803.01 Moving Obstacles

[Cgkdisc]

Like 803.02.B?

A multi-branched bush is exactly why this was updated a few years ago and "solid obstacle" was replaced with "obstacle that physically prevents..."

Yes. Although it's not really clear about bushes and moving back enough so player can take their stance on the playing surface. Maybe that could be discussed in a QA?

 

[foxdawg10]

"Professional courtesy" is why so many don't actually enforce the rules these days. I'll cut you slack so you can cut me slack later.
Just because someone taught you a rule, does not mean it is a rule. There is nothing in the rules mentioning arms. As someone else posted earlier, the big booty back-up is most likely is holding back parts of the bush. Approaching the bush from the side or behind is most likely going to move the obstacle a lot less than backing into it. And if that is the case, then backing into bush and holding branches back with your body is not legal.

I am glad this conversation is happening. I disagree that approaching from front or side results in less movement, in this case. A picture speaks a thousand words and we could keep going in circles. Which I dint think is productive, lol.

However I still stand by my statement that since he took the exact same approach in hole 10, he should not have made an issue on hole 16. If he was so adamant, he should have called it on himself.

 

[foxdawg10]

"Professional courtesy" is why so many don't actually enforce the rules these days. I'll cut you slack so you can cut me slack later.
Just because someone taught you a rule, does not mean it is a rule. There is nothing in the rules mentioning arms. As someone else posted earlier, the big booty back-up is most likely is holding back parts of the bush. Approaching the bush from the side or behind is most likely going to move the obstacle a lot less than backing into it. And if that is the case, then backing into bush and holding branches back with your body is not legal.

Also, if there is any gray area at all, and card can not come to agreement, benefit of doubt goes to the player. We did everything we could to get a 3rd opinion and no one was willing to get involved.

The TD confirmed my stance on it, so I believe I was correct in this situation. He knows the course and the exact bush.

The fact that I had just given him a courtesy warning moments before for starting to be super obnoxious earlier in hole leads me to believe he only made his stance as retaliation.

 

[krupicka]

We did everything we could to get a 3rd opinion and no one was willing to get involved.

Which is the other problem with rules enforcement. Players not willing to actually enforce the rules...

 

[foxdawg10]

Which is the other problem with rules enforcement. Players not willing to actually enforce the rules...

To be fair to us players AND the PDGA, no rule book can possibly cover every situation, and some rules are almost impossible to enforce in real time.

Until the PDGA can give us marshals and replay slo mo on every card, we will keep seeing this.

Hence, benefit of doubt to player. THAT is also old school. At end of day we are out for fun, at least at a c-tier local tourney that has a $25 entry fee.

I won, and netted neg $20, lol. So I had no motivation for this to go beyond a 5 second conversation on the course.

 

[Countchunkula]

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.

While I don't think precedent or professional courtesy should come into a rules debate (since they're not rules), the other player is an ass if he knowingly committed the exact same violation earlier in the round only to bitch about his card mate doing the same later on. I wasn't there and maybe there was some nuanced difference between the two stances, but as described that's poor sportsmanship.

 

[foxdawg10]

While I don't think precedent or professional courtesy should come into a rules debate (since they're not rules), the other player is an ass if he knowingly committed the exact same violation earlier in the round only to bitch about his card mate doing the same later on. I wasn't there and maybe there was some nuanced difference between the two stances, but as described that's poor sportsmanship.

Agreed, and it's still so gray if either of us were in violation so I didn't even question his.

 

[foxdawg10]

Which is the other problem with rules enforcement. Players not willing to actually enforce the rules...

801.03. Appeals.

A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

 

[glassila]

Which of these situations would be more in line with the rules?:
1. A player forces their way into a bush touching/bending numerous branches in order to take a legal stance, but once they take their stance the player is not touching any branches and is able to make their throw with very minimal branch contact.
2. A player is able to get his/her foot behind their mini without touching any branches, however as they make their throw they touch and bend numerous branches.

(I am not "old school" and do not feel that a player should lay down and slide in to get to their lie with the absolute least amount of branch contact)

 

[foxdawg10]

Which of these situations would be more in line with the rules?:
1. A player forces their way into a bush touching/bending numerous branches in order to take a legal stance, but once they take their stance the player is not touching any branches and is able to make their throw with very minimal branch contact.
2. A player is able to get his/her foot behind their mini without touching any branches, however as they make their throw they touch and bend numerous branches.

(I am not "old school" and do not feel that a player should lay down and slide in to get to their lie with the absolute least amount of branch contact)

Number 2. I always try to get my foot behind the mini by stretching if I can.

#1 sounds like all kinds of problems, lol. It's clearly against the rules to damage any tree, bush, plant, etc.

 

[biscoe]

Which of these situations would be more in line with the rules?:
1. A player forces their way into a bush touching/bending numerous branches in order to take a legal stance, but once they take their stance the player is not touching any branches and is able to make their throw with very minimal branch contact.
2. A player is able to get his/her foot behind their mini without touching any branches, however as they make their throw they touch and bend numerous branches.

(I am not "old school" and do not feel that a player should lay down and slide in to get to their lie with the absolute least amount of branch contact)

Both are legal. Makes zero difference what you touch/bend on the way in as long as any stuff in front of the lie goes back into place (edit- and you don't break it). How you get to the lie is irrelevant. It is your stance that matters- should be holding/moving as little stuff as possible then. You are allowed by rule to make incidental contact with stuff during your throwing motion.

 

[glassila]

Another tricky part foxdawg10's original scenerio is that a player only 30 seconds to throw once arriving at and determining their lie.
That doesn't leave much time to figure what angle to enter the bush so it results in the least amount of contact.
I would say the player could only take 5-10 seconds to walk around the bush and figure out the best way to get in, then they'd better "get in" or risk a time violation.

 

[foxdawg10]

Another tricky part foxdawg10's original scenerio is that a player only 30 seconds to throw once arriving at and determining their lie.
That doesn't leave much time to figure what angle to enter the bush so it results in the least amount of contact.
I would say the player could only take 5-10 seconds to walk around the bush and figure out the best way to get in, then they'd better "get in" or risk a time violation.

No. Reread the excessive time rule.

 

[Steve West]

No. Reread the excessive time rule.

How about you quote it and show us what was misinterpreted?

 

[foxdawg10]

How about you quote it and show us what was misinterpreted?

Here ya go:

802.03 Excessive Time A. 2.

1 After the previous player has thrown; and,
2 After they have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie; and,

Arrive at and determine the lie. If there is a discussion with a card mate if it a legal stance, that does not eat into the 30 seconds. That would be part of determining the lie correct?

If it takes the player 45 seconds to get through the bush and get to the lie, then the 30 seconds starts, as long as someone on the card announces they are starting the 30 second clock.

 

[Steve West]

Here ya go:

802.03 Excessive Time A. 2.

1 After the previous player has thrown; and,
2 After they have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie; and,

Arrive at and determine the lie. If there is a discussion with a card mate if it a legal stance, that does not eat into the 30 seconds. That would be part of determining the lie correct?

Thanks, that's helpful.

I'd say it's more part of arriving at the lie, but it's all the same chunk of time.

You know where the disc is, so the lie will be behind it or behind a mini (if you mark it). You get a reasonable time to decide whether to mark it (which is what, a second and a half?) And a reasonable time to decide whether 803.02 applies.* Including checking with the rest of the card, I'd say.

And you get a reasonable time to get to that lie. A reasonable time to figure out how to get a foot into a bush so as to cause the least movement is more than what would be a reasonable time for stepping up to the disc in the open.

However, you don't get to mess around forever just because you haven't yet gotten to your lie.
(I always picture a five-year-old hovering their foot behind the marker saying "I'm not at my lie, I'm not at my lie, you can't start the clock yet!")

So, there could be a case where a player was taking sooooo long to get into that bush that the 30 second clock should have started.

*803.02 Relief from Obstacles
B. If an obstacle physically prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc, or from marking a disc above or below the playing surface, the player may mark a new lie on the line of play immediately behind that obstacle.

 

[foxdawg10]

Thanks, that's helpful.

I'd say it's more part of arriving at the lie, but it's all the same chunk of time.

You know where the disc is, so the lie will be behind it or behind a mini (if you mark it). You get a reasonable time to decide whether to mark it (which is what, a second and a half?) And a reasonable time to decide whether 803.02 applies.* Including checking with the rest of the card, I'd say.

And you get a reasonable time to get to that lie. A reasonable time to figure out how to get a foot into a bush so as to cause the least movement is more than what would be a reasonable time for stepping up to the disc in the open.

However, you don't get to mess around forever just because you haven't yet gotten to your lie.
(I always picture a five-year-old hovering their foot behind the marker saying "I'm not at my lie, I'm not at my lie, you can't start the clock yet!")

So, there could be a case where a player was taking sooooo long to get into that bush that the 30 second clock should have started.

*803.02 Relief from Obstacles
B. If an obstacle physically prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc, or from marking a disc above or below the playing surface, the player may mark a new lie on the line of play immediately behind that obstacle.

lol. Hey trust me at that point I wanted to get away from that bush as fast as possible.

Thank you for your feedback. I like things black and white. There were way too many nuances in this situation.

 

[sidewinder22]

Is "unplayable lie" no longer in the rule book?

 

[krupicka]

Is "unplayable lie" no longer in the rule book?

It's now called "809.01 Abandoned Throw"

 

[foxdawg10]

It's now called "809.01 Abandoned Throw"

At the end of the day I take full responsibility. It was a lousy throw and I never should have been in the bush in first place.

I find it very interesting, even at the local level, how many opinions there are in what to me seems like a simple matter, and how entrenched people are in their opinions, lol.