• 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

WTF!?

I don't care you can interpret the rule and say that its okay to let the disc hit you. I'm gonna move out of the way of the disc every time. It just seems shallow not to move out of the way. In a casual round all of my friends would call me out for doing such a thing. It just good disc etiquette.
 
So a young energetic player who can jump out of the way doesn't get penalized but the unfit/old/overweight unenergetic player gets penalized for trying and failing to get out of the way?
Mabey the fit should have to try to get out of the way and the unfit must stand still.
Either way this would be more unfair than having everyone stand still until the disc stops moving.
 
Grow some boobs and you would be surprised what you can get away with.
 
So a young energetic player who can jump out of the way doesn't get penalized but the unfit/old/overweight unenergetic player gets penalized for trying and failing to get out of the way?
Mabey the fit should have to try to get out of the way and the unfit must stand still...

Uh...yeah. And for the sake of full disclosure, I fit one of the categories you mention (but I'm not unfit, overweight, or unenergetic :D).
 
If everyone should be required to stand still, I think there should be a penalty for ducking out of the way of errant drives.
 
Intentional, guys. Intentional.

If you hit a tree 5 foot in front of you and it ricochets back and hits you, that was hardly intentional, No penalty.

Same thing applies to not moving your bag out of the way. You will have a really hard case convincing people that he placed the bag there intentionally. And wether or not there was enugh time to react and take the bag out of the way... That can never be proven.

So in most cases it will boil down to benefit of the doubt anyway.
 
If everyone should be required to stand still, I think there should be a penalty for ducking out of the way of errant drives.

Well we all could line up like a family of ducks in a row and stand directly behind the thrower. Then you could all Duck if need be.

Rule 808.66: Ducking is only legal when standing in the Duck line directly behind the thrower. The Duck line is complete when all players are standing in the line and quacking. Only then may the thrower proceed.
 
The rules in golf are fairly clear on these kinds of things, and IMO, disc golf should simply adopt and adapt these rules for disc golf and discs in motion that are deflected or stopped.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-19/

aratyx, look over the golf rules. If the ball hits you, it's a penalty. The only "grey area" is whether the ball hit you (and the player's integrity is on the line there), NOT whether someone "intended" to let it hit them.

Why? I don't believe the situations are analogous. Baseball is the same way on a batted ball hitting the runner,

I was NEVER talking about ball golf, because I assert this is one (of several) situations where our two sports differ. The likelihood of those kinds of ricochets/rollaways occurring in our sport is much more likely than ball golf, and possibly being hit can happen if you're standing close by in the woods or on a down slope. So it is common sense (and the rules of disc golf), that the players make sure before the throw that "possible interference" is as unlikely as they can ascertain.
 
I was NEVER talking about ball golf, because I assert this is one (of several) situations where our two sports differ. The likelihood of those kinds of ricochets/rollaways occurring in our sport is much more likely than ball golf, and possibly being hit can happen if you're standing close by in the woods or on a down slope.

You've not seen players shank a ball out of a bunker or bounce a ball off six trees, I suppose.

Discs move a lot more slowly than golf balls, generally speaking, so that probably negates the whole "likelihood" thing.

Golfers know to pay attention (more so than disc golfers perhaps largely due to the fact that being hit with a golf ball is likely to cause pain, damage, even death). If the rules punished people for deflecting or stopping a moving disc they'd be more careful too (because of the rules).

I think the golf rules make more sense because they simply state that if a person deflects or stops a moving ball, then you proceed with the rule. There's none of this grey area "intent" hooey.

So it is common sense (and the rules of disc golf), that the players make sure before the throw that "possible interference" is as unlikely as they can ascertain.

That doesn't prevent it from occurring. :p

If you hit a tree 5 foot in front of you and it ricochets back and hits you, that was hardly intentional, No penalty.

That should be a penalty IMO. To rule otherwise is to try to determine "intent."

Same thing applies to not moving your bag out of the way. You will have a really hard case convincing people that he placed the bag there intentionally. And wether or not there was enugh time to react and take the bag out of the way... That can never be proven.

Who cares if it's intentional. It hit his equipment (his bag). I think that should be a penalty too. Don't put your bag where it can be hit. Again, golfers manage to do this.

Obviously he placed the bag there "intentionally." Whether his intent was to stop a disc, we don't know, but he didn't unintentionally put his bag down.
 
Last edited:
I've never thought of myself as an obstacle on the course so moving out of the way always seemed natural. It does seem like it's taking an unfair advantage of the rules but is that even possible? Knowing the rules takes work and practice also...

I'll have to remember this on the elevated basket by the creek at RL Smith.
 
Definitions, my friend, definitions. First of all -- See what the rule states:
Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with a disc in play may occur. A player may require other players to move themselves or their equipment if either could interfere with the throw.​

In this context the word may is talking about "in the future." Reading this in appropriate contextual English means, that before any throw you cannot stand or leave your stuff or have had stood or have had left your stuff where it might possibly "interfere" with a disc in flight. That simple statement means someone in the group has to have an idea (again, before the throw) of where this might happen. If some crazy ricochet or rollaway, etc., happens and the player doesn't move, I just don't see how he/she can be penalized for doing so. Again, like Chuck, I'm not saying they should or shouldn't or that there's anything wrong with moving, but I don't see how they get penalized for not doing so.

Think about it -- that's the only consistent response. Say there's a situation where a course has a lot of slanted or runaway greens with OB nearby (btw, not the best design IMO). One time the thrower putts, clangs, and it starts rolling back at him/her near the OB. He/she stands still and the putt hits him but still goes OB (violation?) or doesn't go OB (violation?). On the next hole he ends up in a simialr situation. This time he clangs, it rolls, and he attempts to jump out of the way of the rolling disc because he ascribes to the Atrain theory of "I'm gonna get penalized or called for a violation if I don't." So he jumps and tries to get out of the way and the disc stays safe (violation?) or goes OB (violation??) or worse -- earnestly jumps trying to avoid it but is kinda lacking coord, so the disc hits him and deflects safe (violation?) or even worse -- jumps (earnestly) and lacking coord, still accidentally hits/deflects the rolling disc keeping it safe, while two members of the group protest that the disc wasn't gonna hit him anyway, and that he jumped for no reason (violation???). I don't know what the people on my card are gonna say if I jump or try to scurry out of the way at the last second then I still deflect it. Simple solution. If no one has told you to move before the shot, then remaining still should be at least one option which assures you of no penalty.

I do believe Chuck is correct in his interpretation, albeit that is, in this case somewhat incomplete. Someone can ask the player(s) to move themselves or their equipment before the throw. After the throw, it's at least as likely on many scenarios of getting hit/changing the direction of a disc while moving out of the way just as much as standing still. I DO NOT see how this rule would require or even allow or a penalty for "not moving" during the flight/roll/ricochet/whatever of the disc, assuming the player wasn't doing something intentional other than standing at the time of the throw.

I understand your point, but ask you to think of it another way.

There is only one time reference in the wording of the ruling. That is with the word "may." That only limits the timing of this to before the actual point of interference. There is no discussion about before or after the throw. Getting very literal, which many like to do on this site: a player can throw and then ask someone to move out of the way.

The rule does not talk about any "crazy ricochets or rollaways." It states that "Refusal to ... not stand where interference may occur ... is a courtesy violation."

The most consistent answer is to give anyone who intereferes with their own disc a courtesy violation whether they hit it intentionally, negligently, or accidentally.

When the girl saw the disc hit the cage and begin to roll back down towards her, it is reasonable to see that interference may occur and she should not stand there. Further, if we were to say she stopped paying attention after it hit the cage because she was disappointed, she would be negligent to the fact that there was a fair chance that could have happened.

This isn't about freak scenarios. It's about cases where interference is likely.
 
You've not seen players shank a ball out of a bunker or bounce a ball off six trees, I suppose.

Discs move a lot more slowly than golf balls, generally speaking, so that probably negates the whole "likelihood" thing.

Golfers know to pay attention (more so than disc golfers perhaps largely due to the fact that being hit with a golf ball is likely to cause pain, damage, even death). If the rules punished people for deflecting or stopping a moving disc they'd be more careful too (because of the rules).

I think the golf rules make more sense because they simply state that if a person deflects or stops a moving ball, then you proceed with the rule. There's none of this grey area "intent" hooey.



That doesn't prevent it from occurring. :p
Last sentence = Agreed. I don't think it is a penalty either. Most everything before that is either irrelevant or I disagree.



That should be a penalty IMO. To rule otherwise is to try to determine "intent."



Who cares if it's intentional. It hit his equipment (his bag). I think that should be a penalty too. Don't put your bag where it can be hit. Again, golfers manage to do this.

Obviously he placed the bag there "intentionally." Whether his intent was to stop a disc, we don't know, but he didn't unintentionally put his bag down.

Sorry, man. I didn't realize you were arguing what you think it should be, not what it is by the current PDGA rules.
 
I understand your point, but ask you to think of it another way.

There is only one time reference in the wording of the ruling. That is with the word "may." That only limits the timing of this to before the actual point of interference. There is no discussion about before or after the throw. Getting very literal, which many like to do on this site: a player can throw and then ask someone to move out of the way.

The rule does not talk about any "crazy ricochets or rollaways." It states that "Refusal to ... not stand where interference may occur ... is a courtesy violation."

The most consistent answer is to give anyone who intereferes with their own disc a courtesy violation whether they hit it intentionally, negligently, or accidentally.

When the girl saw the disc hit the cage and begin to roll back down towards her, it is reasonable to see that interference may occur and she should not stand there. Further, if we were to say she stopped paying attention after it hit the cage because she was disappointed, she would be negligent to the fact that there was a fair chance that could have happened.

This isn't about freak scenarios. It's about cases where interference is likely.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. But the thrower has a knowledgeable opportunity before he/she throws to say that someone may be in a palce to interfere with my disc.

Question following up on my last scenario (which is not freaky at all):
in your world the way you see it, does the player still get the penalty (or courtesy violation in your case) even if he/she tried to get out of the way in earnest (and everyone agrees) but still deflected the rollaway disc, knocking it into a sure safe situation ? Remember that if they already had onecourtesy violation earlier that round, it will be a penalty.​
 
I agree with that wholeheartedly. But the thrower has a knowledgeable opportunity before he/she throws to say that someone may be in a palce to interfere with my disc.

Question following up on my last scenario (which is not freaky at all):
in your world the way you see it, does the player still get the penalty (or courtesy violation in your case) even if he/she tried to get out of the way in earnest (and everyone agrees) but still deflected the rollaway disc, knocking it into a sure safe situation ? Remember that if they already had one courtesy violation earlier that round, it will be a penalty.​

Yes, even if they tried to get out of the way, it would be a violation. It's unfortunate, but that's the only way to call it.
 
Yes, even if they tried to get out of the way, it would be a violation. It's unfortunate, but that's the only way to call it.

Then, to circle back to the title of this thread... that just didn't seem right.
 
Wait wait wait, so What If...

I putt up a hill, after I release the shot I started walking towards the disc, I get halfway up the hill, and then it bounces off, rolls back down and I stop it. I hadn't 'intended' to stop it, as I thought it was going in, but I just happened to be closer/in the way and stopped it early.

To me, that would be a penalty, and you should have to re-shoot from the original lie. You were in the way period. There is no excuse to not AT LEAST watch your own disc after you throw it. There is no excuse for you to throw and then somehow get hit by your own disc. You're throwing an object forward, If you cant somehow get out of its way should it decide to come back at you, there's something wrong.
 
There is no excuse for you to throw and then somehow get hit by your own disc. You're throwing an object forward, If you cant somehow get out of its way should it decide to come back at you, there's something wrong.

I beg to differ. If you're throwing from behind a tree, hit it, and the disc comes back to you before you have a chance to react to it, I don't think there's "something wrong" in that situation. It's the result of a bad throw, no doubt, but not the result of choosing or neglecting to get out of the way of a moving disc...unless you make a habit of diving to the ground after every throw, just in case.
 
I beg to differ. If you're throwing from behind a tree, hit it, and the disc comes back to you before you have a chance to react to it, I don't think there's "something wrong" in that situation. It's the result of a bad throw, no doubt, but not the result of choosing or neglecting to get out of the way of a moving disc...unless you make a habit of diving to the ground after every throw, just in case.


I suppose I should have clarified, I was ONLY referring to a roll-back. I cant imagine too many cases of not being able to move out of the way of a roll back.
 
Top