Disc lands on tee pad of another card/hole?

[sidewinder22]

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.

Replacing is part C.

 

[JC17393]

Replacing is part C.

Yes, no arguing that. If a thrown disc is moved from its at rest position, it is to be replaced to its approximate position. That's regardless of how the disc came to be moved from its original position...another player moving it, a passerby picking it up, a gust of wind, a chipmunk kicks it, whatever.

But that is entirely separate from the act of moving the disc in the first place. Moving the disc, regardless of the intent to put it right back, is by rule considered intentional interference. Simply picking up another player's disc, without the thrower's permission or knowledge, for the purpose of temporarily clearing it off a tee is subject to penalty.

 

[sidewinder22]

Yes, no arguing that. If a thrown disc is moved from its at rest position, it is to be replaced to its approximate position. That's regardless of how the disc came to be moved from its original position...another player moving it, a passerby picking it up, a gust of wind, a chipmunk kicks it, whatever.

But that is entirely separate from the act of moving the disc in the first place. Moving the disc, regardless of the intent to put it right back, is by rule considered intentional interference. Simply picking up another player's disc, without the thrower's permission or knowledge, for the purpose of temporarily clearing it off a tee is subject to penalty.

But it's not interfering with anything or changing the lie like all those other situations.

 

[JeremyKShort]

No mention of intention or penalty.

That's 804.03c.

804.03d is

A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws:
Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury); or,
Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking); or,
Obscuring a thrown disc or mini marker disc.

Which does mention intentional.

In my earlier post I was discussing if you came to the tee and saw a disc there. If nobody showed up quickly, you couldn't determine if it was a thrown disc currently in play, or a dropped disc. If you moved it in that case you could argue that you didn't realize it was in play, and you had no means to determine if it was. (Of course the thrower would show up eventually, so I wouldn't expect it to really take long).

Now if you saw the thing land on the tee, then you know it's thrown. You could probably wait, but if it takes longer than a few minutes for someone to show up, or at the very least acknowledge you, I think it could be argued that for speed of play you need to get it moved.

This is not like the other areas on the hole, this is the tee. There is not supposed to be anything there. Anything that's physically on the tee area is a casual obstacle. You gotta get that stuff out of the way. And if you're dumb enough to not go check on your disc after a bad enough shot to land on another freaking tee, and you wait long enough that the other card gives up on you, you deserve to have you're disc moved.

I really can't see it taking THAT long for the thrower to show up, or wave or yell at you or something. Maybe if there was a tree line or something and you couldn't see it. But I still wouldn't expect it to take long.

 

[JC17393]

But it's not interfering with anything or changing the lie like all those other situations.

I don't know how many times I have to type this, but the mere act of moving the disc for any reason other than identification, retrieval, or marking is interference. Period. Put all the qualifiers on it you want, but you are trying to introduce things that are irrelevant as far as the letter of the rule is concerned.

Are you picking up the disc in order to identify it?

Are you picking up the disc in order to hand it to the thrower because it is OB or he elected to invoke optional re-throw and the disc is no longer "live"?

Are you picking up the disc in the act of marking it with a mini at the thrower's request?

If the answer to all three of those is "no", don't touch the disc. Simple as that.

 

[sidewinder22]

You can't get to part D if part C happens.

 

[JeremyKShort]

You can't get to part D if part C happens.

I'd say it's possible that D happened if you're dealing with C.

Somebody picks up a disc and moves it. D kicks in and they get two strokes for moving it. Then you deal with C and move it back.

C coming into play does not negate D coming to play. Anytime that you are dealing with D, you then have to deal with C.

 

[sidewinder22]

According your interpretation, an accidental touching/moving is considered intentional because it is not listed as an exemption from intentional. The word "accidental" does not appear anywhere in the rule.

 

[JeremyKShort]

That's why I specifically said in my example that they picked it up. I was meaning it to be an example of blatant purposeful movement of a disc. I suppose in my example they may have thought it was theirs, and that would be accidental.

But anyway, this is a straw man argument that I've spent enough time on.

I was mainly showing how D and C could both happen.

A guy picks up someone's disc intentionally and moves it because he's a jerk. Part C says the disc gets moved back. Part D says he gets two strokes because it was intentional.

A guy sees yellow champ destroyer on the ground. He threw a yellow champ destroyer. It's near where he thought his landed. He picks it up. He discovers it's not his. Part C Says put it back. Part D says you can pick a disc up to identify it, so he places it back with no penalty.

I don't see how getting to part C can stop you from getting to part D.

 

[sidewinder22]

That's why I specifically said in my example that they picked it up. I was meaning it to be an example of blatant purposeful movement of a disc. I suppose in my example they may have thought it was theirs, and that would be accidental.

But anyway, this is a straw man argument that I've spent enough time on.

I was mainly showing how D and C could both happen.

A guy picks up someone's disc intentionally and moves it because he's a jerk. Part C says the disc gets moved back. Part D says he gets two strokes because it was intentional.

A guy sees yellow champ destroyer on the ground. He threw a yellow champ destroyer. It's near where he thought his landed. He picks it up. He discovers it's not his. Part C Says put it back. Part D says you can pick a disc up to identify it, so he places it back with no penalty.

I don't see how getting to part C can stop you from getting to part D.

How can you apply D, if C is already met? You can't move the disc back if it's already or going to be(intended) replaced to the original lie. If you extrapolate parts 1 and 3 under the "intentional", it becomes rather clear that "intentional interference" is regarding malice alteration of flight or lie.

The intention is not to move/interfere with the lie or flight as D talks about, but replacing it as C talks about...

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).

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);

D.1 you have no idea where the lie would have been, so you can't put it back or replace it. Intention was to hit it in flight and alter lie with malice, so player gets penalty. You can play it where it was hit or re-throw.

Likewise, a player should not be penalized for reflexively interfering with the flight of an errant shot to prevent it from striking someone including himself. The group should consider this "unconscious interference" and not penalize the player deflecting the disc.

Likewise "Replacing the disc/lie for speed of play" should not be considered intentional interference. How can it be interference if it is replaced? The lie being played from was not intentionally interfered with if it was replaced.

D. A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws:
3. Obscuring a thrown disc or mini marker disc.

D.3 if the intention to obscure is successful that would result in a lost disc and re-throw from previous lie. Intention is to conceal with malice. This situation is shady intention as all get out. There is no listed exemption from this part of the rule, although I would think that accidental obscuring would not fall under this penalty(ie you don't know where the disc is and accidentally obscure the lie with your bag or something like nature).

D. A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws:
2. Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking);

D.2 would seem to require that the lie being played from has intentionally been moved or interfered with(not replaced). ie player picks up disc and lies/moves it intentionally somewhere else for you(or player them-self) to play from. If this happens you then go back to part C and player gets two stroke penalty for the malice intention. The shadiness/intention involved would then be consistent with the other two conditions set forth.

 

[sidewinder22]

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).

The current rule doesn't state anything about "any movement", but is very specific about intentionally interfering. The exemptions listed are merely some non-malice examples and not the end all be all of the rule. Exemptions are also made if it moves during Establishing Position as evidenced in the QA. The only way I can see D.2 being applicable is if the disc is not replaced which only then brings the intention into play.

D. A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways
2. Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking);


QA 44: Another Player Touched My Possibly OB Disc
Q:
My throw landed next to an OB creek. It's hard to tell whether the disc is in the creek or not since the edge of the creek comes up into some mud and grass. Another player went up to my disc and pushed it down to see if there's water underneath. Is my disc now automatically in-bounds because another player touched it?

A:
No. Note that the interference and position rules are written in terms of a disc being moved rather than merely touched. The other player did not change the location of your disc. In fact, a disc must sometimes be manipulated in order to determine whose it is. If you move your possibly OB disc, it is automatically OB. But there is no corresponding rule that makes it in-bounds if someone else moves it. If that happens, you restore your disc to its approximate position. Applicable Rules: 804.04 Out-of-Bounds; 804.03 Interference.

No mention of penalty or 804.03 D. The disc is technically touched and moved, but the lie has not technically moved because it gets replaced as per C, just as if you replaced it temporarily.

 

[joshmo65]

Also, 30 seconds only starts once you have selected your lie and stance.

Just an FYI. It is not after you select your lie and stance. The 30 seconds starts as soon as you arrive at your lie and you are free of distractions. This was changed in the last rules change a couple of year ago I think.

804.01 Excessive Time
A. A maximum of 30 seconds is allowed to each player to make a throw after:
1. The previous player has thrown; and,
2. The player has had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at the disc; and,
3. The playing area is clear and free of distractions.

 

[Pwingles]

Can you remove the players disc of another card/hole off the tee pad that your card is playing teeing from, and then remark it by group decision after your card is done teeing off?

How can you apply D, if C is already met? You can't move the disc back if it's already or going to be(intended) replaced to the original lie. If you extrapolate parts 1 and 3 under the "intentional", it becomes rather clear that "intentional interference" is regarding malice alteration of flight or lie.

The intention is not to move/interfere with the lie or flight as D talks about, but replacing it as C talks about...



D.1 you have no idea where the lie would have been, so you can't put it back or replace it. Intention was to hit it in flight and alter lie with malice, so player gets penalty. You can play it where it was hit or re-throw.

Likewise "Replacing the disc/lie for speed of play" should not be considered intentional interference. How can it be interference if it is replaced? The lie being played from was not intentionally interfered with if it was replaced.



D.3 if the intention to obscure is successful that would result in a lost disc and re-throw from previous lie. Intention is to conceal with malice. This situation is shady intention as all get out. There is no listed exemption from this part of the rule, although I would think that accidental obscuring would not fall under this penalty(ie you don't know where the disc is and accidentally obscure the lie with your bag or something like nature).


D.2 would seem to require that the lie being played from has intentionally been moved or interfered with(not replaced). ie player picks up disc and lies/moves it intentionally somewhere else for you(or player them-self) to play from. If this happens you then go back to part C and player gets two stroke penalty for the malice intention. The shadiness/intention involved would then be consistent with the other two conditions set forth.

The current rule doesn't state anything about "any movement", but is very specific about intentionally interfering. The exemptions listed are merely some non-malice examples and not the end all be all of the rule. Exemptions are also made if it moves during Establishing Position as evidenced in the QA. The only way I can see D.2 being applicable is if the disc is not replaced which only then brings the intention into play.

No mention of penalty or 804.03 D. The disc is technically touched and moved, but the lie has not technically moved because it gets replaced as per C, just as if you replaced it temporarily.

Why even post the OP if you are just going to argue with everyone? You seem to think you know the answer already so whats the point? You obviously arent interested in anyone elses opinions

 

[sidewinder22]

Why even post the OP if you are just going to argue with everyone? You seem to think you know the answer already so whats the point? You obviously arent interested in anyone elses opinions

First of all I've never claimed to be or believe that I'm a rules know-it-all like some of you here, so I'm learning all this in the process of this thread. Sorry for trying to learn me some rules. :\

There seems to be a huge misinterpretation of this rule IMO. I'm trying to work out some clarity on this and I thought that discussion would help. Arguing seems to be a big part of rules discussion and is just part of the process. Your arguments help shed some clarity whether I'm right or wrong, however your post is not helpful at all.

 

[Pwingles]

First of all I've never claimed to be or believe that I'm a rules know-it-all like some of you here, so I'm learning all this in the process of this thread. Sorry for trying to learn me some rules. :\

There seems to be a huge misinterpretation of this rule IMO. I'm trying to work out some clarity on this and I thought that discussion would help. Arguing seems to be a big part of rules discussion and is just part of the process. Your arguments help shed some clarity whether I'm right or wrong, however your post is not helpful at all.

Misinterpretation?

It's pretty clear, imo

A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws:

Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury); or,
Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking); or,
Obscuring a thrown disc or mini marker disc.

Which part is being misinterpreted?
Your scenario in the OP is no different than any other scenario where another players disc is in your throwing area or stance, and should be treated the same.

 

[sidewinder22]

Misinterpretation?

It's pretty clear, imo

A player who intentionally interferes with another player's disc in any of the following ways shall receive two penalty throws:

Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury); or,
Moving a thrown disc or mini marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, or marking); or,
Obscuring a thrown disc or mini marker disc.

Which part is being misinterpreted?
Your scenario in the OP is no different than any other scenario where another players disc is in your throwing area or stance, and should be treated the same.

The lie is not intentionally moved. It is simply replaced as per part C.

 

[Pwingles]

The lie is not intentionally moved. It is simply replaced as per part C.

replaced with what?

 

[Pwingles]

The lie is not intentionally moved. It is simply replaced as per part C.

OK, I see where the misinterpretation is coming from.. its you

Part C is applicable in the event it has been moved, regardless of why, not as a way of you being able to move someones lie without penalty. It applies in either scenario, whether it was intentionally moved, or not, it still gets put back in the approximate spot it was originally at.

If you moved it intentionally.... you get a penalty, and put it back

If unintentional, say you accidentally kick it while walking down the fairway, put it back with no penalty.

 

[sidewinder22]

replaced with what?

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).

In this case it would be the thrown disc. You are not moving the lie the player is throwing from - as in what happens in with "intentional" interference. You are only replacing it. I do not take the "other than" as the only acceptable reasons to touch a disc and is simply a few examples of non-malice intention, and the QA is example of Establishing Position which is not listed either. The lie is never technically moved only touched.

QA 44: Another Player Touched My Possibly OB Disc
Q:
My throw landed next to an OB creek. It's hard to tell whether the disc is in the creek or not since the edge of the creek comes up into some mud and grass. Another player went up to my disc and pushed it down to see if there's water underneath. Is my disc now automatically in-bounds because another player touched it?

A:
No. Note that the interference and position rules are written in terms of a disc being moved rather than merely touched. The other player did not change the location of your disc. In fact, a disc must sometimes be manipulated in order to determine whose it is. If you move your possibly OB disc, it is automatically OB. But there is no corresponding rule that makes it in-bounds if someone else moves it. If that happens, you restore your disc to its approximate position. Applicable Rules: 804.04 Out-of-Bounds; 804.03 Interference.

 

[sidewinder22]

OK, I see where the misinterpretation is coming from.. its you

Part C is applicable in the event it has been moved, regardless of why, not as a way of you being able to move someones lie without penalty. It applies in either scenario, whether it was intentionally moved, or not, it still gets put back in the approximate spot it was originally at.

If you moved it intentionally.... you get a penalty, and put it back

If unintentional, say you accidentally kick it while walking down the fairway, put it back with no penalty.

No, you only get the penalty if you intentionally don't put it back/replace it.