2023 Des Moines Challenge

[foxdawg10]

It does not. You can't just hand-wave away the wording of the rules because they're not convenient for your point. The wording of the rules, as it actually exists in the actual rulebook, does not support your point.

Lets look at the actual wording of the 802.05A-D...
Note: since I am using italics to highlight the text of the rules, I will use bold where the PDGA uses italics within the wording of the rules.

802.05.A
The lie is the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw. The playing surface is a surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. If it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision is made by the Director or by an Official.

Immediately your notion that "A describes the STANCE , and B, C, and D describe the LIE" is demonstrated as incorrect by the structure of the rulebook itself. Anywhere that a term is being defined within a rule/subrule throughout the PDGA Rulebook the term being defined is highlighted with additional emphasis (italics in the rulebook, bold here). The exception being terms defined by an entire section of their own. 802.05.A is defining the lie, and it is made explicit through the use of italics in 802.05.A.

Additionally - the rulebook clearly is not defining the stance in this section. Not only is the term stance not highlighted as a term being defined, but the stance is clearly defined by the text under 802.07.A.

In this section (802.05A) the lie is defined. The playing surface is defined. The stance is not. However, the stance is included as a necessary part of defining the lie: the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw ... - if the player is unable to access a point within the lie, the lie necessarily does not exist in that spot within the boundaries of the lie because a stance can not be taken.

802.05.B-C
The lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area.

A drop zone is a lie. A drop zone is an area on the course, as designated by the Director, from which a throw is made under certain conditions. A drop zone may either be marked and played in the same manner as a teeing area, or in the same manner as a marked lie. A teeing area may be used as a drop zone.

All I want to do with 802.05.B-C is take note of their purpose. 802.05.B is outlining where the lie exists on a tee shot, the teeing area (as defined in 802.04). 802.05.C is defining drop zone and then outlining where the lie exists in the event of the use of a drop zone. Both B and C are explicitly about where a drop zone is.

802.05.D
In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc. The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc. The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to 802.06.

You can not ignore the presence of the first four words of the first sentence. "In all other cases" associates 802.05.D and most specifically its first sentence with the prior sub-rules B and C. You can not ignore the wording of the book for convenience. This is crucial. The first four words of the sentence are necessary context for the rest of that very sentence: "In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the playing surface."

It is clearly, just like B and C, defining WHERE the lie exists. It is not defining what a lie is. That is what 802.05A did, specifically in the sentence that included the word in italics denoting it as the spot in the entire book that is defining what a lie is.


The entire argument that the lie does not change because the boundaries or location of the lie do not change is like saying that if I built a gazebo in my backyard I didn't change my backyard because I didn't change its perimeter or move it to another property.

Because the casual obstacle AND the lie are both defined in the rulebook as on the playing surface, and because casual obstacles are explicitly defined as separate from playing surface, the casual obstacle is necessarily making it impossible to "take a stance" (as 802.05.A says), meaning that in spots where the lie and the casual obstacle would both occupy the space "on" the playing surface, the lie necessarily has "holes" in it, so to speak. By removing the stick you eliminate those "holes" by creating a space where a player can "take a stance."

Just because the boundaries remain the same does not mean that the entire composition of the lie stays the same. A lie can change without changing its boundaries, just like my backyard can change without changing its boundaries.

You are making this way more complicated than the intent of the rule book, because it conveniently supports your argument for a case that is completely separate from the Gannon Buhr situation at the Des Moines Challenge

A Clearly refers to the stance and surface.

B, C and D clearly define the lie for the tee shot, a drop zone, and ever other case.

Removing an obstacle from the lie does not change the lie.

The only time the lie actually changes is if a player takes casual relief, as allowed by the TD defined in 803.02 Relief from Obtacles. "To obtain relief, the player may mark a new lie that is on the line of play, farther from the target, at the nearest point that provides relief (unless greater relief is announced by the Director). "

 

[foxdawg10]

It does not. You can't just hand-wave away the wording of the rules because they're not convenient for your point. The wording of the rules, as it actually exists in the actual rulebook, does not support your point.

Lets look at the actual wording of the 802.05A-D...
Note: since I am using italics to highlight the text of the rules, I will use bold where the PDGA uses italics within the wording of the rules.

802.05.A
The lie is the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw. The playing surface is a surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. If it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision is made by the Director or by an Official.

Immediately your notion that "A describes the STANCE , and B, C, and D describe the LIE" is demonstrated as incorrect by the structure of the rulebook itself. Anywhere that a term is being defined within a rule/subrule throughout the PDGA Rulebook the term being defined is highlighted with additional emphasis (italics in the rulebook, bold here). The exception being terms defined by an entire section of their own. 802.05.A is defining the lie, and it is made explicit through the use of italics in 802.05.A.

Additionally - the rulebook clearly is not defining the stance in this section. Not only is the term stance not highlighted as a term being defined, but the stance is clearly defined by the text under 802.07.A.

In this section (802.05A) the lie is defined. The playing surface is defined. The stance is not. However, the stance is included as a necessary part of defining the lie: the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw ... - if the player is unable to access a point within the lie, the lie necessarily does not exist in that spot within the boundaries of the lie because a stance can not be taken.

802.05.B-C
The lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area.

A drop zone is a lie. A drop zone is an area on the course, as designated by the Director, from which a throw is made under certain conditions. A drop zone may either be marked and played in the same manner as a teeing area, or in the same manner as a marked lie. A teeing area may be used as a drop zone.

All I want to do with 802.05.B-C is take note of their purpose. 802.05.B is outlining where the lie exists on a tee shot, the teeing area (as defined in 802.04). 802.05.C is defining drop zone and then outlining where the lie exists in the event of the use of a drop zone. Both B and C are explicitly about where a drop zone is.

802.05.D
In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc. The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc. The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to 802.06.

You can not ignore the presence of the first four words of the first sentence. "In all other cases" associates 802.05.D and most specifically its first sentence with the prior sub-rules B and C. You can not ignore the wording of the book for convenience. This is crucial. The first four words of the sentence are necessary context for the rest of that very sentence: "In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the playing surface."

It is clearly, just like B and C, defining WHERE the lie exists. It is not defining what a lie is. That is what 802.05A did, specifically in the sentence that included the word in italics denoting it as the spot in the entire book that is defining what a lie is.


The entire argument that the lie does not change because the boundaries or location of the lie do not change is like saying that if I built a gazebo in my backyard I didn't change my backyard because I didn't change its perimeter or move it to another property.

Because the casual obstacle AND the lie are both defined in the rulebook as on the playing surface, and because casual obstacles are explicitly defined as separate from playing surface, the casual obstacle is necessarily making it impossible to "take a stance" (as 802.05.A says), meaning that in spots where the lie and the casual obstacle would both occupy the space "on" the playing surface, the lie necessarily has "holes" in it, so to speak. By removing the stick you eliminate those "holes" by creating a space where a player can "take a stance."

Just because the boundaries remain the same does not mean that the entire composition of the lie stays the same. A lie can change without changing its boundaries, just like my backyard can change without changing its boundaries.

If we can please step out of the theoretical and into the practical, I am trying for the life of me to understand why you are so insistent on this, as if this is the hill you are willing to die on.

What practical application will this have on the course during a round? Who honestly cares if the lie looks different after you remove a branch. At the end of the day the player still needs to have a supporting point within that 20x30 rectangle in order to take a legal stance.

If the rules are so vague that the group can't figure it out, take a provisional and let the TD decide. But in this case they seem very clear to me.

 

[Sewer bill]

I don't have anything to contribute I'm just glad this is being discussed in such depth as I have had goofy situations like this in the woods.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Well, given that "playing surface" isn't clearly defined (I'd say it's intentionally vague), and that we take a stance on top of what could be removed as casual obstacles all the time (leaves, rocks, wood chips, etc.) I'm a little pressed how one could determine that a player was not allowed to take a stance on top of a casual obstacle.

What I understood you to mean was that the lie conforms to the overall surface which is behind the marker disc. Thus the lie behind the marker disc changes based on whether or not the casual obstacle is removed from the lie.

Key though is that playing surface IS defined, and in the section that defines what a casual obstacle is the rules are careful to note that a player may move casual obstacles that are ON the playing surface. This is space also occupied by the lie, which is clearly noted as also ON the playing surface. Nowhere does it state that a casual obstacle becomes playing surface or becomes lie.

You brought up the Gannon Buhr thing as support for the notion that a casual obstacle can become a lie - but I would argue that the shot should not have been thrown like that. It was an incorrect ruling to allow it. I don't see anything indicating that a casual obstacle can become a lie, and in the event that it was determined to be a conventional solid obstacle the rules indicate he should have played behind it pretty clearly in 802.03.

And to address your frustration because we throw from on "leaves, rocks, wood chips" all the time... I would respond that I think we simply throw from illegal positions quite often.

A problem here is the lack of a definition of "debris" (there's a reason so many sports have rulebooks that make a bible look thin, including golf which has far more sections concerned specifically with debris than we do in the R&A's 500+ page tomb). So we do not know exactly WHICH definition of debris to use.

Here are a few options:
scattered pieces of waste or remains.
loose natural material consisting especially of broken pieces of rock.

The PDGA provides a few examples, similar to your short list, in 803.01.B.1: "such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches" - but this is not all inclusive. So it really should be further defined. Considering the definitions above (grabbed quickly from Google which uses Oxford) I would focus on the first definition and as a result consider some things - like wood chips - to be a part of the playing surface. A TD can define a playing surface and I would assume any reasonable TD would affirm wood chips as such in most cases.

But in general per the rules you should not throw from atop rocks, sticks, etc that aren't denoted as a permanent part of the course, that would be considered debris. You are given leave within the rules to remove them and should to be fully in accordance with the rules.

Frankly - I'm sorry if this is seen as a moral failing on my part - but I'm more than happy to take advantage of all of this to provide someone with the option to take a provisional so that we can get everything right while still ignoring all of this because I don't want to call a foot fault on a friend or competitor for taking an illegal stance on a rock that they could and should have moved.


In the end - what would be the easiest thing to do, considering the Buhr situations each of the last few years now - is to add a line noting that a player may or may not stand on top of casual obstacles that are within the boundaries of their lie.

 

[ChrisWoj]

If we can please step out of the theoretical and into the practical, I am trying for the life of me to understand why you are so insistent on this, as if this is the hill you are willing to die on.

What practical application will this have on the course during a round? Who honestly cares if the lie looks different after you remove a branch. At the end of the day the player still needs to have a supporting point within that 20x30 rectangle in order to take a legal stance.

If the rules are so vague that the group can't figure it out, take a provisional and let the TD decide. But in this case they seem very clear to me.

Dude. This entire discussion is centered around practical application. Not only that but it is practical application associated with exactly what you just said you think the players should do.

The purpose of this is to identify whether Gannon Buhr was allowed to take a provisional throw OR NOT. Chuck argued that what you're asking for, that the players "take a provisional," is not an option because the lie does not change.

I am arguing all of this to support the notion that the lie does inherently change, thus enabling the provisional. If the lie does not change, does not become different, which is what you are arguing in favor of: then the players can not take a provisional and let the TD decide.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You are making this way more complicated than the intent of the rule book, because it conveniently supports your argument for a case that is completely separate from the Gannon Buhr situation at the Des Moines Challenge

A Clearly refers to the stance and surface.

B, C and D clearly define the lie for the tee shot, a drop zone, and ever other case.

Removing an obstacle from the lie does not change the lie.

The only time the lie actually changes is if a player takes casual relief, as allowed by the TD defined in 803.02 Relief from Obtacles. "To obtain relief, the player may mark a new lie that is on the line of play, farther from the target, at the nearest point that provides relief (unless greater relief is announced by the Director). "

Why are you choosing to completely ignore the structure of the actual rulebook? A clearly defines the lie. A clearly defines the playing surface. Those terms are placed in italics to clearly identify that as where those terms are defined. A does not define the stance. There is an entire section defining stance - 802.07.

 

[txmxer]

Key though is that playing surface IS defined, and in the section that defines what a casual obstacle is the rules are careful to note that a player may move casual obstacles that are ON the playing surface. This is space also occupied by the lie, which is clearly noted as also ON the playing surface. Nowhere does it state that a casual obstacle becomes playing surface or becomes lie.

You brought up the Gannon Buhr thing as support for the notion that a casual obstacle can become a lie - but I would argue that the shot should not have been thrown like that. It was an incorrect ruling to allow it. I don't see anything indicating that a casual obstacle can become a lie, and in the event that it was determined to be a conventional solid obstacle the rules indicate he should have played behind it pretty clearly in 802.03.

And to address your frustration because we throw from on "leaves, rocks, wood chips" all the time... I would respond that I think we simply throw from illegal positions quite often.

A problem here is the lack of a definition of "debris" (there's a reason so many sports have rulebooks that make a bible look thin, including golf which has far more sections concerned specifically with debris than we do in the R&A's 500+ page tomb). So we do not know exactly WHICH definition of debris to use.

Here are a few options:
scattered pieces of waste or remains.
loose natural material consisting especially of broken pieces of rock.

The PDGA provides a few examples, similar to your short list, in 803.01.B.1: "such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches" - but this is not all inclusive. So it really should be further defined. Considering the definitions above (grabbed quickly from Google which uses Oxford) I would focus on the first definition and as a result consider some things - like wood chips - to be a part of the playing surface. A TD can define a playing surface and I would assume any reasonable TD would affirm wood chips as such in most cases.

But in general per the rules you should not throw from atop rocks, sticks, etc that aren't denoted as a permanent part of the course, that would be considered debris. You are given leave within the rules to remove them and should to be fully in accordance with the rules.

Frankly - I'm sorry if this is seen as a moral failing on my part - but I'm more than happy to take advantage of all of this to provide someone with the option to take a provisional so that we can get everything right while still ignoring all of this because I don't want to call a foot fault on a friend or competitor for taking an illegal stance on a rock that they could and should have moved.


In the end - what would be the easiest thing to do, considering the Buhr situations each of the last few years now - is to add a line noting that a player may or may not stand on top of casual obstacles that are within the boundaries of their lie.

Per your argument above, the lie cannot exist over casual debris, thus the lie does not change when casual debris is present.

Your follow up is that taking a stance on casual debris is thus illegal. Once again, because the lie does not exist over the top of casual debris. It exists on the playing surface and only in the playing surface.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Per your argument above, the lie cannot exist over casual debris, thus the lie does not change when casual debris is present.

Your follow up is that taking a stance on casual debris is thus illegal. Once again, because the lie does not exist over the top of casual debris. It exists on the playing surface and only in the playing surface.

That is not the entirety of my argument. I'm not going to repost all of it, but read through everything. Separate people are nitpicking separate things so you're not getting all of what I'm saying from that post.

Short answer: in order to be a lie a player must be able to take a stance upon it. Within the rules both the casual obstacle and the lie are on the playing surface. They are not described as stacking. They are concurrently filling the same space, interfering with the ability to take a lie. A player may choose to move the casual debris to make the space a lie within the boundaries described in 802.05.D.

Read the earlier posts for the breakdown of how 802.05 as a whole supports this interpretation.

Creating a situation where the lie is changed, becoming different, allowing Gannon to call for a provisional under the circumstances of the Des Moines tournament.

 

[foxdawg10]

That is not the entirety of my argument. I'm not going to repost all of it, but read through everything. Separate people are nitpicking separate things so you're not getting all of what I'm saying from that post.

Short answer: in order to be a lie a player must be able to take a stance upon it. Within the rules both the casual obstacle and the lie are on the playing surface. They are not described as stacking. They are concurrently filling the same space, interfering with the ability to take a lie. A player may choose to move the casual debris to make the space a lie within the boundaries described in 802.05.D.

Read the earlier posts for the breakdown of how 802.05 as a whole supports this interpretation.

Creating a situation where the lie is changed, becoming different, allowing Gannon to call for a provisional under the circumstances of the Des Moines tournament.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement right here. I would word this "interfering with the ability to take a stance", because the lie is still only that 20 x 30 box. The player takes a stance within that lie.

 

[foxdawg10]

Why are you choosing to completely ignore the structure of the actual rulebook? A clearly defines the lie. A clearly defines the playing surface. Those terms are placed in italics to clearly identify that as where those terms are defined. A does not define the stance. There is an entire section defining stance - 802.07.

OK, you seem to be projecting your comprehension problems right now, lmao.

Again, the actual structure of the rule book:

A: Refers to the structure and stance

B-D: Clearly defines the lie in 3 specific common situations that cover 95% of situations in disc golf.

Other sections refer to casual relief, which is what you are referring to.

I can't believe this is still a conversation.

 

[ChrisWoj]

OK, you seem to be projecting your comprehension problems right now, lmao.

Again, the actual structure of the rule book:

A: Refers to the structure and stance

B-D: Clearly defines the lie in 3 specific common situations that cover 95% of situations in disc golf.

Other sections refer to casual relief, which is what you are referring to.

I can't believe this is still a conversation.

The structure utilized LITERALLY THROUGH THE ENTIRE BOOK is that where terms are defined they are placed in italics, unless defined with an entire section. Lie and Playing Surface are defined in A. D is merely identifying the boundaries and location of what is defined in A.

 

[ChrisWoj]

I think this is the crux of the disagreement right here. I would word this "interfering with the ability to take a stance", because the lie is still only that 20 x 30 box. The player takes a stance within that lie.

If a stance cannot be taken, if it is "interfering with the ability to take a stance," it cannot fulfill all of the qualifications of a lie per 802.05.A.

Here's another line of thought to chatter about: Since you are both advocating for the idea that the lie is not changed AND you noted Gannon being able to take his situation to the official while using a provisional in the meantime: how do you justify that, given what Chuck said about Gannon not being allowed to take a provisional because the lie is not changed?

 

[txmxer]

If a stance cannot be taken, if it is "interfering with the ability to take a stance," it cannot fulfill all of the qualifications of a lie per 802.05.A.

Here's another line of thought to chatter about: Since you are both advocating for the idea that the lie is not changed AND you noted Gannon being able to take his situation to the official while using a provisional in the meantime: how do you justify that, given what Chuck said about Gannon not being allowed to take a provisional because the lie is not changed?

Already answered.

 

[foxdawg10]

If a stance cannot be taken, if it is "interfering with the ability to take a stance," it cannot fulfill all of the qualifications of a lie per 802.05.A.

Here's another line of thought to chatter about: Since you are both advocating for the idea that the lie is not changed AND you noted Gannon being able to take his situation to the official while using a provisional in the meantime: how do you justify that, given what Chuck said about Gannon not being allowed to take a provisional because the lie is not changed?

That surprised me to be honest. I can see why he said that given how the rule regarding provisionals is written.

In practice, I have seen provisionals used any time there is a question about a rule or the player disagrees with the card's ruling.

See Paul McBeth, 2016 Ledgestone. His drive on hole 6 didn't meet the criteria of lost disc, questionable OB, or missed mando. The disc was deemed OB. But he did question whether he could re-tee, or had to go to the drop zone. So he took a provisional.

To me it would seem unfair to penalize a player based on a group's incorrect call.

But I agree the wording of the provisional rule seems to indicate otherwise.

AND I did not realize that italics indicated a definition in the rule book. To me it seems like a contradictory use of italics, but hey, rule books are extremely difficult to write, lolol. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[txmxer]

Since this a pretty clear issue in the rules IMO, seems the card should know the rules adequately to adjudicate it properly.

I assumed the card ruled he could not move the stick and thus his reason for calling for a provisional in the first place.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Since this a pretty clear issue in the rules IMO, seems the card should know the rules adequately to adjudicate it properly.

I assumed the card ruled he could not move the stick and thus his reason for calling for a provisional in the first place.

So you're with Chuck - Gannon should have received penalty strokes for what he did.

 

[txmxer]

So you're with Chuck - Gannon should have received penalty strokes for what he did.

I would hate for that to happen as I think the card should know the rules adequately to answer this one correctly. I'm not an expert on the courtesy aspects, but failure to know the rules seems like the card might should receive a stroke courtesy violation if Gannon were to get 2 strokes.

All that is hypothetical since none of it happened. Had I been there in a position responsible for making the call o) my answer would have been that it is legal to move the branch. Either move it or don't. To me it was not a gray area.

it's explicitly answered in the Q&A:

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.

 

[roblee]

You are certainly all in for this discussion Chris. I'm looking for what I agree with but here are a few thinks that I can't resolve with my understanding of the Rules:

You brought up the Gannon Buhr thing as support for the notion that a casual obstacle can become a lie - but I would argue that the shot should not have been thrown like that. It was an incorrect ruling to allow it. I don't see anything indicating that a casual obstacle can become a lie,

Agree that a casual object does not become a lie; however, a casual object can be on/within a lie & you can stand on it to throw.

and in the event that it was determined to be a conventional solid obstacle the rules indicate he should have played behind it pretty clearly in 802.03.

"Conventional solid obstacle" doesn't exist; however, you "may" take casual relief from an obstacle that physically prevents you from taking a legal stance behind the marker. Obviously GB could take a legal stance behind the marker (because he did).

And to address your frustration because we throw from on "leaves, rocks, wood chips" all the time... I would respond that I think we simply throw from illegal positions quite often.

Do you really believe that? Those are casual objects & you have the option of moving them, or not.

A problem here is the lack of a definition of "debris" (there's a reason so many sports have rulebooks that make a bible look thin, including golf which has far more sections concerned specifically with debris than we do in the R&A's 500+ page tomb). So we do not know exactly WHICH definition of debris to use.

Here are a few options:
scattered pieces of waste or remains.
loose natural material consisting especially of broken pieces of rock.

The PDGA provides a few examples, similar to your short list, in 803.01.B.1: "such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches" - but this is not all inclusive. So it really should be further defined.

Yikes. Sounds like rule creep & exactly the kind of over complicated minutia the RC has avoided.

Considering the definitions above (grabbed quickly from Google which uses Oxford) I would focus on the first definition and as a result consider some things - like wood chips - to be a part of the playing surface. A TD can define a playing surface and I would assume any reasonable TD would affirm wood chips as such in most cases.

So no more moving wood chips because they become defined as playing surface? What kind of wood chips? They seem fine lumped with debris.

But in general per the rules you should not throw from atop rocks, sticks, etc that aren't denoted as a permanent part of the course, that would be considered debris. You are given leave within the rules to remove them and should to be fully in accordance with the rules.

Playing on them or not is a choice. You are not forced to move casual objects within your lie. You decide what is covered & ask card for a ruling if you don't agree. I'm not addressing the provisional aspect of this discussion.

Frankly - I'm sorry if this is seen as a moral failing on my part - but I'm more than happy to take advantage of all of this to provide someone with the option to take a provisional so that we can get everything right while still ignoring all of this because I don't want to call a foot fault on a friend or competitor for taking an illegal stance on a rock that they could and should have moved.


In the end - what would be the easiest thing to do, considering the Buhr situations each of the last few years now - is to add a line noting that a player may or may not stand on top of casual obstacles that are within the boundaries of their lie.

Rule already gives "option" to move casual objects: 803.01 B 1 and backpacks: 803.01 b 2. Maybe these could be moved to 803.02?

 

[ChrisWoj]

I would hate for that to happen as I think the card should know the rules adequately to answer this one correctly. I'm not an expert on the courtesy aspects, but failure to know the rules seems like the card might should receive a stroke courtesy violation if Gannon were to get 2 strokes.

All that is hypothetical since none of it happened. Had I been there in a position responsible for making the call o) my answer would have been that it is legal to move the branch. Either move it or don't. To me it was not a gray area.

Calls aren't unilateral. You could not be unilaterally responsible for making the call. That's a pointless addendum to the fact that - under your interpretation, Gannon gets penalty strokes for practice throws. His card mates do not. Thats what happens. It is not gray, I agree, the rules state what they state in black and white.

it's explicitly answered in the Q&A:

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.

Yes, but thats not what we're debating at all. It has absolutely no bearing on the question of: in a situation where the players cannot agree regarding that rule, can Gannon take a provisional and put it to the TD/Official?

I am arguing on behalf of: yes, he can. Because I believe the lie itself inherently is changed by the removal of the casual obstacle from the lie space.

I am not arguing against anything else. My point has literally nothing at all to do with whether or not the rule regarding casual obstacles itself is clear (it is). It only has to do with what Gannon has the right to do on the course when the card cannot decide what the rule is, as was the situation in Des Moines.

 

[Sewer bill]

Soooo what's the verdict? Should Gannon have been stroked for provisional or was that the correct call? Move the stick acceptable?