Disc On or Under Bridge?

[c_a_miller]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoCyiDiJJdE

Here is a video about someone shooting under a bridge that is dry, so I am guessing if you can take a legal stance then you play where is lies.

The tee is about 200' to the right of the frame.

 

[the_pwnerator]

I play OB as it was intended. If there is normally water there, I will take OB. It only helps my game in the long run.

 

[kerplunk]

If a disc is dry under a bridge, is it considered below the playing surface, such that the player gets to play from the bridge?

If not, then what if it is on the bridge over dry land? Is the disc considered above the playing surface such that it must be relocated to the ground below the bridge? If more than 2 meters, and 2 meter rule is in effect, does it apply in this case?

If yes to the first question, then what if the disc is wet under the bridge? Still get to move it to the bridge? Penalty?

I was going to post a very similar question, good thing I searched first so I didn't get Prerubed.

By my interpretation, if the TD specified bridges as NOT a playing surface, and the 2 meter rule is in effect, a disc that comes to rest on a bridge >2 m above the ground below is relocated to under the bridge and the player is given an extra stroke. Talk about adding insult to injury, or maybe just injury to injury.

Jen, I think this is part of what you were asking in your original post. I like the way you think- you are a lawyer, correct?

 

[Greatzky]

In addition to dealing with discs typically in sidehill drain pipes and animal dens that weren't designated OB, "disc below playing surface" rule is for dealing with discs in small holes, pits or crevices where the player can't fit, get down to it or get in position to take a legal stance.

all these rules would make more sense if the PDGA would rewrite the definition of "Playing Surface" in the current manual.
The current definition is this: "A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken."
The wording of this definition requires that a surface has to meet both criteria to be a playing surface. It must: A) be capable of supporting a player, and B) the player must be able to take a reasonable stance.
That puts many many lies/surfaces out of the realm of playing surface. It also makes lots of lies/surfaces possible to be considered a playing surface, although you have already argued with me that they aren't in other posts not on here.

You said,in this thread, that a disc landing on top of a picnic table is to be played under it. By the current definition of PS the table is a playing surface and since the disc landed on that PS you can not change your PS. The PS that the disc lands on establishes the PS for your lie which you told me.

I would like to see the definition of Playing Surface changed for next year's manual so that the rules that this definition applies to can be interpreted correctly. I don't have a problem with the rules, but they are hard to enforce when the definitions for the words used in them can change the way the rules are supposed to be enforced.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Hard to know when the next rules update will be written. Normal cycle is 3 years.

 

[Greatzky]

gotcha. Who can I talk to about amending the definition for the next update at least?

Like I said I love the rules and they are sound, but the definition creates a bit of a problem/contradiction.

 

[krupicka]

There is a Rules Committee link on the PDGA contact page. Use that.