For the tobacco use, I think the words "out of the public eye" is too strong and impossible to enforce. I don't smoke. Restaurants and other facilities do not require smokers to "hide" when they smoke, they have designated smoking areas. This should be the terms instead. Should alcohol use at an event when not playing also be out of the public eye? Should someone, including spectators, at a Major or NT event that is wearing a tee shirt or barefoot also be out of public eye?

I don't understand the rationale for removing QA-MAN-3. Has this interpretation of the rule changed. If so, then a new clarifying example QA needs to be substituted. I have seen this happen numerous times in tournament play.

Regarding the smoking rule change...the rule indicates “solely for JR tournaments, if this applies only to tournaments are JR division - please go further to explain why G.3 and G.4.

G.4 seems to be in conflict.

Smoking update is a welcome addition although 3.03G4 does require more clarification for the designated smoking area, perhaps a minimum distance from tournament course area or tees? "Out of the public eye" by itself is quite vague.

So now a disc that cannot be found in casual water is played & penalized as a "lost disc", correct?

If so, this is a welcome change. It was always dumb that a puddle of water was treated differently from a pile of leaves or a bush.

Time to allow photo and video evidence. The primary reason it was not allowed in the past was not every group having access to a camera. With the onset of digital scoring, there will be at least one cell phone camera/video device in each group. At minimum, allow photo or video in events where digital scoring is required but why not extend to all sanctioned events?

Re: QA-APP-5
A deletion in the prior answer was needed. Perhaps the whole matter of wrongful group decisions could be re-approached.
The deleted language indicates that the PDGA now considers all misplays as warranting penalties, even those that occur as a result of errant group decisions. As the prior question remains as related to a errant OB call it would occur that the misplay penalty (2 strokes, per 811.C. or, F. last paragraph) would apply to the same circumstance as an OB penalty (1 stroke). It is understood that the more severe penalty supersedes.
As written, the prior question does not raise the issue of any one or more dissenter from the group decision. The answer might first treat that very question with a simple statement that individuals are responsible; no group decision relieves them from that responsibility. Following a pro-forma reference to the 2 stroke-vs-1 stroke rule, the PDGA might offer advice that any doubt on the part of the affected player that the group is correct should be handled with a provisional.
Otherwise the PDGA might revise this whole QA and take on the general issue of group decisions that result in misplays that are discovered well after they occur. Question: “During our round my group made a decision about my play that was later recognized as a misplay. May I avoid the misplay penalty based on the fact that my group made the call?” That is the heart of the matter in the existing question.

QA-COM-4
Consider this part of the proposed answer: “If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the group must make a decision.” Who would move from a position of blindness toward the basket, and next find a disc completely within the confines of the target and see that as a matter of doubt to be resolved by some group decision? If there is no adequate view of the target, then what reason do the players have to doubt that the disc is in? The current and proposed answer unnecessarily ventures into a matter not identified in the question; and does so with no offer of anything but the element of blindness. Try adding, “ but otherwise has cause to doubt that the disc entered the target properly” to the above quote. Otherwise, don’t burden the legit part of the answer with the unwarranted venture.

Are there no plans to put into the rulebook the requirement of DZs being within 10M of the Mando object? Currently, burying that in the Tour Standards is inconsistent with how required Waivers are documented in the rulebook, e.g. OB lie options.

In regards to Maintaining Balance/Foot Faults. One of the criteria listed in maintaining balance is picking up a mini marker. Couldn’t an argument be made that a player could pick up their marker while falling forward? This would be especially possible on obstructed stances from the knee where the mini marker would be well within reach. Personally I don’t think picking up a mini marker should be listed as an example of maintaining balance for this reason. I feel like a player could use this as an unfair advantage in a situation where falling forward on an inside the circle putt would be deemed legal by the group because he picked up his/her mini before making contact with the ground in front of his/her lie. Thoughts?

1--The tobacco rule doesn't go nearly far enough. Juniors only? How does that protect the children? (which seems to be the virtue signaling of the new segment on Youth Safety). Tobacco use should be banned at ALL tournaments and sanctioned leagues, and at EVERY event that has even a single junior.

2--The Youth Safety rules are ludicrous. For an organization dedicated to 'growing' this will harm the sport. It means that a 12 year old cannot attend a tournament as a spectator. It means that if I am playing REC and my tee time is the same as my 12 year old child that I cannot play or that he cannot play. It means that my child cannot hang out at tournament central until I finish my round (and would be forced to go elsewhere, where more danger lurks).

QA-COU-1: Wake up. ANY player who speaks in such a manner is probably a mediocre player who is actively trying to mess with another player's mind. There is absolutely no question that this sort of behavior should be explicitly outlawed and the parameters of such rules expanded. There is no doubt that this is a violation of the spirit of good sportsmanship, and is mere gamesmanship. Atrocious.

QA-COM-5: Why should the 'flow of movement' be halted and a player be forced to demonstrate balance as if he/she were a gymnast? There is no aspect of disc that should require balance (I've seen 500' throws in which a pro fell off the tee!).

First, it's just a dumb and arbitrary requirement that is nearly impossible to call or enforce or penalize.

Second, it creates bad mechanics and the possibility for injury or chronic use issues in players by not allowing us to take our normal shot and FOLLOW THROUGH (the height of GOOD mechanics is a proper follow through, not some spasmodic attempt to maintain a balance that is meaningless).

Third, it is not consistent with the rules from the tee or fairway which allow us to cross our lie upon release (and maybe the rule for ALL 3 levels of throw should simply state that we cannot make contact with the ground beyond the lie until we release; this would also help on any sort of crouching putts, since virtually every pro player touches the ground upon release, even inside the circle).

Fourth, the leg kick or side step most employ to prevent a foot fault is ugly to see.

This is not gymnastics, where we need to demonstrate perfect balance and body control. We're allowed to use our bodies in any way we can to move the disc forward. It's not darts, where crossing the line IS a real violation. It's not like basketball or Ultimate where a pivot foot is required for obvious reasons (traveling, in both sports).

Disc golf is a fluid, dynamic, athletic sport and restricting movement is anathema to that. The balance/foot fault rule as it pertains to the green needs to simply be eliminated and/or made consistent with the rules for the tee and fairway. It's just dumb otherwise

It's as bad as artificial OB as an attempt to make the game harder, when OB should be outlawed and courses designed in more difficult terrain with REAL penalties (or not, if you can throw the brilliant escape shot, which is why golf is full of drama that disc golf doesn't have since disc players are penalized before they have a chance to throw the great recovery).

Likewise, if you want to make putting harder, don't restrict the players for being so good. Change the target. My first suggestion would be to double the size of the band; my second would be to eliminate the chains and pole above the height at the bottom inside of the basket so that drop putts that flutter in are the only good ones and players would have to show touch to leave it close enough for a 'gimme' putt (rather than being able to gun a putt from any distance). In ball golf, you can't hit every putt the same speed, but that's effectively what disc golfers can do, requiring them to show no skill or touch on the greens. The latter would also virtually eliminate aces, as is the case even in pro ball golf (they should be rare).

Another year of really bad changes to the rules that are based on making the game marketable, not playable.

Why not change the cage design so discs CANNOT go through?
So easy to do. Might even make them cheaper to make (because you could also in doing this design the basket to eliminate the nubs that eliminate so many good putts).

Re: Spike Hyzer (AKA?) view concerning 10 meter/show of balance rule. Your practice of swooping down to pick up your mini in the process of falling forward without first demonstrating balance is not a behavior that is hard to detect. You may fault the PDGA for recommending a mini pickup as a flawless way to demonstrate balance; but any flaw in the practice occurs due to the individual's neglect of the needed interruption of forward motion. You should not be able to cite the PDGA reference to mini pickup as a guarantee that you have complied with the rule. Anybody concerned about the wear and tear on the human body due to the restriction with 10 meters has much more to be concerned with regarding the pronounced torqueing of our bodies in the more strenuous actions we take to play.
Eliminating the show-of-balance rule will bring to Circle 1 the controversies we already have with step and jump putts. The enforcement/detectability concerns there are more valid than with the show of balance practice. People are clamoring for more rules to restrict abuses outside of 10 meters; they would not accept the introduction of those abuses within 10 meters. During your 26 years of lobbying for a change in the balance rule did any of this occur to you?

RE: Spike Hyzer... for every "good" putt that hit the nubs and was rejected, those same nubs probably saved you 10 times from skipping off the rim and sending your wide putt another 30 feet. And anything that hits the nubs is really not a good putt anyway. You missed your intended target no doubt. There are several nubless designs on the market, but I bet if you played a course with them often, you'd see what I'm talking about.

Smoking should be banned at PDGA events.

I will try to address the issues raised by RoJo recently.

“I’d be curious to see a short list of situations that would require video evidence. Situations that couldn’t be decided by the group or verbally discussed with a TD to resolution.”
Video evidence is not now given consideration for the purpose of real-time rules enforcement. Videos are now being made with no expressed purpose of being submitted for rules enforcement consideration; but, they are revealing in indirect ways information that supplies people with evidence useful to their arguments for a rule permitting official use of videos. The pressure for such a rules change is largely related to the step and jump putt practices of many players. Underlying the concern is a distinction between the support-point touches past the lie that are permitted outside circle one. People see the current rule as appropriately permitting a natural forward momentum caused with longer throws and, inappropriately permitting lunges and steps over the lie in order that the player achieve a reduced distance to the target. Demands for video usage may be the way people respond to the apparent lack of official recognition of the current rule’s inability to resolve the abuse of the “loophole” that has become common place.

"I can’t think of a situation where a card ruling couldn’t either decide the matter or give the benefit of the doubt to the player."
The card, each member, is responsible for making a ruling when no ruling-qualified official is available. The player/official exam is to validate a player’s eligibility to fulfil the responsibilities of making, supporting and voting on calls. Abstaining from a vote on a call is not a player prerogative, as they have an equal burden in the rules enforcement necessary to the sport. The whole card votes on the call, not on the gift of doubt to the benefit of the player. Only when there is a tie vote does the benefit to player occur.

" I definitely would not allow players to film one another without express permission in an attempt to try and catch foot faults etc. I’m just curious about your opinion."

Blanket prohibitions against the use of personal phones to record the activities on the course would be a confused and uneven matter of enforcement. Courtesy violations involving video recording would be a matter of the concurrent circumstances that are likely more persuasive than the mere use of a phone. For myself, anybody offering video evidence of some wrongdoing on my part is demonstrating their incompetence in otherwise persuading the other members on my card that something wrong has occurred. This gets us back to the responsibility to call infractions when they occur. If I am called on a stance violation and no other member will second the call, it raises the need for everybody watching my next putt.