What's the ruling.....

[txmxer]

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?

No. No idea what you are actually suggesting honestly.

Would appreciate it if you would actually read what I wrote and respond to it.

 

[John Rock]

If the disc on the upper surface is more than 2m above the lower surface (and the 2m rule is in play), would you be penalized for marking and playing on the lower surface?

 

[coupe]

If the disc on the upper surface is more than 2m above the lower surface (and the 2m rule is in play), would you be penalized for marking and playing on the lower surface?

Yes. You WOULD be penalized for marking and playing on the lower surface, but not for a 2m violation.

Per 805.01 Establishing a Position

C. If a disc first comes to rest above or below the playing surface, its position is on the playing surface directly below or above the disc,

you would be penalized for a misplay:

811 Misplay

F. 1 Incorrect Lie. The player has played from a lie that is not the correct lie. For example, the player has:

b. Thrown from a lie other than that established by the thrown disc;

If no subsequent throw has been made following the misplay, disregard the throw, play from the correct lie and add a penalty stroke; if an additional throw has been made following the misplay, add two penalty strokes and continue to play from the lie established by the misplayed throw.

 

[Steve West]

...but the front part of the disc has come to rest above the only playing surface which is below the front part of the disc.

Does only the front part of the disc matter, since that is where the mini goes? Is the position split? Does the largest part of the disc determine the position? Is the position no longer circular? What if the disc was barely touching the higher surface (maybe wedged under a rock, with most of the disc sticking out over the air)?

 

[peabody]

...but the front part of the disc has come to rest above the only playing surface which is below the front part of the disc.

Does only the front part of the disc matter, since that is where the mini goes? Is the position split? Does the largest part of the disc determine the position? Is the position no longer circular? What if the disc was barely touching the higher surface (maybe wedged under a rock, with most of the disc sticking out over the air)?

The disc is still at rest on a playing surface. The mini is for marking disc position.

 

[biscoe]

...but the front part of the disc has come to rest above the only playing surface which is below the front part of the disc.

Does only the front part of the disc matter, since that is where the mini goes?

This is my belief. Only one point on the disc is relevant to marking and that point is only above one playing surface- the lower. There is nowhere in the rules that prohibits a player from marking the disc under certain circumstances.

 

[coupe]

The disc is still at rest on a playing surface. The mini is for marking disc position.

Except that for the 2 meter rule to be in play, a disc must be at rest above the playing surface (802.05.B), which is not the case in the scenario under discussion.

I would further contend that since the disc in this scenario is on an in-bounds playing surface (above 2m is not OB), 802.06.C affirmatively precludes the possibility of invoking the 2m rule to enable a player to mark and play from the lower surface.

802.06 Marking the Lie
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.

Additionally, I would contend that logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules (801.01.A), specifically

QA-LIE-1: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it’s above the creek? What if I’m on the bridge but over land?
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.

also precludes invocation of the 2m rule to justify marking and playing from the lower playing surface.

 

[coupe]

Does the largest part of the disc determine the position?

Logical extension of 805.01.D.

Is the position no longer circular?

Based on the precedent of how a tombstoned disc has historically been marked (at least in this area), that would indeed appear to be the case.

[Slight tangent: although 802.06.B specifies that a mini marker may be placed touching "the front of the thrown disc on the line of play," it does NOT require the mini to be placed centered on the LOP. [BTW, how does one place a marker disc on the LOP since, by definition (802.05.D), the LOP doesn't exist until the marker disc is placed? opcorn:] Since "the front" of the thrown disc is the entire half of the disc closer to the target than the center of the thrown disc, one could, in principle, legally place the mini anywhere along the forward edge of the disc up to the width of the mini of the LOP of the thrown disc, thereby gaining up to an extra 3"/7.5cm of clearance around an obstacle. opcorn:]

What if the disc was barely touching the higher surface (maybe wedged under a rock, with most of the disc sticking out over the air)

Isn't that the logical extension of the question under discussion?

 

[rhatton1]

...but the front part of the disc has come to rest above the only playing surface which is below the front part of the disc.

Does only the front part of the disc matter, since that is where the mini goes? Is the position split? Does the largest part of the disc determine the position? Is the position no longer circular? What if the disc was barely touching the higher surface (maybe wedged under a rock, with most of the disc sticking out over the air)?

Forgive me if I've missed your response, but this one does intrigue me. There are valid arguments on both sides.

You ask lots of questions above and I'm curious to how you'd personally answer them?

As a member of the rules committee, how would you rule it if a member of your group had this lie and wanted to place their mini on the lower surface (as per Biscoe/Chuck's contention - and I think mine as well if the leading edge of the disc is overhanging)

This does seem to be one where a group and TD (if involved) could rule either way and not be wrong.

 

[chevis]

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.

This does seem to be one where a group and TD (if involved) could rule either way and not be wrong.

rhatton1 was responding to steve, but i think it applies to txmxer too. stacked playing surfaces rules aren't defined enough to give us a definitive answer.
i would think you should be required to play from the surface you landed on & steve pointed out marking the lie says "...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." So then there are many examples of the mini not being able to touch the disc when marked & those should be addressed somewhere else; the focus of the current discussion is marking below/above when there are 2 playing surfaces.
in txmxer's example above, the LOP goes from one playing surface to another & they are stacked because you can take a stance on both. maybe the rule needs to clarify when there are stacked playing surfaces you must play from the one where the disc came to rest (if a reasonable stance can be made).

 

[BillFleming]

Everyone keeps talking about the mini and where to place it. Why? The player can take a legal stance behind the disc....there is NO requirement by the rules to use a mini....it is an option.

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

So, where the disc is marks the lie. Period. The rules do allow you to use a mini marker instead - but, it does not REQUIRE you to use a mini marker. So that should make the argument moot....the lie is marked legally by the disc on the ledge. The only question is where can the player take their stance.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Everyone keeps talking about the mini and where to place it. Why? The player can take a legal stance behind the disc....there is NO requirement by the rules to use a mini....it is an option.
So, where the disc is marks the lie. Period. The rules do allow you to use a mini marker instead - but, it does not REQUIRE you to use a mini marker. So that should make the argument moot....the lie is marked legally by the disc on the ledge. The only question is where can the player take their stance.

The subtlety missed by some in this discussion is the distinction between a disc's POSITION and the possible LIES that can be marked based on the disc's position, i.e., the position is not the same as the possible lies, by definition.

Granted, the phrase "marks the lie" in 802.06 a. The position of a thrown disc on the in-bounds playing surface marks the lie. might be clearer as "provides one lie marking option." But b. does not limit the alternative lie by saying something like "alternatively use a mini only if it can be placed on the same playing surface as the rest of the disc." No question that the use of the word "touching" adds more confusion versus indicating a vertical plane like it does for say marking up to a meter from the OB line in 806.02 F.

 

[biscoe]

Everyone keeps talking about the mini and where to place it. Why? The player can take a legal stance behind the disc....there is NO requirement by the rules to use a mini....it is an option.



So, where the disc is marks the lie. Period. The rules do allow you to use a mini marker instead - but, it does not REQUIRE you to use a mini marker. So that should make the argument moot....the lie is marked legally by the disc on the ledge. The only question is where can the player take their stance.

The rules state the option exists. They do not state anywhere that said option ceases to exist under certain circumstances. Therefore it exists across the board. Period.

 

[coupe]

The rules state the option exists. They do not state anywhere that said option ceases to exist under certain circumstances. Therefore it exists across the board. Period.

+1000.

 

[txmxer]

The rules state the option exists. They do not state anywhere that said option ceases to exist under certain circumstances. Therefore it exists across the board. Period.

But it does cease to exist under certain conditions does it not?

 

[biscoe]

But it does cease to exist under certain conditions does it not?

I don't believe so. Do you have an example?

 

[coupe]

But it does cease to exist under certain conditions does it not?

Such as …? Cite the specific portion of the relevant rule that prohibits a player from exercising the option to mark an in-bounds lie with a mini.

 

[txmxer]

If you are up against a solid object such as a tree?

 

[biscoe]

If you are up against a solid object such as a tree?

803.02.B- "If a large solid obstacle prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc, or from marking a disc above or below the playing surface, the player may mark a new lie immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play."

Mark moves slightly but no prohibition on marking.

 

[araytx]

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?

Chuck, you KNOW I agree with you most of the time. And I respect your close-knit participation with the rules committee, comp committee, and as a PDGA liaison over the years. If you know something OTHER THAN the rule about "disc above or below the playing surface coming about to address discs falling into a crevice in the parts of the country that had great droughts for a period of time, (I say other because they might be RC having other intent), then please let me know. Otherwise I still see it both in intent and actual reading that I disagree with you herein. The intent one is easy – if the RC intended that you could mark on either surface even if your disc was on one surface they would have said so. I don't think that is the case unless Chuck you'll enlighten us.

Now how do I disagree with what you've written here, and what the rules say as I read them, cgk? Classic "em-PHAS-sis" on the wrong "syl-LAB-uhl." The KEY WORD isn't "alternately"; the key word is "may" as I read it. Meaning you may or you may not. There might be another option or there might not. If you emphasize "alternately" then I get your point. But surely the fact that it says you "may" mark a different way DOES NOT mean it guarantees you that way. It is an option for you when (and if) that other alternative option is available. In your response above, like many others, you go to the marking issue before ever determining the disc's position. Determining the position has to come first, and in the OP it is my distinct belief that the disc is ON the playing surface. Convince me otherwise and I'll be willing to hear other sides. I just have yet to hear anyone put forth any evidence that the OP's disc is anything other than ON the playing surface.

Those who say the OP describes one continuous, contiguous playing surface then there's nothing else but "THE" playing surface in this OP. Those who say there are more than one, then that would mean reverting to vertically-stacked playing surfaces applications of the rules.

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)...

How am I misreading "on"? That's the word both the OP and YOU use in the description (as you did above). With 805.01 A, this is very clear.

I know some people like to either "skip over" this fact or "move past it" to the "marking issue;" however, first things must come first. It's ON. Not in a bush, brush or tree suspended above a playing surface. It's ON. Its position (by 805.01 A), and anything sensible says it is ON the playing surface.

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.

And that's my point. Anyone claiming he cannot "stand' there is making an invalid point. The stance may or may not include "standing." I've yet to see an example (maybe there is one but it'll be rarer that these rare ones on this thread) where the player cannot take a legal stance according to the rules and throw from the lie on the same playing surface (level) as the thrown disc. I'll even make a video for you, if you'll make one of where the disc you want me the throw from is.


and ps, sorry coupe, I'm answering where I was quoted. I'll read the rest of thread since later today or tomorrow.