Inconsistency between new rule 803.01 B.1.and Q&A?

[Nale72]

Hi,

This question has come up in a Swedish discgolf FB group and as far as I can understand we have some kind of inconsistency/ground for difficult rule decision. Or we just interpret the rule incorrectly.

The old rule 803.01 said:

803.01 Moving Obstacles
A. 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. Once a stance has been taken, the player may not move an obstacle in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.
B. A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course, with the following exceptions:
1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on or behind the lie. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.
2. A player may request that other people move themselves or their belongings.
3. A player may restore course equipment to its proper working order, including the removal of obstacles.
C. A player who moves any obstacle on the course other than as allowed above receives one penalty throw.


The new rule 803.01 B.1 from 2022 say:

A player is not allowed to move any obstacle on the course, with the following exceptions:

1. A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.

So the change (as I understand it) that you no longer get to remove casual obstacles that only interfere with you run-up/anwhere behind the lie, but only casual objects that may interfere with the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed.

However, the Q&A QA-OBS-3 has as far as I know not been updated and say:

QA-OBS-3: My disc came to rest under a long fallen tree branch. The branch is clearly detached from the tree, and extends from behind my disc to in front of it. Can I move the branch?
Yes. If part of the branch is in your stance or run-up behind your marker, you're allowed to move it, even if another part is between your lie and the hole.

So this Q&A say that you are allowed to remove to move a detached branch as long as it is in your stance or run-up.

So does this mean that you may remove every casual obstacle if it interfere with your run-up and not only if it interferes with your possible supporting points? Or is this just an oversight, and that that this Q&A should be updated/changed to only allow removal of the branch if it interferes with your supporting points?

 

[krupicka]

Ugh. QA-OBS-3 was updated, but it seems somehow that the website is incorrect.

The Answer that should be posted is:

Yes. If part of the branch is anywhere you could put a supporting point when taking a stance, you're allowed to move it, even if another part is closer to the hole than the back of your marker

 

[Nale72]

Ugh. QA-OBS-3 was updated, but it seems somehow that the website is incorrect.

The Answer that should be posted is:

Thanks for the clarification, that change sounds more reasonable and in line with the rule change :thmbup:

 

[krupicka]

It's now correct online.

 

[Horsman]

Ugh. QA-OBS-3 was updated, but it seems somehow that the website is incorrect.

The Answer that should be posted is:
Yes. If part of the branch is anywhere you could put a supporting point when taking a stance, you're allowed to move it, even if another part is closer to the hole than the back of your marker

So, since technically I can lay down, stretch my arms out overhead and then throw. That means, for me, that I can clear out a radius of about 8' behind my lie if I would like. 8' being how tall I am with my arms stretched out overhead.

Is that correct, and did that make sense.

 

[biscoe]

Didn't this one start out with the premise that something needed to be on the lie (rather than where a supporting point might be placed) to be movable?

 

[BillFleming]

So, since technically I can lay down, stretch my arms out overhead and then throw. That means, for me, that I can clear out a radius of about 8' behind my lie if I would like. 8' being how tall I am with my arms stretched out overhead.

Is that correct, and did that make sense.

Correct, not really. Made sense, yes.

A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.

You might be able to "reach a length of 8 foot" but where is your supporting point within your lie....that is the only thing that matters.

 

[BillFleming]

And after I posted that, I slapped my forehead....the rule on stance doesn't specify only within the lie. A supporting point can be anywhere as long as one supporting point is in the lie and none are in OB, before the marker, etc.

So, with that I change my response....I'd say you are correct....if you chose to lay on your back, you could clear out all casual obstacles that you would be on....BUT, you couldn't then stand up and throw as the obstacles would not have been in your stance and the movement of them would be illegal.

 

[Steve West]

So, since technically I can lay down, stretch my arms out overhead and then throw. That means, for me, that I can clear out a radius of about 8' behind my lie if I would like. 8' being how tall I am with my arms stretched out overhead.

Is that correct, and did that make sense.

Correct-ish.

The area where you can move some things is a semi-circle with a radius of however far you can put another supporting point while also having a supporting point on the lie. Yes, about 8 feet for a 6' tall person.

The doesn't mean you can "clear out" the whole area.

For one thing, you can only move casual obstacles: "any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director."

And you can only move those casual obstacles if they are on the playing surface.

Also, you still need to throw within 30 seconds.


The idea is that you can move a casual obstacle which might be under your foot (or knee or hand or butt or whatever) at the moment of release, but there is no penalty if you move a casual obstacle and then decide NOT to use that spot for a supporting point. That's why it says "may" be placed, not "will" or "is" placed.

 

[Horsman]

And after I posted that, I slapped my forehead....the rule on stance doesn't specify only within the lie. A supporting point can be anywhere as long as one supporting point is in the lie and none are in OB, before the marker, etc.

So, with that I change my response....I'd say you are correct....if you chose to lay on your back, you could clear out all casual obstacles that you would be on....BUT, you couldn't then stand up and throw as the obstacles would not have been in your stance and the movement of them would be illegal.

Yup agreed. I was talking more in theory then practicality. I was just thinking on the extreme end of what would be allowed.

 

[txmxer]

Correct-ish.

The area where you can move some things is a semi-circle with a radius of however far you can put another supporting point while also having a supporting point on the lie. Yes, about 8 feet for a 6' tall person.

The doesn't mean you can "clear out" the whole area.

For one thing, you can only move casual obstacles: "any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director."

And you can only move those casual obstacles if they are on the playing surface.

Also, you still need to throw within 30 seconds.


The idea is that you can move a casual obstacle which might be under your foot (or knee or hand or butt or whatever) at the moment of release, but there is no penalty if you move a casual obstacle and then decide NOT to use that spot for a supporting point. That's why it says "may" be placed, not "will" or "is" placed.

This was how I pictured what Mike posted as well--a semi-cirle-ish shape behind the lie where you might need to place a supporting point. Normally about 3', but could be a little more if you have an awkward stance.

What I did wonder about was the 30 second rule. If you come up to your disc and it's kind of buried under twigs/branches and you want to clean that up, have you established the lie? After you move the loose debris, you may elect to place a mini, which is the point the lie is established, right?

I don't think this is the type of situation people are expressing concern about, but it does occur.

 

[Steve West]

This was how I pictured what Mike posted as well--a semi-cirle-ish shape behind the lie where you might need to place a supporting point. Normally about 3', but could be a little more if you have an awkward stance.

What I did wonder about was the 30 second rule. If you come up to your disc and it's kind of buried under twigs/branches and you want to clean that up, have you established the lie? After you move the loose debris, you may elect to place a mini, which is the point the lie is established, right?

I don't think this is the type of situation people are expressing concern about, but it does occur.

Please, everyone, listen carefully and spread the word far and wide: There is no addressing the lie. The clock does not wait for you to establish a lie. The clock does not wait for you to place a mini. The clock does not wait for you to step on your lie. The clock does not re-start if you step back from your marker. The clock does not wait for you to finish moving stuff.

The clock starts when you have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie. If you are at the place where you would be allowed to move casual obstacles, the clock has already started.

 

[Nale72]

Correct-ish.

The area where you can move some things is a semi-circle with a radius of however far you can put another supporting point while also having a supporting point on the lie. Yes, about 8 feet for a 6' tall person.

The doesn't mean you can "clear out" the whole area.

For one thing, you can only move casual obstacles: "any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director."

And you can only move those casual obstacles if they are on the playing surface.

Also, you still need to throw within 30 seconds.


The idea is that you can move a casual obstacle which might be under your foot (or knee or hand or butt or whatever) at the moment of release, but there is no penalty if you move a casual obstacle and then decide NOT to use that spot for a supporting point. That's why it says "may" be placed, not "will" or "is" placed.

Yes, this seems reasonable to how I supposed the spirit of the rule was meant.

From golf I'm used to that similar rules, where you "get relief from stuff", you normally only get that if the stance/swing/club choice when you show that the "stuff" is interfering is a reasonble stance/swing/club choice. And when a rule is interpreted, at least by a real rules official, you go to the spirit of the rule most of the time. But in disc golf I don't believe you have that point stated.

So to stretch this a bit. Assume I'm 6 feet tall and I have a pretty open shot/run-up, but with quite a few sticks and stuff in my intended run-up. If I manage to get that stuff out of my way up to 8 feet behind my lie (if that's the distance I get when I lay down on the ground) and throw within 30 seconds, do you belive it's correct according to the rule to be able do that? Even though I without a doubt will not have a supporting point further away than 3 feet when I actually throw my disc?

I have no doubt that I most certainly will never be called out on this since most players a) probably won't know about the rule change, b) they know it and don't like the rule change and/or c) theu either way never ever would call out almost any rule violation to avoid a bad mood on the card for the rest of the round. But what do you believe is correct according to the rule book, and what an "unafraid" and unbiased rules official (if we were to have such) would say?

 

[Nale72]

Please, everyone, listen carefully and spread the word far and wide: There is no addressing the lie. The clock does not wait for you to establish a lie. The clock does not wait for you to place a mini. The clock does not wait for you to step on your lie. The clock does not re-start if you step back from your marker. The clock does not wait for you to finish moving stuff.

The clock starts when you have had a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie. If you are at the place where you would be allowed to move casual obstacles, the clock has already started.

Someone should explain this to Nikko also. It seemed pretty obvious during the last tournament that he used this "ghost rule" to save time since he first did a "pre-putt routine" 3 feet away from his mini and then moved up to his mini and did his normal 20 second to 1½ minute final putt routine.

 

[biscoe]

So to stretch this a bit. Assume I'm 6 feet tall and I have a pretty open shot/run-up, but with quite a few sticks and stuff in my intended run-up. If I manage to get that stuff out of my way up to 8 feet behind my lie (if that's the distance I get when I lay down on the ground) and throw within 30 seconds, do you belive it's correct according to the rule to be able do that? Even though I without a doubt will not have a supporting point further away than 3 feet when I actually throw my disc?

IMO that is correct according to the rules. You can clear anywhere you could possibly put a supporting point within the time constraint.

 

[Horsman]

Taking excessive time. Hard to explain, but you know it when you see it.

 

[Steve West]

..

So to stretch this a bit. Assume I'm 6 feet tall and I have a pretty open shot/run-up, but with quite a few sticks and stuff in my intended run-up. If I manage to get that stuff out of my way up to 8 feet behind my lie (if that's the distance I get when I lay down on the ground) and throw within 30 seconds, do you belive it's correct according to the rule to be able do that? Even though I without a doubt will not have a supporting point further away than 3 feet when I actually throw my disc?

...

Yes.

 

[robdeforge]

So to stretch this a bit. Assume I'm 6 feet tall and I have a pretty open shot/run-up, but with quite a few sticks and stuff in my intended run-up. If I manage to get that stuff out of my way up to 8 feet behind my lie (if that's the distance I get when I lay down on the ground) and throw within 30 seconds, do you belive it's correct according to the rule to be able do that? Even though I without a doubt will not have a supporting point further away than 3 feet when I actually throw my disc?

803.01.B.1

A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director.

QA-OBS-3

My disc came to rest under a long, fallen tree branch. The branch is clearly detached from the tree and extends from behind my disc to in front of it. Can I move the branch?

Yes. If part of the branch is anywhere you could put a supporting point when taking a stance, you're allowed to move it, even if another part is closer to the hole than the back of your marker.

emphasis is mine. based on these, seems like yes you are able to do what you're describing

 

[txmxer]

Taking excessive time. Hard to explain, but you know it when you see it.

And thus is born the vague term "a reasonable amount of time" to allow one to use judgement.

 

[Steve West]

And thus is born the vague term "a reasonable amount of time" to allow one to use judgement.

"Subjective" is not the same as "vague".

To hammer home another point, the whole phrase is "a reasonable amount of time to arrive at and determine the lie". You don't get a blanket reasonable amount of time to throw. The other parts of the rule are objective tests.