Giant boulder on edge of fairway, inbounds. Shouldn't throw near there, but you (I) do (did) anyway. Disc slides under large gap under boulder, so far under that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a contact point in/under there for a legal stance.

803.03 (E) states:

E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

So, what do I do? Take a stance immediately behind the large solid obstacle (boulder)? Take a penalty?

The way I read 803.03 (E), I take no penalty but do get relief.

I thought the touchstone of this rule was that you had to be "prevented" from taking a legal stance (i.e. impossible).

Then I read the QA regarding sister Rule 804, and a casual obstacle downed branch (which I know is different than a large solid obstacle - or is it hmmm?) which editorial comment stunned me by stating:

If the branch (a "casual obstacle") is such that it is impractical for Steve to take a stance, then Steve can relocate his lie on the line of play, up to 5 meters back with no penalty.

The stunning part was the use of the word "impractical". That word is in the rule. Heck that''s an invitation to non-purists to interpret it as not much more than "inconvenient" or "not the optimum".

I can imagine this dialogue: "Hey Steve, you need to lay down and stick you foot under that branch - you can do it. Its possible. you are not prevented from taking a legal stance." Steve replies: Hey, I'm only a stroke off of first place. I need a runup to throw a decent thumber here. I mean I'm really a contender here. Its not "practical" for me to take a stance with the current lie I have. Besides, I have bit of arthritis and it will be impractical for me to get down on the ground and stick my foot in there. And what the heck kind of throw am I gonna make from there, heck, the best I could do is a little 10 foot flick into a better position. Not real practical. No, I kinda like my chances about 4 meters back - see, its real nice there - no branch or laying down or arthritis or short toss problems there. I think I just do that and take no penalty - thank you very much."

Anyway, my view is that you should not throw your discs under boulders or under large casual obstacle branches. If you do, you should pay a price for doing so. That "penalty" at a minimum should be the burden of throwing it where she lies. I mean grunting and groaning and stretching and contorting and turning blue in the face and lying down or facing backwards or stretching out your arm to get your pinky on the ground (a supporting contact) . I don't care how screwed up your body is and that the only possible shot you may have is to flick it 4 inches with your teeth because you're in a 1970's Twister position. You gotta try!

If you have been dumb enough to really penetrate the crevice and it is impossible to get a stance as described above, even with 100% effort, you should have a worse penalty than the slightly less dumb guy who only partially penetrated and is able to get a stance by lying on his belly, backwards etc...

But no, apparently the dumber discer that threw his disc in an even worse place gets ... relief to an easier position with No penalty .. JACKPOT!

Am I reading this right? If I really screw up, I play it from the difficult lie (That seems fair). If I really really royally screw up so I can't even get a stance - I get a reward? (That seems like a cheap windfall)

PS. I know this thread will deteriorate onto a weird tangent - probably involving some Texas poster rivalry. However, before it degenerates there - please note that there are many "related" rules regarding unsafe lies, obstacles that become an issue during a round (like a mertorite or a car of teenagers parking in front of a basket). Please refrain from throwing those irrelevent rules into a discussion of a large, solid obtacle - Granite Boulder - on the course that has been there for 4 million years.

Perhaps they should've used used impracticable instead. Not everyone can be an English major and a master of subtle nuance.


From Dictionary.com:

Usage Note: The adjective impracticable applies to a course of action that is impossible to carry out or put into practice; impractical, though it can be used in this way, also can be weaker in sense, suggesting that the course of action would yield an insufficient return or would have little practical value. A plan for a new stadium may be rejected as impracticable if the site is too marshy to permit safe construction, but if the objection is that the site is too remote for patrons to attend games easily, the plan is better described as impractical.

a LEGAL stance does NOT mean the stance you WANT.

tough beans... throw it better next time.

sorry, but thats the way it is.

Perhaps they should've used used impracticable instead. Not everyone can be an English major and a master of subtle nuance.


From Dictionary.com:

Usage Note: The adjective impracticable applies to a course of action that is impossible to carry out or put into practice; impractical, though it can be used in this way, also can be weaker in sense, suggesting that the course of action would yield an insufficient return or would have little practical value. A plan for a new stadium may be rejected as impracticable if the site is too marshy to permit safe construction, but if the objection is that the site is too remote for patrons to attend games easily, the plan is better described as impractical.





Perhaps someone should poiint this thread out to the R.C. :D

Speaking of Texas, you might claim relief from under the boulder since you had seen a rattler under there during practice like maybe at San Saba. Oh wait, that's maybe like your meteorite weird thread drift...

Based on the rule, you take a stance directly behind the boulder. I think the rule was designed more for occasions where your disc rests directly in front of a tree, but it seems to me like you get it both ways.

Dan
That's interesting. Around here, if you have a leaner on the front side of a verticle, live tree trunk, we would require you to stick a finger or toe in there - or mark it (where the front edge of the disc is propped up on the turf) and squeeze in a contact point (again a finger or a toe) and throw. I would argue that if you were inventive about it, you were not "prevented" from taking a legal stance in front of the tree. I would even go so far as to require you to lift up your leg and stick a toe on the bark of the tree, immediately behind (above if its a leaner) and throw that way.

Again, I think the touchstone should be that you get relief only if it is impossible to get a stance. That rarely TRULY happens IMO.

Though kinda new to me, this sounds about right.

If it is physically possible, regardless of how disadvantageous or difficult it may be, then you should be required to take a legal stance at your lie and proceed. If you are unable to, then use the unsafe lie rule and move the lie.

I know that there is a faction on the PDGA RC that would like to see the removal of large casual obstacles in your throwing stance behind or in front of your lie made illegal.

The whole guiding principle of �Play it where it lies� is reduced to just words when you cannot only just change the lie because it is inconvenient or difficult, but actually change the conditions that restricts your bodies movements in making the throw.

Was the condition there prior to you throwing (at the start of the round)?
By moving obstacles around, particularly large ones that affect footing or flight (roll) paths are you not altering the course?

<font color="green"> Get on over to the Dela Website, link in my signature, and sign the petition to save one of our sports great courses! </font>

Dan
That's interesting. Around here, if you have a leaner on the front side of a verticle, live tree trunk, we would require you to stick a finger or toe in there - or mark it (where the front edge of the disc is propped up on the turf) and squeeze in a contact point (again a finger or a toe) and throw. I would argue that if you were inventive about it, you were not "prevented" from taking a legal stance in front of the tree. I would even go so far as to require you to lift up your leg and stick a toe on the bark of the tree, immediately behind (above if its a leaner) and throw that way.

Again, I think the touchstone should be that you get relief only if it is impossible to get a stance. That rarely TRULY happens IMO.



You can't force someone to use a mini to mark their disc, therefore they can say they want to leave their thrown disc where it lies, in which case they would get relief from the 'large, solid obstacle'.

On top of that, putting a toe on the tree bark could be penalized under 803.03a, since the tree bark (I'm assuming you mean up the trunk a bit) is not on the playing surface.

A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown disc. A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker. The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location.

B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unsafe lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of- bounds line.


E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

Actually "playing surface" is not clearly defined.

And, the use of a mini is required for any repositioning of a lie. So it seems logical that refusal to mark a lie because you want to relocate your lie and have to use a mini anyway would be an attempt to circumvent the rules of play and could result in disqualification.

804.05 DISQUALIFICATION &amp; SUSPENSION
A. A player may be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

803.02 MARKING THE LIE
B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unsafe lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of- bounds line.

Moreover, when a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance (note it does not say an �easy�, �convenient�, or �preferable� stance, but �legal� stance) you are not actually relocating your lie, you are playing on an extended line of play of the same lie, just more than 30 centimeters from the marker.

803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

Now this seems to indicate that the lie does not change, only that the 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc is interrupted and continues on after the large solid object. That the lie remains unchanged. It seems to infer that if the solid object is more than 30 centimeters thick that you have to take your stance immediately behind it and do not get another 30 centimeters; because again, you have moved your stance, the lie has not been moved. Moving your lie would entail declaring an unsafe lie and taking a stroke or two.

This is different from Casual Obstacles where the lie is specifically relocated. Such language is not in the large solid obstacle rules language.

This is a little long I know, but I recall a few years back sending a question to the PDGA RC about this: Let�s say you're 6 feet away from a basket but leaning against the end of a dead 40 foot solid tree, still attatched, laying on its side directly along the line of play, where can you legally take a stance?

Target 0, disc o, tree ==, lie x
0 o===========================================x
The answer was, as the rule states, �immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play� which in this case is 40 feet away at the other end of the downed tree!

803.04.C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

If it is on the list, and no portion of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole, the rules permit relief. This applies whether you agree with the concept or not.

Boulders, buildings, and other large solid objects are not included in the list, so no relief by the casual object rule.

I personally think that animal burrows and deep holes should be added to the list, but that is a different topic.

Maybe there needs to some type of size definition attached to the broken branches portion of the rule as well.

And, the use of a mini is required for any repositioning of a lie. So it seems logical that refusal to mark a lie because you want to relocate your lie and have to use a mini anyway would be an attempt to circumvent the rules of play and could result in disqualification.

804.05 DISQUALIFICATION & SUSPENSION
A. A player may be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

803.02 MARKING THE LIE
B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unsafe lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of- bounds line.





Nick, Nick, Nick. You are reading more into the rule than is required, or necessary. My desire to leave a disc where it landed, rather than use a mini is not 'refusal to mark a lie' because........the lie is already marked!!!

Please 'splain to me how that is cheating??? Duh.

Since a mini is required ONLY for repositioning, and based on what you claim the R.C. said about the downed tree (hearsay, but we'll go with that for now :D ), I would have no need to pull a mini from my bag at all for the subsequent shot.

Ok, I forgot that you tried to use the 'playing surface is not defined' clause to attempt to ignore the 2 meter rule, but telling someone to put their foot up the side of a tree is quite obviously (to me, at least) exactly the type of situation the 'large solid' rule was designed to avoid. The rule is there so you can put your foot behind the tree (boulder, whatever) and throw.

these are the brakes good or bad,did you get your disc back
would a fat lady be considered a large solid :confused:

Why is it when I read "Large Solid", I feel as if I need to use the bathroom? :o:o

Maybe there's not enough bran in your diet ??

Maybe there's not enough bran in your diet ??



So, you're suggesting that's how he can legally get 'relief' from this particular 'large solid' ? :D

LMBO chuck :D

OK as predicted the thread has now degenerated. Several posters are now talking about #2 - amazing.

Back to the basic question. Do you agree that 803.03(E) allows the stance to be taken behind the bolder? (assuming that a legal stance is "impossible"). I don't like the rule, but it seems pretty clear to me. I just got some "that can't be right" responses on my home course when this situation came up.

Yes, you can. "Immediately" behind the large solid object. You're lie does not change, you are not moving your lie, the line of play just extends beyond the 30 centimeters, you do not get another 30 centimeters behind the large solid object.

This is another rule that I would like to be seen changed to "A group decision is required prior to marking the lie or playing the lie on the line of play on the other side of the large solid object." It wouldn't take much more time and everyone could be sure that it was played properly (if the guy tries to take the stance behind the LSO when he could have taken it at his actual lie).

This is another rule that I would like to be seen changed to "A group decision is required prior to marking the lie or playing the lie on the line of play on the other side of the large solid object." It wouldn't take much more time and everyone could be sure that it was played properly (if the guy tries to take the stance behind the LSO when he could have taken it at his actual lie).



I disagree. You can't have rules that leave things completely up to the judgment of the group. Too many inconsistencies will occur, and it opens the door even wider for collusion to happen (i.e., final round of a tourney, lead group, leader is the one who's lie is in question, what's to stop the rest of the group from claiming the shot is playable?)

Do you penalize the player that isn't as flexible and can't get into the position to throw that maybe another player could?

I don't see a problem with the rule as it stands, it's apparently clear to just about everyone (but Nick :D).

You're a pretty funny guy Dan. Not funny "ha ha" though. ;)

By group decision, I am not asking that each group make up their own rules, but that if a disc must be relocated or the player wants to relocate ANY lie, or in this case extend the line of play through a solid obstacle, that the group come over and check it out, just to make sure everything is kosher.

Since, "Play it where it lies" is one of our primary rules the relocation of lies for relief should be done very carefully and with no chance, or even perception, of impropriety.