Casual Water

[Dan Ensor]

If you mark with a mini, you no longer have a disc to mark. If you take 3' from ob, you're no longer less than 3' from ob. If you take relief from casual water, you're not necessarily relieved from casual water. Not the same.

 

[Dan Ensor]

The RC has covered your scenario by defining a disc's "position" separate from lie. Your disc only has a 'position' until you declare it as your lie, meaning the place where you will take your stance, or legally relocate it to another position and declare it as your lie. So when you move back up to 5m, you don't have a lie yet since you still don't wish to take a stance there, just a position. I think the RC might need to improve the wording in the Obstacle Relief rule to use the words 'disc position' rather than 'lie' to be consistent with its position/lie definitions.

Once again, I'm being slightly fececious, but I do wish to take a stance there. Otherwise i wouldn't know/be able to show that my stance is in casual water.

 

[Thumber]

Take your shoes and socks off and get in there buttercup.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Take your shoes and socks off and get in there buttercup.

Not legal. If the dress code is being enforced anyway.

 

[JC17393]

Not legal. If the dress code is being enforced anyway.

Not true. A player would be allowed to remove a shoe/sock temporarily to play a shot out of water. I would expect the time factor (30 seconds) would be more of a issue than the dress code in such a situation.

 

[HawaiiJack]

Thanks to everyone who responded and I appreciate that some have a great deal of experience.
The hole in question was replayed today and again was found to be a long, linear bog along the right side of the fairway. After reviewing the rules and the discussions given above my group came to the following conclusions. I note that my play group includes a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer. These guys make their living by interpreting specifications and intent.
1) Any rule has to be interpreted in light of what was intended. In the sport of folf it is intended that you play the designed obstacles of the course. Water not in a water hazard you are intended to get relief from. Getting relief implies not being penalized. Therefore the amount, degree, position, etc of water cannot incur a penalty at some times and not at others. Therefore landing in casual water never incurs a penalty, there are no exceptions to this rule.
2) Just as there is no clear and unambiguous way to correctly determine the distance of a hole there is similarly no clear and unambiguous way to determine line of play, consider a blind hole. Since it cannot be unambiguously determined it cannot be a primary determinant. Therefore the primary determinant in relocating a lie is nearest no closer to the hole.
3) When a player chooses to relocate a lie a change in altitude can occur. This change in altitude produces a Pythagorean change in distance to the hole, which in extreme cases could result in a shortening of the distance to the hole. Changes of this nature are too small to be practically considered relevant to the playing of folf. Pythagorean changes can similarly be considered too small to be relevant in a lateral direction.
With the applicable rules interpreted consideration was given to the particular case:
4) Relocation directly backwards to a dry lie would require a distance of 100 yards and move the lie from the 8th fairway all the way to the 6th green. This is absurd and not required. Relocation to the tee without a penalty stroke is still a penalty and therefore also absurd and unrequired. Therefore the best interpretation is a lateral relocation, nearest and no closer to the hole.
5) Since it is correct in the specific case to relocate laterally no closer to the hole it can be considered in other cases if relocating laterally is the most correct.

Again I appreciate that some of the responders have been playing folf a long time. However these guys have given reasoning to back up their interpretation and placement of the disc that seems a lot more clear-eyed and common sense based on the intent of the rule.
If someone wants to disagree I hope it will be along the lines of discussing where they think the logic is off rather than "I've been playing this game for forty years and it's right 'cause I said it was right and this is how I've always played it since back when some other dork told me this was how to play it and it'd be waaaay too hard for me to actually think about it and yer a f*king newb so yer a POS." You know what Methuselah, sometimes new ideas and interpretations come along that are better than old interpretations and actual progress occurs.
For everyone else I'd just say use this interpretation and increase your fun playing the game, which is why you're playing after all. On my course we'd probably push somebody into the bog if after fishing out your disc with a stick he told you to go back about as far as you can see to play your second shot or else go back to the tee and throw your third shot (with a good chance it goes back in the bog again). If the rules have been changed to speed up play they surely don't want you after good distance off the tee walking all the way back and throwing another tee shot.

 

[allinpflop]

Therefore the best interpretation is a lateral relocation, nearest and no closer to the hole.
5) Since it is correct in the specific case to relocate laterally no closer to the hole it can be considered in other cases if relocating laterally is the most correct.


This is not correct....the correct answer has been provided.

 

[allinpflop]

So, if your disc lands in standing water, and there's no dry spot within 5.0 m going back along the LOP from the basket through your disc, you're choices boil down to:

a) throw from the water: penalty is wet feet for the rest of the round, but no strokes
b) throw from more than 5m back along LOP: + 1 stroke penalty
c) rethrow from previous lie: + 1 stroke penalty

this is the correct ruling

 

[HawaiiJack]

So, if your disc lands in standing water, and there's no dry spot within 5.0 m going back along the LOP from the basket through your disc, you're choices boil down to:

a) throw from the water: penalty is wet feet for the rest of the round, but no strokes
b) throw from more than 5m back along LOP: + 1 stroke penalty
c) rethrow from previous lie: + 1 stroke penalty

this is the correct ruling

You're only saying "this is correct". It doesn't seem correct. And the guys have explained why their answer is much more logical. Can you take it any further?

 

[Mrlastway]

Imagine this scenario.

Player A lands in casual water.
Player A says that the casual water stretches too far back/is unplayable to go that way.
Player B disagrees an thinks that it is fairly dry a few meters back.
Player A says that he wants to relocate laterally because both can agree that spot is dry.

Sounds fair this far.

Only Player A's lie in the casual water is behind a Huge dense tree designed to be an obstacle.

Relocating laterally will give Player A a huge benefit compared to no casual water on that day. Therefore laterally isn't just relief but also a boon.


Giving the options of laterally relocating your lie all manner of moist spots will be argued to be casual water in order to laterally relocating the lie. The only fair thing in this scenario would be to follow the rules as they are today giving player A no benefit from having landed in casual water which doesn't, if the course isn't badly designed, cover the whole fairway and thus can be avoided.

 

[JoakimBL]

You cannot make rules to cover extremely rare and specific issues that may occur only on a few courses. The rules need to make most sense a majority of the time, and I think the current rules so that. You shouldn't be rewarded for landing in an undesirable location, but shouldn't be overly penalized, it s something out of your control. In the situation that you describe, for tournament play, a drop zone could and probably should be provided. But really, if this is a common occurrence at this course, it's more of a design issue, than a rules issue.

 

[Smigles]

You're only saying "this is correct". It doesn't seem correct. And the guys have explained why their answer is much more logical. Can you take it any further?

It's really easy. Correct means that you have to do that according to the rules. Allinpflop gave you the correct options in the post that you quoted. There is NOTHING in the rules about EVER relocating sideways.

If you want to stick with the rules, you take one of the 3 options provided.

If you think that you handled it quite well on your recreational round by moving sideways, that's nice for you and all, but it is not according to the rules. You would not get trough with it in a tournament, at least not with me in the fligth.

 

[bradharris]

Thanks to everyone who responded and I appreciate that some have a great deal of experience.
The hole in question was replayed today and again was found to be a long, linear bog along the right side of the fairway. After reviewing the rules and the discussions given above my group came to the following conclusions. I note that my play group includes a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer. These guys make their living by interpreting specifications and intent.
1) Any rule has to be interpreted in light of what was intended. In the sport of folf it is intended that you play the designed obstacles of the course. Water not in a water hazard you are intended to get relief from. Getting relief implies not being penalized. Therefore the amount, degree, position, etc of water cannot incur a penalty at some times and not at others. Therefore landing in casual water never incurs a penalty, there are no exceptions to this rule.
2) Just as there is no clear and unambiguous way to correctly determine the distance of a hole there is similarly no clear and unambiguous way to determine line of play, consider a blind hole. Since it cannot be unambiguously determined it cannot be a primary determinant. Therefore the primary determinant in relocating a lie is nearest no closer to the hole.
3) When a player chooses to relocate a lie a change in altitude can occur. This change in altitude produces a Pythagorean change in distance to the hole, which in extreme cases could result in a shortening of the distance to the hole. Changes of this nature are too small to be practically considered relevant to the playing of folf. Pythagorean changes can similarly be considered too small to be relevant in a lateral direction.
With the applicable rules interpreted consideration was given to the particular case:
4) Relocation directly backwards to a dry lie would require a distance of 100 yards and move the lie from the 8th fairway all the way to the 6th green. This is absurd and not required. Relocation to the tee without a penalty stroke is still a penalty and therefore also absurd and unrequired. Therefore the best interpretation is a lateral relocation, nearest and no closer to the hole.
5) Since it is correct in the specific case to relocate laterally no closer to the hole it can be considered in other cases if relocating laterally is the most correct.

Again I appreciate that some of the responders have been playing folf a long time. However these guys have given reasoning to back up their interpretation and placement of the disc that seems a lot more clear-eyed and common sense based on the intent of the rule.
If someone wants to disagree I hope it will be along the lines of discussing where they think the logic is off rather than "I've been playing this game for forty years and it's right 'cause I said it was right and this is how I've always played it since back when some other dork told me this was how to play it and it'd be waaaay too hard for me to actually think about it and yer a f*king newb so yer a POS." You know what Methuselah, sometimes new ideas and interpretations come along that are better than old interpretations and actual progress occurs.
For everyone else I'd just say use this interpretation and increase your fun playing the game, which is why you're playing after all. On my course we'd probably push somebody into the bog if after fishing out your disc with a stick he told you to go back about as far as you can see to play your second shot or else go back to the tee and throw your third shot (with a good chance it goes back in the bog again). If the rules have been changed to speed up play they surely don't want you after good distance off the tee walking all the way back and throwing another tee shot.

I'm an engineer too, and I've been playing for ten years, and I've read the rulebook cover-to-cover, does that mean my answer will be more credible?

1. Rules are to be interpreted as they are written. You do not have the freedom to go against a black and white rule because you don't believe the rule's writers were considering your specific situation when the rule was written.
2. Two points make a line. It doesn't get much less ambiguous than that. Figure out where the basket is, imagine a line going from it through the center of your disc, and relocate backwards on that line.
3. The only time I can even begin to imagine a scenario like this would be if the water is in a very deep gully and both the basket and nearest playable lie are on top on either side. In this case the gully likely is not going to be considered casual water. And your lateral relocation is not going to be much help either.
4. The rules are clear, if you cannot establish a new lie within 5 meters, you take a penalty stroke and either replay the previous shot or relocate more than 5 meters, but still on the line of play.
5. It is never correct to relocate the lie laterally. The rules are very clear about this. You can only relocate on the line of play. This is not vague, ambiguous, or open to interpretation.

 

[Agricolae]

The cool thing about casual rounds is that you can take casual relief casually. Relocate your lie to wherever you want. If your cardmates don't agree, fight 'em. Sounds like you guys have this pretty well figured out. Go for it. Have fun.

 

[HawaiiJack]

Imagine this scenario.

Player A lands in casual water.
Player A says that the casual water stretches too far back/is unplayable to go that way.
Player B disagrees an thinks that it is fairly dry a few meters back.
Player A says that he wants to relocate laterally because both can agree that spot is dry.

Sounds fair this far.

Only Player A's lie in the casual water is behind a Huge dense tree designed to be an obstacle.

Relocating laterally will give Player A a huge benefit compared to no casual water on that day. Therefore laterally isn't just relief but also a boon.


Giving the options of laterally relocating your lie all manner of moist spots will be argued to be casual water in order to laterally relocating the lie. The only fair thing in this scenario would be to follow the rules as they are today giving player A no benefit from having landed in casual water which doesn't, if the course isn't badly designed, cover the whole fairway and thus can be avoided.

Thanks for that. There is already a rule which says if two rules apply you use the one which gives a harsher penalty. Ball golf has a better definition of casual water. You can't just pee beside your disc and say you're in casual water.

You also raise a good point about the Fairness Doctrine. If you throw your disc OOB that is your fault, you get a penalty. Similarly if you threw it in a briar thicket and it's lost. However if you did what the course designer intended and threw your disc right in the fairway you did something good. You don't get penalized for doing the correct thing. I accept that many players here are agreeing on what they think is correct or were told is correct. What is in dispute is that a logical reading and interpretation of the rules does not lead to their conclusions.

 

[mashnut]

Thanks for that. There is already a rule which says if two rules apply you use the one which gives a harsher penalty. Ball golf has a better definition of casual water. You can't just pee beside your disc and say you're in casual water.

You also raise a good point about the Fairness Doctrine. If you throw your disc OOB that is your fault, you get a penalty. Similarly if you threw it in a briar thicket and it's lost. However if you did what the course designer intended and threw your disc right in the fairway you did something good. You don't get penalized for doing the correct thing. I accept that many players here are agreeing on what they think is correct or were told is correct. What is in dispute is that a logical reading and interpretation of the rules does not lead to their conclusions.

There is some wiggle room in a lot of the rules in our sport. This is not one of them. The rule is very clear on the procedures for relief from casual obstacles:

Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are on or behind the lie: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the Director before the round. To obtain relief, the player must remove the obstacle if it is practical to do so. 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 (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director).

There is no reason to apply any other rules when the rule covering the situation (disc is in water not specified as OB) is explicitly clear on what to do about it.

 

[HawaiiJack]

I'm an engineer too, and I've been playing for ten years, and I've read the rulebook cover-to-cover, does that mean my answer will be more credible?

1. Rules are to be interpreted as they are written. You do not have the freedom to go against a black and white rule because you don't believe the rule's writers were considering your specific situation when the rule was written.
2. Two points make a line. It doesn't get much less ambiguous than that. Figure out where the basket is, imagine a line going from it through the center of your disc, and relocate backwards on that line.
3. The only time I can even begin to imagine a scenario like this would be if the water is in a very deep gully and both the basket and nearest playable lie are on top on either side. In this case the gully likely is not going to be considered casual water. And your lateral relocation is not going to be much help either.
4. The rules are clear, if you cannot establish a new lie within 5 meters, you take a penalty stroke and either replay the previous shot or relocate more than 5 meters, but still on the line of play.
5. It is never correct to relocate the lie laterally. The rules are very clear about this. You can only relocate on the line of play. This is not vague, ambiguous, or open to interpretation.

Your answers are credible.
1) Suppose you were given an engineering spec which was black-and-white but flawed. You would not submit a design and ignore the flaw, that would be incorrect. Even seemingly black-and-white things must be viewed as to what the intent is.
2) It requires advanced surveying tools to prove that 3 points are indeed colinear. There is no expectation that players will carry advanced surveying tools. It cannot be determined if you are on a direct line with the basket if the basket cannot be seen. Even when it can be seen one player can say he is on a straight line with it and another can say no you are 18 inches off and that is giving you an advantage. Since a direct line is impractical and unenforceable it cannot be used. A rule, to be a rule, must be both practical and enforceable. The rule which says "no closer to" meets these criteria. We can expect that reasonable men when they know where the basket is even if they cannot see it can determine if they are moving closer to it or not.
3) Exactly. The Pythagorean difference in distance is small enough to not be a consideration. This applies whether the lie is relocated a short distance vertically or laterally.
4) This relies on the fairness doctrine and common sense about the intent of the game, rules, and penalties. If you believe it is correct to tell someone to go back 2 holes and 300 feet in a straight line versus go to that spot which is nearest and no closer to the pin and is 2 feet away then I will not convince you otherwise.
5) I would be happy if you could show me where a lateral relocation is expressly addressed, I haven't found it. The best I have found says closest within 2 meters, no closer to the hole. That includes lateral. We have already discussed that requiring a colinear relocation is both impractical and unenforceable and thus by definition cannot be a rule of play.

 

[gvan]

2) It requires advanced surveying tools to prove that 3 points are indeed colinear. ...

We can expect that reasonable men when they know where the basket is even if they cannot see it can determine if they are moving closer to it or not.

5) I would be happy if you could show me where a lateral relocation is expressly addressed, I haven't found it. The best I have found says closest within 2 meters, no closer to the hole. That includes lateral. We have already discussed that requiring a colinear relocation is both impractical and unenforceable and thus by definition cannot be a rule of play.

It SPECIFICALLY does NOT include lateral relocation. It Specifically EXCLUDES it with the defined phrase Line of Play.

By extension of your survey equipment argument, you can never establish LOP, therefore can never prove you have a legal foot placement on ANY shot. Therefore the stance rule is unenforceable and I am free to ignore it? Plus you contradict yourself by saying that people cannot reasonably determine LOP, but can reasonably determine if they are closer to the basket. How on earth could they do that without surveying equipment!!!

You are arguing the ridiculous and you must know it. I assume in your group of doctor/lawyer/engineer that you are the lawyer as you have been given a clear rule, yet choose to attempt to make it murky.

 

[DavidSauls]

4) This relies on the fairness doctrine and common sense about the intent of the game, rules, and penalties. If you believe it is correct to tell someone to go back 2 holes and 300 feet in a straight line versus go to that spot which is nearest and no closer to the pin and is 2 feet away then I will not convince you otherwise.

Note that the rule requires no such thing.

It gives the player the option to go back on the line of play, as one of three options (play it where it lies, play from the previous lie).

If unusual and unreasonable circumstances, the T.D. is authorized to grant other relief. The players can't create it themselves.

The first flaw in your argument is that rules should be amended in application based on their intent, rather than following their clear wording. You could take this notion far beyond casual relief, to the point where we're not playing by rules at all, but just each person's notion of what they should be or were intended to be.

 

[Steve West]

I'm calling BS. I think he is just trying to pick a fight by disagreeing with anything anyone says.