While I can concur with this legalistic interpretation, all of that is negated if someone simply says, "hey move your stuff in case a disc comes back down towards you." If he doesn't then a courtesy violation will suffice for me. BEFORE he putts he doesn't know if the disc will come back AND he then has to adhere to my requests to move his stuff from here on out or risk a penalty stroke. Fair warning is fair warning ... even the rules don't require a penalty everytime. SO it's up to someone in the group to note that. I do every time I am on a runaway green.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Interference or not?
- Thread starter sqatch
- Start date
While I can concur with this legalistic interpretation, all of that is negated if someone simply says, "hey move your stuff in case a disc comes back down towards you." If he doesn't then a courtesy violation will suffice for me. BEFORE he putts he doesn't know if the disc will come back AND he then has to adhere to my requests to move his stuff from here on out or risk a penalty stroke. Fair warning is fair warning ... even the rules don't require a penalty everytime. SO it's up to someone in the group to note that. I do every time I am on a runaway green.
joecoin
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,335
Player A has uphill put and places bag next to him.
Player A putts, hits basket and watches his putter roll back towards him and his bag.
Player B picks up Player A's bag before the disc can roll into it.:thmbup::thmbup::thmbup::thmbup:
What is the ruling on said throw?
Player A putts, hits basket and watches his putter roll back towards him and his bag.
Player B picks up Player A's bag before the disc can roll into it.:thmbup::thmbup::thmbup::thmbup:
What is the ruling on said throw?
^^^ Great Question. Looking forward to the answer.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
There would be an interference ruling if Player B didn't move fast enough and the disc still hit the bag while Player B was holding it while moving it. No interference call if neither player tries to move the bag.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Should have said, "There could..." since someone would have to call it.
Why do players B, C, & D continue to let player A putt uphill with his bag next to him?
This is the old, "two guys walk into a bar ... why didn't the second one duck?" kinda of prop.
John Rock
Double Eagle Member
If player A consistently puts his bag next to him on every shot, doesn't seem fair to tell him not to just because you think it might get in the way of a fluke rollaway. Now if he is in a gully where his bag was blocking every possible route a rollaway could take, then you may have an argument.
I've consistently mentioned uphill putts -- not every shot. That's when rule 804.03 (F) applies and that's when I'd ask him not to leave any gear downhill. When putting uphill EVERY miss is a possible rollaway, not the "fluke" that might occur on level ground.
Sometimes this conversation gets obscured/confusing because the verb present tense participles "putting" (to place or move to a location) and "putting" (to propel relatively softly from a close range in order to hole out) are spelled the same.
While agree regarding the bag, the current rules doesn't stop anyone from stopping their own roll away disc intentionally.
I also ask people to move their stuff, if their is a reasonable chance the disc will hit it, but other groups might not, and that is not ideal, IMO.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Consider this scenario: While a group is teeing off, a twig (~18" long) drops to the ground about 20 feet below the target on a hillside. It's not in the line of play. Players are not allowed to move it anyway unless it happens to eventually be in the stance or run-up of a player if they land near it. The group gets to the green area. A player putts, hits the target and it rolls toward the twig. There's enough time for a nearby player to move the twig out of the way. But that would be considered deliberate interference per the rules. Why do we have the inconsistency in interpretation when a bag deliberately placed where the twig was located could be considered interference or a player not moving their bag (randomly placed in that location) out of the way fast enough could be considered interference.
No player can move the twig because no player is responsible for it being there, and rules dictate that it can't be moved at all unless it's in one's lie. A player does move the bag because the player is entirely responsible for it being there, and rules dictate "[p]layers shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with a disc in play may occur."
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I understand the rules. But the fact is in each case, it's simply a random occurrence when a movable object happens to be located in a position where randomly a disc rolls into it. It happens so infrequently that each situation should have the same ruling and consequences. IMO, no ruling or consequences, just random luck.
Well I see more posts about disc hitting players and bags than twigs, so it must occur more often. And there is nothing random about placing your bag "illegally" but not incurring a penalty if your disc happens to be stopped by it. At least not random in the same way as a twig falling down and stopping a rollaway disc. Also as the rule is currently written. The player can run after the disc and stop it, and you still cannot find a rule that says that is not allowed
Because no one posts when they hit a twig, it just happens.
There's no such thing as placing a bag illegally. Anywhere on the course, a bag on the ground has the potential to interfere with a disc in play. The responsibility falls on the other players in the group to recognize that there is a greater than normal chance for a bag to cause interference and ask for it to be moved.
My question is: How far did the putter roll before it hit the bag? I think if its less than 3-4 seconds it should be excusable, but if it rolled for a good 40ft or so back down the hill, he had PLENTY of time to grab it and move if the bag was beside him like you said.
I've never seen this happen, but if it was the 2nd theory I stated...I would be pissed.
I've never seen this happen, but if it was the 2nd theory I stated...I would be pissed.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Don't you think rolling 40 ft down the hill is penalty enough?
That a price you risk on every uphill putt. Thats how birdies can turn into bogeys. Could have laid up and taken a easy par, but when you run at it...stuff like this can happen.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
My point is that not preventing/reducing rollaways can also be seen as a design flaw that can randomly produce penalties greater than the "crime" of a fluky shot. And rollaways can occur even on layups, not just hitting the target. Designers are gradually coming around to agree and are considering installing logs about 20 ft away below a hillside pin to mitigate the rollaway penalty to a level that seems sufficient for the situation. If you fly over the log, it's your own fault. But the logs are permanent "bags" in place to stop most rollaways.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
Since the argument was made above that a 40' roll away should have been an 80' roll away, we're not talking just inside the circle.
Hence, if you want to hold player B responsible (i.e. penalize) when player A's disc hits their bag (or person), then you need to consider the case where player A rips an approach shot that careens off a tree.
A worst case scenario is that player A might move his bag and stop the roll away, but argue he was trying to avoid the disc.
Just too many exceptions to go away from the existing rule which is basically that *if* the field remains the same from the time the disc legally leaves the player's hand until the disc stops, no infraction will occur.
Hence, if you want to hold player B responsible (i.e. penalize) when player A's disc hits their bag (or person), then you need to consider the case where player A rips an approach shot that careens off a tree.
A worst case scenario is that player A might move his bag and stop the roll away, but argue he was trying to avoid the disc.
Just too many exceptions to go away from the existing rule which is basically that *if* the field remains the same from the time the disc legally leaves the player's hand until the disc stops, no infraction will occur.
Similar threads
