Putt rolls but is stopped by player's bag?

[Cronemus]

So is there a verdict? I take 2 strokes, he takes one, courtesy violation, etc? Are the rules written so vaguely that there isn't an answer? I probably shouldn't have picked up his bag since he left it there, but how do we score the round?

 

[Aim For The Chains]

No obstacle including people should be moved once a disc is in flight unless the person is in danger from being injured such as dodging a drive, but not a disc rolling away from basket. The proper call in this case is you getting a 1-throw penalty for moving an obstacle on the course per 803.01 A & D. The player who missed the putt still gets the result of what happened which was a 5. If you wanted the bag moved, you could have asked that it be moved before he made the throw but not once the throw is underway.

If you did not move fast enough and his disc struck the bag while you were in the process of moving it, the same thing would happen. You would get a 1-throw penalty and he would play the disc from wherever it ended up.

like this.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not so sure after hearing from others. I think what I posted is how it should be from a spirit of the game standpoint. But based on how ball golf handles it, we need to find out if that was the intent of the RC. If the ruling goes that way, then the original scenario was handled properly with no penalties.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

that was my thought on your response. Basically no changing of the course after a throw has been made or tournament started etc...RC needs to just simplify things really to make these kind of calls more clear.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes, but some others have made the point that the rules do not it make clear whether the course is "frozen" or not once the disc is launched.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

right, like I said which in turn by simplifying some of these "rules" to be more course standards would help. I believe we all have talked about previously in things like designated/designed greens or putting areas vs a straight line X feet from the basket that's more often than not properly defined.

Same goes for rulings like these where stuff could be much more simple than it is currently. The rules are almost convoluted. If we had PGA kind of money and resources, OKAY! maybe the PDGA needs to get real tho'

 

[teemkey]

Not so sure after hearing from others. I think what I posted is how it should be from a spirit of the game standpoint.

I totally agree. You should know if a player or equipment is in a position that may interfere before the throw.

It's very difficult to predict all variations of rolls and ricochets a disc may take after impacting an object. Make sure you avoid the highest probabilities before the throw, then let whatever happens happen.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ball golf is somewhat conflicted on this issue. If the player's ball hits their caddie, equipment or the player, it's a 1-shot penalty. On the other hand, they allow any player including the ball striker to move equipment out of the way while the ball is in motion. Seems to me that other than the player who hit the ball, other players should just allow the ball to hit the ball striker's bag since the ball striker would get a 1-shot penalty anyway. In the OP example, perhaps the way DG should handle it is no one but the thrower be allowed to move the thrower's equipment while their disc is in flight, but give the thrower the 1-throw penalty if their equipment is hit.

 

[Declarkus]

In the OP example, perhaps the way DG should handle it is no one but the thrower be allowed to move the thrower's equipment while their disc is in flight, but give the thrower the 1-throw penalty if their equipment is hit.

I concur.

I guess you'd always have to consider the outside possibility of your disc nailing a tree and ricocheting back to your bag.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I was throwing out from in the woods and my disc hit a trunk maybe 5 feet in front of me and the disc came back into my hand. I reacted, dropping it like a hot potato. I would willingly take a 1-throw penalty just for the humor value of what happened.

 

[WhiteyBear]

I like the fallen limb analogy. If, before I putt, a larger limb (let's just say 6 feet long), falls down behind me, but not in my stance nor in my view, I take my putt and the disc rolls back towards the limb. Another player sees this happening and grans that limb and throws it out of the way. Is that interference?

Now, substitute "limb" for a DG bag. What' the difference? Both are not permanent fixture of the course, both are not in my line of sight nor play, and neither should be moved during the course of my throw while the disc is in motion. Just my two cents.

 

[WhiteyBear]

Which leads me to the second question, should I move that fallen gigantic limb out of the way now? Is that against the rules?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The difference is player equipment can be moved wherever it's located whether in front, behind or beside a player's lie. The only question, in my mind at least and in writing, is whether the RC intended that equipment by movable once the throw in launched. The limb can only be moved when part or all of it is in a player's stance or run-up, not just anywhere behind the player's lie.

 

[JoakimBL]

This thread is a perfect example of why the rule is not clear enough, and should be rewritten. Much of the debate in this thread is how people would like the rule to be, or how they interpret the current rule to fit their expectation of the rules.

Let me also point out, as I have done multiple times in other threads, that there currently is no penalty for interfering with your own disc, only other players discs.

 

[JC17393]

This thread is a perfect example of why the rule is not clear enough, and should be rewritten. Much of the debate in this thread is how people would like the rule to be, or how they interpret the current rule to fit their expectation of the rules.

I'm not sure how what people would like the rule to be is evidence that it isn't clear or should be re-written. I'm sure I've said this before, but just because the rule doesn't do what one thinks it should do doesn't make it a poor or unclear rule. If I think the penalty for going OB should be 3 penalty strokes instead of 1, that doesn't make the current OB rule unclear or poorly written.

That seems, to me at least, to be most of the issue in this thread. Some people want the rule to read a certain way and are trying to stretch what is there or just inserting their own ideas of how they think it should read rather than simply interpreting and applying the text as written. Chuck's "interpretation" is the prime example. At least now he's acknowledging that there's no time component implied by the rule as written, so the assumption that the course is supposed to "freeze" is wishful thinking at best.

It's the positive and the negative of discussion threads like this. On the one hand, talking about the rule helps to understand it. On the other, throwing out unsupported "interpretation" just confuses and complicates things that don't need to be confusing or complicated.

 

[krupicka]

If you can't move your equipment and the course is supposed to "freeze" while a disc is still moving, we'll have to coordinate everyone on the course to make sure that only one person is throwing at a time, let that disc come to rest, and then everyone can move their equipment. you think tournament rounds take too long already?

 

[Cgkdisc]

There's a difference between players and caddies versus spectators with regard to the rules. The PDGA has been working to separate the core rules of the game from the competition rules and here's an example where further separation could potentially be useful. Players and caddies are generally supposed to be behind the player who is throwing and the thrower can make that happen. The rule book should define their actions and the location(s) of their equipment. On the other hand, we have officials, spectators and animals who are going to be forward from the group's lies. And in the case of BG competitions, spectators will be behind the ropes. I'm not suggesting what those rule differences should be, but expecting spectators to not move is unrealistic and they may not even be able to know or see when a player is throwing.

 

[krupicka]

The difference between spectator and caddy is way too fuzzy at the moment and causes other rules issues beyond this one.

 

[JoakimBL]

I'm not sure how what people would like the rule to be is evidence that it isn't clear or should be re-written. I'm sure I've said this before, but just because the rule doesn't do what one thinks it should do doesn't make it a poor or unclear rule. If I think the penalty for going OB should be 3 penalty strokes instead of 1, that doesn't make the current OB rule unclear or poorly written.

You misunderstand me. Or I wasn't clear enough. It's not that people disagree on what the rule should be, that indicates that the rule is unclear, but that there are som many different interpretations of the rule. The rules that are clear, people don't interpret differently. Your point in case, no one claims there is a 2 throw penalty for going OB. It is however my observation that a lot of people tend to interpret the rules the way they like them to be, when it is unclear how it is supposed to be.

While I agree with your interpretation, this thread indicates, players interpret this rule in almost complete opposite ways. And that is in a rules forum, where you would assume most have more interest in the rules than the average player. That would not be such a problem, if Disc Golf wasn't a self officiated sport. We need rules to be pretty clear, if we want to have consistent application of them. And it wouldn't be so difficult to clear up this particular rule.

 

[Declarkus]

I was throwing out from in the woods and my disc hit a trunk maybe 5 feet in front of me and the disc came back into my hand. I reacted, dropping it like a hot potato. I would willingly take a 1-throw penalty just for the humor value of what happened.

Haha. That's crazy