What's the ruling.....

[txmxer]

I believe several posts have referenced a bridge as a stacked playing surface, but called the OP a single playing surface because you could walk from the lower area to the upper area.

I don't follow how this example is different from a bridge based on the above description of being able to walk from one point to the other.

This is specifically based on comments from Chuck, but others have chimed in.

What explicitly defines a stacked playing surface?

 

[Rastnav]

I believe several posts have referenced a bridge as a stacked playing surface, but called the OP a single playing surface because you could walk from the lower area to the upper area.

I don't follow how this example is different from a bridge based on the above description of being able to walk from one point to the other.

This is specifically based on comments from Chuck, but others have chimed in.

What explicitly defines a stacked playing surface?

I've asked that multiple times.

I think it's clear that the phrase "stacked playing surfaces" has to apply to places where there exist two or more legal lies, where a stance can be taken, that are identical in the horizontal plane and only differ in the vertical plane. The two lies are stacked, on said stacked playing surfaces, and you play from the one you are on.

For example, in the OP, if the disc was moved back enough so that it didn't overhang the rock at all, there wouldn't be a question whether you could mark below it. I think it's clear that you couldn't. It would belong on the upper of the two stacked playing surfaces.

Whether we can distinguish between different playing surfaces otherwise is really the question. In my mind the word "surface" is hampering the discussion, but maybe that's just me.

 

[rhatton1]

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.

Or play a provisional?

"choose the ruling most favorable to the thrower if there is a tie"

Is this in the rules? I've had a situation before where I was on the side of my lie being OB and others in the group were saying it was in (poorly marked area from the TD) 2 for IB me and another for OB. I played Provisionals and took it to the TD who ruled as OB.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The original stacked playing surface issue came about to determine whether a disc landing on a foot bridge, on the part directly over OB water, was in fact OB by default. The default was determined that landing on the bridge surface was inbounds unless the TD specifically indicated the bridge playing surface was OB over the water or all of it. Discs that landed suspended on the bridge under its OB surface but over the inbounds riverbank needed a rule to determine whether its reference was to the OB surface closer above it or the IB ground below. The rule became the surface below was the default reference unless the TD provided the option to choose either one as your marking reference.

In 2002, the rule book introduced the two options for marking your lie, either using the thrown disc or using a mini at the leading edge of your disc. The default reference for the lie being the playing surface directly below the back of the thrown disc OR the one below the leading edge was retained regardless whether those surfaces were the same, directly connected by walking or completely independent. If your disc's position was suspended where there was a playing surface below it, you mark below even if there's another playing surface above it. The only time you move up to a playing surface is when the disc has no accessible playing surface below it or the TD has given permission to move up.

The point is the playing surface decision for marking a disc from either reference point option are separate. What is the playing surface if the disc is used as the marker or what is the proper playing surface for the leading edge?

 

[Steve West]

Or play a provisional?

"choose the ruling most favorable to the thrower if there is a tie"

Is this in the rules? I've had a situation before where I was on the side of my lie being OB and others in the group were saying it was in (poorly marked area from the TD) 2 for IB me and another for OB. I played Provisionals and took it to the TD who ruled as OB.

01.03 Appeals
A. When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the ruling is based on the interpretation that is most beneficial to the thrower.

Good for you! An appeal to get the ruling right, even at the expense of your score. That's true sportsmanship.

Also, yes play a provisional if someone is going to appeal. Do not use a provisional as a way to avoid coming to a decision.

 

[txmxer]

not ready to let this one go...on the lower deck, the player can choose one of two ways to mark his lie, both on the same playing surface.

The player on the upper deck has the same two options to take a stance behind his disc or behind a mini...but why is it he can stand behind his mini on the lower surface rather than the same surface the disc landed on?

IF the player on the upper deck is allowed to move to the lower deck, the player is getting unfair advancement of his position--he's much closer to the basket than he would have been if he played from where his disc landed. I think that is the crucial element to this.

 

[coupe]

IF the player on the upper deck is allowed to move to the lower deck, the player is getting unfair advancement of his position--he's much closer to the basket than he would have been if he played from where his disc landed.

No different, in principle, than taking 1m relief from OB closer to the basket.

 

[txmxer]

No different, in principle, than taking 1m relief from OB closer to the basket.

Sorry, I don't see that.

 

[Rastnav]

I'll just repeat what I've been saying, why do you think the surface below the front of the disc is a separate surface?

Instead of that very high example, with two surfaces stacked, imagine a small rock retaining wall 1 foot in height. There is no separate surface underneath the ground behind the retaining wall. Do you still think the area on top of the wall and the ground behind it comprise a second surface as compared to the ground in front of the wall? Or is it all one playing surface?

If you think the ground in front of the wall is a separate surface, where do you find support for this in the rules?

What if it wasn't a one foot retaining wall but a 2" high flat rock? A 1/2" high flat rock? At what point does it transition from two surfaces to one surface? And where in the rules does it say that?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I like how the basket's brick perimeter ensures no wedgies.

 

[peabody]

Disc in a limb instead of resting on a ledge--- mini placed next to pin.
Disc precariously dangling from the edge of that cliff-- mini placed next to pin.
Disc resting on a any TD deemed legal playing surface with no means of marking with a mini--play the original marker disc and throw from the ledge.


All this marking below crap has nothing to do with the mini disc at all. You don't use a mini when the disc is up in a tree except to place it on the ground below where the disc itself has come to rest.
Just like up against a tree where you can't place the mini down this is the same thing.

.

 

[peabody]

I like how the basket's brick perimeter ensures no wedgies.

Lol the chains and top look like a big magnet.

 

[txmxer]

I'll just repeat what I've been saying, why do you think the surface below the front of the disc is a separate surface?

Instead of that very high example, with two surfaces stacked, imagine a small rock retaining wall 1 foot in height. There is no separate surface underneath the ground behind the retaining wall. Do you still think the area on top of the wall and the ground behind it comprise a second surface as compared to the ground in front of the wall? Or is it all one playing surface?

If you think the ground in front of the wall is a separate surface, where do you find support for this in the rules?

What if it wasn't a one foot retaining wall but a 2" high flat rock? A 1/2" high flat rock? At what point does it transition from two surfaces to one surface? And where in the rules does it say that?

Let's consider your example. A 1 foot elevation difference--a step. Your disc is sitting 1" over the edge of the wall. You put your mini on the ground in front of the wall. Where are you taking a stance? On the upper surface? Yes you are. So, it's not really apples to apples is it?

I'd say the reason it is a separate surface is you cannot go from one to the other along the LOP. If you can transition from one location to the other along the LOP, same surface. I'm sure someone can find a flaw with that, but it seems reasonable to me.

 

[Rastnav]

Let's consider your example. A 1 foot elevation difference--a step. Your disc is sitting 1" over the edge of the wall. You put your mini on the ground in front of the wall. Where are you taking a stance? On the upper surface? Yes you are. So, it's not really apples to apples is it?

I'd say the reason it is a separate surface is you cannot go from one to the other along the LOP. If you can transition from one location to the other along the LOP, same surface. I'm sure someone can find a flaw with that, but it seems reasonable to me.

It doesn't matter whether they are "apples to apples", and "I think that's reasonable" isn't a rule.

The question isn't what txmxer thinks is reasonable, the question is whether under the rules one has the right to place a mini to mark the edge of the disc. If I place a mini in front of a nice flat piece of rock, with a 1/2" drop to the ground, the ground which the front edge of the disc is not touching, do I have a legal right to do that? What if it's an inch? Two inches? A foot? When does it transition from legal to illegal and what rule can you cite to say that?

Why might I want to do that? Perhaps that nice flat bit of rock is a better place to put my foot than the jagged piece right behind the disc. Or maybe I want to practice standing in tree pose in that small space in front of the rock behind the mini. It doesn't matter why, the question is do I have the right to place the mini? And then what constitutes a legal stance behind that mini?

It may be that the rule Steve cited earlier about minis needing to actually touch the front of the disc is what applies, but that seems to be in conflict with other rules rules about marking the disc, and it also suggest that many illegal markings are occurring when people simply drop the mini at the point of the raised front edge of the disc, for example if it comes to rest in tall grass or leaning against some brush.

 

[txmxer]

It doesn't matter whether they are "apples to apples", and "I think that's reasonable" isn't a rule.

The question isn't what txmxer thinks is reasonable, the question is whether under the rules one has the right to place a mini to mark the edge of the disc. If I place a mini in front of a nice flat piece of rock, with a 1/2" drop to the ground, the ground which the front edge of the disc is not touching, do I have a legal right to do that? What if it's an inch? Two inches? A foot? When does it transition from legal to illegal and what rule can you cite to say that?

Why might I want to do that? Perhaps that nice flat bit of rock is a better place to put my foot than the jagged piece right behind the disc. Or maybe I want to practice standing in tree pose in that small space in front of the rock behind the mini. It doesn't matter why, the question is do I have the right to place the mini? And then what constitutes a legal stance behind that mini?

It may be that the rule Steve cited earlier about minis needing to actually touch the front of the disc is what applies, but that seems to be in conflict with other rules rules about marking the disc, and it also suggest that many illegal markings are occurring when people simply drop the mini at the point of the raised front edge of the disc, for example if it comes to rest in tall grass or leaning against some brush.

Dude you sound like your going to bust a blood vessel.

You failed to answer my question. Where is your foot when you put down your mini? It is on the surface your disc landed on, not the surface below.

Of course I don't make the rules, and you can do whatever your little heart desires. There is no definition of what differentiates two surfaces so I offered a common sense one. But it seems it upset you. Totally unnecessary.

Bottom line is two discs in different locations and not subject to something like OB related rules should not have the same outcome when it comes to the lie. By saying you can take a stance on a different surface than your disc landed on you are changing the outcome of your throw.

Let's go the other way. Your disc is a 1/2" away from the edge. You cannot place your mini because it will fall off the ledge. Do you get to put said mini on the lower surface if it is 3" below? 12"? 10 feet? This is your scenario—you want that prime real estate below your disc for your stance. What's your call?

 

[jenb]

What do you mean by "OB related rules?"

If you land within one meter of OB, it is entirely possible that the disc will be marked on a playing surface up to one meter above or below the position of the the disc on the playing surface on which it came to rest. And in my experience, the need or even opportunity to do such a thing almost always arises when landing near OB.

 

[txmxer]

What do you mean by "OB related rules?"

If you land within one meter of OB, it is entirely possible that the disc will be marked on a playing surface up to one meter above or below the position of the the disc on the playing surface on which it came to rest. And in my experience, the need or even opportunity to do such a thing almost always arises when landing near OB.

That's exactly what I mean. There is an explicit rule related to OB that allows one to move the disc. The things being discussed have no explicit rule short of the mini is placed touching the front edge of the disc, which as has been said seems to be an explicit rule that is not enforced as it is written.

 

[Rastnav]

Dude you sound like your going to bust a blood vessel.

You failed to answer my question. Where is your foot when you put down your mini? It is on the surface your disc landed on, not the surface below.

Of course I don't make the rules, and you can do whatever your little heart desires. There is no definition of what differentiates two surfaces so I offered a common sense one. But it seems it upset you. Totally unnecessary.

Bottom line is two discs in different locations and not subject to something like OB related rules should not have the same outcome when it comes to the lie. By saying you can take a stance on a different surface than your disc landed on you are changing the outcome of your throw.

Let's go the other way. Your disc is a 1/2" away from the edge. You cannot place your mini because it will fall off the ledge. Do you get to put said mini on the lower surface if it is 3" below? 12"? 10 feet? This is your scenario—you want that prime real estate below your disc for your stance. What's your call?

Where are you getting the idea that a 1/2" drop off of a rock constitutes a separate playing surface?

 

[txmxer]

Where are you getting the idea that a 1/2" drop off of a rock constitutes a separate playing surface?

Just work through the scenarios.

I'm open to being convinced the rules support your alternative, but I don't believe they do right now.

Chuck's drop the mini off the cliff and play from below is definitely not congruent with the rule Steve pointed out.

I made the "reasonable point" about separate surfaces because Chuck's hike around the mountain is illogical in regards to "same surface" and we have no explicit definition.

Regardless, have a good weekend.

 

[Rastnav]

Just work through the scenarios.

I'm open to being convinced the rules support your alternative, but I don't believe they do right now.

Chuck's drop the mini off the cliff and play from below is definitely not congruent with the rule Steve pointed out.

I made the "reasonable point" about separate surfaces because Chuck's hike around the mountain is illogical in regards to "same surface" and we have no explicit definition.

Regardless, have a good weekend.

So, if your disc came to rest on the ground in front of that 1/2" high rock, you believe it would be illegal to take a stance on the rock behind it?