Imagine my disc came to rest on the pine straw, by the tree, in this image. [img]http://www.envirocolor.com/Portals/53778/images//envirocolor_photo_02_large.jpg[/img] Now read this rule from the 2013 pdga rules. [quote=PDGA] 803.01 Obstacles And Relief B. Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles that are on or behind the lie: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the Director before the round. To obtain relief, the player must remove the obstacle if it is practical to do so. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the target, is on the line of play, and is not more than five meters from the original lie (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director). [/quote] Now my question is if my disc was on that pine straw, what's to keep me from interpreting that as "loose leaves or debris" and take a relief? Which, by the way, could give me better footing and remove the tree from my line of play. This just seems like it could get abused a good bit. Any thoughts, ideas? http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,235984#msg-235984 Thu, 23 May 2013 01:20:16 -0500 Phorum 5.2.15a http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236172#msg-236172 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236172#msg-236172 TheZinger General Discussion Sat, 09 Feb 2013 22:15:12 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236160#msg-236160 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236160#msg-236160 -------------------------------------------------------
> The proper thing to do would be: 1) place your
> foot behind your disc and throw, 2) place your
> foot down behind your marker disc and throw, or 3)
> take a one stroke penalty and either rethrow or
> move back.

I agree with that except maybe I don't understand the "re-throw" reason. The problem is that as a green practicing player I would rather not stand on anything special the course keepers built, but as a competitive player I would rather not take a stroke to avoid standing on something special the course keepers built. I don't think it is a bad rule to put the burden of protecting landscaping on the course authority via declaration. After all, if standing on this pine straw damages it then standing on mud or dry grass might damage too.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Sat, 09 Feb 2013 14:15:06 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236159#msg-236159 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236159#msg-236159 TheZinger General Discussion Sat, 09 Feb 2013 13:16:31 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236157#msg-236157 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236157#msg-236157 "Say in THAT pic, the pine straw is permanent landscape, therefor part of the course; damaging the course in any way is against the rules".

A declaration is required for this to be true to my reading:
"relief is granted in order for your foot to not damage the pine straw which surrounds the tree"

I do not think it is a rule violation to stand on a legal IB playing surface behind the mark if there is no declaration against it.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Sat, 09 Feb 2013 11:58:18 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236155#msg-236155 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236155#msg-236155
The unsafe lie rule has evolved into:

"803.02 Optional Relief and Optional Re-throw

Optional Relief. A player may elect at any time to take optional relief. The lie may then be relocated to a new lie which is no closer to the target, and is on the line of play. One penalty throw shall be added to the player's score.

Optional Re-throw. A player may elect at any time to re-throw from the previous lie. The original throw plus one penalty throw shall be counted in the player's score."]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:25:31 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236145#msg-236145 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236145#msg-236145
Also, what happened to the "unsafe lie" rule? I must have missed the year it was removed.]]> TheZinger General Discussion Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:31:17 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236139#msg-236139 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236139#msg-236139

]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:16:50 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236136#msg-236136 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236136#msg-236136
I have not counted all the ways we don't have to "play it where it lies" under these rules. I agree that if we don't ever have to "play it where it lies" then maybe we can move away from that tree in the straw to get a better throw. OTOH, if we are by default required to "play it where it lies" then claiming free relief in this picture is just cheating the tree. The stance is not the difficulty of this obstacle area. It's the tree we would like relief from but don't get on the lame excuse that it has a little pine straw under it.

It appears relief abuse was the proper title for this thread. The rules don't allow the abuse but apparently they are not clear enough for even some of our best and brightest to read that.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:09:43 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236125#msg-236125 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236125#msg-236125 manglin General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:42:00 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236119#msg-236119 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236119#msg-236119 -------------------------------------------------------
> "803.01.B lists the obstacles that are always
> casual"

reply: I stand by that.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the word "always" is not in the "B." rule
> at all. If it were that would be the end of this
> story. It would have been a very simple way to
> clear this whole thing up. However the writers
> did not do that. They did not put the word
> "always" in the "B." rule. I must give the
> writers the benefit of any doubt that they wrote
> what they meant, they meant what they wrote, and
> they are familiar with the word "always". It
> would have been so easy to use that word, but they
> did not. I have to conclude they did not use it
> because "always" is not what they meant, at least
> in the absence of some further clarifying rule
> language.

This is where you begin to let your imagination take you to places that don't exist. There is no need for the word "always" to be in the rule. If you read "B" in isolation, the rule is perfectly clear to the rest of us. "B" clearly defines the exceptions to your belief that "the disc must be played where it lies." I think that phrase may have been in older versions of the rulebook, but I don't see that phrase in the current rules...of course I am not using the search application you have. If you happen to locate that phrase please remind me where it is.


Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Second, the "B." rule does not literally say the
> obstacles listed in it are casual.

Sorry, but that is false. "Casual Obstacles to a Stance: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles..." is the first part of rule "B". How can you read that and not believe the writers meant to define the casual obstacles? Kevin, you have to remember that the Rules Committee just isn't as bright as the average attorney. As we have already discussed, the Rules Committee has steadfastly refused over the years to hire professional consultants in the field of either golf, sports law, or technical writing to make recommendations on how to improve the rules. The Rules Committee members act exceedingly arrogantly in that they must believe that their knowledge of disc golf is somehow the greatest, and without question. Remember at all times Kevin that you are interpreting a scripture of a Rules Committee with only prehistoric knowledge and ability. Remember that the pDGA Rules of Play were written by die-hard hardcore pDGA members, who have had the pDGA cult followers worshiping them for no apparent reason other than they were around back when Dinosaur Stork and Dinosaur Headrick roamed the earth. Unfortunately like emperors without clothes, the Rules Committee can not see that their rules are often porous, confusing, and incomplete. It is unwise to assume the writers have edited their thoughts precisely enough to remove all doubt of their intentions. Your constant questioning of the rules in fact Kevin, attests to the fact that the rules are not all that concise, ironclad, and authoritative.


Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It does list
> obstacles, but what it says about them is that
> they are the "only" obstacles you get free relief
> from. The implication is that there may be other
> "casual" obstacles that you do not get free relief
> from, else they could have just written you get
> free relief from all casual obstacles. They used
> the word "only". So if we believe the "B." rule
> is all about "casual" obstacles (as the
> title/heading of the "B." section indicates), then
> what the writers did is limit the "casual"
> obstacles from which a player gets free relief to
> "only" certain ones. They limited them to the
> obstacles listed, but we're not quite to the list
> yet.
>
> Third, just before the obstacle list begins, what
> word do we see? The word is "casual". What
> follows immediately is the list of obstacles, each
> one separated by a comma. Therefore the word
> "casual" qualifies each and every obstacle in the
> list. For example, you get free relief from
> "casual ... loose leaves". It does not say you
> get free relief from "all leaves" or "all loose
> leaves", and it certainly does not say you get
> free relief from "non-casual loose leaves" or
> "loose leaves that are a part of the course".

While this passage is worthy of its own Dr. Seuss book, I disagree that rule "B" infers that there are casual obstacles that no relief is granted from.

I'm sorry to destroy your dream but players do get casual relief from every loose leaf on every last course. The player may elect not to take relief from a single loose leaf, and may in fact take a stance on top of a loose leaf. But if the player wants relief from a single loose leaf, they may take it. Remember though that the rules prefer that the player move the single leaf rather than play from behind it.


Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The implications are that you have to first
> determine if the obstacle is "casual", then if it
> is casual and also in the list, you get free
> relief from it.

True.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course that begs the question, how do we know
> if it is "casual"? Quite logically, we look to
> the rule that immediately proceeds the "B."
> subsection in the rule book, 803.01.A.

Why would you look to "A" when "B" clearly defines what the casual obstacles are? In addition, "A" clearly states "With the exception of casual obstacles to a stance as described below." "A" tells you exactly where to look for a description of casual obstacles (below), which is "B". While no relief is granted from park equipment, "A" already told you that there are casual obstacles that are the exception to "No relief" from "park equipment"!


Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Subsection
> "A" says you get no free relief from an obstacle
> that is "part of the course". So the way to
> classify an obstacle is to start with the "A."
> section and factually determine if the obstacle is
> "part of the course". If it is "part of the
> course", we stop there, no free relief. If it is
> not "part of the course", then it is "casual".
> Then, having already determined it is "casual"
> (not part of the course) we have to look at the
> next section, "B.", to see if it is one of the
> casual obstacles we get free relief from.


Not quite. If it is casual, you get relief. If you have determined the obstacle as casual, relief may be taken. A player may take relief from all casual obstacles.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So that is how we conclude we don't "always" get
> free relief from the obstacles listed in the "B."
> section. We get no free relief from "A."
> obstacles. Even if an obstacle is not an "A."
> obstacle (a "B." obstacle) we still don't get free
> relief from it unless it is also listed in "B.".
> Therefore the proposition is shot down.


Nope. Nice try though.


Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not saying that is the only way to read it,
> just that it is a reasonable, logical and literal
> way to apply the "A." and "B." subsections in
> harmony.


Nope. It is not reasonable nor is it logical and it is far far embellished from literal. "A" and "B" remain harmonious. It's "C" that is the troublemaker.]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:04:02 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236118#msg-236118 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236118#msg-236118 803.01.B does not list "the obstacles that are always casual". It lists the "only" casual obstacles that we get free relief from. It is true that all the obstacles we get free relief from are casual and are listed in "B.", but if they are not casual and in "B.", we do not get free relief from them.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:25:34 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236117#msg-236117 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236117#msg-236117
So this is the proposition I am supposed to shoot down:

"803.01.B lists the obstacles that are always casual"

I'll call 803.01.B the "B." rule because it is the "B." subsection of 803.01.

First, the word "always" is not in the "B." rule at all. If it were that would be the end of this story. It would have been a very simple way to clear this whole thing up. However the writers did not do that. They did not put the word "always" in the "B." rule. I must give the writers the benefit of any doubt that they wrote what they meant, they meant what they wrote, and they are familiar with the word "always". It would have been so easy to use that word, but they did not. I have to conclude they did not use it because "always" is not what they meant, at least in the absence of some further clarifying rule language.

Second, the "B." rule does not literally say the obstacles listed in it are casual. It does list obstacles, but what it says about them is that they are the "only" obstacles you get free relief from. The implication is that there may be other "casual" obstacles that you do not get free relief from, else they could have just written you get free relief from all casual obstacles. They used the word "only". So if we believe the "B." rule is all about "casual" obstacles (as the title/heading of the "B." section indicates), then what the writers did is limit the "casual" obstacles from which a player gets free relief to "only" certain ones. They limited them to the obstacles listed, but we're not quite to the list yet.

Third, just before the obstacle list begins, what word do we see? The word is "casual". What follows immediately is the list of obstacles, each one separated by a comma. Therefore the word "casual" qualifies each and every obstacle in the list. For example, you get free relief from "casual ... loose leaves". It does not say you get free relief from "all leaves" or "all loose leaves", and it certainly does not say you get free relief from "non-casual loose leaves" or "loose leaves that are a part of the course".

The implications are that you have to first determine if the obstacle is "casual", then if it is casual and also in the list, you get free relief from it.

Of course that begs the question, how do we know if it is "casual"? Quite logically, we look to the rule that immediately proceeds the "B." subsection in the rule book, 803.01.A. Subsection "A" says you get no free relief from an obstacle that is "part of the course". So the way to classify an obstacle is to start with the "A." section and factually determine if the obstacle is "part of the course". If it is "part of the course", we stop there, no free relief. If it is not "part of the course", then it is "casual". Then, having already determined it is "casual" (not part of the course) we have to look at the next section, "B.", to see if it is one of the casual obstacles we get free relief from.

So that is how we conclude we don't "always" get free relief from the obstacles listed in the "B." section. We get no free relief from "A." obstacles. Even if an obstacle is not an "A." obstacle (a "B." obstacle) we still don't get free relief from it unless it is also listed in "B.". Therefore the proposition is shot down.

I'm not saying that is the only way to read it, just that it is a reasonable, logical and literal way to apply the "A." and "B." subsections in harmony.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:35:54 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236115#msg-236115 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236115#msg-236115 Bluff Magee General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:02:46 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236112#msg-236112 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236112#msg-236112 BRIAN B General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:47:04 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236104#msg-236104 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236104#msg-236104
If you want to keep going I'll be glad to give you an argument about how your statement that "803.01.B lists the obstacles that are always casual" is not the only reasonable interpretation of that rule, especially in the context of other rules. If you've had enough we can just agree these rules lack clarity on the classification of obstacles. How much abstract entertainment do we have time for?]]> Discjazz General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 11:11:38 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236101#msg-236101 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236101#msg-236101
Despite the confusing wording of all parts of Rule 803, the intent is that yes, there are two types of obstacles, and they are intended to be "mutually exclusive" to use your words. Rule 803.01.B lists the obstacles that are always casual. All other obstacles are considered "part of the course" unless declared casual by the TD. Casual obstacles are not considered "part of the course."]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:45:55 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236090#msg-236090 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236090#msg-236090 Discjazz General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:48:42 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236088#msg-236088 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236088#msg-236088
I do however see a rule that specifically names loose leaves as a casual obstacle (Rule 803.01.B) from which players may obtain relief.

I doubt there is a TD in the land that would penalize a player from obtaining relief from an obstacle defined in the rules as casual.]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:41:37 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236087#msg-236087 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236087#msg-236087 -------------------------------------------------------
> Jazzcaster
> I agree with both of your last two posts except my
> suggestion of "mark" instead of "marker" was only
> for the purpose of avoiding relatively remote
> confusion possibility via a literal reading rather
> than that the rule is actually inaccurate as
> written.
>

Gotcha. I guess I didn't get the comment about a marker not being needed, which brought to mind the flipping practice.]]> Jazzcaster General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 17:48:40 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236076#msg-236076 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236076#msg-236076 I agree with both of your last two posts except my suggestion of "mark" instead of "marker" was only for the purpose of avoiding relatively remote confusion possibility via a literal reading rather than that the rule is actually inaccurate as written. It was just a suggestion for a minor word change that apparently Bluff also noticed could be useful. My point was that when your thrown disc lands you have a mark that determines your lie. Whether that mark is marked by the thrown disc or a "Mini Marker Disc" was not intended to be asserted as relevant to the topic or my understanding of it.

Bluff
I thought I had sufficiently agreed that a pine straw needle is a leaf in my earlier post when I wrote "presumably loose pine needles (fairly classified as leaves)". Since that wasn't good enough I will add that the pine straw looks loose to me but I can't rule out that mud/dirt over time has made the needles stick together from this picture. I have had no thought about how loose the needles are in this circle because I do not see that as relevant. What I see as relevant is that the pine straw circle appears to be a design that is "part of the course".

I have had no belief about whether or not "each individual strand of straw was woven meticulously into place" at any time during this discussion. This might also go to the looseness question but again that is irrelevant to my argument because I think pine needles organized in a neat circle around a tree can be "part of the course" whether they are loose or not, and these in particular look like "part of the course" to me.

Perhaps the rule phrase "part of the course" was intended to only mean obstacles anticipated to affect play, and I still don't think these pine needles do so significantly, but I do not glean that possible distinction from the rules. Looseness might be relevant to whether pine needles are an obstacle at all but then I also conceded that point long ago for the purposes of this discussion. I only chose to be in this discussion for the rules issues and accepted that I would have to ignore some possible factual issues that I can't determine from the picture in order to get to the rules issues.

I know Bluff may have asked me other questions I have not responded to but in the interest of some attempt at brevity I will attempt to make a statement that covers them all. I have expressed no opinion about what the rule applications should be or what a good disc golf rule would be. I have simply tried to apply the 2013 PDGA rules to the facts stated and pictured in the original post. The accolades are entertaining but the mere pleasure of making and considering the rules arguments has been more than enough to justify my participation.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:42:38 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236074#msg-236074 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236074#msg-236074 cgkdisc General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:50:43 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236070#msg-236070 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236070#msg-236070
I get and agree with your point about following the rules and insisting that others do so as well to ensure fair competition. I guess this just seems like an odd rule to me.]]> Jazzcaster General Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:31:23 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236056#msg-236056 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236056#msg-236056
Players are expected to call the rules infractions they observe (Rule 801.01.B), so you should call marking violations like disc flipping if you notice them. I wouldn't say that is using the rules to your advantage, I would call it following the rules to ensure fairness of competition. If you don't call violations, you are doing a disservice to all other groups in your division by allowing players in your own group to break rules to their advantage.]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:49:29 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236052#msg-236052 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236052#msg-236052 -------------------------------------------------------
> On a side note, I think use of the term "marker"
> was poor drafting since it is clear we don't have
> to use a marker. They could have just used "mark"
> and solved that problem. However I think that
> side note is irrelevant to this issue.

How can you not use a marker other than on the tee or in a drop zone?

"Lie The spot on the playing surface behind the marker, upon which the player takes a stance in accordance with the rules. It is a line 30 centimeters in length extending back along the line of play from the rear edge of the marker disc. The lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area. A drop zone is also a lie."

I think you are confusing "Marker" with "Mini Marker Disc."

A "Marker" must be used, even if it is the thrown disc (with exceptions for tee box and drop zones).

This is something I've noted as I have seen an apparently very common practice of flipping the thrown disc over and stepping in the spot where the thrown disc was laying, a marking violation that can result in a penalty throw for each violation after a warning. I don't worry about the penalty, but have always wondered what possible benefit can be derived from that practice. Is the 22cm or so closer to the basket really going to help?

So would "using the rules to your advantage" include calling that violation on your opponents?]]> Jazzcaster General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:45:41 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236050#msg-236050 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236050#msg-236050 Bluff Magee General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:27:34 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236048#msg-236048 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236048#msg-236048
Is the pine straw a casual obstacle, or is it "valuable foliage" as described in QA1? It's a trick question. It's both!

Mr. Discjazz, please re-read Q1: "How do I mark my lie when my disc lands in an area of the course that has sensitive, protected, endangered, dangerous, or valuable foliage?"

Mr. Discjazz, would you describe the pine straw as sensitive? It could be, I will grant you that. What is the procedure for marking the lie in "sensitive foliage"? A: Mark your lie in the standard fashion. Once you mark the lie it will be on the pine straw. While the pine straw has been groomed purposefully, in the end it is still a collection of loose leaves, as you agreed. Players are allowed under 801.03.B to obtain relief from loose leaves. There is no penalty for obtaining relief from a casual obstacle, no matter how well the casual obstacle is groomed.


Mr. Discjazz, would you describe the pine straw as protected, endangered, or dangerous? There is no sign indicating it is protected or endangered, and pine straw is certainly not dangerous unless you poke your eye with it. So let's say that part of QA1 has nothing to do with this ruling.


Mr. Discjazz, would you describe the pine straw as valuable foliage? It could be, I will grant you that. What is the procedure for marking the lie in "valuable foliage"? A: Mark your lie in the standard fashion. Once you mark the lie it will be on the pine straw. While the pine straw has been groomed purposefully, in the end it is still a collection of loose leaves, as you agreed. Players are allowed under 801.03.B to obtain relief from loose leaves. There is no penalty for obtaining relief from a casual obstacle, no matter how well the casual obstacle is groomed.


Mr. Discjazz, I have searched the rules and I see no rule defining loose leaves as park equipment. If you ask a park worker if pine straw is equipment, they would probably not agree. They might call it vegetation, decorative material, or mulch, but equipment? Thou doth stretcheth the meaning of the word equipment.

I do however see a rule that specifically names loose leaves as a casual obstacle (Rule 803.01.B again) from which players may obtain relief. That should be enough to those who wish to proceed. Groups are expected to keep up with the group in front of them; obtaining relief behind a casual obstacle rather than moving and replacing the obstacle will certainly speed up play. Arguing over the definition of park equipment, when loose leaves (no matter how well arranged) are defined in the rules as a casual obstacle could result in the group being warned and stroked for slow play. Is that what you are trying to accomplish Mr. Discjazz? I am certain the other members of the group would rather grant relief from loose leaves than be stroked for trying to locate in the rulebook that they are park equipment. Excessive time studying the rule book to no avail should be a violation of 3.2.A.


Mr. Discjazz, you have made an honorable presentation to the court, but the judgment is final. You have served well, but have lost based on a preponderance of the evidence. Kennedy is only wrong 10% of the time and this isn't one of them.]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:57:34 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236046#msg-236046 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236046#msg-236046
If the area around the tree was level with the ground and not filled with casual obstacles, say the tree was surrounded with 1" landscape stones, I would agree with your interpretation that no relief would be allowed without penalty unless the TD indicated relief must be taken to maintain the landscaping.]]> cgkdisc General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:56:33 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236045#msg-236045 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236045#msg-236045
I understand Bluff's 803.01.B. factual argument and agree stance prevention is not required under this rule. My problem with Bluff's argument is that this pine straw circle appears to me to be a "part of the course". It appears Bluff is actually not denying that this pine straw circle was deliberately placed on this course by its keepers. He is arguing that by rule (803.01 B.) loose leaves cannot be "part of the course" unless declared so. I am arguing that these presumably loose pine needles (fairly classified as leaves) are part of the course based on specific observation of this neatly arranged circle of them. They did not just fall or get blown there. They were put there by the course keepers. QA 1 would not read that a TD "may declare an area to be OB, or a casual obstacle" unless designed areas are by default "part of the course".

It seems my beef with Bluff's argument is over a question of law (rule), not a question of fact. The issue is which rule controls whether an obstacle is casual or not by default when two of the rules produce a different answer to that question. We should be able to apply the rules to the undisputed facts to determine the outcome. We cannot because the rules as written are fuzzy. The rules are legitimately subject to more than one interpretation. That may be about as far as we can go with it.]]> Discjazz General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:30:52 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236040#msg-236040 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236040#msg-236040
If one rule trumps the other, it could be said it is maybe 803.01.B that trumps 803.01.A.

803.01.B defines no less than 8 examples of casual obstacles, casual obstacles that players may always obtain relief from. Unless the TD has specifically announced that pine straw is course equipment on this course, the pine straw is not considered course equipment. One can not guess whether a particular straw or floral arrangement was intended to be course equipment. Since we can not conclude with 100% accuracy the intention of the course designer, as you admit, we must play by the default rule which allows players relief from a casual obstacle, e.g. loose leaves.

It is clearly the spirit of the rules that players should keep the course as clean and tidy as they found it. That is why I believe that the authors of the rules intended that relief can be granted from neatly manicured pine straw. Rule 803 is poorly, poorly worded, I agree. There is confusion caused by the use of "remove" and "move" as instructions on what to do about casual obstacles. It would be wise for Rule 803 to be rewritten to better define casual vs. permanent obstacles. But there should be no question that loose leaves (pine straw, the loose leaves of pine trees) are defined as casual obstacles, unless designated by the TD.


How many times can you look at the pine straw and not conclude it is "loose leaves"? Do you believe that each individual strand of straw was woven meticulously into place?]]> Bluff Magee General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:33:16 -0600 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236039#msg-236039 http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,235984,236039#msg-236039 cgkdisc General Discussion Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:52:39 -0600