803.01 Moving Obstacles

[foxdawg10]

I played my once a year fun PDGA sanctioned event. Do to logistical issues, I ended up on a card with some dude and his girlfriend who had traveled from out of town. I was fine with it. It rained hard the entire day. We generally had fun.

Hole 10, he ends up buried in a bush and backed up to get to his disc. He asks if stance is OK, I took a perfunctory look, and said yes, go ahead.

Hole 16, i am one stroke ahead, he is pushing super hard by this point because he wanted to win. Starts making obnoxious comments, which I asked him to stop. So my disc ends up buried in a bush.

I back up to my disc, trying not to move many branches, but it was impossible not to move some to get to my disc. I ask if my stance is OK, and he insists my stance is illegal because I moved branches with my torso. Insists that I needed to approach my disc from behind, and not from the front. At this point I knew he was just working me and trying to use the rules to his advantage. So I step out and ask him to point me to the rule that indicates which direction i need to approach my disc from. There was none, but he still insists without any solid reasoning that my stance was illegal. He finally says, go ahead, but its an illegal stance. There was no one else on the card to ask for a second opinion. I was not going to throw under those conditions, so walk back and ask the card behind us. They had no idea and said to take a provisional.

Either way my stance offered no advantage one way or the other. I was going to take a 5 anyway. So I go back, take a stance that resulted in a minimal amount of bush being disturbed. I took my 5, he tied it up. I parked my drive on hole 18 to take the win.

Afterward, I ask the TD for clarification on the rule. He said it is up to the card to decide, but that given the circumstances and our description of the situation, he saw no issue with how I originally approached the disc. The other guy steps into the conversation and is still insisting that I was trying to take an illegal stance. Naturally this lead to more conversation, and after further insistence on his part, I told him he was being very unsportsmanlike and over the top competitive. It's situations like this that made me step away from competitive disc in first place.

So am I right in interpretation that I am allowed by rules to take a stance that results in a minimal amount of movement of the obstacle, and that once I take a stance, I can not intentionally hold back any part of the bush with my arms, etc.? (He insisted that since my torso was touching branches, that I indeed was intentionally holding back part of the bush, which seemed like a huge stretch) Since the TD agreed that my stance would have been OK, to me that should have been end of conversation.

 

[krupicka]

Without actually seeing it, backing up into a bush is more likely going to move the obstacle more than coming in from behind it. In which case backing up into the bush is not least movement. So yes, the player could be correct (but again I'm not seeing exactly what is being moved).

 

[biscoe]

This rule as written ("A player must choose the stance that results in the least movement of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.") is constantly played incorrectly. IMO the actual verbiage would mean that you should opt for things like going to a knee or even sitting/laying down if it keeps your stance from disturbing anything at all. I have never known a single person to actually play it that way- as an absolute as indicated by terms "must" and "least". Perhaps others have seen differently.

 

[foxdawg10]

Without actually seeing it, backing up into a bush is more likely going to move the obstacle more than coming in from behind it. In which case backing up into the bush is not least movement. So yes, the player could be correct (but again I'm not seeing exactly what is being moved).

The disc was exactly in the middle of the bush, so approaching it from any angle would have resulted in the same amount of movement.

I ended up approaching from the side, which still resulted in the same amount of movement as approaching from the front and the back.

As a player I am not obliged to take a stance that works in his favor and puts me in a disadvantage. I have been playing on and off for 25 years and have never ever seen anyone try and apply that interpretation.

Besides that was not his argument. His argument was you can't ever approach from in front, you need to approach from behind. Which is nonsense.

 

[foxdawg10]

This rule as written ("A player must choose the stance that results in the least movement of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.") is constantly played incorrectly. IMO the actual verbiage would mean that you should opt for things like going to a knee or even sitting/laying down if it keeps your stance from disturbing anything at all. I have never known a single person to actually play it that way- as an absolute as indicated by terms "must" and "least". Perhaps others have seen differently.

I normally go to a knee and try to stick my foot in behind the disc. This was not possible.

 

[ru4por]

In the middle of a bush, it would require more of the bush to be moved, to come in from the front and MOVE PAST your disc, than it would to move in from behind the disc and come within a couple feet of the disc, to get a foot on your lie.

 

[foxdawg10]

In the middle of a bush, it would require more of the bush to be moved, to come in from the front and MOVE PAST your disc, than it would to move in from behind the disc and come within a couple feet of the disc, to get a foot on your lie.

Are we talking permanent movement, or just temporary movement? In this case, the stance would have been exactly the same, with the same amount of bush in front of me. no advantage either way.

 

[ru4por]

You stated you were in the middle of a bush.

If the bush is 4 ft deep, you would need to move branches for 2 ft, plus the extra foot it would take back your body behind the lie.....if entering from the front of the bush.

If the bush is 4 ft deep, you would need to move a foot of the branches to get your body behind the lie and your foot to the disc....if entering from the back of the bush. Really less, you get nearly a foot behind your disc to place a foot, so you only need to get a leg 12 inches into the back of the bush.

You cannot permanently move any branch, that is not dead or unattached.

The rules do not allow you access to the best throw.

 

[helix_rider]

His argument was you can't ever approach from in front, you need to approach from behind. Which is nonsense.

I would have had a hard time at that point not asking what the girlfriend (3rd player on the card) thought. Seems like she might have a strong opinion re: coming in from the front or behind.

 

[glassila]

If foxdawg says it didn't matter which way he entered the bush because the same amount of movement of branches would occur then I agree, he should take a stance that gives him the best chance for a successful throw.
I would also say that most players their #1 priority is taking a stance that gives them the best throw instead of a stance which causes the least movement of branches.

 

[foxdawg10]

I would have had a hard time at that point not asking what the girlfriend (3rd player on the card) thought. Seems like she might have a strong opinion re: coming in from the front or behind.

She chose to stay out, conflict of interest I guess. And she wasn't in our division.

I gave him the benefit earlier in the round in the same situation. We have always given the player the benefit if the rules aren't 100% clear, and the card is split.

 

[foxdawg10]

If foxdawg says it didn't matter which way he entered the bush because the same amount of movement of branches would occur then I agree, he should take a stance that gives him the best chance for a successful throw.
I would also say that most players their #1 priority is taking a stance that gives them the best throw instead of a stance which causes the least movement of branches.

We have always played that once you take a stance, you can't intentionally hold branches back with your arms or hands.

Once he said that my body is holding back branches, I suspect he was just working me at that point, lol. Your body is always going to be touching or moving branches, and I was NOT backing into a position purposely to clear room. BUT that is exactly what he did on hole 10 earlier in the round, and I wasn't going to make issue. Once he took his stance, he didn't hold the branches with his arms, but his body did clear room.

My throw sucked no matter what stance I too, lol, but I sure wasn't going to take a stance that put me at the biggest disadvantage either.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I would have had a hard time at that point not asking what the girlfriend (3rd player on the card) thought. Seems like she might have a strong opinion re: coming in from the front or behind.

I'm gonna resist the low hanging fruit on this tree...

 

[foxdawg10]

A better question is: All of you who are saying, sure approach from behind...Is that the way YOU actually play this situation? I have never ever heard that before. Can you tell me a time and place that you and your card mates determined THAT is the way to play this situation?

It sure can't be the first time this has happened.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The concept of backing into your lie being "illegal" comes from players who played by older rules where you weren't allowed to move anything in front of your lie except with incidental contact on your follow through. The concept still exists in the rules indirectly, for example pertaining to spider webs or unattached dangling branches in front of or behind your lie. Backing into your lie and "accidentally" knocking down a spider web or dangling branch would seem like cheating to old schoolers more than doing the same thing when stepping into your lie from behind. Note: knocking them down before taking your stance is currently not allowed anyway whether in front of or behind.

Old schoolers may feel the same way about moving aside living foliage in front of your lie while backing in even if minimal movement is more likely when coming in from the front.

Seems like the simplest, safest way to go moving forward would be (1) to allow removal of spider webs and danglers within the cylinder of your stance and arm swing including those within your arm swing when standing right behind your marker and swinging your arm in front, not just loose items on the ground. (2) The solid object relief rule should include brushy foliage to where a player can get free relief back on the line of play to the closest point (might be just a few inches) where they can physically place their foot on the ground (but no more than 5m) versus on top of branches or within a multi-branched bush. (3) State that moving to your lie from behind it is required unless the group agrees it's not realistically possible (up against a wall). And (4) continue with the rule requiring the player takes their stance producing minimal movement or damage to foliage.

 

[foxdawg10]

The concept of backing into your lie being "illegal" comes from players who played by older rules where you weren't allowed to move anything in front of your lie except with incidental contact on your follow through. The concept still exists in the rules indirectly, for example pertaining to spider webs or unattached dangling branches in front of or behind your lie. Backing into your lie and "accidentally" knocking down a spider web or dangling branch would seem like cheating to old schoolers more than doing the same thing when stepping into your lie from behind. Note: knocking them down before taking your stance is currently not allowed anyway whether in front of or behind.

Old schoolers may feel the same way about moving aside living foliage in front of your lie while backing in even if minimal movement is more likely when coming in from the front.

Seems like the simplest, safest way to go moving forward would be (1) to allow removal of spider webs and danglers within the cylinder of your stance and arm swing including those within your arm swing when standing right behind your marker and swinging your arm in front, not just loose items on the ground. (2) The solid object relief rule should include brushy foliage to where a player can get free relief back on the line of play to the closest point (might be just a few inches) where they can physically place their foot on the ground (but no more than 5m) versus on top of branches or within a multi-branched bush. (3) State that moving to your lie from behind it is required unless the group agrees it's not realistically possible (up against a wall). And (4) continue with the rule requiring the player takes their stance producing minimal movement or damage to foliage.

Again, this is first time I have heard this. Maybe this is a regional thing?

I started playing in 1998 in Rochester, NY, with a bunch of the old school 3 and 4 digit OGers.

I was taught you could back into your lie, but not hold anything with your arms once you established a lie, and this is how the rule is written now.

And by precedent, since I afforded him this interpretation on hole 10, and he accepted it, professional courtesy dictates that he is not allowed to change the interpretation of the rule when it is my turn to play. That is super shady.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's relevant text from the 1997 rulebook and why some old schoolers cringe with "backing into a lie" (803.04 B) or moving anything in front your lie (unless it was known to come onto the fairway during the round). Note that players would be able to remove webs and danglers in their throwing motion, not just on the ground like today. Seems like this wording would still work well today with perhaps just a few tweaks.

1997 RULES
803.04 Obstacles and Relief
A. Permanent or Integral obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of an obstacle that is a permanent or integral 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, except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.
B. Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.
(2) Obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
(3) Obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.
D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.

 

[foxdawg10]

Here's relevant text from the 1997 rulebook and why some old schoolers cringe with "backing into a lie" (803.04 B) or moving anything in front your lie (unless it was known to come onto the fairway during the round). Note that players would be able to remove webs and danglers in their throwing motion, not just on the ground like today. Seems like this wording would still work well today with perhaps just a few tweaks.

1997 RULES
803.04 Obstacles and Relief
A. Permanent or Integral obstacles to a Stance or Throwing Motion: Players must choose a stance which results in the least movement of any part of an obstacle that is a permanent or integral 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, except as allowed for casual obstacles by 803.04 C. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.
B. Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round. Where it is not known if an obstacle has become a factor during a round, it shall not be moved. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to make incidental movement of an obstacle.
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.
(2) Obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
(3) Obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.
D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.

Chuck, 803.04 A is the same as 803.01 A now.

again, maybe yours is a regional interpretation?

It says nothing about backing, or fronting into a lie, and seems to favor backing into a lie, as long as it is the least movement of any part of the bush.

Where I played the old schoolers were fine with backing into a lie, as long as "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"

Again, I would love to hear stories about when and where YOU actually applied the rule the way you are saying you did. Because I don't believe for a second that anyone would purposely put a player at a disadvantage as long as what he is doing matches precedent AND wording of the rules.

Problem with PDGA half the time is they don't even know what their own rules actually say.