You're standing on a steep hill looking up at the basket. You've got a tricky 30 foot putt with some low branches you've got to traverse. You line up and let go. Your disc glides nicely, winds through the branches, and slams chains! But wait, the disc rolls out right, lands on edge, and starts rolling towards you.

Here's the first part of my question; Are you required to move if it looks like your disc will hit you or your disc bag?

Here's the second part of my question; If you are required to move, what rule describes this?

Here's the third part; What if you are unable to move because of an akward stance such as balancing on a steep incline, or you simply don't have time to react?

This situation happened to me, and I wasn't able to move in time. The only thing I could think of to say to my group was "Sorry".

803.07 Interference covers it but not completely. It will depend on your group's interpretation whether you "consciously" altered the path of the disc and deserve a 2-throw penalty for contact or interfering with your bag.

what about the 'backstop' thing? have heard of people asking a friend to act as a backstop if their putt might fly by and go into an unrecoverable area (deep water, cliff, etc). I've never seen it done but have heard of it and the person throwing would be saying that they are taking the OB if the 'backstop' has to catch it. I personally wouldn't be comfortable allowing it in tournament play since it changes the circumstances of the shot. putting with a chance of OB and losing a disc puts a huge pucker factor on the player... maybe they'll be safer or maybe they'll go for it but use something other than their favorite putter. With the backstop I think it adds a level of confidence that would assist the player with making the putt.

would the interference rule apply here or is there another rule? cheating maybe?

For the original question, I'd consider ruling it interference, with the call/no call decision based subjectively on how reasonable it would have been for the player to avoid contact. Considering the time it took for disc to get to his location, whether it went straight at him or swerved, and whether his footing gave him a chance to move---if he could easily avoid contact but didn't, I'd consider it a conscious act of interference.

Stack,

No one, should they be a competitor, official, or spectator, should interfere with a disc that has not yet come to rest. If a competitor asks a non-competitor to intentionally interfere with said competitor's disc, my interpretation is that would be a circumvention of the Rules [see Rule 804.05A(3)].

Now, if that certain non-competitor was standing in the OB area, that may sway some's conclusions, but the intent was the same: to prevent or decrease the likelihood of losing a disc, and my conclusion would not change.

Here's one for you. Is it against the Rules for someone to set up beforehand a device that will retrieve the disc once it has come to rest? For example, casting a net out in the water where one's shot could go, then retrieving the disc if it goes in the water and comes to rest on top of the net.

I don't think that this would be against the Rules, just as having a Golden Retriever in your bag would not be against the Rules, since both devices would not be used until the disc has come to rest, or is moving only by the action of the water (803.03F).

However, using a backstop, or anything that affects the flight/movement of a disc before the disc comes to rest would not be allowable, IMO. Of course, this only applies to actions taken during the round. If the TD allowed the installation of some kind of backstop before the round, that would be OK.

I don't think the rules apply or should apply in the OB area. For example, Feldberg claimed his disc would have come back inbounds if the car (that was likely parked OB on the road during the round) hadn't blocked it from flying back inbounds. Does a player have the right to have objects that became a factor during the round in an OB area moved or just objects inbounds? If not, then by extension, a spotter could be standing OB maybe in water or simply catch a disc completely surrounded by OB before it sinks. In fact, according to the interference rule, the player has the option to rethrow if the interference is intentional (but presumably not planned in advance by player so that a rule was being subverted).

Chuck,

I saw the part of the rule about the option to rethrow if the interference was intentional as well, but I thought that led down a different rabbit trail than the one we were on.

My first inclination when thinking about this situation was that it was OK for a spotter that was in OB to stop a disc that looked like it was probably going to be lost, but upon further thought, I referenced the Rules:

803.09 Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-ofbounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area.

A disc is not TRULY OB until it comes to rest (or is moved only by the motion of the water, if the water has been declared OB). In practicality, we know that the disc heading into the open water or down the ravine will be lost, but there is always the possibility that the disc could be deflected IB by a tree limb that is hanging out into the water behind the OB spotter, or the disc in the ravine could go all the way down into an open area, as could have happened in KC, or the player could want to look for it in the ravine so the player would not have the stroke and distance penalty that would result from a lost disc.

If we have spotters, or even a friend of the player, retrieve a disc that has come to rest OB as explained above, I am OK with that, but I am not OK with them preventing a disc that is over an OB area but still moving from becoming a lost disc.

One of the core tenets in DG, IMO, is "play it where it lies", and part of that is to let the disc go to the area it would naturally go, because you really don't have a lie until the disc stops.

Your comments, as always, are welcome.

As for the original question...this is a real problem area.

Consider this: the guy putting sees his disc rolling down towards his bag. He tries to get to his bag to move it out of the way, but gets there late. He grabs his bag and knocks the rolling disc over as he lifts up the bag. That, to me, is interference. Even though the guy really was trying to get his equipment out of the way, he moved his abg at the wrong time and interfered with the disc. It's even worse if its your own disc.

When I am playing a tourney and a disc goes rolling towards my bag, I let it hit my bag because of this. I try not to set my bag downhill of the basket or anywhere where it might likely be in play, but stuff happens. There is nothing in the rules that says I have to run over and grab stuff out the way of a flying or rolling disc, but there is something in the rules that says I can't interfere with it.

If its rolling right at my legs, thats another story. I try to step out of the way, but if its a seeing-eye disc tracking my foot and makes crazy course corrections to hit me anyway...well, then it was pretty obvious what happened there.

John, I think you did the right thing. Grabbing you bad and knocking the disc over, or reaching and slipping and falling to knock the disc down would've, IMHO, been more like interference than just watching the disc go.

thanks for the interpretations/responses... interesting question about casting a net. I would think it would be totally cool/legal and am kind of amazed someone hasn't thought of this for places like hole 17 @ USDGC. If innova wasn't going to do it maybe someone could coordinate to ask for $1 a disc or something small to compensate for the cost of the net (if paying out of pocket) since it would have to be a rather large net.

I also agree about the 'coming to rest' part with Bill and think that would remove any doubt on if someone could catch a disc flying in mid air @ any point. I hate the idea of someone losing a disc but it does change the situation knowing you have someone standing there 'in case' the disc flies by. could be the difference of a few strokes

ok heres another thought ..what if you are playing doubles best shot...you are 60 ft out with a low ceiling with ob water/cliff 15/20 ft behind basket first person lays up for a drop in par.the second person knows they will have to run hard and low to make it so they ask someone to stand at the ob line to stop/deflect/catch a missed hard run.since its obvious they will take the layed up par as there shot to play would there still be a violation?

I saw the part of the rule about the option to rethrow if the interference was intentional as well, but I thought that led down a different rabbit trail than the one we were on.
What I'm saying is that according to the interference rule, the disc is played where it was touched/struck. So if a person like a spotter is OB or reaches into OB when the disc is completely OB but still moving, the disc is legally OB by this rule regardless whether a miracle might have happened where it ended up IB.

Chuck,

I think we need to start a different thread about this instance. I saw what Rhett posted in boldface, and I feel duly chastised.

ok heres another thought ..what if you are playing doubles best shot...you are 60 ft out with a low ceiling with ob water/cliff 15/20 ft behind basket first person lays up for a drop in par.the second person knows they will have to run hard and low to make it so they ask someone to stand at the ob line to stop/deflect/catch a missed hard run.since its obvious they will take the layed up par as there shot to play would there still be a violation?


What I'm saying is that according to the interference rule, the disc is played where it was touched/struck. So if a person like a spotter is OB or reaches into OB when the disc is completely OB but still moving, the disc is legally OB by this rule regardless whether a miracle might have happened where it ended up IB.

as a 'nice guy' i see both of these examples as ways someone could be 'nice' and try to keep someone from losing a disc.

as a competitor going by rules of play I would still see this as giving the putter an unjust edge. if i'm faced with that putt I would go low on purpose to barely make it in or hit basket and stay safe, or take a little something off the putt to not fly by too far or use a backup putter that I might not mind losing... thus changing my shot and having in the back of my head the risk/thought that I might lose the disc.

with a backstop in either situation there then I would have an advantage of not being 'afraid' of going for it. its a mental aspect of the game that I believe would come into play.

This same discussion can be found here in this thread about 3 years old.
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=22429
and
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=23441

This same discussion can be found here in this thread about 3 years old.
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=22429
and
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=23441

none of these discussions had anything to do with my doubles question..you owe me 10 minutes of my life back:)

Doubles has its own set of rules, but what was said above should apply to it as well as medalist play.

Doubles has its own set of rules, but what was said above should apply to it as well as medalist play.

so an interference call on 1 best shot doubles throw applies to both throws?
then why doesnt ob?

thanks for the interpretations/responses... interesting question about casting a net. I would think it would be totally cool/legal and am kind of amazed someone hasn't thought of this for places like hole 17 @ USDGC. If innova wasn't going to do it maybe someone could coordinate to ask for $1 a disc or something small to compensate for the cost of the net (if paying out of pocket) since it would have to be a rather large net.


It seems that if there is something lacking about the USDGC, it is not money. I know that they have turned down willing sponsors before.

OK, so it all depends on what your group interprets as intentional? So because my group didn't feel like I was trying to block my disc from rolling down the hill, I was ok. But if my group decided I should have dove off a cliff to save the line of my disc I would have penalized 2 strokes?

To me, there is a difference between intentionally MOVING to block the path of a disc and a disc moving towards you. If you're posted up, are you required to MOVE out of the way of a disc?

Some locals says that another player has no requirement of moving his legs if a disc from another player is rolling towards them. In fact, I've seen it happen in a tournament. One player waits half way down the hill as the other one putts. When the putt rolls out it's heading right for the other player. The player just stares at it, lets it hit their shoe, and it stops 100 feet from the bottom of the hill. What are your thoughts? Is there a difference between your disc in play and another player's disc in play?

An act of omission can be just as intentional as an act of commission. If a player watches as a disc rolls down a hill and hits them, that would generally be considered an intentional act of interference.