Alabama •
Arkansas •
Florida •
Georgia •
Kentucky •
Louisiana •
Mississippi •
Oklahoma •
Tennessee •
Texas
Welcome!
» Log In
» Create A New Profile
Show all posts by user
Re: Dustin LeMasters Rule Question - 8 weeks ago
Conrad Damon = Head of PDGA Rules Committeeby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Dustin LeMasters Rule Question - 8 weeks ago
There is no rule preventing you from relocating your lie up to 1m from OB regardless whether you can take a stance without moving it. And you still are not allowed to have any part of your stance touching an OB surface at the point you release your throw. 802.04B(3)by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: PDGA Shifts to "True Am" Payout for Am Worlds - 2 months ago
Entry fee is $115by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Doubles Format Idea - 3 months ago
The format looks good when playing doubles by division where you bring your partner who's approximately the same skill level. I'm not so sure it's as good when you are drawing partners from a pro pool and am pool where partners will likely be farther apart in skill level. The reason is that the better player will probably be the one taking the extra shot or putt to wipe out the impact of the loweby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: RULES QUESTION - 3 months ago
The only time I've seen a player's disc not be allowed for the rest of the round is when the TD makes that a stipulation when a player throws OB on a specific hazard or hole. That rule is not allowed in a PDGA event although I've heard it has been done. The TD of course can make that a requirment in a non-PDGA event.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: RULES QUESTION - 3 months ago
No. You can replace discs from your car or even buy them during a round. You can borrow discs from other players. Just make sure they are uniquely marked or indicate that your "mark" is the player's name who is on that disc you borrowed.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
Bluff Magee Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Chuck for being such a good sport I'll buy you a > beer the next time I'm at Worlds. Lemon Lake this year? It's my debut in Sr GM, turning 60 next month.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
If anything is learned from this discussion it should be that the water line should never be used as an OB line unless absolutely necessary. If a hole is designed a certain way, it should always be played that way regardless of what's happening with the amount fo water there and its current boundaries.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
QuoteBut Chuck, you just admitted that "area" and "surface" are synonymous. I really appreciate the laughs...it's hilarious to see you sway back and forth on what is defined and what isn't. If area and surface are the same as you just claimed, then by that claim an OB area is an OB surface! Which is what I have said all along and never wavered from. Thank you for eventuallyby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
Sorry Bluff. We rely on the dictionary for basic definitions of words so they can be used in the Rules. We know what a Surface is from the dictionary. The Rules define the characteristics of a special surface called Playing Surface and they also define an OB Surface within the OB definition where the word "area" is synonymous with "surface." A disc landing on any other Surfaceby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
The 808 QA2 answer reads: "A bridge is an example where one playing surface is vertically stacked above another playing surface. Each playing surface is treated independently." Do we now agree that OB is not a "playing surface" but simply just a "surface" or a separate category called OB surface per the 800 Definition?"by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
OB is really a volume with multiple surfaces. The surface on top of an OB volume is clearly defined as not a "playing surface." It's either just a surface or a surface with a special rule pertaining to OB. If we think of other surfaces as not playing surfaces such as landing in a pit below a playing surface where relief is provided or even picnic tables or surfaces of branches, the ruleby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
Bluff, read the Definition for Out-of-Bounds and Playing Surface. A stance is taken on a playing surface. A stance may not be taken on OB. So OB can be a surface, just not a 'playing' surface. While there can be surfaces, only certain ones can qualify as 'playing' surfaces. Thus, my comment regarding the surface of water only being a playing surface when frozen sufficiently to support players. Otby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
Bluff, note the error in QA2 in that OB is not a playing surface by definition. Probably needs to be updated to stacked surfaces without the word "playing" in there. Another interesting question is whether casual water is two stacked surfaces? If your disc is floating on casual water, are you allowed to take a stance on the surface at the bottom of the water or do you need to go bibby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
QuoteOn a side note about playing surfaces, Mr. cgkdisc once tried to argue that an OB surface is not a playing surface, and therefore no rules that apply to the playing surface apply to OB surfaces. I wonder Mr. cgkdisc, if you have revised your erroneous opinion on that subject? I was correct in my logic under previous rules as you can see, if you look at the Definitions for OB and Playing Suby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Questions - 4 months ago
1. Yes. 2. It's up to the TD to declare what to do. We had this situation where the skies opened up at lunch break and flooded the holes on either side of an OB creek. All water was considered part of the course for the afternoon round - no relief and no penalty. If you couldn't findyour disc or play it (maybe it was in the creek bed), you could take a penalty and rethrow from where it was lastby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - relief abuse? - 4 months ago
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 somethingby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - relief abuse? - 4 months ago
A solid object can be any object that would not be intended as a "playing surface" which is typically the ground or a location a person would be expected to walk upon. In this case, there's agreement we shouldn't be walking on the nicely groomed pine straw to get at the ground. So we have a solid object where we can't or shouldn't get at the playing surface and we get free relief. Or ifby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - relief abuse? - 4 months ago
Let's say you want to hold to your claim the mound of pine needles is immovable park equipment with no free relief. In this case, I could elect to take solid object relief back off of it on the line of play with no penalty similar to landing on a boulder. The lie ends up the same as taking casual relief with no penalty. If the pine straw area was essentially flat with the playing surface, it mighby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - relief abuse? - 4 months ago
The word "stroke" is also not in the rule book.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - relief abuse? - 4 months ago
Interesting dialog but Bluff has the best take on it. No question that pine straw qualifies a casual obstacle (leaf). No question that the nicely arranged pile should not be moved in the same way a brush pile full of unattached intertwined branches is typically not moved. But players get free relief behind it as a pile of casual obstacles that would be unreasonable to move.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: What do you think of the Prodigy Disc - 4 months ago
Max weight depends on the diameter. Bigger diameter, higher the max weight allowed. It's the disc diameter in centimeters times 8.3 to give the max weight allowed in grams.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules question - Can You Throw From A Tree? - 4 months ago
The course near Eureka, CA has a 12 ft elevated tee pad on a giant redwood tree stump. That's an extreme exception for allowing a throw from a "tree." A playing surface is seen as a surface suitable or designed for a person to walk on. That's why standing on a boulder up to a certain size and shape could be a playing surface. However, a player could also use solid object relief (802.03Eby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
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&qby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
803.01A regarding obstacles which includes ski lift chairs. QA16 regarding not holding onto them when behind the lie since they are movable.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
Official Rules of Disc Golf now includes section 808 which includes the Rules QAs as "official" as any other section. ...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 gby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
QAs are now equal to the rules and are even printed in the rulebook this year.by cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
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 trunkby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
"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 obby cgkdisc - General Discussion
Re: Rules Question - Live Branch Shaken or Stirred - Violation? - 4 months ago
802.04 in the new 2013 rulebook: 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.by cgkdisc - General Discussion