What's the ruling.....

[araytx]

Most of the disc is on the upper playing surface, not all of it. The part of the disc relevant to marking the disc is suspended in air. You must mark it on a playing surface if you choose to mark it- the only playing surface to mark it on would be the lower.

If this is not the case please tell me where you would place your mini when marking the disc in question.

Again, trying not to get into all these hypotheticals because they always evolve into what ifs that are either extremely outlandish or extremely unlikely. My point has been consistently to refer to THIS Op that started the thread.

However, in the once-in-a-lifetime scenario that you present, my position would be "you don't get to" (just this time). Not any statement of precedent or anything, just for this never gonna happen twice situation.

 

[coupe]

now if there were a stacked playing surface (like a cave or bridge), you could not place a marker on the lower surface if you landed on the upper one... i guess the question is if there is a stacked playing surface and you landed with the disc on the edge where the front of the disc is overhanging, then could you mark it on the lower because that is the next continuous playing surface?

In principle, you could mark it on the lower surface; in practice, you need to be able to take a legal stance on the lower playing surface, which may not always be possible, e.g. the lower playing surface is OB*; the disc overhangs the retaining wall of a drainage culvert that has a grate inset 3" from the face of the culvert.

* NB—a surface need not be in-bounds to be a playing surface:

QA-LIE-1
A bridge is an example where one playing surface is vertically stacked above another playing surface. Each playing surface is treated independently. The bridge is in-bounds unless the TD has declared it to be OB, regardless of whether a playing surface above or below it is OB. If the two-meter rule is in use, it does not apply because your disc is on, not above, the playing surface. You mark your lie on the bridge, and there is no penalty.

See also, "in-bounds playing surface, 805.02, 802.06 A, C, 810.A

 

[XGumbyx]

I think we're forgetting the actual rules for marking the lie (802.06 A-D) when marking the disc at its lie. It is actually quite specific and states that anything else is a marking violation. 892.06 "A" talks about the lie itself, "B" talks about marking the disc with a mini, "C" talks about OB or moved discs which isn't relevant and D says anything other than A,B, or C is a marking violation.


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.

In this case it is NOT possible to mark the lie by placing a mini so that it is " touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play" so ANY other way of marking the disc with a mini is outside of the defined rule and as per rule 802.06 is a marking violation. If we take the rules word for word and not twist, interpret, or try to extrapolate them to fit our agenda the answer is simple. You can not mark the disc with a mini in this case so in no way could the lower playing surface be used.

 

[txmxer]

I think we're forgetting the actual rules for marking the lie (802.06 A-D) when marking the disc at its lie. It is actually quite specific and states that anything else is a marking violation. 892.06 "A" talks about the lie itself, "B" talks about marking the disc with a mini, "C" talks about OB or moved discs which isn't relevant and D says anything other than A,B, or C is a marking violation.


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.

In this case it is NOT possible to mark the lie by placing a mini so that it is " touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play" so ANY other way of marking the disc with a mini is outside of the defined rule and as per rule 802.06 is a marking violation. If we take the rules word for word and not twist, interpret, or try to extrapolate them to fit our agenda the answer is simple. You can not mark the disc with a mini in this case so in no way could the lower playing surface be used.

I agree with this post.

Another take on this the intent of all the rules is to promote fairness. Since this is an overhanging ledge, it is possible for a disc to be in the same place on the lower surface (the tap in location).

The throws are obviously not equal, but if placing a mini on the surface below is allowed, the throws become equal and that is not a fair play.

 

[Steve West]

Maybe I'm not envisioning the situation correctly, but of only a part of the thrown disc is hanging over, isn't that how much room the player would have to take a stance below it? Would it even be possible to take a stance there?

 

[txmxer]

Maybe I'm not envisioning the situation correctly, but of only a part of the thrown disc is hanging over, isn't that how much room the player would have to take a stance below it? Would it even be possible to take a stance there?

I believe it sticks out enough that one could take a stance aligned with the placement of a mini. At least that is my understanding of why the question was asked.

 

[XGumbyx]

One would be able to take a legal stance directly below (if a rule like a 2m rule was in affect) however the rules clearly (to me at least) state that it is impossible to legally mark the disc with a mini and be on the lower level which makes stance on the lower level a moot point

 

[Steve West]

One would be able to take a legal stance directly below (if a rule like a 2m rule was in affect) however the rules clearly (to me at least) state that it is impossible to legally mark the disc with a mini and be on the lower level which makes stance on the lower level a moot point

So, it is not vertical? It actually hangs over, like an undercut stream bank?

 

[XGumbyx]

So, it is not vertical? It actually hangs over, like an undercut stream bank?

Correct.

 

[Steve West]

Correct.

OK, here's my take:

No you can't mark down below the thrown disc.

There is no absolute right to always use a mini. If you can't do it in the way described in the rule, you can't do it.

Because you can use the thrown disc as a marker, and it is already on a playing surface, that's all you need. Play from there.

Because it would be possible to take a lie below the thrown disc, that makes it another playing surface. You don't get to choose among stacked playing surfaces.

805.01 Establishing a Position
A. A thrown disc establishes a position where it first comes to rest.

802.06 Marking the Lie
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.

802.05 Lie
A. [...] The playing surface is a surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. [...]

QA-LIE-1
A: [...] Each playing surface is treated independently. [...]

 

[biscoe]

OK, here's my take:

No you can't mark down below the thrown disc.

There is no absolute right to always use a mini. If you can't do it in the way described in the rule, you can't do it.

Because you can use the thrown disc as a marker, and it is already on a playing surface, that's all you need. Play from there.

Because it would be possible to take a lie below the thrown disc, that makes it another playing surface. You don't get to choose among stacked playing surfaces.

There is no stacked playing surface at the point where you would place the mini. Only air and a playing surface below. This imo makes it analogous to any other disc above a playing surface through "logical extension of the closest existing rule.". What in the rules supports the idea that "there is no absolute right to always use a mini"?

 

[coupe]

I
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.

In this case it is NOT possible to mark the lie by placing a mini so that it is " touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play" so ANY other way of marking the disc with a mini is outside of the defined rule and as per rule 802.06 is a marking violation. If we take the rules word for word and not twist, interpret, or try to extrapolate them to fit our agenda the answer is simple. You can not mark the disc with a mini in this case so in no way could the lower playing surface be used.

805.01.C says you're wrong.

 

[Rastnav]

OK, here's my take:

No you can't mark down below the thrown disc.

There is no absolute right to always use a mini. If you can't do it in the way described in the rule, you can't do it.

Because you can use the thrown disc as a marker, and it is already on a playing surface, that's all you need. Play from there.

Because it would be possible to take a lie below the thrown disc, that makes it another playing surface. You don't get to choose among stacked playing surfaces.

I'm wondering what your take is in my question above is, then. What happens if the disc comes to rest on a smaller rock? One where the drop between the the edge of the disc is merely an inch, not 10 feet? Would you be prohibited from marking with your less than 1" thick mini?

 

[coupe]

Maybe I'm not envisioning the situation correctly, but of only a part of the thrown disc is hanging over, isn't that how much room the player would have to take a stance below it? Would it even be possible to take a stance there?

It depends on how the playing surfaces are stacked: if the upper surface is a 5' wide bridge 10' above a lower in-bounds playing surface, then it would certainly be possible to take a legal stance on the lower playing surface.

In fact, the genesis of the "stacked playing surface" concept was a question to on the old PDGA discussion board, on which the RC initially ruled via a QA that, in the case of a disc at rest on the surface of a bridge or on top of a culvert, the disc was suspended above the playing surface and was the one marked the lie on the playing surface below the disc and play from there, then quickly revised it (as in, within a day) to create the concept of stacked playing surfaces in response to the observation that the longstanding practice in PDGA-sanctioned tournaments on several Triangle holes—Cedar Hills 7 (drainage culvert), Valley Springs 8 long (footbridge), UNC (then) 4 (culvert), Zebulon 7 (bridge over creek), etc.—was to play from the top surface of the bridge/ground above the culvert, and that the drop zone on Cedar Hills 7 was the ground above the culvert.

 

[Steve West]

I'm wondering what your take is in my question above is, then. What happens if the disc comes to rest on a smaller rock? One where the drop between the the edge of the disc is merely an inch, not 10 feet? Would you be prohibited from marking with your less than 1" thick mini?

That's an excellent point, and does find one of the already-known technical flaws in the rules.

802.06 Marking 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. [...]

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.

"touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play." Does not allow for marking a disc in this case. Not also that in the case where a disc is above or below the playing surface, marking with a mini is implied, but there is no "applicable rule" saying how to do it.

So, we need to {shudder} invoke 801.01. The logical extension is to read:

"touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play." as

"touching the front of the position of the thrown disc on the line of play."

 

[Rastnav]

That's an excellent point, and does find one of the already-known technical flaws in the rules.



"touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play." Does not allow for marking a disc in this case. Not also that in the case where a disc is above or below the playing surface, marking with a mini is implied, but there is no "applicable rule" saying how to do it.

So, we need to {shudder} invoke 801.01. The logical extension is to read:

"touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play." as

"touching the front of the position of the thrown disc on the line of play."

Would you the agree that the difference between the 1" example and the 10 foot example comes down to whether the area below the vertical position below the disc constitutes a separate playing surface?

It's my contention that the issue in the rules highlighted by the example given by the OP is that there isn't a solid definition of what constitutes a separate playing surface. Nor is it explicitly stated that a disc the position of the disc at rest indicates one and only one playing surface that must then be played from.

Furthermore, I think the nomenclature of multiple playing surfaces is less helpful than it could be. My example earlier was that one could form a continuous line of discs, each one touching another at an edge, and travel from one playing surface to another, and yet at no point would any of the discs be touching or on two of the playing surfaces, nor would any two discs that were touching be on different playing surfaces. This then causes further confusion about the idea of stacked playing surfaces, and what delineates them.

I personally think that the OP example is two different playing surfaces by the spirit of the rules. (Although, any course designer or TD might be well advised to declare that an area of free relief, if I'm understanding the picture correctly). But, in any case, I don't understand where in the rules, as written, one makes the distinction.

As a further thought example, imagine the same scenario, but it's a rocky cliff wall that is straight up and down, with no ability to take a stance behind the disc if it is down low. Now imagine two different resting places, (A) one at the base of the cliff, touching it, and (B) the other vertically above it resting on the top of the cliff, but hanging over far enough that the front edge of the disc would allow a foot to be placed behind a mini if marked vertically below it. The basket is on the lower surface, so the cliff face is behind the basket.

If in position A, can I legally take a stance on top of the cliff? If in position B, can I legally mark on the lower ground? Why or why not?

 

[BillFleming]

This is an interesting thread. I would have thought to play the disc on the playing surface below the ledge for safety reasons. And used rule 805.02.B for the position of the marker.

The position of the disc is on the playing surface directly below the disc

While the rule is the 2 meter rule, it still seems like it could apply. Especially since it doesn't say WHERE the marker has to be, except for "directly below the disc". It doesn't say centered below, it doesn't say "inline with the most forward part of the disc", it just says "directly below the disc". ((And the rule isn't more exact on the placement since that would require a plumb bob or something to get an exact position below a disc that is 2 meters or more above the ground)).

There's also nothing in the rules that requires a marker be used. The player has the option of using a marker OR throwing from behind the disc. So if there was room behind the disc on the ledge, you could use that space for your stance.

 

[peabody]

I'm having trouble envisioning the op's scenario. A pic would help. Now if your disc comes to rest above the basket in a tree limb you mark the lie on the ground directly underneath. Unplayable lie in the tree or precariously perched on a rock should be the call. Problem is you are leaving the ruling to the group currently playing the hole. The next group might come up with a different take.

 

[XGumbyx]

I'm having trouble envisioning the op's scenario. A pic would help. Now if your disc comes to rest above the basket in a tree limb you mark the lie on the ground directly underneath. Unplayable lie in the tree or precariously perched on a rock should be the call. Problem is you are leaving the ruling to the group currently playing the hole. The next group might come up with a different take.

There is a picture attached to post #14

 

[BillFleming]

Looking back at the photo....if I was on the card, I see three options...

1. room on the ledge behind the disc, play it from there
2. no room on the ledge or unsafe footing, take an unplayable lie penalty and move back on the line
3. if no safe spot behind the lie, take an unplayable lie penalty and play from under the disc (similar to 2 meter rule).

Common sense should apply, but unfortunately one person's common sense isn't always the same as other's common sense (or lack of it).