The branch was forked and was both in front of and behind his disc.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2023 Des Moines Challenge
- Thread starter Jolt
- Start date
The branch was forked and was both in front of and behind his disc.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 15,782
Don't move the forkin' branch.
Gannon was forked if he did, forked if he didn't.
Why does the presence of the stick not make the lie different?
Based on the definition of a "lie" I would consider the stick's presence or non-presence a change to the lie, constituting the creation of a "difference" in the lie.
802.05A "The lie is the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw."
The lie is not the playing surface, it is not merely an area of playing surface of a certain size, the lie is the place on the playing surface. If the stick is also on the playing surface within the boundaries of the lie, its absence or presence would be an alteration of the area on the playing surface.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,856
"[T]he lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc."
The stick does not change the rectangle.
I disagree. What you're quoting is a rule 802.05D that appears to exclusively denote the area that the lie occupies in space, but not what the lie is. The reading of the rule makes that clear at the first line: "In all other cases, ..." It is specifically differentiating 802.05D from 802.05B and C, but not 802.05A because we know from years of play that 802.05A and 802.05D are concurrently true during the course of play.
I'm going to just make this a bulleted point list to try to maximize clarity, it felt unwieldy as a paragraph...
1. The lie is defined as on the playing surface. It is not defined as having a vertical depth or thickness in 802.05D. It is a flat plane, 20x30cm, on a playing surface.
2. The casual obstacle that the player is seeking to move is also defined as on the playing surface. Casual obstacles are differentiated from playing surface in 803.01B1, therefore the lie does not in some way change shape to "drape" over the obstacle.
3. The rules do not seem to indicate that the lie and the obstacle stack, therefore I assume that where the obstacle and the lie both touch the playing surface, and since the lie does not conform to "drape" over the obstacle, they are occupying the same space.
4. The lie is defined in 802.05A as "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw" implicating the player's ability to take a stance as a necessary condition of a lie. Where the obstacle is on the surface, a lie cannot exist because a player can not take a lie in that space, due to the occupancy of that space by the obstacle.
5. Removal of the obstacle means that a player can now take a stance in that space, creating a lie where one did not exist before due to the presence of the obstacle.
Therefore the lie is necessarily different from before once the stick is removed.
BillFleming
* Ace Member *
I believe you are missing or ignoring rule 803.01.B.1 Moving Obstacles.
First: The stick (unconnected branch) was a casual object per the above rule.
Second: The stick was on the playing surface.
Third: The stick was where the player might place a supporting point.
The rule says nothing about 'having' to place the supporting point at that spot. Just that the player's supporting point might (may) be placed there.
I'm not ignoring 803.01B1. I explicitly noted 803.01B1 in my post.
The stick is a casual object.
The stick is on the playing surface.
The lie is also on the playing surface.
The key here is 802.05A - which implicates a lie as specifically: "the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw"
The definition necessarily implicates the lie as a place upon which the player takes a stance. If a player can not take a stance in order to throw from a particular spot because a casual object is occupying that space, then there is no lie available to the player in that particular place. When the stick is moved there is no longer a casual object occupying the space, and that becomes a space available for use as a lie - it makes the lie different.
Last edited:
In this particular instance, GB could take a stance on the lie. The stick potentially impeded the stance he could take, but the lie is the 20x30 cm rectangle stick or No stick.
The lie is the same 20x30 cm rectangle stick or No stick.
The rule allows the player to remove casual debris that impedes the stance within the lie.
If there is a casual item within the lie, move it don't, but the lie is the same.
The lie is the same 20x30 cm rectangle stick or No stick.
The rule allows the player to remove casual debris that impedes the stance within the lie.
If there is a casual item within the lie, move it don't, but the lie is the same.
Yup.
802.05.D In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc.
You seem to be confusing lie and stance. The wording of A is not clear. Read B, C and D, and it becomes much more clear. D specifically states:
D. In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc.
Therefore a player takes a stance ON the lie, the lie never changes. That is why a player is able to move an object within the lie, so that the player can take a stance on the lie.
I already addressed this in an earlier post. D is clearly purely associated with describing the position of the lie. It does not define what a lie is. The first line makes this clear - because it is in contrast to B and C but we know it would NOT be in contrast to A by virtue of having played disc golf. It is clearly focused on the boundaries, not what the construct of a lie IS. That is for A.
The lie necessarily is changed by the ability of a player to take a stance on any particular space on the lie, because a lie is defined in part by a players ability to take a lie. Its boundaries don't change, but the overall space it occupies does.
Last edited:
Just because the boundaries do not change does not mean that the lie does not change.
To back you up, Gannon Buhr had a situation, IIRC, at DGLO hole 18 last year. His disc came to rest on the bag of a spectator. He was informed that he could chose to remove the bag (after which his lie would have been on the grass underneath the bag.) Instead, he chose to mark the disc on the bag and place his foot on the bag for the throw. The lie was on the bag, which at that time became the playing surface.
He basically did it for the memes. It had essentially no impact on any outcome, except maybe his next contract value.
If one doubts that the bag was the playing surface, realize that otherwise he didn't take a legal stance. His foot was entirely on the bag and nothing else.
A is general, B, C and D describe what the lie IS in specific language.
A is more concerned with defining the playing surface, not the lie. That is left for B, C, and D.
If we can get back to the instance with Gannon at Des Moines Challenge, the lie never changed at all by Gannon moving the branch. This had nothing to do with a situation last year. That was more concerned with the rule of verticality than anything else. No?
As I already said to you: I pointed out earlier why the language in the rulebook does not support this interpretation. If you want me to explain it in clearer terms than I did in directly responding to you, please read through the earlier posts.
In sum: The wording of the rulebook does not support what you said here.
This, actually, does not back me up lol. What rule allowed them to determine that the bag became a new playing surface? Was the bag determined to NOT be a casual obstacle? Because a casual obstacle, such as the stick, does not become a new playing surface as casual obstacles are specifically described as being ON the playing surface, differentiated from it.
lol.
It actually exactly supports this interpretation. With the exception of a few words, A describes the STANCE , and B, C, and D describe the LIE in 3 specific and common situations. (as I have already explained to you).
Well, given that "playing surface" isn't clearly defined (I'd say it's intentionally vague), and that we take a stance on top of what could be removed as casual obstacles all the time (leaves, rocks, wood chips, etc.) I'm a little pressed how one could determine that a player was not allowed to take a stance on top of a casual obstacle.
What I understood you to mean was that the lie conforms to the overall surface which is behind the marker disc. Thus the lie behind the marker disc changes based on whether or not the casual obstacle is removed from the lie.
It does not. You can't just hand-wave away the wording of the rules because they're not convenient for your point. The wording of the rules, as it actually exists in the actual rulebook, does not support your point.
Lets look at the actual wording of the 802.05A-D...
Note: since I am using italics to highlight the text of the rules, I will use bold where the PDGA uses italics within the wording of the rules.
802.05.A
The lie is the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw. The playing surface is a surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. If it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision is made by the Director or by an Official.
Immediately your notion that "A describes the STANCE , and B, C, and D describe the LIE" is demonstrated as incorrect by the structure of the rulebook itself. Anywhere that a term is being defined within a rule/subrule throughout the PDGA Rulebook the term being defined is highlighted with additional emphasis (italics in the rulebook, bold here). The exception being terms defined by an entire section of their own. 802.05.A is defining the lie, and it is made explicit through the use of italics in 802.05.A.
Additionally - the rulebook clearly is not defining the stance in this section. Not only is the term stance not highlighted as a term being defined, but the stance is clearly defined by the text under 802.07.A.
In this section (802.05A) the lie is defined. The playing surface is defined. The stance is not. However, the stance is included as a necessary part of defining the lie: the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw ... - if the player is unable to access a point within the lie, the lie necessarily does not exist in that spot within the boundaries of the lie because a stance can not be taken.
802.05.B-C
The lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area.
A drop zone is a lie. A drop zone is an area on the course, as designated by the Director, from which a throw is made under certain conditions. A drop zone may either be marked and played in the same manner as a teeing area, or in the same manner as a marked lie. A teeing area may be used as a drop zone.
All I want to do with 802.05.B-C is take note of their purpose. 802.05.B is outlining where the lie exists on a tee shot, the teeing area (as defined in 802.04). 802.05.C is defining drop zone and then outlining where the lie exists in the event of the use of a drop zone. Both B and C are explicitly about where a drop zone is.
802.05.D
In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc. The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc. The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to 802.06.
You can not ignore the presence of the first four words of the first sentence. "In all other cases" associates 802.05.D and most specifically its first sentence with the prior sub-rules B and C. You can not ignore the wording of the book for convenience. This is crucial. The first four words of the sentence are necessary context for the rest of that very sentence: "In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the playing surface."
It is clearly, just like B and C, defining WHERE the lie exists. It is not defining what a lie is. That is what 802.05A did, specifically in the sentence that included the word in italics denoting it as the spot in the entire book that is defining what a lie is.
The entire argument that the lie does not change because the boundaries or location of the lie do not change is like saying that if I built a gazebo in my backyard I didn't change my backyard because I didn't change its perimeter or move it to another property.
Because the casual obstacle AND the lie are both defined in the rulebook as on the playing surface, and because casual obstacles are explicitly defined as separate from playing surface, the casual obstacle is necessarily making it impossible to "take a stance" (as 802.05.A says), meaning that in spots where the lie and the casual obstacle would both occupy the space "on" the playing surface, the lie necessarily has "holes" in it, so to speak. By removing the stick you eliminate those "holes" by creating a space where a player can "take a stance."
Just because the boundaries remain the same does not mean that the entire composition of the lie stays the same. A lie can change without changing its boundaries, just like my backyard can change without changing its boundaries.
