804.04 question

[araytx]

Sorry if this has been covered. tl;dr

I threw a shot to a blind peninsula green. Everyone was looking for it near/around the waters' edge. It was not found. My group ruled it a lost disc. I made a case that it was most likely in the water, so I should get my spot near the basket.

Is there precedence here? Or do I have to convince my group that it's OB, not lost?

The group gets to make a ruling as always. If they believe it was near/around the water's edge (assumung the water is the OB boundary -- always bad TD'ing), then they can determine whether "not finding it" means "it's OB" or not. The troubling issue there, in my mind, is "the (OB) water's edge." But yes as JC says, you have to convince them that there is reasonable evidence that it was headed toward the OB water.

Except that this interpretation fails to account for the Rules School on marking the lie article cited upthread, which—JC17393's sarcasm notwithstanding—is precedential, since Rules School articles are (or, at least until recently, were) written in consultation with the RC and are (were) reviewed by the RC prior to publication, and therefore must be accounted for until such time as the RC explicitly disavows the ruling set forth in the article.

.

a) what JC said
b) no it doesn't, I think you're incorrect there. It perfectly accounts for the specific situation mentioned. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary (e.g., no one definitively saw how that disc got to wherever it ended up), then the default is where it lies. Period. QA14 and QA34 explicitly stated that. An interpretation never supersedes the actual rule.

 

[krupicka]

If a group is spending time looking around trying to find a disc in bounds, then it seems that there was reasonable evidence that it was not OB otherwise why would they be looking?

 

[JC17393]

If a group is spending time looking around trying to find a disc in bounds, then it seems that there was reasonable evidence that it was not OB otherwise why would they be looking?

So you've never looked fruitlessly for a disc where there was no OB within a mile of where the disc was thought to be? Not finding a disc during a 3-minute search is not enough evidence to say that it must be in the OB area.

 

[araytx]

If a group is spending time looking around trying to find a disc in bounds, then it seems that there was reasonable evidence that it was not OB otherwise why would they be looking?

Yeah. what JC said. Every time I've witnessed a lost disc situation we were looking inbounds. And there was no OB close by.

 

[krupicka]

If a group is spending time looking around trying to find a disc in bounds, then it seems that there was reasonable evidence that it was not OB otherwise why would they be looking?

So you've never looked fruitlessly for a disc where there was no OB within a mile of where the disc was thought to be? Not finding a disc during a 3-minute search is not enough evidence to say that it must be in the OB area.

JC- I believe you misread my post.

 

[JC17393]

JC- I believe you misread my post.

Apparently I did. I read it as saying that they're only looking for it because it's OB where it can't be found.

So what you are saying is that the act of searching alone proves there's no reasonable evidence that it went OB. In other words, if they had evidence it was OB, there'd be no need to search at all.

Makes sense to me. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[peabody]

So if you see it go in the water it is OB.(play it from where it went OB)??
If you don't see it go in the water then it is a lost disc?(re-tee)?? even though it can only be in the water?

 

[JC17393]

So if you see it go in the water it is OB.(play it from where it went OB)??
If you don't see it go in the water then it is a lost disc?(re-tee)?? even though it can only be in the water?

Yes.

If you don't see it go in, how can you say that it can "only be in the water"? It could really be anywhere. Also, if you don't see it go in, how do you determine where it was last in-bounds in order to mark the lie?

Which is why it is ALWAYS beneficial to have a spotter on all blind throws. If there's an OB area that the disc could land in, have at least one pair of eyes in a position to see if the disc ends up there.

 

[ERicJ]

JC17393: keep up the great interpretations. Being late to read this thread... all the counter points I was inclined to post you'd already made.

Bottom line: if you throw out over OB and no one sees it come back in-bounds, then when you get up to the disc and it is lying in OB territory... you mark that lie back where the group last saw the disc cross in/OB boundary. Saying the flight looked like it could/might/should hit the [in-bounds] bank is not reasonable evidence that it did.

 

[Dan Ensor]

An OB spot could have been given. If it was in, it was because it faded back in from OB. We saw where it went OB. But it was high enough I thought it might fade back in.

So I would say that I have proof that it went OB at some point. And my group would have agreed (given OB is a vertical plane, not just "in the water"). That doesn't shift the burden of evidence to showing the disc came back in?

And of course I'm going to spend 3 minutes trying to find my disc in bounds so I don't have to take an OB stroke.

 

[araytx]

So if you see it go in the water it is OB.(play it from where it went OB)??
If you don't see it go in the water then it is a lost disc?(re-tee)?? even though it can only be in the water?

Yes.

If you don't see it go in, how can you say that it can "only be in the water"? It could really be anywhere. Also, if you don't see it go in, how do you determine where it was last in-bounds in order to mark the lie?

Which is why it is ALWAYS beneficial to have a spotter on all blind throws. If there's an OB area that the disc could land in, have at least one pair of eyes in a position to see if the disc ends up there.

Bingo. Exactly that.