Can someone please post them. I know we ussualy get a packet after renewal with the changes in them, but I want to see now!

The new rule book link is posted on the Home page (upper right).

yeah, I saw that. And I was looking for specifically the changes.

Not sure it's been done.

yeah, I saw that. And I was looking for specifically the changes.



Look on page 14 of the pdf file. The summary of changes is there.

So you don't have to look:

Summary of Rules Changes

In this first printing of the new Rules, we are including this summary of the more important rules changes that are being implemented as of January 1, 2006.

This summary is for information purposes only, it is not part of the official rules.

The glossary was moved to the front of the book. There is a lot of important stuff in there that helps to fully explain certain rules situations. Read the glossary.

Clarified that a line has no thickness under �Line of Play�. This means that a player�s support point must be directly
behind the center of the marker, regardless of the size of the marker.

Made players responsible for the actions of their caddies.

Replaced many �shoulds� with the word �shall."

Stated that players should attend the player�s meeting and that they are responsible for knowing what is mentioned at it.

Clarified and expanded the explanation of Provisional Throws. You can use them to play holes in alternate ways (carding both scores) to settle rules disputes and you can
use them when you think it might save time. (Lost disc, OB disc, etc.) Again, provisional throws can really come in handy.

Clarified that casual obstacles can not be moved if part of them are between you and the hole. Play it where you threw it. The player now has the option of moving back five meters on the line of play.

Changed Unsafe Lie to Unplayable Lie. A player may now relocate within 5 meters OR throw from the previous lie with a one throw penalty.

The default is now NO two meter rule. Of course the TD has the option to make two meters a penalty if they wish. TD�s can also have it apply only to certain, designated obstacles.

Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.)

Did the obligatory re-write of the mandatory rule. Just an attempt at more clarity. The drop zone is still alive and well.

Lost disc. The player plays from their previous lie. (Throw and distance.) This gets rid of that contentious �where it was last seen� judgment call.

Referenced that all special conditions should be covered in the player�s meeting.

When recording scores, clarified that numbers must be used and that it is okay for anyone in the group to pick up the cards.

Divisional classifications were removed from the rule book. They change frequently. Each season will have the appropriate divisions listed on the PDGA site, and in all publications and event guides.

Changed Unsafe Lie to Unplayable Lie. A player may now relocate within 5 meters OR throw from the previous lie with a one throw penalty.


No, that's not quite it.

Relocate within 5 meter on the LOP. It used to be 5 meters no closer to the hole. This is a really big change.

Line of play is straight back from the target. So, like, if you throw into the nasty impenetrable parallel schule, usually five meters on the LOP will be a little deeper into the nasty, impenetrable parallel schule.

I didn't write the summary. I just cut/pasted the above from the pdf file so MTLhead could read it.

The summary isn't the rule. The rule is the rule. Whatever the rule says is what goes.

Jon is right. He's just quoting a document explaining the rule change THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE RULE CHANGE AT ALL!

It looks SO like the Board got hoodwinked by the Rule Committee. The explanation of the rule reads like maybe they were trying to hide the rule change?

Lost disc. The player plays from their previous lie. (Throw and distance.) This gets rid of that contentious �where it was last seen� judgment call.



what about this one??? if off the teepad..you just drive again shooting 3?

It looks like maybe the Board let the Rules Committee be the Rules Committee. I don't know why you are describing that as hoodwinking. Which Rules Committee members would you like seen thrown in jail, Bruce? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Clarified that a line has no thickness under �Line of Play�. This means that a player�s support point must be directly behind the center of the marker, regardless of the size of the marker.

<font color="red"> Glad to see this change. No more of those (when straddling left) "the right edge of my right foot is in line with the left edge of my mini."</font>



Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.)

<font color="red"> Near creeks, streams, ponds, & lakes if the disc is half in the water and half out on land it is now considered OB?</font>


Lost disc. The player plays from their previous lie. (Throw and distance.) This gets rid of that contentious �where it was last seen� judgment call.

<font color="red"> We probably wont see too many circle 3's from a lost disc now b/c the disc was "last seen" flying near the basket. I like the stroke and distance rule. </font>

Clarified that a line has no thickness under �Line of Play�. This means that a player�s support point must be directly behind the center of the marker, regardless of the size of the marker.

<font color="red"> Glad to see this change. No more of those (when straddling left) "the right edge of my right foot is in line with the left edge of my mini."</font>



Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.)

<font color="red"> Near creeks, streams, ponds, & lakes if the disc is half in the water and half out on land it is now considered OB?</font>


Lost disc. The player plays from their previous lie. (Throw and distance.) This gets rid of that contentious �where it was last seen� judgment call.

<font color="red"> We probably wont see too many circle 3's from a lost disc now b/c the disc was "last seen" flying near the basket. I like the stroke and distance rule. </font>

It looks like maybe the Board let the Rules Committee be the Rules Committee. I don't know why you are describing that as hoodwinking. Which Rules Committee members would you like seen thrown in jail, Bruce? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif




It looks SO like the Board got hoodwinked by the Rule Committee. The explanation of the rule reads like maybe they were trying to hide the rule change?



Yes, Bruce, do tell. Who exactly on the PDGA Rules Committee purposefully deceived the hapless PDGA BOD? Carlton, Conrad, Jim, Dr. Rick, Joe? Yeah, I�ve met all of those guys and they are really a shady bunch. :p And who on the PDGA BOD were duped? Theo, Terry, Brian, John? Yeah, they�re intelligence certainly is questionable. :p

Lord God Emperor Bruce Almighty, you really need to check yourself before you start insinuating dishonesty and purposeful deception on the part of longtime, selfless, hardworking volunteers.

Perhaps it is a sense of guilt for not being able to put up since you certainly seem incapable of shutting up.

And don�t come off all innocent. You really deserve each and every �punch in the mouth� (your term not mine) you get here. These are real people, doing real things, for the betterment of disc golf. You do your job and let them do their's. http://www.madisc.org/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif

Near creeks, streams, ponds, & lakes if the disc is half in the water and half out on land it is now considered OB?




There was some discussion of this at our mini on sunday. However, the rules still say that in order to be OB, the disc must be "clearly and completely surrounded by OB." Therefore, those are still in bounds.

Well in 2006 if the line is considered OUT then the disc must be 100% in to be IN.

No?

We already need clarification.

:D

Well in 2006 if the line is considered OUT then the disc must be 100% in to be IN.

No?



I must be missing something. In my line of thinking, little has changed in this regard: Regardless of what the line is, the disc must be surrounded by OB to be considered OB.

On a anal side note. Technically, in some parks where the perimeter is OB, aren't all discs completely surrounded by OB?

this needs to be clarified. so I would undrestand it like My Hero. there is no more surrounded OB ruling and touching OB is now OB. not good for Round Rock and the cables. But need some answere..

if the disc is partially IB, then its safe.

the rule change is for situations like a walled creek. lets say the disc crosses into the air above the creek right in front of the teepad, then stays above the water for 200 feet, then drops and hyzers into the creek wall. if the wall has been declared the OB line, then under the new rules the disc never came back IB and is rethrown from in front of the tee. this is an actual scenario for Greenbelt, where we have always played the walls as the OB line, but if you hit the wall but bounced back into the drink you were considered to have crossed back into IB, and could play it above where you hit.

disc partially IB/OB are not affected by this change.

Football/Basketball - the line is OB. Touch the line and you're OB. That is what is inferred from reading the update in the back of the rule book.

Reading the rule itself shows the change in context. The update is poorly worded in terms of the actual rule. Perhaps the RC should only reference rule numbers that have changed, instead of passively promoting an incorrect interpretation of the new rule. Yes, the update section says these aren't part of the official rules, BUT that won't stop players from quoting them as gospel and more non-rules rules will be created.

Thanks, I now understand the misunderstanding, but the rules are pretty clear IMO. The disc is IB.

if the disc is partially IB, then its safe.

the rule change is for situations like a walled creek. lets say the disc crosses into the air above the creek right in front of the teepad, then stays above the water for 200 feet, then drops and hyzers into the creek wall. if the wall has been declared the OB line, then under the new rules the disc never came back IB and is rethrown from in front of the tee. this is an actual scenario for Greenbelt, where we have always played the walls as the OB line, but if you hit the wall but bounced back into the drink you were considered to have crossed back into IB, and could play it above where you hit.

disc partially IB/OB are not affected by this change.



If that's the case then it needs to be worded something like that. The summary that i read said:


Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.)




.....so at the USDGC, or any other yellow rope/sidewalk/creek/lake course half in and half out is IB? That's not how i would interpret the above quote. :confused:

The difference in DG and BG from basketball and football is that the OB status is only determined after the ball/disc stops moving. The new rule changes the OB area size by less than a millimeter. The disc still has to be surrounded by OB to be called OB. As pointed out, the only reason for the change was to prevent players from getting favorable lies down fairways (after going OB) when the majority or last part of the disc's flight is over OB on the throw. Unfortunately, I believe this rule change will cause more confusion than the potential fence/wall benefit as evidenced by these posts.

Unfortunately, I believe this rule change will cause more confusion than the potential fence/wall benefit as evidenced by these posts.



It already has. :D

in other words, the RC continues its awesome record for yet another year! :D

The difference in DG and BG from basketball and football is that the OB status is only determined after the ball/disc stops moving. The new rule changes the OB area size by less than a millimeter. The disc still has to be surrounded by OB to be called OB. As pointed out, the only reason for the change was to prevent players from getting favorable lies down fairways (after going OB) when the majority or last part of the disc's flight is over OB on the throw. Unfortunately, I believe this rule change will cause more confusion than the potential fence/wall benefit as evidenced by these posts.

Since the o.b. line by definition now has no thickness, the area of the o.b. is not influenced by whether the line is o.b. or i.b.

The rule change makes a difference in two situations, the one described above where the disc in flight touches the o.b. line, and the situation here the disc comes to rest out of bounds but touching the physical object which is used to mark the imaginary o.b. line.

At USDGC or the Fairfield Fairwell it used to be that if you landed on the bad side of the rope touching the rope but not crossing the rope you were touching in bounds. Now the disc is entirely out of bounds because the rope is considered out of bounds.

When a disc is partly in bounds an partly out of bounds it is still played as in bounds.

Since the o.b. line by definition now has no thickness, the area of the o.b. is not influenced by whether the line is o.b. or i.b.




But it does have thickness from a practical standpoint as evidenced by your own rope example. The OB line (with no thickness) has now moved from the OB edge to the IB edge of the rope making the OB area a little bigger than before. At the USDGC, the OB string isn't one millimeter thick and thus my earlier remark about OB getting bigger by less than a millimeter.

The difference in DG and BG from basketball and football is that the OB status is only determined after the ball/disc stops moving. The new rule changes the OB area size by less than a millimeter. The disc still has to be surrounded by OB to be called OB. As pointed out, the only reason for the change was to prevent players from getting favorable lies down fairways (after going OB) when the majority or last part of the disc's flight is over OB on the throw. Unfortunately, I believe this rule change will cause more confusion than the potential fence/wall benefit as evidenced by these posts.



I agree Chuck. My point is the "Cliffs Notes" version in the back of the book is an incorrect--or at least an unclear--interpretation of the entire rule. It's easier for players (who will take the easiest way) to remember the "OB line is out" rather than the "OB line is out for determining where the disc was last in-bounds." The RC has muddied the water by trying to be too short in communicating the change.

Since the o.b. line by definition now has no thickness, the area of the o.b. is not influenced by whether the line is o.b. or i.b.


But it does have thickness from a practical standpoint as evidenced by your own rope example. The OB line (with no thickness) has now moved from the OB edge to the IB edge of the rope making the OB area a little bigger than before. At the USDGC, the OB string isn't one millimeter thick and thus my earlier remark about OB getting bigger by less than a millimeter.

I know. You are both right and wrong at the same time because the the definition says that the line is an imaginary line with no thickness, but the rule says that the line is out of bounds. An imaginary geometric kind of line with no thickness could neither be in bounds nor out of bounds, but would be the arealess, volumeless, infinitely thin seam between in bounds and out of bounds. I was just highlighting the logical conundrum created by the language of the rule.

Our rope is probably a quarter of an inch thick. One of our players says he landed 99.9% o.b. last tournament, touching but not crossing the rope. The rule change has an impact on that one freaky occurrence, and on everyone who tries to overfly the tennis courts but gets knocked o.b. down by the second fence.

I don't think the new rule is confusing or anything. Most players unaware of the rules intuited that the o.b. line was o.b. and played it that way in the tennis court situation unless someone corrected them. I've seen that at almost every tournament I've played at Bevier. The new rule goes with most players' natural intuition so that's probably a good thing.

Is it the Cliff Notes version or the readers?

I hear a lot of criticism of the RC's wording synopsis (on the OB matter at least) and it IS NOT even wrong. Their synopsis is correct:

"The line is now considered OUT, not in."

If the synopsis had said "Touching the line is considered OUT, not in," then the criticism would have some traction.

All in all, it helps to limit criticism to things that really are wrong.

okay James next time I see you please explain all this :confused:

So that changes the way I rule at Greenbelt for tournament play. I call the wall itself the OB line, that way you get a meter in the grass from the wall to throw your shot. The way the rule stated over the last few years, if you hit that wall and fell in the creek, you took you lie where it hit the wall.

Now, if I kept the same rule on the wall as the OB line, if you are sitting on the wall you are OB, if you hit the wall and don't bounce in bounds, you have to either re-tee or throw where you flew over the wall the first time.

Yes, this would effect SEVERAL holes out at Greenbelt, I may call the water OB and not the wall next year. I will make the call later.

When the PDGA instituted the operations Marshal program a few years ago, the Marshals began an online discussion to ensure that we would be consistent in our rules interpretations. The scenario that we discovered was most often being called differently in different areas of the country was, where to mark a disc when it is thrown out over OB and it hits the inside of a fence or wall (the OB line) on its returning flight but stays OB. Everyone agreed that the disc was OB but as I recall, about half said that in their region they marked the disc down the fairway where it hit the fence and the other half said they marked the disc where it first crossed over the fence in the air. Both sides made very convincing arguments based upon the rules and basic laws of physics. The final consensus of the Marshals was that the intent of the rule was that the disc should be marked where it first crossed the OB line in the air.

The new rule eliminates this inconsistency by better defining the actual OB line. The line is now OB so a disc bouncing off, but not crossing the line (fence, wall, rope, ?) should be marked where it first crossed over the OB line in the air. Previously the line was in bounds so the argument made was that a disc hitting a fence, had touched in bounds for a split second and therefore should be marked at that point.

For the record, here in Augusta up until that time we had always played the disc where it hit the fence. :o

The rules summary seems pretty clear to me but I may be somewhat biased due to the many conversations we had on the subject prior to this new change. Thank you to all of the members of the rules committee for your continued hard work on yet another thankless job.

Well, I think you did a fine job of writing a rule that will more likely get the consistant call you want whenever a TD actually reads the rule before ruling, even if it is a little paradoxical. Since most of our o.b. exists to protect players on other holes, to protect sensitive areas, to honor private property rights of neighbors, to protect other park users, the more punitive interpretation of the rule has merit.

Some people will never get this because they are not capable of reasoning from an irrational premise, but if an o.b. line has no thickness whatsoever, it is totally irrelevant whether it is in bounds or out of bounds. Your disc is never going to come to rest partially out of bounds and partially on something imaginary with no thickness whatsoever. Neither will your disc bounce off something imaginary with no thickness whatsoever. Whether things that do have thickness that define o.b., like walls, ropes and painted lines, are out of bounds is what matters, and the new rule makes it clear enough that those things are out of bounds.

On a hole where the only fairway is a long throw over water that might come back to land only to be rejected by the seawall or floodwall, a clever td who wants to let that player take a stroke and play from further up will just reword the location of the ob line or make creative use of the drop zone rule.

Here is the conversation that illustrates my point:

Official: What part of this disc do you think is in bounds?
Player: The theoretical singular point of tangency to the imaginary o.b. line.
Official: Well, in the imaginary land where you are always putting for the World Championship, you can call that in bounds. Here, it is out of bounds.

My point is the "Cliffs Notes" version in the back of the book is an incorrect--or at least an unclear--interpretation of the entire rule. It's easier for players (who will take the easiest way) to remember the "OB line is out" rather than the "OB line is out for determining where the disc was last in-bounds." The RC has muddied the water by trying to be too short in communicating the change.



I agree Tony. What ever happened to "KISS? (Keep It Simple, Stupid)"

Simplicity is important. We are dealing with disc golfers after all! :D

Yes, this would effect SEVERAL holes out at Greenbelt, I may call the water OB and not the wall next year. I will make the call later.


Pizza, if you really think that hitting the wall should be "good", then define the OB line as the line where the grass/dirt meets the wall on the creek side of the wall. That's a pretty clear and distinct line and it makes the wall itself inbounds.

The key difference would be that you get 1 meter relief from the creekside edge of the wall versus the fairway side of the wall, which could be significant if it's a block wall or thicker.

Well in 2006 if the line is considered OUT then the disc must be 100% in to be IN.

No?



I think the reasoning behind this is to eliminate the issue of where a disc is marked as being OB.

For example...

Situation..... Hole plays along a fence..fence line is OB..

Player throws a Hyzer Bomb out over the OB and Hits the fence on the way back, but falls on OB side of the line.

An arguement follows as to where the Disc was actually "Last IB" Common sense would say that it was last OB where the disc LEFT the IB on its way down the fairway.

BUT the player has read the rules and the Fence Line (OB Line) is considered "IN" so he says that his disc should be marked at the point that it hit the fence, NOT back where it first went over.

Being that the OB line was considered "IN" this has merit..

With the '06 Rule the "OB Line" is now "OUT" so there would be NO ISSUE and the disc would be either marked where it went out or from the previous lie....

I think :p

:D

Rhett, there is no real grass or dirt line on the creek side of the wall. It is a man-made (or man-improved) drainage creek that, for the most part, is lined with concrete blocks. For most of the creek where there is a wall, the waterline is in direct contact with the wall.

Pizza, I would tend to agree with your suggestion of making the wall IB and the water OB. If your disc first touches the wall above the water line, then your next shot is played parallel to that spot, up to 1 meter in from the top of the wall (since the wall is nearly vertical). This would allow players who have played your tourneys at GB in the past to effectively play the course the same way they always have.

Not sure how you would want to handle shots that skip off the water's surface before contacting the wall, though. But hey, that's why your the TD, and I'm not! :D

Here is the conversation that illustrates my point:

Official: What part of this disc do you think is in bounds?
Player: The theoretical singular point of tangency to the imaginary o.b. line.
Official: Well, in the imaginary land where you are always putting for the World Championship, you can call that in bounds. Here, it is out of bounds.



that was a great read. thank you! :D

I understand that the concept of an OB having no thickness may be "irrational." However, is it really that problematic?

For example, lets use some concrete examples. In your conversation

Official: What part of this disc do you think is in bounds?
Player: The theoretical singular point of tangency to the imaginary o.b. line.



What is the imaginary OB line that is being argued about?

In the examples I can think up, no problem is caused by this definition. Certainly no more conflicts than under the present rules. If I am in the mood to conceptualize, a line of undefined width (present rules) is just as obtuse as a line of no width (2006 rules).

Bottom line, when I walk up to the IB/OB boundary and look at the disc, the call will be just as easy on Jan 1, 2006 as it is now. Also, the disc hitting the fence issue is resolved. Seems like progress on this front.

That's fine. As long as all the players are aware of the new changes. If not sure , ask at the players meeting , before the tournament. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Pizza, IMO i don't think at Greenbelt hitting the side of the wall should allow that player to play the ob up where it hit the wall. I think if you took a chance out there and went over the water and didnt make it up then you made a serious error and should be penalized more then just the stroke and be able to play up where it hit the wall. Stroke and playing where you first went over the water sounds like the fair way to do it. You da TD Man though but that is just how I would personally call it if it were up to me.

thanks magilla and James I understand now. I think I needed to drink a few more beers to get it :D

Question for all of you rules junkies....don't jump down my throat, I have read this thread and I am clear for the most part.

What if the T.D. paints an O.B. line, normally a 3-4 inches in width in my area, a player throws out over the O.B. similar to the fence scenario, and skips up touching the line. All of the disc is out except an inch touching the paint. Since the line is now O.B., would that disc be out?

I understand the rule as the disc being in? right or wrong?

the TD would need to announce whether the inside or outside ofthe painted line was to used as the actual/official line.

without that announcement, you would almost have to assume that the entire line is OB.

Since the line is now O.B., would that disc be out?




The disc is surrounded by "out" so it's out. It would have to have part of the disc slightly beyond the line into the IB area to be "IN"

the TD would need to announce whether the inside or outside of the painted line was to used as the actual/official line.




That's unnecessary and more confusing. I believe if something like paint or string is added to mark OB, all of the paint or string will now be OB. Ideally, all of a fence could be called OB but the RC missed the boat on allowing for surfaces to identify OB even though TDs will operate as if things like fences and walls are perfectly vertical. Natural OB/IB edges like water/land or grass/cement will still work the same.

The "no thickness" clarification relates to the Line of Play which, by definition, is an imaginary line. Taking this change out of context and applying it to OB does not make sense since OB lines are almost always real lines with real thicknesses.

Take care,
Harold

Almost like the rules in tennis ?

Since the line is now O.B., would that disc be out?




The disc is surrounded by "out" so it's out. It would have to have part of the disc slightly beyond the line into the IB area to be "IN"



It would be out. That's how i interpret it now....thanks to Chuck, James, Pat and Magilla.

Got it...thanks!

The "no thickness" clarification relates to the Line of Play which, by definition, is an imaginary line. Taking this change out of context and applying it to OB does not make sense since OB lines are almost always real lines with real thicknesses.

Take care,
Harold




Almost like the rules in tennis ?



in tennis, if you land completely on the line aren't you in? So Tennis doesn't seem to work. If you land on a wall made of cement cylinders, and the wall is played as the OB line, in 2006 your disc is still OB. In the pic. below you'd have to be touching the green to be in; if you were on the wall surrounded by concrete you'd be OB and have to take your next shot from the teepad side of the creek and add one penalty stroke for landing OB. (The wall is about a foot wide)

http://www.innovadiscs.com/cfr/2005/kenstate.jpg

In 2005 Idlewild course designer Fred Salaz would designate the side of the wall touching the green as the OB line so that if you hit the wall and fell OB you had to play from the far side of the creek. In 2006, simply by declaring the wall OB, Harold's clarification suggests it will be played that way by default. Right?

Harold's comment wasn't complete. The imaginary plane that separates IB from OB has no thickness. The physical line like paint or string, or physical object like a fence or wall that is used to create the IB/OB plane, does have thickness. No matter how thick those lines or objects may be, the IB/OB plane between them and the IB area has no thickness.

okay, so that's a "yes" :confused: [:D]

Yes. Fred's green nicely illustrates one of the reasons why the rule was changed.

Take care,
Harold

Lord God Emperor Bruce Almighty, you really need to check yourself before you start insinuating dishonesty and purposeful deception on the part of longtime, selfless, hardworking volunteers.

Perhaps it is a sense of guilt for not being able to put up since you certainly seem incapable of shutting up.

And don't come off all innocent. You really deserve each and every "punch in the mouth" (your term not mine) you get here. These are real people, doing real things, for the betterment of disc golf. You do your job and let them do their's.



The same thing could be said for you, Nick.

You really need to check yourself if you think that attitude is appropriate, since you also seem incapable of shutting up.

You also deserve each and every "punch in the mouth" you get here.

(The wall is about a foot wide)

http://www.innovadiscs.com/cfr/2005/kenstate.jpg

Nice Disc............Is that a Glow Starfire ?

I'm not insinuating dishonesty and purposeful deception; I'm saying it. 2004. They admitted it. It is why the rules rewrite process came grinding to a halt last fall. I saved the bogus version of the rules they tried to slide by and I saved the e-mail where the perp admitted that he did it on purpose.

There's no insuations here.

actually example from today:

the hole has an elevated tee, a huge hyzer for the righties around a forest on the left, and a treelined residential neighborhood (OB) on the right. the basket is down around the bend, and too far too reach for a righty hyzer, but a good throw can set you up to get under the huge pecan trees that surround the bucket. tough for righties, remarkably difficult for a lefty.

we're playing a 5 team doubles casual round. most everyone throws and most look like they're somewhere in the fairway around the bend. you cannot see the landing spot at all from the tee.

i get up and throw a beat up XS on the righty line. it annies over for me nicely (i'm lefty) sets up a beautiful glide plane, and disappears around the forest. it looks like the best drive by far, and the entire group felt it was either gonna be looking at an easy bird, or at worst would be 50' short.

we never found the disc. most likely it snuck under the copious leaves under the trees... coulda been anywhere within 50-60 feet from the basket. it clearly was NOT off to either side because the thick shule would have stopped its flight and we would have found it at the edge of the fairway.

in 2005 i would have been given a spot in the center of the fairway about 200 or so feet short of the pin. i'd have been laying two at that point - one for the throw and one for the lost disc. due to the terrain and pecan trees that block the approach i would have needed a seriously precise upshot to "save" a four.

in 2006 i would have to retreat to the teebox laying two, and having to risk the entire thing over. even assuming i throw onto the fairway, i would have been looking at easily a 6, maybe even a 7, and thats if i didnt lose another disc.

the stroke PLUS distance is ridiculous. it is double jeopardy and overly punitive.

it just does NOT make sense, no matter how you try to justify it. i dont know, maybe sweden does it that way or something, cuz there is no way this helps the game.

I'm not insinuating dishonesty and purposeful deception; I'm saying it. 2004. They admitted it. It is why the rules rewrite process came grinding to a halt last fall. I saved the bogus version of the rules they tried to slide by and I saved the e-mail where the perp admitted that he did it on purpose.

There's no insuations here.



And...?

What the Sam Hill is your point?

Is anyone really interested in Bruce's "What I Did This Summer" essay on his breif and entirely unproductive (one might even say disruptive) stint in the PDGA BOD?

On your mark... get set... WITCH HUNT! (for no particular reason...)

yes, we ARE interested. there have been other cases of similar shenanigans. completely inexcusable and it should be exposed and discussed.

Sandalman, in your example I have to agree that the 06 version is way too harsh, you shouldnt be penalized that bad for losing a disc.

On the other hand, being able to use the lost disc rule to snag a better lie when a disc more then likely went OB but was not seen doing so or found seems kinda sketchy too. ( i have admittedly used this rule to my advantage more then once)

I dont know the solution but I don't think the 06' version is very fair at all. Can't there be some middle ground found somewhere?

Pat, you can't judge a rule by a worse case scenario alone, but that appears to be just what you're doing again here, as you did with the 2 meter rule change. i haven't seen it play out yet, but intuitively i like the new rule. in the example you've sited, you still had a chance for a circle 4 or 5 -- don't sell yourself cheap. plus it sounds like 99 out of 100 times you'll find that disc easily with a similar shot.

exactly. in this case there was about a .0000001% chance i went OB. the entiore group, to a man, agreed it was turned over and gliding away from the OB line. they coulda have easily agreed the last spot seen was dead center fairway around the corner.

even a retee with no stroke (except the first throw) would be a stiff penalty , but not so absurdly harsh.

this rule change was not, as the 2MR change before it, though throw to take into consideration all possible outcomes. the change should be suspended until something more sensible can be established.

(The wall is about a foot wide; the hole length is 1001 feet)

http://www.innovadiscs.com/cfr/2005/kenstate.jpg

Nice Disc............Is that a Glow Starfire ?



its an InnColor CFR Starfire (not glow). Fred Salaz still has some left i believe for sale. there were 24 Starfires that sold out 2 classic rocs and 24 Starfire-L's (some still available).
email Fred at: [email protected] if you are interested in buying one.

Pat, you can't judge a rule by a worse case scenario alone

well, the wworst case scenario is exactly where you shouldstart in evaluating a rule. such scenarios happen... this one was 1 out of 7 so it obviously isnt very rare.

sure you start with it, but then you also look from the exact opposite perspective -- the scenarios in which stroke and distance work much more equitably. then i guess you look at what is most common and also what makes for the most consistent and clean rulings and isn't too open to cheating.

maybe you should pm harold and ask him what the RC's thought process was and whether they considered your type of scenario. do you really think they didn't? :confused:

benefit of the doubt goes to the player but not to the RC in Pat's world??? or is it really that you're still upset with the RC for the 2 meter rule change?

yes, i believe they did not consider it. at least sufficiently.

benefit ofthe doubt goes withthe player, not the RC, in pats world. the RC hasproven repeatedly that they wouldrather tweak things unnessarily, or with the input opf only their small circle, and that they will resort to somerather dubious andquationable tactics to get their rules "accepted"

fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice, shame on you (or in thiscase the RC).

having a small circle of unelected cronies making up the rules is NOT a very good recipe for success.

Today I played with a group of disc golfers who were aware of how the new rule changes were going to make it so that a disc touching the OB line was OB.

Sheesh.

Pat, in your example wouldn't there have been a spotter in a PDGA competition, or in the absence of that > wouldn't you have had someone in the group spot for the rest?

are you making a mountain out of a molehill in order to grind this axe of yours which doesn't appreciate the RC ???

Today I played with a group of disc golfers who were aware of how the new rule changes were going to make it so that a disc touching the OB line was OB.

Sheesh.



Rhett that is both sad and hilarious :D

wow, too bad more people don't read the rules... (the above scenario sounds like a definite misread of the rules)

i like the idea of mandating every player carry a Rule book -- especially since they come with a membership or renewal and also can be printed out from this website for free

Back to the topic at hand. Today our motly foursome lost seven discs in the soft snow in the warm weather here in Massachusetts. We were very glad not to have to go back to where we shot, since the rumors coming our way indicate the new rules go into effect on Jan 1, 2006 . Going back to where you threw when you lose your disc is dead man walking.

rob, sending someone 250 feet down a dogleg is not practical. which player is expected to do it? what about speed of play? the fact that i disagree with both the changes and the methods used to force the codifications of those changes does not mean i have an axe to grind. it just means that i am not afraid to call out the RC for what appears to be repeatedly failing to think things through completely.

Lets say it's your second shot,you throw and think it mite be out,but everyone else thinks it's in.You go up to your lie,BAM OB,so now I'm going to go back and try to find where my lie was?or do I leave my mini go see if my disc is in/out go back and get my mini?So if this happens 10 time during a round it's going to be a long day for everyone!
Even in ball golf they just say it went out around there. ;)

Lets say it's your second shot,you throw and think it mite be out,but everyone else thinks it's in.You go up to your lie,BAM OB,so now I'm going to go back and try to find where my lie was?or do I leave my mini go see if my disc is in/out go back and get my mini?So if this happens 10 time during a round it's going to be a long day for everyone!
Even in ball golf they just say it went out around there. ;)

This is one reason why I think we should have the same rule for lost and o.b. Plenty of players will be confused this way.

The answer to your question is, where you play an o.b. disc has not changed. Where you play a lost disc has changed. It is the lost disc rule change that makes you walk back every time.

Unless I'm confused about this and you have it straight.

Where you play a disc that lands OB has not changed (although you do still have a stroke and distance option unless you've already picked up your marker disc). so the rule change only involves lost discs. on those atypical holes where lost discs can be common -- a spotter seems in order.

Pat, when i play a hole where spotting seems called for in order to facilitate speed of play and to prevent lost plastic -- in a competition where there isn't already a spotter -- i'll offer to spot and then teeoff after everyone else on the card tees and advances to their discs, or whoever is last to tee will do so. (jogging 250 feet is no big deal)

This is one reason why I think we should have the same rule for lost and o.b. Plenty of players will be confused this way.



Why? Are they even remotely similar rules or situations? If so I don't see it.

And the only players confused will be the ones that don't read, know and practice playing by the rules.

Same as always...

rob, sending someone 250 feet down a dogleg is not practical. which player is expected to do it? what about speed of play? the fact that i disagree with both the changes and the methods used to force the codifications of those changes does not mean i have an axe to grind. it just means that i am not afraid to call out the RC for what appears to be repeatedly failing to think things through completely.



Let me take a wild stab at this:
1) PDGA Rules Committee or PDGA BOD member ask Pat for feedback on their rules revisions.
2) Pat provides his feedback. (Thought through completely, in his usual world famous open-minded fashion.)
3) The PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA BOD are not swayed by his completely thought through ideas.
4) New rules come out. Approved by both PDGA RC and BOD.
5) Pat accuses, repeatedly, the PDGA RC and BOD of not thinking things through thoroughly, lacking intelligence, sneaking around, and any other number of nastiness.

Is anyone here surprised?

Can anyone guess the praise he�d be heaping on them if they decided to go with his �completely thought through things�? Particularly that 2MR �thing�? ;)

Today I played with a group of disc golfers who were aware of how the new rule changes were going to make it so that a disc touching the OB line was OB.

Sheesh.



So there was no part of the disc IB is what you are saying here? Just touching OB doesn't now make the disc OB...

tell ya what nick, put me back on ignore. your arrogance is unparalleled. you lack of understanding is absurd. the one=sided-ness of your interpretations is totally ridiculous. your lack of meaningful contributions to the board is standard-setting.

merryxmas.

now go away.

Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.) (quoting idaho john) (I know it was a cut and paste so is mine)


That doesn't mean touching the OB line is OB?

That does not mean touching o.b. is o.b. Your disc must be completely o.b. to be o.b. When determining whether it is completely o.b., count the line as o.b.

there is a chain link fence protecting some construction at a junior high school adjacent to the course. while most discs do not fly over the fenced area, occasionally one does. no mando prevents this.

so a disc is shanked over the fenced space no so far in front of the tee, cruises about 250 down the fairway, then hyzers back towards the fairway and smacks the fence squarely. obviously it lands OB, inside the fenced area.

but the player argues that due to the nature of chain link fences, it is quite plausible that the rounded edge of the disc actually poked through, albeit briefly, through the fence and into IB space.

where is the mark? according to benefit of the doubt going to the player, i would be inclined to accept the thrower's argument and allow the lie to be marked a meter in from the point where the disc impacted the fence.

this situation would not have been even a question under the 2005 rules. it would have been called IB at the point it hit the fence.

Out-of-bounds. The line is now considered OUT, not in. This will make OB much easier to rule upon, in many situations. (Fences or walls as OB.)



That doesn't mean touching the OB line is OB?



The rules makers should consider the ambiguity of their words.

Statistically speaking I dont think the disc edge could go past the inside edge of the chain link fence
from the other side maybe 10% of the time and I think thats being generous.
I would call it out if I were the TD.

The intent of the rule is for those who hit the fence on the inbounds side and stay inbounds there is no penalty.
And penalize those hit the fence from the O.B. side and land in the O.B..
Simple enough
D.P. :D

I agree. We have lots of concrete and blacktop we play as OB. The new wording though makes a disc half in be out. It is F***ing English. A poorly worded rule (PERIOD)

The new rules still say completely surrounded
not just touching O.B. , where is the issue.
D.P.

I read the cut and paste by Idaoho John didn't see the reference to completely surrounded by OB. If that is the case it is a moot point.

After reading the quick summary,
I went to the link for the 06 rules on the PDGA Home Page
that is what I am using, basically ignoring the summary at this point.
The summary seems to have led to confusion.
The new full rules for 06 seem to be clear.
D.P.

Well, I just ran outside in the falling snow to see if a disc could poke through the chain link to momentarily get in bounds from the o.b. side. It is physically possible. I do not think there is any way a player could see that from the tee. To see it poking through you have to be above the fence looking down. With one eye closed.

Link to the new PDGA Rules for 2006 (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2006/PDGA.2006.rulebook.final.pdf)
D.P. :cool:

Oh by the way any one who thought if they hit a fence on the OB side, landed OB and tried to call it IB at point of impact is an [I'm a potty-mouth!], a dolt or an SOB. [/B] [I'm a potty-mouth!]</d> is still banned? [I'm a potty-mouth!] is still banned. That is funny and idiotic. What idiocy. Freakin' igits'

Statistically speaking I dont think the disc edge could go past the inside edge of the chain link fence
from the other side maybe 10% of the time and I think thats being generous.
I would call it out if I were the TD.

The intent of the rule is for those who hit the fence on the inbounds side and stay inbounds there is no penalty.
And penalize those hit the fence from the O.B. side and land in the O.B..
Simple enough
D.P. :D

go to a chain link fence and try it. i havent yet, but i suspect the edge of the disc pokes thru into IBspace, amking the disc IB at that point regardless of where it lands. the squiggley nature of chain link fence links makes this a difficult call - one that was easy in 2005.

but then again, the rules made a lot more sense in 2005.

Statistically speaking I dont think the disc edge could go past the inside edge of the chain link fence from the other side maybe 10% of the time and I think that's being generous



That never was the issue with chainlink fences. It still is the issue that they flex. The OB line goes up vertically from the bottom of the fence because the RC did not provide for a fence surface to be called OB. Thus, even with the new rule where the fence is the OB line, it's possible for a disc to poke far enough thru and flex the fence to break the IB/OB plane coming up from the bottom of the fence. New rule doesn't solve this problem which was part of the intended purpose of the rule change.

Well, I just ran outside in the falling snow to see if a disc could poke through the chain link to momentarily get in bounds from the o.b. side. It is physically possible. I do not think there is any way a player could see that from the tee. To see it poking through you have to be above the fence looking down. With one eye closed.


I agree that its possible
Just not probable
Therefore not lending itself to rule the benfit of doubt to the player.
Again that's how I see it.
Thanks
D.P. :D

0110100101100100011010010110111101110100
Had to do it.

Well, any TD who cares can solve the poking-through-flexing-through scenario by defining a location for the line that is a little to the in bounds side of the fence. "The o.b. line on the tennis courts is two inches to the in bounds side of the fence line." Or he could just explain his interpretation of the rule, "If you hit the inside of the fence, don't be trying to argue that you stuck through a chain link or the fence flexed and your disc was momentarily in bounds there. I'm not buying it. No one in your group should buy it. If they do, you're all disqualified for cheating. O.k.? Have fun."

I say just throw a roller :o
Don't even risk it :D
Have fun
D.P. :D

Even in ball golf they just say it went out around there. ;)



In ball golf you lose a stroke and distance if you pump one OB. That's if you are correctly playing by the rules.

rob, sending someone 250 feet down a dogleg is not practical. which player is expected to do it? what about speed of play? the fact that i disagree with both the changes and the methods used to force the codifications of those changes does not mean i have an axe to grind. it just means that i am not afraid to call out the RC for what appears to be repeatedly failing to think things through completely.



Let me take a wild stab at this:
1) PDGA Rules Committee or PDGA BOD member ask Pat for feedback on their rules revisions.
2) Pat provides his feedback. (Thought through completely, in his usual world famous open-minded fashion.)
3) The PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA BOD are not swayed by his completely thought through ideas.
4) New rules come out. Approved by both PDGA RC and BOD.
5) Pat accuses, repeatedly, the PDGA RC and BOD of not thinking things through thoroughly, lacking intelligence, sneaking around, and any other number of nastiness.

Is anyone here surprised?

Can anyone guess the praise he�d be heaping on them if they decided to go with his �completely thought through things�? Particularly that 2MR �thing�? ;)



ROFL :D

and Pat stayed to form and attacked you rather than considering a serious look into this mirror you have so kindly provided for him :eek: :p

why should i consider seriously a hypothetical scenario invented by someone who opposes whatever i say without even for one second considering its merits? his whole diatribe was an attack on me. get real, rob... you are allowed to not take nicks side every now and then. or hadve you placed him in that pantheon of disc golf demigods who you so blindly and unswervingly worship?

Consider the head on the nail struck...

The PDGA RC did not go with every one of my opinions on the rules (obviously or the 2MR would be completely wiped and flushed), but I am willing to bow to their decisions based on 3 things:

1) The resulting upgrades are more politically acceptable.
2) They certainly have given it greater and more thorough thought, and over a much longer period of time, than I have.
3) They are on the PDGA Rules Committee, a thankless job, and have to take all of the heat and deal with all of the ongoing ramifications, I don't.

I'm sure that there will be things that come up, as I bet most of the RC is; it's the nature of such things. But there are no individuals I'd rather be in charge of the process (including PDGA BOD Members) than the names that make up the PDGA Rules Committee.

There is a reason Pat and I are not on the RC, this discussion perhaps is a prime example of that reason.

There is a reason Pat and I are not on the RC, this discussion perhaps is a prime example of that reason.



It's also a prime example of why you should not be on ANY committee or leadership position in organized disc golf.

There is a reason Pat and I are not on the RC, this discussion perhaps is a prime example of that reason.



It's also a prime example of why you should not be on ANY committee or leadership position in organized disc golf.


Ah, my fan club...

Coming from you Jeff that is as close to meaningless as is humanly possible.

And people don't "give me" leadership positions Jeff, I take them because no one else will. That's the way it works. You would know this if you ever took one.

If you folks can stop insulting each other for a post or two :p I'd like to ask a question. I'm sure it has been asked here before so a simple aswer will suffice. I have seen the "within 30 cm" stance rule interpreted 2 different ways.

1) You have to have some supporting point within 30 cm on a line directly behind the marker and coinciding with the line of play to the basket (strict interpretation)

2) You have to have a supporting point within 30 cm of the above defined line. i.e. you can be 30 cm to either side of the line of play behind the marker as long as you are within 30 cm of the marker itself (liberal interpretation)

Which is it?

1). Option 2) hasn't been available for over 8 years and I'm not sure it was more than maybe 15cm either side.

Thanks Chuck! :).

When the rules were first written, it's my understanding that Ed wanted players to place their supporting point touching the "circle" where the disc was located before the marker was placed. This is where some people still get the idea that you can place your supporting point to the left or right of the line of play going thru the center of your marker. Even then, the discs weren't bigger than maybe 30cm total. So, that's where my estimated 15cm left/right comes from. I wasn't in the sport then so I can't remember how the rule might have been written.

The rule used to be 6" either side of the center of the mini.
That got "liberalized" to a foot or more by some players. Some older players might not know of the rule change to: "on the line of play, directly behind the mini." (Or words to that effect) Very few people actually read the rules. They "learn" them from other players.

That clears up why, in addition to being one of the most common rule mis-takes i observe, i see a lot of old schoolers (who i wouldn't expect to break rules) doing it too.

So, why was it changed? is it that people were getting too far to the side of their markers? since they still often can be seen doing the same thing, looking back with the benefit of hindsight, was the rule change warranted?

it would no doubt be added hassle and cost, but pictures in the rulebook of the correct and incorrect interpretations of this rule would go a long way to getting everyone on the same page.

I just tell folks , stand directly/exactly behind your mini. No further away than 11 inches at the most and don't step on it while putting , even when you straddle putt !!!!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Back in the day of primordial disc golf, you would play with a single disc. Being that you had only one disc, you pick up the thrown disc and cram your foot into the spot where you picked your disc up from.

The marking rules have evolved as a way to codifiy exactly how you are supposed to do that. Since people are people, and some are honorable and others not as much so, the rules have been tweaked IMHO to aid in enforcement.

IMO, enforceability should be as strong a driving force in rules writing as anything. What point is a rule of it's not really enforceable?

thats easy. without rules, there woulod be nothing for the RC to mess around with. without the RC messing around with the rules, there would be much less need for this board. and without the board you couldnt be Administrator and would likely suffer from even more serious self-esteem issues.

ergo, we need rules!

Hey Pat -

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to get your opinion since I have frequently wondered about an issue mentioned in your post.

While the OB rule gives the player the benefit by requiring that the disc be clearly surrounded to be considered OB, I can not find where the Rules stipulate that the thrower receives the benefit of the doubt as a general rule, or specifically for the marking of the lie.

Disc golfers (to their credit) tend to do what is fair and give the thrower the benefit of the doubt. The fence scenario seems to stretch the benefit of the doubt from "what seemed to happen" to "what might have happened." I do not think this is allowed by the letter of the rules nor intended by the spirit of the rules, but I am curious what you and others think.

Take care,
Harold

That never was the issue with chainlink fences. It still is the issue that they flex. The OB line goes up vertically from the bottom of the fence because the RC did not provide for a fence surface to be called OB. Thus, even with the new rule where the fence is the OB line, it's possible for a disc to poke far enough thru and flex the fence to break the IB/OB plane coming up from the bottom of the fence. New rule doesn't solve this problem which was part of the intended purpose of the rule change.

[/QUOTE]

so, if you throw hyzer over an o.b. fence you are considered o.b. whether it comes back inbounds or not? :confused:

Depends whether the disc ends up IB or OB just like any other throw.

Dear Joe - The determination of OB is essentially the same as before. The disc must clearly be surrounded completely by OB. The small difference for 2006 is that the OB line, in this case the fence, is also OB. Previously, the line was in bounds.

Take care,
Harold

thanks for answering that question, since the rule is essentially the same I dont see what everyone is upset about. The O.B. line should be o.b.

And people don't "give me" leadership positions Jeff, I take them because no one else will. That's the way it works. You would know this if you ever took one.


That quote just brings to mind some infamous leaders in history (ie Napolean, Machiavelli)..so much ego in such a small sport by some on this board..

To those who have helped explain this rule I thank you for your time and examples, it makes it much easier to understand possible scenarios.. :cool:

That never was the issue with chainlink fences. It still is the issue that they flex. The OB line goes up vertically from the bottom of the fence because the RC did not provide for a fence surface to be called OB. Thus, even with the new rule where the fence is the OB line, it's possible for a disc to poke far enough thru and flex the fence to break the IB/OB plane coming up from the bottom of the fence. New rule doesn't solve this problem which was part of the intended purpose of the rule change.




If the rule was changed to "where the disc ends up" ala Tin Cup, rather than "where it last crossed into OB" this would eliminate the chain link fence issue.

On our local course we have a hole where the disc could hit a tree branch, then drop straight down into the OB road. The question then is: was the struck branch vertically above the IB grass or the OB road?

I have an OB rules question, if someone could answer please:

If I decide to throw a provisional because I think my disc might be OB, then find out afterwards that the original throw was in fact OB, do I now have to continue playing the provisional or do I have the choice to play the original disc, up to one meter from where it last crossed into OB? What about an established OB drop zone for that hole - would you not even throw a provisional in that case?

It is my recollection that in order to throw a provisional, the group must agree. However, if the question is whether the disc is OB or not, and you were allowed to throw a provisional and agreed to do it, I would not allow you to play a shot where you went OB. In other words, I assume that choosing to throw a provisional is the same as choosing to play from the previous lie. Therefore, I maintain that you have no other option should the disc actually be OB.

On a slightly related note, what about the same situation occurs and the group requests that you throw a provisional, can you say "no"?

If that 'Original' disc is in-bounds, and legal, I'd have trouble accepting useage of the Provisional Throw.

I have an OB rules question, if someone could answer please:

If I decide to throw a provisional because I think my disc might be OB, then find out afterwards that the original throw was in fact OB, do I now have to continue playing the provisional or do I have the choice to play the original disc, up to one meter from where it last crossed into OB? What about an established OB drop zone for that hole - would you not even throw a provisional in that case?



Your described situation does not warrant a provisional throw because your scenario does not meet the rule requirement of a disputed ruling. If the in-bounds status of your disc was disputed between you and your group, you then would have the option of throwing a provisional shot and you would complete the hole with both discs. The TD would then make a ruling on which set of throws would count.

Provisional Throw
An extra throw, agreed upon by a player�s group, that is not added to a player�s score if not used in the completion of the hole. Additionally, a set of provisional throws that will be allowed to complete a hole as an alternative to the original play of the hole, when there is a disputed ruling. Only one set of throws will be counted as the player�s score when a final ruling is made.

if you throw a provisional due to not knowing the status of the first throw, and then the status becomes certain before the hole is complete, the provisional goes out the window and play resumes from wherever/whatever the first throw called for.

the thrower can decide to use a provisional if there is any uncertainty at all about the call. the right to throw a provisional is NOT determined by the group. if the thrower believes the group call is incorrect, he is certainly entitled to use a provisional, and the group cannot prevent it. that being said, abuse of the provisional could become excessive and become a willful violation/bendfding of the rules if it became apparent that the sole purpose of the provisional was to get a few practice throws in. then its a case for the TD.

Brian, under the 2006 rules, the use of provisionals has been expanded to include situations where speed of play is an issue. The more I think of Rutgers question, coupled with the expansion of provisionals, the less sure I am about my answer. However, I would fight any effort that allows a player to survey the result of provisional and decide whether to take it or play from where the disc entered OB. I might lose though.

Pat, I dispute your assertion that a "player" chooses to use a provisional. The "group" decides to use a provisional.

Nevermind Pat, I no longer dispute your assertion. :p

You are right: a player may elect to throw a provisional when he/she disputes the group's ruling.

James,

Thanks for the clarification. I was reading the definition rather than secion 803.01c, which further clarifies when a provisional is warranted. I guess I need to read the new rules more closely before the beginning of the year.

(1) To save time: A player may declare a
provisional throw any time (a) the status of
a disc cannot immediately be determined,
and (b) the majority of the group agrees that
playing a provisional throw may save time,
and (c) the original throw may be out of
bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory.
When proceeding under this type of
provisional the thrower shall complete the
hole from whichever of the two throws is
deemed by the group or an offi cial as the
appropriate lie according to the rules.

In this case.. the player must play the provisional throw if the original disc was indeed found to be OB.

The question now is... If the player threw a provisional and then tried to play the original OB disc and his group said he couldn't.... Could he call another provisional and play it anyway as a provisional on his first provisional? Would he then be playing three discs concurrently? :confused:

OK...just kidding! I've been hanging around Chuck Kennedy too much! :)

Thanks for the responses. The reason I ask is because I am unclear about rule 803.01C(1) (paraphrasing) "Provisional throws are appropriate in the following circumstances: to save time a player may declare a provisional throw any time the status of the disc cannot immediately be determined AND the majority of the group agrees the provisional may save time AND the original throw may be OB, lost or have missed a mando. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the 2 throws is deemed by the group as appropriate under the rules".

I would definitely want to walk up the fairway first to see where my disc ended up (and if OB, decide whether I want to play it from there or the previous lie) before throwing a provisional and THEN finding out I'm married to my provisional. But if the rule is the provisional is wiped out, then I would have no problem throwing one right away, if the group agreed it would save time.

In this case.. the player must play the provisional throw if the original disc was indeed found to be OB.



I agree with James that you should not be allowed to choose between the original or the provisional. I just didn't know what the ruling would be. I would insist on NOT throwing a provisional until I determine the status of the first throw.

It would have been keen if the words in the glossary were referenced to the rules; it took a bit of time in this instance because "provisional" is not in the index.

Currently, it's under 803.00C.(3).

Next season, it's 803.01 C and D.(3).

If in the glossary, "provisional" were followed by the applicable #'s, then I could find that section in the rulebook quickly. I know I'd personally find that helpful.

This kinda goes along the lines of including the rule numbers for the glossary and the "update for 2006," which weren't done either, but I wonder if the RC considered putting the Q&A, currently only available online, in the revision? And if they did consider it, why didn't they do it?

The current online Q&A is for 2005 rules, but an additional page/two in the 2006 analog version, as an aid >>>clarification, gets my vote, too. I don't have a laptop. http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

the RC considered everything with the utmost of precision. the rules and their presentation are perfect. zeus himself could find no fault with any action or musing of the RC.

the RC considered everything with the utmost of precision. the rules and their presentation are perfect. zeus himself could find no fault with any action or musing of the RC.



zeus? Is that a codeword for Nick?


I love a Rules Committee intent on using mysticism and lore as basis for rulings. Logic and clarity are way overrated. :)

I have no problem with criticism, but this is getting pretty old. Other than killing the 2m rule entirely, how could the rules be improved?

rollin g back the overly punitive strokke plus distance for lost discs for starters

thanks for answering that question, since the rule is essentially the same I dont see what everyone is upset about. The O.B. line should be o.b.


Hmmmm....the Foul Pole in baseball is fair. :)

I tend to agree that it is too punitive, especially when compared to the way OB is played. However, the RC did give a legitimate reason about ending the where-was-it-last-seen controversies. For the most part (for drives lost off the tee), they will achieve that goal. Was it worth it? It's certainly debatable. At any rate, thanks for giving a concrete example.

The line in Golf is out. This was another reason for the change.

Take care,
Harold

Hey Pat - I agree that the new rule will be more punitive in many lost disc cases. My experience in wooded and moutain courses tells me that it will be a push or more lenient in other cases.

Take care,
Harold

Does it really make the OB line more definitive ?

Hey Pat -

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to get your opinion since I have frequently wondered about an issue mentioned in your post.

While the OB rule gives the player the benefit by requiring that the disc be clearly surrounded to be considered OB, I can not find where the Rules stipulate that the thrower receives the benefit of the doubt as a general rule, or specifically for the marking of the lie.

Disc golfers (to their credit) tend to do what is fair and give the thrower the benefit of the doubt. The fence scenario seems to stretch the benefit of the doubt from "what seemed to happen" to "what might have happened." I do not think this is allowed by the letter of the rules nor intended by the spirit of the rules, but I am curious what you and others think.

Take care,
Harold

Harold,

first, thanks for taking the time and interest in discussing the rules and the changes in this forum. i know i am a frequent, and frequently harsh, critic ofthe changes, and i want you to know that i repsect your willingness to discuss these points in this public forum, regardless of my personal opinion of the changes themselves.

as far as a general benefit of the doubt, one need look no further than 803.00(C)(1) and 803.00(C)(3) which both describe benefit of the doubt going to the player in rather general situations.

given that we have had one person actually go out and test the chain link fences cenario and prove that the edge of the disc can easily poke into IB space, it is easy to award the benefit of the doubt to the player in this situation and allow mark the lie at the point the disc hit the chain link fence.

obviously no such consideration would be appropriate for fences made of impervious or unpenetratable material.

regards,

pat

Hey Pat - I agree that the new rule will be more punitive in many lost disc cases. My experience in wooded and moutain courses tells me that it will be a push or more lenient in other cases.

Take care,
Harold

i can see how on "extreme" courses the new rule might be more lenient. my course experience runs about 60 courses and ranges from DeLaveaga to Flagstaff and Phoenix, and most of the significant courses in Texas. i can think of no certain cases on these courses where the new rule is likely to be more lenient, although i'll grant that it could work out that way were a player to play both options. so much would depend on the mark for the lost disc using 2005s rule and the improvment he could realize on his second shot using the 2006 rule.

not to belabor the point, but i'd be willing to bet the overall effect is more severe rather than a push or more lenient.

p

Thanks for the responses. The reason I ask is because I am unclear about rule 803.01C(1) (paraphrasing) "Provisional throws are appropriate in the following circumstances: to save time a player may declare a provisional throw any time the status of the disc cannot immediately be determined AND the majority of the group agrees the provisional may save time AND the original throw may be OB, lost or have missed a mando. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the 2 throws is deemed by the group as appropriate under the rules".

I would definitely want to walk up the fairway first to see where my disc ended up (and if OB, decide whether I want to play it from there or the previous lie) before throwing a provisional and THEN finding out I'm married to my provisional. But if the rule is the provisional is wiped out, then I would have no problem throwing one right away, if the group agreed it would save time.



Actually this gets a little dicey, now that I think about it.

Trick #1: This seems dubious to me but if you read the actual wording it is actually specifically allowed. If you believe your disc may be lost and the group agrees that it might save time, you could go ahead and throw a provisional. The group still has to search as required in order for the disc to be declared lost, because the group has to determine which lie was appropriate according to the rules, but they don't have to wait while you run back to your previous lie. If you did this and then when your disc was found it was OB, then something kind of interesting happens...you can't technically take your provisional even if you want to take the option of throwing from your previous lie, because that was not the condition for which the provisional was taken. Since the provisional was in case the disc was lost, you still have all the options for having gone OB...but to throw from the previous lie you would have to go back and do it again.

Trick #2: Theoretically, if the group agrees it might save time, you could throw a provisional if, for example, you were unsure whether your disc had crossed back in bounds at the end of a flight over OB and bounced back, or stayed OB the entire time. The way the rule is worded, this situation technically falls under the situations described...but if sufficient evidence were found that the disc had struck in bounds, the player could still play from where it last went OB. At least, I can't find anything that indicates this wouldn't work.

One thing worth noticing, in my opinion, is that the player may play a set of provisionals in cases of a ruling dispute as always...but the majority of the group must agree that a provisional might save time in order to use one for expedience.

thanks for answering that question, since the rule is essentially the same I dont see what everyone is upset about. The O.B. line should be o.b.


Hmmmm....the Foul Pole in baseball is fair. :)



So is the line in tennis - if the ball hits the line, it's good.

Those both involve moving objects.
Hitting the line is easier to determine from further away.
Disc golf rulings involving the OB line involve the disc at rest.
Which should make it easier to make the call up close.

I think we are trying to get away from players benefiting from poor
shots that happend to be leaning on the curb of the OB road.
Previously these would be considered in bounds because the
curb would be considered the OB line and if touching the curb therefore its in.

Now if its a leaner and the curb is out there is no question its out.
You would need to be touching IB and not just touching the boundary.
Seems to clairfy at least that situation.
We shall see.
D.P. :D

Trick #1: This seems dubious to me but if you read the actual wording it is actually specifically allowed. If you believe your disc may be lost and the group agrees that it might save time, you could go ahead and throw a provisional. The group still has to search as required in order for the disc to be declared lost, because the group has to determine which lie was appropriate according to the rules, but they don't have to wait while you run back to your previous lie. If you did this and then when your disc was found it was OB, then something kind of interesting happens...you can't technically take your provisional even if you want to take the option of throwing from your previous lie, because that was not the condition for which the provisional was taken. Since the provisional was in case the disc was lost, you still have all the options for having gone OB...but to throw from the previous lie you would have to go back and do it again.



Not necessarily (don�t make this more complicated than it really is); all that is necessary is that the provisional throw be allowed because the �status� of the disc is not known, there is no differentiation between lost and OB. This covers both OB and Lost. If it ends up being OB the player can take the provisional, or if allowed the drop zone, or from where it is believed to have gone out of bounds. If it is lost then the provisional is used.

<font color="blue"> 803. Rules of Play
803.01 General
C. Provisional Throws. Provisional throws
are extra throws that are not added to a
player�s score if they are not ultimately
used in completion of the hole. The use
of provisional throws is encouraged in
all situations where there is a question
regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional
would speed play or when the thrower
questions the group�s or official�s ruling.
The unused throws shall not be added to
the thrower�s score nor treated as practice
throws if the player announces that such
additional throws are made as provisional
throws prior to taking them. Provisional
throws are appropriate in the following
circumstances:
(1) To save time: A player may declare a
provisional throw any time (a) the status of
a disc cannot immediately be determined,
and (b) the majority of the group agrees that
playing a provisional throw may save time,
and (c) the original throw may be out of
bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory.
When proceeding under this type of
provisional the thrower shall complete the
hole from whichever of the two throws is
deemed by the group or an offi cial as the
appropriate lie according to the rules.

803.09 Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-ofbounds
only when it comes to rest and it
is clearly and completely surrounded by
the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in
water shall be deemed to be at rest once it
is fl oating or is moving only by the action
of the water or the wind on the water.
See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds
line itself is considered out-of-bounds.
In order to consider the disc as outof-
bounds, there must be reasonable
evidence that the disc came to rest within
the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of
such evidence, the disc will be considered
lost and the player will proceed according
to rule 803.11B.
B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw. The player may elect to play the
next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the
marker disc or, if the marker disc has been
moved from an approximate lie, as agreed
to by the majority of the group or an
offi cial; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter
away from and perpendicular to the point
where the disc last crossed into out-ofbounds,
as determined by a majority of the
group or an offi cial. This holds true even
if the direction takes the lie closer to the
hole; or (3) Within the designated Drop
Zone, if provided. These options may be
limited by the tournament director as a
special condition (see 804.01). </font>

As far as the loose fence ruling, it seems to prove that using loose fences as OB lines is inadvisable if you don't want to deal with this flex situation. Mark the line with string for PDGAs inside the fence or provide only distance and throw or drop zone and throw OB options.

If the fence flexes then and it is the OB line then you would by rule have to extend the benefit of the doubt to the thrower.

This covers both OB and Lost. If it ends up being OB the player can take the provisional, or if allowed the drop zone, or from where it is believed to have gone out of bounds. If it is lost then the provisional is used.




I've yet to hear any argument that clearly allows a player to throw a provisional, walk up and find his disc OB, see where is provisional lies, and then decide if he wants his provisional, wants to go to the drop zone, or wants to throw where it went OB.

The language stating "(c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory" implies that the thrower and group anticipate/know why a provisional is being used. Therefore, in my mind, it follows that if the group feels that the provisional is being used for a possible OB throw, then the thrower has elected to take the option of throwing from the previous lie.

Bottom line. Allowing someone to survey an already thrown shot, and choose to take it without a penalty, violates the spirit of the game. Unless the rules explicitly allow this, which they don't, then it should not to be allowed.

in the case you describe, the provisional is presumably being used to save time, which IS one of the valid reasons for playing a provisional. if the first disc turns out to be IB, then the provisional may be disregarded. the only time both the original play and the prov should be played to completion is when the group cannot reach conclusion on a rules-related issue.

Of course it is being used to save time. He has chosen to play his possible OB throw from his previous lie, in order to save the time of walking up to the OB, finding his disc OB and walking back.

In all likelihood, this won't come up much, unless of course, people embrace Nick's interpretation. Then, they will always request a provisional. Why not, it's a no risk shot, allows you to get the kink out of your swing, and just might be better than what you expect from your optional shot from the edge of OB.

i couldnt agree more. while the new rule might work in some cases, it sure seems like it opens up a bigger can of worms than it closes. not to mention being extremely punitive when applied to lost discs.

Now that I look at it...nothing in the rules seems to contradict what Nick is saying. However it is up to the majority of the group or an official to decide which lie is appropriate according to the rules. Could lead to the player taking a second set of provisionals, but if the group and the TD don't think that the player should be able to see how his re-throw would wind up and then be able to reject it and play from where he went OB (or more accurately if they don't think that is what the rules are meant to allow), it seems to me that he won't get away with it.

OB / Lost disc question:

300' hole with a lake on the left. A drive is thrown into the water relatively close to the basket. The disc is obviously OB and LOST b/c the lake is 30' deep. Is it OB? or Lost? :D

OB disc would be played on the line it went out, but a LOST disc would be stroke and distance and would have to be rethrown from the tee.


Is it OB, or lost....even though it's really lost. :p

Considering that there is no 2-mtr rule, if a disc is in a tree and has been located, but cannot be retrieved within three minutes, will it be considered a lost disc and penalized accordingly? If so, will three minutes begin from the time the disc is located and retrieval is first attempted or from the time the group begins looking for it?

non-retreivable does not equal lost

and in texas there will be the 2MR. and from what i hear, most of california as well.

non-retreivable does not equal lost



In that case, all of my lost discs in 2006 will be "non-retrievable" :D

The only thing I ever thought should be changed about the 2-mtr rule is that it should be a 3-mtr rule. It doesn't seem like it should be OB if you can reach up and grab it while standing on the ground. Other than that, I think we should keep it.

To be honest, I don't think it should be an option. Make it one way or the other. Traveling players shouldn't have worry about whether certain rules are in effect or not. The rule should be the rule. Unless you just want to make it an X-Tier.

The rule is the rule, just as OB is OB.

One TD plays all concrete and beyond as OB, the next plays only the concrete, the next says the concrete is safe except for the jogging trail on one hole.

2m is exactly the same now. One TD may want to use it for a tournament, the next may not.


Back to the other question, given the often blurry divide between lost and OB, I think they should be treated similarly. If both players drive around a blind dogleg with nearly identical shots, the one that is able to find his disc on the bank beside the creek is much better off than the one that went into the creek and can't see his disc.

The new rule says it is lost unless you have "reasonable evidence" that it is o.b.

Back to the other question, given the often blurry divide between lost and OB, I think they should be treated similarly. If both players drive around a blind dogleg with nearly identical shots, the one that is able to find his disc on the bank beside the creek is much better off than the one that went into the creek and can't see his disc.



So if you cant see your disc it's lost?

What if you're playing hole #5 at Bear Creek and your disc skips past the basket and finds the pond behind the basket. You can't see your disc. How would you rule that in 2006??

For those that dont know this course. There is a "blind" pond behind the basket. Sometimes there is water in it, sometimes there is not. Even if the disc is only 2 feet in the water, you usually cant see/"find" it, and you NEVER know exactly where it entered the hazard b/c of the topography of the hole.

"Reasonable evidence" is the standard. Hire a caddy or hire a lawyer; it's your choice.

I think on a murky water but clean bank pond like Bevier in Waukegan, or Freeman Lake in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, if the disc is not sitting somewhere obvious in the short cut grass there, that's all the evidence you need that it is somewhere in the pond. When there is a strip of schuliness between the pond and the fairway, you are going to need more lenient players in your foursome.

The discrepancies in rule enforcement created by this rule change are another argument against having radically different penalties for lost disc and o.b. disc. The guy who earlier in the round offered everyone a Sierra Pale Ale out of his cooler is always going to get the break on this call. The guy who called a foot fault earler might not be so lucky.

I agree. The guy that gives me an IPA is going to get the better break for sure!

But in the example above, if the disc took a weird skip to the right and ended up in the cat tails to the right...that's a playable lie. If you don't find it b/c you are looking in the wrong area, it's lost. Would have been playable. Stroke and distance from the tee pad.

However, if it really is in the hazard then it's OB. Circle 3.

Why not write rules like a speed limit sign. Faster than the posted limit value = illegal. Slower than the posted minimum value = illegal. EVERYTHING in between is legal.

i have reasonable evidence that the rules committee is a complete bunch of dill holes. what stupidity will they inflict the next time they meet?

HANG YOUR HEADS IN SHAME, HAROLD, Dr. RICK, CARLTON, and the REST OF YOUR DILL HOLE BUDDIES WHO ARE DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT SCREWING UP THE SPORT WITH YOUR INABILITY TO MAKE RULES THAT ARE CLEAR AND NOT SUBJECT TO "REASONABLE" QUESTIONS.

AND BY THE WAY HAROLD IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR A DISC GOLF MANUFACTURER EXECUTIVE SUCH AS YOURSELF TO SIT ON WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN IMPARTIAL RULES COMMITTEE. YOU REALLY SHOULD RESIGN IMMEDIATELY. I LOVE YOU AND I LOVE JESUS BUT REALLY HAROLD, YOU NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE SPORT AND REMOVE YOURSELF COMPLETELY FROM THE GOVERNING BODY OF OUR SPORT.

TAKE CARE HAROLD. YOU'RE ONLY A DILL HOLE WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR RULES COMMITTEE HAT ON, OTHERWISE, YOU ARE ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELONG IN THE DISC GOLF HALL OF FAME AND YOU'LL MOVE BACK TO THE TOP OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IN DISC GOLF LIST JUST AS SOON AS YOU DO THE RIGHT THING AND RESIGN. THANKS.

Here is part of a post from Chuck Kennedy on another thread. This is the order you keep in mind when there are multiple 'fouls':

<font color="blue"> The rule priority is like this:

Missing a mando
OB
Lost Disc
2-meter rule (if enforced)

and these are not added together. Just a 1-throw penalty whichever one applies.</font>

Why are YOU being such a dill hole by responding in such an immature and antaganistic way? If you disagree with the RC, fine. Personal attacks are really not neccessary, no matter how strongly you feel about something. These rules are associated with A GAME ...this is not life and death. Calm down.

And another thing, what does Jesus have to do with Disc Golf rules?

The order of application of the rules is fine, but there has to be a concensus on the card to go from one to the next.

If the card does not think the disc could have skipped into the OB area, then they can push the lost disc ruling. If the penalties were more aligned between the 2 instances, then the final decision of whether the disc was lost or OB would not be important. Only the spotting of the resulting lie would be important. I would not allow the lost disc rule to use a drop zone unless the TD has added that option for that particular hole.

So we'll play the new rules for a year and see how it goes. Maybe if they don't work well the RC will tweak them again.

Another question: if I'm 95% sure my disc is way up in that tree over there and the TD is using the 2MR, but I can't see it, does that mean I play the lost disc rule? What if I threw a green disc and there is a green disc in the tree about 25 feet up, will my group agree that it's mine, or do I need positive ID on it? BTW- I like Chuck's rule priority list, it helps me remember which rule applies.

Hey Mike - I believe my work with the rules committee has not been detrimental to sport of disc golf, the pdga, or any competitors. I do, however, respect your choice to voice your concern. To not respect your right to choose, would in a way, diminish Jesus's choice on the cross, and on His choice there, I believe, we find some agreement.

Take care,
Harold

PS I just made it back from Savannah. I think we've nicely enhanced the course's playability. I hope you can make it back.

I've yet to hear any argument that clearly allows a player to throw a provisional, walk up and find his disc OB, see where is provisional lies, and then decide if he wants his provisional, wants to go to the drop zone, or wants to throw where it went OB.



Read the provisional throw and OB rules and you will have your answers I believe James.

All that is necessary is to identify discs, not retrieve them. This is stated in clear terms within both the 2005 and 2006 rules.

I have a few questions concerning OB's, lost discs, and provisionals is this...

Player throws their first shot, the hole is wooded, slightly down hill and past the green is an OB street that cannot be seen from the teepad. The shot was high enough in the air to be presumed to land OB.

Which situation applies?

With the new stroke and distance rule, the player throws a provisional shot immediately from the teebox. The shot was average leaving an easy lay up, then a drop in putt. The group confirms the players first drive is OB.

1) Does the player play from his provisional, taking a penalty stroke? Where the second shot from the tee was 3, upshot was 4 and the putt was 5.

2) The player plays from his provisional with no penalty, tee shot 1, upshot 2, putt 3.

3) Player plays marks his lie from where the disc crossed the OB line, since the disc was easily found in the street. Takes a penalty, upshot was 3, putt was 4.

Also, where the 2M rule is in effect, the player shot ends up stuck in a tree. What rule would apply? The rule of verticality where the players next shot must be made below on the groun where the disc came to rest, or do they have to take their next shot, with penalty from the place where they threw?

I guess I am really confused with the stroke and distance change. Does it apply to all OB, or just lost discs. And if it is to lost discs, where does water come into factor. Technically the disc is not 'lost" if you saw where the disc went into the water.

If the "stroke and distance" only applies to losts discs and not OB discs, then this rule is not too bad. If it is to all OB, big tournaments will take forever, you will be looking at 4-5 hour rounds at USDGC if that is the case.

Lots of valid points in this thread. I see two points of concern that TD's might want to clarify at player's meetings:

1) Disc stuck up in tree that is not visible, visible but not easily identifiable, or identifiable but not retrievable. If the 2 meter rule applies, then the decision is relatively easy:
803.09 A "In order to consider the disc out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost".
If, however, the 2 meter rule is not in effect, then the situation could get sticky. If the disc is visible and identifiable, then mark below and throw on. If "a" disc is visible then there is room for a group call on if it is "the" disc in question. If no disc is visible and the group "thinks" it's in that tree then there is the biggest room for interpretation. If I were in that group I would argue that the disc is lost if not visible in the tree. Many would argue against that, which would result in the player throwing from below the tree and playing a provisional from the spot of their previous lie.

2) As players adjust to the new rules the potential for abuse of provisionals is great. As is stated players are encouraged to play provisionals "to speed up play". Provisionals are not intended to give players options after they throw. Although it isn't stated as clearly as it could be in the new rules, players should state clearly to the group their intention for throwing a provisional BEFORE they throw it.
803.01 C "When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules".

For instance, if there is an area of heavy shule bordering on OB line and a disc is shanked in that direction, the player that chooses to throw a provisional should state either
"I'm throwing a provisional for a lost disc" OR
"I'm throwing a provisional for a lost disc and/or OB disc".

In the first case the player that finds their disc OB can either play from where it crossed into OB OR go back to the previous lie and throw from there. In the second case the player that finds their disc OB MUST play their next shot from the provisional disc.

My point with the provisionals being that a player should never have the option between their provisional and other shot. Provisionals should not be used "willy-nilly" to grant players options, practice shots, or as a means to vent after a bad shot. If I were the TD and a player admitted to having played a provisional where it wasn't warranted they would be stroked as a "practice" stroke.

I don't know if it's too late for the RC to write further clarification for inclusion in the new rule books, but they may want to consider a statement of clarification that could be e-mailed to all TD's to be read at player's meetings.

I have a few questions concerning OB's, lost discs, and provisionals is this...

Player throws their first shot, the hole is wooded, slightly down hill and past the green is an OB street that cannot be seen from the teepad. The shot was high enough in the air to be presumed to land OB.

Which situation applies?

With the new stroke and distance rule, the player throws a provisional shot immediately from the teebox. The shot was average leaving an easy lay up, then a drop in putt. The group confirms the players first drive is OB.
<font color="blue"> Let�s read the rule for OB:
803.09 Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-of bounds
only when it comes to rest and it
is clearly and completely surrounded by
the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in
water shall be deemed to be at rest once it
is floating or is moving only by the action
of the water or the wind on the water.
See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds
line itself is considered out-of-bounds.
In order to consider the disc as out-of-
bounds, there must be reasonable
evidence that the disc came to rest within
the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of
such evidence, the disc will be considered
lost and the player will proceed according
to rule 803.11B.
B. A player whose disc is considered
out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty
throw. The player may elect to play the
next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the
marker disc or, if the marker disc has been
moved from an approximate lie, as agreed
to by the majority of the group or an
official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter
away from and perpendicular to the point
where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds,
as determined by a majority of the
group or an official. This holds true even
if the direction takes the lie closer to the
hole; or (3) Within the designated Drop
Zone, if provided. These options may be
limited by the tournament director as a
special condition (see 804.01).
C. The Rule of Verticality. The out-of-bounds
line represents a vertical plane.
Where a player�s lie is marked from a
particular point within one meter of the
out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules,
the one-meter relief may be taken from
the particular point upward or downward
along the vertical plane.
D. If the in-bounds status of a disc
is uncertain, either a majority of the
group or an official shall make the
determination. If the thrower moves the
disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered out-of-
bounds, and he or she shall proceed
in accordance with 803.09 B counting all
throws made prior to the determination
of the in-bounds status of the original lie.
If a player other than the thrower moves
the disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered inbounds,
and play for the thrower and the
mover of the disc shall proceed under the
rules of interference, 803.07 B and C. </font>

1) Does the player play from his provisional, taking a penalty stroke? Where the second shot from the tee was 3, upshot was 4 and the putt was 5.
<font color="green"> The answer would be yes. </font>
2) The player plays from his provisional with no penalty, tee shot 1, upshot 2, putt 3.
<font color="green"> No, the player would incur a penalty throw for the OB. </font>

3) Player plays marks his lie from where the disc crossed the OB line, since the disc was easily found in the street. Takes a penalty, upshot was 3, putt was 4.
<font color="green"> Yes, though the director may limit the options allowed, i.e. players must use throw and distance, last place in bounds or a drop zone. </font>

Also, where the 2M rule is in effect, the player shot ends up stuck in a tree. What rule would apply? The rule of verticality where the players next shot must be made below on the groun where the disc came to rest, or do they have to take their next shot, with penalty from the place where they threw?
<font color="green"> If the disc that is 2M up is the first throw and OB, then the distance above the playing surface is of no consequence because only the OB rule counts; it has precedence over the 2 meter rule. (The 2 meter rule would have to be stipulated as on by the director at the players meeting in 2006 or else it is by default off. If you are talking about the provisional throw and it is IB and the 2 meter rule is turned on then the 2 meter rule would apply. Let�s read the 2 meter rule:
<font color="blue"> 803.08 Disc Above
The Playing Surface
A. If a disc comes to rest above the
playing surface in a tree or other obstacle
on the course, its lie shall be marked on
the playing surface directly below it. If
the point directly below the disc above
the playing surface is an out-of-bounds
area, the disc shall be declared out-ofbounds
and marked and penalized in
accordance with 803.09. If the playing
surface directly below the disc is inside a
tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall
be marked on the line of play immediately
behind the tree or other solid obstacle.
The director may designate a one throw
penalty for discs that come to rest two
meters or higher above the playing
surface. The director may declare the two
meter rule to be in effect for the entire
course, or just for individual obstacles.
(Sections B through D are only used if the
two meter penalty is in effect.)
B. If a disc has come to rest above two
meters, as measured from the lowest
point of the disc to the playing surface
directly below it, the player shall be
assessed a one-throw penalty. This
penalty applies only if the disc is above inbounds.
The player shall proceed from a
lie marked in accordance with 803.08 A.
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.
D. If the two-meter status of a disc
is uncertain, either a majority of the
group or an official shall make the
determination. If the thrower moves the
disc before determination has been made,
the disc shall be considered above two
meters and the thrower shall proceed
in accordance with 803.08 A and B. If
a player other than the thrower moves
the disc before a determination has been
made, the disc shall be considered below
two meters and the interference rule shall
be applied as it relates to the thrower and
the player. See sections 803.07 B and C. </font>
So the thrower would mark their lie directly below the disc above 2 meters, take a penalty throw and play on. If the 2 meter rule was off, the thrower would do the same thing just with no penalty throw.</font>

I guess I am really confused with the stroke and distance change. Does it apply to all OB, or just lost discs? <font color="green"> It is an option for OB unless the director specifically excludes it from the 3 options mentioned above in the rules. </font> And if it is to lost discs, where does water come into factor? <font color="green"> Lost Disc is a completely different rule than Out-of-Bounds, it always has been, so no change there. Let�s read the Lost Disc rule:
<font color="blue"> 803.11 Lost Disc
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the
player cannot locate it within three
minutes after arriving at the spot where it
was last seen by the group or an official.
Two players or an official must note when
the timing of three minutes begins. All
players of the group must, upon request,
assist in searching for the disc for the
full three minutes before the disc is
declared lost. The disc is considered lost
immediately upon the expiration of the
three minute time limit.
B. A player whose disc is declared lost
shall receive one penalty throw. If the
throw was made from the tee, the player
will re-tee for the next shot. If not made
from the tee, the group will determine
the approximate lie from which the throw
was made, and the player will throw again
from that lie. In all cases the original
throw plus one penalty throw shall be
counted in the player�s score.
C. If it is discovered prior to the
completion of the tournament, that a
player�s disc that was declared lost had
been removed or taken, then the player
shall have two throws removed from his
or her score.
D. A marker disc that is lost shall be
replaced in its approximate lie as agreed
to by a majority of the group or an official
with no penalty. </font>
A disc entering OB water (if the water is OB) is governed by the following rule (no significant change from 2005):
<font color="blue"> 803.03 Marking the Lie
A. After each throw, the thrown disc
must be left where it came to rest until
the lie is established by the placing of a
marker. This can be done by placing a
mini marker disc on the playing surface
between the hole and the disc, directly
in line with the hole, on the line of play,
touching the thrown disc. A player may
instead choose, without touching or
repositioning the thrown disc, to use the
thrown disc as the marker. The marker
may not be moved until the throw is
released. A marker inadvertently moved
prior to the throw shall be returned to its
correct location.
B. A player is only required to mark
the lie with a mini marker disc when
repositioning the lie under the rules. This
includes the following rules: out-ofbounds,
disc above the playing surface, lost
disc, unplayable lie, relocated for relief,
interference, or repositioning the lie within
one meter of the out-of-bounds line.
C. If the thrown disc comes to rest
in-bounds but within one meter of
an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be
relocated to any point on a one-meter
line that extends perpendicularly from
the nearest point on the out-of-bounds
line, and passes through the center of
the thrown disc. This holds true even if
the direction takes the lie closer to the
hole. See the following sections for other
considerations in marking a thrown disc:
(1) Relocated for relief - 803.05 C (2)
(2) Interference - 803.07 A, B
(3) Above the playing surface - 803.08 A
(4) Out-of-Bounds - 803.09 B
(5) Lost Disc- 803.11 B
D. The Rule of Verticality: The out-ofbounds
line represents a vertical plane.
Where a player�s lie is marked from a
particular point within one meter of the
out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules,
the one-meter relief may be taken from
the particular point upward or downward
along the vertical plane.
E. If the thrown disc breaks and comes to
rest in more than one piece, the largest
piece, as agreed to by a majority of the
group or an offi cial, is deemed to be the
thrown disc.
F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed
to be at rest once it is floating or is
moving only by the action of the water or
the wind on the water.
G. A player shall receive a warning for
the fi rst violation of a marking rule if
observed by two or more players of the
group or an offi cial. One penalty throw
shall be assessed for each subsequent
violation of any marking rule during the
round if observed by two or more players
of the group or an offi cial. </font>
So the disc would be considered OB once F. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest, and OB, once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. So the only way a disc could be lost in water is if the water is not considered OB (same as before). But if the disc is lost, yes, the thrower would take a penalty throw and throw again from the previous lie. </font>
Technically the disc is not 'lost" if you saw where the disc went into the water.
<font color="green"> If the water is OB, the disc is OB not lost, regardless of whether or not you can see it. (Note: it seems to me, that in this case the benefit of the doubt would go to the thrower that the disc went OB in the water and the player not have to re throw from their previous lie (unless stipulated by the director.) If the water is not OB, then yes the disc could technically be lost in it. If it can be seen, then the player could play it from in the water, or get casual relief is allowed by the rules. </font>

If the "stroke and distance" only applies to losts discs and not OB discs, then this rule is not too bad. If it is to all OB, big tournaments will take forever, you will be looking at 4-5 hour rounds at USDGC if that is the case.



�Throw� and distance can apply to both lost and OB discs depending on the directors specifications concerning special conditions at the players meeting. As the rules above detail the director can limit the options for OB to exclude throw and distance, they can not however do so for a lost disc. Throw and distance is the specifically prescribed penalty for a lost disc. Drop zones or last place seen in bounds are not permissible options for directors to use at PDGA events as detailed by the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf and PDGA Rules Committee Chairperson, Carlton Howard:



Name: Nick Kight
Pdga number: 4861

Message:

Lost Discs & Special Conditions Drop Zones

Under 2006 PDGA Rules is it permissible for a director to create a special condition by which a thrower whose disc has been properly declared lost shall add a penalty throw to their score and their next shot taken from a designated drop zone?

This does not concern OB. The director stipulated that on any hole on the back nine, due to high grass, where a thrower looses a disc shall take a one throw penalty and take their next shot from a drop zone. On holes 10 & 17 that is the tee pad, on the other holes drop zones have been marked. Is this ok to do?

Thank you for your consideration.

Dear Nick,

No, it is not permissible, UNLESS the TD applied for an exemption with the Competition Director prior to the event.

Of course this could be done on holes 10 & 17 without that application.

Naturally, if it's not a PDGA sanctioned event (club monthly, etc) then the TD could do whatever they wanted.

Yours Sincerely;

Carlton Howard
PDGA Rules Committee Chairman



I hope this has been helpful. Happy New Years!

Unlike the other response I am going to make this short and sweet. If a disc is seen high up in a tree, and the 2MR is not in effect, then it can either be identified by the thrower and group or it can not. If the thrower says it is their disc and identifies it, but the group disagrees, an official can make a ruling or the player will have to play a provisional and the director decide which was the correctly played throw after the round. All situations are covered. (This is actually the same even if the 2MR is on.) If, you are implying that a player is trying to cheat, then there are completely separate rules for that, and it too is covered.

I hope that you are underestimating the courteous and professional nature of PDGA Competitors. Using excessive or unnecessary provisional shots should be watched carefully. I�d advise you to write a specific question concerning it to the PDGA Rules Committee requesting an Official Q & A be added to our rules for this. If they feel it is already covered in the existing rules they will show you where and how. I just did this for the adding drop zones for lost discs question (it is not permitted, see above post).

The order of application of the rules is fine, but there has to be a concensus on the card to go from one to the next.

If the card does not think the disc could have skipped into the OB area, then they can push the lost disc ruling. If the penalties were more aligned between the 2 instances, then the final decision of whether the disc was lost or OB would not be important. Only the spotting of the resulting lie would be important. I would not allow the lost disc rule to use a drop zone unless the TD has added that option for that particular hole.



I disagree that they should be treated similarly. They are completely different situations; In one the location and status of the disc is completely known, the other neither is known.

The new rules are a clear attempt to move away from guessing games and deal more with indisputable evidence (even if that verification might come after the round if necessary).

In the end, the results should be positive, with better hole design, more spotters, spotting, observing other players throw (courtesy), and a greater attempt to avoid areas where lost disc or OB is a possibility.

What happens when a ball is lost in ball golf? Not that that is the end all, but losing track of where you are when you are counting actual throws to complete the course has got to remain one of the more severe penalties in any golf-like game, doesn't it?

"This is actually the same even if the 2MR is on."
It's not the same, because if the group reasonably concludes the disc is OB (over 2M in a tree when rule is in effect), then they can mark the disc below the tree and proceed without having to actually "find" the disc.

"In the end, the results should be positive, with better hole design, more spotters, spotting, observing other players throw (courtesy), and a greater attempt to avoid areas where lost disc or OB is a possibility."
I agree, particularly that holes should be designed to minimize and faciliate spotting wherever possible.

"This is actually the same even if the 2MR is on."
It's not the same, because if the group reasonably concludes the disc is OB (over 2M in a tree when rule is in effect), then they can mark the disc below the tree and proceed without having to actually "find" the disc.



I'm guessing you mean that if the disc is above 2M, and the 2M rule is in effect, that the thrower will mark their lie on the playing surface below, take a penalty throw and play on, right? That the group reasonable concluded that that is the throwers disc above 2M, right?

So if the 2M rule were not in effect, what would change? They would not reasonably conclude that that is the throwers disc above 2M? Why would they do that? Do you think they would purposefully change their opinion to give the player a hard time? Why?

That they would prefer that he retrieve it for identification? That is not necessary under our rules now or prior.

If none of them think that is the throwers disc, including the player, then they must try to find the disc (2 meter rule on or off).

If none but the thrower thinks that is the throwers disc, then the thrower can throw from the disc he has identified as his disc, and play a provisional for a lost disc, and the director decide later which was actually the case.

What it comes down to is you need to convince me that players would id a disc with the 2MR but not without it. Seems like you are implying that some players would be dishonest, or more likely to try and not extend the benefit of the doubt. I don't see it, and if a player was found to be doing that, I'd DQ them immediately for such unsportsmanlike behavior.

What you propose is just as likely as it is for the that thrower, with the 2MR on, to absolutely deny that the disc in the tree is his disc and take the lost disc from a better lie. He'd have to throw a provisional and the TD decide later which was actually the case.

What am I missing?

I think he is saying that if the 2 meter rule is in effect and the majority of the group believes the disc is above 2 meters, the lie can be approximated, while if the 2MR is not in effect the disc must be located exactly in order to position the lie.

I also think he's wrong...

There is verbiage in the rules to handle the case of a disc that the group believes is stuck up in a tree with the 2 meter rule in effect: "In order to consider the disc out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area"

There is no such verbiage to consider a lost disc case where the 2 meter rule is not in effect and the disc cannot be located, but is suspected to be up in a tree. It's not a matter of knowing exctly where to spot the lie, it's a question of actually "finding" the disc.
"A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it whithin thre minutes after arriving at the spot where it was las seen by the group or an official".
AKA, if you can't see the disc and there is no reasonable evidence that it is OB, then it is lost. Saying, "Even though I can't see it, I'm pretty sure it went up in that tree, so I shouldn't have to take a penalty for a lost disc" isn't any different than saying "Even though I can't see it, I'm pretty sure it's somewhere within fifty feet of that bush, so I shouldn't have to take a penalty for a lost disc".

A disc in a tree 2 meters above the playing surface isn't out of bounds unless the tree is out of bounds. It may have a height penalty but it isn't out of bounds.

Chris,
Are you then saying that a disc that is reasonably presumed to be stuck up in a tree, but is unseen should be considered lost (S&D) or OB (mark below tree with penalty) with the 2 meter rule in effect?

And aren't you all glad we're having this discussion here and not during a tournament round :)

I was saying that above 2 meters is not OB, it's a height penalty.

Thanks Zeus,

This helps a lot.

Let me throw this question into the mix.

Given a design hole has a 20 ft cliff has been marked OB by the TD. And players whose discs travel beyond that cliff must take a drop at a designated drop zone. Without hindering speed of play it is feasibly possible for the player to take a path and retrieve their disc from the bottom of the cliff. In most instances discs that flew off the cliff are easily found.

What would be the call for the player who goes OB over the cliff, and cannot find their disc?

I am guessing this would fall under the same circumstances and rules as a water hazard OB. Except the player would be allowed three minutes to find their disc, except they would not be double penalized with the stroke and distance ruling and will be allowed to throw their next shot from the designated drop zone for that particular OB area.

Is this true?

Thanks,

chris is correct on this one. although we all say "its OB" referring to a disc above 2M, that phrasing is technically incorrect.

chris is correct on this one. although we all say "its OB" referring to a disc above 2M, that phrasing is technically incorrect.




right, if it 2M up had ever been the same as OB -- then it would have always been up to the TD and the 2006 rule change would not have been necessary ;) :p

OK, over 2M is different from OB.

Can anyone answer the question of how to proceed when it is suspected that a disc is up in a tree, but the disc cannot be seen.

It's beginning to sound to me like in either case (2M rule on or off) if a disc cannot be seen then it is lost and S&D applies.

OK, over 2M is different from OB.

Can anyone answer the question of how to proceed when it is suspected that a disc is up in a tree, but the disc cannot be seen.

It's beginning to sound to me like in either case (2M rule on or off) if a disc cannot be seen then it is lost and S&D applies.



If you suspect the disc is up in the tree but can't see it or find it, then it is lost. Suspecting a disc is in a tree is a bit different that suspecting the disc went into an OB lake. With a tree, there is always the chance that it went through the tree and is on the ground or you have the wrong tree altogether. Locate the disc or play it as lost.

--Josh

OK, over 2M is different from OB.

Can anyone answer the question of how to proceed when it is suspected that a disc is up in a tree, but the disc cannot be seen.

It's beginning to sound to me like in either case (2M rule on or off) if a disc cannot be seen then it is lost and S&D applies.



If you suspect the disc is up in the tree but can't see it or find it, then it is lost. Suspecting a disc is in a tree is a bit different that suspecting the disc went into an OB lake. With a tree, there is always the chance that it went through the tree and is on the ground or you have the wrong tree altogether. Locate the disc or play it as lost.

--Josh



Precisely. OB is a completely different ball of wax and it should remain so.

In either case a player is allowed 3 minutes to find their disc. Though the OB supercedes Lost Disc, it does not negate the part of the rule that allows for the courteous search and retreival of the disc.

In other words you still have 3 minutes to find the disc water or no water and everyone in your group is required by rule to help you in that search, only you, the thrower can call that off.

I'm not going to repost the rule, or say that the rules precisely state that, but our courtesy rules should always take precedence over all other rules, don't you agree?

Exactly, I was just fishing out an answer since losing a disc and going OB are handled in two fashions now. Since it used to be "last seen" it was easy for a group to decide where to penalize the offending player. It makes sense to me to use the OB rule and mark the players lie at the drop zone.

Exactly, I was just fishing out an answer since losing a disc and going OB are handled in two fashions now. Since it used to be "last seen" it was easy for a group to decide where to penalize the offending player. It makes sense to me to use the OB rule and mark the players lie at the drop zone.



I'm not sure I get your meaning Kris. They have always been handled differently. Drop zone has never been and is not currently and option for a Lost Disc like it is for OB. That is unless special permission is sought and received by the PDGA Competition Director.

I understand that you think it makes sense to work the other way, and perhaps it does; but it still is not permitted by the rules (before or now). Throw and distance leaves little discussion for where the next lie should be marked and again, the overall result, I am hoping, is that there will be far fewer lost discs because:

1) Better hole design
2) More event spotters
3) Groups will send out a spotter
4) Group members will be more attentive
5) Greater level of player awareness of such hazards
6) All of which should result in greater speed of play not to mention more players playing from known lies rather than guessitmated ones.

I guess my thoughts got crossed.

In the past, if a player threw into shule, and could not find the disc, the group decided on marking the lie at the "point where the disc was last seen". This is now replaced by "stroke and distance".

If a disc was thrown into an area which was OB, then the lie would be marked at the point where the disc crossed the OB line.

Using the old rules, the effect is the same for the lost disc/OB throw. The disc was brought back to the last point it was inbounds and or seen. The shule would have been the same as OB in effect, not with what rule applies.

In my case, the specified OB area had a drop zone regardless of what point on the OB line the disc crossed. This is a special circumstance allowed at the TD's discression.

Now that OB and lost discs are handled more differently in effect because of the stroke and distance, I was just trying to clarify what happens when the disc is OB and lost, it was clear to me when it was lost in water that was OB, just not on ground.

Guys,
thanks for helping clarify the "probably up in tree, but not visible" question.

Parkn, your question is answered here:
803.09 A "In order to consider the disc out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost".

803.09 A "In order to consider the disc out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost".



So in this instance, where the flight of the disc unmistakenly flew out of bounds, and due to the design of the hole, it was evident that it never came back into play. Since the disc could not be found, it will be considered lost?

So then, now, since we cannot find discs that end up in the middle of a body of water. We can not consider it OB, even if the water was designated OB. We must consider it lost and rethrow from the place where the disc was orginally thrown from.

To me this negates the need for a definition of OB in water. You can no longer find it, it is automatically lost.

To me, there should be a heirarchy where the disc that went unargueably OB, should take precedence over the disc being lost. You essentially will create a double jeopardy situation on difficult shots involving cliffs, rivers, and lakes.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

If there is reasonable evidence that the disc wound up near the bottom of an OB lake -- then it seems to me you play it within one meter from where group consensus feels it last crossed into OB or you can play from the previous lie (adding in the throw you just took plus a penalty stroke) provided you have not yet picked up your marker...

Does Anyone Know if the PDGA Rules Committee
will be publishing a "Revised" Q &amp; A for the 06 Rules of Play ???
I noticed the current Q &amp; A advised that the OB line is in. :o
Therefore for the the previous rules.
Thank You
D.P. :D

803.09.A seems clear in that OB is first followed by lost.

If there is reasonable evidence that it went OB, it is OB. Only when there is no reasonable evidence that the disc is OB will it be treated as lost.

If there is reasonable evidence that the disc wound up near the bottom of an OB lake -- then it seems to me you play it within one meter from where group consensus feels it last crossed into OB or you can play from the previous lie (adding in the throw you just took plus a penalty stroke) provided you have not yet picked up your marker


It's not necessary to leave your marker. The group just has to go back and approximate where the lie was.

803.09.A seems clear in that OB is first followed by lost.

If there is reasonable evidence that it went OB, it is OB. Only when there is no reasonable evidence that the disc is OB will it be treated as lost.



Precisely.

This "reasonable evidence" is not applied similarly to discs that disappear into a tree or over shule that is not OB (i.e. the 2 meter rule), only for OB situations. Also, water and ground are clearly dealt with differently by our rules as concerns OB and lost discs. This is detailed in the 2 rules.

Hey Pat � Thanks for pointing out the sections that mention �benefit of the doubt.� I received several private e-mails referencing the same sections. In my opinion, these sections do not confer a general benefit of the doubt; rather, they give the player the nod in a very limited circumstance � only when the group can not reach a majority decision.

The majority of the group does not need to refute the possibility that the nose of the disc poked through the fence. Nor do they need to award the spot simply because the possibility exists that the disc might have broken the plane. The majority simply needs to be unconvinced that it did happen in the particular case. And if any of the group summons an official, �the benefit of the doubt� language is completely out of context. Unless the player or an official saw the disc poke through the fence, it would be easy for me not to give the player the benefit of the doubt when it is so contrary to the spirit of the rule. Hopefully, the reworking of the Q & A will make this scenario a non-issue.

Take care,
Harold

so its gonna come down to "reasonable evidence" versus "unconvinced"? and just to clarify for the record, your next to last sentence directly implies that "benefit of the doubt" is now "contrary to the rule".

here's to hoping the your last sentence proves true!

peace,
pat

On a normal, undamaged chain link fence I don't think you are ever going to have any evidence that that disc poked through to the inbounds side. All you will ever have is a semi-plausible theory, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

conjecture, your honor.

if you had performed your due diligence and read the whole thread and conducted an independent test you would know that its already been shown that the disc does in fact poke through a normal unbroken chain link fence.

besides, it would take about a half second to conduct a test on the fence in question and have empirical (as opposed to reasonable) evidence right then and there.

Why can't we allow the TD to specify fences as IB on one side, and OB on the other without any reference to a static plane ?

The plane (or rule of verticality) would only come into play for determining the status of a disc above or below the demarking object (rope, cable or fence).

The default intrepretation should be provided by the rules, but leave the option for the TD to refine the definition used in the tournament.

Actually, if you had read the whole thread you would see that it was me who made the supreme sacrifice, went out into the falling snow, and tested an ordinary chain link fence. I know that a disc can poke through a little to the in bounds side. You cannot see it unless you are above the fence looking down.

Unless you install a row of fence cams on posts looking down at the fence you are never going to see the disc poking through. From as far away as you are going to be for a disc to cross o.b. and curve back to hit the fence, you just can't see anything like that. It happens too fast and you are too far back and the amount it sticks through is only about an eighth of an inch.

If it is still light out when I get home tonight, I'll look at the fence while Kelsey throws discs into it. I will sacrifice my body for science, if necessary. :)

Actually, if you had read the whole thread you would see that it was me who made the supreme sacrifice, went out into the falling snow, and tested an ordinary chain link fence. I know that a disc can poke through a little to the in bounds side. You cannot see it unless you are above the fence looking down.

Unless you install a row of fence cams on posts looking down at the fence you are never going to see the disc poking through. From as far away as you are going to be for a disc to cross o.b. and curve back to hit the fence, you just can't see anything like that. It happens too fast and you are too far back and the amount it sticks through is only about an eighth of an inch.

If it is still light out when I get home tonight, I'll look at the fence while Kelsey throws discs into it. I will sacrifice my body for science, if necessary. :)

well my apologies then. reading and remembering are two different things for me :D

i would think that the fact that it could stick through and it did hit the fence would constitute reasonable evidence that it did, especially when combined with benefit of the doubt.

(i'll just assume i dont need to post my apology twice :) )

Just because it could doen't mean it will or probably did; that's not what benefit-of-the-doubt means. However, If I claim I SAW pokement [perhaps with binoculars], that's germaine.

it would also get you a stroke for using binoculars! :cool:

and besides, COULD does lead to benefit of the doubt. DID and WILL do not - they lead to absolute proof.

it seems to me that your s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g benefit of the doubt Pat. if we play a wooded dogleg right and i throw a flippy high shot that disappears -- benefit of the doubt could be argued to say my disc could have helixed back and been parked until a large squirrel picked it up and moved it out of sight. would you in that case give me benefit of the doubt and let me drop in a two? Puh-lease..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wouldn't there need to be reasonable evidence ?

btw, i much prefer stroke and distance to where-it-was-last-seen in such a scenario because the latter is too punitive and the former will encourage me to pay more attention to where my disc probably landed

Yeah, evidence, that's it.

The player 'sees' some evidence, and is given the benefit-of-the-doubt.

That's different from making a supposition of what would likely happen, or could happen, and saying "odds-are it did; I dare you to doubt that."

Just because it could doen't mean it will or probably did; that's not what benefit-of-the-doubt means. However, If I claim I SAW pokement [perhaps with binoculars], that's germaine.



precisely.

it would also get you a stroke for using binoculars! :cool:



Incorrect. Binoculars are permitted.

and besides, COULD does lead to benefit of the doubt. DID and WILL do not - they lead to absolute proof.



So extending you the benefit of the doubt means that because you could have touched in on the other side of the pond, even though no one saw it do so, equals that you did touch in bounds.

That is not the way I have interpretted the rules on the very rare occasions such rulings arise. If no one saw it touch in bounds then benefit of the doubt does not come into play. Now if someone says they saw it touch in bounds while others say they did not, if a group decision can't be found one way or the other, then benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower.

This is quite different than some extrapolation based on theories of flexing fences. Either someone saw the disc over in bounds (or touch it) or they did not. If we want to find a way to undermine this rule I'm sure we can, but that would constitute cheating.

might have touched the other side of the pond bank but no one saw it.

we all saw it hit the chain link fence and we know that a disc will poke through, albeit briefly and barely. becasue we can place a disc on the fence and observe it poking through.

first case: benefit of the doubt cannot possibly exist
second case: not only does benefit of the doubt exist, but reasonable evidence does as well.

aren't you discounting the real possibility that the disc struck on metal rather than centered on a hole and spun off without ever poking through at all?

to test this you would need to hold a spinning disc up to the fence, strike it in random places and see what happens. it probably spins off without poking through. again, you seem to be s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g your scenario in order to push your real agenda which is to vent at the RC wrt the 2 meter rule change :p

the point of making a fence the OB line is to consider the disc never effectively came back in if it strikes the away rfrom IB side of a fence and falls OB.

do you have suggestions to clarify this rule? if so, please put them out on the 'table'

we all saw it hit the chain link fence and we know that a disc will poke through, albeit briefly and barely. becasue we can place a disc on the fence and observe it poking through.



You only know that there is a remote chance that it poked through. None of you actually saw it poke through. And because you can later show that in a separate incident a disc "can" poke through, is not evidence that any of you "saw it" poke through for the actual throw.

If one of you did see it poke through, then you might have a basis to take the ruling all the way to the final arbitor (benefit of the doubt).

Benefit of the doubt is only used when there is reasonable evidence, which from all accounts means that someone actually saw something that they are basing their contrary opinion on. Not that they have some theory that "might" be true or not.

There is a big difference.

rob says "probably spun off".
nick say "remote chance".
rob cannot quantify "probably".
nick cannot quantify "remote".
i can demonstrate possibility.

"possibility" is what leads towards benefit of the doubt.

but its me with a grudge against the RC??? thats just nonsense. seems to me like you both just wish to somehow prove to yourselves that you are better at arguing than at being right.

to each his own.

Man, y'all never stop. :D

They clarify the rule and y'all use some "fine" lawyering to attack it. If you hit a chain link fence from the OB side and the fence is OB, it doesn't take a freakin rocket scientist to make the call. Y'all need some nun to come whack the hell out of you with a metal yardstick. :p

Man, y'all never stop. :D

They clarify the rule and y'all use some "fine" lawyering to attack it. If you hit a chain link fence from the OB side and the fence is OB, it doesn't take a freakin rocket scientist to make the call. Y'all need some nun to come whack the hell out of you with a metal yardstick. :p



I'd purchase the PAY PER VIEW event that showcases all of them on the same card. :D

Man, y'all never stop. :D

They clarify the rule and y'all use some "fine" lawyering to attack it. If you hit a chain link fence from the OB side and the fence is OB, it doesn't take a freakin rocket scientist to make the call. Y'all need some nun to come whack the hell out of you with a metal yardstick. :p



Actually I was under the impression that most of the nitpicking about this rule had more to do with demonstrating that it has not yet been clarified in such a way as to reach the intended interpretation reliably than with rules-lawyering a way around it.

You're using BOTD logic to get >>> the player's DECISION. The DECISION is THE THING subject to the BOTD language, it's not used to determine how good of a guesser/detective one might be, which I find confusing. Are you spreading confusion, through obfuscation? :D

However/whichever way the player comes to his/her decision, if sincere, is totally beside the point. It's the DECISION [result] which is subject to this language.

Sounds to me , that if there is a fence , wall , building or some obstruction , bordering OB , and your disc hits , but does not come back in.....................you would either Re-Tee or throw the disc where it went OB ( Last point over inbounds ).?

Look for solutions to the problem, Go by some string from the hardware and lay it down, cost ya about 5$ for 5000ft. But i know some people are not happy unless your bickering so

Carry on.

But string has detectable thickness. :D

Actually I was under the impression that most of the nitpicking about this rule had more to do with demonstrating that it has not yet been clarified in such a way as to reach the intended interpretation reliably than with rules-lawyering a way around it.


I gotta disagree. This has been turned into a no-brainer under the now-current rules. Save the attorney fees, any sane judge/jury will understand.

The rule changed the OB line/corresponding plane to be OB. If the TD says the fence is the OB line/plane, the disc comes in from the OB area and hits the OB fence and falls in OB area, the call is crystal clear. It wasn't before, but it certainly is now.

Sure, we can come up with clever arguments on what constitues a fence; what if the fence is crooked; what if blah, blah, blah. Or, we can can just accept a very clear concept for what it is: a very clear concept. You may argue that the rule is misguided, or that hitting the fence should be in bounds, but why argue that it is unclear. It is perfectly clear.

...where's the fun in that approach; besides, then there's be no outlet for my hubris! :o

Actually I was under the impression that most of the nitpicking about this rule had more to do with demonstrating that it has not yet been clarified in such a way as to reach the intended interpretation reliably than with rules-lawyering a way around it.


I gotta disagree. This has been turned into a no-brainer under the now-current rules. Save the attorney fees, any sane judge/jury will understand.

The rule changed the OB line/corresponding plane to be OB. If the TD says the fence is the OB line/plane, the disc comes in from the OB area and hits the OB fence and falls in OB area, the call is crystal clear. It wasn't before, but it certainly is now.

Sure, we can come up with clever arguments on what constitues a fence; what if the fence is crooked; what if blah, blah, blah. Or, we can can just accept a very clear concept for what it is: a very clear concept. You may argue that the rule is misguided, or that hitting the fence should be in bounds, but why argue that it is unclear. It is perfectly clear.



To admit such a thing would go against everything Pat stands for: Namely: That because the Rules Committee disagreed with him on the 2 meter rule they can not be right about anything else. To admit that they are right about this would mean to admit that they were right about that. And to do that would mean that his tenuous reality would crumble to dust.

Pass the dust pan! :D

of course, thats not a personal attack or anything.

Actually I was under the impression that most of the nitpicking about this rule had more to do with demonstrating that it has not yet been clarified in such a way as to reach the intended interpretation reliably than with rules-lawyering a way around it.


I gotta disagree. This has been turned into a no-brainer under the now-current rules. Save the attorney fees, any sane judge/jury will understand.

The rule changed the OB line/corresponding plane to be OB. If the TD says the fence is the OB line/plane, the disc comes in from the OB area and hits the OB fence and falls in OB area, the call is crystal clear. It wasn't before, but it certainly is now.

Sure, we can come up with clever arguments on what constitues a fence; what if the fence is crooked; what if blah, blah, blah. Or, we can can just accept a very clear concept for what it is: a very clear concept. You may argue that the rule is misguided, or that hitting the fence should be in bounds, but why argue that it is unclear. It is perfectly clear.



I'm not disagreeing with that. However, because the rules DON'T actually have a provision for defining the OB plane as potentially non-vertical, the poke-through argument and particularly the leaning-fence argument are literally valid enough that TD's are going to have to do one of two things...either plan for people to make those kinds of arguments and make their OB lines or special conditions prevent it from happening, or assume that the argument in this thread could never have taken place because everyone knows what the rule was supposed to do...and then potentially have to deal with either letting the argument work, or having people whine when the call doesn't go their way. Which might not sound like a big deal to some, but some TD's will get frustrated with it.

That's why I'm watching the argument, albeit with some exasperation. I think that the intent of the rule is clear and that the call should be clear, but that they left the rule just weak enough that these arguments will continue to be a hassle for TD's, though some will obviously be more irritated than others.

I think the rule needs just one addendum.

In the case that the OB line is described by an object with vertical height (fence, cable, rope, building), the object is the line whether vertical or not. The lowest point of the object (fence, cable, rope) will be used as the OB line only to determine the status of discs at rest above or below the object.

Maybe one more:

A disc striking the OB line (fence, cable, post) is not considered to have touched in bounds at that point unless the TD has specifically declared the OB line is to be played as in bounds.

it seems to me that your s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g benefit of the doubt Pat. if we play a wooded dogleg right and i throw a flippy high shot that disappears -- benefit of the doubt could be argued to say my disc could have helixed back and been parked until a large squirrel picked it up and moved it out of sight. would you in that case give me benefit of the doubt and let me drop in a two? Puh-lease..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wouldn't there need to be reasonable evidence ?


Benefit of the doubt is what you give someone if you don't have sufficient evidence to the contrary.

I think the rule needs just one addendum.

In the case that the OB line is described by an object with vertical height (fence, cable, rope, building), the object is the line whether vertical or not. The lowest point of the object (fence, cable, rope) will be used as the OB line only to determine the status of discs at rest above or below the object.




That's the additional clarification I think should have been included, too.

of course, thats not a personal attack or anything.



I'll take your word for it seeing how you're the personal attack expert...

I think the rule needs just one addendum.

In the case that the OB line is described by an object with vertical height (fence, cable, rope, building), the object is the line whether vertical or not. The lowest point of the object (fence, cable, rope) will be used as the OB line only to determine the status of discs at rest above or below the object.




That's the additional clarification I think should have been included, too.



Interesting. Seems like you guys are in a way blaming the poor use of an object as an OB line as somehow being the rules fault.

If you are having difficulties with a fence that is being used for an OB line then fix it. Don't expect the rules to bail you out. Put a string 10 inches inside the fence or better yet don't use the "last point in bounds option", set up a fair drop zone instead. If your disc ends up OB then go to the drop zone.

This is a designer problem, not a rule problem. We can have rules for every different kind of object used for OB.

seems to me like you both just wish to somehow prove to yourselves that you are better at arguing than at being right.



classic case of the pot calling the kettles black! :eek: :p :D:D

I don't want to give anybody a headache [really!], but what if in 2007 a disc touching ANY OB was OB? Then poking, leaning, wouldn't be an issue. Right?

Have a nice morning! :)

Nick,

No. Just plain and simple, No. Why should a TD be required to add a string to a perfectly good fence boundary when they should be able to say discs striking the fence from the OB side are not considered inbounds at the point of contact ?

It was my understanding the OB line change was meant to address this particular issue and a few others. It completely changes for the worse how one of our courses plays around a creek, and did nothing for the leaning/flexible fence issue.

As long as the OB line is on the playing surface and represents a vertical plane from there, the flexible fence will always be a problem. It needs to be clearly stated that an OB line can be an object that may not be exactly vertical, but striking it from the OB side will not allow the disc to be inbounds at the point contact was made.

We also need to allow for situations where the TD may want a non-veritcal boundary (block wall bordering a creek) to be considered IB, but allow players to take a full meter from the top of the wall as was allowed by the previous rule.

The rules are not carved in stone, and can be changed. It will probably be several years before the next rewrite, but I want to get my points in now.

My argument here is the same as the 2m rule, we should allow the TDs more flexibility to describe the course as logically as possible for each course, not force feed rules that are good on some courses, and bad on others.

For the most part I agree. To address Nick's comments directly, though, in the former case there is the potential for penalizing (in a way that in more cases will not be intended by the course design) people who throw rollers that end up leaning on the fence.

In the latter case...well, frankly, I just don't like drop zones.

In a manner of speaking, I agree with your solutions in that they do both solve the problem, such as it is. I am currently on the fence, as it were (har har) regarding whether I think that the additional clarification in the rules would be a good idea or superfluous. I do know that I don't believe using a fence as an OB line is inherently bad course design.

On to another rule change 803.06(2) the unplayable lie rule.

According to rule 803.06 "A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable." One option is for the player after declaring an unplayable lie to play from their last lie with one penalty stroke.

Here is a scenerio I would like others to comment on:

I throw my disc on a heavily wooded course from the fairway and it hits a tree about 3 meters in front of me and it somehow careens 85 feet into the deep, dense schule away from the basket and away from my previous lie. When I get to my disc it is actually in a little clearing with nothing in the way that would hinder my next shot. However I declare an unplayable lie knowing that I have little chance of getting back to the fairway on my next shot and accept the one stroke penalty and play my next shot from my previous lie.

My questions:

1.) Is that legal under our rules?
2.) Is that ethical?

yes and yes.

and at least the rule isn't called unsafe lie anymore.

To look at this from a course design or competitive advantage point of view, there should be no intentional design element that requires more than 2 strokes to return to the same location. In a way it is preventing really bad luck from coming into play. On some courses, all it would take is one really bad kick, and a player would be out of the competition.

From a player/skill point of view, I can see the argument that you threw it there, deal with it.

I lean more toward the course design side.

Gary, as you know I am flexible on most rules topics, if a decent argument can be made.

I have been interested in the idea or concept of playing surfaces of varying IB/OB status ever since the bridge discussion and official Q & A.

I can find no scenario that would not include vast amounts of rules implications where a direct or course designer can use a flexible fence with lot's of gaps to ensure that no part of the disc pokes through and therefore is over In Bounds.

I agree with Harold that imperically witnessing such a thing and therefore having more than a theoretical basis for utilizing benefit of the doubt to give the player a spot at that point where the fence flexed is extremely tenuous.

Still, it is the responsibility of the director and course pro to shore up all possible situations according to existing rules to avoid such contention as discussed here. I know if I were a director of an event I would not want a known rules problem element like a flexible fence OB to ever cause any distraction to my competitors, officials or volunteers (and certainly not to myself). At least for the event I would go out and string well inside that fence as the OB line.

If the RC revises the rules to make any disc striking such a disc from the OB side incapable of getting any part of it over IB, I will use it. Until that time it is encumbent on the director to avoid such situations.

On to another rule change 803.06(2) the unplayable lie rule.

According to rule 803.06 "A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable." One option is for the player after declaring an unplayable lie to play from their last lie with one penalty stroke.

Here is a scenerio I would like others to comment on:

I throw my disc on a heavily wooded course from the fairway and it hits a tree about 3 meters in front of me and it somehow careens 85 feet into the deep, dense schule away from the basket and away from my previous lie. When I get to my disc it is actually in a little clearing with nothing in the way that would hinder my next shot. However I declare an unplayable lie knowing that I have little chance of getting back to the fairway on my next shot and accept the one stroke penalty and play my next shot from my previous lie.

My questions:

1.) Is that legal under our rules?
2.) Is that ethical?



Excellent one Mark!
Yes and Yes, and I can't wait to use it on a certain hole at Kennett where if you get into deep doo doo on the drive, getting back to the tee in only one shot would be a blessing.

I don't get the 'yes yes'. It's not unplayable at all. Isn't unplayable for safety reasons, not scoring ones?!?

I throw my disc on a heavily wooded course from the fairway and it hits a tree about 3 meters in front of me and it somehow careens 85 feet into the deep, dense schule away from the basket and away from my previous lie. When I get to my disc it is actually in a little clearing with nothing in the way that would hinder my next shot. However I declare an unplayable lie knowing that I have little chance of getting back to the fairway on my next shot and accept the one stroke penalty and play my next shot from my previous lie.

My questions:

1.) Is that legal under our rules?
2.) Is that ethical?



1. No.
2. Not if it's not legal. ;)

The problem with your example is the PDGA's definition of 'Unplayable Lie' on pg.5 of the 2006 rulebook.

"Unplayable Lie: A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw . The lie is relocated with a penalty."

In your example, there is nothing blocking your stance or throwing motion, so no. It is not legal. If there happened to be a twig somewhere in the way of your arm or a hole in the ground that prevented you from getting 'perfect footing', it could/would be legal.

But, that's just the way I see it...

According to rule 803.06 "A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable."

Surely that's for the player's own decision of what is SAFE?!?