Disc Golf Rule Nazi Stories

[asjzn6]

The toughest part about rules Nazis. People talk about the rules make people uncomfortable but don't enforce the rules,last year at an taker guy gave a golfer trouble about taking his stance in a Bush a and branches being pushed back. I thought the golfer was doing a great job about is stance. He through and the other was blah blah but was not willing to call him on a stance violation just banter. Well he made everyone uncomfortable and the he did not mark his lie correctly for.His drop.in putt, I called him and made him putt again.

If you are going to talk about the rules enforce them don't just make people uncomfortable, that is unsportsmanlike. The rules have no judgement they are there for fair play.

 

[bombmk]

I
-The worst one was when I threw a drive OB, I take my disc out of OB, and then I put my mini down (my mistake), and without even giving me a warning first, he stroked my for not putting my mini down first!!!!!!!!!

I can't quite see where the rules would give him cover for this. Once the disc is OB its position is not, directly, relevant for marking purposes.

 

[ru4por]

This whole thread makes me never want to enter a tournament.

I would do my best to follow the rules to the letter if I did play, but grown men and women arguing inches and semantics to gain a very likely meaningless advantage in a game of disc golf? No thanks.

This would be me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YYmS7NL3Po

99% or the players are not like this. Tournaments can be fun and a way to meet some very cool people.

 

[gradus]

Just for the record the assistant TD did agree with my judgement.

Were any of the other players on your card part of the discussion with the TD? Based on your initial description, yes the TD would agree with you. But add the additional detail from Discette and your description appears to be misleading.

 

[tistoude]

Were any of the other players on your card part of the discussion with the TD? Based on your initial description, yes the TD would agree with you. But add the additional detail from Discette and your description appears to be misleading.

Agreed. Pretty much everyone should know that backing into the bush is not the way to go about it if you are trying to make a minimal impact on the Fauna.

If everyone else around you agreed it was a violation I think we might have to conclude that you were the one who is incorrect...

 

[Cgkdisc]

You're not allowed to mess with objects in front of your lie anyway so backing in violates that rule separate from the "least movement" rule.

 

[Thumber]

You're not allowed to mess with objects in front of your lie anyway so backing in violates that rule separate from the "least movement" rule.

Exactly.

I have laid on my side to take a legal lie in the thorns.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Were any of the other players on your card part of the discussion with the TD? Based on your initial description, yes the TD would agree with you. But add the additional detail from Discette and your description appears to be misleading.

The discussion I had with the assistant TD was just with me and him (I was so frustrated at that point I wasn't going to ask anyone else to join me, especially since it wouldn't have changed the outcome). He agreed with me as long as I wasn't holding anything back with my hands or stepping or sitting on anything I would have been ok. He also said it was pretty nitpicky for them to be calling that and probably wouldn't have been called in most situations.

Once again please let me state that I hold zero ill-will towards Discette, and as she stated she wasn't the instigator on that specific incident. I felt it was only being called to try to get in my head or to penalize me unjustly...it goes back to my main issue I have with some of the PDGA rules, they are vague and left up to judgement, which in turn can be used against a player if someone wanted to.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Agreed. Pretty much everyone should know that backing into the bush is not the way to go about it if you are trying to make a minimal impact on the Fauna.

If everyone else around you agreed it was a violation I think we might have to conclude that you were the one who is incorrect...

I still maintain I wasn't backing into the bush, I was entering the bush to establish my lie. Which of course is going to cause branches to move. It is impossible to establish a lie inside of a thick bush without moving or contacting the bush in anyway

 

[Harrishabitat]

You're not allowed to mess with objects in front of your lie anyway so backing in violates that rule separate from the "least movement" rule.

I wasn't "messing" with anything in front of my lie. I entered the bush from the side parallel to my lie. and the rule specially states

"A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way 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."

If you read the who rule in context, the last part is critical. In context I would argue that the moving of an obstacle refers to the removal of an object not causing an object to move with your motion, hence the last part. It's all about context.

Once again I did not hold anything out of the way, step on anything or sit on anything, I entered the bush from the side to establish my lie and was setting up for my shot when I was told I had an illegal stance. In that situation, 95% of the people that I have played with would never call that. And as a former certified rules official and many times TD, I would have never called that.

 

[Thumber]

I wasn't "messing" with anything in front of my lie. I entered the bush from the side parallel to my lie. and the rule specially states

"A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way 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."

If you read the who rule in context, the last part is critical. In context I would argue that the moving of an obstacle refers to the removal of an object not causing an object to move with your motion, hence the last part. It's all about context.

Once again I did not hold anything out of the way, step on anything or sit on anything, I entered the bush from the side to establish my lie and was setting up for my shot when I was told I had an illegal stance. In that situation, 95% of the people that I have played with would never call that. And as a former certified rules official and many times TD, I would have never called that.

If you are moving parts of the obstacle, and there is another stance you could take that minimizes that movement, you are obligated to do so. Coming in from the side is better than backing up into the obstacle.

If you don't like players scrutinizing your play from the bushes I would recommend not throwing it there

Your contention that the TD said as long as you weren't using your hands to hold anything back makes me think neither of you understands the rule fully.

Like I said above, I have had to lay on the ground with a leg stuck deep in a bush to take a lie that minimized the motion of the obstacle. It was my punishment for a crappy throw.

 

[Harrishabitat]

If you are moving parts of the obstacle, and there is another stance you could take that minimizes that movement, you are obligated to do so. Coming in from the side is better than backing up into the obstacle.

If you don't like players scrutinizing your play from the bushes I would recommend not throwing it there

Your contention that the TD said as long as you weren't using your hands to hold anything back makes me think neither of you understands the rule fully.

Like I said above, I have had to lay on the ground with a leg stuck deep in a bush to take a lie that minimized the motion of the obstacle. It was my punishment for a crappy throw.

First of all unless you have played this course you don't really have the point of view to call it a bad shot. No one even in advance played the course under par, this is a very difficult layout and even prefect throws can end you up in a situation like mine.

I did not back into the bush, I entered the bush from the side.

And what exactly defines least amount of movement? Once again a judgement call.

 

[Thumber]

First of all unless you have played this course you don't really have the point of view to call it a bad shot.

And what exactly defines least amount of movement? Once again a judgement call.

First of all, you threw the disc in a thorn bush. Not sure there is any course where this is anything but a bad shot.

Least amount of movement is just that.....the least amount. If you are in a stance and there is another stance that would lead to less motion, you are obligated to try it. Even if it makes the shot much harder, or impossible beyond a pitch out.

Yes its a judgement call, but its not a blind call. If you are pushing the bushes around and a different stance would reduce that, then you should try it. I have seen many players in the shule take a stance that results in more motion than necessary because otherwise they can't throw the shot they want to. Too Bad

Don't like it? Keep it on the short stuff.

 

[reposado]

Agreed. Pretty much everyone should know that backing into the bush is not the way to go about it if you are trying to make a minimal impact on the Fauna.

If everyone else around you agreed it was a violation I think we might have to conclude that you were the one who is incorrect...

he's disturbing fauna in this process? what kind of bush is this? and in his shoes, id have probably done a rethrow, unless the fauna in question is a whole mess of puppies or something

 

[Thumber]

he's disturbing fauna in this process? what kind of bush is this? and in his shoes, id have probably done a rethrow, unless the fauna in question is a whole mess of puppies or something

It would be adorable having to throw out out the puppies sand trap lol

 

[Harrishabitat]

First of all, you threw the disc in a thorn bush. Not sure there is any course where this is anything but a bad shot.

Least amount of movement is just that.....the least amount. If you are in a stance and there is another stance that would lead to less motion, you are obligated to try it. Even if it makes the shot much harder, or impossible beyond a pitch out.

Yes its a judgement call, but its not a blind call. If you are pushing the bushes around and a different stance would reduce that, then you should try it. I have seen many players in the shule take a stance that results in more motion than necessary because otherwise they can't throw the shot they want to. Too Bad

Don't like it? Keep it on the short stuff.

I think we are just going around in circles...without you being there you can't make that judgement. I maintain that I looked at multiple stances and this was the best stance. Case in point, the stance they ended up saying was the exact same one they first said was bad, just slightly moved one of my feet.

And trying to recruit the spotter was also ridiclous, a spotter can't be involved in that decision at all. I feel this was one person trying to gain an advantage by using the rules and trying to convince other people to his view point.

 

[JC17393]

I think we are just going around in circles...without you being there you can't make that judgement. I maintain that I looked at multiple stances and this was the best stance. Case in point, the stance they ended up saying was the exact same one they first said was bad, just slightly moved one of my feet.

And perhaps that slight movement of your foot is all it took to put you in a stance that was causing least movement possible. Not trying to argue with that point, just offering some perspective.

And trying to recruit the spotter was also ridiclous, a spotter can't be involved in that decision at all. I feel this was one person trying to gain an advantage by using the rules and trying to convince other people to his view point.

It is not ridiculous if the spotter is a certified official put in that location by the TD (I don't know if they're certified, but they were put there by the TD). They may not be able to give an official ruling, but there's no reason their input can't be requested and considered. Sometimes an impartial observation can make all the difference.

 

[EG ChainRacker]

I threw it OB, took it out of OB, and I put my mini down to where the group told me to put it, but I was stroked for not putting my mini down first, but that guy didn't give me a warning first he just stroked me right when he saw me do it

 

[Harrishabitat]

And perhaps that slight movement of your foot is all it took to put you in a stance that was causing least movement possible. Not trying to argue with that point, just offering some perspective.



It is not ridiculous if the spotter is a certified official put in that location by the TD (I don't know if they're certified, but they were put there by the TD). They may not be able to give an official ruling, but there's no reason their input can't be requested and considered. Sometimes an impartial observation can make all the difference.

Actually I would disagree with your last statement, unless they were a certified rules official that persons input shouldn't be even a factor. It is solely up to the group that is playing, same reason that a different group can't come in and be a part of a decision.

once again, without anyone being there you really can't make a judgement on the call. But in the end it didn't hurt me, it more was the point that I felt I was being singled out because I was leading, which is something that does happen, and even more frequently in lower divisions.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I threw it OB, took it out of OB, and I put my mini down to where the group told me to put it, but I was stroked for not putting my mini down first, but that guy didn't give me a warning first he just stroked me right when he saw me do it

There's no penalty for that, not even a warning.