Another Question for Chuck

Charlie Holmgren · Post by **Charlie Holmgren** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:04 am

Casual relief question:

Lets say there is a pile of brush that you are allowed casual relief from. The brush pile is only like 10 feet long.

Where must you mark your lie behind it?

Same question another scenario:
Lets say there is a casual creek and your disc is dead center. along the side of the creek straight back from the basket is a bunch of large rocks that are slightly slick with water/moss. These rocks are the nearest playable lie.

Do you have to stand on them or can you move back more? if so, how far?

Thanks Chuck!

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:45 pm

Since you are allowed up to 5 meters relief on the line of play, you should be able to get back out of the brush pile which is only 3 meters max. With regard to the slippery rocks, you could go back beyond the rocks if it's still within the 5 meters from where your disc landed in the water. The fact there is water on the rocks would allow you to move further back. If those were dry rocks, then that would seem to be lie you would have to take.

Charlie Holmgren · Post by **Charlie Holmgren** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:25 pm

hmmm...

Are you allowed to take up to 5 meters no matter what? Lets say the rocks were dry and another 5 feet back would allow much better footing and you are still within the 5 meters. Can you back up to the better footing?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:03 pm

Technically, no. Practically, I suspect your group wouldn't question it.

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 7:55 pm

Good question Charlie...

Chuck - Is it "technically" the first playable lie within 5 meters?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:03 pm

The wording just says "nearest lie." So technically, that would imply the nearest lie that wouldn't qualify for casual relief.

Charlie Holmgren · Post by **Charlie Holmgren** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:39 am

Thanks for the responses Chuck.

More though...

Does "nearest lie" mean the place where your feet are clear of obstacles?

Back to the brush pile: Lets say that you can place your feet about a foot away from the brush pile...however...higher up, the brushes are extending towards you another 4 feet. Can you move back until they are no longer in your swing as long as you are still within the 5 meters?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:15 am

"Nearest lie" is defined by the group or official and would be a judgment call since there's no absolute definition provided by the wording.

Casual relief also includes relief from obstacles to your stance OR throwing motion. 803.05C(2). So you would be able to move back enough to get behind the projecting branches in the pile if you were still within the 5 meters allowed, unless the TD provided extended relief.

Charlie Holmgren · Post by **Charlie Holmgren** » Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:38 am

Cool...thanks.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:43 am

to add to this discussion..

if a branch is dead and half behind your mini and half in front...could you snap limp portion that is behind your mini if it does not affect your mark of the portion in front of mini?

always wondered that

oh and is a rock part of course or can it be moved if behind mark?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:14 pm

No, on breaking the branch for that purpose. The rock is tricky and you might need to consider the ball golf approach on that where if the rock is embedded in the ground, you can't move it since it could be argued it's part of the playing surface when the round started. But if it's sitting on top of the ground, then okay to move.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:12 pm

Sjur Soleng · Post by **Sjur Soleng** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:09 pm

I did this this weekend. My group ok'd it. Basically, I marked my lie with a mini, but I did not remove my disc behind it. In fact, I left it there on purpose so my foot would not completely submerge. The relief would have put me in a worse place. Legal?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm

Legal. The only thing would be that for situations like this, the player should inform the group so they know that the mini and not your disc is the marker for your next throw. And it sounds like they knew since you asked them. So thumbs up!

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:19 am

Chuck Kennedy wrote:Legal. The only thing would be that for situations like this, the player should inform the group so they know that the mini and not your disc is the marker for your next throw. And it sounds like they knew since you asked them. So thumbs up!

And he did inform us that he was doing it. Looks like the right call was made.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:23 am

Chuck Kennedy wrote:Casual relief also includes relief from obstacles to your stance OR throwing motion. 803.05C(2).

So if your disc is resting up against a tree and your swing could take your hand into the tree, you can take casual relief? [bleep] KOVO! We could have saved your hand all that pain!

Karl Molitoris · Post by **Karl Molitoris** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:44 am

Matt,

The way you put it (most of us not knowing the Kovo situation), it opens up quite the can of worms!

All,

After reading 803.05C(2) and the "surrounding" rules, I'm reading it to mean that casual relief could be taken from "obstructions" NOT between the lie and the target...and thus this opens up the debate on 'what is on that line?' Directly on the line you say? How about 1-degree off the line (but still close enough to hit the tree with your follow through)? 2-degrees? Etc.

Me thinks this may just be another case of the rules need a 'bit 'o tweekin' in the near future.

Unless I'm reading it wrongly....

Karl

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:52 am

Fu Man wrote:
Chuck Kennedy wrote:Casual relief also includes relief from obstacles to your stance OR throwing motion. 803.05C(2).

So if your disc is resting up against a tree and your swing could take your hand into the tree, you can take casual relief? [bleep] KOVO! We could have saved your hand all that pain!

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:11 am

The casual relief for your throwing motion is only allowed from obstacles that qualify for casual relief in 803.05C: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The tree trunk wouldn't qualify for casual relief but the original request was regarding broken branches no longer connected that were in a brush pile, so they would qualify.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:22 pm

Good to know...thanks for the clarification. I didn't think we could use it in that case. The disc was almost in standing water, at which point we could have called for casual relief, but it was still on dry land.

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:23 pm

Hey Kovo... ever hear of a flick to get out of trouble?

Sorry to hear about the hand. I wish you a speedy recovery. You can always decide to throw with the correct (right) hand in the meantime.

Alan MacLean · Post by **Alan MacLean** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:59 pm

Chuck, I have one for you...

During the B Pool Team Challenge finals, my group was sitting at a tee waiting for the group ahead of us to clear the hole. The tee box abutted the fairway of another hole (dog leg left) where a RHBH turnover could potentially put us in the flight path.

This became the case and a disc started heading right for my group. The player who looked to be in immediate danger was sitting with his back to the incoming disc. I stepped towards him to knock it down if it was going to hit his head, but thankfully it flattened out and missed the group by a few feet.

One player in my group said I'd be DQ'd in a NEFA/PDGA tourney if I interfered. I just read the interference rule and it looks like a 2-stroke penalty. Either case really irritates me. Why should I be punished if an errant throw comes in and I protect someone's head? Does often vague PDGA rules trump personal safety? Not that it will change my action next time, I'll still knock it down if it will hit someone not looking in the head.

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:08 pm

Matt Stroika wrote:Hey Kovo... ever hear of a flick to get out of trouble?

Sorry to hear about the hand. I wish you a speedy recovery. You can always decide to throw with the correct (right) hand in the meantime.

Thanks, Matt. Backhand Lefty...Flick Righty....don't ask! The righty flick wouldn't have made it, and my tomohawk (also right-handed) would not have been close at all. I got it to about 30-35ft and hit the putt 8-)

Funny too, because it was my righty flick that got us to the base of the tree...

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:31 pm

Kovo wrote:
Matt Stroika wrote:Hey Kovo... ever hear of a flick to get out of trouble?

Sorry to hear about the hand. I wish you a speedy recovery. You can always decide to throw with the correct (right) hand in the meantime.

Thanks, Matt. Backhand Lefty...Flick Righty....don't ask! The righty flick wouldn't have made it, and my tomohawk (also right-handed) would not have been close at all. I got it to about 30-35ft and hit the putt

Funny too, because it was my righty flick that got us to the base of the tree...

Glad someone else is as screwed up as me. Lefty backhand, righty overhand and flick. And I putt righty.

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:36 pm

You got me beat with the righty putting... :lol:

I putt lefty...except when it comes to turbo putts i'm all righty. :compress:

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:31 pm

You did not intend to interfere so no penalty. You did not plan in advance to intentionally interfere with the disc so only 803.07A for accidental interference would apply. The thrower would simply play the disc wherever it landed after your deflection if that happened. You could also claim you were just trying to identify who threw it under 803.07C

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:52 pm

Chuck Kennedy wrote:You did not intend to interfere so no penalty. You did not plan in advance to intentionally interfere with the disc so only 803.07A for accidental interference would apply. The thrower would simply play the disc wherever it landed after your deflection if that happened. You could also claim you were just trying to identify who threw it under 803.07C

You don't think him moving and getting prepared to swat the disc before it hits someone counts as intending to interfere? I think that definitely would qualify for the 2 stroke penalty.

If the guy sitting with his back got hit, I would think that's what qualifies as the unintentional interference. Surely, there has to be a difference between the two actions. No?

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:23 pm

No. The question would be whether he would have been plotting to knock down the disc if he was just out walking with no one else around or maybe leaped a foot or two in the air to knock it down when it wasn't even going close to hitting someone else. An example of intentional interference I've seen is when players bury another player's disc in leaves so he can't find it. Now that's a 2-shot penalty for each of the perps.

Dave McHale · Post by **Dave McHale** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:34 pm

that's really a "spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" interpretation, Chuck. Swatting the disc to protect another player from being hit IS intentional interference, since he fully intended to hit the disc. In fact, you could argue it's just as intentional as not moving a bag when someone's disc is rolling by - a conscious decision which affects the disc's path, whether or not it was a "planned" interference before the disc was thrown. If you don't want to get stroked the penalty strokes, you're better off tackling the sitting player to try and knock him out of the disc's flight path.

Mullen, you screwed up Saimond on Sunday when we saw you guys putting on 14 as we came to 13's tee. He was pretty surprised, asked me "isn't he a lefty?" I laughed

Chuck Kennedy · Post by **Chuck Kennedy** » Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:45 pm

Note that rule 803.07C uses the term "consciously" alters the flight. The way it was presented was a potential unconscious reaction it happened so fast. The question would be when does "intent" start? It's sort of like the group decision on how long is enough time to wait until the group calls a disc "at rest." The RC doesn't say. Now perhaps the rule should be tweaked to say "intentional and unnecessary" before a penalty is applied but some of our rules tend to favor some common sense over explicit definitions so I don't know about that.