Brodie Smith's Rules Mistake

So it's OK to do what Brodie's caddie did, got it. as in it's OK to move a branch out of the way with your hands but not OK to back into it

live and learn!

I have not seen the video so I cannot confirm nor deny whatever it is he did is legal.

If you are intentionally holding something out of the way while throwing, it is illegal.
 
So it's OK to do what Brodie's caddie did, got it. as in it's OK to move a branch out of the way with your hands but not OK to back into it

live and learn!

I believe the actual distinction is that it is OK to bend it (in a non-permanent fashion) with either your hands, your back, whatever, prior to taking the stance but not OK to hold it with any of your various parts once in the stance.
 
So it's OK to do what Brodie's caddie did, got it. as in it's OK to move a branch out of the way with your hands but not OK to back into it

live and learn!

No, that isn't what was said.

Brodie's caddie couldn't have held the branch back while Brodie threw, nor could Brodie have moved into the branch to hold it back while he threw. Both of those are illegal.

But if you move that same branch, in the same way, in the course of taking the stance, but aren't holding it back as you throw, it's fine, whether it's the caddy doing it or your body.
 
I believe the actual distinction is that it is OK to bend it (in a non-permanent fashion) with either your hands, your back, whatever, prior to taking the stance but not OK to hold it with any of your various parts once in the stance.

I have not seen the video so I cannot confirm nor deny whatever it is he did is legal.

If you are intentionally holding something out of the way while throwing, it is illegal.

No, that isn't what was said.

Brodie's caddie couldn't have held the branch back while Brodie threw, nor could Brodie have moved into the branch to hold it back while he threw. Both of those are illegal.

But if you move that same branch, in the same way, in the course of taking the stance, but aren't holding it back as you throw, it's fine, whether it's the caddy doing it or your body.

Based on all of this I retract my assessment that Brodie's caddie broke the rules. (from what I remember) the caddie held back the branch and Brodie then took his stance, and when the branch was released Brodie was not moving the branch. (assuming the branch returned to the same position it was in before the caddie moved it - highly likely to be the case, but not impossible that holding back the branch could permanently move it in some way)
 
Based on all of this I retract my assessment that Brodie's caddie broke the rules. (from what I remember) the caddie held back the branch and Brodie then took his stance, and when the branch was released Brodie was not moving the branch. (assuming the branch returned to the same position it was in before the caddie moved it - highly likely to be the case, but not impossible that holding back the branch could permanently move it in some way)

Furthering on, if I'm understanding the intent of the rule correctly, his body could have been bending the branch when he threw if that was required in order for him to take the stance that he did. It's the holding of the branch back out of the way by manipulating how you get into the stance that's supposed to be prohibited, rather than the stance itself.

Again, if I'm understanding correctly.
 
Furthering on, if I'm understanding the intent of the rule correctly, his body could have been bending the branch when he threw if that was required in order for him to take the stance that he did. It's the holding of the branch back out of the way by manipulating how you get into the stance that's supposed to be prohibited, rather than the stance itself.

Again, if I'm understanding correctly.

Negative. It is the holding of the branch while in the stance that is no bueno. The stance itself is supposed to result in the least possible movement of stuff around you (which is often but not always none at all).
 
Negative. It is the holding of the branch while in the stance that is no bueno. The stance itself is supposed to result in the least possible movement of stuff around you (which is often but not always none at all).

Well then I will go back to my previous questions about a) stretching out from a lie inside a bush/brush where your leg then presses against some of that brush, and b) performing a run-up throwing from slightly longer grass (I'm talking light ball golf rough).

I wouldn't think either of those would be illegal, but I think by the principle you are laying out here, they would be.
 
Well then I will go back to my previous questions about a) stretching out from a lie inside a bush/brush where your leg then presses against some of that brush, and b) performing a run-up throwing from slightly longer grass (I'm talking light ball golf rough).

I wouldn't think either of those would be illegal, but I think by the principle you are laying out here, they would be.

It's a judgement call because your are required to take a stance that results in the "least" movement. Taking in to account what biscoe said above, he pushed the caddie pushed the branch around quite a bit to get to his stance, but then seemed to pretty much get off the branch so as to not be bending branches from his stance.

The main reason I questioned it is we have seen many players crawl and work really hard to get in to a stance in a tree or bushes and minimize the amount of pushing the branches around while getting to the stance. That implied to me that that was the expectation associated with the rule.

Now I see it as "don't break the branch" as the limiting factor when getting to your preferred stance, but you can do pretty much whatever you need to do to get to said location as long as things go back to their original shape in general.
 
Well then I will go back to my previous questions about a) stretching out from a lie inside a bush/brush where your leg then presses against some of that brush, and b) performing a run-up throwing from slightly longer grass (I'm talking light ball golf rough).

I wouldn't think either of those would be illegal, but I think by the principle you are laying out here, they would be.

Since the rulebook is basically a pamphlet it often falls to us to determine what is actually reasonable. There are many instances where the rule kind of falls apart if taken to extremes. The alternative to this would be golf's rulebook which is a mile thick. Judging by the difficulty players have currently with simple concepts such as 'line of play" I don't think that would go all that well.

In theory if the Mayflies are bad like they were at Lake Marshall last weekend I could likely penalize pretty much the entire field for "Willful and overt destruction, abuse or vandalism of property, including animal and plant life." I know I abused and willfully destroyed the hell out of some Mayflies and I wasn't even playing.
 
Since the rulebook is basically a pamphlet it often falls to us to determine what is actually reasonable. There are many instances where the rule kind of falls apart if taken to extremes. The alternative to this would be golf's rulebook which is a mile thick. Judging by the difficulty players have currently with simple concepts such as 'line of play" I don't think that would go all that well.

In theory if the Mayflies are bad like they were at Lake Marshall last weekend I could likely penalize pretty much the entire field for "Willful and overt destruction, abuse or vandalism of property, including animal and plant life." I know I abused and willfully destroyed the hell out of some Mayflies and I wasn't even playing.

Speaking for myself--and I think Rastnav may have similar experience. We are still novices on all these rules issues. Frequently, the rules discussions are more draconian than your post above. For me, your perspective as someone actively TDing events is appreciated.
 
Since the rulebook is basically a pamphlet it often falls to us to determine what is actually reasonable. There are many instances where the rule kind of falls apart if taken to extremes. The alternative to this would be golf's rulebook which is a mile thick. Judging by the difficulty players have currently with simple concepts such as 'line of play" I don't think that would go all that well.

Golf's rule book isn't all that big. Theoretically it's 160 pages, but they are pocket book size pages. The rule book would fit in a back pocket. But, certainly the rules are more exhaustive and try to cover more than the disc golf rules. And pro golfers frequently don't know those rules either.

But, regardless, I think any rule that is so ambiguous that it is violated clearly and regularly, but no one thinks is an actual violation, is probably something of an issue. Many times that you take a stance with your foot where you are moving some branches, etc., you could move less by doing something like only putting your toe on the lie, using your hand as the supporting point, sitting or lying down fully so that your are fully underneath the branches, etc. If you can explicitly state that these are violations, but that they shouldn't be called, it seems like an issue to me. You are basically saying there are the rules, but we actually must play by "the rules". And trying to keep the rules too simple leads to issues like pine cones not being moveable.

Note that I'm not talking about things like jump putt violations that may be clear on replay , but not to the naked eye. That's a different issue.

If the intent of the rule is to stop people from clearing room for their swing or disc, but isn't supposed to prevent you from taking a stance otherwise, I would think it would perhaps be best to just go ahead and state it.

Ball golf makes use of this by explicitly talking about intent. For instance, applying something to a club face to clean it is fine, but doing the same thing to change how the club performs is forbidden. (Or at least this used to be a specific example in the rule book.) You can spit on your club to clean it, but not to try and lower the balls spin rate. Although, making players explicitly responsible for calling rules violations on themselves also changes the tenor of the application of the rules.
 
But, regardless, I think any rule that is so ambiguous that it is violated clearly and regularly, but no one thinks is an actual violation, is probably something of an issue. Many times that you take a stance with your foot where you are moving some branches, etc., you could move less by doing something like only putting your toe on the lie, using your hand as the supporting point, sitting or lying down fully so that your are fully underneath the branches, etc. If you can explicitly state that these are violations, but that they shouldn't be called, it seems like an issue to me. You are basically saying there are the rules, but we actually must play by "the rules". And trying to keep the rules too simple leads to issues like pine cones not being moveable.

Note that I'm not talking about things like jump putt violations that may be clear on replay , but not to the naked eye. That's a different issue.

If the intent of the rule is to stop people from clearing room for their swing or disc, but isn't supposed to prevent you from taking a stance otherwise, I would think it would perhaps be best to just go ahead and state it.

I tend to agree with you that the rulebook needs to be more explicit in some places. Disc golf is a young sport that is rapidly evolving partially due to growth none of us had any way to foresee. The players are more numerous, the venues are more diverse, many event directors are less experienced. On top of that a few years back the Rules Committee sort of fell apart to a degree with members either leaving or remaining on it and not really taking part. This has been remedied and the rules imo currently lie in better hands than they have since I began running events. The fact that RC members regularly interact with us here on DGCR is indicative of that. They can't fix everything at once however.
 
I tend to agree with you that the rulebook needs to be more explicit in some places. Disc golf is a young sport that is rapidly evolving partially due to growth none of us had any way to foresee. The players are more numerous, the venues are more diverse, many event directors are less experienced. On top of that a few years back the Rules Committee sort of fell apart to a degree with members either leaving or remaining on it and not really taking part. This has been remedied and the rules imo currently lie in better hands than they have since I began running events. The fact that RC members regularly interact with us here on DGCR is indicative of that. They can't fix everything at once however.

All excellent points, and I want to make clear that I'm just offering my perspective on the rules themselves. I don't intend any criticism of anyone on the committee or the committee itself. That kind of job can be a thankless grind, and I appreciate those who put so much of themselves into it.

I completely agree with the point that not everything can be fixed at once. I'd go further and say that there is value in limiting the pace of rule changes. Even if the committee could fix every potential issue at once, they probably shouldn't.
 
In theory if the Mayflies are bad like they were at Lake Marshall last weekend I could likely penalize pretty much the entire field for "Willful and overt destruction, abuse or vandalism of property, including animal and plant life." I know I abused and willfully destroyed the hell out of some Mayflies and I wasn't even playing.

I did not touch one fly, ok maybe once. I did call a curtsey violation on a few of the Mayfiles for drawing blood on my cheek and seconded by the card. :) One was all over me on hole 9 and cause me to miss a 30 footer. I don't ever remember them being that bad in March or July.

Thanks again for another beautiful weekend at the Lake. :clap:
 
... you can do pretty much whatever you need to do to get to said location (Stance) as long as things go back to their original shape in general.

The above sums up the rule nicely. (I added "Stance" to quote)

And what Biscoe mentioned being the initial reason for the rule is what I remember as well. Still to this day, I have to politely stop/correct players from backing into their stance mashing everything in their wake.

Additionally, CAV, I am glad the flies bit you, since you questioned my statement.
 

Latest posts

Top