OB disc use

[jeverett]

I'm not sure it is criminal trespassing. I can legally cross a fence to track a deer that I've shot. I'd definitely fight it in court if the PDGA tried to ban me for a year.

Also, I'm not talking about course design. I'm talking about rule design.

Technically, no.. proving criminal trespass requires a person to knowingly enter private property with "intent to steal".. but that doesn't stop homeowners from angrily contacting park/city officials when disc golfers go into their yards to recover discs, something that can potentially get courses shut down.

From a pure rules standpoint, sure, creating OB zones where players aren't allowed to go recover their discs, even between rounds, is poor design.

 

[bradharris]

Which is obviously what we want to determine the outcomes of golf rounds ...

You're now focusing on the least important part of what I said, and taking it out of context.

I think you're arguing for the sake of being argumentative. But let me try to simplify your contention as the following:

"If retrieving a disc from a restricted area is forbidden, any discs that go in that area should be illegal for use until the club rep goes to retrieve all discs that went OB there. It is unfair for one player to be able to get his disc back while everyone else that throws OB has to play shorthanded."

There are two reasons this argument is flawed.

1. As I said before, the intent of the rule is to prevent players from entering the park neighbor's property. Legal issues aside, this is simply to keep the relationship between the course and the neighbors amicable. Having a disc returned by the property owner in no way endangers that relationship, so the intent of the rule is not being broken.

2. No one is requiring you to throw into that OB area. You are arguing this as if all discs that enter the basket go through a tunnel into someone's yard (a la putt putt golf) and the lucky ones get theirs back.

You're going off course. It's no different than throwing into a water hazard. Some players are lucky enough to be able to see and retrieve their discs while others have to leave them to the fish. Once you go off course, your equipment is at the mercy of whatever environment you throw into.

 

[Dan Ensor]

You're now focusing on the least important part of what I said, and taking it out of context.

I think you're arguing for the sake of being argumentative. But let me try to simplify your contention as the following:

"If retrieving a disc from a restricted area is forbidden, any discs that go in that area should be illegal for use until the club rep goes to retrieve all discs that went OB there. It is unfair for one player to be able to get his disc back while everyone else that throws OB has to play shorthanded."

There are two reasons this argument is flawed.

1. As I said before, the intent of the rule is to prevent players from entering the park neighbor's property. Legal issues aside, this is simply to keep the relationship between the course and the neighbors amicable. Having a disc returned by the property owner in no way endangers that relationship, so the intent of the rule is not being broken.

2. No one is requiring you to throw into that OB area. You are arguing this as if all discs that enter the basket go through a tunnel into someone's yard (a la putt putt golf) and the lucky ones get theirs back.

You're going off course. It's no different than throwing into a water hazard. Some players are lucky enough to be able to see and retrieve their discs while others have to leave them to the fish. Once you go off course, your equipment is at the mercy of whatever environment you throw into.

It is different from throwing into a water hazard. Anyone can have their caddy bring some scuba gear to retrieve it.

The point I'm trying to make is: The intent of this rule is what you say. However, the point of rules in general is to make everyone play the game the same.

 

[bradharris]

The point I'm trying to make is: The intent of this rule is what you say. However, the point of rules in general is to make everyone play the game the same.

Everyone does play the same. The rule restricts actions by players and those that they are responsible for.

 

[JC17393]

It is different from throwing into a water hazard. Anyone can have their caddy bring some scuba gear to retrieve it.

Not if entering the water is illegal, of course.

Two players each throw a disc into OB water. One of the discs is 20 feet out from the water's edge and sunk 10 feet below the surface. The other is 3 feet from the surface and clearly visible. The first player is out of luck as his disc is irretrievable, whereas the second player can reach into the water from the edge and retrieve his disc. Should the second player be barred from using that disc again in the round to be "fair" to the first player? Of course not.

Same principle applies to the disc that ends up on private property. Whether it is the property owner retrieving the disc or if it happens to land two feet inside the line and is reachable without stepping over the boundary, some players get the benefit of their disc for the rest of the round and some don't. Timing and luck can't be nullified 100% on any course.

 

[Dan Ensor]

You can convince someone you're not responsible for to retrieve your disc, though.

You've convinced me. The rule as stated is flawed, though. It still does not protect the people from trespassing. Only from trespassers that are in the tournament or the responsibility of someone in the tournament.

Say I'm part of the gallery, and support 1 player in the group. I would have incentive to grab my players' disc and return it; should he be responsible for every onlooker that supports him? Obviously not, or if I supported someone else I would impersonate his supporters and do something illegal to get him charged with the penalty.

But, there is someone being incentivised to perturb these people and put the course in jeopardy.


With your water ob analogy, it would be more like a fish bringing you your disc; it's part of the course that happens to not be constant. There won't always be a fish to bring you your disc, but when (if) it happens it's just the course deciding to return your disc to you. The owner of the home should be considered more of a course feature than a person.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Not if entering the water is illegal, of course.

Two players each throw a disc into OB water. One of the discs is 20 feet out from the water's edge and sunk 10 feet below the surface. The other is 3 feet from the surface and clearly visible. The first player is out of luck as his disc is irretrievable, whereas the second player can reach into the water from the edge and retrieve his disc. Should the second player be barred from using that disc again in the round to be "fair" to the first player? Of course not.

Same principle applies to the disc that ends up on private property. Whether it is the property owner retrieving the disc or if it happens to land two feet inside the line and is reachable without stepping over the boundary, some players get the benefit of their disc for the rest of the round and some don't. Timing and luck can't be nullified 100% on any course.

If going into the water is illegal, both players are DQed. Your argument is flawed, as I have already shown.

I don't think we're on the same page. The person reaching over the fence to retrieve a disc is DQed.

 

[bradharris]

If going into the water is illegal, both players are DQed. Your argument is flawed, as I have already shown.

I don't think we're on the same page. The person reaching over the fence to retrieve a disc is DQed.

You do realize that you're arguing a rule that isn't even in writing? The PDGA has no rules regarding restricted areas aside from the rules Q&A about Blue Bonets and protected areas, but that doesn't apply to this case.

The case you're arguing is about a rule that the TD specified as a special circumstance for that particular course. Splitting hairs is not necessary. If you can get your disc back within the rules, then you're free to continue using. Otherwise, don't jeapordize the standing of the course with the neighbors and just wait until after the round to get it back.

If you're so concerned about losing it, carry a back-up or play safe.

 

[Dan Ensor]

If going into the water is illegal, both players are DQed. Your argument is flawed, as I have already shown.

I don't think we're on the same page. The person reaching over the fence to retrieve a disc is DQed.

You do realize that you're arguing a rule that isn't even in writing? The PDGA has no rules regarding restricted areas aside from the rules Q&A about Blue Bonets and protected areas, but that doesn't apply to this case.

The case you're arguing is about a rule that the TD specified as a special circumstance for that particular course. Splitting hairs is not necessary. If you can get your disc back within the rules, then you're free to continue using. Otherwise, don't jeapordize the standing of the course with the neighbors and just wait until after the round to get it back.

If you're so concerned about losing it, carry a back-up or play safe.

I was hoping you would respond to my reply that had to do with the discussion at hand. The quote of mine you used was a reply to someone that was not understanding the question, and the only purpose was to clarify the question I posed.

Just for simplicity's sake, this is the post that has to do with the discussion:

You can convince someone you're not responsible for to retrieve your disc, though.

You've convinced me. The rule as stated is flawed, though. It still does not protect the people from trespassing. Only from trespassers that are in the tournament or the responsibility of someone in the tournament.

Say I'm part of the gallery, and support 1 player in the group. I would have incentive to grab my players' disc and return it; should he be responsible for every onlooker that supports him? Obviously not, or if I supported someone else I would impersonate his supporters and do something illegal to get him charged with the penalty.

But, there is someone being incentivised to perturb these people and put the course in jeopardy.


With your water ob analogy, it would be more like a fish bringing you your disc; it's part of the course that happens to not be constant. There won't always be a fish to bring you your disc, but when (if) it happens it's just the course deciding to return your disc to you. The owner of the home should be considered more of a course feature than a person.

 

[bradharris]

I was hoping you would respond to my reply that had to do with the discussion at hand. The quote of mine you used was a reply to someone that was not understanding the question, and the only purpose was to clarify the question I posed.

Just for simplicity's sake, this is the post that has to do with the discussion:

It doesn't matter what I quoted, my point is the same. You're arguing semantics of a rule that's not even written.

 

[Dan Ensor]

It's not something that never happens though.

I guess I thought this was a forum about discussing both current and possible rules ... I was wrong? Maybe somewhere we could point out loopholes and such that could be closed by some onlooker with clout ... or maybe some TD that's about to make a special rule for a tournament ...

If I should go to a different forum to talk about it, I will. But I'm getting the impression that I'd be going to a 403 forbidden ...

 

[bradharris]

It's not something that never happens though.

I guess I thought this was a forum about discussing both current and possible rules ... I was wrong? Maybe somewhere we could point out loopholes and such that could be closed by some onlooker with clout ... or maybe some TD that's about to make a special rule for a tournament ...

If I should go to a different forum to talk about it, I will. But I'm getting the impression that I'd be going to a 403 forbidden ...

I'm not saying you're in the wrong place, I'm saying it's a pointless argument. To nitpick the semantics of a rule that was verbalized, but not written, for a tournament one time is beyond pointless. Could you exploit it to get your disc back and gain a tiny advantage over less enterprising players? Maybe. But is it really worth it?

 

[Dan Ensor]

You're the only one arguing. I'm trying to have a spirited discussion.