Disc lands on tee pad of another card/hole?

[JeremyKShort]

801.01a suggests you use an extension of the closet applicable rule to resolve this. So which is the closest, 803.01b (casual obstacles), or 804.03d (interference by moving the disc)? The doesn't seem to be consensus.

I'd say wait, it honestly can't take that long for the player to get to you. The 30 seconds definitely wouldn't start until the tee is clear. If you wait around a good while and he doesn't show up, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect you to wait around forever, and forcing someone to take relief behind the teepad seems completely absurd. If there's no sign that he's coming after ample time is given, then I think an argument could be made to move the disc while everyone tees.

But really, I just can't see it taking that long for someone to show up.

Also, if I came up to a tee pad and there was a disc on it, I'd think it more likely it fell out of someone's bag than it being thrown there, and it could be argued there that it was unintentional by virtue of not realizing it was a "live" disc.

 

[1978]

What if the other player's disc is in your desired run-up, several feet from your disc in the fairway? Is that a legitimate distraction?

The difference being that in the fairways, you only have 30cm behind your lie, whereas on the tee pad you have a lot more room to work with. Also the other players can still play ahead out of order for speed of play mid fairway and typically not as long a wait as from tee pad to tee pad. When on the tee pad, you are absolutely stuck in a holding pattern until that disc is gone, and then creates a backup.[/QUOTE

You can't make up rules just because it might cause a backup. A re-tee causes a back up too, doesnt mean you should just guess where a disc was lost mark it and throw from there with penalty. Tee or upshot it makes no difference, you can't pick up someone elses disc while its in play.

 

[sidewinder22]

But the rule does make some distinctions about what is "intentional"..."other than". I don't see how this situation would fall under the "intentional" part of the rule because your intention is to put it back and not interfere with or be interfered with.

 

[Pwingles]

But the rule does make some distinctions about what is "intentional"..."other than". I don't see how this situation would fall under the "intentional" part of the rule because your intention is to put it back and not interfere with or be interfered with.

The qualifier of "intentional" doesnt mean anything in regard to what your overall intentions are and why you moved it, only that if you "intentionally" interfere with it. Meaning on purpose.

Which is exactly what it would be if you moved it for the purposes of having not be in your way on the tee pad. So it would in fact be intentionally interfering and would apply to that rule, regardless of what you were going to ultimately do with it, after you originally moved it.

 

[JC17393]

The intent in intentional interference when it comes to the rule is the intent to move the disc at all, regardless of the intent to move it back to its original position. The rule defines intentional interference as any movement of any at-rest disc that isn't pursuant to identifying it (e.g. lifting it to look for a name on the bottom of the flight plate), retrieving it (presumably from an OB or other unplayable area), or marking it (with a mini).

I suppose if one were to really want to stretch the rule to avoid penalty, one could pick up the disc from the tee with the pretense/intent of identifying ownership, and while it is in the process of being identified, players could throw from the now clear tee pad.

 

[sidewinder22]

But you also purposely/intentionally moved the disc to check the name on it, or mark it's lie. The wording of the rules seems to distinguish that the penalty is for malicious intentions ie trying to hide someone's disc(You didn't even move it) or move it's flight or lie to make it worse(or better); which is why the circumstances listed "other than" are non-malicious intent exemptions.

 

[Pwingles]

But you also purposely/intentionally moved the disc to check the name on it, or mark it's lie. The wording of the rules seems to distinguish that the penalty is for malicious intentions ie trying to hide someone's disc(You didn't even move it) or move it's flight or lie to make it worse(or better); which is why the circumstances listed "other than" are non-malicious intent exemptions.

tipping it on its edge to check for a name is way different than picking it up and relocating it temporarily, come on

and relocating it doesnt necessarily mean its with malicious intent, but it still is interference

 

[sidewinder22]

Shouldn't this section of the rules then not include the word "intentional". It should just be called "interfering the disc's lie and hiding the disc" rules. Hiding the disc is intentional malice, but not "interference" hence the "intentional" part of this rule.

 

[sidewinder22]

C. A thrown disc at rest that has been moved shall be replaced to its approximate position (see 802.02.E). A marker disc at rest that has been moved shall be replaced to mark the approximate lie (see 802.03.F).

No mention of intention or penalty.

 

[JC17393]

No mention of intention or penalty.

That rule isn't addressing the act of moving the disc though. It is addressing what is to be done once a disc at rest is moved (replacing it).

You're now talking about two separate actions. The first, moving the disc, is one that can be penalized per 804.03 D(2). The second, replacing the disc to its approximate/original position, is one that is called for by rule (804.03 C) and therefore can not be penalized.

 

[sidewinder22]

No. It's not intentional interference because you are not changing the lie as the other parts indicate. Your intention is to put the disc back.

 

[JC17393]

No. It's not intentional interference because you are not changing the lie as the other parts indicate. Your intention is to put the disc back.

Your intention is to move the disc when the rules are pretty clear that you aren't allowed to do so outside of a few narrow and explicit exceptions (identification, retrieval, and marking).

You're trying to introduce nuance into the rule that just doesn't exist.

 

[sidewinder22]

That rule isn't addressing the act of moving the disc though. It is addressing what is to be done once a disc at rest is moved (replacing it).

You're now talking about two separate actions. The first, moving the disc, is one that can be penalized per 804.03 D(2). The second, replacing the disc to its approximate/original position, is one that is called for by rule (804.03 C) and therefore can not be penalized.

E. A player whose thrown disc was intentionally interfered with by another player as described in 804.03.D.1 has the option of a re-throw.

Why would this ^ not be included in part C then?

 

[JC17393]

Why would this ^ not be included in part C then?

Because that is explicitly addressing intentional interference of a disc in flight as it specifically references 804.03.D.1 which reads...

D. A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws
(1) Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury)​

804.03C is addressing a disc at rest. Two separate things.

 

[sidewinder22]

Your intention is to move the disc when the rules are pretty clear that you aren't allowed to do so outside of a few narrow and explicit exceptions (identification, retrieval, and marking).

You're trying to introduce nuance into the rule that just doesn't exist.

You are marking it, just after moving it like following part C. You are not interfering with the lie under that condition.

 

[JC17393]

You are marking it, just after moving it like following part C. You are not interfering with the lie under that condition.

Marking it would be the prerogative of the thrower, not you or any other player.

 

[sidewinder22]

Because that is explicitly addressing intentional interference of a disc in flight as it specifically references 804.03.D.1 which reads...

D. A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws
(1) Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury)​

804.03C is addressing a disc at rest. Two separate things.

No. That includes when the disc is at rest see 2 & 3.

2. Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking); or,
3. Obscuring a thrown disc or mini marker disc.

 

[sidewinder22]

Marking it would be the prerogative of the thrower, not you or any other player.

Ok technically it's not marking it, it's replacing it.

 

[JC17393]

No. That includes when the disc is at rest see 2 & 3.

No it doesn't.

804.03
E. A player whose thrown disc was intentionally interfered with by another player as described in 804.03.D.1 has the option of a re-throw.​

If it included 2&3, it would simply say 804.03.D

 

[JC17393]

Ok technically it's not marking it, it's replacing it.

And replacing it is not one of the exceptions that allow the disc to be moved. Now we're getting somewhere. Intent to replace the disc to its original position is not an exception that allows the disc to be legally moved by someone other than the thrower.