In golf (just saying), the rules don't care if the ball "accidentally" hits you or not - it just matters that it hits you.
I find such a rule clearer because you're not left to determine intent or anything like that.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Just Didn't Seem Right
- Thread starter U_NICED_ME
- Start date
In golf (just saying), the rules don't care if the ball "accidentally" hits you or not - it just matters that it hits you.
I find such a rule clearer because you're not left to determine intent or anything like that.
(just saying) I don't give a **** what the rule is in golf. The current rule in disc golf is based on intent, hence the use of the phrase "intentional interference".
And my point is that the rule in golf is better, because it's a simple question of fact, not determining "intent," and that disc golf should change the rule to be more like that in golf.
Then there are no discussions like this, and no rulings that "just don't seem right".
Smigles
* Ace Member *
Proving intent is something that courts sometimes struggle with for months. I dont understand how something so fuzzy can be in the rules.
Totally agree with iacas
Totally agree with iacas
Me too.
DiscinFiend
* Ace Member *
:thmbup: I agree completly...I also don't like how the court system is set up but that's a different topic
I'll defer to others on golf rules, but certainly other major sports manage with plenty of "intent" rules.
Those other sports have officials that have the say as to whether it was intentional or not. Golf and DG have competitors making the call...
True. But the preceding posts seemed to object to "intent" in the rules in a more sweeping manner---that "intent" shouldn't be in the rules. No stipulation that it shouldn't be in the rules because we don't have an official making the calls. If I misinterpreted them, I apologize.
I don't agree iacas's proposal that the ball golf rule is better. His point of that rule being better is based upon it being "easier to call," not based upon the rule being closer to enforcing the intent of the sport. That shouldn't be the reason for any rule. And sorry "intent" is the reason for every rule -- the intent that we all play by the spirit of the game.
Now moving on factually, despite his insistence otherwise there is a considerably larger percentage of shots in disc golf that are deflected out of their flight path by a tree, bush, leaf, branch, target, sign, building, curb, road, lip, etc., than in ball golf. That fact alone should make it reasonable for the ball golf rule on interference and the disc golf rule on interference to be different.
Once again, I have never stated that the thrower should not get out of the way on a deflection/rollaway. I simply stated he/she should not be penalized for remaining still from where he/she took the throw (one option).
Now moving on factually, despite his insistence otherwise there is a considerably larger percentage of shots in disc golf that are deflected out of their flight path by a tree, bush, leaf, branch, target, sign, building, curb, road, lip, etc., than in ball golf. That fact alone should make it reasonable for the ball golf rule on interference and the disc golf rule on interference to be different.
Once again, I have never stated that the thrower should not get out of the way on a deflection/rollaway. I simply stated he/she should not be penalized for remaining still from where he/she took the throw (one option).
That's not why it's better. It's better because it's a mater of fact versus trying to determine "intent," and because I think golf's rule is closer to the true nature of the sport.
You shouldn't deflect your ball or disc once it's been hit or released. Nor should your opponent.
To allow it because someone didn't "intend" to is to sanction "accidents" and open the door to interpretation on how you define words like "intentional."
That's not the same thing at all.
I don't believe I ever said that. If everyone's paying attention, a disc is no more likely to hit someone than a golf ball is. Golf balls are smaller (tougher to see), travel much faster, and rebound off obstacles faster. There's also more space, and players can be farther apart.
Edit: In fact, I already responded to your mischaracterization of my comments on July 4th.
The PDGA rules state (IIRC) that players are not supposed to advance beyond the person who is away, thus minimizing the chances of a disc hitting someone. This rule is ignored largely in putting, but the discs are also moving slowly and nobody is near enough to the basket that they shouldn't be able to get out of the way.
Why?
Define "remaining still" - should he stay posed in his release position? Is he allowed to put his foot down? Is he allowed
Too many grey areas. The golf rule is simpler, more factual, and still has the same "intent" - to encourage people not to deflect a disc, whether their own or someone else's. It just makes enforcement easier because it becomes a matter of fact instead of a grey area of "intent" or "remaining still."
I started to leave this alone, but since you asked me ("define remaining still") I'll respond.
I think you're starting to thread drift. The OP situation was a player is putting in an area where there is a slope back downhill towards him/her in the direction of/near an OB line. He/she had apparently moved all of his equipment out of the way of any type of potentially obvious errant throw and presumably the players weren't in the way either (behind the putting player). Assuming, a regular straddle putt (not moving the feet, just relaxing the upper body upon release), or a regular staggered stance putt (merely re-placing the back foot down on the ground behind you as you had normally done throughout the round and relaxing the upper body), THEN under the current rules, I don't see how one can be penalized for remaining like that, if a disc clangs, catches an edge and starts rolling kinda towards you then hits you. That's all -- and I believe it to be a correct ruling under current rules.
I'm not sanctioning "accidents", nor am I "allowing" it. Nor was I talking about someone "deflecting" the disc. In every example I gave, the rolling disc or disc in flight hit a motionless player. The word "deflect" in and of itself implies intent. I stated before, that in the OP situation I would move. I just wouldn't penalize someone who didn't, nor someone in other situations where they were hit accidentally. I've seen it happen and never have I encountered a case where it appeared as if it should have been penalized.
I agree the ball golf rule you quoted is simpler hence easier to call. I agree that both rules encourage people not to "deflect" a disc, though in my mind "deflect" has intentional inherently as part of its meaning. Ultimately you may believe it is a better rule, I just don't – and currently, it's not the rule.
I'm done -- you can have the last word.
I think you're starting to thread drift. The OP situation was a player is putting in an area where there is a slope back downhill towards him/her in the direction of/near an OB line. He/she had apparently moved all of his equipment out of the way of any type of potentially obvious errant throw and presumably the players weren't in the way either (behind the putting player). Assuming, a regular straddle putt (not moving the feet, just relaxing the upper body upon release), or a regular staggered stance putt (merely re-placing the back foot down on the ground behind you as you had normally done throughout the round and relaxing the upper body), THEN under the current rules, I don't see how one can be penalized for remaining like that, if a disc clangs, catches an edge and starts rolling kinda towards you then hits you. That's all -- and I believe it to be a correct ruling under current rules.
I'm not sanctioning "accidents", nor am I "allowing" it. Nor was I talking about someone "deflecting" the disc. In every example I gave, the rolling disc or disc in flight hit a motionless player. The word "deflect" in and of itself implies intent. I stated before, that in the OP situation I would move. I just wouldn't penalize someone who didn't, nor someone in other situations where they were hit accidentally. I've seen it happen and never have I encountered a case where it appeared as if it should have been penalized.
Sure it is. The reason there are tournament rules is so we can all play with the same intent and same rules -- not the homemade or casual ones, which may differ from place to place.
Both in the above response and in post#130, you imply (by arguing my point down) that it's just as likely to be hit by a ball in bg as it is by a disc in dg, even explicitly stating you "negate the likelihood thing." If we can't agree that in an environment that is much tighter (less open area in dg than bg), with much tighter lines for the player to hit, with a wider object being projected, where there is a higher concentration of obstacles in the airflight path, where players are typically in larger groupings, where the players tend to stand much closer together, and where each hole's green to next tee is much closer, that there isn't a greater likelihood of being accidentally hit (even in the non-OP situation), then having any further discussion is moot. I don't know about you, but there are at least three (off the top of my head) courses near where I live, all rated 3.9 or higher, where there is at least one tee pad within 50 feet of two different baskets or vice versa. All this naturally leads to a greater likelihood.
I agree the ball golf rule you quoted is simpler hence easier to call. I agree that both rules encourage people not to "deflect" a disc, though in my mind "deflect" has intentional inherently as part of its meaning. Ultimately you may believe it is a better rule, I just don't – and currently, it's not the rule.
I'm done -- you can have the last word.
Similar threads
