• 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)

Can you knock snow off a branch?

I've had a lie under an evergreen branch in the snow and have buried myself getting back in behind it where I could even size up the shot. Was the branch I bumped extending in front of the disc? Many times, yes, because if you hit one snowy branch it's going to drop its snow and spring back up and largely empty that side of the tree. I simply don't think there should be any consideration of a penalty stroke in that scenario.

I would agree, there shouldn't be a consideration of a penalty stroke in that situation, presuming you've disturbed the least amount you could in getting there.

That doesn't appear to be remotely what OP is asking though. OP seems pretty clearly to be asking about intentionally doing it to return it to it's "natural" position with no snow on it.
 
The rules Q&A also seem to address this pretty well. Anything isn't touching a playing surface isn't debris and can't be removed. (QA-OBS-4&8)
 
The rules Q&A also seem to address this pretty well. Anything isn't touching a playing surface isn't debris and can't be removed. (QA-OBS-4&8)

If snow falls off a branch has it been removed? Removed from where? To where?
 
WOW!


I can't believe the "litigators" are trying to find a way to say it's not addressed in the rules. It is. Mike Krupicka is telling you and he is the RC Chair. However, let's look at it this way -- answer this one for me, all of you litigators:


"If a branch is hanging low due to only water weighing it down, can you dry the branch with a towel to remove the water so it springs back to it's natural position?



Then answer, "isn't snow just cold water when it all boils down to it (PI)?!
 
WOW!


I can't believe the "litigators" are trying to find a way to say it's not addressed in the rules. It is. Mike Krupicka is telling you and he is the RC Chair. However, let's look at it this way -- answer this one for me, all of you litigators:


"If a branch is hanging low due to only water weighing it down, can you dry the branch with a towel to remove the water so it springs back to it's natural position?



Then answer, "isn't snow just cold water when it all boils down to it (PI)?!

What I wanna know is if someone is thrashing around getting to their disc, and they knock snow or water or a spider web or whatever in front of the disc, does someone have a claim of a violation? I'd like to think not, but the rules make me think so.

Additionally there seems to be use of "move" and "remove" selectively. I think this is a non-distinction, but I'm not sure. That said, I'm always happy to re-read the rules, but I'm informed weekly on some nuance I've not thought of, so I'm curious. There are hints here that volition is part of the equation. I'm legitimately not certain that state of mind and respective permanence of whatever object has been given consideration are factors.
 
Agree that current rules disallow removing snow from the branch although snow can be cleared from a basket or tee sign (say short tee in line of shot from long tee) under 803.01 B3 pertaining to returning equipment to proper working order. But should it be more lenient in future rules?

Here's an excerpt from a related 2002 rule (803.04B): "...A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved...)"

Branches and snow can fall to the ground or to suspended positions on branches, baskets and signs either before or during a round. If seen to happen during a round prior to 2006 when the rule became more like the current version, players could move them before throwing.

There are plusses and minuses with the past and current rules but I'll offer a compromise version for the future:
"Player may clear obstacles and creatures not intentionally part of the course within a 2m radius vertical semicylinder above the playing surface in front of their marker, not limited to typical obstacles such as unattached branches, broken glass, trash, snow and spider webs."

When removing suspended obstacles, the branches remaining that suspended them will still provide a similar challenge. In the case of items on the ground, it seems like allowing their removal would increase safety for follow through. The only caveat might be the need to add something like "in a timely manner", so players don't take too much time to shovel, move a huge log with help, or remove many pieces of glass.
 
Agree that current rules disallow removing snow from the branch although snow can be cleared from a basket or tee sign (say short tee in line of shot from long tee) under 803.01 B3 pertaining to returning equipment to proper working order. But should it be more lenient in future rules?

Here's an excerpt from a related 2002 rule (803.04B): "...A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved...)"

Branches and snow can fall to the ground or to suspended positions on branches, baskets and signs either before or during a round. If seen to happen during a round prior to 2006 when the rule became more like the current version, players could move them before throwing.

There are plusses and minuses with the past and current rules but I'll offer a compromise version for the future:
"Player may clear obstacles and creatures not intentionally part of the course within a 2m radius vertical semicylinder above the playing surface in front of their marker, not limited to typical obstacles such as unattached branches, broken glass, trash, snow and spider webs."

When removing suspended obstacles, the branches remaining that suspended them will still provide a similar challenge. In the case of items on the ground, it seems like allowing their removal would increase safety for follow through. The only caveat might be the need to add something like "in a timely manner", so players don't take too much time to shovel, move a huge log with help, or remove many pieces of glass.


Seems reasonable, but a bit difficult to word concisely.

To jupiterboys question, it would come down to the card observing the action. If it seemed blatant that the person was attempting to shake snow off a branch in front of the lie to open up the line or something of that nature, then I think a violation might be called.

If it's a branch that's bent down right over your lie, I think you'd be allowed to move it and if the snow falls off, it is incidental--I'm referencing back to the Brodie Smith incident (DDO I think?). His caddie actually moved branches so he could get positioned at his lie. Once positioned, the caddie released the branches such that they returned to their natural position. At that time, it was said that that was legal. I don't see how a snow covered branch would be any different.
 
Other part is, this is all assuming we know exactly where the disc is. Personally, I don't always walk directly over to the disc. Sometimes I have a hard time finding the disc, and I walk about in circles for a bit before I figure it out. With real snow drifting in the rough, it gets weird.
 
What I wanna know is if someone is thrashing around getting to their disc, and they knock snow or water or a spider web or whatever in front of the disc, does someone have a claim of a violation? I'd like to think not, but the rules make me think so.

Additionally there seems to be use of "move" and "remove" selectively. I think this is a non-distinction, but I'm not sure. That said, I'm always happy to re-read the rules, but I'm informed weekly on some nuance I've not thought of, so I'm curious. There are hints here that volition is part of the equation. I'm legitimately not certain that state of mind and respective permanence of whatever object has been given consideration are factors.

hmmmm. I'm not sure if that was really a response to my thought which was quoted or not ...
 

Latest posts

Top