YOU make the call!!!

[skottyb]

Of those 2.6%, 80% THINK they understand them and misquote them regularly and the other 20% are so confused they act as if they haven't read them to avoid conflict.

I have to admit it is hard to understand the rules sometimes, they add so many conflicting words like. consciously? really? should that word even be in there. We would really need something to inspect the persons brainwaves and activity to see if they consciously meant to do something.

In my opinion words like that shouldn't be in the rule book, it brings up too many conflicting arguments.

 

[John Rock]

If that's the case I say 2 strokes should be given. Being an open player you have to be aware of your surroundings and also where you place your bag or chair. It's a part of being professional. It happens even to the best of players.

Ask Dustin Johnson if he meant to put his club down yesterday that cost him a win, I'm sure he didn't but its a part of the rules.

Did the guy do it on purpose, No, but was there a rules violation. Yes.

My understanding of the incident at the PGA event was that there has been signs posted all week in the locker room about the bunker situation. With over 1000 bunkers on the course, I can see where the mistake could happen. But still, he had been warned about the exact situation.

As for the DG incident, there is no rule about where to leave your equipment (other than the part about moving it when asked). I believe there is a part that says something about players should take care not to leave their equipment in the way, but if you're putting and your gear is behind/to the side of you, it's not in the way for that throw. After the throw, it's not the player's responsibility to predict where the disc goes if it misses.

 

[Thumber]

On a similar note, a two-stroke penalty happened yesterday in the PGA Championship. A player placed his club on the ground, behind the ball, in a hazard, which was a bunker. You may not do this in a hazard. You may, of course, normally. Apparently, this bunker was far off the faiway, behing the ropes. He didn't even know it was a bunker, yet he didn't contest the decision. The rule is a two-stroke penalty for such a violation. Knocked him out of a playoff and I'm sure reduced hiw prize money.

\

Not a very good analogy. The PGA situation was a course peppered with tiny sand traps. The trap he was in was very small, but had been designated. Johnson effed up and took it like pro.

A better comparison would be a ball golfer hitting the ball, hitting a tree, bouncing straight back and striking the golfers bag. But we are talking two different sports here with 2 different sets of rules

 

[skottyb]

I'm just saying rules are rules... his gear caused the disc to alter its intended path. Who knows if he consciously tried to move his stuff in a timely manner. I'm sure the devil on his shoulder was like.. "hey leave it there" and the angel was like "oh come on move your stuff, hurry!!!" lol

 

[gcr_russell]

and the rule says he wouldve had to consciously alter the discs path. You are right about the fact that Rules are rules.. you just got the other part wrong is all

 

[Thumber]

I'm just saying rules are rules... his gear caused the disc to alter its intended path. Who knows if he consciously tried to move his stuff in a timely manner. I'm sure the devil on his shoulder was like.. "hey leave it there" and the angel was like "oh come on move your stuff, hurry!!!" lol

He could have left the bag right where it was and still not have been assessed a penalty. He did not place his bag consciously in a place to act as a back stop. Its juts one of those weird occurrences. If you pick up the bag then use it to hit the rolling disc back towards the basket it would be a penalty. This is just a tough one to swallow if you are his competitors.

 

[kachtz]

i dont mean to compare this to ball golf...but if this would of happened in ball golf it would of been a penalty...only because he touched the bag that got hit by the disc....if he did not touch his bag and the disc rolled into it, it would not be a penalty...in ball golf rules...touching the object before the disc (ball) hits it altering its potential lie in the end results in a penalty.

so i say, if he did not touch his bag then no penalty.

 

[toothyfish]

\

Not a very good analogy. The PGA situation was a course peppered with tiny sand traps. The trap he was in was very small, but had been designated. Johnson effed up and took it like pro.

A better comparison would be a ball golfer hitting the ball, hitting a tree, bouncing straight back and striking the golfers bag. But we are talking two different sports here with 2 different sets of rules

It's a good-enough analogy. Neither player intended to break the rules, so we think. It's probably more in the fact that the ball golf incident was black and white and the DG incident allows the subjectivity, when compared to the respective rules.

We can't judge intention, only what actually happened. The rules need to address issues in a black and white fasion, as much as possible.

THough, your above suggested analogy is a closer case, I agree. What would be the ball golf ruling, if that actually happened? I'm sure it's in the rules, I just don't know off the top of my head.

 

[skottyb]

He could have left the bag right where it was and still not have been assessed a penalty. He did not place his bag consciously in a place to act as a back stop. Its juts one of those weird occurrences. If you pick up the bag then use it to hit the rolling disc back towards the basket it would be a penalty. This is just a tough one to swallow if you are his competitors.

True true... I mean there are so many different ways to look at it. He might want to get a caddy in the future to prevent such problems.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The interesting thing about the OP is that if the bag was left there, the ruling of 'no penalty' should have been the same as what happened by moving the bag. I was talking with some rules officials on this before doing the Rules School article on Interference. They said it's almost better for players to not try and quickly move their gear out of the way once their or another player's disc is rolling towards it so they don't get accused of "consciously" altering the disc if it still hits their gear in the process of lifting/moving it out of the way like what happened here. The idea is that if the equipment is there before a player throws, it's a known obstacle that could be moved if players asks. But if no one asks to move it, it becomes part of the course for that throw. So best to leave it there if a disc is rolling towards it.

 

[Thumber]

The interesting thing about the OP is that if the bag was left there, the ruling of 'no penalty' should have been the same as what happened by moving the bag. I was talking with some rules officials on this before doing the Rules School article on Interference. They said it's almost better for players to not try and quickly move their gear out of the way once their or another player's disc is rolling towards it so they don't get accused of "consciously" altering the disc if it still hits their gear in the process of lifting/moving it out of the way like what happened here. The idea is that if the equipment is there before a player throws, it's a known obstacle that could be moved if players asks. But if no one asks to move it, it becomes part of the course for that throw. So best to leave it there if a disc is rolling towards it.

agreed. The subjectivity of trying to get your gear out of the way could be interpreted as interference, if your competitor was a db

 

[zenbot]

The interesting thing about the OP is that if the bag was left there, the ruling of 'no penalty' should have been the same as what happened by moving the bag. I was talking with some rules officials on this before doing the Rules School article on Interference. They said it's almost better for players to not try and quickly move their gear out of the way once their or another player's disc is rolling towards it so they don't get accused of "consciously" altering the disc if it still hits their gear in the process of lifting/moving it out of the way like what happened here. The idea is that if the equipment is there before a player throws, it's a known obstacle that could be moved if players asks. But if no one asks to move it, it becomes part of the course for that throw. So best to leave it there if a disc is rolling towards it.

So would it have been OK for one of the other players to request that he move his bag prior to his shot?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yes. Good question that many don't realize is an option.

 

[skottyb]

The interesting thing about the OP is that if the bag was left there, the ruling of 'no penalty' should have been the same as what happened by moving the bag. I was talking with some rules officials on this before doing the Rules School article on Interference. They said it's almost better for players to not try and quickly move their gear out of the way once their or another player's disc is rolling towards it so they don't get accused of "consciously" altering the disc if it still hits their gear in the process of lifting/moving it out of the way like what happened here. The idea is that if the equipment is there before a player throws, it's a known obstacle that could be moved if players asks. But if no one asks to move it, it becomes part of the course for that throw. So best to leave it there if a disc is rolling towards it.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say earlier.

 

[zenbot]

That really concretes the call as far as I'm concerned. If the opponent felt that the bag was in the position to cause "beneficial interference" they should have called it beforehand.

 

[toothyfish]

Is there a rule about you gear being allowed within the 10M circle? Not that we can re-write the rule book, I'm curious.

FWIW, I agree that he may have been better off to leave his bag there, hence, making it part of the course, so to speak.

It seems that the obligation for many of these calls is for someone else in the group to make it, therefore, making it all legal if no one speaks up.

 

[tmahan]

I can see why this is such a tough situation to legislate. My first reaction was to agree with toothyfish and eliminate any mention of intent, if a disc in motion hits your gear it's interference, period. But then there's the issue of hitting someone else's gear, should they be penalized for another player's bad shot if they had no chance to get themselves or their stuff out of the way? (assuming the bad backwards richochet off the tree scenario)

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

FINAL RULING:

After thirty minutes of the EXACT same disccussions, the TD initially came to the conclusion to offer a ONE stroke penalty to appease both players. Both players refused this scenario due to the prize winning differential.

A call was made to a "major" sponsor who got in contact with a certified official.
Final ruling:
No penalty. The player made a conscious effort to move his bag and in no way intended on altering the path of the rolling disc.

TD was not a certified official? Clearly stated in the Tour Standards that at least one official per event is a requirement.

 

[billnchristy]

Maybe a better wording would be "Any object behind the current lie is considered part of the course until the disc in motion ceases to move." or something along those lines.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Maybe a better wording would be "Any object behind the current lie is considered part of the course until the disc in motion ceases to move." or something along those lines.

That's already true once the disc is in motion on a throw. All obstacles are considered part of the course unless they showed up on the hole during the round (like limbs dropping, vehicles, players' bags and chairs). In which case, players can ask that they be relocated.