If you mark with a mini, you no longer have a disc to mark. If you take 3' from ob, you're no longer less than 3' from ob. If you take relief from casual water, you're not necessarily relieved from casual water. Not the same.
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)
The RC has covered your scenario by defining a disc's "position" separate from lie. Your disc only has a 'position' until you declare it as your lie, meaning the place where you will take your stance, or legally relocate it to another position and declare it as your lie. So when you move back up to 5m, you don't have a lie yet since you still don't wish to take a stance there, just a position. I think the RC might need to improve the wording in the Obstacle Relief rule to use the words 'disc position' rather than 'lie' to be consistent with its position/lie definitions.
Take your shoes and socks off and get in there buttercup.
Not legal. If the dress code is being enforced anyway.
So, if your disc lands in standing water, and there's no dry spot within 5.0 m going back along the LOP from the basket through your disc, you're choices boil down to:
a) throw from the water: penalty is wet feet for the rest of the round, but no strokes
b) throw from more than 5m back along LOP: + 1 stroke penalty
c) rethrow from previous lie: + 1 stroke penalty
this is the correct ruling
You're only saying "this is correct". It doesn't seem correct. And the guys have explained why their answer is much more logical. Can you take it any further?
Thanks to everyone who responded and I appreciate that some have a great deal of experience.
The hole in question was replayed today and again was found to be a long, linear bog along the right side of the fairway. After reviewing the rules and the discussions given above my group came to the following conclusions. I note that my play group includes a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer. These guys make their living by interpreting specifications and intent.
1) Any rule has to be interpreted in light of what was intended. In the sport of folf it is intended that you play the designed obstacles of the course. Water not in a water hazard you are intended to get relief from. Getting relief implies not being penalized. Therefore the amount, degree, position, etc of water cannot incur a penalty at some times and not at others. Therefore landing in casual water never incurs a penalty, there are no exceptions to this rule.
2) Just as there is no clear and unambiguous way to correctly determine the distance of a hole there is similarly no clear and unambiguous way to determine line of play, consider a blind hole. Since it cannot be unambiguously determined it cannot be a primary determinant. Therefore the primary determinant in relocating a lie is nearest no closer to the hole.
3) When a player chooses to relocate a lie a change in altitude can occur. This change in altitude produces a Pythagorean change in distance to the hole, which in extreme cases could result in a shortening of the distance to the hole. Changes of this nature are too small to be practically considered relevant to the playing of folf. Pythagorean changes can similarly be considered too small to be relevant in a lateral direction.
With the applicable rules interpreted consideration was given to the particular case:
4) Relocation directly backwards to a dry lie would require a distance of 100 yards and move the lie from the 8th fairway all the way to the 6th green. This is absurd and not required. Relocation to the tee without a penalty stroke is still a penalty and therefore also absurd and unrequired. Therefore the best interpretation is a lateral relocation, nearest and no closer to the hole.
5) Since it is correct in the specific case to relocate laterally no closer to the hole it can be considered in other cases if relocating laterally is the most correct.
Again I appreciate that some of the responders have been playing folf a long time. However these guys have given reasoning to back up their interpretation and placement of the disc that seems a lot more clear-eyed and common sense based on the intent of the rule.
If someone wants to disagree I hope it will be along the lines of discussing where they think the logic is off rather than "I've been playing this game for forty years and it's right 'cause I said it was right and this is how I've always played it since back when some other dork told me this was how to play it and it'd be waaaay too hard for me to actually think about it and yer a f*king newb so yer a POS." You know what Methuselah, sometimes new ideas and interpretations come along that are better than old interpretations and actual progress occurs.
For everyone else I'd just say use this interpretation and increase your fun playing the game, which is why you're playing after all. On my course we'd probably push somebody into the bog if after fishing out your disc with a stick he told you to go back about as far as you can see to play your second shot or else go back to the tee and throw your third shot (with a good chance it goes back in the bog again). If the rules have been changed to speed up play they surely don't want you after good distance off the tee walking all the way back and throwing another tee shot.
Imagine this scenario.
Player A lands in casual water.
Player A says that the casual water stretches too far back/is unplayable to go that way.
Player B disagrees an thinks that it is fairly dry a few meters back.
Player A says that he wants to relocate laterally because both can agree that spot is dry.
Sounds fair this far.
Only Player A's lie in the casual water is behind a Huge dense tree designed to be an obstacle.
Relocating laterally will give Player A a huge benefit compared to no casual water on that day. Therefore laterally isn't just relief but also a boon.
Giving the options of laterally relocating your lie all manner of moist spots will be argued to be casual water in order to laterally relocating the lie. The only fair thing in this scenario would be to follow the rules as they are today giving player A no benefit from having landed in casual water which doesn't, if the course isn't badly designed, cover the whole fairway and thus can be avoided.
Thanks for that. There is already a rule which says if two rules apply you use the one which gives a harsher penalty. Ball golf has a better definition of casual water. You can't just pee beside your disc and say you're in casual water.
You also raise a good point about the Fairness Doctrine. If you throw your disc OOB that is your fault, you get a penalty. Similarly if you threw it in a briar thicket and it's lost. However if you did what the course designer intended and threw your disc right in the fairway you did something good. You don't get penalized for doing the correct thing. I accept that many players here are agreeing on what they think is correct or were told is correct. What is in dispute is that a logical reading and interpretation of the rules does not lead to their conclusions.
Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are on or behind the lie: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the Director before the round. To obtain relief, the player must remove the obstacle if it is practical to do so. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the target, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director).
I'm an engineer too, and I've been playing for ten years, and I've read the rulebook cover-to-cover, does that mean my answer will be more credible?
1. Rules are to be interpreted as they are written. You do not have the freedom to go against a black and white rule because you don't believe the rule's writers were considering your specific situation when the rule was written.
2. Two points make a line. It doesn't get much less ambiguous than that. Figure out where the basket is, imagine a line going from it through the center of your disc, and relocate backwards on that line.
3. The only time I can even begin to imagine a scenario like this would be if the water is in a very deep gully and both the basket and nearest playable lie are on top on either side. In this case the gully likely is not going to be considered casual water. And your lateral relocation is not going to be much help either.
4. The rules are clear, if you cannot establish a new lie within 5 meters, you take a penalty stroke and either replay the previous shot or relocate more than 5 meters, but still on the line of play.
5. It is never correct to relocate the lie laterally. The rules are very clear about this. You can only relocate on the line of play. This is not vague, ambiguous, or open to interpretation.
2) It requires advanced surveying tools to prove that 3 points are indeed colinear. ...
We can expect that reasonable men when they know where the basket is even if they cannot see it can determine if they are moving closer to it or not.
5) I would be happy if you could show me where a lateral relocation is expressly addressed, I haven't found it. The best I have found says closest within 2 meters, no closer to the hole. That includes lateral. We have already discussed that requiring a colinear relocation is both impractical and unenforceable and thus by definition cannot be a rule of play.
4) This relies on the fairness doctrine and common sense about the intent of the game, rules, and penalties. If you believe it is correct to tell someone to go back 2 holes and 300 feet in a straight line versus go to that spot which is nearest and no closer to the pin and is 2 feet away then I will not convince you otherwise.