Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation?

Under 2013 PDGA rules QA 16 a player can hold on to a live branch while throwing if the contact is not OB, not in front of the lie and the branch is not "moved".

[www.pdga.com]

What if the held branch is still in the stance but moved or shaken by the throwing motion? Is it a stance violation (802.04), an obstacle violation (803.01), both (801.01 H.), neither, some other violation or is QA 16 just wrong about the "not moved" requirement?

Opinions and authorities requested. Thanks.

It's only a violation if you get caught or someone knows the rules....in disc golf the latter if extremely unlikely......

___________________________________________________________________________
Keith "Sunshine" B

Well the question in the rule book was

Quote
PDGA
Q: Can I hold onto a branch or other object behind my lie while putting?

So my interpretation of their answer is you shouldn't take a branch that crosses your stance or flight path and bend (a.k.a. move) it behind you. If the branch is behind you naturally, you can use it as a brace for balance if need be.

I don't think shaking the branch as part of your throwing motion is prohibited. The moving of the branch seems to only matter when taking your stance, not throwing.

Quote
PDGA
It also must not be moved, since you are required to take the stance that results in the least movement of obstacles on the course.

Additionally, this would apply to a dead branch also, or a rock, bench, sign post, etc.

You can only hold onto essentially immovable objects behind your lie. You cannot hold onto small branches since they will move around as you hold them. If it's a tree trunk or say a big oak branch behind your lie that won't move, those can be held.

The branch can be used as a point of support but cannot be "displaced" by that use... the branch can move, but only by the action of the put..... bottom line- it is the group's call because only they saw all the factors!

Thanks guys but if that is the best you got it looks like QA 16 is flat wrong. You can shake it but don't break it. There is no movement of the branch in the stance and the movement of it during the throw is incidental anyway. No relief is being taken so it does not violate 803.01. There is no "immovable object", "small branch" or "displaced" rule. There is no rule to cite violation of in this scenario. There is no group call to make. Either cite a rule it violates or admit QA 16 is wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 10:10AM by Discjazz.

Discjazz, I'm sure Kernan will have the correct answer! Where u at Mike? Lol

If it is "displaced" from its normal location so that it is not longer in the way or any part that is beyond your lie is moved in any way... it is a violation!!

Flyerbud's "if" facts are not part of the fact scenario in question but feel free to cite authority for the violation assertion anyway if you think it is relevant or if you want to raise some more issues. I did a search for the word "displaced" in the rules and no matches were found.

LOL... you didn't want to hear anyone's thoughts...you just wanted to use your lawyer skills!!!! Good job.... I am out!

So QA 16 asks about holding the branch during putting, not any other type of throw. 802.04, part D makes it clear that the stance during putting is more strict than during other throws.

Maybe what they are clarifying is you can hold a branch or object behind you, during putting, as long as you don't move it. My opinion is moving the branch would become a stance violation if the tree branch returns to it's natural position. You would create an obstacle violation if you were to break the branch or prop it against another branch such that it won't return to it's natural location.

If the trunk, branch, bench, rock, trash can, is big and heavy enough for you to pull, push, or rest on it without moving it - you can putt from that stance.

802.04 in the new 2013 rulebook: [www.pdga.com]
discusses the rules on Throwing from a Stance which doesn't specifically say you can or can't hold onto anything when taking your stance. QA16 simply clarifies that you can grab onto an "immovable" object (that's part of the course) behind your lie as you prepare to throw.

I think I got it

I can stack the trash can, that is full of rocks, on top of the bench by the trunk of the tree, hold onto the overhead limb, (as long as I don't move it) and putt from there.

Now that is a Cool Rule


Thanks
DEX

manglin wrote:
"moving the branch would become a stance violation if the tree branch returns to it's natural position"

my reply:

I think this is the most relevant stance rule:

"802.04 Throwing from a Stance
A. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle."

Subject Facts:
A subject fact is that the stance makes no branch movement at all, just the branch holding QA 16 says is legal. Therefore the subject stance is "the least movement" of the branch. The branch is not in the way of the throwing motion. The branch is just being held for support or balance. Therefore no branch movement is made "in order to make room for a throwing motion". The branch movement is caused by the throw. The branch movement is incidental to the "throwing motion", and the branch holding we all agree is legal. Therefore there is no stance violation. If the branch is broken it's a 2 stroke penalty, but that is not the subject issue.

Please state the rule language you think the subject facts violate.

cgkdisc, please cite me the "immovable" object rule because my word search for "immovable" found no matches.

Dex's trash can is gonna be a bit more than 1 cm. 801.03 A.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 01:09PM by Discjazz.

"Least movement" in the rule essentially means "No deliberate movement." The rule tolerates a player stepping into a bush and positioning themself with the least disruption of the bush branches as possible even though there is some positional disruption. However, directly grabbing something that moves would be deliberate movement and isn't allowed. But grabbing an immovable object that's part of the course behind the lie is allowed. That's how it's been interpreted for the PDGA marshals. I specifically asked the Rules Committee whether a player could grab the hand of another player behind them when playing from a slippery bank. It was first seen as okay. But then QA16 clarified that the support had to be provided by an immovable object on the course.

The only use I found of the root word "deliberate" is a reference to misplay, which these facts do not meet the definitions of. Stepping into a bush is just as deliberate as holding a branch if not more so. Stepping into a bush may require movement of branches. A small branch can theoretically be held with absolutely no movement, and a throw made without moving it too. Since the branch is being held for support and balance, branch movement is clearly not intended, else the purpose could be partially defeated.

I'm still waiting for the rule language. I'm pretty sure "deliberate" and "immovable" are not part of it and that "incidental" is. I might have to settle for a link to an official PDGA decision on the issue if you have one, but that won't put it in the rules. Without either, I see no basis for calling it a violation.

Since that branch movement messed up my throw I hope somebody calls it a stance violation so I can get my re-throw without penalty.

The original post is asking whether grasping an object is allowed per QA16. The answer is yes if it's immovable, part of the course and behind your lie. That's simply a clarification of the base rule 802.04 regarding least movement. It's unfortunate that they used the word 'branch' instead of say 'tree trunk' in the QA16 text since you tend to think of a branch as moving around more than a trunk or post.

Thanks for your responses. I believe you are "in the know" on what they intended. I personally accept what you say about that but if I'm going to call a rule as a player or TD I prefer more provable authority.

Since they intended to legalize holding of only "immovable" objects it would have been a little better to put that word in the rule. There would still be an issue by analogy though. Regarding discs in a thrown position, the QA says movement really means re-located on the playing surface, not just the movement we see when a player pushes a disc down to see if it is OB water. By analogy use of the same root word "move" can be equally ambiguous regarding objects as it was for discs. I also don't' think tree trunk is a cure-all because there are plenty of sapling trees smaller than some shakable branches. We are bending (moving) grass blades with every step but maybe not re-locating them on the playing surface.

When I started this I really just wanted to know whether it was a stance violation or an object relief violation because QA 16 refers to both rules as authorities and the consequences are quite different. As I studied the rule language closer I realized multiple arguments that it might not be a violation at all. The rules can easily be interpreted to mean a shake may not be a movement at all, because there is no relocation on the playing surface. I have yet to read that the QA's are intended to have the same force as the rule language. I certainly like the argument that it is a stance violation but at this point it is no better than the argument that it is no violation at all if the rule language controls.

All these potential conclusions are just arguments, ideal things to not be involved in during a tournament. Tie goes to the runner. Fix it or I ain't calling it.

QAs are now equal to the rules and are even printed in the rulebook this year.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 07:40PM by cgkdisc.

I'd like to read that. Can you give me a quote and link? By that decision the word "move" has already been defined. It means relocation on the playing surface (like thrown discs). That means the shaken branch has not been "moved" because it is not been relocated on the playing surface. The branch is also immovable, as in illegal to relocate from the tree. That means no stance violation under the subject facts.

You would think the PDGA would get at least one lawyer, who plays music, disc golf or both to review their rule book and its subject facts prior to releasing it into the wild.

I'm glad you are on our side Kevin.

Official Rules of Disc Golf now includes section 808 which includes the Rules QAs as "official" as any other section.
[www.pdga.com]
...and "move" does not necessarily mean relocated on or to the playing surface. For example, we have a hole where ski lift chairs (obstacles on the course by definition) are hanging and can't be moved if they are in your stance or flight line. You couldn't grab them if behind your lie but they could be moved as a a result of incidental contact during your throwing motion.

Thanks but that is just a link I already had. I am still unable to locate any of the things you referred to, now including the ski lift rule. Could you be more specific?

803.01A regarding obstacles which includes ski lift chairs. QA16 regarding not holding onto them when behind the lie since they are movable.

Well I checked again and again did not find the word "ski" or "lift" in the 2013 PDGA rule book.

I have found no statement that the QA's have the same force as the rule language, and the fact that the QA's reference the rules implies otherwise.

I have not found the word "immovable" or "movable". Of course I do find the root word "move", and QA 44 says a disc has not been "moved" unless there is a "change" in the "location". Nowhere have a read that there are two (2) definitions of the word "move" or "moved". In common knowledge a disc is an object. In the rules of our sport I do not see separate definitions of the word "move" for those two (2) common knowledge objects.

I have not found the word "deliberate" except the one reference I mentioned earlier.

I am using Acrobat word searches from the pdf of the rule book. Maybe it is not working properly somehow but it has found many other words without error. The pdf does include the QA's and summaries too. I posted a link to the pdf in my initial post in this thread. It is the 2013 rule book. I have also read these pages and do not recall reading these words. Maybe if you give me a page number I can find them.

Why would ski lift need to be listed? It's simply an obstacle (as defined in the rules section 800) like 100s of other obstacles on courses that are not listed by name. One of the conditions incorporated by the words "least movement" is "no movement" or "immovable." One opposite of "incidental movement" (in rule 802.04A) might be "deliberate movement" when explaining what is not allowed.

FYI, here's the official announcement that the Rules QAs now have the same standing as the Rules:
[www.pdga.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 11:26AM by cgkdisc.

You 2 guys should get a room

BMB

Thanks for that link. That is satisfactory proof IMO that the rule language and QA language have equal force. As long as there are no conflicts, especially on the definition of the root word "move", I think we are good to go. I do not see any conflict since QA 16 uses the word "moved" and QA 44 defines "moved" as relocated (changed location). A shaken branch is not relocated so no stance violation. The only remaining conflicts are the other words you have asserted apply without me being able to find them anywhere in the rule book.

To answer your other question, the only reason I looked to see if ski lift is in the rules is that you asserted it as having a special rule possibly conflicting with QA 16 given the definition of "move" you asserted. I imagined that was just a special course rule and therefore irrelevant to our discussion but I looked just to make sure. The rules do prohibit relocation of a permanent obstacle but do not prohibit use of obstacle pliability. Since there is no violation, my original questions (call seconding, warning, re-throw, penalty) are now irrelevant.