Just Didn't Seem Right

[lcra0825]

I am sure you are right, but for reference sake where does it say this in the rule book that after the disc is thrown no one should move?

 

[lcra0825]

If you asked someone to knock your disc down before it goes in the water you would be assessed a penalty of one stroke and throw from where it was to go in the water instead of throwing from the previous lie because the out of bounds penalty supersedes the lost disc penalty. Is this a correct ruling.

 

[joegraham]

If you asked someone to knock your disc down before it goes in the water you would be assessed a penalty of one stroke and throw from where it was to go in the water instead of throwing from the previous lie because the out of bounds penalty supersedes the lost disc penalty. Is this a correct ruling.

Yes.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The concept behind the 803.01 Obstacles and Relief rule is that once casual obstacles have been moved at the request of the thrower, all obstacles are then not to be moved during each player's throw. In essence, each person on/near a hole temporarily becomes a frozen "obstacle" per the rulebook definition (other than moving for safety) once each throw is launched, and can move as needed between throws.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you asked someone to knock your disc down before it goes in the water you would be assessed a penalty of one stroke and throw from where it was to go in the water instead of throwing from the previous lie because the out of bounds penalty supersedes the lost disc penalty. Is this a correct ruling.

No, per 803.04 Interference G. Altering the course of a thrown disc with the consent of the thrower in order to prevent the disc from becoming lost is not punishable interference. Any disc whose course is altered for that reason is considered to be a lost disc.

There is no comparable rule for a disc going OB getting the OB ruling if another player saves it from going OB. The presumption is the reason a thrower requests another player to "save it" is to prevent losing the disc since the OB penalty would be certain.

 

[JC17393]

If you asked someone to knock your disc down before it goes in the water you would be assessed a penalty of one stroke and throw from where it was to go in the water instead of throwing from the previous lie because the out of bounds penalty supersedes the lost disc penalty. Is this a correct ruling.

No.

804.03 Interference
G. Altering the course of a thrown disc with the consent of the thrower in order to prevent the disc from becoming lost is not punishable interference. Any disc whose course is altered for that reason is considered to be a lost disc.

Doesn't matter if the disc's unaltered path would have taken it into an OB area, the rule states it is treated as a lost disc, period.

Besides, rethrowing from the previous lie with penalty is an option for OB shots as well as the procedure for lost disc. The point is moot in trying to differentiate between the two anyway.

 

[JC17393]

The concept behind the 803.01 Obstacles and Relief rule is that once casual obstacles have been moved at the request of the thrower, all obstacles are then not to be moved during each player's throw. In essence, each person on/near a hole temporarily becomes a frozen "obstacle" per the rulebook definition (other than moving for safety) once each throw is launched, and can move as needed between throws.

Casual obstacles are ONLY obstacles that are on or behind the lie, and that fit a finite list of criteria. By definition, if an obstacle is not on or behind one's lie, it's not casual and can't be moved. So if a player is to be considered an obstacle as you've described it, they wouldn't be allowed to move at all unless a disc happened to land in such a place that the person would be on or behind a lie and therefore be a "casual" obstacle. That would make it tough to complete a round, wouldn't it?

 

[mashnut]

Casual obstacles are ONLY obstacles that are on or behind the lie, and that fit a finite list of criteria. By definition, if an obstacle is not on or behind one's lie, it's not casual and can't be moved. So if a player is to be considered an obstacle as you've described it, they wouldn't be allowed to move at all unless a disc happened to land in such a place that the person would be on or behind a lie and therefore be a "casual" obstacle. That would make it tough to complete a round, wouldn't it?

I believe the courtesy rules stipulate that players shall move themselves and their equipment if they are requested to do so.

 

[JC17393]

I believe the courtesy rules stipulate that players shall move themselves and their equipment if they are requested to do so.

So we need to play a game of Mother May I or Red Rover or Simon Says to get down the fairway?

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

I am amazed. by this rule, and that people are arguing with Chuck regarding the rule.

 

[mashnut]

So we need to play a game of Mother May I or Red Rover or Simon Says to get down the fairway?

Sure, since the rules clearly state that no player is ever allowed to move between shots. :|

 

[JC17393]

Sure, since the rules clearly state that no player is ever allowed to move between shots. :|

Seems to be the argument the Chuck is making by trying to classify players as obstacles. Silly, isn't it?

 

[mashnut]

Chuck was arguing that people and equipment shouldn't be moved during a throw, not that they aren't allowed to move when nobody's throwing.

 

[_MTL_]

I agree with Chuck's intreperation of the rules a lot of the time.

However, I could not in any possible way disagree more with his intrepretation of interference.

The fact that anyone shouldn't move a bag or a person shouldn't move out of the way isn't intentional interference, that I don't know what is.

The reason the interference rule involves intent is to take away silly things that don't effect a shot - a disc come to a stop and hitting someones back (ok, it changed they lie 2 feet) or someone happens to step out onto your hole accidently and gets hit by the disc. These are accidents. They happen. This is no different than a golfer hitting a spectator or another player. Play it as it lies.

But when you can control these things, i.e. getting out of the way, moving the bag, that should be done.

We all agree that placing a bag behind a bucket on a slope in hopes that it hits it on a roll away isn't allowed, but it's ok if there happens to be a bag there for another reason? You can't convince me ever that someone shouldn't move their bag in this situation. I will NEVER go for that arguement. EVER.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

I agree with Chuck's intreperation of the rules a lot of the time.

However, I could not in any possible way disagree more with his intrepretation of interference.

The fact that anyone shouldn't move a bag or a person shouldn't move out of the way isn't intentional interference, that I don't know what is.

read the rule book Robert.


LOL!

 

[JC17393]

Chuck was arguing that people and equipment shouldn't be moved during a throw, not that they aren't allowed to move when nobody's throwing.

So he's arguing for a point that no one was disputing? Of course people shouldn't move during a throw, it's a courtesy thing. But there's no need to bring up (his words) "becomes a frozen 'obstacle' per the rulebook definition". A person is not an obstacle. A person is allowed to move anytime they want, even "during a throw", provided they are not creating a distraction to the thrower. They are allowed to move out of the way of a moving disc, even when safety is not an issue. It's ****ing assinine to insist that a person stand stock-still and allow a disc to strike them if they have the time to get out of the way. The rules don't require it and common sense doesn't require it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

My point from the beginning is that players are not required to move as "obstacles," not that they cannot move if they choose to avoid interference. Two rule concepts in balanced opposition such that a player who does not move should never be given an intentional interference penalty for not moving. At most, a courtesy warning.

 

[JC17393]

My point from the beginning is that players are not required to move as "obstacles," not that they cannot move if they choose to avoid interference. Two rule concepts in balanced opposition such that a player who does not move should never be given an intentional interference penalty for not moving. At most, a courtesy warning.

I am fine with a player who does not move not being given an intentional interference penalty for a disc striking them, but I can't go so far as to agree with such a player never being given a penalty. Intent is the crux of the rule, and I don't think intent can be determined absolutely by the rules. It has to be determined on a case by case basis.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm saying the opposing principle for obstacles not moving during a throw balances/eliminates the possibility of calling intentional interference if a player doesn't move. Only if they move with intent can it be called.

 

[iacas]

You need to look at 19-2 Exceptions where it refers to a player's side intentionally interfering with the ball and getting a 2-shot penalty under 1-2.

1-2 can apply. It can also apply if you don't touch your ball, but you still do something to "exert influence."

1-2 doesn't apply to this conversation, though, for reasons in my next paragraph. 19-2 covers "accidental" or "the player not getting out of the way" types of things, which is what we're discussing here. Not your caddie kicking your golf ball before it rolls off the green or swatting your disc out of the air.

With regard to being intentional when a player stands there and doesn't move, yes it is intentional. But the intent is to remain stationary under the principle I said was in opposition to interference which is for nothing to move/be moved once a shot is in flight.

Then that's a stupid principle. In golf, if a ball is coming towards you, you move out of the way. Failure to do so (if it's your ball, your partner's ball, or your boss's ball [you're his caddie]) results in a penalty. For example, if a player chips a ball up a hill and it starts to roll back to him, he needs to get out of the way. So does his caddie. And he better take his golf bag, clubs, towels, etc. with him.

You said just there that it's intentional to stand there. I agree. So she intentionally stopped her disc in motion. That's a rules violation as far as I'm concerned. The alternative makes no sense.

I believe the RC feels the principle for obstacles

That relegates the thrower of the disc (and his "stuff" or "equipment") to obstacles, and I don't agree. A tree is an obstacle. A person is not.

to intentionally remain in position and not move or be moved during a throw equals the perceived intent to interfere by not moving out of the way, partly since the actual trajectory the disc may take is suspect.

Golf balls can go all over the place too. They can bounce off bunker lips, and sometimes they hit a player TRULY unintentionally. The player is still penalized.

That's why I believe the rules indicate it's a coin flip whether you move or not and you shouldn't get penalized under any action or inaction even if struck, unless there was obvious deliberate action taken to move and contact the disc without permission.

That complicates the rules. Now people are forced to determine whether there was an action. What about setting the bag down below the basket on a downhill slope. Sure, the next hole might be in that direction, but who is to say they weren't also thinking it might stop a run-away disc?

The golf rules are simpler: if the disc hits you, it's a penalty. There's no need to draw a silly line between "obvious deliberate actions" and "inactions" and talk about "intent" or not. If the disc hits you, it's a penalty.

I'm not going to draw it out, just wanted to share that perspective.