Interference

[rhatton1]

Specifically 810.F - If a player or their equipment interferes with their own throw, the player is assessed one penalty throw. The disc is played where it first comes to rest. See 810.E for intentional interference.

Watching this footage - https://youtu.be/x_ZVItWfImE?t=535 (hole 12 putting out, if the timestamp doesn't work)

Does your mini (or previously thrown disc if no mini used) count as your equipment if laying flat on the ground in the position it has marked your shot. Is it still part of the same "throw" and so if hit wouldn't constitute interference?

Or would you be expected to pick it up as Brian does here in the video?

For me the marker disc would still be part of the overall throw and you should not receive a penalty if your thrown disc hits it.

(Looks like his towel was later hit so probably should have received a 1 shot penalty for that.)

 

[JC17393]

I think the marker, being where it is due to the rules of the game rather than an explicit choice by the player, doesn't have to be moved to prevent it from being struck by a moving disc. The marker in that instant is the same as any other player's disc on the playing surface, and since there would be no penalties assessed if the thrown disc struck another player's disc, striking the marker shouldn't incur a penalty for the thrower.

The towel is a trickier question. The rule says "interference" which leaves things open to interpretation, I think. Is it really interference if the disc rolls right over the towel without stopping or even slowing down (which appears to be the case in the video)? I'd say if the rolling disc struck the towel or the other disc laying with it and clearly slowed down, changed directions, or came to a stop as a result, then it is interference and a penalty could be assessed. But if it doesn't do any of those things even if it makes slight contact, I'd be more hesitant to assign a penalty.

 

[rhatton1]

The towel is a trickier question. The rule says "interference" which leaves things open to interpretation, I think. Is it really interference if the disc rolls right over the towel without stopping or even slowing down (which appears to be the case in the video)? I'd say if the rolling disc struck the towel or the other disc laying with it and clearly slowed down, changed directions, or came to a stop as a result, then it is interference and a penalty could be assessed. But if it doesn't do any of those things even if it makes slight contact, I'd be more hesitant to assign a penalty.

One of the rare times I'd disagree with you here.

IMO There doesn't need to be a shade of grey in the ruling nor, again IMO, does the wording really open itself to any.

It hits your equipment, it's interference. No one knows what effect the touch will have, without the towel touch maybe the disc may have accelerated, bounded over the rock which actually stopped it in a majestic salmon like gravity defying leap and rolled 100' away.

There's no requirement for any interpretation of what justifies interference if it is as clear as "disc hits your stuff, it's a stroke penalty." Keep it clear so there can be no judgement calls that might favour one group one way and another another. I liked the change on this wording so it did exactly that from the old definition which was too open to judgement.

There will be really unfortunate cases (like this would have been if indeed it did hit the towel and he had been called on it) but it gives a more level playing field which is what the rules are there for.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Imo, the marker is fine if left where it sits. I dont think you should be required to move it out of the way because it is in play and therefore has to be there. A bag/towel/cart/birdie bag/umbrella doesn't have to be there and in the way.

I think leaving the towel there should be treated like leaving your bag/cart there. You are responsible for making sure your equipment is not in the way of a disc in play. I also think there shouldn't be a grey area of whether or not the equipment actually caused it to stay in or go out of bounds. It hit it. Penalty.

 

[biscoe]

IMO if the equipment is where it is supposed to be (behind the player's lie) and the disc strikes it there should be no foul. The rule is unfortunately not written as such (shocker). The result of the disc rolling over the towel should be immaterial either way. I don't really see the point in differentiating between a player interfering with their own shot and 'intentional interference". Player should not be penalized for a random occurrence of a disc rolling back behind their lie- if that is the case then there is literally nowhere you can leave your equipment to be safe from it.

 

[JC17393]

Thing is, just because the disc passed over the towel doesn't mean it touched it. It could have bounced over it without making contact (especially on a rough terrain like in the video). I think that's where my hesitancy to make a definitive ruling, at least in the hypothetical, comes from. For me, it goes to 801.02 B "Players are expected to call a violation when one has clearly occurred." I'd need to see the disc appreciably slow down or change direction or stop completely due to the towel before I'd say it was clearly interference and deserving a penalty.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I think this is one of the rules where removing the warning was probably a bad idea. In this instance, it probably didn't actually alter the discs course but there is no wiggle room in the rule as written now. It doesn't say alters the path of the disc it just says interferes with. So if it did clearly hit the towel, its a penalty. If its not clear whether it hit the towel, benefit would go to the player. The degree to which the disc was interfered with, if it did clearly hit the towel, doesn't matter under the current rule.

Player should not be penalized for a random occurrence of a disc rolling back behind their lie- if that is the case then there is literally nowhere you can leave your equipment to be safe from it.

I think on a putt like this, the player should assume a rollway is a likely result of a missed putt. So placing any equipment on a more or less direct line from the basket thru the marker on the line of play, wouldn't be a random occurrence.

 

[biscoe]

I think on a putt like this, the player should assume a rollway is a likely result of a missed putt. So placing any equipment on a more or less direct line from the basket thru the marker on the line of play, wouldn't be a random occurrence.

The likelihood of it rolling straight back is no greater than the likelihood of it rolling anywhere else in a roughly 45 degree arc. What you are saying is basically "don't leave your stuff directly behind your lie"- that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[JC17393]

I think this is one of the rules where removing the warning was probably a bad idea. In this instance, it probably didn't actually alter the discs course but there is no wiggle room in the rule as written now. It doesn't say alters the path of the disc it just says interferes with. So if it did clearly hit the towel, its a penalty. If its not clear whether it hit the towel, benefit would go to the player. The degree to which the disc was interfered with, if it did clearly hit the towel, doesn't matter under the current rule.

This isn't a rule that ever had a warning. It wasn't even a rule until last January when the current rule book took effect.

I agree that if it is obvious the disc made contact, then an interference penalty is warranted. My point all along has been that the contact has to be obvious. If it barely brushed the towel on its way by, such that it would take slow mo replay and a super zoom to confirm contact, then it can't justifiably be considered interference.

As to the merits of the rule itself, I think a great deal of players' carelessness with their equipment is rooted in this interference rule being so new. For years, players didn't pay attention to where they left their equipment because the prospect of interference or more specifically, a penalty, was a non-factor. Even if interference was obviously a likely possibility, because of the grey area of "intention" being required, penalties were near impossible to impose.

By and large, I think the current rule is better than the nebulous nature of the old one. I don't think it's a bad thing for players to be penalized if a disc like the one in the video rolls away and strikes them or their equipment. Perhaps habits like the one displayed in the video of leaving equipment laying around need to be broken to comply with the rule rather than the rules being relaxed to accommodate the players. There's no real need to just drop the towel and disc there...they could have been placed with the player's bag, which is nowhere in sight and must not be anywhere close enough to interfere. Or, they could have been set down in a place where the player could pick them up as quickly as he did the mini.

 

[brutalbrutus]

The likelihood of it rolling straight back is no greater than the likelihood of it rolling anywhere else in a roughly 45 degree arc. What you are saying is basically "don't leave your stuff directly behind your lie"- that makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess you have never missed a steep uphill putt before then...:\

 

[brutalbrutus]

This isn't a rule that ever had a warning. It wasn't even a rule until last January when the current rule book took effect.

I agree that if it is obvious the disc made contact, then an interference penalty is warranted. My point all along has been that the contact has to be obvious. If it barely brushed the towel on its way by, such that it would take slow mo replay and a super zoom to confirm contact, then it can't justifiably be considered interference.

As to the merits of the rule itself, I think a great deal of players' carelessness with their equipment is rooted in this interference rule being so new. For years, players didn't pay attention to where they left their equipment because the prospect of interference or more specifically, a penalty, was a non-factor. Even if interference was obviously a likely possibility, because of the grey area of "intention" being required, penalties were near impossible to impose.

By and large, I think the current rule is better than the nebulous nature of the old one. I don't think it's a bad thing for players to be penalized if a disc like the one in the video rolls away and strikes them or their equipment. Perhaps habits like the one displayed in the video of leaving equipment laying around need to be broken to comply with the rule rather than the rules being relaxed to accommodate the players. There's no real need to just drop the towel and disc there...they could have been placed with the player's bag, which is nowhere in sight and must not be anywhere close enough to interfere. Or, they could have been set down in a place where the player could pick them up as quickly as he did the mini.

You're right, I remembered that wrong. The old rule was based on whether the player intentionally placed the equipment in the way, or something like that, right?

 

[Steve West]

I think the marker, being where it is due to the rules of the game rather than an explicit choice by the player, doesn't have to be moved to prevent it from being struck by a moving disc. The marker in that instant is the same as any other player's disc on the playing surface, and since there would be no penalties assessed if the thrown disc struck another player's disc, striking the marker shouldn't incur a penalty for the thrower.

I don't see any wording that would exempt the marker. Also - as demonstrated in the video - it is possible to move it out of the way, and doing so does not violate any other rule.

I reject your CK-like extension of the treatment of other players' thrown discs to your own marker. Besides, the rules don't actually have special treatment for thrown discs in the equipment interference rules. Perhaps they should.

This new own-equipment rule was spawned from the expectation of a lot of pros. There was a phantom rule - which was widely, if not universally, enforced at the highest levels. That non-rule gave two penalty throws for allowing your thrown disc to hit your own equipment. The current rule was put in the rule book to kill the phantom rule. It specifically refers to a player's own equipment so that players who read the rule book know they have found the real rule, and don't assume the two-throw penalty rule is somewhere else in the book.

 

[JC17393]

You're right, I remembered that wrong. The old rule was based on whether the player intentionally placed the equipment in the way, or something like that, right?

The old rule only penalized intentional interference. And in addition to the debate over what was intentional vs not (particularly regarding placing equipment), there was also the debate about whether the rule being about interfering with "another player's disc" meant that it wasn't applicable to interfering with one's own disc.

Now it still requires intent to be penalized for interfering with another player's disc, but any interference with your own comes with a penalty...intent only serving to determine the severity of the penalty.

 

[_MTL_]

My interpretation is that a mini is equipment. I would argue another disc laying on the ground would be equipment too

 

[_MTL_]

I'll add this. The rule is vague. And vagueness sometimes is rightfully criticized. But in this situation, I think it's intentionally vague. Leaving it as just "equipment" instead of a long list of items takes out the chances of missing something odd or unforeseen.

 

[brutalbrutus]

My interpretation is that a mini is equipment. I would argue another disc laying on the ground would be equipment too

Discs or markers establishing the lie shouldn't apply to the penalty though. Now if a player missed a putt and left the marker/disc there, then went to hole out and this happened on the next throw, I would agree.

 

[JC17393]

My interpretation is that a mini is equipment. I would argue another disc laying on the ground would be equipment too

So, what of other players' discs laying in the fairway between the thrower and the target? Are those "equipment" that those players should be taking care to not be in a place where interference might occur? If I make a throw and my disc strikes my cardmate's disc, do I have a case for an interference call against him?

Where I draw the line in terms of what is or isn't equipment for the parameters of the interference rule is whether or not the object is required to be there. Other players don't have to move/remove thrown discs from the playing surface to prevent interference as they would their bags or their carts or themselves. The discs are live and the rules require that they be left in place. Same applies to the thrower's marker disc. Rule dictates that it be exactly where it's sitting when the throw is made. The same can't be said of a towel, or an extra disc, or one's bag.

 

[Steve West]

Discs or markers establishing the lie shouldn't apply to the penalty though. Now if a player missed a putt and left the marker/disc there, then went to hole out and this happened on the next throw, I would agree.

It seems the instinctive thing to do was to snatch the marker out of the way. Why write a rule that goes against that? Is it worth the extra words and complication to make an exception to allow something that a lot of players think should not be allowed?

So, what of other players' discs laying in the fairway between the thrower and the target? Are those "equipment" that those players should be taking care to not be in a place where interference might occur? If I make a throw and my disc strikes my cardmate's disc, do I have a case for an interference call against him?

Good question. It would seem adding "except discs in play" would be warranted.

Where I draw the line in terms of what is or isn't equipment for the parameters of the interference rule is whether or not the object is required to be there. Other players don't have to move/remove thrown discs from the playing surface to prevent interference as they would their bags or their carts or themselves. The discs are live and the rules require that they be left in place. Same applies to the thrower's marker disc. Rule dictates that it be exactly where it's sitting when the throw is made. The same can't be said of a towel, or an extra disc, or one's bag.

The throwers marker is different than thrown discs. While the marker needs to be in place when the throw is made, as soon as the disc is released there is no requirement to leave it there. You don't get penalized for picking up your marker while the disc is still in flight.

So for now, getting your own marker out of the way is the way to go.

Now, to speculate about a better rule. If we make the exception for discs in play, it would make sense to also exempt a non-throwing player's marker from interfering with another player's throw. If we did that, it might make sense to also exempt the player's own marker.

 

[IHearChains]

It seems the instinctive thing to do was to snatch the marker out of the way. Why write a rule that goes against that?
....
The throwers marker is different than thrown discs. While the marker needs to be in place when the throw is made, as soon as the disc is released there is no requirement to leave it there.

Two points:

It is not reasonable to expect a player to quickly remove the mini AND then run to the bag/cart/towel/etc, wherever that happens to be, and move that too, all in the space of a couple of seconds.

The marker may be used to establish the lie in case of an optional rethrow. So it does have a purpose for being there, even after the throw.

For these reasons I would argue that the marker disc is different from other equipment and should be treated like any other disc or marker that is in play. No penalty.

 

[_MTL_]

So, what of other players' discs laying in the fairway between the thrower and the target? Are those "equipment" that those players should be taking care to not be in a place where interference might occur? If I make a throw and my disc strikes my cardmate's disc, do I have a case for an interference call against him?

I'm not sure why this matters.

810F clarifies that "If a player or their equipment interferes with their own throw, the player is assessed one penalty throw."

So if YOUR equipment, like your disc in the fairway, hits my shot, this rule doesn't apply.

And there's no way this would ever be intentional.