When I first read 803.07 C I thought it meant that the disc could be above 2 m and then fall to some height below 2 m (but still be in the tree/bush) as the result of some agent that was legal and no penalty would accrue (assuming it was in-bounds etc.) since the disc was no longer above 2 m but it was still above the playing surface.

"C. No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve."

On the second read, I assumed it meant falling to a height <2 m OR onto the playing surface (i.e. the ground). However, after a few weeks of reading the rules and the very enlightening discussions about the rules, it seems like the literal wording does NOT include the playing surface, since it says "a position less than two meters above the playing surface." Some might argue that 0 m in height is not ABOVE the playing surface--it is ON the playing surface. If there is a distinction between above vs. on, then this rule is poorly worded. If there is no distinction, there should be no problem.

I just want to make sure that the intent of the rule was that if a disc were to legally to fall to a height <2 m (and still be above the playing surface) prior to marking it, then it would be in fair play and no penalty stroke incurred, and that is also included falling to the playing surface as fair (assuming it is in-bounds etc.).

Cheers,
Steve

This is some serious nitpicking :). If the disc falls to a position less than 2 meters, there is no penalty. This includes anywhere between 1.999 and 0.000 meters.

that is definitely some serious nitpicking... i am sure now that you are just trying to be absurd with these questions.

"less than 2M above the playing surface" include 1.99999M above the playing surface, 0.00000001M above the playing surface, and -999.678M above the playing surface (which is also BELOW the playing surface).

the playing surface is below "2M above the playing surface". what's so confusing or poorly written about that???

you belong on the 2MR thread(s). we could use some new blood over there! :D

you belong on the 2MR thread(s). we could use some new blood over there! :D



:eek: :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :) :D :D

simpler rules (no 2 meter penalty) allow for less Nickpicking (oops, i mean nitpicking)...

Isn't language fun. :D

I'm glad people notice these deficiencies that ALWAYS rear their ugly head when writing rules. I don't care if you had a group of ten geniuses writing rules, these things will always exist. The writers can clarify the identified areas of loose language in the next rulewrite, but new ones will always appear. The process is never-ending.

You can probably argue that Pat's interpretation is correct. It is certainly viable and it was clearly the intent of the writers. However, the interpretation posed in the original post is also viable, even though most reasonable people would discount it, or thankfully never think of it.

Anyways, I like this example since it clearly highlights the danger of allowing language to rule over commonsense.

Well, I am not trying to be absurd--really I'm not! :) Given some of the other threads I've been reading, and noting the incredible amount of text written on very specific wording and how it is interpreted, I thought I'd raise this one. As one poster noted, this issue about proper syntax, and even more importantly, proper diction. The rules are not always clear to neophytes like me, in spite of the best efforts of the RC to make them so.

And thanks for the chuckle from "the playing surface is below "2M above the playing surface". It's akin to a double negative, but not one I've thought of before!

Cheers!
Steve :D

When I first read 803.07 C I thought it meant that the disc could be above 2 m and then fall to some height below 2 m (but still be in the tree/bush) as the result of some agent that was legal and no penalty would accrue (assuming it was in-bounds etc.) since the disc was no longer above 2 m but it was still above the playing surface.

"C. No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve."

On the second read, I assumed it meant falling to a height <2 m OR onto the playing surface (i.e. the ground). However, after a few weeks of reading the rules and the very enlightening discussions about the rules, it seems like the literal wording does NOT include the playing surface, since it says "a position less than two meters above the playing surface." Some might argue that 0 m in height is not ABOVE the playing surface--it is ON the playing surface. If there is a distinction between above vs. on, then this rule is poorly worded. If there is no distinction, there should be no problem.

I just want to make sure that the intent of the rule was that if a disc were to legally to fall to a height <2 m (and still be above the playing surface) prior to marking it, then it would be in fair play and no penalty stroke incurred, and that is also included falling to the playing surface as fair (assuming it is in-bounds etc.).

Cheers,
Steve



Steve,

You must be getting ready to turn "PRO" :D

Only people on TOUR, try to get themselves so confused by the rules /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Heres a good example of "reading into the rules to much"

The names have been changed to protect the STUPID....

Joe "Local" and Joe "Just on Tour" were playing a round in an event. This was right after the last "Major" rules revision. J.O.T. throws a disc that goes into a creek BUT sticks into the mud bank UNDER water. J.O.T. then TRYS to claim that by the "Rule of Verticality" he is safe. His reasoning is that if you went vertically from the edge of the disc that was "stuck in the bank". It would be "SAFE" since that area was NOT in water but "DRY".
"Local" says that he is crazy, and states that "JOT" is OB.
JOT actually goes so far to tell "Local" that he is a "Cheater" and is just trying to get strokes back.

This was brought to me, and I took it to the "Competition Director" who happened to be playing in the event also.

Bottom line. He was OB and his traveling partners didnt allow him to study the rule book anymore /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

play the game, keep it simple, the rules are not that hard to follow. Its when you try to figure out ways to use them IN YOUR FAVOR that it gets complicated :)

if i were the TD i could even go as far as warning JOT that if he persued the matter I'd have to call him on 804.05.A.3 - DQ on account of willfully trying to circumvent the rules of play :cool:

the story is still pretty amusing though that anyone would actually try and do that

Wait, oh nevermind. I thought this thread was Nickpicking... :D