do you *have* to look for a possibly-lost disc?

[mark12b]

had a bad situation come up last weekend. second shot lands behind a large holly, and i chose to try a UD over it. unfortunately that shot got stuck in the bush and initially we couldn't see it. question is, do we *have* to keep looking for the disc, or could i have declared it lost right away?

the reason for asking is because the 2-meter rule was in effect, and the lie was going to be somewhere inside of the bush. so, when we found the disc i got a 2-meter penalty stroke and was looking at an unplayable lie, which would have put me back where i started (or up to 5 meters behind it), lying 5. but if i had declared the disc lost right off, i would have been lying 4. (i ended up finding the disc after about 30 seconds, taking the 2-meter penalty, and pitching forward instead of taking the unplayable -- then a miffed upshot leading to a long putt and ultimately an 8 on the hole.)

would declaring the shot lost been "circumventing the rules", or would it have been simply a matter of following the particular rules that favored the player?

[Dogma]

I'm not sure on the issue of prematurely calling the disc lost. I read it as you HAVE to look for 3 minutes, since it is considered lost upon the expiration of the 3 minutes. Maybe someone else sees it differently.

803.11 A. "A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official... The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit"

[MDR_3000]

I believe you could call "unplayable lie" before you find it. and go re-tee with a stroke penalty.

[Frank Delicious]

I'm not sure on the issue of prematurely calling the disc lost. I read it as you HAVE to look for 3 minutes, since it is considered lost upon the expiration of the 3 minutes. Maybe someone else sees it differently.

803.11 A. "A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official... The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit"

It seems like you can declare it lost before the three minutes which I say because I read "within three minutes" to encompass any time inside three minutes.

I see the three minutes as a max timer to keep people from spending an hour looking for their favorite disc and holding everyone up.

[Dogma]

Separate but related question:
Your opponent tees off and parks their drive under the basket. You tee off and end up in the tree situation you described which will cost you two strokes. You also realize that even with the penalties your lie will suck, and you're likely to take at least three more strokes to finish the hole, giving you a 6. Instead, you run to your opponents disc, play from their lie by dropping in the putt (with a 2 stroke penalty), and end the hole with a 4. It fits the rules, but can you do it?

Rule: 803.10 A. "A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without
a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his
or her own. No throws shall be replayed."

[MDR_3000]

Separate but related question:
Your opponent tees off and parks their drive under the basket. You tee off and end up in the tree situation you described which will cost you two strokes. You also realize that even with the penalties your lie will suck, and you're likely to take at least three more strokes to finish the hole, giving you a 6. Instead, you run to your opponents disc, play from their lie by dropping in the putt (with a 2 stroke penalty), and end the hole with a 4. It fits the rules, but can you do it?

Rule: 803.10 A. "A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without
a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his
or her own. No throws shall be replayed."

That would be a DQ for purposely trying to circumvent the rules.

[Dogma]

Separate but related question:
Your opponent tees off and parks their drive under the basket. You tee off and end up in the tree situation you described which will cost you two strokes. You also realize that even with the penalties your lie will suck, and you're likely to take at least three more strokes to finish the hole, giving you a 6. Instead, you run to your opponents disc, play from their lie by dropping in the putt (with a 2 stroke penalty), and end the hole with a 4. It fits the rules, but can you do it?

Rule: 803.10 A. "A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without
a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his
or her own. No throws shall be replayed."

That would be a DQ for purposely trying to circumvent the rules.

1. Can you point me to the rule that says circumventing the rules gets you a DQ?
2. How is it different from the "lost disc" previous example? The rule is clearly written with the assumption that you would want to find your disc. Finding a loophole in the wording sounds like circumventing to me.

[MDR_3000]

That would be a DQ for purposely trying to circumvent the rules.
1. Can you point me to the rule that says circumventing the rules gets you a DQ?

A. A player shall 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:
(1) Unsportsmanlike conduct, such as; loud cursing, throwing things in anger (other than discs
in play), or overt rudeness to anyone present.
(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other
property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.
(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.
(4) Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule,
including the illegal consumption of drugs or alcohol.

2. How is it different from the "lost disc" previous example? The rule is clearly written with the assumption that you would want to find your disc. Finding a loophole in the wording sounds like circumventing to me.

Unplayable lie isn't a loophole, it's in the rulebook. The rules of the game state that you have to play from your disc, if you play from someone else's disc on purpose to save yourself a couple strokes...see the rule above.

[mark12b]

I believe you could call "unplayable lie" before you find it. and go re-tee with a stroke penalty.

hm, interesting, one guy on my card suggested calling it unplayable *after* we'd spotted it, but in think i that case you have to mark the lie and take the 2-meter penalty first.

but yeah, that brings up essentially the same question -- if the 2m rule is in play and i think there might be a chance that i'm stuck 2+ meters up, am i free to declare either unplayable or lost before i go try to find the disc?

[Dogma]

Thanks for finding the reference on circumventing.

How is it different from the "lost disc" previous example? The rule is clearly written with the assumption that you would want to find your disc. Finding a loophole in the wording sounds like circumventing to me.

Unplayable lie isn't a loophole, it's in the rulebook. The rules of the game state that you have to play frohttp://www.discgolfreview.com/forums ... &p=198102m your disc, if you play from someone else's disc on purpose to save yourself a couple strokes...see the rule above.

But the OP wasn't about unplayable lies. It was about declaring a disc "lost" by trying NOT to find it, calling it in under 3 minutes, and with the intention of avoiding a greater penalty. My point is that the spirit of not looking for the disc to avoid a penalty is the same as the spirit of playing someone else's lie on purpose. Both are circumventing.

I believe you could call "unplayable lie" before you find it. and go re-tee with a stroke penalty.

This also seems like circumventing. How can you call it unplayable if you don't even look to see where it is?

[Frank Delicious]

This also seems like circumventing. How can you call it unplayable if you don't even look to see where it is?

You are not advancing your lie whereas with your previous example you are advancing your lie. That is how I would interpret it.

[Dogma]

This also seems like circumventing. How can you call it unplayable if you don't even look to see where it is?

You are not advancing your lie whereas with your previous example you are advancing your lie. That is how I would interpret it.

How does advancing your lie have anything to do with it? The question is how can you call a lie unplayable if you haven't looked at it?

And the larger question is: Is it OK to disregard the spirit of the rule if you can find a way to use the wording of the rule to your advantage? Or is that the definition of circumventing?

[Frank Delicious]

This also seems like circumventing. How can you call it unplayable if you don't even look to see where it is?

You are not advancing your lie whereas with your previous example you are advancing your lie. That is how I would interpret it.

How does advancing your lie have anything to do with it? The question is how can you call a lie unplayable if you haven't looked at it?

And the larger question is: Is it OK to disregard the spirit of the rule if you can find a way to use the wording of the rule to your advantage? Or is that the definition of circumventing?

By reteeing from the same spot you have not gained any unfair advantage by advancing your lie. You have an existing lie (the tee) and can rethrow from there with a penalty because you don't advance your lie at all. I am not sure I am properly conveying what I am trying to say.

But to answer your question that I misread. You can call an unplayable even if you don't see where the disc goes. If I throw a disc into a giant thorn bush, I can call it unplayable without getting cut up looking for it. I don't think that violates the spirit of the rule, you aren't gaining an advantage over your previous lie (the tee) by calling an unplayable.

man I have no idea if that makes sense or not. I hope it does. I could also be wrong as hell, that is just how I interpret it.

[mark12b]

This also seems like circumventing. How can you call it unplayable if you don't even look to see where it is?

yeah, calling unplayable without actually seeing the lie is basically the same as the "discretionary lost" i'm asking about.

if the 2m rule is *not* in effect then you can always re-throw from your previous lie with a 1-stroke penalty... doesn't matter if you call a shot OB, lost, or unplayable as you get the same throw and the same penalty either way.

but i think the 2m rule adds a wrinkle as you have to mark your lie and take your penalty stroke before deciding that the lie is unplayable. you can still throw from your previous lie, but it costs an extra stroke to go back.

which is what made me think that the same goes for calling it lost -- when you're facing the chance of a 2m penalty, you ought to try to figure out if that applies before moving on to other options.

[Dogma]

^^^Agree.