Limb

[Consult20]

I see your point, but the relief is specifically from "harmful insects or animals". There is nothing that allows you do something specifically for the sake of "safety".

And yes I see your point, I was being literal again.

 

[Always Hyzer Lines]

Conrad cleared this up for me recently. Unattached means on the ground. So even if it is in your lie or run up, some part of the branch has to be on the ground. If it is suspended by other branches you can not move it.

 

[biscoe]

Conrad cleared this up for me recently. Unattached means on the ground. So even if it is in your lie or run up, some part of the branch has to be on the ground. If it is suspended by other branches you can not move it.

That is not how the rule is written nor how people to my knowledge have played it for 20 years. (yes- I know who Conrad is)

 

[krupicka]

The idea is if it is not on the ground, it is not in the stance.

 

[biscoe]

It is in throwing motion however. IMO this rule has been abused forever because everyone takes it to mean their "preferred" stance and "preferred" throwing motion.

 

[krupicka]

There are two sections to 803.01
Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion
Obstacles to a Stance

The ability to move a casual obstacle is provided only in obstacle to a stance, not in the section that includes a throwing motion.

 

[Always Hyzer Lines]

That is not how the rule is written nor how people to my knowledge have played it for 20 years. (yes- I know who Conrad is)

Tell me what you disagree with so I can understand your position.

 

[biscoe]

Tell me what you disagree with so I can understand your position.

there is nothing about "on the ground" in the rule. players have been moving unattached branches hanging from other stuff for years

 

[Always Hyzer Lines]

there is nothing about "on the ground" in the rule. players have been moving unattached branches hanging from other stuff for years

You can only obtain relief from obstacles that are on or behind the lie. The lie is defined as the spot on the playing surface. The playing surface is generally the ground.

I pulled those three sentences out of the rule book.

Agreed, that rule gets taken advantage of all the time.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Conrad cleared this up for me recently. Unattached means on the ground. So even if it is in your lie or run up, some part of the branch has to be on the ground. If it is suspended by other branches you can not move it.

He may be head of the RC but the current rules would disagree. 802.04A indicates your STANCE is the space your body occupies above your lie on the playing surface and the space it may occupy in your throwing motion. According to 802.04A permanent objects cannot be moved except with incidental contact. However, unattached branches suspended above ground that might be in your stance behind the lie are casual obstacles not "protected" from movement by 802.04A. And 803.01B Casual Obstacles to a STANCE allows their movement from your stance behind your lie which ranges from the playing surface up essentially to your height even wearing a top hat.

 

[Always Hyzer Lines]

Chuck, how do you think the rewording of the 2018 rules affects our discussion from earlier this year?

QA-OBS-4
A loose, broken branch is hanging down just behind my marker, making it difficult for me to take a stance. It is not touching the ground. Am I allowed to move it?
Do I get casual relief?
No. Since it is not on your lie (your lie is on the playing surface), it has the same status as a healthy, connected branch. You will have to play around it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Chuck, how do you think the rewording of the 2018 rules affects our discussion from earlier this year?

QA-OBS-4
A loose, broken branch is hanging down just behind my marker, making it difficult for me to take a stance. It is not touching the ground. Am I allowed to move it?
Do I get casual relief?
No. Since it is not on your lie (your lie is on the playing surface), it has the same status as a healthy, connected branch. You will have to play around it.

I would say the RC may have missed a conflict with this new QA based on how the casual obstacle rule was written for 2018:

B. A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course, with the following exceptions:
1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on or behind the lie. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.

Because the rule doesn't specify the casual obstacle that may be moved must explicitly be on the playing surface, the presumption would be that suspended casual obstacles behind a player's lie could be moved. Yes?

 

[Steve West]

QA-OBS-4
A loose, broken branch is hanging down just behind my marker, making it difficult for me to take a stance. It is not touching the ground. Am I allowed to move it?
Do I get casual relief?
No. Since it is not on your lie (your lie is on the playing surface), it has the same status as a healthy, connected branch. You will have to play around it.

I would say the RC may have missed a conflict with this new QA based on how the casual obstacle rule was written for 2018:

B. A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course, with the following exceptions:
1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on or behind the lie. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.

Because the rule doesn't specify the casual obstacle that may be moved must explicitly be on the playing surface, the presumption would be that suspended casual obstacles behind a player's lie could be moved. Yes?

The QA talks about a branch that is hanging ABOVE the lie. So the exact wording in the rule is clear in the specific situation of the QA because the branch is not BEHIND the lie. The branch is above but within the boundaries of the lie. So it is not "on or behind the lie" and cannot qualify as a casual obstacle.

Granted, that leaves a little room to question whether a branch that is hanging BEHIND the lie (more than 30cm back) but off the playing surface could be moved. To me, the nearest applicable rule would be that you treat a branch hanging behind the lie the same as the branch hanging above the lie (you can't move it). More broadly, I think there is more of a fundamental dividing line between {stuff above the playing surface vs. on} than between {stuff on the lie vs. behind}.

Also,

QA-OBS-8
There's a huge spider web right in front
of me where I want to throw. Can I knock
it down?
Only if at least some of it is on the ground
on or behind your lie, in which case it is
debris and can be removed as a casual
obstacle. If it's only in your flight path
or it doesn't touch the ground, it cannot
be moved.

Fleshes out the concept that an obstacle cannot be casual unless it is on the playing surface. See the last sentence in particular.

I think the rule would have been better if it had explicitly included the phrase "on the playing surface" but (to some) that part seemed too obvious to waste the words. Not everyone can think as boundlessly as Chuck.

Or, if you don't like all that reasoning: If the branch is truly unconnected, why hasn't it fallen yet? The rule doesn't say "still attached to where it grew out from". "Connected" could mean "connected enough to not fall."

Having said all that, the group's call (or the TD's if someone appeals) is the official ruling.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Curious why an attempt was made to eliminate moving casual obstacles in the stance considering it's been allowed in the rules since 1986 and didn't seem to be a problem?

Intended rule tweak seems anti-player from an injury risk standpoint. Because players are allowed to contact objects in their throwing motion, some players will just power through the branch (if small enough) with their arm swing and produce a projectile. This won't leave the course in the same state if that was the new rule intent the way an attached living limb typically returns to its original position if moved with an arm swing.

A broken limb hanging where its bottom is two inches above the ground can't be moved but if it fell down two more inches, it could be moved? What if the branch accidentally falls while taking a stance but before throwing motion? One shot penalty?

 

[roblee]

This is an interesting conundrum and one that may have been caught with some crowd-scourced analysis of a proposed change before it was adopted. Also, spider web=debris? The biologist in me grimaces.

 

[mrtho]

The rule has been posted several times. It allows you to move a casual obstacle that is on our behind the lie. The OP stated it was 2' in front of the lie. It doesn't matter if it was a detached limb the size of a SUV and lying on the ground. +1 strokes

 

[biscoe]

This will be among the most frequently misplayed of the updated rules since it has not seen the publicity of some of the others. I would not have noticed it if not for this thread.

 

[biscoe]

I think the rule would have been better if it had explicitly included the phrase "on the playing surface" but (to some) that part seemed too obvious to waste the words. Not everyone can think as boundlessly as Chuck.

A well written rule leaves less room for interpretation, Chuck or no Chuck. Playing devil's advocate and picking the stuff apart is what should go on before it is printed and goes into effect.

 

[Steve West]

Curious why an attempt was made to eliminate moving casual obstacles in the stance considering it's been allowed in the rules since 1986 and didn't seem to be a problem?

This was not thought to be a change from the 2013 rules. In that rules revision, the intent was already that "on or behind the lie" meant on the playing surface – because the lie is on the playing surface, "behind" it must also be on the playing surface. I don't know what the thinking was before that.

A broken limb hanging where its bottom is two inches above the ground can't be moved but if it fell down two more inches, it could be moved

That's the interpretation you'll get if you run it up to the rules committee.

What if the branch accidentally falls while taking a stance but before throwing motion? One shot penalty?

Same as if the branch was clearly entirely in front of the lie and you accidentally knocked it down while taking a stance. Neither branch is covered by the casual obstacle exception.

A well written rule leaves less room for interpretation, Chuck or no Chuck. Playing devil's advocate and picking the stuff apart is what should go on before it is printed and goes into effect.

It did go on. For five years, over thousands of hours and all for free. Much of it on these forums.

Less room for interpretation is one goal. Brevity is another. There are different views about whether anything up in the air should be moved. There are also differing opinions on whether it insults the players' intelligence to write things into the rules that are so obvious that "everybody knows" the right interpretation. Run all that through a crowd with differing opinions about the importance of various goals and also differing opinions about how the game should be played and it can't possibly come out perfect by any one person's standards.

But it comes out a lot better than if any one person were made Rules Tsar.

If there had to be a flaw, finding it in a rule about exceptions to the general rule about not moving anything is not the worst place it could happen. After all, you can certainly and easily comply with the rule by just not moving anything –especially anything off the ground. Maybe the game would be slightly better if there were another exception for certain rare circumstances, but the game can be played just fine without it.

At this point, we know how the rule will be interpreted by the Rules Committee, with 2 QAs to reinforce that interpretation, AND this rule is now on the list of things to be considered for the next revision. Both to make it more explicit, and also to rethink whether "causal obstacles" should only be limited to things on the playing surface.

(Personally, I think the rules should allow hanging dead branches in the stance to be moved. But for now, when taken as a whole with the QAs, they don't.)

 

[biscoe]

This was not thought to be a change from the 2013 rules. In that rules revision, the intent was already that "on or behind the lie" meant on the playing surface – because the lie is on the playing surface, "behind" it must also be on the playing surface. I don't know what the thinking was before that.

What parts of the country (world) have actually been playing it that way? Certainly has not been happening around here. (or Minnesota judging from Chuck's posts)