Rules thread

[bruce]

I keep an eye on the PDGA forum, and often interesting bits and bobs come up in the rules section, so I thought it'd be cool to have a rules thread.

First up, and the inspiration for this was the following:
Every had a putt lip out and roll away? Ever had it roll away further than the original putt and go OB? Bet you cursed and went and marked your OB lie didn't you... Well check out the first option in the OB rules, just go get your putter and try again!

803.09.B
B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or
(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

[bruce]

So, what's your call, in nor out?

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34

Support your argument with rules quotes if possible

[West]

So, what's your call, in nor out?

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34

Support your argument with rules quotes if possible

I'd say it was out and would have to putt again ...

Holed-Out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has “holed-out” after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

Due to the player can not remove the at rest disc from the entrapment area or the chains.

Anyone else?!

[TheGroover]

So, what's your call, in nor out?

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34

Support your argument with rules quotes if possible

I'd say it was out and would have to putt again ...

Holed-Out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has “holed-out” after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

Due to the player can not remove the at rest disc from the entrapment area or the chains.

Anyone else?!

Doesn't it depend on yr definition of "entrapment area"? When the player lifts this disc, he/she is removing it from the entrapment area.

I think one could argue that there's ambiguity in the rules and that you could argue it's in, according to the rules.

However, it's blatantly not in the basket - I say OUT.

[West]

So, what's your call, in nor out?

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34

Support your argument with rules quotes if possible

I'd say it was out and would have to putt again ...

Holed-Out: A term used to signify completion of a hole. A player has “holed-out” after the removal of the at rest disc from the chains or entrapment area of a disc entrapment device or after striking the marked area of the designated object target.

Due to the player can not remove the at rest disc from the entrapment area or the chains.

Anyone else?!

Doesn't it depend on yr definition of "entrapment area"? When the player lifts this disc, he/she is removing it from the entrapment area.

I think one could argue that there's ambiguity in the rules and that you could argue it's in, according to the rules.

However, it's blatantly not in the basket - I say OUT.

I agree that the rules do seem a little ambiguous ... however, i think you have to look at it as "if the rocks weren't there, would it have gone in?" ... and due to the lack of contact between the disc and basket and its over hang is greater on the out ... then it would have tipped out and would have to have been played from the foot of the basket.

So i'd stick with that its out ... but then again, i'm no rules expert

[Jon]

Firstly if I had played this shot I would say it was out (obviously) and carry on! However I guess the rule depends on the definition of the 'entrapment area'.

Definition 1
If (like me) you believe it to be the bottom bit as depicted in defense exhibit A



Then the disc is not IN the entrapment area it is ON it. Which is to me significant. You wouldn't say the following (badly photoshopped) example as being in:



Therefore ON is not IN and therefore the hole has not been 'completed'.

HOWEVER.....

Definitision 2
If you considered the 'Entrapment area' to be defense exhibit B



Then you could claim that 'part' of the disc is in the entrapment area and if assuming similar rules to an OB line is therefore IN, hole completed.

So what do we assume the rule is trying to say? Well because it makes the distinction between the 'chains' and the 'entrapment area' I believe we have to consider them as different areas. There would be no need to include this distinction if the entrapment area covers the area shown in Defense Exhibit B.

Therefore I belive we can assume the 'meaning' behind the rule supports Definition 1 and therefore the disc is out!

Jon

PS. Yes I know I have too much time on my hands, yes it is Friday and yes I am avoiding work!

[bruce]

I'll help ya'll out by quoting the appropriate rule:

803.13B, Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.

[Jon]

...one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section.

Thanks, though this just lets us know there are 'more than one' entrapment sections 'an upper and lower'. It still doesn't say which bit is what!

They need diagrams in their rule book

[West]

...one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section.

Thanks, though this just lets us know there are 'more than one' entrapment sections 'an upper and lower'. It still doesn't say which bit is what!

They need diagrams in their rule book

It might be my inability to read and understand at the same time ... but just to clarify, that disc would actually be IN?

I agree with Jon, some diagrams i think might be needed

[West]

Was looking at disc golf tv ... and friday's shot of the day was a question ...

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/265/2/0

caption : Falling putt or not?!

Whats everyones thoughts? All I know at this time of the night is its very close

[bruce]

I say not, she demonstrated balance while the disc was in the air...

[BOF]

How did she demonstrate balance, Bruce?

I say 'falling putt' - she did not DEMONSTRATE balance...

'Rule 803.04
C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.'

How did she demonstrate full control of balance?

Granted, she didn't fall over... but her next point of contact after release was in front of her marker and it would be difficult to convince fellow players of your 'full control of balance' by simply waiting a fraction of a second before stepping forward (as she did).

Make her putt again!

BOF



Big Putt

[bruce]

Watch it again, you can clearly see her body moving towards the target during the putt, then away as she watches the disc go in.
No question in my mind that she could have put her left foot down behind her if she chose to.

[BOF]

If she COULD HAVE put her foot down (which you can see in the slo-mo, Bruce) then surely she is OBLIGED to in order to DEMONSTRATE balance?

I think I'll try this at the next tournament...

I make a putt, (or not), and step over the mark without putting my left foot down. If challenged, I shall say 'I could have put it down if I wanted to' - I wonder how long it will be before my group gets majorly p****d off with that kind of attitude?

No, Bruce, she should not be allowed to putt like that and get away with it. Where's the Spirit? How can other players be confident that she has DEMONSTRATED balance if it all happens in the bllink of an eye and we need slo-mo footage to confirm it?

No, Bruce, I wouldn't let it go if she was in my group - and nor should you!

Make her putt again!

BOF


Big Putt

[bruce]

If she COULD HAVE put her foot down (which you can see in the slo-mo, Bruce) then surely she is OBLIGED to in order to DEMONSTRATE balance?

Absolutely not. If she went into a karate kid 'crane' stance after her putt for 3 seconds, then walked forwards without ever putting her foot down behind her mark, we wouldn't be having a discussion. It's not about putting her foot down or otherwise, it's about what constitutes balance.

For me, she demonstrated it, even without the slow mo. For you, she didn't.

I think I'll try this at the next tournament...

I make a putt, (or not), and step over the mark without putting my left foot down. If challenged, I shall say 'I could have put it down if I wanted to' - I wonder how long it will be before my group gets majorly p****d off with that kind of attitude?

Go ahead, if two players in your group think it's a falling putt, you'll be picking up strokes, you don't have a right to defence. Hence the wording of the rule, you're demonstrating the balance to others.

How can other players be confident that she has DEMONSTRATED balance if it all happens in the bllink of an eye and we need slo-mo footage to confirm it?

No, Bruce, I wouldn't let it go if she was in my group - and nor should you!

Don't get me wrong, I think if she putts like that all the time, she'll get called on it from time to time. Almost certainly she doesn't anyway, we're only seeing a single instance.

If we're talking spirit, there is a rule that states that the player should get the benefit of the doubt in borderline/unclear cases. My reaction in her group would probably have been to mention that the putt was borderline, and that she should maybe make it a bit more obvious that she's balanced.

[BOF]

OK - I think we generally agree on this...

she may well have established balance (without really fully demonstrating it), but she really shouldn't make a habit of it...

is that fair?

See you at burnlaw?

BOF



Big (not quite falling) Putt

[bruce]

Yea, I'll go with that

I'll be at Burnlaw, for sure

[West]

Another one for the rules ...

... I've not looked it up (can't find my copy of the rules and i'm being lazy), but I was under the impression trollies to carry your discs about weren't allowed?

http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/310/mov/ ... d=0&page=2

[Del]

During a practice round at Mull, my putt hit the chains quite high and was pinned against them by the wind. It was up there for more than 30 seconds. Does that count as coming to rest? Could I have grabbed it? Coming to rest is not a clearcut concept on Mull on a windy day. A disc could be lying on the bottom of a basket and still get blown out.

http://twitpic.com/4nnls

[bruce]

During a practice round at Mull, my putt hit the chains quite high and was pinned against them by the wind. It was up there for more than 30 seconds. Does that count as coming to rest? Could I have grabbed it? Coming to rest is not a clearcut concept on Mull on a windy day. A disc could be lying on the bottom of a basket and still get blown out.

http://twitpic.com/4nnls

In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed

Regardless of 'at rest' I think you might be pushing the boundaries of 'supported by the chains'!