What's the ruling.....

[krupicka]

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).

There is no unplayable lie penalty in the rule book...

 

[Steve West]

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).

I don't think 3 is covered under the rules. You can't just play from wherever you want for the price of a penalty.

You left out the other legit option: Abandon the throw that landed on the ledge.

 

[BillFleming]

I'm not sure why I keep thinking there is an "unplayable" rule in disc golf....I know there is one in ball golf...but I keep thinking there's one in disc golf also and there's not.

Maybe there should be one that allows the player to move back along the line and take a stroke penalty.

 

[BillFleming]

krupicka and Steve West,

I looked through the rules and this is where I come up with the unplayable lie option....but I might just be misunderstanding it or miss-applying it. It seems to allow moving back on the line at any time with a penalty throw...but being that it is in 803.02, it might just be for when there are obstacles - and the lie on the ledge isn't an obstacle.

803.02.d

A player may elect at any time to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target, and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score.

Maybe there should be a rule for Player's Safety....when a player feels a lie is unsafe, they can elect to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target, and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score.

 

[peabody]

There is a picture attached to post #14

Thanks. No way I would let anyone mark that lie below where it's at. Bad throw-bad consequences. Unsafe lie and move back to safe footing even if you have to go back by the tree. No penalty should be incurred
and safety should be the priorty.
Dumb pin placement AFAIAC.

 

[Steve West]

krupicka and Steve West,

I looked through the rules and this is where I come up with the unplayable lie option....but I might just be misunderstanding it or miss-applying it. It seems to allow moving back on the line at any time with a penalty throw...but being that it is in 803.02, it might just be for when there are obstacles - and the lie on the ledge isn't an obstacle.

803.02.d


Maybe there should be a rule for Player's Safety....when a player feels a lie is unsafe, they can elect to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target, and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score.

Already covered.

Optional Relief (or Abandoned Throw) can be used for any reason. That includes safety or an unplayable lie. Or to get a strategic advantage. Whatever. No obstacles need to be involved. No excuses need to be invented.

Neither gives you the ability to choose any lie other than one back along the line of play (optional Relief), or the previous lie (Abandoned Throw).

 

[chevis]

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?

i drew up the thought example & added a few more to think about (sorry colorblind ppl).

i have changed my mind about overhanging discs; i now think they should be played from the same playing surface, no marking below/above if a reasonable stance can be taken from behind.

just read through the QA & i didn't find anything that addresses a dangerous lie, but did find you don't get relief from dangerous plants, so even tho it may be dangerous to play the grey one as it lies, there is no relief w/o penalty for the grey disc (similar to the op ?).
i also found establishing a position: qa-pos-1 i think could be applied to the pink & green discs as "no reasonable stance can be taken there". qa-pos-1 is addressing a disc in a crevice, so maybe you couldn't apply it to the pink & green, because if you do then you could argue for the discs on the slope (orange,grey,yellow) not having a reasonable stance

 

[Cgkdisc]

i drew up the thought example & added a few more to think about (sorry colorblind ppl).

i have changed my mind about overhanging discs; i now think they should be played from the same playing surface, no marking below/above if a reasonable stance can be taken from behind.

just read through the QA & i didn't find anything that addresses a dangerous lie, but did find you don't get relief from dangerous plants, so even tho it may be dangerous to play the grey one as it lies, there is no relief w/o penalty for the grey disc (similar to the op ?).
i also found establishing a position: qa-pos-1 i think could be applied to the pink & green discs as "no reasonable stance can be taken there". qa-pos-1 is addressing a disc in a crevice, so maybe you couldn't apply it to the pink & green, because if you do then you could argue for the discs on the slope (orange,grey,yellow) not having a reasonable stance

There are legal lies for the discs shown.

Red - If you can get to it, you mark behind it. If you can't, then it's a disc above the playing surface and can be marked below with enough room for your stance similar to a disc in or over a tree trunk, or if that rectangle is an OB building, the disc is IB and can be marked down near the green one and up to a meter from it to get a stance.

Green - If rectangle behind it is OB, then you get a stance up to one meter from it even if toward the basket. If the top is accessible, it can be marked above or as far back on the LOP as needed to access an inbounds playing surface where the rectangle acts as a solid object with relief behind it. My preference as a TD if I see vertical barrier/boulder situations before the event with the possibility of lies like the green and pink discs is to call the vertical face a no penalty Relief Area (the rule doesn't say a Relief Area has to be marked on the playing surface) so player gets up to one meter relief toward the basket.

Orange, grey, yellow - Simply discs in the equivalent of a tree trunk and are marked down on the playing surface behind the solid object. I've also seen slopes like this marked as a required relief area where discs are marked below or in some cases above such as a riverbank with a steep slope.

Blue - That's also just a disc in a tree, assuming it's not a playing surface on top, and it's marked straight down.

 

[chevis]

the rises are suppose to be the ground (playing surface), guess i should have filled them in.
without a declaration of of a relief area, orange, grey, & yellow will need to be marked/played where they lie.
orange is nice because it has a level surface below the back of the disc
will yellow be allowed to marked above because it entered into the soft ground enough that the front edge of the disc is below the level ground above it?

 

[biscoe]

Red - If you can get to it, you mark behind it. If you can't, then it's a disc above the playing surface and can be marked below with enough room for your stance similar to a disc in or over a tree trunk, .

What is the justification in the rules for denying the mark down below? There is clearly a playing surface there. The case may be that even if you mark there there is not space to get behind the mark and wind up back on top since the lie is 30 cm long but how are you arriving at the idea that you simply do not have the option to mark?

 

[Cgkdisc]

What is the justification in the rules for denying the mark down below? There is clearly a playing surface there. The case may be that even if you mark there there is not space to get behind the mark and wind up back on top since the lie is 30 cm long but how are you arriving at the idea that you simply do not have the option to mark?

Sorry, I didn't mean to exclude the red disc playing below as an option which was the issue behind the OP. But as you point out, there's the issue whether there's enough space below.

I think the rule where you have to mark behind a solid object on the LOP bears homage to ball golf where you can't mark closer to the hole without penalty. Intuitively, it's a lot faster to simply allow players to mark up to 30 cm in front of an object on the LOP without penalty. It's more likely to be a tougher stance than it will be marking from behind an object that's not more than a foot thick like most trees. Is it really fair or make sense to make a player go back behind a building or giant boulder? I believe this idea of moving forward 30 cm gets rid of the funky marking issues being presented above by the pink, green and red discs and I think works well and consistently in all scenarios. Where would it be unfair or physically not able to be done that wouldn't be handled by another rule?

 

[biscoe]

Sorry, I didn't mean to exclude the red disc playing below as an option which was the issue behind the OP. But as you point out, there's the issue whether there's enough space below.

I think the rule where you have to mark behind a solid object on the LOP bears homage to ball golf where you can't mark closer to the hole without penalty. Intuitively, it's a lot faster to simply allow players to mark up to 30 cm in front of an object on the LOP without penalty. It's more likely to be a tougher stance than it will be marking from behind an object that's not more than a foot thick like most trees. Is it really fair or make sense to make a player go back behind a building or giant boulder? I believe this idea of moving forward 30 cm gets rid of the funky marking issues being presented above by the pink, green and red discs and I think works well and consistently in all scenarios. Where would it be unfair or physically not able to be done that wouldn't be handled by another rule?

So to be clear- you see marking the red disc on the surface below (and playing from there should there be sufficient space) as acceptable?

IMO the entirety of this discussion is due to the fact that every thrown disc results in 2 different possible lies- as long as that possibility exists there will be "funky" scenarios. (Although I think this one (red disc) is perfectly clear based on the rules obviously we don't all agree) Adding a third possible lie (moving forward) will merely generate more unforeseen "funk."

 

[Cgkdisc]

So to be clear- you see marking the red disc on the surface below (and playing from there should there be sufficient space) as acceptable?

IMO the entirety of this discussion is due to the fact that every thrown disc results in 2 different possible lies- as long as that possibility exists there will be "funky" scenarios. (Although I think this one (red disc) is perfectly clear based on the rules obviously we don't all agree) Adding a third possible lie (moving forward) will merely generate more unforeseen "funk."

Yes, I've agreed all along that the red or blue discs could be marked below whether on accessible playing surfaces or not. It's just a grander example of picnic tables at a course being strong enough to support a player so the TD can declare them as playing surfaces. With regard to my suggestion for moving forward, there would be fewer if any unresolvable situations than the current solid object relief rule which may not be needed anymore.

 

[Steve West]

This is why we play in groups. Get a majority opinion (or choose the ruling most favorable to the thrower if there is a tie), and if no one appeals it to the TD, that's THE ruling.

 

[Rastnav]

This is why we play in groups. Get a majority opinion (or choose the ruling most favorable to the thrower if there is a tie), and if no one appeals it to the TD, that's THE ruling.

I have to say, I think that's not a good look, honestly for any sport, let alone one trying to break more mainstream. Different groups playing the same tournament shouldn't be operating under effectively different rules. It should NOT be a matter of group opinion whether or in what situations you can mark vertically below a disc.

It's one thing if a group actually doesn't know the rules, but this thread seems to demonstrate that the rules simply don't address the issue in a definitive way. That's something else entirely.

(Yes, we could grumble about time violations or foot faults, but those are dynamic rather than static situations. The rules are clear, what's unclear is whether someone has violated them. Please no one try to turn this thread into that discussion)

Perhaps you think this is so rare that it doesn't behoove addressing. I think it actually my reveal a fundamental issue, that "playing surface", "stacked playing surfaces", and the valid marking of a disc are all ill defined.

 

[araytx]

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

You are stating "as fact" something that is not in the rules. There is no right to "stand"; common misconception. We take knees, put a foot behind, put a hand behind all the time. There is no "right to enough room to stand" in the rules anywhere.

In the original OP. that disc is ON the playing surface. No one on this thread has contradicted my assertion -- likely because it's true. That disc is ON the playing surface.

805.01.C says you're wrong.

AND (see above) 805.01C DOES NOT APPLY. That disc is ON the playing surface. You cannot use 805.01C as justification in the OP.

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.

"If the disc hits the bird, and somehow wedges yet the bird stays alive, and then the bird-disc flies/sails out-if bounds, blah, blah, blah...." That's why I don't get into hypotheticals. Give me the one situation and I'll rule.

In the OP that disc is ON the playing surface. 805.01C does not apply because it is ON, so no application for disc above or disc below the playing surface. NOW that we know that, 802.06D applies, making marking any other way a violation. The player can play from behind the disc on the same paying surface. Thant's it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

In the OP that disc is ON the playing surface. 805.01C does not apply because it is ON, so no application for disc above or disc below the playing surface. NOW that we know that, 802.06D applies, making marking any other way a violation. The player can play from behind the disc on the same playing surface. That's it.

A disc first has a POSITION in space once thrown per 802.01 A "A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position." before a LIE is marked. Rule 802.06 provides two options for marking. "A. The POSITION of a thrown disc on the in-bounds playing surface marks the lie." i.e., the player may play behind the previously thrown disc leaving it as the marker.

"B. ALTERNATIVELY (this is the key word), 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." There's no requirement that it's the same playing surface height as the surface behind the disc, but simply the playing surface below (usually) the position of the front edge of the disc regardless whether that height is right under the front edge of the disc, a half inch under it or 10 feet under. It's similar to the way verticality is used for 1 meter from OB on a slope or marking a disc suspended above a playing surface.

We know there are exceptions for the mini to actually touch the thrown disc. To reduce confusion (or would it increase it) perhaps the rule should say the mini must touch the virtual vertical plane at the front edge of the disc?

 

[Rastnav]

A disc first has a POSITION in space once thrown per 802.01 A "A throw is the propulsion and release of a disc in order to change its position." before a LIE is marked. Rule 802.06 provides two options for marking. "A. The POSITION of a thrown disc on the in-bounds playing surface marks the lie." i.e., the player may play behind the previously thrown disc leaving it as the marker.

"B. ALTERNATIVELY (this is the key word), 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." There's no requirement that it's the same playing surface height as the surface behind the disc, but simply the playing surface below (usually) the position of the front edge of the disc regardless whether that height is right under the front edge of the disc, a half inch under it or 10 feet under. It's similar to the way verticality is used for 1 meter from OB on a slope or marking a disc suspended above a playing surface.

We know there are exceptions for the mini to actually touch the thrown disc. To reduce confusion (or would it increase it) perhaps the rule should say the mini must touch the virtual vertical plane at the front edge of the disc?

The other point of disagreement between the two of you is the above bolded "on the playing surface". The implication there is that there is a singular playing surface upon which the disc has come to rest. Aratyx is contending that the space below is a second, stacked playing surface, and therefore marking on that surface isn't the playing surface which the disc is on.

That's why I gave a specific example above where there clearly aren't "stacked" playing surfaces. It eliminates one of the variables, making it more easy to see some of issues.

 

[biscoe]

In the original OP. that disc is ON the playing surface. No one on this thread has contradicted my assertion -- likely because it's true. That disc is ON the playing surface.

You are misreading the OP- it quite clearly states that PART of the disc is on the upper playing surface but not all (and not the relevant part for marking)... (and I have been stating this all along)...

the complicated part is that the disk was on the very edge of the overhang with it's front edge over the edge by an inch or two.

 

[coupe]

You are stating "as fact" something that is not in the rules. There is no right to "stand"; common misconception. We take knees, put a foot behind, put a hand behind all the time. There is no "right to enough room to stand" in the rules anywhere.

You understand the difference between "stand" (your word, not mine) and "stance," (my word, used throughout the Rulebook), do you not?

Regardless of where you mark a lie, you are REQUIRED BY THE RULEBOOK to be able to take a legal stance at ANY lie in order to play from it.

[Blah, blah, blah]

While the disc in the OP is on A playing surface, the issue at hand is whether or not the Rules REQUIRE that it--or any disc whose front edge protrudes beyond the edge of one playing surface--be played from a lie on that surface or permits it to be marked on the other surface.

The first iteration of the QA on stacked playing surfaces specifically mandated that a disc be marked on and played from the nearest surface below the disc. By removing that requirement in the course of subsequent revisions to the Rulebook, the RC--intentionally or not, (re)opened the issues of if, when, which, and how the rules are to be applied to stacked playing surfaces.

What a pity: all your bile and blather, wasted.

Oh ... and in case you haven't noticed, most of us chiming in here--including the OP--have long since moved beyond the question in the presenting situation to the larger issues of if, when, which, and how the Rules are to be applied in analogous situations.

If you now wish not to engage in that larger discussion of "hypotheticals"--notwithstanding your consistent and vigorous pontifications on such matters in the past--or any other such larger discussion of "hypotheticals," no one's compelling you to do so. You're free to ignore the thread and let those of us who DO wish to discuss such issues to do so.