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

[MDR_3000]

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?

What if you get kicked down a steep hill? That's one way. It's the player's call.

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?

Like what? using the wording of rules to your advantage is just interpreting the rules.

[Steady 26542]

I thought I remembered Chuck saying that you couldn't receive two different penalties for the same throw. You would have to take the one that has priority. That doesn't sound right either... Chuck??

[curt]

First I just want to start with 2 pieces of the rules: the unplayable lie and the definition of the word lie.

A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of declaring an unplayable lie without seeing the disc before hand. It is impossible to actually have a lie if you can not see where the disc is. You can not verify that the disc's location meets the requirement (namely is on the playing surface). I do willfully acknowledge this may not be fully supported by the wording of the rules, but I believe it is the most logical extension of the intent. The existence of the lost disc rule justifies this to me. The rules clearly intend for a disc that can't be located to be lost.

As far as the lost disc rule is concerned, I would say it is at least a common practice not to search a full three minutes for discs that are quite unlikely to be found (e.g. - thick underbrush, a casual lake, a disc thrown the very wrong direction off a mountain). While it may seem unfair to declare a disc lost w/out devoting a full amount of time to searching for it, I think that requiring it would be counter productive and extend downtime in a round.

The difference I see between doing this and holing out from another player's lie is that by declaring a disc lost you move your lie by using the rules to your advantage. In Dogma's example you intentionally relocate your lie in a way that is not prescribed by the rules. While the rules give a punishment for doing so, I think there is an important distinction between moving your lie through the rules and doing so illegally.

[Dogma]

I thought I remembered Chuck saying that you couldn't receive two different penalties for the same throw. You would have to take the one that has priority. That doesn't sound right either... Chuck??

Pretty sure you can get multiple penalties. From the FAQ about Marking a Disc Below a Tree:
"Remember to add any applicable penalty throws"
"it can sometimes seem unfair to have an obstructed shot AFTER taking a penalty. A player with good knowledge of the course will know to be especially careful to avoid these types of trees. Also, you have the option of declaring an unplayable lie (and taking the applicable penalty throws, depending on how far you need to move your lie: see 803.06) in case your new lie is an impossible one."

I read this as you take the unplayable lie penalty after the 2meter penalty, as your lie is where the disc is placed after being moved to the ground, not its position above 2meters in the tree. Conceivably you could have an unlimited number of penalties. I read 803.06 to mean you get a stroke for moving your unplayable lie 5 meters. It doesn't say you can only do it once. If your lie is still unplayable after 5 meters you could move it again and take yet another penalty stroke. And so on until your lie is playable.

As far as the lost disc rule is concerned, I would say it is at least a common practice not to search a full three minutes for discs that are quite unlikely to be found (e.g. - thick underbrush, a casual lake, a disc thrown the very wrong direction off a mountain).

That's a totally different situation from the OP. You're talking about being pretty sure the disc is actually lost. The OP was about knowing where it is, and avoiding looking there because you think you won't like it- in other words, pretending it is lost when it probably isn't.

The difference I see between doing this and holing out from another player's lie is that by declaring a disc lost you move your lie by using the rules to your advantage. In Dogma's example you intentionally relocate your lie in a way that is not prescribed by the rules. While the rules give a punishment for doing so, I think there is an important distinction between moving your lie through the rules and doing so illegally.

My point is that pretending a disc lost without actually looking for it is also breaking the rules.

[MDR_3000]

My point is that pretending a disc lost without actually looking for it is also breaking the rules.

So would giving a half-assed effort to look for your disc breaking the rules too?

[Dogma]

So would giving a half-assed effort to look for your disc breaking the rules too?

Obviously there's a gray area in there somewhere. Just like there is when you decide when a lie unplayable, whether someone foot faulted, where a disc went OB, etc. But I think it comes down to intention. If you're making a normal effort, then that's what's expected. If you know you aren't really trying, then somewhere inside you the lameness detector should be going off. Of course no one else knows what you're intentions are, they just see you walking around looking at things. It's up to you to do the right thing. Like any activity that involves self-policing, some people will try to take advantage of it and some won't.

It would be nice to hear from Chuck on some of these issues.

[chiggins]

I remember vaguely another thread about lost discs, that Chuck weighed in on, where the scenario was along the lines of, "I declared it lost, but then walking over to retee I found it" where the answer was: once it's declared lost, either by 3 min rule or by the player, the penalty's a done deal even if you find your disc on the way back to throw again. If I didn't dream that up, it would sure seem like the intention of the 3-minute rule is to keep you from cooling your card's heels for longer than that, not less, and that you're free to say "forget it, guys."

[Dogma]

Did we ever get an official ruling from anyone (paging Chuck...) on the questions in this thread?

[Greatzky]

Like what? using the wording of rules to your advantage is just interpreting the rules.

then playing from your opponents Lie to give yourself less strokes even after the penalty is also "using the wording of rules to your advantage" isn't it???

[MDR_3000]

Like what? using the wording of rules to your advantage is just interpreting the rules.

then playing from your opponents Lie to give yourself less strokes even after the penalty is also "using the wording of rules to your advantage" isn't it???

No, the rules state you can't do that.

[curt]

No, the rules state you can't do that.

Only if you're not a good enough actor to convince your playing partners you did it on accident (thinking it was your lie).

[MDR_3000]

yeah...but if you are willing to take the 2 stroke penalty by holing out from someone else's lie, then chances are your disc would not be anywhere near the one you're trying to play from.