL

What ever happened to common sense....

On this one, I don't much care what the RC says. Disc in tree, disc on grass, disc on dirt. If it gets moved you put it back as close as possible. If it is in a tree, you put it back where it would have been spotted after the 2M penalty, or as close as possible. Why do we insist on making this hard?



Exactly!

I have been in three different situations since I began playing where we ruled as such. If a disc directly contacts a disc we always put it back as close as possible to where it was (interference). If it happens to be in a tree and is O.B. then so be it you get put back into the O.B.

What ever happened to common sense....

On this one, I don't much care what the RC says. Disc in tree, disc on grass, disc on dirt. If it gets moved you put it back as close as possible. If it is in a tree, you put it back where it would have been spotted after the 2M penalty, or as close as possible. Why do we insist on making this hard?



Because there is no rule in the book that allows you to replace the disc unless it was at rest on the playing surface.