804.04 question

[peabody]

You are on the tee and you throw out of bounds. You can re-tee I know with a stroke penalty or throw from where the disc went out of bounds.
I had heard that the disc had to touch something in-bounds first before you could take the lie from where it went out. Nothing is said in the 2012 rule book and I couldn't find anything newer than that for reference.



This is from the 2012 rule book. Is this still in effect?

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/804-the-throw/80404-out-of-bounds



A player whose disc is out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next throw from:
1. The previous lie; or,
2. A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, even if the direction takes the lie closer to the target; or,
3. Within the designated drop zone, if provided

 

[peabody]

also the two meter rule. This is from the PDGA website.


QA 31: The Two-Meter Rule

Q:

Is the two-meter rule still in effect?

A:

By default, the two-meter rule is not in effect. The TD may choose to put it into play for as much of the tournament as they choose, including for particular obstacles. If that happens, it will be covered in the players' meeting. Applicable Rules: 806.01 Two-meter Rule
Then you go to 806.01 and

http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/806-discretionary-rules/80601-two-meter-rule




806.01 Two-meter Rule

Last updated: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 13:31.




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







A. If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty. The player shall then proceed in accordance with 802.02.C.
B. If the lie directly below the disc on the playing surface is out-of-bounds, the disc is played as out-of-bounds regardless of its height above the playing surface.
C. A disc supported by the target is not subject to the two-meter rule.
D. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc is considered to have come to rest above two meters.
E. The Director may declare the two-meter rule to be in effect for the entire course, for particular holes, and/or for individual objects


Kinda confusing. in effect or not?

 

[peabody]

Is there a 2014 PDGA Official Rule Book out yet? I need one bad.

 

[DavidSauls]

I had heard that the disc had to touch something in-bounds first before you could take the lie from where it went out. Nothing is said in the 2012 rule book and I couldn't find anything newer than that for reference.

No such requirement, now or in at least the past 20 years.

O.B. line is a vertical plane, so it's where the disc last crossed the line into O.B.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I have heard of special conditions where the TD would allow a player to play from the last point inbounds if the player's disc was seen to physically touch the island green IB before skipping OB. Otherwise, the player had to rethrow for the tee or maybe drop zone even if their dics flew over the island green without touching it. But that's not a standard rule.

 

[Curtis_Valk]

Kinda confusing. in effect or not?

Not confusing at all. 806.01 explains what the two meter rule IS, how it is to be adjudicated and how it can be declared to be in effect. The Q and A clarifies that "not in effect" is the default.

 

[peabody]

Thank you boys in the band!

 

[threej21]

similar question and rather not start a new thread.

for example: a hole has a creek running parallel to the fairway all the way to and past the pin. Player tees off and throws his disc which quickly crosses ob and travels over the creek the entire flilght and starts coming back towards land. There is a gully right at pin high and you cant see if it hit land or not. Get to the disc and it is floating in the creek.

The flight of the disc would lead you to believe it hit the bank and then went in the water, but no one saw it hit in bounds. Does he take his next shot from where it crossed OB right after release, or does the player get the benefit of the doubt that the disc did in fact hit the bank, therefore allowing him to putt from the creeks edge. (easy circle 3 vs taking next shot back near the tee)

It was a casual round, so no argument, just more of a discussion. His argument to me when it got brought up was, "prove to me it didn't hit in bounds" as he proceeded to circle 3 from the creeks edge.

Is he right? Who is the burden of proof on? Must you be absolutely sure it hit in bounds to take next shot near basket, or does player get the benefit of the doubt that it did?

 

[kenjiac]

I would have made him throw from where it crossed up by the tee. If you can't see that it came back in bounds it is played from where you last saw it in bounds.

 

[coupe]

The flight of the disc would lead you to believe it hit the bank and then went in the water, but no one saw it hit in bounds. Does he take his next shot from where it crossed OB right after release, or does the player get the benefit of the doubt that the disc did in fact hit the bank, therefore allowing him to putt from the creeks edge. (easy circle 3 vs taking next shot back near the tee)

Depends on if the bank is OB or IB: if it's IB, benefit of doubt goes to the thrower; if it's OB, throw from last point IB.

 

[JC17393]

You can't assume anything, so you have to take it where it was last seen to be in-bounds. Sucks for the player trying to argue a closer lie, but the burden of proof is on him in that case. You have to have proof that it was in-bounds, not proof that it wasn't.

I had a similar thing happen last weekend where my drive turned over an OB creek to the other side (the side the basket was on) then it clipped a branch, stalled out and fell into the creek again. Or at least I felt it had crossed over the other side before it went to its final landing place in the creek. But no one else saw it that way and from the tee area it was very difficult to see that far edge of the creek. So I marked on the tee side of the creek and played on with no complaint.

Had we used a spotter, I might have gotten the benefit of the doubt because closer eyes would have seen for sure. Which is just another lesson in the utility of sending out a spotter. There's rarely a downside to having someone spot.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Depends on if the bank is OB or IB: if it's IB, benefit of doubt goes to the thrower; if it's OB, throw from last point IB.

Disagree.

You can't assume anything, so you have to take it where it was last seen to be in-bounds. Sucks for the player trying to argue a closer lie, but the burden of proof is on him in that case. You have to have proof that it was in-bounds, not proof that it wasn't.

Agreed.

Have to play it from where it was last seen inbounds, not where it theoretically could have landed based on the flight after you lose sight of it.

 

[peabody]

You are playing over a pond/lake and the trees are hanging way out over the water and your disc travels over the water , hits the tree limb and falls straight down into the water. The bank is in bounds. Is this disc in bounds because it hit something that was attached to the IB bank? Or is it OB because it never crossed the vertical plane of the Inbounds bank?:

 

[Smigles]

OB cause it was never over safe ground.

 

[peabody]

So if it goes in a foot or so over the ponds edge and hits a limb and falls back into the water you can mark the next shot (3) on the bank where it approx. went out?

 

[JC17393]

So if it goes in a foot or so over the ponds edge and hits a limb and falls back into the water you can mark the next shot (3) on the bank where it approx. went out?

You mark where it last crossed the line from in-bounds to out-of-bounds, tree hit or not. Where the tree is rooted is irrelevant. It only matters whether the point of contact between the disc and the tree is over an in-bounds area or an out-of-bounds area. If the point of contact is over OB, then it is also OB.

 

[GT Chris]

The flight of the disc would lead you to believe it hit the bank and then went in the water, but no one saw it hit in bounds. Does he take his next shot from where it crossed OB right after release, or does the player get the benefit of the doubt that the disc did in fact hit the bank, therefore allowing him to putt from the creeks edge. (easy circle 3 vs taking next shot back near the tee)

I would give the player the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Timeetyo]

So if it goes in a foot or so over the ponds edge and hits a limb and falls back into the water you can mark the next shot (3) on the bank where it approx. went out?

That's correct.... Assuming you can tell it was past the ob plane which is hard to do from the tee.

 

[coupe]

You can't assume anything, so you have to take it where it was last seen to be in-bounds. Sucks for the player trying to argue a closer lie, but the burden of proof is on him in that case. You have to have proof that it was in-bounds, not proof that it wasn't.

Uh … might want to check the Rules School: Marking a Lie, specifically 803.03F:

803.03F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water.

This can sometimes be a tough call to make especially when the disc lands in moving water. The potential disagreements usually revolve around whether the disc is currently touching inbounds on the edge of the OB water or at least touched inbounds on the edge of the OB water on its own momentum or whether the water swept it over to the bank after the disc had already lost energy from the throw. The benefit of the doubt goes to the player if the group is uncertain where a disc landed in the water near the edge of OB since many times it will not be seen from a distance.

 

[Allurex]

I was sure that touching a tree like the scenario you listed does in fact count as being in-bounds on that side.

That's how I've been calling it for the last few years. Chuck?