Disc lost in casual area

[glassila]

What is the rule on a disc that cannot be found after it clearly went into a large puddle designated as casual water?

 

[sisyphus]

Sorry, re-throw from previous lie with a penalty stroke ...unfortunately (adds insult to injury, so to speak).

 

[sisyphus]

That's for a disc that's actually LOST. ...of course, if you mean 'irretrievable', but the disc's location is known precisely (you can see it...), then the casual relief rule apples.

 

[roblee]

"Compelling evidence" can define a lie for an unfindable disc in an OB area (806.02 C) so what is the compelling reason to NOT allow it for a Casual area? RC?

 

[krupicka]

If you allow it (compelling evidence) for casual water, others would then take this concept and extended it to other situations: cedar trees, tall grass, deep leaves, etc. Which pretty much starts negating the lost disc rule. It is a very different thing to know a disc went out of bounds and not find the disc (as there are many cases where the OB area cannot be entered to search for or retrieve the disc), than say we think it is somewhere over here but can't find it.

Furthermore, it is impossible to treat as casual relief. Since there is no location for the disc, there is no LOP to use to determine the lie.

This is why the QA which previously allowed it was removed as it is not supported by the rules.

 

[glassila]

I figured it would be considered lost, but thought I'd see what people thought.
I don't agree that this situation is the same as a cedar tree or leaf pile, etc. where you know where the disc is, but can't find it. Those are classic lost disc situations that we've all dealt with.
A low area that fills with water after a heavy rain just doesn't seem like a Lost Disc situation.

 

[BillFleming]

I figured it would be considered lost, but thought I'd see what people thought.
I don't agree that this situation is the same as a cedar tree or leaf pile, etc. where you know where the disc is, but can't find it. Those are classic lost disc situations that we've all dealt with.
A low area that fills with water after a heavy rain just doesn't seem like a Lost Disc situation.

The issue with you comment about trees or leaf piles is that you don't know it is in there...you think you know. I have known a disc was in a tree, couldn't see it and ended up finding it on the ground.

 

[Rastnav]

If you allow it (compelling evidence) for casual water, others would then take this concept and extended it to other situations: cedar trees, tall grass, deep leaves, etc. Which pretty much starts negating the lost disc rule. It is a very different thing to know a disc went out of bounds and not find the disc (as there are many cases where the OB area cannot be entered to search for or retrieve the disc), than say we think it is somewhere over here but can't find it.

Furthermore, it is impossible to treat as casual relief. Since there is no location for the disc, there is no LOP to use to determine the lie.

This is why the QA which previously allowed it was removed as it is not supported by the rules.

To me this pretty much negates the idea that any sort of regular water course or bed should ever be considered casual. Rainfall during the round might result in running and pooling of water. I've played quite a few courses where the various stream beds, etc. were not declared OB. Any sort of collection area in these beds could end up with an unretrievable disc, even in mostly dry conditions.

By this line of logic, even if you actually found the disc by dragging the bottom, you would still not be able to play it. You don't know where it actually was, and therefore couldn't establish LOP.

Given that you don't get any sort of relief from cedar trees, deep grass, etc. the situation is not really analogous. I'm guessing that the argument here is that someone would attempt to take penalized relief under 803.02.D. It seems to me that simply extending the rules that now apply to water which is declared OB when the disc cannot be found, and making them apply to casual water, but not to other situations, would have been the simpler, clearer, fix. This rule seems bound to cause confusion.