Main Menu

PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf & Competition Manual Updated for 2023

PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf & Competition Manual Updated for 2023

Final changes go into effect on January 1.

Thursday, December 1, 2022 - 17:05

The Official Rules of Disc Golf (ORDG), the Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events (CM), and the PDGA Tour Standards go through some level of revision each year. A list of the changes – first major, then minor, then a rundown of some clerical matters – is here for your reference. Please read the updates below carefully. Text in bold reflects changes following the public comment period. These updates go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Major Changes

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

1.03 Withdrawals and Refunds

These new sections outline player rights and TD responsibilities regarding refunds if an event is canceled or postponed. Public comment suggestions about clarifying the nature of an applicable disaster and providing postponements with the same options as cancellations were incorporated.

J. If a Tournament Director cancels an event, all currently registered or waitlisted players must receive a 100% cash monetary refund of their entry or waitlist fee. Only in the case of a disaster beyond the control of the TD that prevents the event from taking place by making the venue(s) unavailable, and only with prior approval from the PDGA Director of Event Support, may a TD provide players registered for Amateur divisions with a player pack and a partial cash refund in the amount of the difference between the retail value of the player pack and the amount of the entry fee.

K. If a Tournament Director postpones an event, all players currently registered or waitlisted for the original date at the time of postponement must receive a 100% cash monetary refund if they request it. Only in the case of a disaster beyond the control of the TD that prevents the event from taking place by making the venue(s) unavailable, and only with prior approval from the PDGA Director of Event Support, may a TD provide players registered for Amateur divisions with a player pack and a partial cash refund in the amount of the difference between the retail value of the player pack and the amount of the entry fee.Once a new date is announced, all prior registrants who are still registered must be notified by email and given a reasonable opportunity to receive a 100% cash refund if they determine they are unable to attend the event on its new date.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

This revision adds language to reflect that more than two scorecards may be used, as well as clarifying penalties for players who do not provide their group with the opportunity to examine the scorecard.

G. The Tournament Director must provide at least two scorecards to each group, to be kept independently of one another. These scorecards may be of the same medium or of different media. The two scorecards must be reconciled by the group and submitted  Each member of the group should be given the opportunity to examine the scorecards and each member of the group must agree on an official scorecard and submit it by whichever method the Tournament Director has designated as the official scoring method for the tournament. Any player who denies the opportunity to another player in the group to examine and verify the official scorecard receives two penalty throws.

1.06 Grouping and Sectioning

This new provision creates minimum standards for tee time posting. This simplified version grants TDs more leeway while also protecting players.

L. At staggered start events with scheduled tee times, Tournament Directors must post tee times on the PDGA event page for all players in a given divsion no later than 10 12 hours prior to the first tee time for that division or one hour after the conclusion of play of the previous round for that division, whichever is later.  

  1. If tee times must be adjusted after posting, no player may be assigned an earlier tee time without their affirmative consent. 

  2. Events with multiple tee time rounds in a single day must obtain a waiver of this rule from the PDGA Director of Event Support. 

  3. The PDGA Mid-Event Weather Suspension Guidelines supersede this requirement where it is necessary for player safety or to complete rounds in progress.

Tour Standards

Pass-Through Fees

To make it easier to provide a quality experience for all players, and to provide a baseline level of compensation for Tournament Directors, additional items will be added to pass-through fees that are subtracted from gross entry fees to make net entry fees. To ensure transparency, TDs are required to specify the amounts and types of all pass-through fees in pre-registration materials.

Pass-through Fees are: PDGA Per-Player Fee, as required by Tier level; Greens Fees, meaning the fees required to secure the course(s) and permit play; Series Fees, meaning a fee paid by an event that is part of a points Series under CM 2.02.B toward Series-end prizes or payouts; Bathroom Fees, meaning the prorated per-player cost of toilet rental; and TD Fees, meaning a per-player amount not to exceed the PDGA Per-Player Fee for that Tier. All pass-through items and amounts must be published in pre-registration materials. Other event expenses, such as player packs and prizes, trophies, line paint, staff compensation, or lunch, are not included in pass-through fees.

A-Tier Requirements: Warm-Up Areas and Underserved Divisions

The warm-up area addition tightens up the requirements for the player experience at what will be, for many competitors, the premier event Tier of their playing careers. After careful consideration, the staff have decided to suspend implementation of the proposed waitlist requirement in order to address potential unintended problems and ensure that it accomplishes the stated goal of making space for underserved divisions. 

Warm-Up Areas. All A-Tier events must have a designated warm-up area readily available to all players.  If sufficient throwing space is not available, the event must provide one or more practice nets. The event must also provide one or more practice targets.

Waitlists. All A-Tier and above events must use divisional capping to provide space for those underserved divisions offered by the event, and waitlists must be maintained by division so a drop from an underserved division is filled from the same division wherever possible. Only within three weeks of an event may Event Directors fill a vacancy in an underserved division without a waitlist from a different division (as allowed by course or other pool capping considerations). Event Directors should reach out to the PDGA Event Support Team (eventsupport@pdga.com) prior to opening registration if they need help setting this up correctly.

Minor Changes

Official Rules of Disc Golf

802.03 Excessive Time

Using the phrase “remains clear” provides additional clarity that a player’s 30-second time window restarts if the playing area does not remain continuously clear. 

A.4. During which the playing area is remains clear.

803.01 Moving Obstacles

This change adds additional clarity to what defines a casual obstacle. Casual obstacles are intended to be loose debris, not just any item that happens to be dead or detached.

B.1 A player may move casual obstacles that are on the playing surface where a supporting point may be placed when taking a stance. A casual obstacle is any item or collection of loose debris (such as stones, leaves, twigs, or unconnected branches), or any item as designated by the Director. Objects intentionally placed as part of the course or event are not casual obstacles. 

803.02 Relief from Obstacles

In the previous wording, the use of “as allowed above” could have been interpreted to only apply to parts A and B, and therefore any other type of relief was inherently penalized. Changing it to say “by rule” allows for non-penalty relief in other rules to be allowable.

C. A player who takes relief other than as allowed above by rule receives one penalty throw.

804.01 Mandatory Routes

This change clarifies that mandatory routes restrict the path of the disc for the entire hole, regardless of the direction the disc is traveling and replaces "restricted space" with the clearer "restricted plane."

A. A mandatory route restricts the path the disc may take to the target in the process of playing a hole

B. The restricted space plane is a vertical plane marked by one or more objects or other markers which define the edges of the space

C. If part of a thrown disc clearly enters into a restricted space plane, the player receives one penalty throw. ...

D. If the thrown disc is released on the other side of the restricted space plane ...

806.03 Casual Area

Similar to the explanation for 803.02, this change merely clarifies that relief from casual areas are not penalized if taken in accordance to the rules.

B. To obtain relief from a casual area, the player's lie may be relocated without penalty to the nearest lie which is farther from the target and is on the line of play, at the nearest point that provides relief (unless greater casual relief is announced by the Director).

C. A player who takes relief other than as allowed by rule receives one penalty throw.

806.04.A: Relief Area

This clarifies that Relief Areas are treated exactly the same as OB areas in all aspects except for the applied penalty throw. This includes discs landing within 1m of a relief area. This update also aids in how to handle situations where OB and Relief Areas share an edge.

A. A relief area is an area designated by the Director from which a disc may not be played, or any in-bounds area that players are prohibited by law from entering. A relief area is considered and played as an out-of-bounds area, but no penalty throw is applied with the exception that no penalty throw is assessed to a player whose disc comes to rest in a relief area.

813.01 Illegal Disc

This update provides additional clarity that players may not throw a disc that is intentionally deformed such that it no longer complies with the technical standards for approved discs.

C. Other modifications to a disc after production make the disc illegal, including but not limited to: ... 

5. Intentionally deforming a disc such that it is not in a circular, saucer-like configuration.

Questions and Answers

These two Q&As have been updated to reflect the use of "restricted plane" in 804.01.

QA-APP-2 One common pair of rules that can be violated during a single throw are OB and Mandatory. As soon as a disc enters the restricted space plane it is considered to have missed the mandatory, whereas a disc is not considered OB until it comes to rest. Therefore, the missed mandatory happened first.

QA-MAN-1 Once your disc has entered the restricted space plane, the rest of the flight does not matter. You have missed the mandatory.

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

Introduction

This simply clarifies the connection between the Director in the ORDG and the Tournament Director/TD in the CM.

The PDGA Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events outlines procedures and guidelines for PDGA events and is to be used in conjunction with the Official Rules of Disc Golf and the Tour Standards document. These procedures and guidelines are required for all PDGA-sanctioned events unless specified otherwise. All references in the Competition Manual or Tour Standards to a "Tournament Director" or "TD" mean the person in charge of the event under 801.02.G. If a Tournament Director finds any provision in any of these documents unacceptable, they may request a waiver by contacting the PDGA Director of Event Support at eventsupport@pdga.com or by calling 762-253-2200.

1.03 Withdrawals and Refunds

The change in language here reflects the long-standing PDGA policy of how to evaluate whether a refund is due or not. The old language muddied the intent of the policy. The change also reflects that non-refundable items like DGS and PayPal processing fees are not included in a refund. Finally, with the prevalence of third-party payment processors, "cash" has been changed to "monetary" throughout 1.03.

B. Players who have paid MORE than a nominal waitlist fee of $10 to be on an event’s waitlist who do not get into the event, or who officially request to withdraw from the waitlist prior to the event’s published closure of registration and waitlist replacements (within one week is recommended), will receive a 100% cash monetary refund of their that waitlist fee (minus the up to a $10 handling fee) waitlist fee. Waitlist players who ONLY paid a nominal non-refundable waitlist fee of $10 or less will not receive a refund.

C. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event at least 30 days before the start of the event will receive a 100% cash monetary refund of their entry fee (minus up to a $10 handling fee). 

D. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event 15 to 29 days before the start of the event will receive a 100% cash monetary refund of their entry fee minus up to a $10 handling fee ONLY if their spot in the tournament is filled through either the waitlist or a walk-up entry (if offered) by a player who is on the waitlist at the time of the withdrawal request. If the player’s spot is NOT filled, the TD has the choice to provide EITHER a 50% cash monetary refund of their entry fee OR just the player’s pack the player would have received if they had attended (minus the cost of shipping). In the case of a player in a Pro division for an event without a Pro player pack worth at least 25% of the Entry Fee, the TD will provide the 50% cash monetary refund.

E. Players who officially request to withdraw from an event within 14 days of the start of the event and prior to the event’s published closure of registration and waitlist replacements (within one week is recommended) will receive a 100% cash monetary refund of their entry fee minus up to a $10 handling fee ONLY if their spot in the tournament is filled through either the waitlist or a walk-up entry (if offered) by a player who is on the waitlist at the time of the withdrawal request. If the player’s spot is NOT filled, the TD has the choice to provide EITHER a 25% cash monetary refund of their entry fee OR just the player’s pack they would have received if they had attended (minus the cost of shipping). In the case of a player in a Pro division for an event without a Pro player pack worth at least 25% of the Entry Fee, the TD will provide the 25% cash monetary refund.

1.05 Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

This change clarifies when players may practice at staggered start events with scheduled tee times, and defaults to no practice on the course while play is ongoing.

B. 2. Staggered Starts or Tee Times (rounds where groups start one after another on a certain hole): The player shall start at the time announced by the Tournament Director. Players are recommended to check in with the starter ten minutes before their tee time. At staggered start events with scheduled tee times, players may practice in any area designated by the Tournament Director until the starter indicates the two-minute signal for their group provided their practice does not distract players on the course. When tournament rounds are in progress at a course, that course is unavailable for practice unless the Tournament Director specifies otherwise.

1.12 Tournament Officials

This revision specifies who designates PDGA Marshals.

A. Only the Tournament Director, those Certified Officials that have been designated by the Tournament Director, or a designated PDGA Marshal as designated by the PDGA Director of Competition, are Tournament Officials for a given event.

1.14 Leagues

This allows children under 13 accompanying a playing group at PDGA Leagues to be supervised by a player in the group. Public comment suggestions about applying 812 and 3.03 to such accompanying minors has been incorporated.

C. 5. Children under 13 who are accompanying a group may be supervised by an adult in the playing group (see 1.13.A). Children under 13 accompanying the playing group are subject to the provisions of 812, Courtesy, and 3.03, with any penalties incurred by that child applied to the supervising player.

2.01 General

The first change addresses players who request to change divisions after competition has begun, but before they have started their rounds. NOTE: This is inserted as a new 2.01.C, and current 2.01.C et seq. will move down a letter (C to D, D to E, etc.).

The second change clarifies how to limit offered divisions, corrects the misunderstanding that a division must have four players to be contested, and emphasizes the importance of offering underserved divisions.

C. After the close of registration, players may not request to change their division unless their division has three or fewer people, in which case players must request a change prior to the start of competition.  TDs may approve or deny this request in their sole discretion.

K. L. A Tournament Director may, by indicating it on the registration form, restrict the divisions offered in their event. Absent such notice, the Tournament Director shall offer for competition any division which has four or more players that are eligible and who wish to compete. Tournament Directors may offer divisions with fewer than four players at their discretion (see 1.03.I). A Tournament Director may limit the divisions they wish to offer at their event by listing only the divisions they plan to offer on their registration form.  If a division is offered and at least four eligible players register for that division, that division must be held.  If fewer than four eligible players register for an offered division or a division does not have four eligible players at the close of registration, it is at the Tournament Director's discretion whether to hold the division or not (see 1.03.I).  Tournament Directors are strongly encouraged to offer divisions which are otherwise underserved (see 1.02.C.2.c) and to hold such divisions even if fewer than four eligible players register.

3.04 Dress Code

This revision clarifies that players must wear a lower outer garment and opens up well-tailored sleeveless shirts with collars and tennis dresses that meet the requirements to any player who wishes to wear them. Slight revisions to the language were adopted after reviewing public comment.

B. All competitors and staff are required to wear a shirt an upper garment and lower outer garment, such as a shirt and pants.

D. 2. All players must wear a shirt an upper garment covering their upper chest area and lower torso. A well-tailored shirt with a collar and sleeves covering the upper arm shall be considered acceptable. Tank tops are not allowed for any competitor, but women may wear sleeveless shirts with collars. Women may also wear well-tailored one-piece tennis dresses with minimum one-inch-wide shoulder straps. A well-tailored shirt with a collar is acceptable, with or without sleeves. A well-tailored one-piece tennis dress with minimum one-inch-wide shoulder straps is also acceptable. Tank tops are not allowed for any competitor.

3.08 Tournament Director Rights and Responsibilities

This revision sets the minimum age to serve as a Tournament Director of record at 18.

Any qualified, current PDGA member age 18 or over who is interested in running a PDGA-sanctioned event may be required to take and pass an online tournament procedures assessment test before being able to direct that event. That test will be based upon the Official Rules of Disc Golf and the Competition Manual. PDGA members under the age of 18 may not be Tournament Directors.

Clerical Items

Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events

2.03 Reclassification of Professional/Amateur 

This section was improperly structured, giving it two possible citations to 2.03.A. This edit fixes the problem. The reclassification standards have also been given their own standalone document.

A. Professional to Amateur

A. 1. Players registered with the PDGA as Professionals may petition the PDGA Memberships Manager or PDGA Director of Event Support for reclassification as Amateurs, but they must meet all requirements to reclassify.

2. Players must meet all requirements laid out in the Divisions, Ratings and Points Factors table PDGA Requirements for Reclassification from Professional to Amateur document in order to reclassify.

B. Amateur to Professional

A. 1. An Amateur wishing to change their classification to Professional may do so by contacting the PDGA Memberships Manager.

B. 2. An Amateur player is automatically reclassified as Professional when the player has accepted cash while competing in a Professional division (see 1.10.A and 1.10.B). 

3. Accepting cash for winning an ancillary contest such as an ace pool, top-of-the-card round prize, or CTP contest does not cause a player to relinquish their amateur status.

Tour Standards

The reclassification criteria for Professionals seeking to reclassify as Amateurs currently are enumerated only in an FAQ document.  This change moves those criteria for 2023 into both Table 6 of the 2023 Tour Standards and as a standalone PDGA Requirements for Reclassification from Professional to Amateur web page and document. The player rating requirements for Pros over 39 years of age have been changed for 2023.

^ Back to the top ^

Comments

I am disappointed to see that no FPO protection against transitioning men was provided in the rules changes. Sadly, my family will be unable to renew our membership until this is addressed. Fairness of play to all members, including biological females, should be a priority.

Agreed. I said as much in an email response to the PDGA when they asked me to renew my membership. I will not renew until this issue is resolved.

Submitted by Jmiklemn on

I completely agree and also will not be renewing my membership unless this issue is addressed. I also have emailed these concerns to the PDGA and have not received a response. I think there are many others out there who feel the same way.

Update, in reading the new rule changes to go into effect regarding this topic, I feel that the PDGA has put a lot of thought and consideration into this matter and their final decision seems fair. I will be renewing my membership now.

Is this really an issue? Making rule changes to appease bigots should not be a priority by the PDGA - the sport should be better than that.

Submitted by davidbraud on

Kyle, your comment, "protection against transitioning men" seems a bit overstated, no? Are your kids (or you) struggling to compete against this group of people? This issue is overwhelmingly hypothetical and should never even be a conversation when we are talking about amateur-level play. I can see that it's a conversation to entertain if we are talking NT events, etc., but the spirit of the sport seems to call for a more generous response to this issue.

Submitted by tayls23 on

A general announcement you aren't renewing is unnecessary, just don't renew. If you have specific issues with the PDGA, then email them.

Regarding "Fairness of play to all members, including biological females, should be a priority." - This is indeed an important issue, but to suggest the PDGA doesn't see this as a priority is unfair. You may not agree with their decision, and that's your right. But don't try to force your beliefs on everyone else. Email your concerns to the PDGA. Your feelings about the matter only make the decisions of the PDGA right or wrong in your eyes, not everyone's.

What is the point of PDGA refund policies if TDs are able to create their own policy for events? You would think a standard would be in place for all events that are PDGA sanctioned.

I was pretty dissapointed to get no refund at all and no players pack for my 11 year old son who was signed up for Junior Worlds last year, but was unable to compete because handicap accomodations were refused by Nate Heinold after suffering a torn achilles myself and not being able to walk along as a caddy.

Nate then decided to tell me no player packs were provided despite the fact it was well known player packs were provided. Not a fan of the dishonesty and greed from a board member.

Submitted by NOVASully on

Hi, Brandon. I'm very sorry to hear about your Achilles; as someone with spurs and Achilles tendinitis, I understand how horrible that can be.

Now, on to your question. The refund policies in 1.03 are the baseline. TDs may be more generous than that, but not more restrictive. In this case, it looks like you requested a refund on July 6, 2022. Registration for Junior Worlds, including waitlist replacements, closed on July 1, 2022. Therefore, 1.03.F controls a refund request that came in on July 6.

Sully - Unfortunately I tore my achilles July 3rd and the handicap accessible accomodations I requested were refused by Nate the TD. In the days leading up I had inquired about a few options to still be able to caddy, but when all options were refused I had to withdraw.

Now even if no refund or player pack was within the guidelines, I’d hope any decent TD/person would be more accomodating and at least provide a player pack to a young 11 year old boy already upset he can’t compete under the circumstances. Even more so you’d think a PDGA Board Member whose candidacy resume was about youth sports and experiences would be more considerate. Nates greed continues to be on display across all of his events and its a shame people like him have caused such negative experiences for the disc golf community.

On a side not though I’m always thankful for you and Big Dogs support in the events I run and questions I have.

I'm just sad I can no longer crumple a Koi into a ball =/. Oh well, was fun while it lasted.

I also find it interesting how only men are commenting on persons who have transitioned in Women's divisions and not women. This really is such a tiny issue that I can agree could need to be addressed for High Tier or Open events, but being incredibly against it in FA1-4 is more about being anti-trans and discriminatory than anything else. At the end of the day, Disc Golf should be about playing with the people you are most comfortable with and identify best with.

There is a lot to consider and I appreciate PDGA taking their time to discuss and review research before making a large decision.

Yes, I am a man, but my wife who enjoys playing finds it extremely frustrating. I also have two daughters that love watching/playing the game and it saddens me that they could give their very best effort and it could so easily be overshadowed/outplayed because of unfair competition. This is not a political or moral statement, this is simply about the spirit of fair competition.

Submitted by davidbraud on

Andrew, is this actually an issue for your wife (who "finds it extremely frustrating") and kids or merely a hypothetical issue that you want to comment on? Also, arguably, everything is political, moral, and religious. Kindness should win the day in our sport, not whatever this is.

The rule for tacoing a disc is still kinda vague does not state that temporally its against the rule the shape at rest is still legal. Feel that rule could have better language. I also agree the most criticism is from Men or they are speaking on behalf of a woman about gender based issues. My issue with that is the big focus on the gender side of the issue and not any of the other issues that face that same group of people they are admitly complaining and protesting with (let me speak to the manger) behaviors. Womans not females is a great place to start as using the wording just shows objectifying behavioral traits. Why does udisc not have the ability to sort between division. Why cant the the top 2 cards in each division play at the same time. Lots more issues over just gender and I get the frustration but scaring players away with belittling campaign is not the way of change or how you should project towards impressionable people.

It's an absolute shame to see this organization put more value on diversity and inclusion than the actual fairness of competition in the sport. The women deserve a fair field to compete on. Until the female protected division is actually protected, I will not be renewing my membership, or competing in any PDGA sanctioned events. I really hope you all come to your senses and make the right decision. The women in this sport deserve better.

Sadly I will not be renewing either. It is unfair and frankly insane that transgenders are allowed to compete against women. Unless and until this is corrected I will not be a part of this organization.

Submitted by FredVocino on

Regarding the intended change in Rule 803,02,C. I regret not contacting you during the public consideration stage of rule amendments. I note the intended purpose of the change to ensure no one treats the current Section (C) being in the context of "Relief from Obstacles" as otherwise applicable to the relief defined in the context of Casual and Relief Areas. Another reason to amend Section C follows.

By assigning a penalty to relief taken apart from the conditions found in the several relief related rules, the PDGA has acknowledged the prospects of such extra-regulatory relief and set the price of such relief. Without the current and new terms in (C) the PDGA membership would be caused to recognize that the only relief available is that which is prescribed in the rules. A statement to that effect would be a reasonable substitute for the planned revision. (See the standard of interpretation: To say one thing is to exclude the other.) Mistaken relief would be treatable as an errant lie under 811.

I guess it is too late to comment now, especially as this existed previously, but what sense does it make to have a difference between the mandatory and OB rules? 804.01C states "If part of a thrown disc clearly enters into a restricted plane, the player receives one penalty throw." So if even a millimeter of disc is over a designated plane then a penalty stroke is incurred. I would argue that the entire disc must have passed the plane, otherwise the plane has not been passed and the player should be able to throw from that spot without penalty.

Submitted by NOVASully on

First, the two rules are not really comparable in terms of function. OB rules regulate where a player may place a lie and take a legal stance. Mandatory rules regulate what path a disc may take in flight.

Practically, without this distinction, a player whose disc is straddling the restricted plane could mark their lie with a mini and essentially "teleport" through the plane (because if their lead point of contact is on the other side of the plane, their disc, which becomes "thrown" at the moment of release, would never fully break the plane). This would render mandatories' safety element moot.

Sully, I disagree with you. Mandatory rules absolutely regulate where a player may place a lie because anything past a mandatory is essentially considered out of bounds so they are practically identical. Also, marking a lie with a mini is optional and I can't even think of a scenario where a player whose disc is straddling the mandatory line would not opt to take a stance as far away from the mandatory line as legally possible, so as to give them the best possible angle to pass the mandatory correctly. Safety is a red herring in this context because the diameter of a disc is not going to endanger anyone in the area beyond the mandatory.

Submitted by NOVASully on

Thanks for writing. I believe you're mistaken about "anything past a mandatory is essentially considered out of bounds." Mandatories regulate vertical space, not horizontal space on the playing surface.

I will try to better explain the point about straddling the restricted plane. If the rule required that the entire throw disc break the plane - and given that a disc is only thrown when it is both propelled AND released, a situation where the disc straddles the restricted plane could result in a player being able to mark out on the other side of the plane and proceed without their thrown disc ever breaking the plane completely.

Put differently: I mark out on the other side of the plane. I know that the disc is not thrown until I release it. I know that, having marked out, that release will be past the restricted plane in part or in full, and therefore legal. In other words, I will be able to throw in the direction the mandatory is designed to prevent me from throwing. Therefore, safety is, in fact, at issue here.

Sully, you have completely lost me at this point. You may be the only disc golfer on the planet to whom this makes sense. Mandatories mark a theoretical vertical plane, but they are designed to impede direction horizontally. Therefore I cannot conceive of anyone marking their lie past the mandatory line, claim that their stance was legal, and have the members of their group agree with them. As an aside, how could a disc be propelled without being thrown?

Submitted by NOVASully on

I can confirm it makes sense to at least two others (Krupicka and Todd).

I'll try one more time with an explanation. Picture a fairway that curves left to right. On the right side of the fairway is a tree that marks a mandatory, where the restricted plane extends to the right of that tree. 

I throw my shot and it lands straddling the restricted plane to the right of the tree. I mark out with a mini marker, which moves most or all of my lie to the other side - the target side - of the plane. When I reach back, my disc may break the restricted plane, but it's not a thrown disc yet, so no problem. When I start to pull forward, my disc may break the restricted plane, but it's still not a thrown disc, so no problem. When the disc is released - and therefore thrown per 802.01.A - it is completely on the target side of the plane, and therefore has not missed the mandatory, because it never broke the plane as a thrown disc.

That's a problem! Therefore, the RC recommended (and the Board accepted) changes to prevent that situation.

Submitted by RoJo on

An important point here is that a marked mandatory line (flagged, painted etc.) is not an OB line. You cannot take relief from a mandatory line even if you have not yet crossed it. This is why your disc cannot straddle the mandatory line (vertical plane) and then be used as a new lie. TDs must designate a drop zone for discs that have crossed over the mandatory line (vertical plane).

Mike, thanks for that explanation, that makes it somewhat clearer but I would argue that the same could be said for any disc that is marked within a meter of the mandatory line. As long as the persons hand did not release it on the tee side of the mandatory line then according to what you are saying it would still be legal. This circumvents the intended purpose of the mandatory rule and either way makes no sense to me to play on the forbidden side of the mandatory. Perhaps the mandatory rule as written is too complex and needs simplification to say merely that you must pass the mandatory in the intended direction. The simplest, most consistent wording would treat the mandatory line as an OB line for the purposes of passing it, but would not allow a meter away from it in terms of the lie. Let me finish by saying that you are not going to convince me otherwise and I think the large majority of players, whom the rules are written for, would easily understand a simpler interpretation. Thank you for attempting to clarify.

Submitted by RoJo on

It’s important to note that a marked mandatory line is not an OB line. You do not get relief from a mandatory line.

Responding to all on this mando thread,

This has never been an issue in any tourny I have played.
Any players trying to circumvent or overcome the intended purpose or "flavor" of a rule is sniffed out like a dead rat. Now that it is clarified that ANY part of the disc constitutes a penalty it takes away all ambiguity. Also any player trying to use a rule gray area or technicality to gain a competitive advantage is going to be seeen as a doche by every player I have ever known, unless it is something everyone is doing (like jump putts, which I am still against btw!).

Thanks for your time, but now I gotta go throw!

Zero mention of FPO and allowing MEN to cheat and play against WOMEN. This is absolutely disgusting. I have not and will not play, donate or renew anything that has to do with this company as long as it allows MEN to compete pretending to be a WOMAN against real WOMEN.

Why are nasty comments such as this allowed? Those who feel that allowing biological males to compete against biological females have to tip-toe around the issue but a bully such as "tayls23" can excoriate whomever they disagree with?

Submitted by tayls23 on

I am merely stating a fact. This person, by their language, is obviously a bigot. And they are a fool because they said this right after the announcement that the PDGA had in fact changed their qualifications for “F” divisions.

I am still trying to decide how I feel about the new requirement, but I am not going to let bigoted comments slide. An opinion is one thing, I may not agree with it, but do it with respect to everyone involved, l will take no offense.

Those who cry fairness for everyone fail to realize or care that no matter what the decision, it is not going to be fair to everyone in everyone’s eyes.

The irony a person that is calling another person names for disagreeing with their opinions chose, of all words the word, bigot to describe that person.

Submitted by WT on

I am not sure what, exactly, is/are Innova's agenda(s) or plan(s). The transgender issue is going to tear down and/or destroy many institutions based on the erroneous contemplation that there IS more than two sexes.

No. There IS ONLY ONE gamete which determines the sex of a human, (or any animal), on this planet. If two "X" chromosomes form, you have a female. If an "X" chromosome and a "Y" chromosome are combined, a male is generated.

Nothing else. No trans. Nothing else!

Now, a person can decide to have a homosexual relationship, but that DOES NOT CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED GENETICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Submitted by tayls23 on

This is such an oversimplified statement that it becomes wrong in its oversimplification. I'm not here to discuss science, but transgender people do exist, and you saying it is impossible doesn't change that.

There are males with two "X" chromosomes, just as there are females with a "Y" chromosome.

Science baby, it's complicated and wonderful.

Submitted by zakkday on

absolutely abhorrent that this association finds it okay to instate arbitrary rulings against straw-women that there is absolutely no call to action to instate rules against. i feel disgusting having paid for a membership already and will not be renewing in the future until this ruling is more closely and appropriately addressed. the people who voted for this new ruling and anyone supporting the ruling should be ashamed of themselves and take a long hard look at why they're so upset and i think you'll find there's nothing but ghosts. disgusting.

Submitted by RoJo on

Will anyone agree with me that the “stance area” by which players may remove loose debris does not include the area ten feet behind the lie in order for players to clear a run up area? The stance area is only as far as you could possibly stretch out your supporting points from your lie.

I would suggest that the “stance area” needs to have a definition in the rules or at least a Q&A explaining that players don’t get to clear a run up area.

Submitted by FredVocino on

The only way I will agree with you, that a person cannot clear a surface of casual objects on that surface as far as ten feet behind the lie, is if the person is not able to place a body part (toe?) on the lie and, at the same time, put another body part (finger tip?) ten feet away on or above the playing surface. (Note that the rules only require that one support point must be on a playing surface, perforce under the definition of lie.)
The area eligible for casual object clearing is that upon which a stance MAY be taken (emphasis added). 802.07.A (Stance) presents us with only one criterion that defines stance: “supporting point” at the moment a disc is released. That presents both a physical condition and a temporal condition that are tied together. (Secondary considerations of illegal supporting points are withstanding.)
It follows that if a person can stretch themselves enough to give them 10 feet of run up they may clear that area of eligible* objects. Less capable (tall) persons will have shorter cleared run up opportunities.

We might otherwise note that the PDGA “hyjacked” the QA-STA-1 to initiate a rule change more appropriately achieved in a due process rules amendment to provide for a limited exception to the rule against illegal devices; 813.02. That is, devices such as canes, crutches or others that qualify as mobility devises (walking stics, staffs?) are to be considered eligible for obtaining support in locations where a supporting point is required or desired. That could make for some rather long stretches for run up purposes. There is no present “needs demonstration” required to play with a mobility device. (Use of a walking stick to touch behind a thrown disc (lie) in a deep thicket is not addressed in this comment.)

*Lastly, the lengths of the radial lines away from the lie that help define the objects eligible for clearing are rather idiosyncratic based on the individual player; but the other critical dimension involved with object eligibility involves its touch on the playing surface. The slightest margin of space above the surface makes the object ineligible. Have a “fun” read of the related QA sections; then reconsider your wish to obtain clarifications that are expressly drawn from cited sections of the formal rules.

Submitted by RoJo on

Heck Yeh! I fully concede. Well done.
This is a perfectly thorough and rational rationale.