A Fun List of Odd Rule Uses

[tampora]

I'd like to hear more 'oddities' of the rules.... You know, teebox gossip.
p.s. Thanks, Chuck.

People will disagree with some, all, or none of these. Some people won't care at all. Others will look fondly upon them as a way knowledge of the rule provides an advantage.

OB Relief - If you are less than a meter from OB, you are given (perp.) relief up to one meter away, which you can instead use to move your disc some distance CLOSER to the OB to result in a more favorable lie.

2 Meter Penalty - Even when the two meter rule is in effect, you can land much higher up and still be safe.... provided the top of the basket (a legal playing surface) is less than two meters directly below your disc.

Disc Selection - If you want to use another disc, no rule prevents you from adding to your bag mid-round. You could find a disc, borrow a disc, or even have an Amazon drone deliver it to you during your round (assuming you did it without distracting other players and marked distinguishingly prior to throwing it).

The Crane Putt - This one, you gotta see to believe... 3:05 in THIS VIDEO.

The Optional Rethrow - At any time, for any reason, you can rethrow from the same spot with a 1 throw penalty. If your 10' putt rolled 150' down a huge hill and into a lake, this rule is for you.

Using the Terrain - If something (tree, fence, etc) is behind your lie and your weight doesn't make it move, you could legally use it to hang forwards over your lie and gain a very small distance.

Failing to Hole Out - If your disc is not touching the basket because it is resting on top of another disc, you are not yet holed out.

Double Mandos - While the 'missed line' for a single mando is perpendicular to the line of play to the basket, the rule for a double mando is very different: it connects the two double mando markers and extends to infinity. Theoretically, if the two markers were 'nearly' in line with the basket, you could have legally (i.e. not passed the imaginary line) parked your shot 10' from the pin and still have to backtrack to go through the markers before trying to hole out.

What other weird examples of seldom-used rule applications have other people found?

 

[PWaggoner]

Not really a rule is guess but provides a advantage.

I seen feldberg with a log in front of his lie at the Delaware disc golf challenge. He shocked the crap out of me by jump putting onto the log.

 

[juju]

Failing to Hole Out - If your disc is not touching the basket because it is resting on top of another disc, you are not yet holed out.

lol wut

I understand the rule wording makes it this way, but nobody in their right mind is calling this.

 

[PhattD]

2 Meter Penalty - Even when the two meter rule is in effect, you can land much higher up and still be safe.... provided the top of the basket (a legal playing surface) is less than two meters directly below your disc.

I'd disagree with this one. I don't think it's "reasonable" to take your stance on top of the basket. DROT interpretations have you mark your disc below the basket since the basket itself is not a playing surface.

Playing Surface 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. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision shall be made by the Director or an official.

That being said there could be other things above the ground that would qualify as a playing surface so I think the point is valid, just not the example.

 

[JC17393]

lol wut

I understand the rule wording makes it this way, but nobody in their right mind is calling this.

There's nothing in the rule that says that the disc has to come to rest being directly supported by the target (specifically the bottom and inner wall of the tray). Only that it must be supported. The bottom disc in this proposed scenario can't support the upper disc by itself. The support is coming from the surface it is resting upon. If you magically removed the target, what would happen to both discs? They'd fall. Thus both discs are being supported by the target and both are holed out to the letter of the rule.

 

[juju]

There's nothing in the rule that says that the disc has to come to rest being directly supported by the target (specifically the bottom and inner wall of the tray). Only that it must be supported. The bottom disc in this proposed scenario can't support the upper disc by itself. The support is coming from the surface it is resting upon. If you magically removed the target, what would happen to both discs? They'd fall. Thus both discs are being supported by the target and both are holed out to the letter of the rule.

I agree but can see Chuck interpreting it a different way and making up this non-rule rule.

 

[Pbmercil]

Double Mandos - While the 'missed line' for a single mando is perpendicular to the line of play to the basket, the rule for a double mando is very different: it connects the two double mando markers and extends to infinity. Theoretically, if the two markers were 'nearly' in line with the basket, you could have legally (i.e. not passed the imaginary line) parked your shot 10' from the pin and still have to backtrack to go through the markers before trying to hole out.

Huh? I don't understand what you're talking about. Also at the end you mention backtracking, which isn't how missed mandos are played any more

 

[JC17393]

Huh? I don't understand what you're talking about. Also at the end you mention backtracking, which isn't how missed mandos are played any more

I think I understand what he's getting at, but it is still convoluted and unlikely to ever come up.

This is an illustration of the OP's double mando. The disc hasn't missed a mando yet.

This is how you fix the "problem" with actual effort in course design. The disc missed the second mando.

 

[tampora]

Thank you JC, that's exactly it. I noticed this once in a tournament when the TD mistakenly called a hole a Double mando in the rules sheet, instead of the intended '2 mandos'.

 

[Pbmercil]

AH. I get it now. That would be really dumb.

 

[Dan Ensor]

803.01 B

If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the target, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie

This one comes up more often than you'd think, and most people don't know about it.

 

[JC17393]

803.01 B



This one comes up more often than you'd think, and most people don't know about it.

I don't know. Most people are aware that they don't have to stand in a puddle to make a throw, and if they aren't aware, they certainly ask if the situation arises because no one wants to stand in a puddle if they can avoid it. And a puddle (or other casual water) is the most frequent casual obstacle that is impractical to move.

In my experience, the casual relief rules are more often abused than under-utilized. And by abused, I mean applied or attempted to be applied to situations in which it shouldn't. Like taking relief from a bush or a tree or some other obstacle that is either not at all in one's stance or not qualified to be a casual obstacle.

 

[DavidSauls]

I find the entire existence and use of mini markers to be strange, and a bit silly. No longer mandated, of course, except when relocating the lie. It looks like we're pretending to be golfers, overlooking the fact that unlike golf balls on a green, our disc on the ground is hardly an obstacle to other discs being thrown. Why not dispense with the whole thing and throw from behind our disc as it lies---or replace it if we want to throw that disc again?

Or that the penalty for a lost disc is more severe than throwing O.B.? So much that you have people arguing that their disc must be O.B.---i.e.; thrown where it should not have been---instead of possibly inbounds, but obscured by leaves or underbrush.

Or that you can get relief from ants, but not poison ivy or thorns. (Yeah, I know the rationale for this, and reluctantly agree with it. But it's still odd).

 

[Steve West]

I don't know. Most people are aware that they don't have to stand in a puddle to make a throw, and if they aren't aware, they certainly ask if the situation arises because no one wants to stand in a puddle if they can avoid it. And a puddle (or other casual water) is the most frequent casual obstacle that is impractical to move.

Not many people know you can take relief when your lie is the teeing area, just like if your lie is behind a marker.

 

[biscoe]

Not many people know you can take relief when your lie is the teeing area, just like if your lie is behind a marker.

Where can you find support in the rulebook for the idea that the teeing area is a "lie"?

 

[teemkey]

From the Definitions section

Lie
The spot on the playing surface behind the marker, upon which the player takes a stance in accordance with the rules. It is a line 30 centimeters in length extending back along the line of play from the rear edge of the marker disc. The lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area. A drop zone is also a lie.

 

[bogeyfreetilinfinity]

rule of verticality?

when your disc lands under a picnic table, mark the lie directly above the disc on the picnic table and putt standing on the table.

 

[Cgkdisc]

when your disc lands under a picnic table, mark the lie directly above the disc on the picnic table and putt standing on the table.

Nope, not by default, only if TD specifies it's allowed.

 

[JC17393]

when your disc lands under a picnic table, mark the lie directly above the disc on the picnic table and putt standing on the table.

Nope, not by default, only if TD specifies it's allowed.

What Chuck said. If the disc is on the ground, the ground is a playing surface and that's where you have to mark and play it from.

The only argument I could see for being able to mark and play from the tabletop is if the disc is in a position under the table from which a player can't take a stance. But I've yet to encounter a picnic table so large that a player can't find a way to take a legal stance, awkward and uncomfortable as it might be, behind the disc/marker.

Compare that to, say, a culvert pipe running under the ground. If a disc made its way to the middle of that pipe, out of reach from even the tallest human, then the disc is "under the playing surface" and rule 802.02 C applies.

 

[JC17393]

Or that the penalty for a lost disc is more severe than throwing O.B.? So much that you have people arguing that their disc must be O.B.---i.e.; thrown where it should not have been---instead of possibly inbounds, but obscured by leaves or underbrush.

Seems like a solid argument for eliminating "last in-bounds" as an option for OB throws, something I've been an advocate for for years. Such a rule change would have a huge impact on course design, but IMO it would be for the better.

The end result would likely be less OB or at the very least, more strategically placed OB on most courses (and/or the increased use of drop zones as well). It would force better course design, IMO.

The other reason to eliminate "last in-bounds" is the same reason that "last seen" was eliminated as the default for a lost disc. It removes the guesswork out of the next lie. For every shot that goes OB, everyone is punished the same (DZ or re-throw). No one gains an advantage or gets "screwed" based on how their disc got to its position in the OB area. And no one has to feel like a jerk when they try to say someone's lie belongs somewhere less than desirable (because how many times have we encountered the "somewhere along here, pick a spot you like" OB ruling?).


Of course, it's a huge fundamental change that would affect (IMO, not negatively) too many existing courses/designs, so I have no expectation of it ever happening. But it's a cause that all the "artificial rope OB" hating folks should get behind, since it would significantly lessen people's desires to add such hazards.