804.04 question

[peabody]

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?

Yea, that is how a lot of guys I play disc golf with call it. I really think that the vertical plane, like a curtain up from the waters edge, is the right call and the benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower. "Could you guys tell if my disc made it over the edge of the bank?" "NOPE",,,,,"Well then it did and my next shot is from over there!"

 

[JC17393]

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

So I'm supposed to check an outdated article quoting an outdated rule book that in no way is considered an official interpretation (yes, even published on the PDGA website, it is not considered official)? Oookay.

Sorry, still not buying that that is even applicable in this case. You have to see it hit the bank to say that it did.

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?

Look at this graphic...

The green is a tree with branches hanging over the water, red representing the flight path of the disc from tee to resting in the OB area (blue). If the player is taking the option of playing where the disc was last in-bounds, where should the player take his next shot, at point A or point B?

The correct answer is A. Without exception. Striking the tree at a point over the OB area does not constitute hitting an in-bounds point on the other side.

 

[ru4por]

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.

Hmmmm...does not seem like special conditions. If an island green is used, the disc would go out of bound on the way to the front of the island, back in bounds over the island. If the disc hits inbounds or even crosses inbounds, then back out of bounds at the back of the island, why would the mark not be at the back of the island? Maybe special TD consideration could be regarding the exception to this, in the form of re-tee or drop zone. Is there some consideration to island greens given in the rules?

 

[JC17393]

Hmmmm...does not seem like special conditions. If an island green is used, the disc would go out of bound on the way to the front of the island, back in bounds over the island. If the disc hits inbounds or even crosses inbounds, then back out of bounds at the back of the island, why would the mark not be at the back of the island? Maybe special TD consideration could be regarding the exception to this, in the form of re-tee or drop zone. Is there some consideration to island greens given in the rules?

Nothing in the rules about island greens. There is really nothing in the rules about any specific situation or type of OB area. There are only the rules governing how to play if a disc lands in an OB area. So something related to a specific type of OB area is always going to be considered a special condition.

The special condition Chuck is referring to is a course/event specific rule regarding "island greens". That special rule is that the disc must come to rest on the island in-bounds in order to have been deemed to have "crossed" the island at all. This special condition originated, like a lot of special conditions and alternative interpretations, at the USDGC and has perpetuated in a copycat fashion since then.

The intent is to not give players the benefit of marking on the island just for passing over/through it in flight. Usually, the result of going OB when approaching such an island is a required drop zone which renders the flight path of the disc irrelevant anyway. But in the case where there is not a drop zone, the "island green" special condition can be invoked for the same result.

To me, the unfortunate side effect of the copycat rule/condition is that people mistakenly think that there really is a rule about "island greens" and that by simply invoking "island green rules" everyone understands what it means. It has to be spelled out in detail for each event/course that uses it just as any other special condition would be.

 

[Steve West]

Hmmmm...does not seem like special conditions. If an island green is used, the disc would go out of bound on the way to the front of the island, back in bounds over the island. If the disc hits inbounds or even crosses inbounds, then back out of bounds at the back of the island, why would the mark not be at the back of the island? Maybe special TD consideration could be regarding the exception to this, in the form of re-tee or drop zone. Is there some consideration to island greens given in the rules?

You're right, the regular rule is that you can throw from last IB. The "special" part is that if it doesn't touch the island you must use the drop zone.

So I'm supposed to check an outdated article quoting an outdated rule book that in no way is considered an official interpretation (yes, even published on the PDGA website, it is not considered official)? Oookay.

Sorry, still not buying that that is even applicable in this case. You have to see it hit the bank to say that it did.

This is official:

805.01 Appeals
A. When a group cannot reach a decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower.

Striking the tree at a point over the OB area does not constitute hitting an in-bounds point on the other side.

Correct.

800.02 Definitions
Out of Bounds …The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward.

 

[JC17393]

This is official:

805.01 Appeals
A. When a group cannot reach a decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower.

And also not applicable if no one in the group saw something that one player is assuming happened. One player arguing for something is not the group being unable to reach a decision. It's one player being out-voted.

Just another reason that I've always disliked the option of marking at the "last in-bounds" point on an OB shot. It's guesswork 99% of the time. I'd rather go with the cut-and-dried previous lie or drop zone on OB shots. They've simplified to that result with lost discs and missed mandatories. Can't see why we couldn't also go that way with OB.

And before everyone gets up in arms about how punitive it would be to force stroke and distance, I think the more likely result would be a whole lot less OB areas on a course (or more drop zones provided). Certainly a reduction in "artificial" roped-off OB areas at the very least. Maybe a rise in the hazard areas as utilized at the 2013 USDGC (play it where it lies with a stroke penalty).

 

[GT Chris]

And also not applicable if no one in the group saw something that one player is assuming happened. One player arguing for something is not the group being unable to reach a decision. It's one player being out-voted.

Just another reason that I've always disliked the option of marking at the "last in-bounds" point on an OB shot. It's guesswork 99% of the time. I'd rather go with the cut-and-dried previous lie or drop zone on OB shots. They've simplified to that result with lost discs and missed mandatories. Can't see why we couldn't also go that way with OB.

And before everyone gets up in arms about how punitive it would be to force stroke and distance, I think the more likely result would be a whole lot less OB areas on a course (or more drop zones provided). Certainly a reduction in "artificial" roped-off OB areas at the very least. Maybe a rise in the hazard areas as utilized at the 2013 USDGC (play it where it lies with a stroke penalty).

Personally, I have never seen a case as you describe, where one player seems to have seen something completely different than the rest of the card.

The OP (or rather, the 9th post) addresses a situation where, based on the visible parts of the flight and the topography around where the disc landed, it is reasonable to believe that the disc crossed in-bounds at the end of it's flight. In that case, the player may mark the lie farther up the fairway.

 

[JC17393]

Personally, I have never seen a case as you describe, where one player seems to have seen something completely different than the rest of the card.

The OP (or rather, the 9th post) addresses a situation where, based on the visible parts of the flight and the topography around where the disc landed, it is reasonable to believe that the disc crossed in-bounds at the end of it's flight. In that case, the player may mark the lie farther up the fairway.

The way I'm reading the original situation, the thrower basically told his group that he hit in-bounds and to "prove he didn't".

...

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?

I take that to mean he felt he hit in-bounds despite what the rest of the group saw/didn't see or may have thought about the flight of his disc. In that case, he's not getting "benefit of the doubt", he's convincing his group of his point of view. If he can convince them, good for him. But if he can't convince anyone else that it hit in-bounds, then he gets no benefit of the doubt. Group decision rules.

My point is to not let people misconstrue what "benefit of the doubt" means in the rule book. It isn't about putting the burden of proof on the other players to overrule what the thrower thinks happened. It is a tiebreaker for cases where there is no group majority on a ruling. But if there is no tie in the decision making, he doesn't get any benefit.

I had a similar situation come up last week as I mentioned earlier in the thread. I was the only one in the group who thought that there was even a chance my disc crossed over in-bounds further up the fairway and on the basket side of the creek. I didn't get to mark where I thought it went out because "benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower". I had to mark further back where the rest of my group felt it was last in-bounds.

 

[Steve West]

My point is to not let people misconstrue what "benefit of the doubt" means in the rule book. It isn't about putting the burden of proof on the other players to overrule what the thrower thinks happened. It is a tiebreaker for cases where there is no group majority on a ruling. But if there is no tie in the decision making, he doesn't get any benefit.

The phrase is "when a group cannot reach a decision" not "when there is a tie vote".

If I read it right, this wasn't a case of 3 votes for "it was never in" to 1 vote for "I think it was". It was 4 four abstentions of "didn't see it but seems reasonable". That's another kind of non-decision; one which does not involve a tie. Thrower gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[coupe]

So I'm supposed to check an outdated article quoting an outdated rule book that in no way is considered an official interpretation (yes, even published on the PDGA website, it is not considered official)? Oookay.

Unless and until the PDGA Rules Committee either disavows or revises the interpretation in the Rules School article (which is entirely consistent with the RC's principle that in the absence of compelling evidence that a violation has occurred, the presumption for purposes of rules application is that no violation has occurred), the interpretation in the article continues to be the precedent by which the matter is to be adjudicated.

Rules Q&A 14 and 34 are particularly relevant to the presenting issue, in that both specifically address situations where the finish of a disc's flight is not visible to the thrower's group, and articulate the principle to be used to determine how to proceed in analogous situations.

QA 14: Lost or OB?

Q: My throw was headed toward an OB lake when it went out of sight, and we never found it. Do I play it as lost, or as OB?

A: If your group agrees that there is compelling evidence that the disc went into the OB lake, then you assume that that is what happened, and play it as OB. If there is uncertainty about whether it went in the lake, then you play it as lost. Applicable Rules: 804.04 Out-of-Bounds.

So, absent of "compelling evidence" that the disc went into the lake, the presumption is that it did not.

QA 34: Putts not Entering the Target Properly

Q: Everyone in my group watched my soft putter push thru the side of the basket and land completely inside of it, not wedged at all. They said the putt was no good. Are they right?

A: Starting with the 2011 rules, throws that are observed by the group or an official to enter the target by wedging through the tray or by dropping through the top of the chain support will not be considered good, even if they come to rest in the basket or chains. If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the benefit of the doubt is given to the player. [emphasis mine] Applicable Rules: 802.05 Holing Out.

So, absent observation that the disc did not enter the target legally, the presumption is that it did enter the target legally.

The operative principle in both these interpretations (and in the Rules School article) is that certainty, either in the form of "compelling evidence" in the case of QA14 or observation in the case of QA34) that a violation has occurred is required to penalize the thrower: that is, the RC assigns the burden of proof to showing that a violation HAS occurred, not that a violation has not occurred. If there is uncertainty that a violation occurred, benefit of doubt is granted to the thrower.

Logical extension of this principle (801.01.A) to the question in the presenting scenario, "Did the disc touch IB before coming to rest OB?" places the burden of proof squarely on the claim that the disc did NOT touch in bounds. In other words, the requirement is not to prove that the disc didn't touch in bounds, rather than to prove that it did.

Assuming the bank is in bounds (a reasonable inference, given that the OP's statement that "the flight of the disc would leave you to belive that it hit the bank and then went in the water" would be unnecessary and irrelevant if the bank were OB), the argument that the disc did not touch IB rests entirely on: (a) the fact that it was not observed to touch IB; and (b) fact that it came to rest OB, neither of which rise to the level of "compelling evidence."

(B) may be disposed of by reference to the reasonably common experience of seeing a disc land on an inclined surface and skip or roll away: sometimes quite a distance away (see Paul McBeth's drive on the final hole of the European Masters).

Against (a) is the non-thrower's statement that "the flight of the disc would leave you to believe that it hit the bank and then went in the water." While not conclusive or compelling evidence that it did hit the bank, it provides sufficient warrant for conceding that it may have done so.

Consequently, the absence of "compelling evidence" that the disc did not hit the bank, coupled with the affirmation that the flight of the disc would lead one to believe that it did, provide sufficient ground for proceeding on the assumption that the disc did hit the bank.

 

[Timeetyo]

The way I'm reading the original situation, the thrower basically told his group that he hit in-bounds and to "prove he didn't".



I take that to mean he felt he hit in-bounds despite what the rest of the group saw/didn't see or may have thought about the flight of his disc. In that case, he's not getting "benefit of the doubt", he's convincing his group of his point of view. If he can convince them, good for him. But if he can't convince anyone else that it hit in-bounds, then he gets no benefit of the doubt. Group decision rules.

My point is to not let people misconstrue what "benefit of the doubt" means in the rule book. It isn't about putting the burden of proof on the other players to overrule what the thrower thinks happened. It is a tiebreaker for cases where there is no group majority on a ruling. But if there is no tie in the decision making, he doesn't get any benefit.

I had a similar situation come up last week as I mentioned earlier in the thread. I was the only one in the group who thought that there was even a chance my disc crossed over in-bounds further up the fairway and on the basket side of the creek. I didn't get to mark where I thought it went out because "benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower". I had to mark further back where the rest of my group felt it was last in-bounds.

I do agree with your interpretation - my question is - what if you aren't sure - it just looks too close to call from your angle?

Lets say for the sake of argument:
- Thrower says it went over IB before back OB
- Other player 1 says it never made IB
- Other player 2 wasn't paying attention :doh:
- You watched (and are deciding vote) and honestly are not sure given the crappy angle.

In this case - do you give the benefit of doubt?

 

[JC17393]

I think you've got the principle of compelling evidence backwards here. In the OB vs Lost example in particular, the compelling evidence is required for the player to gain the benefit of marking where the disc went out versus having to re-throw from the previous lie. If the disc isn't seen to have entered the OB, it can't be assumed to have gone into it. Hence, absent of that evidence, the default is that it is lost and the player must re-throw from the previous lie.

So by comparison to the OP's situation, in the absence of compelling evidence (guesswork is not, IMO, "compelling evidence") that the disc struck or flew over an in-bounds area out of sight of the group, the default assumption has to be that it did not do so. The only compelling evidence the group has in this case is where the disc was last seen to cross from in-bounds to out-of-bounds, so IMO the player should be marking there.

 

[JC17393]

I do agree with your interpretation - my question is - what if you aren't sure - it just looks too close to call from your angle?

Lets say for the sake of argument:
- Thrower says it went over IB before back OB
- Other player 1 says it never made IB
- Other player 2 wasn't paying attention :doh:
- You watched (and are deciding vote) and honestly are not sure given the crappy angle.

In this case - do you give the benefit of doubt?

If I'm not sure, I'm probably leaning toward no, it was never IB. My previous post would be my reasoning. If I can't be sure of what happened, I feel I have to assume that it didn't. But if I feel that way and I'm out-voted, so be it.

 

[araytx]

The operative principle in both these interpretations (and in the Rules School article) is that certainty, either in the form of "compelling evidence" in the case of QA14 or observation in the case of QA34) that a violation has occurred is required to penalize the thrower: that is, the RC assigns the burden of proof to showing that a violation HAS occurred, not that a violation has not occurred. If there is uncertainty that a violation occurred, benefit of doubt is granted to the thrower.

Logical extension of this principle (801.01.A) to the question in the presenting scenario, "Did the disc touch IB before coming to rest OB?" places the burden of proof squarely on the claim that the disc did NOT touch in bounds. In other words, the requirement is not to prove that the disc didn't touch in bounds, rather than to prove that it did.

Assuming the bank is in bounds (a reasonable inference, given that the OP's statement that "the flight of the disc would leave you to belive that it hit the bank and then went in the water" would be unnecessary and irrelevant if the bank were OB), the argument that the disc did not touch IB rests entirely on: (a) the fact that it was not observed to touch IB; and (b) fact that it came to rest OB, neither of which rise to the level of "compelling evidence."

(B) may be disposed of by reference to the reasonably common experience of seeing a disc land on an inclined surface and skip or roll away: sometimes quite a distance away (see Paul McBeth's drive on the final hole of the European Masters).

Against (a) is the non-thrower's statement that "the flight of the disc would leave you to believe that it hit the bank and then went in the water." While not conclusive or compelling evidence that it did hit the bank, it provides sufficient warrant for conceding that it may have done so.

Consequently, the absence of "compelling evidence" that the disc did not hit the bank, coupled with the affirmation that the flight of the disc would lead one to believe that it did, provide sufficient ground for proceeding on the assumption that the disc did hit the bank.

Coupe, I do think you've got it wrong, about the absence of compelling evidence. What's the same in BOTH cases (the one in QA14 and the one in QA34) is that absent compelling evidence, the ruling is WHERE IT LIES, not "what you think happened" nor even, "compelling evidence is needed to penalize the thrower." On the wedgie putt, if no one sees it definitively enter the target wrong, then the default is WHERE IT LIES (in that case, holed out). On the disc headed "toward" the OB lake when it disappears from sight, then the default is WHERE IT LIES (not found, or lost, in that case).

So on the OP's case you cannot rule that shot to have crossed inbounds way up close to the bank without the group deciding that there is compelling evidence that it did hit the bank. I agree that the player is also wrong to say the group has to "prove it didn't." The default is where it lies.

I think you've got the principle of compelling evidence backwards here. In the OB vs Lost example in particular, the compelling evidence is required for the player to gain the benefit of marking where the disc went out versus having to re-throw from the previous lie. If the disc isn't seen to have entered the OB, it can't be assumed to have gone into it. Hence, absent of that evidence, the default is that it is lost and the player must re-throw from the previous lie.

So by comparison to the OP's situation, in the absence of compelling evidence (guesswork is not, IMO, "compelling evidence") that the disc struck or flew over an in-bounds area out of sight of the group, the default assumption has to be that it did not do so. The only compelling evidence the group has in this case is where the disc was last seen to cross from in-bounds to out-of-bounds, so IMO the player should be marking there.

Absolutely.

 

[peabody]

The only compelling evidence the group has in this case is where the disc was last seen to cross from in-bounds to out-of-bounds, so IMO the player should be marking there.

This sounds correct to me.

 

[Dan Ensor]

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?

 

[jeverett]

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?

Imo, the best way to think of it is "lost lie" rather than "lost disc". If your lie can be established (e.g. either where the disc actually came to rest, or where it crossed over the vertical OB plane), even if your disc is not recoverable/found, you still may play from your established lie (generally with the 1-throw penalty for going OB). It sounds like in this case, however, your lie cannot be determined, as the hole is blind. Thus your only option is to re-throw (with penalty).

 

[coupe]

Coupe, I do think you've got it wrong, about the absence of compelling evidence. What's the same in BOTH cases (the one in QA14 and the one in QA34) is that absent compelling evidence, the ruling is WHERE IT LIES, not "what you think happened" nor even, "compelling evidence is needed to penalize the thrower." On the wedgie putt, if no one sees it definitively enter the target wrong, then the default is WHERE IT LIES (in that case, holed out). On the disc headed "toward" the OB lake when it disappears from sight, then the default is WHERE IT LIES (not found, or lost, in that case).

So on the OP's case you cannot rule that shot to have crossed inbounds way up close to the bank without the group deciding that there is compelling evidence that it did hit the bank. I agree that the player is also wrong to say the group has to "prove it didn't." The default is where it lies.

Absolutely.

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.

 

[JC17393]

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.

The Rules School articles are not official interpretations, even if they are written in consultation with the RC or reviewed by them. And they certainly aren't official if they're written based off of one edition of the rule book and not updated to reflect newer incarnations of the book.

The Rules School articles have been known to posit interpretations entirely unsupported by the rule book (including inventing terms out of thin air), to the point that they had to be revised/edited to exclude those allegedly reviewed and approved interpretations. So I will continue to take anything in the Rules School articles with a gigantic grain of salt and not view them as official in any way. In much the same way that the Q&A that appeared on the PDGA.com site for years were not considered official interpretations of the rules until they were printed in the book itself.

 

[JC17393]

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 rule book requires "reasonable evidence" that the disc is OB for it to be considered out of bounds. Reasonable evidence would be either finding the disc in the OB area or seeing it enter the OB area in a way that would make it impossible for it to escape or retrieve (e.g. seeing it go into the water and sink).

804.04 Out of Bounds
C. A disc that cannot be found is considered to be out-of bounds if there is reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within an out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc is considered lost and play proceeds according to rule 804.05.

QA 14: Lost or OB?
Q: My throw was headed toward an OB lake when it went out of sight, and we never found it. Do I play it as lost, or as OB?
A: If your group agrees that there is compelling evidence that the disc went into the OB lake, then you assume that that is what happened, and play it as OB. If there is uncertainty about whether it went in the lake, then you play it as lost. Applicable Rules: 804.04 Out-of-Bounds.

Thinking the disc is "most likely" in the water isn't evidence that it is in fact in the water. The group made the correct ruling.