| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
surge
Champion of Chains
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 2962
Location: With my discs!
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| So, that means a player can't take a practice run up to test the footing then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BigBrotherPenton
King of Commentary
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 10042
Location: watching the paint dry
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| surge wrote: | | So, that means a player can't take a practice run up to test the footing then. |
That's what it means. It is the rough.
Though, if there was no "fairway" I could see an arguement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roxie wrote: | | But, would the following be legal? No tamping, but you still take a run up and trample it in the process of throwing. Should be legal in my eyes, as you are dealing with the rough as you throw not prior. Or is this viewed the same as moving something in your forward line as you shoot? |
Awesome question.
The rules provide for disturbance ahead of the disc as a result of follow-through. Clearly this isn't the case, because it is not between the lie and the target, and it is not part of your follow-through.
Conrad equates the grass with a bush. Would you be able to trample a bush in your run-up? How about a sapling? How about branches on a tree (are you wearing safety glass, roxie)?
Prior to the throw, you must assume a stance that minimizes any disturbance with obstacles, and these must not extend in front of the lie.
I would argue that the ruling prevents you from trampling the grass in your run-up.
I would also argue that an unkept fairway with knee-high grass isn't providing you with an obstacle, but cat tails in a ditch are.
I'm coming to the opinion that this is the murkiest rule in disc golf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8285
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBrotherPenton wrote: | | burjwahzeh wrote: | | Rolly wrote: | | the lie should be determined when the disc hits the ground, not when they find it, IMO |
Agreed. Whether the location of the disc is known or not, it marks the place of the next shot. If it can't be found, you get a penality and have to throw from where you last established a lie. You do this because you're a chump for not having enough control to know where your disc went.
However, as a rules official, I support this interpretation of the rule because it is official. |
Really, you agree? So the lie is where the disc hits the ground? What about rolls, or skips? |
The lie is where the disc comes to rest. Surely we can agree on this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrotherPenton
King of Commentary
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 10042
Location: watching the paint dry
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | The whiteball analogy:
even if you don't know where your ball is, it marks the lie of the next shot. If you step on it while looking for it, you get a stroke for disturbing the lie. You are responsible for knowing where your ball is at all times in white ball.
The ball exists, even though you can't see it. In whiteball, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, it still makes a sound.
The PDGA feels that disc golf is different. The disc doesn't exist until someone sees it. In disc golf, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does not make a sound. |
In white ball they spend millions of dollars to make sure you can't lose sight of your golf ball. In disc golf, we spend hundreds of man hours to make sure we (or another player) will eventually find our discs sometime that season, or next. We aren't white ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8285
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | | Roxie wrote: | | But, would the following be legal? No tamping, but you still take a run up and trample it in the process of throwing. Should be legal in my eyes, as you are dealing with the rough as you throw not prior. Or is this viewed the same as moving something in your forward line as you shoot? |
Awesome question.
The rules provide for disturbance ahead of the disc as a result of follow-through. Clearly this isn't the case, because it is not between the lie and the target, and it is not part of your follow-through.
Conrad equates the grass with a bush. Would you be able to trample a bush in your run-up? How about a sapling? How about branches on a tree (are you wearing safety glass, roxie)?
Prior to the throw, you must assume a stance that minimizes any disturbance with obstacles, and these must not extend in front of the lie.
I would argue that the ruling prevents you from trampling the grass in your run-up.
I would also argue that an unkept fairway with knee-high grass isn't providing you with an obstacle, but cat tails in a ditch are.
I'm coming to the opinion that this is the murkiest rule in disc golf. |
So if I am reading this right, you aren't allowed any run up in the rough as you have to assume a stance which minimizes disturbance to the obstacles? Tough break if you are in 6 inch grass just in the first cut rough on the edge of a fairway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBrotherPenton wrote: | | burjwahzeh wrote: | | Rolly wrote: | | the lie should be determined when the disc hits the ground, not when they find it, IMO |
Agreed. Whether the location of the disc is known or not, it marks the place of the next shot. If it can't be found, you get a penality and have to throw from where you last established a lie. You do this because you're a chump for not having enough control to know where your disc went.
However, as a rules official, I support this interpretation of the rule because it is official. |
Really, you agree? So the lie is where the disc hits the ground? What about rolls, or skips? |
Oops, no, I don't agree that where it first touches the ground marks the lie. I read "when the disc hits the ground" as "where the disc comes to rest".
To clarify, it is my feeling (not a rules interpretation), that the lie is established when the disc comes to rest, whether the disc is visible or hidden from view. The throw has been made and the result is determined once the disc comes to rest in water, or by its presence when it is the player's turn to establish their stance prior to the throw. They have an opportuntiy to establish a new lie with the marker disc. The fact that a disc can not be seen should not mean that the lie has not been established. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thumber wrote: | | The lie is where the disc comes to rest. Surely we can agree on this? |
Nope. See Conrad's interpretation of question 1. Also, if a disc is thrown into a tree, it may come to rest above the ground, but you have until it's your turn +30 seconds to mark and throw. If it falls to the ground in that time, there is no penalty for you to play it from where it lands (unless you've already marked the shot). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8285
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | The lie is where the disc comes to rest. Surely we can agree on this? |
Nope. See Conrad's interpretation of question 1. Also, if a disc is thrown into a tree, it may come to rest above the ground, but you have until it's your turn +30 seconds to mark and throw. If it falls to the ground in that time, there is no penalty for you to play it from where it lands (unless you've already marked the shot). |
I see your point |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thumber wrote: | | So if I am reading this right, you aren't allowed any run up in the rough as you have to assume a stance which minimizes disturbance to the obstacles? Tough break if you are in 6 inch grass just in the first cut rough on the edge of a fairway. |
A "rough cut" in this fashion isn't an obstacle. You'll have trouble finding someone to agree with that position, except perhaps at the USDGC. When I think of Roxie's question, I think of a corn field or a wheat field, or the tall grass along the creek at Camp Fortune, not a meadow. You could make an arguement for the tall grass at Flat Mountain, though. That would be a great debate. OMR puts so much effort into making fairways, what isn't cut shouldn't be the fairway.
There's fuzzy logic involved here. It's analogous to "when is it day and when is it night when it is in fact twilight". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBrotherPenton wrote: | | In white ball they spend millions of dollars to make sure you can't lose sight of your golf ball. In disc golf, we spend hundreds of man hours to make sure we (or another player) will eventually find our discs sometime that season, or next. We aren't white ball. |
No, we aren't whiteball, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore those rules in whiteball that are analogous to disc golf. Whiteball has over a century of refinement built into its rules. Disc golf has a small fraction of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thumber wrote: | | burjwahzeh wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | The lie is where the disc comes to rest. Surely we can agree on this? |
Nope. See Conrad's interpretation of question 1. Also, if a disc is thrown into a tree, it may come to rest above the ground, but you have until it's your turn +30 seconds to mark and throw. If it falls to the ground in that time, there is no penalty for you to play it from where it lands (unless you've already marked the shot). |
I see your point |
It would appear that:
The lie is a potentially moveable artefact that is only established by the determination of the definite presence of the disc through visual identification prior to a player either marking the disc or assuming their stance behind the disc which is both in bounds and at rest. The lie may be re-established by placement of a marker disc in bounds as allowed in the rules.
How's that for ugly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8285
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | burjwahzeh wrote: | | Thumber wrote: | | The lie is where the disc comes to rest. Surely we can agree on this? |
Nope. See Conrad's interpretation of question 1. Also, if a disc is thrown into a tree, it may come to rest above the ground, but you have until it's your turn +30 seconds to mark and throw. If it falls to the ground in that time, there is no penalty for you to play it from where it lands (unless you've already marked the shot). |
I see your point |
It would appear that:
The lie is a potentially moveable artefact that is only established by the determination of the definite presence of the disc through visual identification prior to a player either marking the disc or assuming their stance behind the disc which is both in bounds and at rest. The lie may be re-established by placement of a marker disc in bounds as allowed in the rules.
How's that for ugly? |
Ugly indeed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | | ...The fact that a disc can not be seen should not mean that the lie has not been established. |
This is soooo awkward.
Something not existing because you can't see it is part of the world view of a 2 years old, IMO.
This is just my opinon, however. Again, I support the interpretation of the rules committee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roxie
Plaid Jacket Champion
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 6947
Location: Dog River
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy run on sentence Batman.
_________________
If you can't win the event in regulation, try, try, try again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burjwahzeh
Overflow Overlord
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 4460
Location: Somewhere where my mind is not.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a rules case about dropped discs in the PDGA rules web page. The more you look at this, the more clouded the concept of the lie in disc golf becomes.
A simplification is due for all kinds of reasons.
Conceptually, from beginning of a run to the end, the lie needs to be defined at all times. The fact that the rules appear to provide a period in which a player does not have a lie (the period in which they do not "see" their disc), speaks to a schism in what should be the continuity of the game.
(If this sort of discontinuity seems natural to you, you are welcome to speak to it. Personally, I believe that every "hole" in disc golf should read like a story; it should flow like water. This requires continuity between the pad and the target. A rushing stream of water flows around the obstacles in its way. It does not vanish and reappear on the other side of a rock. So too shall a player traverse a disc golf "hole" in continuity, their disc taking a continuous path from pad to target described discretely by the number of throws you take; where continuity is violated, you take a penalty stroke for whatever reason.)
This thread is great. It is providing a whole slew of material that can be used to argue strongly for an unambiguous definintion of lie, and a clarification of the need to respect all obstacles to stance and throw, particularly between the lie and the target. The definition of an obstacle needs to be visited and any ambiguity behind it resolved.
Last edited by burjwahzeh on Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:07 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thumber
LNF Champion
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 8285
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| burjwahzeh wrote: | T A rushing stream of water flows around the obstacles in its way. It does not vanish and reappear on the other side of a rock.)
|
Unless there is a hole through that rock....sorry....channeling my inner Rolly.
Agreed it is an interesting discussion.
Now if there is a stick in front of my disc, which prevents me from flipping the disc to mark the lie, I can just break that off right?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9890
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rolly wrote: | | the lie should be determined when the disc hits the ground, not when they find it, IMO |
the problem is, I could know where my disc is(only one in group), and then break stuff in my path to the basket. then say oh, here's my disc. The group would have no idea unless they can read my mind when the lie is established by when I see it. If the lie is established when the disc settles, and the lie is thus defined there, breaking the branches would always be illegal. and all the other post established lie rules to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rolly
King of Commentary
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9890
Location: South East Division
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="burjwahzeh"][quote="BigBrotherPenton"] | burjwahzeh wrote: | | Rolly wrote: | | the lie should be determined when the disc hits the ground, not when they find it, IMO |
I read "when the disc hits the ground" as "where the disc comes to rest".
|
thats what I meant, when the disc comes to a stop, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrotherPenton
King of Commentary
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 10042
Location: watching the paint dry
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I played FM last night and spent a lot of time in the woods. It's not that hard to avoid the sticks and branches between my lie and the basket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
