Self caught disc

[geoloseth]

Had this come up today during a practice round and as a TD I want to make sure I get the correct ruling if it happens during an event.

Player makes an intentional throw. Hits a small tree branch, flies another 200' forward and up into a huge headwind. While in the air the disc gets blown all the back to land 5' in front of the tee box. In this case it was simply a hilarious disc golf fail.

But in an event, if the player steps forward and catches the disc, is it treated like intentional interference, a non-throw ( like tossing it up and catching it - we all do it while waiting for a fairway to clear) or something else? Pretty sure I know the ruling,but again I want to get second opinions should it ever happen.

 

[Casey 1988]

It is treated as the ruling as if one were playing catch with another player before a throw except just a single player gets the penalty for that shot. At least that is how I would treat the throw.

 

[zenbot]

810 Interference

E) A player who intentionally interferes with a disc in any of the following ways receives two penalty throws:
Altering the course of a thrown disc (other than to prevent injury); or,
Moving or obscuring a thrown disc or marker disc (other than in the process of identification, retrieval, marking, or as allowed by 810.H).

F) If a player or their equipment interferes with their own throw, the player is assessed one penalty throw. The disc is played where it first comes to rest. See 810.E for intentional interference.

 

[cheesethin]

As zenbot said 810 interference, not a practice throw as from what you said it was a competitive attempt to change the lie. And since the hypothetical player stepped off the tee and caught it, I'd say intentional interference. So 810.E.1 player gets 2 penalty throws.

From 810.D, the disc is given a position at the point of contact. And if I read it right, the player then gets to choose whether to play from that position (and count the throw) or to "abandon the throw without penalty"

I'm not sure whether "abandon the throw without penalty" means that the player gets to not count the actual throw AND not get a penalty throw (for abandonment, interference penalty still stands of course). Or whether the player counts the throw that is abandoned but not the abandonment penalty.

D. A thrown disc whose course was intentionally altered is given a position at the point of contact, as agreed on by the group. The thrower may choose to play from the resulting lie, or to abandon the throw without penalty.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[zenbot]

As zenbot said 810 interference, not a practice throw as from what you said it was a competitive attempt to change the lie. And since the hypothetical player stepped off the tee and caught it, I'd say intentional interference. So 810.E.1 player gets 2 penalty throws.

From 810.D, the disc is given a position at the point of contact. And if I read it right, the player then gets to choose whether to play from that position (and count the throw) or to "abandon the throw without penalty"

I'm not sure whether "abandon the throw without penalty" means that the player gets to not count the actual throw AND not get a penalty throw (for abandonment, interference penalty still stands of course). Or whether the player counts the throw that is abandoned but not the abandonment penalty.





Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

The non-penalty in D is meant for a player who has had their disc flight altered by another player.

 

[cheesethin]

The non-penalty in D is meant for a player who has had their disc flight altered by another player.

I'm not sure if it is.

And I think 810.F is for non-intentional interference with one's own disc, as it references 810.E at the end, as if to say "for intentional self-interference use 810.E"



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[zenbot]

I'm not sure if it is.

For clarity I meant that a player who intentionally interferes doesn't get off scott free.

And I think 810.F is for non-intentional interference with one's own disc, as it references 810.E at the end, as if to say "for intentional self-interference use 810.E"



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

That is my understanding as well. I just happened to copypasta both passages.

 

[geoloseth]

Intentional interference is the same call that I would have made. Just wanted the sounding board. Thanks guys.


And for what it's worth I laughed so hard I started crying when this happened...because it wasn't happening to me.

 

[cheesethin]

And for what it's worth I laughed so hard I started crying when this happened...because it wasn't happening to me.

Being blown directly back 200', that's pretty awesome. Can the thrower technically claim a 400' throw, you know there and back? [emoji3]

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Top Ramen Arm]

If my disc blows back 200' I'd never want to touch that disc again

 

[uncle pennybags]

I had something like that happen to me once. But not nearly as spectacular as op.

I was logging out if the woods with a disc when I threw uphill hit a tree maybe 80 feet out. The disc came directly back at me. My hand started to go up to catch the disc, but at the last second I pulled it back. Everyone on the card was like 'man I would have caught that'. After that we discussed it for a while and came to the interference penalty. (I think, this was years ago and I barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday)

 

[Timeetyo]

Being blown directly back 200', that's pretty awesome. Can the thrower technically claim a 400' throw, you know there and back? [emoji3]

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I had this happen to my partner in dubs. I was lucky enough to get paired with one of the better open players (who I knew well and was used to some good natured harassment) playing a hole with either a relatively safe flick that was an easy 3 or a monster hyzer over OB and around a large guardian for the chance at a 2. It was VERY windy and gusty so I said I'd play it safe and ended up throwing a really crappy throw that was very safe....so of course I got picked on. He decided to go for the 2 and I watched his drive start on a nice line, get about 250' out and then catch a monster gust. It flipped up, turned around, and flew over our heads about 100' behind us. The look on his face was priceless. Needless to say I didn't let him forget it for the rest of the round.

 

[IHearChains]

Related scenario... a player on my card tries to throw out of a bad lie in the woods, hits the tree 5 feet in front of him, and the disc bounces right back toward his midsection. He squared up that tree, so most of the energy was off the disc, no chance it was actually going to hurt him. He stuck his hands out as it hit him and almost caught it for a fraction of a second, and then pulled his hands away and it dropped to the ground.

It was neither intentional interference nor preventing an injury...more of a reflexive act that happened so fast it was unavoidable.

No penalty was called and he played from where the disc ended up.

Correct call or not?

 

[chevis]

huh the wfdf doesn't mention wind in the rules:
http://www.wfdf.org/sports/field-events/100-self-caught-flight-events

 

[chevis]

Related scenario... a player on my card tries to throw out of a bad lie in the woods, hits the tree 5 feet in front of him, and the disc bounces right back toward his midsection. He squared up that tree, so most of the energy was off the disc, no chance it was actually going to hurt him. He stuck his hands out as it hit him and almost caught it for a fraction of a second, and then pulled his hands away and it dropped to the ground.

It was neither intentional interference nor preventing an injury...more of a reflexive act that happened so fast it was unavoidable.

No penalty was called and he played from where the disc ended up.

Correct call or not?

technically violating rule F) If a player or their equipment interferes with their own throw, the player is assessed one penalty throw. The disc is played where it first comes to rest. See 810.E for intentional interference.
...but best spirit would be not to call it; unintentional & unavoidable... but there are a lot of aholes & dkheads ultra-competitive ppl in this sport that would call it.

 

[araytx]

Seth,

I think it is 810.F. if you see it as "unintentional" interference.

If you rule it intentional (as I would if things happened as you described them) it's 810.E. 810E. speaks about two players (people) -- the one who did the interfering (gets the two-throw penalty), and the one whose disc was interfered with (gets an option to play it where it lies or abandon the throw [aka re-throw from previous lie] without penalty). I would add that in this case it means abandon the throw without additional penalty. He still gets the two-throw penalty whether he choose to throw form the previous lie or succeeding lie is still his choice.

 

[Jolt]

Sorry for OT but the "preventing an injury" part got me interested

So if i´m a spotter and a disc comes flying against a crowd standing just behind the OB line and i stop the disc inbounds to "prevent injury" what happens then?