What's the ruling.....

[coupe]

Guys:
I don't subscribe to the theory that anything not specifically prohibited in the rules is allowed. It's the other way around, particularly for exceptions, or "alternates". I've been a part of rules-making in other settings and that IS NOT how they are done. If that is the RC's intent in our sport I'd like to hear that from them. Exceptions have to be specifically allowed in order to be legal with in the rules.

Uh ... you do realize that by your logic, players are ENTITLED to mark the lie with a mini, per 802.06.B, since 802.06 SPECIFICALLY GRANTS players the option to to do so WITHOUT limiting in any way when or under what conditions they may do so OR prescribing in any way when or under what conditions they are prohibited from doing so, and that, consequently, any attempt or argument that attempts to restrict a player from exercising that option is prohibited?

 

[Rastnav]

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)?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I would probably allow you to leave the disc as your marker and play from A, but not B or C. You would either have to mark with a mini or, if you needed more room for your foot, maybe you could take solid object relief.

 

[Steve West]

I would probably allow you to leave the disc as your marker and play from A, but not B or C. ...

Why not? It just looks like a thick sidewalk.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Why not? It just looks like a thick sidewalk.

I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?

 

[Agricolae]

I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?

The current conversation is not tangled enough for you, Chuck?

 

[Rastnav]

I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?

This is precisely the problem I'm pointing out.

You have, in your head, some arbitrary definition of what constitutes two different playing surfaces. There is nowhere in the rules that A can be distinguished from B or C, regardless of the heights of B and C. If it's illegal to take a stance at B, it's illegal at A. But that defies common sense. If your disc comes to rest up against a flat rock a few inches high or a tee pad with an exposed concrete edge, people are assuming that's all one playing surface, not two distinct ones.

Your point about a projection is potentially a valid one, but I doubt you would be subtracting the vertical height of of the rock or tee pad from the lie in example A or B. Nor would I expect that you would consider it valid to hang your toe over the lip in any of the cases. It seems to me that "behind" generally means "in the horizontal plane". This is precisely the same conundrum facing us when we talk about placing the mini in various scenarios where the front of the disc isn't touching anything. It's implied that the mini can be placed so that the trailing edge of the mini touches the vertical plane defined by the front of the disc. Thus the disc is directly behind the mini on the horizontal plane.

Regardless, it's not made explicit in the rules.

There are a few ways one could go about solving these issues, but I think the lack of explicitly stating how they are to be resolved is precisely the problem. The issues of how one deals with vertical "discontinuity" (which is not precisely the right word) need to be made more explicit, which would include the problem presented in the OP.

 

[Steve West]

This is precisely the problem I'm pointing out.

...

Regardless, it's not made explicit in the rules.

...

You make good points. The trade-off is whether to add all the extra wording to make everything explicit in every possible situation (in which case the rule might become unreadable, or at least un-remember-able) or keep the rule as simple as possible and rely on the group to figure out the edge cases.

Perhaps something in-between is possible. Your idea of the lie (and, I presume, also the position) being the projection onto the surface might work.

That is to say, it could work if it would feel natural to most players to stand on a raised sidewalk behind a thrown disc, place a mini on the top edge of a plumb retaining wall which the front of the throw disc is touching, or being able to mark down on the playing surface below the overhanging front edge of the disc on top of that wall.

The case I wouldn't feel comfortable with is if the disc is on a bridge with the front hanging over the edge. Or, the front (but not back) is under a bridge. It wouldn't feel right to be able to place a mini on that other playing surface.

 

[Steve West]

...
One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples...

There is no rule against touching the marker with your foot. The rule is "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc".

Of course, if everything is on a flat playing surface, you can't touch the marker without violating that rule, but...

If part of your foot was hanging over the disc, then the part of your foot which is in the air is not a supporting point. So, no violation.

 

[txmxer]

The rule says the market is on the playing surface and the 20x30 rectangle behind the marker is where you have to have a supporting point.

The rules fail to define stacked playing surfaces adequately. They do address obstacles that prevent taking a stance behind the marker.

The delta in A is negligible and I wouldn't expect anyone to think twice about.

B & C are either stacked surfaces or they are the playing surface (singular). If a singular surface, play on. If a stacked surface, move the marker back along the LOP due to solid obstacle preventing player from taking a legal stance assuming the graphic is the marker.

Or place a mini and take an awkward stance.

 

[Rastnav]

You make good points. The trade-off is whether to add all the extra wording to make everything explicit in every possible situation (in which case the rule might become unreadable, or at least un-remember-able) or keep the rule as simple as possible and rely on the group to figure out the edge cases.

Perhaps something in-between is possible. Your idea of the lie (and, I presume, also the position) being the projection onto the surface might work.

That is to say, it could work if it would feel natural to most players to stand on a raised sidewalk behind a thrown disc, place a mini on the top edge of a plumb retaining wall which the front of the throw disc is touching, or being able to mark down on the playing surface below the overhanging front edge of the disc on top of that wall.

The case I wouldn't feel comfortable with is if the disc is on a bridge with the front hanging over the edge. Or, the front (but not back) is under a bridge. It wouldn't feel right to be able to place a mini on that other playing surface.

Sure, you don't want the rules too complex. That's absolutely a valid point.

However, the situation we are in right now is that there is literally only one thing in the rules that defines anything about multiple playing surfaces, and that's the reference to the possibility that two or more playing surfaces can be "stacked".

If we have a course that has no stacked playing surfaces anywhere on it, the rules read such that there is a single playing surface. That's very far away from too complex if you believe that there is supposed to be the possibility of multiple playing surfaces that are somehow defined merely by vertical separation (yes, surfaces surrounded by OB, also, but that's not material here).

And the mini-marking rules as is are simply wrong. Either that, or any time someone lands with the leading edge of the disc raised up in long grass or elevated in some other way higher than the height of a players mini, there isn't a right to place a mini. And we know that's not how the game is currently played (now imagining a new market for super thick "minis").

 

[Rastnav]

The rule says the market is on the playing surface and the 20x30 rectangle behind the marker is where you have to have a supporting point.

The rules fail to define stacked playing surfaces adequately. They do address obstacles that prevent taking a stance behind the marker.

The delta in A is negligible and I wouldn't expect anyone to think twice about.

B & C are either stacked surfaces or they are the playing surface (singular). If a singular surface, play on. If a stacked surface, move the marker back along the LOP due to solid obstacle preventing player from taking a legal stance assuming the graphic is the marker.

Or place a mini and take an awkward stance.

There are no stacked surfaces in those examples. The rock, tee pad, concrete, etc. is embedded in, or resting firmly on, the ground, and there are not any places in the examples where there are multiple points on a vertical line where you could rest a supporting point.

 

[txmxer]

Rules limit the thickness of the mini.

 

[txmxer]

There are no stacked surfaces in those examples. The rock, tee pad, concrete, etc. is embedded in, or resting firmly on, the ground, and there are not any places in the examples where there are multiple points on a vertical line where you could rest a supporting point.

We don't know that since the term is undefined.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Carlton Howard, former chair of the Rules Committee was averse to adding rules for situations that might occur "when hell freezes over." Little did he realize that hell would surface in future social media...

 

[Rastnav]

We don't know that since the term is undefined.

We know why the reference to the possibility of stacked playing surfaces was added to the rules. It was added specifically to cover situations like bridges over ground, etc. where you had two different places where a disc could come to rest stacked in the same vertical space.

 

[txmxer]

We know why the reference to the possibility of stacked playing surfaces was added to the rules. It was added specifically to cover situations like bridges over ground, etc. where you had two different places where a disc could come to rest stacked in the same vertical space.

True, but if the step is significant-
say 4', 5', 10' as in the case with a retaining wall or something similar it doesn't make sense to call it a single surface.

 

[coupe]

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)?

Given the alternatives for marking the lie spelled out in 802.06.A and .B, and independent of the issue of stacked playing surfaces, all of them.

 

[Rastnav]

Given the alternatives for marking the lie spelled out in 802.06.A and .B, and independent of the issue of stacked playing surfaces, all of them.

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

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.

When the thrown disc is not on the in-bounds playing surface, or when the lie is to be moved by rule, the player marks the lie by placing a mini marker disc in accordance with the applicable rule.

C. When the thrown disc is not on the in-bounds playing surface, or when the lie is to be moved by rule, the player marks the lie by placing a mini marker disc in accordance with the applicable rule.

I'm not sure how these specific rules establish that positions A, B and C are all legal. Are you talking about moving the lie according to some other rule, referenced by 806.02.C? If so, what rule?

Or do you simply mean that A means the lie is legal because it's behind the disc on the playing surface?

 

[coupe]

And the mini-marking rules as is are simply wrong. Either that, or any time someone lands with the leading edge of the disc raised up in long grass or elevated in some other way higher than the height of a players mini, there isnÂ't a right to place a mini.

Not so fast:

801.06 does not define the "front" of the disc as the point on the disc closest to the target. Furthermore, it does not require a player to place the marker disc centered on the line of play established by the thrown disc: it merely requires that the marker disc be placed touching the "front" of the thrown disc, which could be anywhere along the entire arc of the disc closer to the target than the imaginary line perpendicular to the line of play established by the thrown disc and that the subsequent stance be taken on the line of play established by the mini.

[N.B. - per 802.05.D, the line of play for any throw not made from a teepad or drop zone does not exist until the player has marked the lie, either by electing to use the thrown disc to mark the lie or by placing a mini to mark the lie.]

Consequently, if the front of the thrown disc is elevated higher than the height of a mini, a player may mark the lie by placing the mini on the playing surface touching the thrown disc at a point along the front of the thrown disc that touches the playing surface OR the disc may be be treated as above the playing surface via the rule of Fairness (801.01), with the mini placed in accordance with 802.06.C.