Obstacle Straddling Lie

[ChrisWoj]

Inspired by, but not applicable to, the Paige situation (upon seeing the replay more it appears the tree was entirely behind her lie)....

If the front of a tree contacts ground in front of your lie, and the back of a tree is behind your lie - is the obstacle behind your lie in such a way that you can touch the back of the tree to establish balance on a putt inside of 10m? Or is it in front of your lie because part of it is attached in front of you? Where is the obstacle for the purposes of the rules?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Inspired by, but not applicable to, the Paige situation (upon seeing the replay more it appears the tree was entirely behind her lie)....

If the front of a tree contacts ground in front of your lie, and the back of a tree is behind your lie - is the obstacle behind your lie in such a way that you can touch the back of the tree to establish balance on a putt inside of 10m? Or is it in front of your lie because part of it is attached in front of you? Where is the obstacle for the purposes of the rules?

It's where you make contact with an obstacle. Consider that the tree trunk has branches and leaves perhaps all the way to the basket but if the contact point is behind your lie, no problem. Note that if you're outside C1, you could contact the basket side of the trunk right after you release your putt.

 

[flatflip]

All the more reason to play with a plumb bob in your kit.

I'm mostly kidding.

 

[ToddL]

If the front of a tree contacts ground in front of your lie, and the back of a tree is behind your lie - is the obstacle behind your lie in such a way that you can touch the back of the tree to establish balance on a putt inside of 10m? Or is it in front of your lie because part of it is attached in front of you? Where is the obstacle for the purposes of the rules?

You could take this to the extreme and say that the ground exists in front of your lie, so touching the ground behind your lie is, by extension, touching the same object in front of your lie, and is therefore illegal.

 

[ChrisWoj]

You could take this to the extreme and say that the ground exists in front of your lie, so touching the ground behind your lie is, by extension, touching the same object in front of your lie, and is therefore illegal.

I suppose? Though the ground isnt often referred to as an obstacle?

 

[ToddL]

I suppose? Though the ground isnt often referred to as an obstacle?

Does it matter whether it's an "obstacle" or not? Supporting point only cares if it's an object that provides support.

 

[chevis]

oh this is like some bushes that are mostly impenetrable; the disc lands on them & i just play it by standing/putting a foot on the bush where the disc is. are you saying if the root of the bush is in front of my lie, then this isn't legal?

 

[ChrisWoj]

oh this is like some bushes that are mostly impenetrable; the disc lands on them & i just play it by standing/putting a foot on the bush where the disc is. are you saying if the root of the bush is in front of my lie, then this isn't legal?

It seems the answer to my Q is that what I asked about IS legal.

 

[Rastnav]

oh this is like some bushes that are mostly impenetrable; the disc lands on them & i just play it by standing/putting a foot on the bush where the disc is. are you saying if the root of the bush is in front of my lie, then this isn't legal?

It seems the answer to my Q is that what I asked about IS legal.

This seems like a seperate question, to me.

If a disc comes to rest on top of some low, dense, shrubbery (like those creeping ceddars) does placing your foot on the bush constitute contacting the lie?

Like, I'm never calling a violation there, but it seems like it technically would not be the playing surface.

 

[ChrisWoj]

This seems like a seperate question, to me.

If a disc comes to rest on top of some low, dense, shrubbery (like those creeping ceddars) does placing your foot on the bush constitute contacting the lie?

Like, I'm never calling a violation there, but it seems like it technically would not be the playing surface.

Yeah I started to comment on his, but I wasn't about to say anything without certainty and I'm too busy ATM to go provide support. I'm curious, considering I play the situation out pretty much as you do.

 

[Steve West]

Yeah I started to comment on his, but I wasn't about to say anything without certainty and I'm too busy ATM to go provide support. I'm curious, considering I play the situation out pretty much as you do.

Whether or not something is a playing surface is not the kind of question for which you should be seeking an answer outside of your group or the TD.

Look at the definition: "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." That's all anyone has to work with.

It is up to you, the rest of your group, or - if your group can't decide - the TD, to decide whether it can support the player and reasonably allow for a stance.

Players in disc golf are required to take on responsibility for enforcement. Making judgement calls is part of that. Own it. You don't need outside back-up for your decisions.

There is not, nor could there ever possibly be, a list of pre-decided answers for every possible situation.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Players in disc golf are required to take on responsibility for enforcement. Making judgement calls is part of that. Own it. You don't need outside back-up for your decisions.

There is not, nor could there ever possibly be, a list of pre-decided answers for every possible situation.

This. Not everything can be anticipated.
You can't flowchart every situation.