The other day my drive landed in the front and at the base of a bushy tree. It was next to impossible to back into the bushy tree to establish a stance behind my lie without moving any branches. Finally I was able to place my foot behind the disc, held onto the trunk of the tree behind my lie and leaned forward without moving aside any branches and made my putt while also keeping balance.

The players on my card looked at me in disbelief, and stated I couldn't do it. I quickly pulled up QA16 from the Authoritive Rules Q & A, and read aloud:

QA16: Using an Object Behind the Lie for Support
Q: Can I hold onto a branch or other object behind my lie while putting?
A: Holding on to something behind your lie is not prohibited by the rules, provided that the object is in-bounds. 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. You are not allowed to hold onto another person for support, as that person is not part of the course.


Everytime I have followed this rule, I get the bombardment of players saying I can't do this. I find the fact that this rule is buried in the Q&A and not printed in the standard Rule Book very troublesome. Most average players are not even aware of the Rules Q&A, and I know of not one single certified official or TD that actually carries a copy of the Rules Q&A.

Is it time for the PDGA to include the 3rd part of our rules into the Rules/Competition manual?

A couple good questions came up in our group after I read the rule.

1) What if the object behind your lie extends in front of your lie? Say you hold onto a tree trunk that is clearly behind your lie, but the extension of the tree and it's branches overhang in front of your lie.

2)Is the tree considered one whole object?

If the entire tree in not considered one whole object, then my suggestion is the rule should be re-written to designate that a player can hold onto the part of an object that is behind your lie.

The other day my drive landed in the front and at the base of a bushy tree. It was next to impossible to back into the bushy tree to establish a stance behind my lie without moving any branches. Finally I was able to place my foot behind the disc, held onto the trunk of the tree behind my lie and leaned forward without moving aside any branches and made my putt while also keeping balance.

The players on my card looked at me in disbelief, and stated I couldn't do it. I quickly pulled up QA16 from the Authoritive Rules Q & A, and read aloud:




Everytime I have followed this rule, I get the bombardment of players saying I can't do this. I find the fact that this rule is buried in the Q&A and not printed in the standard Rule Book very troublesome. Most average players are not even aware of the Rules Q&A, and I know of not one single certified official or TD that actually carries a copy of the Rules Q&A.

Is it time for the PDGA to include the 3rd part of our rules into the Rules/Competition manual?

A couple good questions came up in our group after I read the rule.

1) What if the object behind your lie extends in front of your lie? Say you hold onto a tree trunk that is clearly behind your lie, but the extension of the tree and it's branches overhang in front of your lie.

2)Is the tree considered one whole object?

If the entire tree in not considered one whole object, then my suggestion is the rule should be re-written to designate that a player can hold onto the part of an object that is behind your lie.

The point at which you contact the tree is the only place that matters in terms of behind/in front of the lie. No different than if a disc hits a tree branch that extends out over an OB pond, it isn't last in-bounds at the base of the tree because the tree is rooted in-bounds. The branches over the OB are still OB regardless of where the tree is rooted. So if the point at which you contact the tree is behind your mark, your supporting point is behind your mark.

To argue otherwise, you might as well call the ground one solid object. It extends in front of and behind the lie all the time. But all that matters is the points at which the player makes contact with it.


As for the clarity of whether you can hold on to an object or not, I don't think it's that unclear. Players that think it is illegal are making assumptions or going by phantom rules rather than going by the text of the rule book. One overriding factor with the rule book is that if it's not strictly prohibited, it's allowed. The applicable rules in this situation only state you are not allowed to move obstacles (holding/bending back branches, etc). If the object is solid enough that it can support your weight without moving, then it's legal to make contact with it and use it for support.

Good points Mr.Connell, and I see your logic with the infinite object idea of the ground. I think just to make it more clear, would be to add "hold onto the part of an object...". One of the players asked about holding onto a wooden structure over a bench area that had four posts. Let's say the majority of this structure is in front of my lie. But I hold onto one of the posts that is behind my lie. His argument was that after reading QA16, I shouldn't be able to hold onto that post because the entire object is not behind my lie. And so the debate went on about tree trunks, branches, etc.

It was a good learning lesson for the group, as they were all very adamant that what I did was entirely illegal. I think it's one of those rules that should be included in the standard rule book and not tucked away in the Q&A. Maybe then players who are not certified officials wouldn't feel as if someone is attempting to circumvent the rules because it is not specifically listed in the Rule Book (just to make it more clear).

If your lie were in a big rock pile, I doubt anyone would say anything if you were straddling with one foot up on a different rock than your stance foot, even if that rock went in front of your lie. it's just that a tree trunk or light pole is narrow and vertical that players can't make the distinction that we're talking about the same thing - okay to use immovable objects for support as long as contact is behind your lie, just like your stance contact point(s) on the playing surface have to all be behind your lie.

Okay that makes sense. I could see how some might try to argue that holding onto a branch that extends in front of your lie is not legal. But as long as the supporting point on that object is located behind your lie, then your okay.

In this specific circumstance, there was no way I could lodge both of my feet behind my lie without falling forward or backing up the small branches of this bushy tree. I couldn't even stretch a leg into the bush from either side. The disc was right up against the front of the trunk of the tree and it was even impossible to take a stance within 30 centimeters behind the trunk as well (solid object 803.04E). Holding onto the trunk of the tree was my only option. In this circumstance, if I wasn't able to hold onto the trunk, then would my only other option would be to take optional relief (w/ penalty stroke) other than a retee?

If it was against the front of the trunk, I would think you could have taken "Solid object" relief 803.04E and marked behind the trunk?

It was a good learning lesson for the group, as they were all very adamant that what I did was entirely illegal. I think it's one of those rules that should be included in the standard rule book and not tucked away in the Q&A. Maybe then players who are not certified officials wouldn't feel as if someone is attempting to circumvent the rules because it is not specifically listed in the Rule Book (just to make it more clear).
Ah, but if we were to start including a rule for every little instance, the rule book would become quite thick and cumbersome, and frankly, less clear than it is now.

The axiom is "if it's not explicitly disallowed by rule, it's allowed". The onus is on your groupmates to find the rule that explicitly says you're not allowed to use an immovable object behind your lie for support. It's not on you to pull out the Q&A to prove you're in the right.

Same applies for objects that extend in front of the lie as well as behind it. There is no designation within the rule book regarding such objects/obstacles. There used to be in the definition of casual obstacles (couldn't move an obstacle in the lie that extended in front), but even in those cases, you were allowed to make contact with those obstacles so long as the point of contact was behind your lie.

If it was against the front of the trunk, I would think you could have taken "Solid object" relief 803.04E and marked behind the trunk? I looked at the lie behind the trunk and couldn't even get in there (or maybe I just didn't have a good looking shot). My disc was 8ft away from the basket, so I was determined to get that bird.

Sounds like this is partly a course design issue if you have this problem that close to the pin.

...

The axiom is "if it's not explicitly disallowed by rule, it's allowed". The onus is on your groupmates to find the rule that explicitly says you're not allowed to use an immovable object behind your lie for support. It's not on you to pull out the Q&A to prove you're in the right.

....

I have agreed with virtually everything you have stated in this thread except that one. Rule 803.01 is clear:


"...Players shall play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless allowed otherwise (my emphasis) by the Rules...."


In general it's the other way around. Unless specicially allowed by the rules, it's disallowed. That's why P had to show them.

The point made (in the quotes) actually supports the concept you were trying to refute.
I have agreed with virtually everything you have stated in this thread except that one. Rule 803.01 is clear:

"...Players shall play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless allowed otherwise (my emphasis) by the Rules...."

In general it's the other way around. Unless specicially allowed by the rules, it's disallowed. That's why P had to show them.

At the risk of sounding like a smarta$$ again...
Yep, 803.01 is perfectly clear. "Allowed by the rules" is pretty doggone specific, since the rules do specify situations where the disc can be played elsewhere. So, the concept of "allowed if not specified" is more valid.
Of course, the Q&A has to be addressed, as well.

As an example....my disc landed upside down. The rules don't say anything about an upside down lie. According to your way of thinking, that's not legal. Or, it tombstoned. That's not in the rules, since the leading edge of the disc is in the ground. Or, I want to throw behind my back...the rules don't say I can, so I can't. Right? Not.

I have agreed with virtually everything you have stated in this thread except that one. Rule 803.01 is clear:


"...Players shall play the course as they find it and play the disc where it lies unless allowed otherwise (my emphasis) by the Rules...."


In general it's the other way around. Unless specicially allowed by the rules, it's disallowed. That's why P had to show them.

Disagree with your take away there. That's referring specifically to where the disc lies, not all actions on the course. And besides, it's a perfect illustration of you can unless the rules say you can't. That's saying that you can play a shot from a lie anywhere on the course unless the rules say you can't. To wit, you can't...

...play a disc that has had a stance violation called and seconded (rule 803.04)
...play a disc that's suspended above the playing surface (rule 803.08)
...play a disc that's out of bounds (rule 803.09).
...play a disc that misses a mandatory (rule 803.12).

If a disc does not fall under any of the listed criteria, it can be played.

Sounds like this is partly a course design issue if you have this problem that close to the pin. Maybe, maybe not. I think the disc being in this exact spot was the issue. I've played other courses and holes where a particular tree/bush is near a basket and landing inside of it has caused great difficulty to throw out of. I guess the bottom line is that in these particular situations, if you can't establish a stance in a bushy tree of some sort, then you are stuck having to either: 1) take an optional rethrow, or 2) take optional relief. Both resulting in a penalty stroke. I guess the 3rd possibility is finding some way to crawl in there, lay on the ground, manuever your body around all the various limbs, and stick an arm out to try to throw to a spot that provides relief from the
current lie.

Sounds like this is partly a course design issue if you have this problem that close to the pin.


Sorry to Bug you Chuck but I'm not getting any answer from Anyone at PDGA.

2011 Worlds DVD ! 2012 World's has Finished !!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can anyone tell me when the 2011 Worlds DVD will be shipped ?

I know the dates have changed several times.

I Pre-Ordered it Last Year !

Very Upset with Business !!!

I don't know if the PDGA really knows. Last I saw on another discussion board, maybe 6 weeks ago, it sounded like it was going to be whenever the videographer was able to get to it after dealing with a variety of challenges.