Disc Golf Rule Nazi Stories

[zgmc]

Maybe that option shouldn't exist.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's not so much an option but how the rule is interpreted when the TD states OB that way. And that happens a lot, partly because it makes more sense to have one side of a fence always OB and the other side always IB.

 

[Steve West]

Reading about it from Mavens on DGCR is one way.

Read the QA as if it was a more generalized answer where they defined non-vertical OB surfaces for the first time but only gave the flexible fence as an example.

Or, realize that they didn't use the more generalized answer because it conflicted with the other rules, so they changed it to the final version which does not.

If the Q&A had been about a disc staying IB because it pushed the fence out, then I would agree with your interpretation. However, it doesn't. It addresses a disc that stays out of bounds because it stays over the projection of the fence onto the ground. It's point is only that as the projection of the fence moves, so does the OB line.

If they had answered a question about a disc staying IB because it pushes the fence out, they would have had to contrive some way to say the fence didn't break the warped plane of the front edge of the fence. They couldn't do that without conflicting with an existing rule, so they left that part out.

However, your brain is stuck with that image of the warped plane from the older, unpublished, (therefore non-applicable) more general answer.

Try clearing your mind and reading the rule again to see if the Q&A - as it is written - CAN be consistent with a vertical OB plane. You will find that it can. If it can, then there is no need to create this warped interpretation of yours. (See what I did there? Ha Ha.)

If there is no need to create an interpretation that is inconsistent with an existing written rule, then that interpretation should not be created. Even by a maven. No, especially by a maven.

 

[trumbulldore]

I played in a tournament in which a "rule nazi" was trying to tell us how to play AKA cheat...Didn't go over well..I will admit I hate when people abuse the rule on putting in which you have to stay behind the lie 30ft. and in....

 

[Cgkdisc]

From QA10: "...the fence is considered to be a continuous impenetrable surface."
QA10 is currently the only place in the rules where the RC introduces the generalized term "continuous impenetrable surface" as a structure that can define the OB boundary. The flexible fence just a subset of the family of continuous impenetrable surfaces that's specifically being discussed in QA10.

Notice the phrase does not include the word "vertical" meaning it could slant and wiggle in many directions. Breaking it down further, we have "continuous impenetrable" in theory meaning unbroken and "surface" which could have all kinds of shapes, bumps, ridges and contours. As stated before, it's not the most obvious place to introduce this surface OB boundary concept, but that's where it is for now.

 

[jjpitt29]

I played in a tournament in which a "rule nazi" was trying to tell us how to play AKA cheat...Didn't go over well..I will admit I hate when people abuse the rule on putting in which you have to stay behind the lie 30ft. and in....

Just curious, how do you abuse that rule? Also it's 10 meters (roughly 33 feet.

 

[Steve West]

From QA10: "...the fence is considered to be a continuous impenetrable surface."
QA10 is currently the only place in the rules where the RC introduces the generalized term "continuous impenetrable surface" as a structure that can define the OB boundary. The flexible fence just a subset of the family of continuous impenetrable surfaces that's specifically being discussed in QA10.

Notice the phrase does not include the word "vertical" meaning it could slant and wiggle in many directions. Breaking it down further, we have "continuous impenetrable" in theory meaning unbroken and "surface" which could have As stated before, it's not the most obvious place to introduce this surface OB boundary concept, but that's where it is for now.

No, the surface OB concept is not in there. Maybe it was going to be at some point, but it isn't.

The lack of the word "vertical" is a valid point. However, it is a far cry from only partially quoting a rule to creating a completely new and unwritten definition of plane which goes against an existing rule. Note is also does not say "non-vertical plane" or "other than vertical plane" or "warped plane". Nor are the words "all kinds of shapes, bumps, ridges and contours" in there.

The Q&A introduces the term "impenetrable surface" to deal with the second part of the question: "or perhaps by having slightly penetrated a hole in the fence?"

The second sentence in the answer is: "Unless the disc has penetrated and remained lodged within the fence, the fence is considered to be a continuous impenetrable surface."

That sentence only says to assume the disc didn't poke partway through the fence and come back.

There is nothing in that sentence that does anything to prevent using the definition of the edge of OB as a vertical plane. It says THE FENCE is an impenetrable surface. It does not say the edge of OB is an impenetrable surface. It does not say the edge of the OB is the fence. It does not make any connection between considering the fence to be impenetrable and whether the edge of OB follows the contours of the fence at different hieghts.

I agree that a continuous impenetrable surface can be a structure that can define the OB boundary. It defines it by being the OB line which determines the vertical plane. (Insert "Duh!" here, but only if that would not be considered offensive.)

This interpretation is compatible with both the rules and the Q&A. It allows for the answer to the question to be "No" without changing the rules. Why look for any other?

The first sentence is only trying to make the point that the OB line can move. It says: "The fence defines an OB plane which flexes as the fence flexes." That means that when the outermost part of the fence flexes, the vertical plane follows it. It does not say anything which prevents the OB plane from always being vertical. It does not say anything which prevents the playing surface under all parts of the fence from being OB. It does not say anything which allows any part of the playing surface below the fence to be IB. In the absence of an explicit amendment, isn't it more prudent to assume a rule has not been changed?

"The fence defines an OB plane" is not the same as "the fence is the edge of OB even if it is not a plane".

There is simply nothing in this Q&A about an OB area that has anything other than a vertical edge. Nor does there need to be.

Maybe there was some definition of a warped plane in some previous version, but if so, it was taken out. We can't go by what we remember about woulda coulda shoulda drafts of rules that were never published.

 

[Cgkdisc]

All I can say is check with the RC. I agree the interpretation from a words standpoint is hard to glean. But it provides the support for what had been a longtime issue in many places with fences not being vertical, broken or uniform surfaced including the hockey walls at Acorn and especially snow fences when this issue first surfaced in the early 90s even before the chainllink flex loophole was addressed.

You can try to argue with TD that a disc supported above the ground on one side of a leaning fence but suspended completely over the ground on the other side is whatever status IB/OB that other side of the fence is. But you'll lose the argument IF the TD simply said the "fence" was the OB line. If they stated the bottom of the fence by the playing surface defined the line, then you would be correct.

 

[geoblime]

Chuck, what was the reasoning behind making the OB line actually be out of bounds? Seems to me numerous situations could be resolved by having the line be in bounds and the area leading up to the line be out.

 

[krupicka]

The reason the OB line is out of bounds is so that when a disc coming from OB hits an OB fence, that location cannot be used as the last place in bounds.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One of the other reasons is that sometimes objects used to define the OB line like brick walls can be very wide. If the 3-meter wide fence was IB, it might be hard to mark and take a stance up to 3 meters inbounds from OB.

 

[WhiteyBear]

Chuck, can the rules committee PLEASE remove the phrase in the rulebook where media cannot be used to determine official calls?

If players want to take multiple views of an "OB" lie, that is VERY helpful to a TD. At least make it a TD discretion call?!?!?

 

[jjpitt29]

Chuck, can the rules committee PLEASE remove the phrase in the rulebook where media cannot be used to determine official calls?

If players want to take multiple views of an "OB" lie, that is VERY helpful to a TD. At least make it a TD discretion call?!?!?

This is a great idea for the time we live in. Being able to take pictures of questionable calls like this would really eliminate some fighting and the whole who said what type of thing.

 

[BlueBells]

One thing that I noticed over the weekend watching videos of the GCC was the Hangman's hole (or whatever it's called exactly) had a different interpretation of the rules than specified in the rulebook. On the tee-sign it notes that because the target is raised, if a disc manages to land on top of the basket it is over 2 meters and the two-meter rule is in enforced.

But the rulebook states specifically that a disc lying at rest on the target does not apply to the 2-meter rule even if the target extends above 2 meters. Sauce: http://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/806-discretionary-rules/80601-two-meter-rule (Part C)

Was the rule actually played that way? I know some objects are subject to direct implementation of the 2-meter rule (part E of the same section) but this seems to directly go against what's outlined in the rulebook...and this is a fairly major event. Seems like it's just a problem waiting to happen.

 

[JC17393]

Chuck, can the rules committee PLEASE remove the phrase in the rulebook where media cannot be used to determine official calls?

If players want to take multiple views of an "OB" lie, that is VERY helpful to a TD. At least make it a TD discretion call?!?!?

Put it directly to the Rules Committee. No reason to go through a conduit. The more people who approach the committee, the more apt they are to change things. I'm quite certain that many of the changes over the last 10-15 years have grown out of people contacting the committee for clarifications and interpretations. The areas of the book that get the most attention in the form of questions from players are the areas that are most likely to be addressed by the committee.

 

[araytx]

QA 10 is only about fences used as OB lines. That's the subject of the QA.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Chuck, can the rules committee PLEASE remove the phrase in the rulebook where media cannot be used to determine official calls? If players want to take multiple views of an "OB" lie, that is VERY helpful to a TD. At least make it a TD discretion call?!?!?

I'm pretty sure you'll see this change in the next Rules update. About three years ago I led the charge to have the media QA describe how media could be used to support calls but was shot down by the Board at that time based on "fairness" that not everyone could have someone shooting video of their group or have a camera along, etc.

I get the impression with Board turnover that the RC, who was always in favor of allowing media, has a real good chance to get Board approval the next time up to bat on this.

 

[Discette]

Rules Nazi Exposed on DGCR!!

I was lucky enough to finally make it back to the Wintertime Open in California last weekend after a 2 year hiatus. This is one of my favorite tournaments to play and it's not for the swag or payouts (basically nothing because of course fees) its because the course is so challenging.

The one major negative on this event (which is the only southern california event I have ever played in since I don't live in the area) is the Rule Nazi's. I have play tournaments overt he last 7 years in over 10 states and nothing even comes close to what I have experienced in SoCal... and the craziest things, it's in the recreational division. I have heard that they don't have that problem in the pro or higher divisions just the lower divisions.

I am all for following the rules, after all it is a sanctioned event and we all payed good money to compete. The issue I have is with the over using and stretching of the rules to try to penalize a player who is playing good.

So in light of this happening to me once again at this amazing tournament I wanted to see if other people had similar experiences at other events around the country.

I thought I would bring this thread back to life....since this thread is ultimately how it was discovered that Jeff Harrishabitat had two PDGA numbers.


I like to debate rules from time to time on here. It is fun to get into it with Chuck and the guys. So, Chuck and I get into a lively jousting match with Harrishabitat, who was being a total lawyer troll, on another thread. Apparently during the raucous joust, a chance glance with my lance dealt a fatal blow and the troll was mortally wounded. However, he did not die right away and attempted a not-so-valiant volley of insults before eventually begging for mercy from the gathering crowd.


I recognized he was calling me out in this thread OP, because I played all three rounds on Jeff's card at the Wintertime Open and I was involved in most of the calls made. I made a few posts here about it and then never thought about any of it again.


Fast forward a few months: Harrishabitat was giving me and Chuck crap for decisions we made as TD's on another thread. He was being very unreasonable with his black and white interpretation of the rules. And I am thinking, wait, you told me at Wintertime Open you were a TD. So I looked him up and he was not current, but he had a 60K PDGA number. So I am thinking, how can you have been a TD years ago and former official if your number is 60K? Then I remembered he also bragged to everyone in the group that he had played Wintertime Open several times before. So, I went to past results and the only Jeff Harris that played in the past had that other number.... so I posted the other PDGA number on my reply to Mr Lawyer Troll in the "How Many People is Too Many" thread here:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2417518&postcount=154


Within minutes, I got private messages from other users that discovered the 913 player rating, that 34207 used a harrishabitat@email and that 34207 was suspended. The only thing I did was look at past WO results and post the number. The in-depth sleuthing was done by others.

The worst part is he tried to deny that he had two numbers at first. Eventually he realized there was too much evidence against him and admitted it. Please note the first sentence of this OP even says he was back at WO after a two year hiatus. He also boasts in the OP that he has played for 7 years in 10 states (I just noticed that!!).

Funny thing is, if he would have just gone home after his victory at the Wintertime Open and NOT started this thread...in which I recognized I was talked about in the OP......he could still be carrying on a double PDGA life and getting into more unreasonable rules discussions on DGCR.

I wasn't trying to be personal. Again, I only mentioned it because I wondered why he was being so hard on ME as a TD, when he told me he was also a TD.

All hail the Troll Killer.

 

[rwe366]

My first tourney I was nervous and on the last hole note I was leading by 3 strokes. I pick out a disc and then I toss my disc less than 1 ft to my bag he says he has to stroke me. I would still win the tourney, but I think that was just a little too picky for a REC player.

 

[MC McMic]

I agree that I have rarely seen such pathetic backtracking and obvious guilt before, and I'm not even sure I understand all of what is going on in that thread.

The initial responses attacking his accuser (you, Discette), followed by feigned ignorance after the evidence started to pile up, followed by a lame attempt to "turn himself in" or "get to the bottom of it", followed feigned ignorance of the rules (from someone who claims to know everything about the rules) looks really terrible (and terribly entertaining).

On the other hand, don't go bragging about it.