Marking and throwing from a lie: Doglegs.

[Matt Aubin]

This issue was brought up on another board.

The hole is a par 4 500ft; 300ft straight, then a hard 90 degree turn right 200ft. It is basically thick trees off the fairway and impossible to go directly at the pin from anywhere but on the intended fairway.

Your drive ends up short, 250 dead straight. According to the rules, you must mark your disc in line with the basket, NOT the intended fairway. So, a correct mark of the lie would have the marker placed at about 2 o'clock, to the right of the original disc thrown. In line with the basket, not the intended fairway.

On top of that, your legal stance must be in line with the marker and basket, which puts your foot at about 8'oclock on the marker; well past the back edge of the marker and off to the left IF you are going up the fairway (which in this example is mandatory).

So, you are standing basically to the left of the marker, to shoot straight up the fairway for whatever shot you choose to make the corner.

It looks and feels like a foot fault in every possible way, and I'd wager not a lot of people even understand this angled fairway/line of play to the basket marking/stance issue.

Is there a particular reason why a lie/stance cannot be lined up with the fairway instead of the basket?

[Matt Aubin]

I guess there's a bit of confusion here:

Marking:

"A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play, touching the thrown disc. "

Problem is, I think it should read 'directly behind the hole OR on the line of play.' Because those two things can be wildly different.

And then stance, subsequent to teeing:

"A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc."

No mention of the basket/target, just the line of play. Which is defined as:

"Line of Play: The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond. This line has no thickness; therefore one support point must be directly behind the center of the marker."

Now, if you don't read the definition of "Line of Play," you could misconstrue that to mean the fairway, and I think a lot of people do.

[John DeBois]

Great question. Ball golf doesn't have this problem because the ball is always at the center of the lie. IMO, the rule should state that the disc must pass through an imaginary vertical line coming directly up from the lie (and not related at all to footing). But that would be almost impossible to enforce.

Interested in knowing what the correction ruling is for situations like this.

[Stephen Ditter]

When playing hole 6 at Wick I place my mini as if I'm continuing straight up the fairway not thru the woods towards the basket. I have always played it this way when the basket is not visable (19 or so years) I hope it is the correct way to play the hole.

-sd

[Matt Aubin]

Ditter, in the case of hole 6, let's say your drive ended up well short of the corner. You would have to mark in line with the basket (mini marker at about 10 or 11 o'clock, to the left of the thrown disc), then take a stance in line with that and the basket... foot to the right of the mini! Then throw to the 'right' to go around left.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? I don't think anyone actually plays this way, and if you do, you probably get called on foot faults all the time.

[Brad Harris]

The rulebook defines "Line of Play" as this:

The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond. This line has no thickness; therefore one support point must be directly behind the center of the marker.

So regardless of how the fairway is shaped, the line of play is a straight line to the basket. I believe the only exception is in the case of a mandatory where the mando point is actually the target until it is passed.

[Josh Connell]

Is there a particular reason why a lie/stance cannot be lined up with the fairway instead of the basket?

Yes, there is. How do you ever call a stance violation if there isn't an objectively defined location for your support point to be when the disc is released? For example, if I run up and my foot lands at 8 o'clock on the marker, couldn't my defense simply be that where my "fairway" was aimed at 2 o'clock on the marker even if the basket is at 12 o'clock?

It boils down to this when it comes to lining up with the fairway...what exact is the fairway? The line of play makes everything concrete. There's no debating or guessing...it's a straight line from the target through the center of the disc. Simple.

[Stephen Ditter]

What happens when you can't see the target, Wick hole 6 if you do not blast your drive out into the open?
-sd

[Brad Harris]

What happens when you can't see the target, Wick hole 6 if you do not blast your drive out into the open?
-sd

Whether or not you can see it, you should still have a general idea of where it is.

[Matt Grayum]

What happens when you can't see the target, Wick hole 6 if you do not blast your drive out into the open?
-sd

Whether or not you can see it, you should still have a general idea of where it is.

X2! Ha

[Gary Cyr]

I've always interpreted the rule to be placing the mini directly behind the disc using a straight line towards the basket regardless of where the fairway is pointing. It just seems to make sense to me.

[John DeBois]

Seems to be different when a mandatory is involved.

803.12: D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole.

This makes more sense to me and should probably be applied to holes like Matt mentioned.



The rules state that the marker & subsequent stance should be placed at position B, if there is no mandatory. Seems counter intuitive since this advances you up the fairway, albeit slightly. That's the problem with allowing markers to be used and having stance rules regarding contact with the ground etc. The rule should simply be that the thrown disc has to cross the plain of the lie/disc (imaginary line coming upward from the disc) during the throw. More difficult to enforce, but seems to be more geometrically accurate.

[Karl Molitoris]

Another alternative (to the rule) - although also rather hard to enforce (but maybe no harder than it is now with all the foot faults, etc.) - would be to HAVE to have contact with the mini marker / disc (if left down on the ground) when release happens. And when I say "have to have contact" I mean any part of you (usually a foot) would have to be touching ANY part of the marker / disc. One could argue that if, taken to the extreme, this could allow someone to be closer to the target than the marker, etc. (all this would have to be 'figured out' as to what is acceptable, etc.) but it IS a way to take care of this issue. And lessen the foot faults. And maybe make other things better too.

This would surely cause minis to get a LOT dirtier but that may be a small price to pay for easier rules / adherence to the rules.

Karl
Ps: Just think'in....

[John DeBois]

great idea, and much easier to enforce. maybe instead of using a mini then, something could be placed down that is the exact size of the legal throwing area. it would be larger, so might as well call it a maxi.

[Josh Connell]

The rules state that the marker & subsequent stance should be placed at position B, if there is no mandatory. Seems counter intuitive since this advances you up the fairway, albeit slightly. That's the problem with allowing markers to be used and having stance rules regarding contact with the ground etc. The rule should simply be that the thrown disc has to cross the plain of the lie/disc (imaginary line coming upward from the disc) during the throw. More difficult to enforce, but seems to be more geometrically accurate.

Doesn't this plane create more of the same issue? On what angle does the plane run? Perpendicular to a line from target to marker? Perpendicular to a randomly chosen line determined by whatever direction the player intends to throw? Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what this plane is supposed to be.

Does the disc have to break the plane in flight? Or does it just have to break the plane as part of the motion of the throw? Because for most throws now, the disc is usually out in front of the marker when it is released, so it only breaks the plane if the player reaches back far enough for it to do so before release. I'm picturing a putting motion, something like Nate Doss's, where one is leaning out toward the target with the throwing arm, and the reach back doesn't necessarily come back behind or even directly over the mark/plane before it is projected forward. That seems even more fuzzy and complicated than the current rule might be on the occasional dogleg hole.

I think Karl's idea gets more to the spirit of the rule in the first place, where the support point takes the place of the disc on the playing surface and that is how we emulate ball golf's "play it where it lies". I seem to recall someone a few years back wanting the PDGA to approve the use of a circular mat of some sort to use for just what Karl suggests (pretty sure that someone also wanted to manufacture and distribute said mat). You place this mat down behind your marker in the same manner as you would determine your foot placement (on the line of play, directly behind the marker). Then when you make your throw, you would need a supporting point on that mat when you released the disc. Basically, it was to make it simpler to identify and call stance violations because missing the mat = missing the mark. PDGA didn't modify/adjust their rules to allow for the mat, so the idea went away.

I think the "problem" most people have with this situation is there is too much hang-up on the idea that in order to properly play a shot, one's supporting point has to be at 6 o'clock on the mini relative to the direction of the throw. It's not the case. Just to throw out another example, say you have a dead straight hole and you shank your tee shot into the thick rough on the side of the fairway. You have no way to advance the disc forward toward the basket, so your only reasonable shot is a pitch back to the fairway, which means you are throwing at a 90 degree angle to the line of play. In this instance you can stretch from the mark as far as you can in the direction you are intending to throw and it's entirely legal. If the B mark in JDB's illustration is counter-intuitive, so too should the pitch out stance and shot I described. But I would guess that absolutely no one would question the pitch out in any way at all.

[John DeBois]

Karl's idea is probably more realistic since it's easier to enforce. Although it would be tough to use on rocky courses like Campgaw. But, I was thinking something like this:

.

Put a disc where the head is .. this is the lie. The player would be required to cross through the "Positive Y" axis during the throwing motion. This means footing wouldn't come into play at all and the idea of "play it where it lies" is maintained. Yes, it's an imaginary line, but aren't we already using an imaginary line to enforce rules when looking at stance behind a mini?

[Josh Connell]

Karl's idea is probably more realistic since it's easier to enforce. Although it would be tough to use on rocky courses like Campgaw. But, I was thinking something like this:

.

Put a disc where the head is .. this is the lie. The player would be required to cross through the "Positive Y" axis during the throwing motion. This means footing wouldn't come into play at all and the idea of "play it where it lies" is maintained. Yes, it's an imaginary line, but aren't we already using an imaginary line to enforce rules when looking at stance behind a mini?

Yes, it's an imaginary line now, but it is one that is readily and obviously defined by two indisputable points on the playing surface...the target and the disc. It is not difficult to place the marker on the line given that it must be contacting one of the two already defined points of the line. From there, it should also not be difficult to identify whether or not the supporting point was in contact with that line directly behind the marker.

But if we're saying that the disc must cross the Y-axis at some point, that gets difficult not only to enforce but to execute consistently. Imagine if you had a wall with a slot ~15 inches across (twice the width of a disc so that no matter where the disc passes, some part of it passes the center) running from floor to ceiling. Wouldn't crossing the Y-axis on every fairway throw be equivalent to you having to throw your drive through that slot in the wall every time? I'd imagine you'd hit the wall as often as you hit the slot. And if you're hitting the wall, the disc is missing the Y-axis.

And if you're talking an imaginary plane, not an imaginary line, that is easier to execute but there's still the matter of determining where the plane is. It has to be defined by two axises. One axis is the Y-axis. The other, presumably, is the X-axis. But how is the location of the X-axis determined? Call the current defined line of play the Z-axis and say that the X-axis is perpendicular to the Z? If not in that way, since all that really does is make a subtle and an infinitely more complicating change to the current rule, then how? Without something finite and indisputable, it's impossible to enforce.

I think a simpler way to make the current rule easier to execute and easier to enforce would be to tie a string to the marker, one that extends exactly 30 cm from the edge of the disc. When you place the marker, you place it in a way that the string can be extended back along the line of play. Any witnessing players can verify or dispute whether the string is on the line and adjust it accordingly before the player throws. Once it's set, the player simply has to make contact with the string at the time of release. Miss the string and you've missed the mark. Easy call and I would think the evidence would be there. If the string is disturbed on a run-up/follow-through (the action of pivoting on the foot, for example, would likely move the string), it was obviously hit. If it never moved, it was never touched.

If anything, such a technique would be a good way for players to practice running up and hitting their mark in the fairway, which is something I'd bet most players don't do. And it's for that reason they find it difficult to do it on the course in a tournament when it matters.

[Karl Molitoris]

I haven't had TOO much time to think about it (too much work stuff ) but initially I was thinking this scenario:

[Understand that this WOULD be a bit of a change over what is done now but it's not like it couldn't be incorporated into the general process of things...]

Player throws a disc (about 8.75" in diameter). Disc is on the ground (or placed there if stopped in a bush, etc.). Player has 2 options.
1) Using their disc as their lie, they MUST be in contact with said disc at release of their next shot.
2) Using a mini, and being able to place the mini touching the disc at ANY point around the circumference of the disc, they then have to be touching said mini at release of their next shot.

Note that this eliminates any 'worry' about the player being closer to the hole or any plane the throw needs to go through. All that HAS to be abided by is that the player must be in contact with their disc or mini at release of next throw.
An additional note is that this has the added 'give and take' strategy of:
a) if you choose to use the original disc, you have a bigger area to 'hit' (if you choose to run up, etc.) but less left-right-forward-backward versatility in stance, while
b) if you choose to use a mini, you have a smaller area to 'hit' / stand but more left-right-forward-backward versatility in stance.

Karl
Ps: And people might worry / complain about slipping on their disc, etc. I'd just say "use a mini and the majority of your foot won't be on plastic" or something like that.
Pps: Again, a LOT of discussion would have to be had to make a change this major - but it WOULD bring about 'goodness' in several aspects of the sport.

[Paul Oechsli]

I haven't had TOO much time to think about it (too much work stuff ) but initially I was thinking this scenario:

[Understand that this WOULD be a bit of a change over what is done now but it's not like it couldn't be incorporated into the general process of things...]

Player throws a disc (about 8.75" in diameter). Disc is on the ground (or placed there if stopped in a bush, etc.). Player has 2 options.
1) Using their disc as their lie, they MUST be in contact with said disc at release of their next shot.
2) Using a mini, and being able to place the mini touching the disc at ANY point around the circumference of the disc, they then have to be touching said mini at release of their next shot.

Note that this eliminates any 'worry' about the player being closer to the hole or any plane the throw needs to go through. All that HAS to be abided by is that the player must be in contact with their disc or mini at release of next throw.
An additional note is that this has the added 'give and take' strategy of:
a) if you choose to use the original disc, you have a bigger area to 'hit' (if you choose to run up, etc.) but less left-right-forward-backward versatility in stance, while
b) if you choose to use a mini, you have a smaller area to 'hit' / stand but more left-right-forward-backward versatility in stance.

Karl
Ps: And people might worry / complain about slipping on their disc, etc. I'd just say "use a mini and the majority of your foot won't be on plastic" or something like that.
Pps: Again, a LOT of discussion would have to be had to make a change this major - but it WOULD bring about 'goodness' in several aspects of the sport.

Karl

Under option A a player could effectively place their heel on the front edge of the disc and have the rest of their body (including their throwing arm) out in front of their marker (several feet closer to the pin than what is currently allowed). A huge advantage for putting.

[Stephen Ditter]

On a hole like Wick 6, if you don't make it farther than 3/4 of the way down the fairway towards the gap, your next shot is still going to be straight down the fairway (at 12:00) if you use the fairway as the direction for your mini and foot placement you would be stepping at 6:00 and throwing down the fairway. To draw a line thru the unseen basket you would be stepping at btw 4 and 5:00 but still most likely throwing straight down the fairway. Should you point out to your group before you throw the reason you will be planting towards the right of you mini to avoid a false foot fault call? Or just throw your shot and argue your position afterwards. I think it's only a problem when there is a drastic dogleg (like Wick 6 or John's previous example)

[John DeBois]

2) Using a mini, and being able to place the mini touching the disc at ANY point around the circumference of the disc, they then have to be touching said mini at release of their next shot.

I like this idea. Or, if not touching the mini while throwing, at least being within 30 cm from it in any direction would be fine too.

[Josh Connell]

On a hole like Wick 6, if you don't make it farther than 3/4 of the way down the fairway towards the gap, your next shot is still going to be straight down the fairway (at 12:00) if you use the fairway as the direction for your mini and foot placement you would be stepping at 6:00 and throwing down the fairway. To draw a line thru the unseen basket you would be stepping at btw 4 and 5:00 but still most likely throwing straight down the fairway. Should you point out to your group before you throw the reason you will be planting towards the right of you mini to avoid a false foot fault call? Or just throw your shot and argue your position afterwards. I think it's only a problem when there is a drastic dogleg (like Wick 6 or John's previous example)

If everyone knows the rules, I wouldn't think it necessary to point anything out at all. What you are doing is only questionable to people who don't know the rules.

Honestly, I'm scratching my head wondering how exactly this kind of situation is a "problem". This isn't a new rule change. This is the way the rule has been forever. Seems to me that the "problem", like a lot of other rules issues, is that people have been misinterpreting or misunderstanding or just plain not knowing the rule for too long. Rules education would probably go a lot further and solve a lot more than trying to re-write the rules to account for problems with the old rules that aren't really problems.

[Karl Molitoris]

Under option A a player could effectively place their heel on the front edge of the disc and have the rest of their body (including their throwing arm) out in front of their marker (several feet closer to the pin than what is currently allowed). A huge advantage for putting.

A huge advantage for putting for WHOM? Answer: Everyone...and thus NO advantage (as inherently any advantage / detriment for all is no advantage / detriment to anyone). It's just "different" than we're doing now...but I can see no additional 'advantage' to anyone (that they already don't have...as in long arms, long legs, coordination, a working mind , etc.).

And I agree with Josh that the rule DOES kind of state what needs to be done; I'm just trying to 'kill multiple birds with 1 stone' by affecting a possible change that addresses not only the OOP question but other 'less than perfect situations we come up with in dg'.

Karl

[Matt Stroika]

Under option A a player could effectively place their heel on the front edge of the disc and have the rest of their body (including their throwing arm) out in front of their marker (several feet closer to the pin than what is currently allowed). A huge advantage for putting.

A huge advantage for putting for WHOM? Answer: Everyone...and thus NO advantage (as inherently any advantage / detriment for all is no advantage / detriment to anyone). It's just "different" than we're doing now...but I can see no additional 'advantage' to anyone (that they already don't have...as in long arms, long legs, coordination, a working mind , etc.).

And I agree with Josh that the rule DOES kind of state what needs to be done; I'm just trying to 'kill multiple birds with 1 stone' by affecting a possible change that addresses not only the OOP question but other 'less than perfect situations we come up with in dg'.

Karl

Advantage to people with large feet.

I do not know too many people that release the disc at any distance with both feet flat on the ground. In general the heel is lifted when putting (entire foot when jump putting) and either the toe or the heel when driving/approaching.

I like where you are going with this as a simplification but I don't want to step on my plastic or my mini.

[Karl Molitoris]

Advantage to people with large feet.

Can't wait for Ice Bowl season. I have a pair of 12" x 48" snowshoes that will be the bomb!

but I don't want to step on my plastic or my mini

Come on Matt, minis are like hats...the more worn in the more your girl friend hates them and the cooler they are!

As for the heal-lift thing, I hear you but I guess THEY would have to be cognizant of this and step with the foot's ball (more so) against / on the mini.

I'm not saying I have all the answers...but I'm throwing out ideas and seeing if anything snowballs....

Karl

[John DeBois]

On a hole like Wick 6, if you don't make it farther than 3/4 of the way down the fairway towards the gap, your next shot is still going to be straight down the fairway (at 12:00) if you use the fairway as the direction for your mini and foot placement you would be stepping at 6:00 and throwing down the fairway. To draw a line thru the unseen basket you would be stepping at btw 4 and 5:00 but still most likely throwing straight down the fairway. Should you point out to your group before you throw the reason you will be planting towards the right of you mini to avoid a false foot fault call? Or just throw your shot and argue your position afterwards. I think it's only a problem when there is a drastic dogleg (like Wick 6 or John's previous example)

If everyone knows the rules, I wouldn't think it necessary to point anything out at all. What you are doing is only questionable to people who don't know the rules.

Honestly, I'm scratching my head wondering how exactly this kind of situation is a "problem". This isn't a new rule change. This is the way the rule has been forever. Seems to me that the "problem", like a lot of other rules issues, is that people have been misinterpreting or misunderstanding or just plain not knowing the rule for too long. Rules education would probably go a lot further and solve a lot more than trying to re-write the rules to account for problems with the old rules that aren't really problems.

Doesn't the rule to always put mini/stance inline with the basket exist so that you are never putting yourself closer to the basket? But for holes with severe dog legs, following the rules does put you closer to the basket, if traveling via fairway. Too add to the confusion, there is an additional rule that states the mando acts as the basket (with respect to lie) until you have have passed it. ?? Just seems a little strange to me.

[Stephen Ditter]

Josh you are correct. I just have to change my wrong ways. Doing something wrong forever is like teaching an old dog (old disc golfer) new tricks. It's just going to take me a while to rethink my stance in the dogleg situation. I'm surprised I was allowed to mistance for over double digit years of playing. I did/do follow the line from the basket in all other situations, just always used the fairway as my mini placement and point of contact for the dogleg.

Live/play and learn. This old dog will have to learn a new trick.

-sd

[Josh Connell]

Doesn't the rule to always put mini/stance inline with the basket exist so that you are never putting yourself closer to the basket? But for holes with severe dog legs, following the rules does put you closer to the basket, if traveling via fairway. Too add to the confusion, there is an additional rule that states the mando acts as the basket (with respect to lie) until you have have passed it. ?? Just seems a little strange to me.

Yes, the rule is written so you are never closer to the target than the rear edge of your marker disc. No, the rule never ever puts you closer to the target than the rear edge of your marker. All that matters is the line of play. The "fairway" or the intended flight path is 1000% irrelevant in terms of determining a legal stance. Always has been irrelevant, should always be irrelevant in the future.

I posted a diagram a while back in this thread about stance. The topic in that thread was primarily putting, but that diagram holds as universal for all shots once a player is off the tee box. Doesn't matter where the trees are or where the designed fairway is or where the optimum flight path is, you must take a stance such that no supporting point falls in that blue circle at the time of release.

The only confusion is created by false assumptions and misinterpretations/misunderstandings of the rules as written.

[John DeBois]

the rule never ever puts you closer to the target than the rear edge of your marker.

IDK about that. 803.12: D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole.

This rule allows for scenarios where you are marking your lie closer to the basket then the rear edge of your marker disc. no?

[Josh Connell]

the rule never ever puts you closer to the target than the rear edge of your marker.

IDK about that. 803.12: D. When marking the lie, if the line of play does not pass to the correct side of the mandatory, then the mandatory itself shall be considered the hole for the application of all rules regarding stance, markers, obstacles, and relief. For the purposes of taking a legal stance, the mandatory object which has not yet been passed, and is nearest the tee, will be considered to be the hole.

This rule allows for scenarios where you are marking your lie closer to the basket then the rear edge of your marker disc. no?

First, note I said target and not basket. That makes a huge difference.

The crux of ALL marking and stance rules is the line of play. You can't determine the legality of a stance without first determining the line of play.

800 Definitions...
Line of Play: The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond.

By rule, there are ony two possible targets that can serve as a determining point for the line of play: the hole and a mandatory. The default choice is the hole except in one specific circumstance, and that circumstance is spelled out rather explicitly by the rule you quote.

It really isn't complicated. And all the doglegs and curved fairways in the world still are irrelevant to the issue.