What's the ruling.....

[coupe]

Please stop perpetuating this incorrect understanding of the rules. The marker must be placed on the LOP which does exist.

Relevant rules



So at this point in time, the thrown disc is the marker disc and has established the LOP. When marking the lie under 806.06.B, the LOP has already been established by and does not change when marking with a mini marker disc.

Incorrect.

802.05.D defines the LOP as:

The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc.

Since the LOP is defined with reference to the center of the MARKER DISC, rather than the center of the thrown disc, the LOP only exists after the thrower has marked the lie.

By allowing the disc to be marked with a mini rather than requiring ONLY the thrown disc to be the marker, but NOT requiring that the mini to be centered on the LOP established by the thrown disc, but only that it be ON the LOP that would be established by the thrown disc if the thrown disc is used to mark the lie. Consequently, ANY placement that has any part of the mini touching the potential LOP of the thrown disc is permissible. Given that mini marker discs must be between 7-15 cm in diameter and the maximum diameter of an PDGA approved disc is 30 cm, a 15 cm mini may be placed with its center up to 7.5 cm left or right of the LOP of the thrown disc and still conform to 806.02, provided it also touches the front of the thrown disc. You can argue that that's not the intent of 802.05.D, but you cannot argue that it is prohibited by 802.05.D as it is currently written.

Furthemore, the intent of a rule is not always, nor necessarily, determinative for interpretation and application--nor should it be: ask Dave Dunipace, who was on the RC at the time the original practice throw rule was written and further claimed who claimed to have been the one who wrote the original rule, and who protested on the old PDGA Disc_cussion board that application of the rule governing practice throws, no matter the distance, that were made to return a disc to a player, to set aside a disc, or to retrieve a disc above 2m, were was contrary to both his and the original RC's intent in promulgating the rule.

If you think any point(s) in the above interpretation should be disallowed, you're free to lobby the RC to amend the rule or issue a Q&A disallowing it (them), but until such time as the rule is amended, the interpretation and the application following from it remain valid.

 

[Rastnav]

802.05 D In all other cases, the lie is a rectangle that is 20cm wide and 30cm deep, centered on the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker disc. The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc. The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to 802.06.

802.06 A The position of a thrown disc on the in-bounds playing surface marks the lie.

802.06 B Alternatively, the player may mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface, touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play. A mini marker disc is a small disc, not used in play, that complies with PDGA Technical Standards for mini marker discs.

The thrown disc is the marker disc for establishing line of play. Line of play is defined by by the center of the thrown disc relative to the target. You can't place a mini without first having defined line of play in reference to the thrown disc.

 

[txmxer]

They wouldn't say the marker disc is placed on the line of play if it were not already established by the thrown disc.

 

[krupicka]

Please stop perpetuating this incorrect understanding of the rules. The marker must be placed on the LOP which does exist.

Relevant rules
802.05.D ...The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to
802.06.A The position of the thrown disc on the in-bounds surface marks the lie.

So at this point in time, the thrown disc is the marker disc and has established the LOP. When marking the lie under 806.06.B, the LOP has already been established by and does not change when marking with a mini marker disc.

Incorrect.

If you think any point(s) in the above interpretation should be disallowed, you're free to lobby the RC to amend the rule or issue a Q&A disallowing it (them), but until such time as the rule is amended, the interpretation and the application following from it remain valid.

You do realize I am the chair of the RC, correct? Your interpretation is incorrect and you can be penalized for incorrectly marking your lie under 802.06.D if you do not place your mini marker on the LOP when marking your lie.

 

[Steve West]

You do realize I am the chair of the RC, correct? Your interpretation is incorrect and you can be penalized for incorrectly marking your lie under 802.06.D if you do not place your mini marker on the LOP when marking your lie.

Now krupicka has to put a dollar in the RC "pulling rank" jar.

 

[hiflyer]

Incorrect.

802.05.D defines the LOP as:



Since the LOP is defined with reference to the center of the MARKER DISC, rather than the center of the thrown disc, the LOP only exists after the thrower has marked the lie.

By your logic, you don't exist. Since existence is defined as having objective reality, and I have never met you, you do not exist.

 

[krupicka]

Now krupicka has to put a dollar in the RC "pulling rank" jar.

I do not like pulling rank. I'd rather have my comments stand on their own merits. There's a reason I don't have my position in the RC listed in my signature. A lot of the discussions in here are good for the RC to think about and possibly address. But when someone is arguing that I should lobby the RC for the position I am taking which is contrary to their own, I do think it's good for them to realize that I am part of the RC.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Coupe's just being dense.

The LOP is determined by its endpoints, namely:
1) the basket/target
2) the thrown disc

That's the LOP. It's established as soon as the thrown disc comes to a stop. Any subsequent marker must be placed on that line, adjacent to the front of the thrown disc.

 

[araytx]

The "front" of the disc is not a point; it's the entire perimeter of the thrown disc closer to the basket than the line bisecting the center of the thrown disc perpendicular to the line from the center of the basket to the center of the thrown disc.

The only requiremeds in placing a mini are that it be placed:
a) on the playing surface;
b) touching the front of the thrown disc;
c) on the line of play.

As long a the placement of the mini conforms to those three* conditions, the placement is legal for purposes of rules enforcement.

* c) is moot because, per 802.05.D the line of play does not exist until the lie is marked.

Coupe's just being dense.

The LOP is determined by its endpoints, namely:
1) the basket/target
2) the thrown disc

That's the LOP. It's established as soon as the thrown disc comes to a stop. Any subsequent marker must be placed on that line, adjacent to the front of the thrown disc.

Exactly.

Coupe has his own point in his world and is being dense about it. Of course there's a line of play. If there weren't then you could basically throw from anywhere any time you did not mark and used your thrown disc as the marker. Plus, as many have pointed out, they wouldn't have that section in the rule if it were moot.

Ditto with the "front of the discs is not a point." Huh??? or should I say DUH! Where does he get that assertion from?

That's why I've stopped discussing it with him. coupe is just dug in on his position and isn't coming off it no matter what. He seems like he's gonna choose to fight our positions or he'll chooses not to even acknowledge. Kudos to Mike Krupicka for finally pulling rank. If coupe wanted the RC's intent, then all you have to do is email those guys. I've done it many times, and they will/do respond back. No need to social media tirade it to death.

 

[peabody]

A sitting committee member has weighed in ( thanks Francis Ford Kuprika) yet the solution to this OP delima remains up in the air( or way below on some other plain).
If it's going to be up to the "group" to decide then the weakness of the rule prevails and that decision becomes pointless.
The more of the "foursome collective decision" solutions this game has , the less of a legitimate sport it becomes.
And if it is just the interpretation of the existing written rules that has us befuddled a re-write should be an easy fix.

 

[txmxer]

A sitting committee member has weighed in ( thanks Francis Ford Kuprika) yet the solution to this OP delima remains up in the air( or way below on some other plain).
If it's going to be up to the "group" to decide then the weakness of the rule prevails and that decision becomes pointless.
The more of the "foursome collective decision" solutions this game has , the less of a legitimate sport it becomes.
And if it is just the interpretation of the existing written rules that has us befuddled a re-write should be an easy fix.

With Krup's comments, we now know that the thrown disc established the LOP—it's actually stated in the rule, it just kind of slips by.

With the established LOP, it then becomes clear that a mini cannot be placed at the front of the thrown disc on the surface below. IMHO, it would be allowed to be placed BACK along the LOP should the player wish to use a mini to Mark the lie in keeping with the idea that one reason for the mini is to allow the player to reuse the thrown disc.

 

[chevis]

With Krup's comments, we now know that the thrown disc established the LOP—it's actually stated in the rule, it just kind of slips by.

With the established LOP, it then becomes clear that a mini cannot be placed at the front of the thrown disc on the surface below. IMHO, it would be allowed to be placed BACK along the LOP should the player wish to use a mini to Mark the lie in keeping with the idea that one reason for the mini is to allow the player to reuse the thrown disc.

is it clear that a mini can't be placed at the front of a disc below it?
the way i see it there are 3 options (w/o penalty):
-play it where it lies.
-mark it behind. using solid obstacle relief. 803.02B also QA
-mark in front, below the disc. using the above playing surface rule. 805.01C

to me, it still seems a bit unclear if you can mark the disc in the op since it is neither a solid obstacle nor above the playing surface. if 'touching the front of the thrown disc' in 802.06B was clarified so the front of the disc means the vertical plane of the front of the disc, then this (and other situations where the marker won't 'touch' the front of the disc) ambiguity would be resolved.

 

[Rastnav]

-mark it behind. using solid obstacle relief. 803.02B also QA
-mark in front, below the disc. using the above playing surface rule. 805.01C

The only way the solid obstacle rule would come into play in a situation where the disc was hanging over the edge (of something that was part of the playing surface) is if you were already assuming that you could mark below the front of the disc. You wouldn't have a solid obstacle in the stance unless you marked using a mini below the front of the disc.

Thus, I don't think the solid obstacle rule really helps resolve the fundamental issue. Sure, in the OP there isn't a solid obstacle behind the stance that would be afforded if you were able to place a mini, but it's essentially irrelevant to whether or not you are allowed to place the mini.

 

[txmxer]

is it clear that a mini can't be placed at the front of a disc below it?
the way i see it there are 3 options (w/o penalty):
-play it where it lies.
-mark it behind. using solid obstacle relief. 803.02B also QA
-mark in front, below the disc. using the above playing surface rule. 805.01C

to me, it still seems a bit unclear if you can mark the disc in the op since it is neither a solid obstacle nor above the playing surface. if 'touching the front of the thrown disc' in 802.06B was clarified so the front of the disc means the vertical plane of the front of the disc, then this (and other situations where the marker won't 'touch' the front of the disc) ambiguity would be resolved.

But it is not above the playing surface as it is being discussed.

I go back to the QA on the crevice example. If the marker would be in the air, move it back along the LOP.

And I think that actually should apply to the graphic examples of a disc at the edge of a step change of say 12". Disc on the upper step, you don't put the mini on the lower level. It should be placed as if the small step were a solid obstacle.—basically where the thrown disc is or maybe it's at the back of the thrown disc.

All just my opinion—I know I'm not the rule maker.

 

[Rastnav]

Perhaps beating a dead horse, but here are some real world examples of why I believe the ideas people have about "multiple surfaces" are not well grounded. It's my contention that, except when playing surfaces are in fact directly stacked on top of each other, there is only a single playing surface.

If you are hanging your hat on the idea that the disc in the OP can't be marked below due to the thought in your mind that the ground below the mark constitutes a separate playing surface from the one the disc is on, I believe it's based on an arbitrary distinction of what constitutes separate playing surfaces.

Let's take example #1 (taken at Hole #7 B position, Valley Springs Disc Golf Course). The rock the putter is on is less tall than the height of my disc bag. Do you believe you can use the putter as a marker and take a stance behind it on the ground vertically below its back edge?

Example #2 (taken at Hole #6 at Valley Springs). What if your putter ended up on the rock in this position, hanging from a rock some 40" above the ground? Would you be able to take a stance behind it, vertically below the trailing edge, on the ground?:

The idea that any mere vertical height differences somehow create distinct playing surfaces just doesn't seem to make sense, nor does it seem to be rooted in anything in the rule book. Can you honestly tell me that if someone played from behind the first lie, that you would believe a rules violation had occurred? If not, why would you think a violation had occurred in the second instance? If no violation occurs in the second instance, does it really matter how tall the rock is? Why wouldn't the area on the rock and the ground below the rock constitute a single playing surface?

So, from the standpoint of the OP, the big thing to consider is the rules about how minis can be placed (and again, I don't think those are written in a manner consistent with how everyone plays the game).

Some rule change or clarification could potentially address the idea that if any part of a disc is on one of two or more stacked surfaces, that the only valid placement of a mini is on that same surface, but then you run into the issue that in example #2, you actually do have a sliver of a two stacked surfaces, where the rock overhangs the ground below it. The top of the rock is only a stacked surface where it overhangs the ground, which is quite a small area, and neither the front nor the rear of the disc is actually on the surfaces that are actually stacked.

I think unless you want things to get very convoluted, you rewrite the rules on placing minis to specify that the playing surface below the front edge (on the LOP) of the disc is where the mini goes and accept that in the very rare instance that a disc ends up where the OPs did, they get to mark below it (unless the TD has specifically designated something about discs ending up hanging on the rock above the basket).

 

[Rastnav]

Hmmm, not sure why my example pictures seem to have disappeared. But let's try again:

Example #1:

 

[Rastnav]

Example #2:

 

[Cgkdisc]

Let's take example #1 (taken at Hole #7 B position, Valley Springs Disc Golf Course). The rock the putter is on is less tall than the height of my disc bag. Do you believe you can use the putter as a marker and take a stance behind it on the ground vertically below its back edge?

Yes.

Example #2 (taken at Hole #6 at Valley Springs). What if your putter ended up on the rock in this position, hanging from a rock some 40" above the ground? Would you be able to take a stance behind it, vertically below the trailing edge, on the ground?

I would accept either placing a mini on the rock in front of the putter and placing my hand behind it as my supporting point to toss in the putt OR just step up behind the disc on LOP and putting out.

 

[Chains Bailey]

I know I keep harping on this, but I've yet to see someone grapple with what I am saying. I would really like people to think through this. People may not immediately see how this pertains to the OP, but I believe it very much does.

Consider the following 3 scenarios for a disc that comes to rest against the base of a rock, piece of concrete, or other solid surface on which a stance could be taken. Which of the 3 spots, A, B and C, can you legally take a stance within your lie (Note at this point I'm not asking any questions about mini placement)?

All three are legal stances, regardless of the height difference. Could be 1" or 100' and all would be legal stances.

I have not read anything rules based that would determine these stances illegal.

 

[txmxer]

The rocks in your examples are not playing surfaces. You'd play each of those as if they were a small bush.

If your disc were near the front of #2 and you wanted to jump up on the rock, I would expect your card mates to accept that, however if you said you wanted to mark behind the rock on the LOP, I would also expect the card to accept that as the lie.