Interference

[krupicka]

The rule seems pretty clear: "If a player or their equipment interferes with their own throw, the player is assessed one penalty throw. The disc is played where it first comes to rest. See 810.E for intentional interference." If you or your equipment get in the way of your throw, then there is a penalty. There are no qualifiers if that equipment was allowed to be there or not. Just move it if needed.

If you've setup a base camp with your cart, stool, water bottle, bag, towel, umbrella, etc. where a typical roll away can occur, then maybe you shouldn't have setup a base camp there.

While some may not like it, it's a lot better than before. The problem is as soon as you start writing all sorts of exceptions, you end up with a very wordy rule and/or other corner cases not mentioned in the exception list.

 

[IHearChains]

The problem is as soon as you start writing all sorts of exceptions, you end up with a very wordy rule and/or other corner cases not mentioned in the exception list.

I don't think it's complicated to write that discs/markers that are currently in play are exempt.

 

[_MTL_]

I don't think it's complicated to write that discs/markers that are currently in play are exempt.

Unless it's not exempt.

 

[IHearChains]

Unless it's not exempt.

:|
care to elaborate?

 

[_MTL_]

:|
care to elaborate?

You were saying that the vagueness should be clarified. As a I said above."I think it's intentionally vague. Leaving it as just "equipment" instead of a long list of items takes out the chances of missing something odd or unforeseen."

If the intention was your own discs and minis to not be considered in this, it would have been listed. As you said, it's not hard to add that exception. The fact it's missing leads to my interpretation that it's intentionally missing and therefore considered equipment.

 

[IHearChains]

As you said, it's not hard to add that exception. The fact it's missing leads to my interpretation that it's intentionally missing and therefore considered equipment.

That is reasonable, but still pure speculation.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing with that point, I was responding to Krupicka's contention that it is too complicated to write. Apparently we agree on that.

 

[_MTL_]

That is reasonable, but still pure speculation.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing with that point, I was responding to Krupicka's contention that it is too complicated to write. Apparently we agree on that.

It's absolutely not hard to write, which is why I have very little doubt that it not being there is intentional.

 

[biscoe]

"Unintentional" interference is a 100% random penalty and should be gotten rid of. See 2 meter rule.

 

[IHearChains]

It's absolutely not hard to write, which is why I have very little doubt that it not being there is intentional.

There are rules updates and clarifications all the time, which gives me a great deal of doubt that every ambiguity is intentional.

 

[krupicka]

There are rules updates and clarifications all the time, which gives me a great deal of doubt that every ambiguity is intentional.

How is this rule as written ambiguous?

 

[_MTL_]

"Unintentional" interference is a 100% random penalty and should be gotten rid of. See 2 meter rule.

I somewhat agree.

Proving intent is borderline impossible. The only time I would ever call this is if someone caught a disc, or jumped and blocked it, lunged to stop it rolling, etc.

And in that situation, I believe the person should be DQed.

 

[teemkey]

Two points:

It is not reasonable to expect a player to quickly remove the mini AND then run to the bag/cart/towel/etc, wherever that happens to be, and move that too, all in the space of a couple of seconds.

The marker may be used to establish the lie in case of an optional rethrow. So it does have a purpose for being there, even after the throw.

For these reasons I would argue that the marker disc is different from other equipment and should be treated like any other disc or marker that is in play. No penalty.

3rd point: if it's a putt inside the circle, the player has to demonstrate balance before moving past the rear edge of the marker disc. If the player places a mini in front of the previously thrown disc (PTD), then places the PTD in front of the mini, the player may not be able to pick up the PTD without a stance violation.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

The throwers marker is different than thrown discs.

A thrown disc is a marker. The thrower's thrown disc is a marker. Although I'm not sure if that distinction matters to your point.

While the marker needs to be in place when the throw is made, as soon as the disc is released there is no requirement to leave it there. You don't get penalized for picking up your marker while the disc is still in flight.

So for now, getting your own marker out of the way is the way to go.

Which would mandate a new rule for doubles play maybe? The first team member to throw must leave the marker (which may be a thrown disc), and be penalized if the disc hits it, but the second team member to throw must remove it if the thrown disc approaches?

Now, to speculate about a better rule. If we make the exception for discs in play, it would make sense to also exempt a non-throwing player's marker from interfering with another player's throw.

How would exempting the marker be different than exempting "discs in play?"

If we did that, it might make sense to also exempt the player's own marker.

Same question: How is a player's own disc, which marks his lie, different than a disc in play? If you exempt discs in play, which I assume to mean thrown discs that are at rest, then the player's own disc is covered. I guess you mean an extension to cover mini markers?

It also seems that a rule that penalizes any player who allows his equipment, minus discs in play, to "interfere with" (where "interfere with" means "touch while in motion") a thrown disc would be the better rule, i.e., a "keep your stuff out of the thrower's way" rule - possibly with a severe penalty for a thrower who intentionally throws at another player or his equipment.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I somewhat agree.

Proving intent is borderline impossible. The only time I would ever call this is if someone caught a disc, or jumped and blocked it, lunged to stop it rolling, etc.

And in that situation, I believe the person should be DQed.

What if they're just trying to save the disc from going into the water and losing it, knowing full well they're going to take the interference penalty? I know I've seen this at the Memorial at some point...

 

[krupicka]

It also seems that a rule that penalizes any player who allows his equipment, minus discs in play, to "interfere with" (where "interfere with" means "touch while in motion") a thrown disc would be the better rule, i.e., a "keep your stuff out of the thrower's way" rule - possibly with a severe penalty for a thrower who intentionally throws at another player or his equipment.

Really? I'm on tee of the next hole and a disc from another fairway hits my bag, I should be penalized? There's at least once where I was sitting behind the tee box on my hole waiting for my turn to throw when i dove out of the way at the last minute to avoid being hit by an errant shot from another hole. Player next to me got a big welt. That player should be penalized?

 

[biscoe]

Really? I'm on tee of the next hole and a disc from another fairway hits my bag, I should be penalized? There's at least once where I was sitting behind the tee box on my hole waiting for my turn to throw when i dove out of the way at the last minute to avoid being hit by an errant shot from another hole. Player next to me got a big welt. That player should be penalized?

Sort of my point as well. You as thrower leave your bag (equipment) in a random spot somewhere behind your lie, which is perfectly acceptable. Disc somehow hops up and rolls back past you and strikes your otherwise well placed bag- why is that subject to penalty?

i would also be fine with intentional interference being subject to dq.

 

[_MTL_]

Sort of my point as well. You as thrower leave your bag (equipment) in a random spot somewhere behind your lie, which is perfectly acceptable. Disc somehow hops up and rolls back past you and strikes your otherwise well placed bag- why is that subject to penalty?

It interfered with the disc.

 

[krupicka]

Sort of my point as well. You as thrower leave your bag (equipment) in a random spot somewhere behind your lie, which is perfectly acceptable. Disc somehow hops up and rolls back past you and strikes your otherwise well placed bag- why is that subject to penalty?

Difference if it is my throw or someone else's throw.

 

[cheesethin]

IMO if the equipment is where it is supposed to be (behind the player's lie).......

......You as thrower leave your bag (equipment) in a random spot somewhere behind your lie, which is perfectly acceptable. ....

Your starting point seems to be that leaving equipment behind the lie is somehow approved or proper or correct. But all the rules say is

810 Interference
G. Players must not stand or leave their equipment where interference with a disc in play may occur.....

they don't give any prescription as to where that is. And where interference 'may occur' will vary based on terrain, shot etc. Certainly for tee shots and fairway shots somewhere behind the lie probably is the optimum place for the least chance of interference. But for an uphill putt, stuff behind your lie is in the premium zone for interference.

 

[IHearChains]

How is this rule as written ambiguous?

810 Interference
G. Players must not stand or leave their equipment where interference with a disc in play may occur...

-------

After the previously thrown disc comes to rest, players have no control over where they leave the marker. It stays at the lie. Therefore, the rules already differentiate between the marker (or disc in play) and all other equipment. Otherwise, we would all have to remove our markers before anyone putts.

However, MTL is arguing that the rules intend for markers to be treated exactly like all other equipment.

His assertion is what is causing the ambiguity, not the rule itself.