Casual Water

[Cgkdisc]

Funny thing about the rule book...there's actually a written rule covering such situations....
803.01 Obstacles and Relief
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 (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director)

Not related to this situation. The question is should players be allowed to "take relief" when in casual water when it's everywhere, even if it keeps them in casual water regardless whether the TD has provided extended relief. In fact can the TD say there's no casual relief allowed because the ground is soaked? Or, if the water is more than knee high, you can take relief back to less than knee high? Players might take casual relief when water is everywhere just to get a better angle for their next shot or go from 6" casual water back to 1" casual water for a better stance or even an X-step.

 

[JC17393]

Not related to this situation. The question is should players be allowed to "take relief" when in casual water when it's everywhere, even if it keeps them in casual water regardless whether the TD has provided extended relief. In fact can the TD say there's no casual relief allowed because the ground is soaked? Or, if the water is more than knee high, you can take relief back to less than knee high? Players might take casual relief when water is everywhere just to get a better angle for their next shot or go from 6" casual water back to 1" casual water for a better stance or even an X-step.

How is it unrelated? If a TD grants extended (or unlimited) relief on the line of play, doesn't that give the players the freedom to take their choice of lie regardless of depth of water? The rule says nearest lie, but leaves that rather undefined. We generally default to first available "dry" lie or first available solid footing. But if no matter how far back you go, it's wet and there is no "dry" lie to find, then the "nearest" lie is probably whatever one that the player is comfortable standing on, be it in one inch of water or eight.

I don't believe a TD can suspend casual relief all together, at least not without prior approval from the PDGA, so I don't believe that would be an option.

Truthfully, if an entire course is flooded out to such an extend, the more prudent thing to do is probably to call off play rather than debating the merits of suspending or offering unlimited casual relief.

 

[araytx]

@JC,

I do think Chuck was saying if there sporadic water everywhere on the course, would it be fairer for the TD to say there's no casual water relief anywhere? As is often argued on this forum, that may be "fairer," but by the rule I agree with you it wouldn't be an option.

 

[kerplunk]

@JC,

I do think Chuck was saying if there sporadic water everywhere on the course, would it be fairer for the TD to say there's no casual water relief anywhere? As is often argued on this forum, that may be "fairer," but by the rule I agree with you it wouldn't be an option.

So this means you either have to play from the water or re-throw with a stroke "penalty?" I think that would make the OP's head explode.

 

[HawaiiJack]

This rule is not unenforceable, impractical, or absurd. The line of play is very tangible and easy to estimate in the best judgement of the group.

We all know that the line of play isn't tangible. It is easily determined if the basket is visible, but that doesn't mean it is visible to all players. It is very difficult and perhaps impossible to estimate in cases where the pin can't be seen. Your last point requires there be a group, and that the group agrees on something that may be difficult or impossible to determine.

I'll give examples for my claims. These aren't wild hypotheticals. I've seen each situation more than once or can think of specific holes where they could occur.

I) Impractical.
A) You are playing a course for the first time. There are plenty of times where not only can you not see the basket you really have no idea where it is. However you always have a sense for the general direction of play given such things as the tee and fairway positions. Note that many posters here have been adamant that you cannot use the general direction of play (always known) you can only use the true line of play (frequently unknowable). The true line of play also requires knowing in advance what things look like on the other side of mandos, obstacles, and doglegs. The game however is very reasonably played without this knowledge. Plenty of times I play my disc forward with the presumption that after advancing a shot or two the exact location of the basket will become known. It is impractical to suggest that if I need to relocate my disc a foot or two I should walk ahead a hundred feet or more, and back, just to try to determine the exact location of the basket relative to where my disc is lying.
B) You know the course and it is one of those with multiple pin locations. Some are on the left side of the fairway and some on the right. Because they get moved around standing on the tee you don't know which spot it's in. If I need to relocate a foot or two it's impractical to require I walk 50 feet ahead up a short steep hill, and back, to determine the exact pin placement when the next shot is intended to just go up the hill and land in the middle of the fairway. Particularly so when I can see a couple back on the tee waiting. That is self indulgent and bordering on rude to make them wait while I do that.
C) Your opponent has a small ridge blocking his view to the pin. You decide to call him for relocating improperly and force him back onto LOP. So he says you'll have to move to the top of the ridge and help him line up. Which requires you to go move into the middle of a briar thicket.

II) Unenforceable
A) We've already said if you can't see the pin you really have no way to enforce true line of play.
B) You decide to make a "best effort". So you send your buddy or your opponent ahead to scout around for the pin and yell back. "OK I got it". "Great, which way should I move to be on LOP?" "How the f should I know, I can't see you". Geniuses.
C) You shouldn't have to trust your opponent but you shouldn't have to hawk monitor him either. Everyone has thrown and advanced to their discs. One guy needs to relocate. You cannot tell if he has done it correctly from your spot 40 feet away, you have to be colinear with him. Maybe he should really be in that pit instead of just to the side of it? You don't know. But you could easily judge "nearest no closer " because we have already said you always know in general the direction of advance so you can plainly see if he has stepped forward. Since "nearest no closer" allows for some lateral deviation along an arc there is no cause to argue whether he should be in the pit or just next to it, the two spots are the same distance away.
D) You have a small ridge blocking your view to the pin. You decide to call for your opponent's help in relocating properly along LOP. Since you have to move your lie he has to move to the top of the ridge to get colinear. Which requires him to go move into the middle of a briar thicket or stand under a hornet's nest etc. Unless you march to a different goose step or are part of a fraternity hazing you cannot force another human being to do idiotic things like this.

III) Absurd
A) We've already said that you aren't meant to be penalized for casual water therefore taking any type of penalty is absurd. Another poster has noted that the rule on relocation was previously worded to allow for that. Q.E.D. Game, set, match. "Spalding" imprinted in reverse outline on a face as the ball bounds away. Etc.
B) Some posters have said to escape a penalty you should throw from the bog. I once had a disc settle near a split rail fence guarding a drop off. I told my playing group taking a stance would require me to place my foot partially under the rail next to the drop off and asked what my options were. The immediate answer was you are never required to do something that would risk your health so move the lie to a place where you can safely take a stance and then make your throw. It is absurd to risk an ankle or knee injury from slipping while playing with a frisbee in the name of not deviating from LOP.
C) Consider the OP scenario but you are playing with your gf, wife, or kid and it was their disc that went in the water. Are you really going to force them to stand in a mud hole, go back 100 yards in a straight line, or go back to the tee and throw again with a penalty stroke? Seriously? "Honey why don't I just stand on that dry spot where you just fished my disc out from which is a couple feet away but no closer?" "Well because ... well you see ... well even though I spent 3 minutes doing this so you could keep your feet dry and I could keep my feet dry the rule says you have to walk out there into that bog and get your feet muddy". "Honey, that's absurd."

 

[JoakimBL]

Obviously the rules should be written to account for casual play among family members that don't know the course layout they are playing ... I doesn't sound like you are much of a tournament player. Why do you care what the rules say? Just do whatever feels right to you when you are on the course.

 

[araytx]

Seriously, HJ??? It really is what Steve W said.

In practical reality ... (in a tournament) if there were that much "debate" on what the real LOP was, I'd ask my group, "is this a fair mark?" right after I marked it. If the majority thought I was not on the LOP, I'd ask them to come to concensus on where it was and draw it for me -- because I wouldn't want to be called for a stance violation. Then we'd move on ...

I had to ask my group to mark a few tee boxes for me during a tournament after I was called for being "out of the teeing area" when the tee-box was marked with just two flags, no box. I explained to them that I didn't want a second foot fault called and they had no problem definining their view of where the "box" was for the few other holes without tee boxes. If you're getting along, but agreeable that rules violations should be called, some simple "preventative officiating," like I learned when I did referee sports, is a practical and unabsurb way to handle it.

 

[JC17393]

Seems to me that something impractical, unenforceable, and absurd would have worked its way out of the rule book after 20+ years. Yet line of play is still there, same as it's been since at least the 1990 edition of the rule book.

As others have said, if the rule book doesn't work for you in your casual play, ignore it. If you don't want to play by it at all, just don't play organized events that utilize PDGA rules. Seems rather silly to waste time and bandwidth writing treatises about something like this, particular when your target audience (the people that make the rules) aren't likely reading here.

 

[bombmk]

That entire wall of text can be shot down with:
"What is the alternative?"

Is it always practical to make sure you stay 100% compliant to the rule, when playing a casual round? Hardly. And no one is forcing you to.

That does, however, not mean that the rule is impractical, unenforceable or absurd.

Praticality: Any situation can be resolved by asking your group: "Is this okay?". The lack of the definition would mean there was no basis for anyone to make that call on.
Rules are by definition impratical, as they restrict you from having absolutely zero consideration for what you do. Be it on the course or outside it. But in the context of competition they become very much practical, to make sure the competition is had using a beforehand agreed upon definition of what that competition is.

Unenforceable: Regardless of the whether the above question was actually fielded, if they say no, its enforced. If they say yes, its enforced.

Absurdity: Being afraid to tell your casually playing girlfriend to follow a particular rule is not exactly a perfect litmus test for absurdity.
(If she cannot understand such a simple concept as the line of play and why you should not be allowed to deviate from it willy nilly when relocating, she really should not be used as a sounding board for rule complaints)

 

[bradharris]

That entire wall of text can be shot down with:
"What is the alternative?"

HJ's alternative is to allow relocation to the nearest point that is not closer than the original lie. A rule which can just as easily be torn down with the same arguments he makes against the line of play.

If you don't want to make your gf stand in water, don't make her play in strict adherence to the rules. The few times my wife plays, she plays by her own set of "girl rules."

 

[HawaiiJack]

HJ's alternative is to allow relocation to the nearest point that is not closer than the original lie. A rule which can just as easily be torn down with the same arguments he makes against the line of play.

I don't claim to know or care how the rule should be fixed. I'm pointing out that the rule is broken. I have previously noted that the part causing difficulty is the "line of play" bit and why that can be ignored and that the text which remains which includes "nearest no closer" would be adequate to determine a relocated lie. No, the same arguments would not work against that. * Spoiler Alert * - It turns out the rule is broken for an entirely different reason as well.

Some posters are trying to hang on to the discredited "line of play" like it's their last breath and I can't see why. No one can refute the situations where it can't be known and can't be applied. There is a case in active litigation now, UMd vs ACC, where UMd claims an ACC rule is impractical and unenforceable. If the court finds for the university then the ACC can have a tear in their beer for exactly as long as they'd like that their rule was black and white or crystal clear or had been around for however long or was accepted by a majority. None of that will matter. The rule will be ignorable and UMd will skate away with a cool $50 million.

If I were to consider how the rule could be fixed I would not try to solve the problem piecemeal on a case by case basis. I suggest a step back be taken. This is a game that is intended to be played on casual, league, and professional levels so it should be asked what is the best way to have rules and their enforcement shared among them? There is the ball golf model which is one set of rules enforced the same, the TCG/RPG model with one set of rules and different enforcement levels, and there is the NFL vs dorm league vs backyard football model which is different sets of rules and different enforcement. Personally I would take a long hard look at greatly simplifying the rules to have a common set and allow that more advanced play could add restrictions. So the basic rule would be you are required to play your shot from wherever it lands. If you don't like it or you are in an area the course or TD has declared verboten then there is a 1 stroke penalty and you relocate. There is no confusion because you never get a free relo, not for close to OOB line, not for up a tree, not for in a creekbed, not for casual water. The restrictions or even penalties on relocation could vary with level of play. Competitive play could allow for areas to be an imaginary water hazard as some holes have while casual players could just walk right over them and play from inside them. I won't be drawn into a debate about what exactly the relo restrictions should be. Nearest no closer +/- a 2 metre buffer zone no closer, or +1 penalty stroke for within 2 metre no closer and +2 stroke if 2-5 metre and +3 stroke if > 5 metre no closer, or an extra penalty stroke for every time you take an additional relo on a hole or on a round; clearly the posters here have shown they have different ideas about benefitting from a relo. For those who might quibble about "no closer" I would suggest defining something like direction of advance to replace line of play. You, and anyone observing you from any angle, can always know your direction of advance even when your line of play is unknowable. This is because you always make up your mind to throw your disc in some direction and the direction you intend to launch in is your direction of advance. I'd allow an entire half plane defined by your intended direction to be your direction of advance to allow for you using some extreme hyzer or anhyzer release. Just stick out your arm if an opponent really wants to claim they don't know your intended direction of advance before you take your relo. Before someone brings it up yes there are ways to penalize someone who tries to "take advantage" by not making their throw into the entire half plane they've designated or declares their direction 180 degrees to the contrary and backs up all the way to the basket for a drop-in.

In researching this rules question I've found a situation/answer evidently unknown to the respondents here: The man who invented the frisbee for Wham-O went on to found the DGA and also to codify the rules of disc golf. The DGA continues to publish and maintain the Rules of Disc Golf and also separately the Disc Golf Rules for Recreational Play. The same guy then went on to found the PDGA for professional play and most posters here seem to only be familiar with the PDGA rulebook. So from the guy who codified the sport and the organization which preserves it in it's Rules of Disc Golf we get the definition of how to play casual water: " Standing water or mud on the course that is caused by sprinklers or rain is not considered "out-of-bounds" and the disc may be relocated to a dryer area no closer to the hole with no penalty." There you have it, you never take a penalty and you can relo in any direction, no closer. These same rules then go on to reference the specific rules for recreational play so clearly these are the master rules for the game and the recreational rules and pro rules are subsets of this. The PDGA has apparently forgotten or overlooked this definition of the master rules by the organizing body. Not every board allows links, I'll try to put one in here: http://www.discgolf.com/how-to-play-disc-golf/
At this point the discussion might need to be moved to another board. A state law can never countermand the Constitution and so the PDGA subset of rules for pros cannot countermand the Rules of the game. I'm okay if anyone wants to take the points and issues raised here to another board.

 

[DavidSauls]

A state law can never countermand the Constitution and so the PDGA subset of rules for pros cannot countermand the Rules of the game.

You've gone off the deep end.

If you play in a PDGA event I'm running and can't or won't comply with the PDGA rules, you'll lose in front of the judge (me) and on appeal.

 

[Jay Dub]

Did some one in here really use the term "new original lie" referring to a disc that has been moved from it's only possible original lie? :wall:

You can not change the meaning of words when talking about golf. I see it happen here way too much. :\

 

[JC17393]

Anyone else starting to get a SnapChing flashback?

 

[DavidSauls]

Anyone else starting to get a SnapChing flashback?

Oh, yeah.

*

It has occurred to me, though, with as much rain as we've had here in South Carolina, that if I was playing in one of those DGA tournaments and took relief from mud, it would put my lie somewhere in Kansas.

 

[JC17393]

In researching this rules question I've found a situation/answer evidently unknown to the respondents here: The man who invented the frisbee for Wham-O went on to found the DGA and also to codify the rules of disc golf. The DGA continues to publish and maintain the Rules of Disc Golf and also separately the Disc Golf Rules for Recreational Play. The same guy then went on to found the PDGA for professional play and most posters here seem to only be familiar with the PDGA rulebook. So from the guy who codified the sport and the organization which preserves it in it's Rules of Disc Golf we get the definition of how to play casual water: " Standing water or mud on the course that is caused by sprinklers or rain is not considered "out-of-bounds" and the disc may be relocated to a dryer area no closer to the hole with no penalty." There you have it, you never take a penalty and you can relo in any direction, no closer. These same rules then go on to reference the specific rules for recreational play so clearly these are the master rules for the game and the recreational rules and pro rules are subsets of this. The PDGA has apparently forgotten or overlooked this definition of the master rules by the organizing body. Not every board allows links, I'll try to put one in here: http://www.discgolf.com/how-to-play-disc-golf/
At this point the discussion might need to be moved to another board. A state law can never countermand the Constitution and so the PDGA subset of rules for pros cannot countermand the Rules of the game. I'm okay if anyone wants to take the points and issues raised here to another board.

So the rules that Ed came up with, rules simplified such that he could fit them all on one sign at the start of a course, are the ones we're supposed to defer to for all of eternity? The Constitution of the game, as you seem to be considering it?

That's all well and good, but you are mistaken to think that those original rules of the game and the current PDGA Rules of Play are two separate documents/doctrines. They aren't. If the original rules written by Ed are the Constitution, the current form of the PDGA Rules of Play are the same Constitution with a whole bunch of amendments that have been officially ratified and put into law.

Sometimes amendments add new laws, sometimes amendments countermand or even nullify old ones. For example the 21st amendment to the US Constitution nullifies the 18th amendment. In the same way, the 2013 version of the PDGA Rules of Play trumps whatever was written 40 years ago.

And it should be restated AGAIN. If you don't want to play by PDGA rules, just don't play organized events that require them. Going out and playing a round alone or with some friends puts you under absolutely no obligation to play by PDGA rules, the original 1975 rules or any other. Play by your own rules if you want. No one's stopping you.

 

[Agricolae]

... The rule will be ignorable and UMd will skate away with a cool $50 million ...

You're arguing with the wrong crowd, Jack. Perhaps you could follow UMd's lead and sue the PDGA. You might "skate away" with a cool ... 50 bucks.

 

[DavidSauls]

You're arguing with the wrong crowd, Jack. Perhaps you could follow UMd's lead and sue the PDGA. You might "skate away" with a cool ... 50 bucks.

That would be a disc golf video worth watching! Especially the camera on the judge's face.

 

[JoakimBL]

If HJ is a lawyer, which I very much suspect, then it is no longer a mystery to me why the American justice system is the way it is.

 

[araytx]

Some posters are trying to hang on to the discredited "line of play" like it's their last breath and I can't see why. No one can refute the situations where it can't be known and can't be applied.

Wrong. I did. I answered with practicality, with enforceability and without absurdity, what to do when you "think" the line of play "can't be known and can't be applied."

Just plain wrong, which renders everything you stated after that both moot and what David S said.