most COMMON rule violations???

[CwAlbino]

803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off

D. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.

If you are bending branches to take your stance you are violating this rule.

Lets say you are under a bush. You can't bend the branches of the bush back to take your stance. You have to get down, slide a foot in and try to minimize movement. This includes movement from the natural position of the branch.

I think you are interpreting things differently. I have spent many a day in an awkward, one knee, almost on my side stance to try to avoid bending branches from their natural position. To do otherwise would require me to move them, which is against the rules.

You can't hold back the branches with your back.

Quote the whole thing, not parts.

A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.05 C. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.


Therefore, a legal stance is made. It does not state what stance, it states it has to be a legal stance. Once I take my stance, I cannot move the obstacles behind me any farther. Anything moved within that legal stance (branches against back) wold be considered under least movement. If I leaned back farther to press them, it would be illegal. The rule allows for you to get into a legal stance, it does not say you have to do any sort of yoga trick possible to get your foot in there without moving branches. I for one, am limber so I can do this. How would a grandmasters tournament look? I bet those old guys aren't sprawling all over the place to reach a lie.

 

[agent_peebody]

is it illegal to have your cell phone NOT on silent? cause it should be

 

[Thumber]

Quote the whole thing, not parts.

A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.05 C. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.


Therefore, a legal stance is made. It does not state what stance, it states it has to be a legal stance. Once I take my stance, I cannot move the obstacles behind me any farther. Anything moved within that legal stance (branches against back) wold be considered under least movement. If I leaned back farther to press them, it would be illegal. The rule allows for you to get into a legal stance, it does not say you have to do any sort of yoga trick possible to get your foot in there without moving branches. I for one, am limber so I can do this. How would a grandmasters tournament look? I bet those old guys aren't sprawling all over the place to reach a lie.

But the key lies in the first part, which is why I quoted it.

Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle

You can't choose to push all those branches back and then say "ok, I am in my stance". You have to make choices to minimize the movement before you are ever set in the stance. If the GM don't do this, it doesn't mean they are being legal, just that people choose not to enforce the rule with them.

I still disagree with your take on the rules.

 

[John Rock]

Quote the whole thing, not parts.

A. Obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of any obstacle except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.05 C. No relief is granted from park equipment (such as signs, trash cans, picnic tables, etc.) as they are considered part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, a player may not move an obstacle (or hold it back or bend it) in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.


Therefore, a legal stance is made. It does not state what stance, it states it has to be a legal stance. Once I take my stance, I cannot move the obstacles behind me any farther. Anything moved within that legal stance (branches against back) wold be considered under least movement. If I leaned back farther to press them, it would be illegal. The rule allows for you to get into a legal stance, it does not say you have to do any sort of yoga trick possible to get your foot in there without moving branches. I for one, am limber so I can do this. How would a grandmasters tournament look? I bet those old guys aren't sprawling all over the place to reach a lie.

False. If you're in a group with someone that has a spine, you will get called everytime for that infraction. If there is a way to take a stance that does not move ANY branches, you will be required to use that one instead of the branches against the back stance.

 

[CwAlbino]

False. If you're in a group with someone that has a spine, you will get called everytime for that infraction. If there is a way to take a stance that does not move ANY branches, you will be required to use that one instead of the branches against the back stance.

So if I am able to get on one knee and stick my long ass leg out (I'm 6'0") and get it under a bush, I have to take that stance. But the short old guy that isn't quite as limber can do a straddle with branches touching his back because he cannot get down on one knee. Personally I would end up on one knee and way out anyway to get myself out of the obstacles (because of my body length), but I don't think it should be illegal for me to take that same straddle position as the old timer. I'm not saying you can take a normal sideways putting position and push all those branches, I'm just fighting that the stance doesn't require you to be laying on the ground to be in that legal stance. Being in the normal one foot forward, one foot backward stance when you are in a bush would be excessive movement behind the bush when you can just straddle. The way he's trying to make it sound though is that if you can't straddle putt in that position, which I think is bull****.

You have to get down, slide a foot in and try to minimize movement.

 

[John Rock]

The rules don't guarantee you a decent lie. If you throw into a bush, it's your fault, and you have to make the best of it. If you can't get a LEGAL stance because you can't lie/kneel down and slide your foot under the branches, you'll have to take an unplayable lie, then mark appropriately and accept the results (extra stroke) of that.

Bottom line is: If you play around a bunch of trees/bushes, you need to be able to do a little stretching to get out of trouble or you're going to be talking a lot of extra strokes.

 

[Thumber]

I assume i am the "he" referred to here

Body types differ. each player has to choose a stance which minimizes movement. If I see a stance which will minimize movement for you over the stance you are in, you will be notified. A short person will also have to choose a stance that minimizes movement. Being tall and limber allows you to better conform to the spirit of the rule. Being able to lean out further is the advantage you get. I don't understand your argument here.

 

[John Rock]

Another very common violation is the Scorekeepping Procedure. Not many players use the procedure described in the rule book.

 

[CwAlbino]

I assume i am the "he" referred to here

Body types differ. each player has to choose a stance which minimizes movement. If I see a stance which will minimize movement for you over the stance you are in, you will be notified. A short person will also have to choose a stance that minimizes movement. Being tall and limber allows you to better conform to the spirit of the rule. Being able to lean out further is the advantage you get. I don't understand your argument here.

By your ruling, if a large bush about 5' high was surrounding my disc, and I could stick my foot under or through it to reach it, but practically laying on the ground to do so, I would take that stance. But If I wanted to stand up straight instead of out of the bush and throw a tomahawk, I couldn't do that because the branches would be moved by my back being there.

 

[agent_peebody]

By your ruling, if a large bush about 5' high was surrounding my disc, and I could stick my foot under or through it to reach it, but practically laying on the ground to do so, I would take that stance. But If I wanted to stand up straight instead of out of the bush and throw a tomahawk, I couldn't do that because the branches would be moved by my back being there.

yes, i want you laying down on your back

 

[slowRoll]

I've never seen an illegal jump putt...

I think it would be very difficult to throw a disc after having left the ground, so much so that I can't imagine any advantage to even trying it. To suggest that you could accomplish this after having traveled 2 whole feet in the air, well I think it would 1) look really goofy, and 2) have less than desirable results for the player.

Imagine Jordan from the free throw line. They jump up towards their target, and let go before they hit the ground. Happens at 7 oaks all the time.

 

[Thumber]

By your ruling, if a large bush about 5' high was surrounding my disc, and I could stick my foot under or through it to reach it, but practically laying on the ground to do so, I would take that stance. But If I wanted to stand up straight instead of out of the bush and throw a tomahawk, I couldn't do that because the branches would be moved by my back being there.

Yes that is it exactly....you have to take the stance that minimizes the movement. If you don't like it, don't throw it in a bush

 

[dreadlock86]

what is a falling putt?

 

[agent_peebody]

isn't it when you are putting from the knees and you "fall" towards the basket when you're throwing?

 

[CwAlbino]

Yes that is it exactly....you have to take the stance that minimizes the movement. If you don't like it, don't throw it in a bush

Most of the time when you are in a bush, getting your foot through and your body out to the side is moving just as many branches as standing straight up.

 

[Thumber]

Most of the time when you are in a bush, getting your foot through and your body out to the side is moving just as many branches as standing straight up.

Sigh....the point is, you have to take the stance which causes the minimum amount of movement. You are grasping at straws here. If you don't like the rule, write the PDGA, or just continue to ignore it in your local league. But at a big tourny, you will get called out for it

 

[kyleo2o]

falling putts for sure

 

[cydisc]

Imagine Jordan from the free throw line. They jump up towards their target, and let go before they hit the ground. Happens at 7 oaks all the time.

I'd love to see a video of this. The jump putting, not Jordan.

 

[John Rock]

When people call a "falling putt", they are normally referring to a stance infraction, such as stepping past your mark when throwing from within 10m. More of a generic term, such as Frisbee, Xerox, Coke. etc.

 

[zenbot]

Cheater cheater, baby eater!

You shut your face! You said those were asada tacos!