Thoughts on the Removal of dead and unattached detritus

[Craig Smolin]

Chuck et al ...

The recent rule change (last year or the year prior) allowing the removal of branches, twigs, etc. that through your lie (the semi-circle centered at your disc and extending backwards) I thought was an excellent rule change. It has made taking a safe stance that much better.

I am wondering if there has ever been discussion on extending that rule to include the semi-circle in front of your lie? On long second shots or putts outside the circle, many people will follow through and have to adjust that follow-through to avoid rocks, branches, etc. on the ground. That is also a safety issue.

I'm not saying I would be in favor of this change nor against it, but I'm curious if it has been discussed and what the opinions of NEFA would be. I would NOT be in favor of allowing this change for putts within the circle, as it would be somewhat meaningless to do so.

[Karl Molitoris]

Craig,

My thoughts are that while 'taking a stance' prior to executing a throw is a must, 'following through' after executing a throw is an option. You HAVE to stand - you do NOT have to follow through with a forward step (read: stand and deliver).

Rules should probably be more limited to essential (not optional) aspects of the sport. Lord knows the essential ones could use a "look over"; let's not confuse things more than they are.

Karl

[Craig Smolin]

Karl -

While I do agree in theory with you, I think that this is a reasonable question to raise in terms of player safety as courses get longer and more par 4 and par 5 style holes are designed. I think if disc golf as sport wants to be taken more seriously, this is a rule change that should at least be looked at and talked about.

As with the other thread regarding cat-tail and high grass destruction - I am not in favor of course alterations that affect "living and attached" trees, bushes, flowers, etc. But, I just don't see how tweaking this rule to allow moving dead and unattached debris (within a limited stance cirlce) would negatively impact our sport, nor give a huge competitive advantage to a player. I think we're probably going to see a big time pro have a major knee or shoulder injury as a result of an awkward follow-through, and then this rule will be looked at.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I agree with Karl's take on this. I don't think there's been much talk about removing objects directly in front of your lie other than as part of the bigger question regarding moving objects any distance in front of your lie that were known to show up during the round such as a branch falling. This was an option in the previous rules. The assumption is that you threw the shot where there happened to be stuff in front of your lie and you have to deal with it by changing your throwing motion to be safe. I don't know how you could justify movement of dead, unattached items versus live or attached items like tree trunks out of your follow-thru other than you can physically move them.

[Karl Molitoris]

Craig,

Talk (discussion) is good! Hope others chime in. But understand, all responses you'll get here will be just like mine - only 1 person's opinion (not right, not wrong, just an opinion).

I'm just coming from the stance (no pun intended) of "...it's the player's choice if s/he wants to follow through...". Think you might fall and don't want to, don't try a throw that necessitates a follow through. Simple as that! We all have LOTS of decisions to make on the course / in life...and we have to pay (or not pay if we're smart) for poor ones.
Just because you have a par 4 or 5 doesn't mean you HAVE to use a full run-up / big follow through!

Karl

[Craig Smolin]

Fair points. Thanks guys.

Still might be worth further discussion on the rules committee just to get the opinions of some top level players.

[Josh Connell]

I, too, agree with Karl's take. As Chuck says, there is an element of "you threw it there, deal with it" that has to remain in the game. Personally, I think that idea took a hit with the altering of the rule about debris/obstacles in the stance, and I disagreed with that change all along. So to take it a step further and even consider allowing debris/obstacles to be cleared from a follow through area is a further step in the wrong direction, IMO.

The onus should always be on the players to alter their approach/stance/shot to fit the situation they find themselves in, rather than altering the surroundings to suit the player's preference. I always stress the point when I teach the rules that a player is entitled to a legal stance on each shot, but they're not entitled to their preferred/comfortable/ideal stance on each shot. Deal with the lie just as it is. If that means you can't run up or you can't get a big follow through or you don't have the space to throw your strongest backhand, so be it. If you want to be able to do those things, throw your shots to positions where you can do them.

[Matt Stroika]

A real life situation that I saw at the Vibram a few years ago.

I don't remember the player but his disc landed on top of a log on hole 12 about 50 feet back of the opening to the uphill approach to the basket. He marked his lie on the log, took a full run up, hit his marker, and murdered the disc to the basket. I almost didn't want to watch because I thought for sure he would be injured. I was happy I did because it was the biggest injury risk versus reward pay off I have ever seen.

I would have chipped out.

[Stephen Ditter]

Matt,

I remember that situation. I totally thought the risk of injury was way beyond the reward. But it did work out that time, I still think it was a poor decision.

-sd

[Chuck Kennedy]

Sounds like he could have taken solid object relief 803.04E and marked behind the log?

[Josh Connell]

Sounds like he could have taken solid object relief 803.04E and marked behind the log?

Sounds like he marked on the log but threw from behind it (and his plant foot was probably within 30cm of the marker).

Regardless, I think Matt's point in bringing it up is that this log represented a fairly dangerous risk for his follow through, especially on a full run-up into a 300+ foot shot uphill. Taking solid object relief wouldn't change that.

[Craig Smolin]

Thanks Josh ... My curiosity has been satisfied ... with your description I'm apt to agree ... case settled

[Matt Stroika]

Sounds like he could have taken solid object relief 803.04E and marked behind the log?

Sounds like he marked on the log but threw from behind it (and his plant foot was probably within 30cm of the marker).

Regardless, I think Matt's point in bringing it up is that this log represented a fairly dangerous risk for his follow through, especially on a full run-up into a 300+ foot shot uphill. Taking solid object relief wouldn't change that.

Tat was my point. The placement of the log was such that he could not run up and throw from directly behind the lie. If my memory is correct I saw him marking on the log, running up on the log, and throwing from the log. I am glad that Ditter can back that up. It was unbelievable unless you saw it.

This was a big log in the middle of the fairway. Had it been a smaller, movable object, would he have been able to roll it to avoid this situation?

[Josh Connell]

Sounds like he could have taken solid object relief 803.04E and marked behind the log?

Sounds like he marked on the log but threw from behind it (and his plant foot was probably within 30cm of the marker).

Regardless, I think Matt's point in bringing it up is that this log represented a fairly dangerous risk for his follow through, especially on a full run-up into a 300+ foot shot uphill. Taking solid object relief wouldn't change that.

Tat was my point. The placement of the log was such that he could not run up and throw from directly behind the lie. If my memory is correct I saw him marking on the log, running up on the log, and throwing from the log. I am glad that Ditter can back that up. It was unbelievable unless you saw it.

This was a big log in the middle of the fairway. Had it been a smaller, movable object, would he have been able to roll it to avoid this situation?

Depends. You said it was a few years ago, so if it was when the rule was still that you couldn't move anything that extended in front of your lie, probably not. If it happened now with the current rules, yeah, I think it could have been rolled out of the way. Which just illustrates the absurdity of the new rule, IMO.

[Stephen Ditter]

It had to be atleast 3 or 4 years ago, the last time I played in the event.

-sd