Alabama   •   Arkansas   •   Florida   •   Georgia   •   Kentucky   •   Louisiana   •   Mississippi   •   Oklahoma   •   Tennessee   •   Texas
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Rules question - relief abuse?

Posted by manglin 
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 05, 2013 09:49PM
22cm closer to the basket can make the difference especially if it is a putt.

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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 01:31PM
Okay, so maybe, on a putt, that distance might matter but one of the primary reasons that I don't say anything is that you get the same 22cm or so "advantage" by putting down the mini marker, which will just result in slower play.

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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 01:50PM
As I understand it, marking your lie with a mini came into being due to players doing multiple flips which was allowed until the early 80s. In fact there was one player in particular that I've heard credited with multiple disc flips in the late 70s who may have been the trigger for mini marking. This player would flip the disc forward when he got to it and when it was his turn would say something like, "Hmmm, haven't flipped it yet" and proceed to flip it again. At the time, with lighter discs and rollers being used, it was more common to arrive at your disc upside down so you couldn't rely on whether the disc was right side up or upside down to know if a player had flipped it yet.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 02:42PM
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. 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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 05:48PM
Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 06:41PM
Mr. Discjazz, I have searched the rules and I see no rule defining loose leaves as park equipment.

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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 06, 2013 07:48PM
Does Bluff think that under PDGA rules an obstacle can be both "a part of the course" and "casual" absent a specific declaration? In other words, my question is, are those two obstacle classifications mutually exclusive by default under the rules?
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 10:45AM
Admittedly, Rule 803.01.C is so poorly written that the Rules Committee should be fired for including it in the rules. I have been calling for Mr. Damon's and Mr. Duvall's dismissal from the Rules Committee for almost a decade now for their poor management of the Rules of Play, but considering that the pDGA does anything Mr. Duvall commands, it is unlikely that we will have a concise rule book anytime soon.

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."
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 11:11AM
Thanks Bluff. Of course I agree with what you said to the extent it was simply responsive to my question. To put it in rules terms, 803.01.A. and 803.01.B. obstacles are mutually exclusive. Anyone disagree?

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?
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 01:47PM
Really????? Yall kill me.

BMB
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 02:02PM
Abstract entertainment is one of my favorites. I would definitely like to hear your abstract interpretation.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 03:35PM
Just having a little fun here. Possibly constructive. I've learned a lot already.

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.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2013 03:59PM by Discjazz.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 04:25PM
Short version
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.
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 06:04PM
Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 07, 2013 07:42PM
I'm so proud of my little forum thread and how it has grown.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 08, 2013 12:09PM
I agree there is "no need for the word "always" to be in the rule." The rule could be written to go either way with or without use of that exact word. "B.", as it is written, does not define what a casual obstacle is. "A" does that. "B" gives us free relief from the casual obstacles in the "B" list.

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.
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 08, 2013 01:16PM
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 08, 2013 09:31PM
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, so relief is granted in order for your foot to not damage the pine straw which surrounds the tree.

Also, what happened to the "unsafe lie" rule? I must have missed the year it was removed.

Terry Zeringue
Anonymous User
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 09, 2013 08:25AM
Zinger your interpretation matches that of Kennedy's and is a valid solution.

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."
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 09, 2013 11:58AM
These statements are true to my reading:
"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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2013 11:59AM by Discjazz.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 09, 2013 01:16PM
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.

Terry Zeringue
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 09, 2013 02:15PM
TheZinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Re: Rules question - relief abuse?
February 09, 2013 10:15PM
I agree about the rethrow, but I had to put it because it IS an option.

Terry Zeringue
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 30
Record Number of Users: 19 on January 14, 2013
Record Number of Guests: 244 on February 20, 2013