If the OB line is now out then does this mean that a disc that is half in water and touching dryland is out? If a disc is on a OB side wlak and is touching grass is that OB?

No. You would still have to be completely surrounded by water or sidewalk in order to be OB in the given examples.

The rule change pertains mostly to OB lines that physically extend upwards such as a fence. If you fly over the fence into OB then hit the OB side of the fence further down in the flight, your last inbounds location is where you first went OB, not where you hit the fence.

If any part of the disc is in-bound...then, it's IN. No change from the last rule book. Heres one example of how the new rule effects calls.


Under the old rule: If every part of the disc were out except one sliver of the rim touching the line that sperates IN from OUT....it was IN.

Under the new rule: If every part of the disc were out except one sliver of the rim touching the line that seperates IN from OUT...it is now OUT

Hope this helps

If the OB line is now out then does this mean that a disc that is half in water and touching dryland is out?


All water is casual by default.

To prevent this from being a thread that justifies a disc on the sidewalk touching a single blade of grass being called in bounds.


If a disc is on a OB side wlak and is touching grass is that OB?



That depends, is the grass the disc is touching OB or IB ?

The grass has nothing to do with the inbounds state of the disc. If the disc is completely surrounded by OB, then the disc is OB. Grass growing over the sidewalk is OB because the grass is over OB territory, in order the be inbounds, some part of the disc needs to be "not over the sidewalk".

God, I hate doing this.

A tree next to a declared OB stream. A thrown disc hits the tree then goes in the water. Where is the disc spotted. Some of the tree is over OB water.

We usually give a favorable lie. Which I think is right. But what if the disc sticks in the tree over OB. You could have some horrible lie. And would have benefitted by going in the drink.

And you should hate it. Just because the tree roots are inbounds, the tree itself has no status.

Not if the rule is followed correctly. Trees do not have an IB/OB status, only the playing surface does. That is why a disc suspended above the playing surface is not OB until it is determined that the playing surface directly below the disc is OB.

So hitting the tree means nothing, the disc has to pass into the airspace above in bounds territory before the disc is in bounds. If it is really questionable whether the part of the tree the disc hit was over inbounds territory, then benefit if the doubt is a good thing. If it is clear that the disc never reached the part of the tree that is over in bounds territory, then the disc never came back in bounds. If the disc passed over in bounds territory before getting lodged in the tree above OB territory, one option would still be to mark the disc where it was last in bounds.

Gary,

Couldn't a TD stipulate that a tree is an OB line, similar to a wall or fence? Therefore making any lie within the outermost boundary of the tree OB? This would make the playing surface beneath the tree OB though, so anything anywhere, regardless of height above the playing surface would also be OB. (This could be pretty useful for trees near certain pins and have all the benefits and clarity of OB rules.)

Perhaps an unintential use of the new OB line is OB rule...

Interesting.

There is no clear, defendable response to that one.

Declaring a tree as OB brings in several overlapping and mutually exclusive interpretations of the marking and OB rules as well as the theories behind stacked or multiple playing surfaces.

Why?

Why is it any different than a fence that bends out over the playing surface?

Vertical surfaces can't be defined as OB, but probably should have been in this last rules update. That might have been an oversight.

Why?

Why is it any different than a fence that bends out over the playing surface?



That is the point. If a fence is declared the OB line and it leans over the inbounds playing area enough that a disc can land on the in bounds side of the fence, and yet be completely within the vertical shadow of the fence. Is it OB because it is dompletely within the vertical width of the OB line, or in bounds because it is completely on the in bounds playing surface. The Q&A on multiple playing surfaces would imply that it is in bounds because the playing surface it is on is in bounds. The OB exists above and beyond the fence.

The actual wording in the glossary says the OB line extends both above and below the line. This precludes the existance of multiple playing surfaces. There is a problem with interperting the rule either way.

If you follow the reasoning in the Q&A, the in bounds playing surface extends laterally until it reaches an OB line. The in bounds/OB status of the playing surface extends upward until it encounters another playing surface. At that point, the other playing surface can have it's own definition of IB/OB.

We still have a problem with a tree, since trees are not playing surfaces, and the IB/OB status of a disc suspended is based upon the status of the playing surface deirectly below the disc.

Therefore, only a playing surface can be declared to have an IB/OB status.

I must be missing something. I'll check but I believe the OB line trumps the multiple playing surface scenario. In addition a fence or tree is not considered a playing surface in either rule or in any rule for that matter. I suppose a wall could be considered a playing surface, though that would be better designated by the director.

If in our example the fence or tree were designated OB then anything that was completely under it (or above it for that matter) would be by rule OB.

Can you show me an instance where this would not be the case?

Designating a tree as OB would not make the outer branch boundary the OB line. The vertical projection of every branch boundary up and down would be the line as projected on the ground. A disc landing under the tree branches would almost always be IB when the leaves are down because undoubtedly there would be some vertical lines up from the disc that go unobstructed to the sky without passing thru a branch. In the summer, with leaves, it would be foolish to use the tree with confusion whether leaves are part of the OB definition. Bad choice for the OB definition but nothing wrong with actually marking the OB line on the ground along the outside branch line.

You are correct. The OB line trumps multiple playing surfaces, and currently prohibits them. Even though a Q&A allows for them.

That is the problem. According to the logic required for multiple playing surfaces to exist, all OB lines must exist on a playing surface and can not project that status downward to any playing surfaces below.

By your logic and according to the wording in the glossary, OB lines extend both upward and downward and any verticle point would a single in bounds status. You could not have an in bounds bridge over an OB creek. Either the bridge above the OB creek would be OB, or the creek underneath the in bounds bridge would also be in bounds.

If you recall the elaborate drawings you prepared on the subject last year, OB was always in relation to a playing surface, and projected upwards unless it reached another playing surface. The in bounds status of a playing surface did not change until it met a seam in the playing surface where they status changed. In the case of a tree, it would be where the trunk left the ground.

What I demonstrated was a problem in the current logic. A disc clearly on the in bounds side of a fence used for an OB line. The fence was however leaning over the disc far enough to iclude the disc in it's vertical shadow. We know that the disc should be considered in bounds by intent, but with the wording of the rule, it's really out of bounds.

By rule, the in bounds status of a suspended disc is determined to be the same as the status of the playing surface beneath the disc.

What I demonstrated was a problem in the current logic. A disc clearly on the in bounds side of a fence used for an OB line. The fence was however leaning over the disc far enough to iclude the disc in it's vertical shadow. We know that the disc should be considered in bounds by intent, but with the wording of the rule, it's really out of bounds.

By rule, the in bounds status of a suspended disc is determined to be the same as the status of the playing surface beneath the disc.



So you do understand that if that fence is designated the OB line, the status of the playing surface below it is also OB. The same for trees designated OB. There is no confusion over that, right?

A fence can't be designated the OB line. If it is, then the line is the where it connects with the playing surface unless the TD specifically calls the top edge the line (which makes no sense). That's why Harold runs the small string along the ground below the larger gauge yellow rope at the USDGC so you don't have to project down to the ground like they did before doing that.

If the RC had done what hey should have and allowed (relatively) vertical surfaces to be declared OB, you could have one side IB and the other side OB and not worry about the angled fence issue.

If they termed the glossary in accordance with the posted Q&A, there would be no ptoblem.

According to the Q&A, a playing surface's IB/OB status is not effected by the status of other playing surfaces above or below it.

(From the Q&A entry on multiple playing surfaces)
A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.



Since the tree is not a playing surface, the rules committee needs to include a firm stance on non-playing surfaces being declared as OB, but in light of the Q&A, the in bounds area below it would not be effected. As well, since a disc can not be marked above a playing surface and the IB/OB status of the lie is determined on the playing surface immediately below the disc, even discs suspended in the tree would be in bounds after they were marked.

I think you guys are making if more complicated than it really is. I have seen nothing in our rules that an OBJECT can't be used as an OB line. Meaning the entire object.

If an object is used then that entire object is OB, under the new rules and so is everything entirely below or above it.

But the actual line is along the playing surface and it's unreasonable to expect a player to look up at the sky and look for the branch and leaf projections downward to the ground where the disc is located. You need to mark a line on the tree's drip line (outer tips of branches) if you want the whole tree area to be OB.

But the actual line is along the playing surface and it's unreasonable to expect a player to look up at the sky and look for the branch and leaf projections downward to the ground where the disc is located. You need to mark a line on the tree's drip line (outer tips of branches) if you want the whole tree area to be OB.



A good suggestion, but not required by rule. We have been using judgment in such things since the start of our sport.

Then most of the shots under the tree will be IB. If that's your intent then so be it.

You ever played ball golf Chuck? They use posts usually to mark OB. This often requires eyeing up whether a ball is IB or OB. This is no different.

If a disc is under a tree designated OB, and the player, group or official can tell that it is clearly within the outermost reaches of the tree branches then they can rule that it is OB. Most people can tell a perpendicular line going straight up.

If it is too close to call then benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower.

This is not complicated. It is the same with an OB fence leaning way in over the playing surface. The playing surface beneath it is OB. If a disc is completely under the OB fence then it is OB.

Chuck,

So if the disc is outside the fence leaning against it and the fence leans into IB, then by use of the single line at ground contact, while the disc appears out of bounds it would not be?


But the actual line is along the playing surface and it's unreasonable to expect a player to look up at the sky and look for the branch and leaf projections downward to the ground where the disc is located. You need to mark a line on the tree's drip line (outer tips of branches) if you want the whole tree area to be OB.

Well, I had a pretty good handle on the whole IB/OB thing, but this thread is confusing the h___ out of me. I think I agree...and disagree with everyones interpretation (if I understand them in the first place). But, I have never seen some of these complicated situations occur. Not as much experience as you guys. I just hope that any tournaments I run would have things marked in such a way to avoid these 'spliting hairs' calls. (Im sure thats what all TD's intend, but it just doesnt always go that smoothly.)

Would it be in bad taste if I posted for Pat and said...
"apperently not if it is over 2M" ;)


Couldn't a TD stipulate that a tree is an OB line, similar to a wall or fence?

Chuck,

So if the disc is outside the fence leaning against it and the fence leans into IB, then by use of the single line at ground contact, while the disc appears out of bounds it would not be?


But the actual line is along the playing surface and it's unreasonable to expect a player to look up at the sky and look for the branch and leaf projections downward to the ground where the disc is located. You need to mark a line on the tree's drip line (outer tips of branches) if you want the whole tree area to be OB.





Yes.

But you do not need to mark anything to define an OB.

Would it be in bad taste if I posted for Pat and said...
"apperently not if it is over 2M" ;)


Couldn't a TD stipulate that a tree is an OB line, similar to a wall or fence?





No more than it would be in bad taste if I posted for Gary and said...
"the 2MR is NOT the same as the OB rule" ;)

I would take away your TD privileges if you used some lame OB marking such as the limb tips on a tree. You certainly can't call the tree itself OB because only the woody parts would be OB projected downward so most of the area under it would be IB. Discs landing in the tree would mostly be IB under this scenario. Even a bushy cedar tree would be tough.

Using the limb tips is unacceptable for OB identification without a line on the ground. I'm pretty sure Gentry and Chappy would agree. That's a vertical connect the dots puzzle players shouldn't have to do in a tournament. It's not like posts along the playing surface, which is still not ideal, but much easier to confirm.

* * *

As the rule stands right now the fence bottom along the ground is the true default OB line unless the TD does something strange and calls the top of the fence the OB line projected downward which is as foolish as Nick's branch tips. So, it doesn't make any difference if the fence is bent over in terms of making a call. If the fence is bent 45 degrees toward the IB side of the ground, a disc leaning on the fence completely on the OB side probably has part of the disc IB so it's IB. If the RC had allowed vertical surfaces to define OB (similar to the multiple horizontal surfaces that can now be identified with one OB and the other IB like a bridge over water), then the disc leaning on the OB side of the fence would always be OB if that side of the fence could be called OB. I think that's what they wanted but missed adding the section about vertical planes being identified as OB. So we're stuck with the line on the ground being the identification of a perfectly vertical plane where it's OB on one side and IB on the other.

I accept that you believe this. I believe that the rules are actually not as you believe.

The Sanctioning Agreements, Tour info and TD guides are an extension of the rules that TDs agree to abide by. Carlton's TD guide (which is being updated) has indicated how OB should be marked. In addition, the rules actually do say the "OB line" so anyone who uses "connect the dots" for OB marking is on thin ice.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Sounds resonable.

I have never heard of a tree being used as OB. And I agree with Chuck; I think it's a preposterous idea. Mark your OB as a line on the playing surface.

If a tree drip line was the OB line, and the wind was coming and going, your OB line would change from moment to moment. Not fair and not practical.

<font color="blue">800 Definitions

Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.

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 in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.07 B and C.</font>

A director designating a tree OB may be as you say �preposterous�, �not fair� or even �not practical�; however the one thing it is NOT is it is not outside the stated rules of disc golf.

You guys want permanence in an impermanent world. OB lines are not permanent or remain indefinitely fixed they change all the time; even within a single events, none more so than moving water, strung rope or strings. Must then we say they too are �preposterous�, �not fair� or even �not practical�?

Consider the bush in the middle of a fairway that is designated, within our rules of play, as an OB line: A player throws a disc that sticks in its branches. Another player throws a disc that lands beneath it. Knowing it OB, because they paid attention at the players meeting ;) , they need to judge if there is reasonable evidence that their disc is completely within the outermost vertical plane out-of-bounds line. Is this a �preposterous�, �not fair� or even �not practical� thing to ask them to judge? Not when players have been asked to make such judgment calls throughout the history of our sport when they mark their lie on the playing surface beneath a disc that has come to rest above the playing surface. This would be no different.

Now if the disc is that close to the edge that a wind blows the edge of the bush so that the disc is outside the outermost edge of the bush, then there is reasonable evidence that the disc is not completely within the OB area, relief given and play resumes. If it is within, take a stroke, relief, and play resumes.

Now, if a tree, bush or any other object or obstacle on the course was designated by the director as an OB line and it truly was �preposterous�, �not fair� or even �not practical�, then obviously it would not be in the directors best interest to use it. Or they may well want to use a rope or string to mark the area beneath the object along the playing surface. That is not something that can be extrapolated for EVERY situation, and this might be one of the reasons the PDGA Rules Committee left this door open.

It would seem to me that there would be several excellent uses for such a usage of the OB rule. Probably the best being to protect fragile, but vital, low lying branches. It could be used to protect just about any stand alone object or obstacle.

If you can show me where it is specifically "not allowed" by our rules of play then I will be only too happy to comply. But let�s not make things up out of whole cloth to support our arguments that are not in our rules of play.

Note: I know that this was discussed by the PDGA Rules Committee as one possible solution to the folks that love their 2MR. The added bonus being that the next lie is 1 meter outside the outermost branches. Now that's relief! (it also protects the tree or object far better than jamming a guy under it causing further damage) And yes, I understand that this would not always be practical, but I'm willing to leave that judgment call in the hands of the director to make and address appropriately for his event's needs.

The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds.



What about the word 'line' in the rule escapes your attempt to subvert the rules with ridiculous ways to identify OB?

Chuck, you are not being rational here. If an object IS the OB line, then it's outermost edge is what the vertical plane is based on.

This is identical to any other OB line, whether the edge of water, a string, rope, or any other object. The physical thickness of any of those objects does not affect the OB line or vertical plane other than defining the inner area and edge. This is not something new.

It just is.

The shortcoming of the definition of OB is that it does not require the OB line to be in a fixed position. That being the case, I see your point that a constantly moving OB line is legal. Nonetheless, that doesn't make such a line preferable, desireable, fair, or practical. It's just another loose end to fix.

And I'm not making things up out of whole cloth as it were. Only using common practice as a guide. I don't believe that common practice is to have a constantly moving OB line. Common practice is to mark it on the ground with coloured string. That's not the only practice, just the most common.

It could be argued that if an OB line is constantly moving, such as a tree drip line, then it renders it impossible to make a determination that the disc is "clearly and completely" within the OB area and as such, fails to adequately define the OB area for such a determination.

It is common practice to use "the edge of the water" as the OB line. This can easily move with wind or rain (or a giant fountain going off).

Actually, OB by definition is an area. A tree is an object, not an area. If you want the tree's drip line to define the OB area, I think the rules infer that you must designate it as such. How do you designate it? By marking it in a fixed position.

True, but since the laws of nature dictate that the water in this scenario will lie on the ground, the line will be on the ground, not up in the air like a tree branch. It is immediately discernable where that line is even if there has been a rainstorm that changed the exact location of the line during the round.

I think that the common practice is to have the line immediately discernable to the player so that a determination can be made as to the OB status of the disc.

Actually, OB by definition is an area. A tree is an object, not an area. If you want the tree's drip line to define the OB area, I think the rules infer that you must designate it as such. How do you designate it? By marking it in a fixed position.



Interesting. In another discussion, that shall remain nameless, I posited that a director could lay out a one foot wide strip of fabric in a straight line across the fairway right about where most drives landed and designate it OB. If a disc came to rest within the fabric, none of it reaching beyond its edges that it would be OB. This would be within the rules. Whether it was a good thing to do or not is a different question all together.

I don�t know if designating a tree OB is a good thing to do. There are certain undeniable benefits such as relief and protection of the lower branches, and players might actually steer clear of it more than normal, but yes, there would be times where a disc near an edge of the canopy would be in question.

Thing is this wouldn�t be the first time a rule has required a player, group, official or director to make a judgment call. It wouldn�t even be the first time a rule has required a player to judge a point on the ground beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface. The OB rule itself even provides the method for determining this specific situation.

If, again, it is a very questionable situation for such a rule (designating a tree OB) then we must trust the director to use some other method. This is not the same thing as saying our rules preclude such a use of our OB rule. There may well be some very appropriate and fair way of using it. Until someone tries it, it is just a guessing game.

I may try it at my home course by posting a sign by a tree that clearly stands separate and alone that says �Under Tree Is OB� and see how players feel about it.

I think if an object is used to define the area, that's okay. The strip of fabric defines a specific area.

How about a building? If I designate a building OB (a good idea in most cases) then the OB line is not where the building meets the playing surface but the roof line which usually extends beyond where the walls contact the playing surface. Players have to look up and judge if they are under the awning or not to determine OB status of their lie.

A tree or bush is no different.

The only place, just thinking about it, that it would be bad form to use a tree as an OB line would be if its branches were mixing with the branches of trees that were not designated OB also.

Another example would be picnic tables; say your disc landed on or under a picnic table that was designated OB, there would be no physical line on the playing surface. The line would be defined by the outermost edge of the table, benches or legs. If it was completely within that boundary then it would be OB, right?

Again, I understand that using a bush or tree may be bad form in some instances; but it wouldn't be illegal, and in some situations it might actually be quite useful.

How about a building? If I designate a building OB (a good idea in most cases) then the OB line is not where the building meets the playing surface but the roof line which usually extends beyond where the walls contact the playing surface. Players have to look up and judge if they are under the awning or not to determine OB status of their lie.
<font color="brown"> All of the cases I have seen, it has been the edge of the foundation that defined the OB line around buildings, not the edge of the eave. What bearing on playability or stance would the eave have ?</font>

A tree or bush is no different. <font color="brown">I agree, it's where it meets the playing surface.</font>

The only place, just thinking about it, that it would be bad form to use a tree as an OB line would be if its branches were mixing with the branches of trees that were not designated OB also.

Another example would be picnic tables; say your disc landed on or under a picnic table that was designated OB, there would be no physical line on the playing surface. The line would be defined by the outermost edge of the table, benches or legs. If it was completely within that boundary then it would be OB, right? <font color="brown"> I have only seen picnic tables defined as OB when they are sitting atop concrete slabs and the slabs were OB. Normally even those with slabs aren't called OB. If you end up on or under the table, you have to mark it and play it from there.</font>

Again, I understand that using a bush or tree may be bad form in some instances; but it wouldn't be illegal, and in some situations it might actually be quite useful.



<font color="brown">Just what I've seen around here. There are only four courses with OB buildings I can remember, and it's always been the concrete at the bottom of the building. I know of many parks with tables, a few have concrete pads as well. Only one plays the pads/tables as OB (actually all concrete is OB there). </font>

Both of those objects would also be inappropriate for OB demarcation. Maybe you've seen roof OB before but usually it has been 2m so it wasn't OB, just the building or cement slab boundaries. Never seen nor never would use picnic tables as OB, just the cement slab they were on.

If a solid building is OB, then you would never be completely surrounded by the OB area, so what would be the point? Using the eave line projected downward has the same problems as using the tree drip line. I concede that these seem to be legal OB areas within the current definition, but their use does not appear to serve any purpose. Nothing preventing someone from designing a course with elements that have no purpose.

The question of legality really isn't the point for me. It's a question of practicality and/or functionality.

The purpose of making the buildings OB seems to be more for the 1m of relief than for the chance of getting a penalty.

If a solid building is OB, then you would never be completely surrounded by the OB area, so what would be the point?


Landing on the roof would be completely surrounded by OB.

This wasn't an issue before because being over 2-meters, which most buildings are, was already a 1 throw penalty. It's not a penalty now.

Well, at least you are no longer saying that such designations are not permitted by our rules. Yes, in most cases this option has not been used. I'm not sure it was even possible prior to the 2006 Rules Update that made the OB line itself out of bounds.

But in 2006, if a director designates a building OB and doesn't stipulate that the line is where the building meets the playing surface, then the entire building must be considered the OB line and the overhang of the roof included within the OB area.

http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBTree.jpg

Mike,

How is it not serving any purpose to designate (not demark) a tree or building as OB?

1) If a tree is designated OB then it must be a pretty special tree deserving special protection.
2) If a tree is designated OB then the the lower branches will recieve a much higher level of protection considering no one can play from within the tree or even within 1 meter of the trees outermost edges. What could protect it more?
3) If the tree is a backstop for tee shots that would otherwise go OB or drop near the green, it nearly precludes that usage.
4) If the building is designated OB, then any disc entering it is OB.
5) If the building is designated OB then any disc landing on it is OB.
6) If the building is designated OB and a disc lands on the within the outermost edge of the roof it is OB, whether up on on the playing surface.
7) Relief is given from the outermost edge of both the tree and building, allowing maximum relief, protection of the player and the obstacle.

To say there are no possible benefits is a little extreme don't you think?

Both of those objects would also be inappropriate for OB demarcation. Maybe you've seen roof OB before but usually it has been 2m so it wasn't OB, just the building or cement slab boundaries. Never seen nor never would use picnic tables as OB, just the cement slab they were on.



Yes, possibly inappropriate, but not outside the bounds of our rules, and possibly useful in rare situations.

Mike,

How is it not serving any purpose to designate (not demark) a tree or building as OB?
My inability to explain this succesfully has already been proven.

1) If a tree is designated OB then it must be a pretty special tree deserving special protection.
Then I have to ask why it was brought into play during course design if it is that special. I have archeological sites all around my new course in Williamsburg. None of them come into play.
2) If a tree is designated OB then the the lower branches will recieve a much higher level of protection considering no one can play from within the tree or even within 1 meter of the trees outermost edges. What could protect it more?
Designing the course so that the tree does not come into play.
3) If the tree is a backstop for tee shots that would otherwise go OB or drop near the green, it nearly precludes that usage.
4) If the building is designated OB, then any disc entering it is OB.
If a disc enters the building, then the building is not solid. Even so, placing an OB line on the ground between the fairway and the edge of the building serves the same purpose and with greater clarity.
5) If the building is designated OB then any disc landing on it is OB.
Agreed. I did not think of that. Still a line on the ground serves the same purpose and with greater clarity.
6) If the building is designated OB and a disc lands on the within the outermost edge of the roof it is OB, whether up on on the playing surface.
Grammar problem here. Not sure what you mean.
7) Relief is given from the outermost edge of both the tree and building, allowing maximum relief, protection of the player and the obstacle.

To say there are no possible benefits is a little extreme don't you think?



Perhaps it is more correct to say the benefits are negligible, not impossible.

Both of those objects would also be inappropriate for OB demarcation. Maybe you've seen roof OB before but usually it has been 2m so it wasn't OB, just the building or cement slab boundaries. Never seen nor never would use picnic tables as OB, just the cement slab they were on.



Yes, possibly inappropriate, but not outside the bounds of our rules, and possibly useful in rare situations.



I agree with the spirit of this statement, but I'm not convinced that there is a rare situation where this would be the best or preferable solution.

The rules, as currently designed, give latitude in these situations. But if people take them to extremes not intended, then we will eventually have new rules that prevent people from doing those extreme things. I see using a tree or building to define an OB area as a poor choice.

But in 2006, if a director designates a building OB and doesn't stipulate that the line is where the building meets the playing surface, then the entire building must be considered the OB line and the overhang of the roof included within the OB area.



Not true because multiple stacked surfaces can have different OB/IB status. With no 2M penalty, a disc completely on top of an OB building overhang and not extending past it, could be OB. But the overhang shadow to the ground would not be OB unless specified. The default would still be the building line (or cement) on the ground. it's no different from a fence with a wider flat ledge on it. The line is still where the fence meets the ground.

The difference between a tree and overhang is still the concept of a line, which exists as a downward projection of the overhang edge (however foolish), versus "connect the dots" using a tree drip line with no mark on the ground.

Chuck, you are mistaken. The roof is not considered a playing surface unless the td stipulates it (meaning a player would be permitted to play from up on the roof), so it is not a case of multiple playing surfaces.

The building and every part of it is the OB line. Only if the TD stipulates that one part of it is the OB line is it limited.

So if the building is designated OB then the area below the roof overhang is also OB according to our rules of play, specifically the OB rule. Same goes for fences handing out over the playing surface or any other obstacle on a course designated OB or the OB line.

A TD "could" stipulate that "only the bottom of the fence" is to be the OB line, or only the line created where the wall meets the playing surface, or water meets land, but these are all not without controversy either, and none are "required" by the rules.

Like I said I am going to try this at my course and see what "really" happens. I suspect there will be both pluses and minuses, just as with any OB designation.

Are you being serious Mike? Is there anything more important than preserving the challenge a course presents?

Protecting lower branches of trees and bushes is not a negligible consideration for me, is it for you?

You are wrong on this Nick. As of now, the OB line extends from a playing surface up and down until it encounters another surface that may have a different definition. In the case of the fence and the building, the line goes along the ground and projects vertically upward passing thru any other surface. If the top of the fence or building projects outward past that projected line, it's a new surface with potentially an alternate definition if the TD specifies. The status of these extended surfaces above the playing surface do not currently affect the status of the playing surface below them by default, only if a misguided TD elects to do so.

The difference between a tree and overhang is still the concept of a line, which exists as a downward projection of the overhang edge (however foolish), versus "connect the dots" using a tree drip line with no mark on the ground.



Half jokingly: Chuck, how is it you have been able to mark your lie on the playing surface when it has come to rest above your head all these years?

Don't tell me your disc always lands on the playing surface or that you have never said to someone when your disc is stuck up in a tree and you are marking your lie, "Hey, is this ok?" Or never been asked that question yourself. Rare though it might be it is something most disc golfers not playing in a treeless environment are used to.

The difference is that bringing your disc down and marking it does not hinge on whether the player will get a penalty or not. Significant difference in the precision expected.

You are wrong on this Nick. As of now, the OB line extends from a playing surface up and down until it encounters another surface that may have a different definition. In the case of the fence and the building, the line goes along the ground and projects vertically upward passing thru any other surface. If the top of the fence or building projects outward past that projected line, it's a new surface with potentially an alternate definition if the TD specifies. The status of these extended surfaces above the playing surface do not currently affect the status of the playing surface below them by default, only if a misguided TD elects to do so.



Sorry Chuck, but it is you that are flat out mistaken. The only surface that can have a different designation is another "Playing Surface". You can't for example have an IB tree in the middle of an OB area. We could if we had IB lines, but we don't. So if, and this is a big if, a building or tree "itself" is used as the outside edge of an OB area, otherwise known as an OB line, then the entire tree or building is OB including anything above or below it.

If there were a bridge over the tree that the TD said was IB, then the OB line would end when it met the bottom of the IB surface of the bridge. But there is simply no way to make the area beneath that tree IB without declaring that the OB line was other than the tree or building itself.

I am confident that this is correct. Can you show me where in our rulebook or in the Q&As that it is not?

Gary or Jim, do you have a different understanding?

Chuck, again, I acknowledge that there are situations where this use of the OB line would be inappropriate, but not all... and certainly there is nothing in our rules prohibiting such use.

OB is still defined as a line that extends up or down from a playing surface. Physical objects themselves cannot be OB per se. Even if a building is designated as OB, it's really the line created where the wall meets the ground by default and then up and down from there. The TD needs to specifically designate the overhang areas OB separately because they are NOT directly connected to the playing surface. And even then, only the overhangs are OB, not their projection down to the ground. If Nick's a TD and wants the outside edge of the overhang to define the OB area, he can define it that way but should mark the line on the ground as a player courtesy. It's kind of clunky but the RC still hasn't provided for contoured OB shapes above the playing surface.

Are you being serious Mike? Is there anything more important than preserving the challenge a course presents?

Yes. For example Confederate-built earthworks. I could have put a basket on top of a 145-year-old cannon position and present a fantastic challenge. However, that would result in damage to a historical artifact. The solution is to not allow the artifact to come into play. Making it OB does not protect it.

Protecting lower branches of trees and bushes is not a negligible consideration for me, is it for you?
Not as a rule, no. But I think it would depend on the tree. But that's probably a different thread.

P.S. - I tried to change the font colour but it wouldn't work so I apologise if my reply is less than clear. :D

OB is still defined as a line that extends up or down from a playing surface.



Fine and well to repeat again and again, but please provide where in our rulebook it says such a thing.

True that an OB line or more accurately the OB plane will intersect the playing surface at some point, but that only defines it's lower most parameter not the OB line itself. The OB line can be designated by the edge of any object (i.e. string, rope, wall, building, etc.) or meeting of two different surface coverings. There is no stipulation that the OB line is defined exclusively on the playing surface, as the fence example clearly illustrates there are aerial OB lines as well (that extend up and down to the playing surface and above).

But you have to pick one and not both. Either the top (foolish) or the bottom of a fence (default) as the line. If it's the bottom, then whatever happens with the angle of the fence or a wider flat top of a fence has no bearing on the OB. Same with the building. If it's the building walls then the overhang and the area below it are not OB. But the TD can certainly use the overhang edge as the OB line (foolish) but should put a line along the ground for sanctioned play.

Actually, OB is defined, not as a line, but as an area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The definition goes on to describe an OB line that extends vertically up and down as a plane. The inference is that this OB line is used to designate the OB area.

Since the rules do not say how the line is to be designated, the opportunity for poorly designated OB exists. But given the numerous references in the rules to an OB line, prudent TD's should be able to deduce that the preferred method for designation is to physically mark the line on the playing surface and announce it prior to the beginning of play.

Chuck, yet again you state that "the bottom of a fence (default) as the line". Where are you finding this?

In the rulebook?
In director standards guidelines?
Or is it more that it is just in your own "wish list"?

I have found no just designation anywhere within the rules or standards of disc golf. It is like you are making it up and stating it as fact when it is nothing of the sort.

Again, please provide the exact source or your contention please.

Ultimately, an OB line has to be identified along (or projected to) the playing surface in order to make a call. In the absence of additional instructions, the line will be where a specified object like a cement slab, fence or building goes along the playing surface. It's not the only definition that's allowed, but it's the default definition if no other instructions are given than, "The fence line (or fence) is OB."

Mike,

All OB must be announced prior to the start of rounds and hopefully listed within the program or on the scorecard, whether poorly defined or not.

The fact of the matter is that any "poorly defined" OB will likely be a point of contention at the players meeting and gain resolution there. And if not there resolution will be mandated if and when a difficult situation relating to the poor definition arises. In the end it will not be allowed to persist.

And though I understand that it is Chuck and your opinion that using an entire obstacle as an OB line is poor use, this is not something either of you could "know" being that 2006 is the first year it has been possible to do so. (The OB line is considered as part of the OB area.) If you guys are correct and it is in all instances a bad or poor option, then we will quickly find out, right?

The point here is that we don't hogtie directors with misinformation about some phantom non-rule that it is not even permitted by the rules, when the very simple fact is that it is allowed and that it could well have appropriate and "good" uses out at our courses and events.

Ultimately, an OB line has to be identified along (or projected to) the playing surface in order to make a call. In the absence of additional instructions, the line will be where a specified object like a cement slab, fence or building goes along the playing surface. It's not the only definition that's allowed, but it's the default definition if no other instructions are given than, "The fence line (or fence) is OB."



This is simply incorrect Chuck. For the bottom edge of the fence to be the OB line the director must stipulate that specifically at the players meeting. Otherwise if they say "The fence line (or fence) is OB." then the entire fence is the OB line and anything completely within it's shadow or drip line is considered OB. This is the same for all objects.

I think I know from where you confusion is stemming.

If an OB string is strung along the ground and a tree that is rooted within the OB area reaches out and over the IB area then a disc stuck in that overreach is NOT OB, due to the OB line bisecting the tree in a vertical plane directly above the OB line.

If however the tree itself is designated OB, then the OB line is defined by the outermost edge of the object designated OB and ever disc completely within that cylindar is OB, whether on the playing surface or up in the tree.

This is true of any obstacle used as an OB line in its entirety, and it is likely one of the excellent reasons the OB line, in the 2006 rules update, was included as part of the OB area.

Nick, where does it say an object can be used to define OB (as opposed to the edge of the object)? I don't see the word 'object' in the rules any more than it was in the older rules.

Nick, I agree that the poor choices are allowed by the rules, but respectfully disagree that such choices could well have appropriate and good uses at our courses and events.

[QUOTE]
Otherwise if they say "The fence line (or fence) is OB." then the entire fence is the OB line and anything completely within it's shadow or drip line is considered OB. This is the same for all objects.



I believe this is an interpretation, not something mandated in the rules. Saying "the fence line" is obviously not definite enough if one person feels that it means the line where the fence meets the playing surface and the other feels that it means the entire fence and its shadow. The problem stems from the fact that the rules do not specify the manner in which the OB area is defined. It only says that it has to be designated by the director prior to the beginning of play. How does that designation take place? TD #1 designates "the tree that was planted by Thomas Jefferson in 1798" and TD #2 designates "the area around the Thomas Jefferson tree marked by orange string." TD #2 has made the better choice by making it easily discernable whether or not a disc is in or out of bounds. I would take the position that TD #1 has not adequately designated the OB area and accordingly, has not complied with the spirit of the rule.

Yes, where does it say this? All references I see are to an OB line, not an OB object.

I haven't read all of the above posts, so this post might be repetitively redundant. The way I see it, the change in the OB line rule mainly applies to OB lines that have a thickness, such as a fence or a painted line (like a line on a tennis court). You still have to be surrounded by OB to be out. If I am correct, that means a disc that is halfway in OB water is still fair. The line between the dry land and the water has no thickness. However, if a disc is mostly OB and has a portion on or under the OB line (say under a split rail fence) but has no portion reaching into the in-bounds area, that disc is OB. The line just becomes part of the OB territory as opposed to the in-bounds territory. Right? As far as the blade of grass, I think the player should always be given the benefit of the doubt (especially when the paved area is not well defined such as the rough and meandering edge of an asphalt drive (when the grass defines the edge more so than the pavement)).

The way I see it, the change in the OB line rule mainly applies to OB lines that have a thickness, such as a fence or a painted line (like a line on a tennis court). You still have to be surrounded by OB to be out. If I am correct, that means a disc that is halfway in OB water is still fair.



You are correct (assuming the TD has declared that the water is OB instead of casual, and therefore the OB line is the edge of the water).

The actual OB line essentially has no thickness. The object like a fence that creates that interface between IB/OB does have thickness like a fence or a painted line. The only difference with the new rule is that the IB/OB edge is on the other side of the thickness this year than last year. As you said, if you're disc is completely under the OB fence line with the rest of it OB, then the disc is OB. Last year, if the fence was called the OB line, your disc would have been called IB if part of it was under the thickness of the fence. Last year, the OB side of the fence was the line, now the IB side of the fence is the line.

The actual OB line essentially has no thickness. The object like a fence that creates that interface between IB/OB does have thickness like a fence or a painted line. The only difference with the new rule is that the IB/OB edge is on the other side of the thickness this year than last year. As you said, if you're disc is completely under the OB fence line with the rest of it OB, then the disc is OB. Last year, if the fence was called the OB line, your disc would have been called IB if part of it was under the thickness of the fence. Last year, the OB side of the fence was the line, now the IB side of the fence is the line.



Correct, so if the td says that the fence is the OB line then anything that doesn't stickout from under the drip line of the fence and clearly into the IB area is OB.

The same would apply to a tree or bush designated OB. Whether this is advisable or not is a different debate as to whether it is within the rules. I don't know, and neither do you, that it is always and in every situation inadvisable, but we should both understand that it is allowable by our rules of play.

I was fine with the entire concept of OB until the new rule came out. I think the wording makes it a little confusing. Here's something that actually happened in a tourney...is it OB or IB?

One hole required throwing over a road...the road being OB, while the curb is IB. A disc landed in the road, but the very edge of the disc was propped against the outer edge of the curb (so the disc was at about a 40 degree angle from the ground...how it stuck, nobody knows.) The group ruled the lie as OB, and the player took a provisional and consulted w/ the TD. If you draw a vertical line from the edge of the curb to the road, then the disc was all OB, but since it touched the curb, the TD ruled it IB. Is it really IB or is it OB?

Correct, so if the td says that the fence is the OB line then anything that doesn't stickout from under the drip line of the fence and clearly into the IB area is OB.



Not totally. Where the IB/OB fence edge is near the playing surface produces a vertical plane that cuts thru any parts of the fence that might be bent or hang over into the IB area. Those parts of the fence that are bent over the IB area are inbounds. That's one thing the RC could have dealt with but didn't. There's nothing in the new rules about the ability to declare objects or non-horizontal surfaces projecting up off of the playing surface at non-vertical angles as OB.

The only place where the IB/OB plane flexes is the chainlink fence and you have to find that in the Q&A. If a disc hits the chainlink mesh from the OB side, the disc is declared to never have broken the plane to momentartily be IB even if the fence flexes there. Unfortunately, if the fence is obviously bent over into the IB side, parts of the "OB side" of the fence are likely IB now that they are on the IB side of the IB/OB fence line going along the ground.

As far as a tree being declared the OB area, it's not really how you would do it. A tree itself cannot be the declared OB area. However, the line created by connecting the outside tips of the branches can define an OB line projected to the ground such that the tree is now completely inside the defined OB area. It serves the same purpose as Nick's wish but it's different from the tree itself being declared OB.

If you draw a vertical line from the edge of the curb to the road, then the disc was all OB, but since it touched the curb, the TD ruled it IB. Is it really IB or is it OB?




The TD gets a penalty for defining the curb IB, but the disc is IB in this case. The new rule doesn't change the fact that if any part of the disc is touching or over IB, then it's IB. Because curbs usually curve down into the road bed, it's usually not a good idea for the curb to be IB when the road is OB for this reason.

Chuck, if you are saying that it is the outermost points of the tree that define the OB line then I see what you are saying and agree.</font>

Yes.

Good. One benefit to using this is that the director need not use any string. If it is close enough to even discuss then it is likely safe.

Again, I don't know if this could be useful. I'm going to try it out on my home course and see what happens. I'll report back any findings.

I was fine with the entire concept of OB until the new rule came out. I think the wording makes it a little confusing. Here's something that actually happened in a tourney...is it OB or IB?

One hole required throwing over a road...the road being OB, while the curb is IB. A disc landed in the road, but the very edge of the disc was propped against the outer edge of the curb (so the disc was at about a 40 degree angle from the ground...how it stuck, nobody knows.) The group ruled the lie as OB, and the player took a provisional and consulted w/ the TD. If you draw a vertical line from the edge of the curb to the road, then the disc was all OB, but since it touched the curb, the TD ruled it IB. Is it really IB or is it OB?

1. Taking a provisional. 2. Asking the TD.

Very smart player.

I agree with Chuck. If the TD sloppily defines the o.b. line by telling you what the last i.b. object is, touching it is in bounds.

One benefit to using this is that the director need not use any string.



No. No. No. Not for sanctioned play. What about 'foolish' do you not get (and I'm using that term to avoid symbols)? Maybe OK for league play. Branch tips are not a line and not close to the ground. I'm not sure I could make a call well even if it was a cedar tree with dense branches almost to the ground.

I don't know enough about this option yet, and neither do you, to label it foolish until we see what it is actually like. A tree standing alone in a field would seem like a decent test case.

I don't object to the tree, but the lazy and inappropriate OB marking method. You could be really clever on a sunny day and make the shade the OB area. Then you have a line on the ground.

I'll acknowledge the possibility that marking it with string would be less foolish if you'll acknowledge that if might not be necessary. Deal?

I know for sure that it is permissible under our rules of play, now let's see if it is as foolish as you "imagine" it is.

At any rate, I hope folks reading this thread have gotten a clearer understanding of the new OB rule.

The new rule did answer a fairly contentious rule question posed some time ago.

http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBFence.jpg

The only way it would be the bottom of the fence is if the director designated that as the OB line. Just saying the fence makes the entire fence the OB line.

Just saying the fence makes the entire fence the OB line.



The line is along the ground on the IB side of the red vertical of your fence. If anywhere along the fence the red plane tips toward the IB side, or let's say there's a ledge on the top of the fence to the right side of the red plane, then those sections of the fence are IB in this example. There's is nothing in the rules that makes vertical surfaces OB when they are angling over an IB area. That's the missing link in the new rules.

There is nothing missing from the Out of Bounds rule just as there was nothing missing prior to the OB rule. The change is a simple one; before if the disc came to rest within the OB area, not touching the OB line/plane, then it was considered OB; now the disc that comes to rest within the OB area and touching the OB line/plane, but not any IB area is also considered OB, where before it would have been IB.

So in the illustration:
BEFORE: The �red� disc was IB and the OB line/plane would have defined by the innermost edge of the object (the fence in this case).
NOW: The �red� disc is OB and the OB line/plane is defined by the outermost edge of the object (the fence in this case) since the OB line is now considered part of the OB area.

The only way, now, under current rules the innermost edge would be considered as defining the OB line/plane is if the director stipulated that a certain part (in this case the innermost edge of the fence, which by the way is not always the part closest to the playing surface (either)) the object was to be used as the OB line and not the whole object. This is true even of kite string, the width of the object used to define the OB line is �now� considered part of the OB line, unless otherwise stipulated.

Let�s review the rules again:
<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions (does not override actual rules as discussed)
Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. <font color="green">This is new, and it seems pretty clear what the meaning is to me.</font> An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.

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 in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.07 B and C.</font>

Now if you are quoting the �Multiple Playing Surface� Q & A saying that the fence is a different playing surface than the playing surface below it let�s look at that:
<font color="blue"> Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)
Question: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. The TD has not said anything about playing from the bridge. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land? Does it matter if the bridge is more than two meters above the ground below?

Response: The answers to these questions revolve around the definition of OB. In the glossary section of the rules, it states that the OB line "extends a vertical plane upward and downward". Where does that plane end? The rules do not address that directly. There seem to be two reasonable choices:

A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.

Although the term "playing surface" is not defined in the rules, it is used frequently and it is unlikely to be a source of confusion. Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it. Otherwise, a number of non-intuitive rulings result:

* In the bridge example, the part of the bridge that is above the OB creek would be OB. A perfectly playable lie on the bridge could be OB, a foot away from a lie that is IB, when there is no direct reason for it to be OB. Players will have difficulty extrapolating where the OB part of the bridge is, especially if the OB line below is uneven (if it follows the creek's edge). Even if the TD uses paint or string to mark OB on the bridge, those lines will see a lot of foot traffic and may not last.
* At least one course has an OB culvert that runs under and opens into a fairway. If the vertical plane of the OB line extends indefinitely, then there is a strip of OB on the fairway over the culvert.
* If an OB creek undercuts a bank, then the top of the bank is OB even if it is obviously playable. Someone would have to determine how far the creek undercuts the bank to figure out just where the OB line on the bank is.
* There is an overpass with a street high above a section of the course. The street, of course, is OB. If the plane extends downward, then a street-wide chunk of the course below is also OB.

If you interpret the vertical plane to end when it reaches another playing surface. you get much more intuitive rulings in the above scenarios. The bridge is IB, the fairway above the culvert is IB, the bank that overhangs the creek is IB, and the ground below the street overpass is IB. All of the playing surfaces above are easily distinguished from those above or below which contain OB.

Conclusion: You play a disc on a bridge as you would play it anywhere else on the course. Assuming the bridge is not OB, you mark your lie on the bridge and proceed with the hole. If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would. Of course, the TD or course designer is free to make any or all of the bridge OB, in addition to the creek below.

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes
</font>

Also review the �new� definition of:
<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions
Playing Surface: The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official.</font>

So the only way that fence would be considered another �playing surface� is if the director �deemed it suitable for play� and that would entail an announcement at the players meeting similar to the one necessary for the part of the bridge above the out of bounds area below to be considered in bounds.

The apropos point in all of this is that the director must provide additional stipulations if they want a surface to be considered an additional playing surface or if they want only a specific part of the object defining out of bounds to be used; otherwise only the playing surface as defined within our rules is used and the entire obstacle/object used to define the out of bounds line/plane is used. That is the default.

Not the edge closest to the out of bounds nor the part closest to the playing surface; if you want that to be added then you will have to petition the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors during the next rules update because it most definitely is not a part of our current rules, definitions or rules Q&As.

Note: With the rule written the new way, most discs striking the Out of Bounds side of the Out of Bounds Line (the fence) will never have touched In Bounds. I believe that was at least in part the intent of the new rule.

Muliple stacked playing surfaces is not related to the issue at hand. It's real simple. Let's say your fence (red line) is bowed at a 60 degree angle over the IB area for a 10 ft long stretch. Based on our current OB definition, that section of the fence above the IB ground is IB not OB as you seem to think. If a disc hits the bent section from what would normally be the OB side if it were vertical, it would now have touched a short section of the fence that's IB even if the disc falls to the ground OB.

I'm guessing the RC doesn't want that to be the case. But until they specify that surfaces projecting upward at any angle from the playing surface can be defined as OB, we still have the bent fence issue and building overhangs that create more difficult calls for where a disc last touched IB.

That is simply incorrect Chuck.

If the fence, wall, etc is designated the OB line by the director, then the entire fence is the OB line. The same as if it were a rope, string or anything else. Vicinity to the playing surface or out of bounds area has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. READ THE RULES!

The rules as currently written make that area below the overhanging fence part of the out of bounds.

Before the change it was the inside edge of the out of bounds line that defined the out of bounds line and plane.

There was no problem with it before (other than the flexing fence challenge) and there certainly is no problem with it now.

I am having trouble understanding why you are having such difficulty understanding this. You just keep saying over and over that the innermost and closest to the playing surface part of the object used to mark the OB line are the "default".

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS THE CASE WITHIN OUR RULES.

I have posted the related rules twice here now. Please quote them to make you point.

I'm going by the definition of a line which has no thickness and the verticality rule written right in the OB rules. It's pretty clear there is one OB line and it's defined along the playing surface. Unless it's another horizontal playing surface that's defined above the ground playing surface, then the status of an item suspended or bent over a place on the ground has the same IB/OB status as the ground.

For example, at USDGC with the yellow ropes, if a stake or two gets bent toward IB and the yellow rope on top is not directly above the string along the ground, the OB line remains the string along the ground, not the yellow rope or the stakes that are bent over IB. It's the same is if it was the top of a fence that got bent out over IB. The bottom of the fence remains the IB/OB line not the top. The top of the fence will be either IB or OB if it's bent off vertical depending on what the status is of the ground below it on the playing surface.

There is no other interpretation available in the current rules. If the RC wants items like fences that project above the ground to retain their IB/OB status regardless of their angle, then they need to use words like "object" and "non-horizontal surfaces" above the ground just like they've done with the multiple horizontal surface Q&A. As of now, the rule uses the words "line" and "vertical" which are explicit in the way I've indicated.

I will request a clarification from the PDGA Rules Committee, but I think that you are way off.

What happens if their is a rope that is strung a foot off the ground (Seneca hole 11) and a disc lands below it, how do you tell if it is OB or not?

The answer is by lining up the outside edge of the rope towards IB and if the disc is not sticking out beyond the edge it is OB. Previous to the rule change for 2006 if it was even under the rope at all it would have been considered in bounds, now it is not.

You are acting like if there were no string on the playing surface below the OB rope that there would be no way according to our rules to judge if the disc were in bounds or out and that is patently wrong.

There are nearly infinite examples of objects being used to designate out of bounds areas without the use of string, paint or any other marker. When that object is specified by the director without further specification (part of the object) then the entire object is considered the standard for defining the OB line. It in itself is NOT the OB line, it's outermost edge defines the OB plane. And when that OB plane intersects a playing surface the extreme outer boundary of the OB area is defined. This intersecting doesn't define the OB area, the object does.

This is why the illustration with the fence earlier in this post is the correct interpretation of where the OB plane and line is when an entire fence is designated the OB boundary. This is superior to the previous version in that it makes discs striking the OB side of an OB boundary object nearly impossible to have touched in IB.

I will ask:
A tournament director designates a fence along the left side of hole 1 as the Out of Bounds boundary. Not the top, bottom, side or any specific part of the fence but the entire thing.

A player throws their disc and it strikes the fence on the In Bounds side and comes to rest against the fence. When the group arrives at the disc they see that the fence leans way in over the playing surface beneath it and the the disc is completely under the top of the fence.

What is the correct ruling? Is the disc OB or is it IB? Why?

Ask the question. But it's pretty obvious that if an OB fence is leaning over into IB territory, the ground below it is still IB. Apparently you want it to be the way you've described it but that's not the language in the current rules. Only the parts of the object that are currently on the OB side of the LINE on the playing surface AND on the OB side of the OB/IB PLANE up and down that's exactly vertical from that line are OB. If any of those parts shift over to the other side of that fixed line/plane, they become IB.

Yes, I believe the disc is OB under current rules. In 2005 and before it would have been IB. That you think it is currently IB should provide the definitive answer we are looking for.

The OB line is defined by the edge of a 3 dimensional object. Whether the edge of a string, rope, tape, wall, building, fence or the meeting of two different materials. The line is dependent on the thing that defines it, it doesn't exist separate from it.

The only relationship it has with the playing surface is that the OB plane extends down and intersects it.

The disc under the fence on the IB side of the bottom of the fence, is still OB because though it is outside the object defining the OB line it is not outside the OB line which is defined by the outermost edge of the designated object.

If the director said the "bottom of the fence was to be used as the OB boundary" then the disc would be IB. But the director didn't say that...

The flaw in your logic is the rules don't say a thing about objects being used to define OB or defining the line. The only statement that's new is that "the line" is now OB. That's it. Nothing about fences or buildings, just a line.

The flaw in your logic is the rules don't say a thing about objects being used to define OB or defining the line. The only statement that's new is that "the line" is now OB. That's it. Nothing about fences or buildings, just a line.



Rrrh, Chuck, what do you think the purpose of making the OB line considered OB was, IF the OB line has no width?

The whole point is that the rule is talking about the object that is defining the OB line, i.e. if the director says that wall is the OB line in 2005 then landing on it was IB (because the inside edge defined the actual OB plane), now in 2006 it is OB (because the outside edge defines the actual OB plane).

And that is the whole point bro!

I know what you're thinking was done. I'm reading what actually was done. And the only change IN WRITING is that THE LINE is now OB. It's still a line, not an object, and it's now on the other side of the fence than it was in 2005. But the fence itself is not involved in the definition other than its footprint on the playing surface that creates the line from which a vertical plane emerges up and down.

That is nonsense Chuck. That would mean that there is no change at all and clearly there was a change because the PDGA RC is not in the habit of playing around with words for the fun of it.

The meaning is clear and so is the purpose.

Chuck, to put it another way, if you switch the IB OB in the picture under your interpretation the top of the fence would become the OB line and the disc on the OB side (red) would then be IB. That is how the rule worked in 2005. Now, with the OB line being out, the disc would be out either way since the entire width of the fence is included in the ob, just as if it were a 2 foot wide piece of rope or ribbon on the ground.

You really are twisting this needlessly. Not sure why either.

You will discover that your interpretation is wrong. The only rule change was the width of the line on the playing surface is now OB. That's it. It does impact the fence scenario but only when the fence is perfectly vertical. In most cases they are, so the new rule will be better.

But since the RC did not add wording about objects and surfaces at angles other than horizontal above the playing surface, all the stuff you're talking about is invalid. The IB/OB status of fences angling away from vertical is still based on the status of the playing surface under those angled parts.

Not to break up this wonderful squabble, but I think most "reasonable" (to borrow from common law) players in a group would say that a disc is either on one side of a chain link fence or not, and would rule OB accordingly. If it were split rail, it should probably be ruled according to the lean of the fence, and the OB line would be as wide as all of the parts of that fence. I'm not sure this really needs to be specifically addressed by a rule, since most TDs are "reasonable". Maybe??? :D

This has been an educational thread. Is this where we are now?

1) OB lines can be defined by the perimeter of objects, such as a building. Nick is right. But not by the objects themselves. Chuck is right.

2) If the perimeter of an object is chosen, then OB is most commonly defined where that perimeter lies along the ground. Chuck is right.

3) The statement in 2) is not technically the "default" case, as that is not defined in the rules. Nick is right.

4) So an OB line can be defined as the perimeter of an object overhanging the ground. Nick is right.

5) The statement in 4) would be foolish and impractical if applied to trees, as their limbs move around with the wind. Chuck is right.

6) But the statement in 4) may not be as foolish if applied to a stable overhang, such as a building roof. Nick is right. Still, a line on the ground showing how the building roof has been used to mark OB would be appreciated. Chuck is also right. (Nick seems to be arguing that it's not necessarily practical, but it would be allowable; while Chuck is arguing that it is perhaps allowable, but it is not practical. They're almost saying the same thing, just with emphasis on the other half of the coin.)

7) If a building overhang is designated to mark the OB boundary, then it should mark it all the way to the ground. Nick is right. (I don't know if Chuck really believes what he wrote that the overhang can be designated OB only for discs that land on the roof, and that discs landing under the overhang can still be IB. The rules clearly state that OB lines mark a vertical plane above the playing surface.)

8) If a fence is leaning over, then a TD may choose, foolishly or not, to make the top of the fence, or the middle of the fence, or the bottom of the fence the OB line, but not the entirety of the fence surface. Again, the OB line is a vertical plane extending from the playing surface. Because of this fact, the bottom of the fence is more likely to be chosen -- although some fences are elevated by posts and don't reach the ground, so even this may be problematic. This makes choosing an object such as a leaning or elevated fence for an OB line "foolish", unless there is a clear intersection of that object with the playing surface. Without that clear intersection, there may be difficulty understanding where OB begins. Chuck is mostly right (he objects too much to the legal use of the top of the fence, foolish though it may be), Nick is sorta right (the entire fence surface can't be OB if it is leaning, only some part of it which intersects with the vertical plane extending from the playing surface), and they are both right that the rules need to be clearer on this (perhaps modify the vertical plane comment as it relates to fences which aren't perfectly vertical?).

Pretty good summary. here are some clarifications:

3) The statement in 2) is not technically the "default" case, as that is not defined in the rules. Nick is right.


Since the OB line has to be projected to the playing surface to make a call no matter how high the possible lines might be above the ground, if none of the possible lines (cement foundation, wall, top of fence, overhang) has been defined by the TD, then the default would have to be the one closest to or on the playing surface (803.01F).



(I don't know if Chuck really believes what he wrote that the overhang can be designated OB only for discs that land on the roof, and that discs landing under the overhang can still be IB.


If the overhang can support discs, the TD could stretch the multiple surface rule to make just the overhang OB. However, I would probably just make the 2m rule in effect on the parts of the building that extend beyond the vertical walls which would be easier to define as a penalty instead of painting a line on the ground below the overhang all the way around the building.



(he objects too much to the legal use of the top of the fence, foolish though it may be),


I have no problem using the top of a fence as the reference used to create the OB line (maybe the chainlink mesh is missing but the frame is still there) as long as a line is marked on the ground or a string is run like the USDGC.

Cool! After this thread, I think you've both helped me understand the rule better than I did before. Hat tip to Mike and others on the thread, as well.

Yesterday i had to explain to some intermediates the new OB rule. They thought that the rule book said that if any part of the disc is OB, then it is OB. They were insistant that they were correct. They knew the rule had changed, but I guess they didn't understand the change.

So is there anyway to make the rule clearer? Could we put a small diagram in the rule book to show the correct interpretation?

There is no mention in the rules of an OB object. Only an OB area defined by an OB line. You can use an object to define the OB line, but designating the object OB is not sufficient designation for the purposes of declaring a disc OB or IB.

That is simply incorrect Chuck.

If the fence, wall, etc is designated the OB line by the director, then the entire fence is the OB line. The same as if it were a rope, string or anything else. Vicinity to the playing surface or out of bounds area has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. READ THE RULES!

The rules as currently written make that area below the overhanging fence part of the out of bounds.

Before the change it was the inside edge of the out of bounds line that defined the out of bounds line and plane.

There was no problem with it before (other than the flexing fence challenge) and there certainly is no problem with it now.

I am having trouble understanding why you are having such difficulty understanding this. You just keep saying over and over that the innermost and closest to the playing surface part of the object used to mark the OB line are the "default".

PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS THE CASE WITHIN OUR RULES.

I have posted the related rules twice here now. Please quote them to make you point.



I believe this is clearly not corrrect. The rules do not indicate that OB is an area designated by an object. It's an area designated by a line. And that line extends vertically up and down along a plane. A plane is flat, not curved like a fenced bowed out of whack. So the vertical extension of the OB line does not follow the curve of the fence at hand in the example.

Designating an object OB is insufficient. It must be designated as an area defined by a line in order to meet the needs of the game.

Now that I understand what you are arguing about, and have read the rules, and barely care enough to respond, I would point out that nothing in the rules requires that the out of bounds line be on the playing surface. The out of bounds line defines a plane that extends up and down, but it is not a flat plane like a geometric plane because it follows the contour of the road, creek, stripe, sidewalk or whatever has been defined as the line. It is a vertical plane.

If whatever has been defined as the line has a significant dimension of height and is not vertical, it's furthest in bounds edge has to define the line and the plane, regardless of whether that edge is at the top, bottom or middle.

So I think I'm agreeing with Nick and not Chuck. I'm agreeing with whoever was right! :D

The rules do not indicate that OB is an area designated by an object.



You�re right. It doesn�t indicate any specifications on how a director is to designate out of bounds areas. So Mike, with that as a given, by what method is a director able to designate Out of Bounds areas?

What provides the edge by which the OB line is defined?

Your answer should clear a lot of this up.

I would point out that nothing in the rules requires that the out of bounds line be on the playing surface.



I never have disagreed with this. But ultimately, that line has to project thru the playing surface to make a call AND that line should be marked on the ground to facilitate that process if the reference object is more than a foot or so above the playing surface.

I absolutely agree that the best practice is to have a clearly defined line on the playing surface. I was just addressing the leaning fence scenario. If I had a leaning fence that came down to the ground I'd define the line as the bottom of the fence, having thought about this now. I don't think any of our fences lean like that.

I agree that trying to play the unmarked perimeter of a tree as o.b. would be a nightmare.

Yesterday i had to explain to some intermediates the new OB rule. They thought that the rule book said that if any part of the disc is OB, then it is OB. They were insistant that they were correct. They knew the rule had changed, but I guess they didn't understand the change.

So is there anyway to make the rule clearer? Could we put a small diagram in the rule book to show the correct interpretation?



The clearest and most concise way to describe the OB rule is included in the first sentence of the OB rule.


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.

The rules do not indicate that OB is an area designated by an object.



You�re right. It doesn�t indicate any specifications on how a director is to designate out of bounds areas. So Mike, with that as a given, by what method is a director able to designate Out of Bounds areas?

What provides the edge by which the OB line is defined?

Your answer should clear a lot of this up.



Once again, the definition mentions an OB line in the sentence after defining it as an area designated by the director prior to the start of play. Section 803.09 also mentions an OB line. And though I agree that the rules don't specify the exact method of designating the OB area, I think they are written clearly enough that prudent, intuitive people will deduce from reading the definition and the rule that some type of visible line is involved in designating the OB area in a manner such that players will be able to clearly discern whether or not their disc is in the designated OB area.

That being said, in light of the discussion at hand, I think it is highly presumptuous of the RC to expect such intuition and deduction. The manner for designating the OB area should be prescribed in order to eliminate (as much as possible) poor choices in designating OB areas.

I think you are right, in that the inside edge of the OB "line" (object or otherwise) should define the vertical plane of OB. The only problem is that it is non-intuitive to call someone out of bounds just because a chain link fence bends completely over their disc which otherwise would have been in-bounds. I know I would be extremely flustered if the TD agreed. Hopefully, if the TD says nothing about it before the tournament, then he would give the benefit of the doubt to the player. Which brings up another issue. Should ambiguous situations, not addressed before the tournament, always be ruled in favor of the player, if no one present has discussed that type of situation before?

Mike, I'd still appreciate an answer to my question below. You didn't provide one in your last opinion. Thanks.



The rules do not indicate that OB is an area designated by an object.



You�re right. It doesn�t indicate any specifications on how a director is to designate out of bounds areas. So Mike, with that as a given, by what method is a director able to designate Out of Bounds areas?

What provides the edge by which the OB line is defined?

Your answer should clear a lot of this up.

I agree that trying to play the unmarked perimeter of a tree as o.b. would be a nightmare.



Easily said, now try to explain why?

How would it be any different than judging if a disc were IB or OB when up in a tree or bush. You look up at the disc, look down at the ground and that is the point beneath the disc. Now you look up at the edge of the OB tree and look down at the ground and that is the outermost parameter of the OB area. Now judge whether the point beneath the disc is within that OB area or not. They are the same thing. If it is even close, then just as in any other situation you decide as a group, get an official or director or give the benefit of the doubt to the player. It's not like this is something "unfamiliar".

Gary, could you help a brotha out? And explain that if the TD says "the fence is the OB line" for a hole that the only default involved is that now, with the OB line being considered part of the out of bounds area, that the OB line and vertical plane is defined by the outermost edge of the fence.

This is no different than it would be for a string or rope.

Even if the director stipulated that the "bottom" of the fence were to be used, it would STILL be possibly to have a disc land on the in bounds side of the fence and be out of bounds.

http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBFenceLeanOut.jpg

The disc would be OB in this drawing. Likewise, the disc would be IB if the fence is angled over IB with a mirror image of your diagram.

Here again for you is the situation when the director says the fence is the OB line and doesn't specify what part of the fence defines the OB line and vertical plane and the fence leans in.
http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBFenceLeanIn.jpg
Same situation but instead of a fence it is a rope:
http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBRope.jpg

The rules do not indicate that OB is an area designated by an object.



You�re right. It doesn�t indicate any specifications on how a director is to designate out of bounds areas. So Mike, with that as a given, by what method is a director able to designate Out of Bounds areas?

What provides the edge by which the OB line is defined?

Your answer should clear a lot of this up.



Once again, the definition mentions an OB line in the sentence after defining it as an area designated by the director prior to the start of play. Section 803.09 also mentions an OB line. And though I agree that the rules don't specify the exact method of designating the OB area, I think they are written clearly enough that prudent, intuitive people will deduce from reading the definition and the rule that some type of visible line is involved in designating the OB area in a manner such that players will be able to clearly discern whether or not their disc is in the designated OB area.

That being said, in light of the discussion at hand, I think it is highly presumptuous of the RC to expect such intuition and deduction. The manner for designating the OB area should be prescribed in order to eliminate (as much as possible) poor choices in designating OB areas.



Nick, the answer to your question is "a line". See my first paragraph, last sentence.

I don't mind answering questions for you, but when I do, it's a bit frustrating and rude to have you tell me I haven't. Is the phrase "some type of visible line is involved in designating the OB area" too obscure? It clearly describes a manner in which a TD can designate OB areas, which was your question.

I agree that trying to play the unmarked perimeter of a tree as o.b. would be a nightmare.



Easily said, now try to explain why?

How would it be any different than judging if a disc were IB or OB when up in a tree or bush. You look up at the disc, look down at the ground and that is the point beneath the disc. Now you look up at the edge of the OB tree and look down at the ground and that is the outermost parameter of the OB area. Now judge whether the point beneath the disc is within that OB area or not. They are the same thing. If it is even close, then just as in any other situation you decide as a group, get an official or director or give the benefit of the doubt to the player. It's not like this is something "unfamiliar".



Your debate is flawed because you still refer to OB as a tree, of which there is no such thing. OB is an area. A tree is an object, not an area. It can be defined as an area underneath a tree if so designated, but a tree alone is not adequate. The rules suggest that a line is neccessary in order to designate an OB area.

I regret that I am not able to successfully explain this to you in a way that you understand.

The disc would be OB in this drawing. Likewise, the disc would be IB if the fence is angled over IB with a mirror image of your diagram.



But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the rule change? The reason that the line is now out of bounds is to prevent a disc from hitting the out of bounds delimiter and being used as the last place in bounds for the purpose of establishing a lie.

Using a split rail fence as an example, in previous rules the disc must merely be under the vertical shadow of the fence to be declared in bounds. Now the disc must protrude on the inbounds side of the fence for it to be declared in bounds. Simple enough. The leaning fence is the same sort of beast.

The previous rules resulted in a more more natural understanding for declaring the inbounds status of the disc; the 2006 rules unfortunately sacrificed that for the sake of not allowing discs to bounce off the wrong side of the fence to be declared the last in bounds point.

The problem with declaring the bottom of the fence to be the line (as mentioned earlier) is that someone will argue that the disc bouncing off the wrong side of the fence hit a spot where it was leaning, flexed, etc to get a better lie thereby defeating the "help" the new rules were providing.

What really needs to be done is to give better guidance in the rules when using an object to mark the out of bounds line. Making a tree, or anything else greater than 2m a demarcation of out of bounds is a bad idea as it is difficult to be precise in determining the projection onto the playing surface. Marking a lie under a disc up in the air doesn't take the same precision in the sense that it does not have a one-throw difference in the decision.

A possible better change would to be to change the out of bounds demarcation back to in bounds and require that if a disc goes out of bounds, it must return completely in bounds to be considered in bounds.

A line, is not an answer Mike. What defines that line? How does the director indicate or specify the line?

He/She can't just say out in the field is a line, it doesn't exist in any dimensions but if you or touching it and completely in the OB area it defines then you are out of bounds. You need some real world reference.

So again, I as you, what defines the OB line? To answer "a line" is not an answer Mike; you, like the director MUST define that "line", and to do that they need some point of reference that is real, that can be seen and touched and used to make a ruling.

What are those methods Mike?

In response to your last sentence, that would put us back to where we were before. Let's say the rule is the same as last year (the line itself is In-Bounds). If the fence leaned over in-bounds enough to make the whole disc in-bounds when it hit the OB side, the player would be able to argue that he should take it from there. Isn't there already enough argument going on? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I agree that trying to play the unmarked perimeter of a tree as o.b. would be a nightmare.



Easily said, now try to explain why?

How would it be any different than judging if a disc were IB or OB when up in a tree or bush. You look up at the disc, look down at the ground and that is the point beneath the disc. Now you look up at the edge of the OB tree and look down at the ground and that is the outermost parameter of the OB area. Now judge whether the point beneath the disc is within that OB area or not. They are the same thing. If it is even close, then just as in any other situation you decide as a group, get an official or director or give the benefit of the doubt to the player. It's not like this is something "unfamiliar".



Your debate is flawed because you still refer to OB as a tree, of which there is no such thing. OB is an area. A tree is an object, not an area. It can be defined as an area underneath a tree if so designated, but a tree alone is not adequate. The rules suggest that a line is neccessary in order to designate an OB area.

I regret that I am not able to successfully explain this to you in a way that you understand.



Mike, please don't feel any personal feelings towards this discussion, it is just a discussion.

You are mistaken if you think that an object designated OB has no OB area. The object designated OB has all that is necessary for an OB area. It has a parameter; the points or edges farthest from the center of the object that create the OB line and plane, and thereby it has the OB Area within that OB line in which a disc may come to rest.

It is clearly possible and within our current rules of play.

What none of us knows is if it would be practical or useful. And that is easily remedied by giving it a try.

By the way, we now have two separate discussions going here. One concerning the use of a tree as an OB area and the other having to do with the related topic of whether an object used to designated an OB boundary is part of the OB area or not.

Still waiting on the PDGA RC on answers to these. Carlton must be away fishing or hunting or something...

I was in that group of Intermediates at the FO, and appreciate you taking the time to help us out on that call. Especially since the disc in question was of someone that was attending their first tourney, and was still learning the rules etc...
We didn't want to make a wrong call, but we did in fact take the rules for some reason as being the line is now out., but your example and taking the time to show us, made sense and helped explain, so i personally appreciated it.
Nice to have peopel around that don't mind taking the time to help out and explain.

I feel I did answer your questions. I will simplify my answer in an attempt to make it more easily understood.

The method by which a director can designate an OB area is through use of a line. The line can be defined as "where the fence on Hole #9 meets the playing surface" or "the orange string line on the left side of the fairway on Hole #9" or perhaps "where the library building on Hole #10 meets the playing surface". All of these describe a line which is visible or can be easily discerned on the course for the purpose of determining the OB status of a disc.

The most successful method in my experience has been the string line on the playing surface.

But doesn't that defeat the whole point of the rule change? The reason that the line is now out of bounds is to prevent a disc from hitting the out of bounds delimiter and being used as the last place in bounds for the purpose of establishing a lie.



I believe that was one intent of the new rules but it didn't go far enough and allow objects like a fence to retain their OB characteristics when they project above ground and are not vertical. That's the missing (chain)link in the new rule. Most of the time fences are close enough to vertical that we accept it as the IB/OB delimiter without question. That's why the rule change where the OB line is now OB helps reduce the number of players who might attempt to argue that their OB lie should be taken much farther down the fence.

However, when the fence is too far from vertical, bent or damaged in some places, the last several pages of this thread show the confusion that remains. There's nothing in the new rule that deals with angled surfaces above the place once the OB line is identified along the playing surface. So, the IB/OB call is still in reference to that line on the playing surface like it always has been (just the opposite edge of it) and anything above the ground is irrelevant.

Thank you Nick for your clarification. No offense taken.

And perhaps it is true that some objects can be used to designate an OB area. I however feel that a tree is not one of those objects, unless you are talking about the area within where the trunk meets the playing surface, which seems pointless. Because the branches do not touch the ground and form a line on the playing surface, you would have to mark the line in some visible manner in order for the OB area to be adequately designated.

What really needs to be done is to give better guidance in the rules when using an object to mark the out of bounds line.



The rulebook should really be limited to the rules of play as they pertain to players and the penalties for not following the rules. It does not (and should not) tell TDs how to do things like designate OB, or offer ideas on course design. While I agree that there should be guidance on designating OB, that guidance should not be part of the rulebook. I'd recommend it be in the sanctioning agreement, and with more strict designations for higher tiered tournaments. Maybe at a C-tier Nick's description of the tree boundary as OB would be acceptable, but not at an A-tier.


A possible better change would to be to change the out of bounds demarcation back to in bounds and require that if a disc goes out of bounds, it must return completely in bounds to be considered in bounds.



Yuck. That adds unnecessary complications and interpretations of whether or not the disc ever travelled through OB. It's currently very simple to determine the IB/OB status of a disc based solely on where it came to rest (as long as the the line is clearly marked) regardless of how it got there. I can easily imagine a scenario where two discs are partially touching OB, and partially in bounds, but their status is different because oof how they got to that point. We really don't want that.

If the TD declares a verticle object like a fence to be the "OB line" without further clarification, I will have to side with Nick in this case using the rules are currently written.

When a demarkation line has thickness, the effective OB line (the one with no thickness) is now the edge closest to the IB territory and extends up and down from that edge vertially to infinity. There are several problems to this though.

It leads to some very non-intuituve rulings when the OB defining oject is not vertical.
It does not fit well with the Q&A resoning for multiple playing surfaces.

Intuitively, a disc on the IB side of an OB fence should be IB. But if the entirity of the fence is the OB line, the current rule would put the demarkation line at the innermost (closest to IB) part of the fence. I can find no rule that requires the line to be declared at or even default to where the object meets the playing surface. One common example of a line above the playing surface is where OB is defined by bollards (also known as hedges, really short poles) connected by cables that prevent cars from exiting the roadway. The cable is often declared the OB line and is usually a foot or more above the playing surface.

There needs to be a clear definition that allows for fences to be used intuitively as effective OB lines. The IB side is good, the OB side is bad. Regardless of the lean or flex of the object. We don't currently have that.

<font color="blue">It should be fairly simple to add language that allows objects to be declared as OB boundaries, with the default characteristic that striking the object from the OB side will not count as being IB under any circumstances.

There should also be a statement that addresses the possible stacking of OB/IB status indicating that the status of the surface (object or playing surface) immediately below the disc is the one that determines the status of the disc.

One last statement that only the lowest playing surface has an OB/IB status by deafult. That all other surfaces or objects must be given an OB/IB status specifically.</font>

With those changes, all of Nick's examples work intuituively.

The status of the disc on the IB side of a fence, but underneath an overhanging OB fence is determined by the IB territory beneath it, not the fence above it.

The status of disc resting atop (on the OB side of) the fence that is leaning over IB territory is determined by the OB object immediately beneath it, not the IB territory further below.

A disc outside an elevated OB cable or rope is not effected because there is no example of multiple IB/OB status.

The status of a disc on an IB bridge above an OB creek is based on the status of the bridge immediately below, not the creek. If the bridges have not been declared as IB playing surfaces, then they have no OB/IB status, and thus no stacked OB/IB status and the definition from the OB Creek is the one that counts.

<font color="brown">As it is now, it's pretty vague and hopefully will be clearly defined by the TD.</font>

I agree partially with Jim that the rules should not dictate course design options, but they should provide a default ruling to be used when the TD/designer fails to inform the players how they expect a specific situation to be handled.

So the rules should try and predict everything that a TD might fail to do correctly?

Though there are examples of this (water and certain other obstacles as casual, and the default Drop Zone for mandatories), I disagree. There's a million things that a TD could screw up, and there's no way for the rules to predict them all.

Not predict them all, there are provisions in the rules to extrapolate from the nearest similar ruling, but there should be clear enough guidelines that a reasonabe conclusion should be reachable.

I am strongly in favor of a TD/designer being able to define the course in the way that works best for their unique situations.

I am equally in favor of having clear default guidelines that prevent the "we play it this way where I'm from" arguments. Every player should know what the standard ruling would be, and how their course differs from the standard.

But first, there must be a standard.

I can find no rule that requires the line to be declared at or even default to where the object meets the playing surface. One common example of a line above the playing surface is where OB is defined by bollards (also known as hedges, really short poles) connected by cables that prevent cars from exiting the roadway. The cable is often declared the OB line and is usually a foot or more above the playing surface.




The ultimate ruling is always* made on the playing surface though so the line is projected to it even if not marked on it (like it should be). The yellow rope at USDGC used to be the OB line but now it's actually the string near the ground. The Yellow rope is now for visibility but I don't believe is officially the line.

*In unusual circumstances, the disc might be suspended or sitting on the post supporting the cable one foot off the ground so the call could theoretically be made off the playing surface. But the player's mark will have to be made in reference to the OB line projectd to the playing surface.

I can find no rule that requires the line to be declared at or even default to where the object meets the playing surface. One common example of a line above the playing surface is where OB is defined by bollards (also known as hedges, really short poles) connected by cables that prevent cars from exiting the roadway. The cable is often declared the OB line and is usually a foot or more above the playing surface.




The ultimate ruling is always* made on the playing surface though so the line is projected to it even if not marked on it (like it should be). The yellow rope at USDGC used to be the OB line but now it's actually the string near the ground. The Yellow rope is now for visibility but I don't believe is officially the line.

*In unusual circumstances, the disc might be suspended or sitting on the post supporting the cable one foot off the ground so the call could theoretically be made off the playing surface. But the player's mark will have to be made in reference to the OB line projectd to the playing surface.



As I said, I can find no rule that requires the OB line to be marked on or even near the playing surface. It is common sense that the nearer to the playing surface the line is, the easier the call will be since the determination is always made on the playing surface directly below the disc.

It has been stated many times on here that all the new rule does is effectively move the theoritical OB line (with no width) from the OB side of the OB line (with width) to the IB side. This should also apply to a TD that declares a fence in poor repair to be the OB line with no more clarification.

That should neven happen, but if it did, it would lead to the problems that Nick is talking about.

It should be fairly simple to add language that allows objects to be declared as OB boundaries, with the default characteristic that striking the object from the OB side will not count as being IB under any circumstances.

There should also be a statement that addresses the possible stacking of OB/IB status indicating that the status of the surface (object or playing surface) immediately below the disc is the one that determines the status of the disc.

One last statement that only the lowest playing surface has an OB/IB status by deafult. That all other surfaces or objects must be given an OB/IB status specifically.




I like the sound of that. Please forward to the RC.

Though I tend to agree with Gary about allowing directors to declare stacked "surfaces" with different IB/OB designations, it is not currently permitted.

Only stacked "Playing Surfaces" may have different IB/OB designations, not objects or obstacle surfaces. Objects can however have OB status as they can be designated the defining OB line for an OB area; you just can't designated the area below them as IB, yet. Though this could be explored a bit more in actual testing. The main reason it seems unlikely is that the OB line and plane extends upward and downward to the playing surface immediately below it, so the parameter would encompass the area below as well.

Again, I think it would be useful in some instances for the director to be able to declare different stacked surfaces with different OB/IB designations, but I'm not sure of all the implications that would have. Perhaps Jim could enlighten us on why the Rules Committee chose not to add such an option to our rules of play.

Though I tend to agree with Gary about allowing directors to declare stacked "surfaces" with different IB/OB designations, it is not currently permitted.


That's why it was in blue. It is a proposal.


Again, I think it would be useful in some instances for the director to be able to declare different stacked surfaces with different OB/IB designations, but I'm not sure of all the implications that would have. Perhaps Jim could enlighten us on why the Rules Committee chose not to add such an option to our rules of play.



It runs along the same lines as multiple playing surfaces. The surface immediately below the disc is the surface that matters. This is needed to handle the severly leaning fence problem. If the fence is declared to be the line, and discs are able to rest on the leaning fence, they need to be treated as being on the side of the fence they are laying on. Any OB/IB status that uses the playing surface below as the determining point will be incorrect. Well incorrect in that everything left of the fence is good and everything right of the fence is bad, and the disc went to the right, and never crossed back to the left, but came to rest on top of the fence where it was leaning severely to the left.

Again, I think it would be useful in some instances for the director to be able to declare different stacked surfaces with different OB/IB designations, but I'm not sure of all the implications that would have. Perhaps Jim could enlighten us on why the Rules Committee chose not to add such an option to our rules of play.



I don't believe we have discussed this since I joined the Rules Committee. I believe the RC decided that the Q&A "Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)" handles the situation effectively. Nick, do you think it needs more clarification in the actual rulebook?

Again, I think it would be useful in some instances for the director to be able to declare different stacked surfaces with different OB/IB designations, but I'm not sure of all the implications that would have. Perhaps Jim could enlighten us on why the Rules Committee chose not to add such an option to our rules of play.



I don't believe we have discussed this since I joined the Rules Committee. I believe the RC decided that the Q&A "Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)" handles the situation effectively. Nick, do you think it needs more clarification in the actual rulebook?



Except the literal reading of the rules and the Q&A come up with different results when applied to a non-vertical object (leaning fence) declared as the OB line.

Which part of the fence is the effective OB line ?

The bottom ?
The most inward (toward the IB side) ?

Common sense leans toward the bottom, but the new OB line rule leans toward teh most inward portion. The rules show no preference.

As I said, I can find no rule that requires the OB line to be marked on or even near the playing surface.


That's because it's not a "rules" issue, it's a TD and/or Course Designer issue. Such a requirement (if it existed) would belong in Course Design Guidelines, and/or TD Sanctioning Agreement.


It is common sense that the nearer to the playing surface the line is, the easier the call will be since the determination is always made on the playing surface directly below the disc.


Agreed, it is common sense. Which means absolutely nothing.


It has been stated many times on here that all the new rule does is effectively move the theoritical OB line (with no width) from the OB side of the OB line (with width) to the IB side. This should also apply to a TD that declares a fence in poor repair to be the OB line with no more clarification.


Correct.


That should neven happen, but if it did, it would lead to the problems that Nick is talking about.


But it will happen. TDs are humans, and many are just as lazy as the rest of us.

I agree with all of that, the problem I have now is that the rules leads a player to think one way, and the Q&A leads the other.

And that the rules were rewritten after the Q&A.

Which Q&amp;A and rule conflict are you specifically referring to? I believe we updated the Qs&amp;As to correspond to the current rules, but it's certainly possible that something was missed.

Again, I think it would be useful in some instances for the director to be able to declare different stacked surfaces with different OB/IB designations, but I'm not sure of all the implications that would have. Perhaps Jim could enlighten us on why the Rules Committee chose not to add such an option to our rules of play.



I don't believe we have discussed this since I joined the Rules Committee. I believe the RC decided that the Q&A "Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)" handles the situation effectively. Nick, do you think it needs more clarification in the actual rulebook?



Though slightly confused by your answer, I do not believe that any clarification is need within the actual rulebook. The rule is clear. The OB line and plane are clearly defined by the director designated parameters of the OB area (i.e. the seams between two surfaces or an object (this is the answer I was looking for from Mike) whose edge provides the definition.

The only confusion is the one created by folks misinterpreting and perpetuating an incorrect reading of the rule here and out on the courses.

In that regard it would be of benefit to the sport as a whole if the PDGA Rules Committee took a more active role in quickly clarifying these contentious issues.

At any rate, I think that a well worded Q & A could resolve this without the need to make our rulebook look line a Dune paperback.

The only confusion is the one created by folks misinterpreting and perpetuating an incorrect reading of the rule here and out on the courses.



You mean where redefining the line as OB instead of IB made some people think that any disc touching the line is out?

Or are we still talking about stacked playing surfaces?

Quote:
It has been stated many times on here that all the new rule does is effectively move the theoritical OB line (with no width) from the OB side of the OB line (with width) to the IB side. This should also apply to a TD that declares a fence in poor repair to be the OB line with no more clarification.


Correct.



This seems like the smoking gun.

So to clarify:

The outside edge of an object that was designated by the director defines the OB line and plane EVEN if it is not on or near the playing surface or leans out over what would "appear" to be in bounds playing surface.

Is this right?

Furthermore, that the rest of that object, whose outside edge defines the OB line and plane, is to be considered as part of the OB area.

Is that correct?

New question:

May the director designate an OB area by using "unconnected" objects to define the OB line and plane? By that I mean, can the director use posts, similar to ball golf's OB areas, not attached by a string rope or any physical entity other than the playing surface itself, but that the player, group or official must eye up between the two nearest posts to judge whether the disc is IB or OB?

If so, would a director be permitted, by rule, to designate the outermost points of a tree as the boundary of an OB area without using string on the playing surface or in the tree to provide a physical representation beyond the points of reference already provided (outermost points)?

The only confusion is the one created by folks misinterpreting and perpetuating an incorrect reading of the rule here and out on the courses.



You mean where redefining the line as OB instead of IB made some people think that any disc touching the line is out?

Or are we still talking about stacked playing surfaces?



Specifically, that there is a "default" part of the object used to define the OB line and plane other than the outside edge (i.e. the point nearest the playing surface, etc.).

This is contained in my other questions I believe.

By that I mean, can the director use posts, similar to ball golf's OB areas, not attached by a string rope or any physical entity other than the playing surface itself, but that the player, group or official must eye up between the two nearest posts to judge whether the disc is IB or OB?




For ball golf tournament play, they put the paint lines down for hazards and OB.

For ball golf tournament play, they put the paint lines down for hazards and OB.



A wise choice that works well for disc golf too.

Not at the courses I've been playing. Those seem to generally be used when their are extreme curves involved and the post to post line would cut off otherwise useful playing area.

Chuck and Mike, do you now see that you were mistaken about the "default" part of the object used to designate the OB line and plane? That it is the outermost edge?

Wow, it seems like there are multiple issues going on here. I went back and carefully re-read the posts about multiple surfaces, and it seems like Nick (and Gary) are trying to make a distinction between playing surfaces and other surfaces. For consistancy, I will use the rulebook's terms which are Playing Surface:The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official. and Obstacle:Any feature of the course that may impede any aspect of play..

Guys, Do these two terms accurately describe all the areas we are talking about?

If so, those definitions combined with the Q&A (The vertical plane (of OB) ends when it reaches another playing surface.) indicate that obstacles themselves can not be OB.





It has been stated many times on here that all the new rule does is effectively move the theoritical OB line (with no width) from the OB side of the OB line (with width) to the IB side. This should also apply to a TD that declares a fence in poor repair to be the OB line with no more clarification.




Correct.



This seems like the smoking gun.

So to clarify:

The outside edge of an object that was designated by the director defines the OB line and plane EVEN if it is not on or near the playing surface or leans out over what would "appear" to be in bounds playing surface.

Is this right?



If the TD says "the fence is the OB line", and the fence leans, I would say that the "entire line" is the thickness of the lean of the fence, but the "effective line" (of no width) is the outermost projection of the fence over IB.
Making this picture correct
http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBFenceLeanIn.jpg



Furthermore, that the rest of that object, whose outside edge defines the OB line and plane, is to be considered as part of the OB area.

Is that correct?




I agree, and it matches your picture. If the TD doesn't intend for that, then he needs to specify something like "the OB line is where the fence meets the ground." Then the area under the leaning fence is IB instead.



New question:

May the director designate an OB area by using "unconnected" objects to define the OB line and plane? By that I mean, can the director use posts, similar to ball golf's OB areas, not attached by a string rope or any physical entity other than the playing surface itself, but that the player, group or official must eye up between the two nearest posts to judge whether the disc is IB or OB?



I don't see why not. While not as clear as a rope, or fence line, it's relatively easy to line up two posts and decide whether a disc is in or out, and it borrows from OB and Hazard stakes of Ball Golf.


If so, would a director be permitted, by rule, to designate the outermost points of a tree as the boundary of an OB area without using string on the playing surface or in the tree to provide a physical representation beyond the points of reference already provided (outermost points)?



I don't see anything preventing this, but I personally think it would a bad idea as branches move in the wind and it's much more difficult to visually draw a vertical plane up and down (I'm assuming disc on ground, and the branches of the tree above a player's head).

In summary, while I agree it could be done the way Nick wants, I don't believe it should as it's likely to cause many problems and disagreement.

--The above statements are my opinion only, and not to be considered an offical response from the RC.

Or are we still talking about stacked playing surfaces?



Specifically, that there is a "default" part of the object used to define the OB line and plane other than the outside edge (i.e. the point nearest the playing surface, etc.).




That depends on the wording of the TD.

If he says "The building is OB", it's vague, and players should ask for clarification. If he says "The walls of the building are the OB line", or "The concrete slab of the building is the OB line", or "The roofline of the building even where it extends over the slab defines the OB line", it's much more clear.

Similarly "The fence is the OB line" is much different than "Where the fence meets the ground defines the OB line".

There is no default OB. The entire universe is In Bounds until the TD specifies otherwise. The rules don't attempt to read the minds of TDs or Course Designers, and make no assumptions about parking lots, trees, buildings, yellow ropes, or any other obstacles. Even water is played as casual by default. The OB line is whatever the director says it is, and therefore it is up to the TD to clearly define what his intentions are, and it's up to the players to seek clarification if the TD isn't clear.

Chuck and Mike, do you now see that you were mistaken about the "default" part of the object used to designate the OB line and plane? That it is the outermost edge?




It's the outermost edge nearest or on the ground. Despite Jim's remarks, there's no way that will be the end result of reasoned discussion within the RC. I can't possibly see the RC calling it any other way than the bottom of the fence being the reference point UNLESS paint is put down that marks a line in reference to a part of the fence or building overhang that's higher off the ground. Leaners only count in horseshoes.

Chuck and Mike, do you now see that you were mistaken about the "default" part of the object used to designate the OB line and plane? That it is the outermost edge?




It's the outermost edge nearest or on the ground. Despite Jim's remarks, there's no way that will be the end result of reasoned discussion within the RC. I can't possibly see the RC calling it any other way than the bottom of the fence being the reference point UNLESS paint is put down that marks a line in reference to a part of the fence or building overhang that's higher off the ground. Leaners only count in horseshoes.



Chuck, please read Jim's post above.

Jim, please read Chuck's post and respond. Also, I purposefully did not add further stipulation to the designation of the "fence" as the OB line. So please answer my question as stated if you could, thanks.

[quoteIf he says "The building is OB", it's vague, and players should ask for clarification. If he says "The walls of the building are the OB line", or "The concrete slab of the building is the OB line", or "The roofline of the building even where it extends over the slab defines the OB line", it's much more clear.

Similarly "The fence is the OB line" is much different than "Where the fence meets the ground defines the OB line".

[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it be better to say "the line where the walls of the building meet the playing surface" or "the line formed by the edge of the concrete slab of the building."?

I'm repeating my opinion from above:

There is no default OB.

The OB line is whatever the director says it is, and therefore it is up to the TD to clearly define what his intentions are, and it's up to the players to seek clarification if the TD isn't clear.

So if you play DG in Australia and the TD doesnt specify, how do you make any shot on any course? Every piece of land 'Down Under' is OB.... Actually, we may have that problem on our continent as well........ :D

Seriously, I hope TD's would define OB as clearly and simply as possible to avoid this potential mess.

That doesn't help when a fence is angled over and the TD said nothing. The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground. 803.01F "...the PRINCIPLES embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness." Rule of Verticality as a guiding PRINCIPLE for example. Marking a lie on the Playing Surface, for example.

Mike, yes, there are better and worse director defined OB Areas. That is not a matter of the rules, that is a matter of proper course design and tournament director instruction.

The default for any OB area is the outside edge of the director designated OB area.

If that is "The Building is OB", then it is the entire building including the roof overhange.

If that is "The seam of where the Building meets the playing surface", then it is the seem of where the building meets the playing surface.

There is no confusion if you understand the larger picture and how an OB area is designated. There is no crack or grey area.

If that is "The Building is OB", then it is the entire building including the roof overhange.



Nope. See post above yours.

That doesn't help when a fence is angled over and the TD said nothing. The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground. 803.01F "...the PRINCIPLES embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness." Rule of Verticality as a guiding PRINCIPLE for example. Marking a lie on the Playing Surface, for example.



Chuck, I respectfully disagree. The whole point of the rule change was so that a disc hitting a fence from the OB side of the fence wouldn't be considered to have crossed in bounds, even if that fence flexes, or leans over the IB portion of the course.

Let's look at Nick's picture again, but assume the disc is left of the leaning fence (clearly in the OB area), but in fact struck the fence during it's flight. You want the OB plane moved to where the fence touches the playing surface which means the disc broke the plane and the player would get to take his next shot from in bounds to the right of the fence.
http://www.madisc.org/graphics/OBFenceLeanIn.jpg

If you as a course designer/TD want this scenario then simply specify that "The OB line is where the fence meets the playing surface". If you don't want this (and the RC didn't), then state "The OB line is the entire thickness of the fence, including any projection of that leaning fence vertically downward onto the playing surface (and upward to infinity or to any other playing surface above it)". Please don't simply state "the fence is the OB line" because that is vague and could be interpreted differently by different people.

The rules don't presume to read the mind of the TD, and the impetus is on the TD to clearly define what he wants.

However, I tend to agree with Jim that there is no default. How are you coming up with this default? Default to Player A may be different for Player B and if different players understand them differently, then you will have inconsistent interpretations and calls. If the TD inadequately designates an OB area, players should not be attempting to read minds, they should ask for a clarification. Best way to avoid this is to mark your OB area on the ground in a visible manner. Anything inside the marked area is OB.

However, I tend to agree with Jim that there is no default. How are you coming up with this default? Default to Player A may be different for Player B and if different players understand them differently, then you will have inconsistent interpretations and calls. If the TD inadequately designates an OB area, players should not be attempting to read minds, they should ask for a clarification. Best way to avoid this is to mark your OB area on the ground in a visible manner. Anything inside the marked area is OB.



The only default I am talking about is the one that is "IN" the rules already. There is no room for interpretation. If there were then Chuck's theories would be just as valid as the actual rules, and clearly they are not. He is making them up out of whole cloth. That is the only confusing going on around here.

If the TD wants the part of the object that defines the OB line and plane to be a specific part of the object, and not outermost edge of the entire object itself, then it is encumbent upon them to "SAY SO" and specify it. If they don't offer further specification, then our rules DO account for it and provide a valid OB line and plane.

Can you give me a cite where I can find this in the rules? Neither the definition of OB, nor 803.09 address a default when OB is inadequately designated by the director.

That doesn't help when a fence is angled over and the TD said nothing. The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground. 803.01F "...the PRINCIPLES embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness." Rule of Verticality as a guiding PRINCIPLE for example. Marking a lie on the Playing Surface, for example.



<font color="blue"> 803.01 General F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.. </font>

How does that rule trump the rules clearly providing definition and proper play concerning Out of Bounds?

How does that make "The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground."?

There is no need for logical extention when we have rules that read like this:

<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc. ...and...
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 in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.07 B and C. </font>

Where in here is your "default" Chuck?

If you are a tournament director and you want the part of a fence closest to the playing surface to be the defining edge for the OB line and plane then you MUST specify such. Our rules do nothing of the sort for you.

Can you give me a cite where I can find this in the rules? Neither the definition of OB, nor 803.09 address a default when OB is inadequately designated by the director.



The fence as a whole, though in your opinion inadequate, can still function as a definer of the OB line and plane.

It does so EXACTLY and PRECISELY the same way a rope on the ground does.

Do you use the part of the rope closest to the playing surface to define the OB line and plane?

How about the inside edge of the rope?

No, you used the outside edge of the rope, even if it happens to rise up off of the playing surface here and there. You do this UNLESS the director stipulates some other criteria. This is the "rule" not the "default".

The whole point of the rule change was so that a disc hitting a fence from the OB side of the fence wouldn't be considered to have crossed in bounds, even if that fence flexes, or leans over the IB portion of the course.



I realize what the RC was trying to do but didn't succeed in the way the rule was written and hasn't provide a Q&A to support a non-intuitive interpretation (The fence flex Q&A is not the same as a leaning fence ruling). There's not a player out there who would accept that disc under the leaning fence in the diagram as OB nor would I expect a Board member to support that interpretation. Get some common sense in here people. The word 'object' is nowhere in the rule so a fence or building cannot be used by themselves as the definition of the OB line without further clarification. If the TD actually stated that the top of the fence was the line then the disc under the leaning fence would be OB but not if the TD just says the fence is the OB line. There's no rules support for that and more support for the ruling I made using the Fairness approach.

If the TD does not adequately specify OB, I agree there is no default specified. Thus, the logic I went thru with 803.01F would be invoked. That's when you're supposed to use that rule.

And if, as in since the dawn of our sport, the TD specifies that the entire fence marks the OB area, you see this as not adequate, is that right?

Please explain why a proper ruling on OB/IB status of the disc could not be determined under such a specification?

You and Jim seem to be suggesting that designating the whole fence as defining the OB area is inadequate or bad form; well I would like to point out that in many cases it is better than stipulating only a part of the fence as OB.

a) If the whole fence specified as the edge of the OB area, then any disc striking the side of the fence within the OB area can be definitely said to never have touched IB at that point. As the new rule was intended to be used.
b) If the bottom of the fence is stipulated as the edge of the OB area, then discs can come to rest on it on the OB side and still be IB.
c) If the bottom of the fence is stipulated as the edge of the OB area, then discs can come to rest on it on the IB side and still be OB.
d) Stipulating the entire object rather than a part or seam makes the object behave exactly and precisely like any string or rope where the edge towards the IB is the edge defining the OB line and plane.

If the director or course designer is going to go to the trouble of putting a string or rope along the bottom of the fence then they would be better advised to put it a good 2 feet inside the fence so as to avoid any of the challenges surrounding objects used to delimit OB other than string and rope.

http://www2.go-concepts.com/~pmyg/pdga/OBFenceLeanIn2.JPG

So for Case "A" above, the rule was changed so that a disc that was OB will stay OB, even if it hits a leaning fence from the OB side. But this interpretation leads to Case "B", which Chuck objects to (and which seems a reasonable objection to me).

Hopefully, Case B is unlikely, because it would be necessary for a fence to lean over by more than the width of a disc for all of a disc to be within OB. But I think the a re-written rule or Q&A should address both Case "A" and Case "B" and make the rulings clear on what is intended by the new rule.

Can you give me a cite where I can find this in the rules? Neither the definition of OB, nor 803.09 address a default when OB is inadequately designated by the director.



The fence as a whole, though in your opinion inadequate, can still function as a definer of the OB line and plane.
<font color="blue">Yes, it can, but not without some clarification on how it defines the line. </font>

It does so EXACTLY and PRECISELY the same way a rope on the ground does.
<font color="blue">I disagree. It does not define it the same way. </font>

Do you use the part of the rope closest to the playing surface to define the OB line and plane?

How about the inside edge of the rope?

No, you used the outside edge of the rope, even if it happens to rise up off of the playing surface here and there. You do this UNLESS the director stipulates some other criteria. This is the "rule" not the "default".

<font color="blue">I don't use rope at all. But I agree that since the OB line itself is OB, and the rope is being used to define the OB line, then by rule the edge of the rope furthest away from the OB area (outside edge) is the point at which IB and OB meet. But this example involves an adequately designated OB area and line. I still say there is no default in the rules for an inadequately defined OB line. </font>

If the fence was called a playing surface and declared out of bounds, then both A & B above would be dealt with intuitively thanks to stacked playing surfaces.

If the fence was repaired or propped up where it was in need of repair prior to the tournament, there would be no problem.

Mike,

What is your definition of adequate?

Mine is if a proper ruling can be made easily.

If an OB area is inadequately defined then an OB ruling is impossible. That is not the case in the fence scenario we have been discussing. You and Chuck are saying that it is inadequate for you is due in large part to you not accepting the part of the rule that makes the outside edge of a boundary object the defining edge of the OB area, OB line and OB plane. Once you can conceptually understand that in 3 dimentions you should be fine, and able to make correct rulings according to our rules of play as they are.

you not accepting the part of the rule that makes the outside edge of a boundary object the defining edge of the OB area, OB line and OB plane



That's because it's not written in the rules, Glossary or Q&A. The word 'object' isn't defined nor is it in the OB rule.

And Krupicka, a playing surface is something that can be played from, i.e. take a stance. If the RC defined just a 'surface' that could be IB/OB and it can project above the playing surface and not be vertical, then the fence issue could be handled. However, I believe TDs will be reluctant to specify the area under an angled fence OB on the IB side of it even if they could with further rules clarification (at risk of public ridicule).

you not accepting the part of the rule that makes the outside edge of a boundary object the defining edge of the OB area, OB line and OB plane



That's because it's not written in the rules, Glossary or Q&A. The word 'object' isn't defined nor is it in the OB rule.




But what is written is <font color="red">"The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds."</font>

Therfore if the entire fence is the line, then it follows the the entire fence, and it's vertical projection downward onto the playing surface is out of bounds.

Mike,

What is your definition of adequate?

Mine is if a proper ruling can be made easily.
<font color="blue"> I agree with that definition. </font>

If an OB area is inadequately defined then an OB ruling is impossible.
<font color="blue">Not impossible, but more difficult to make uniformly amongst players due to ambiguity caused by the inadequacy. </font>
That is not the case in the fence scenario we have been discussing.
<font color="blue">I respectfully disagree.</font>
You and Chuck are saying that it is inadequate for you is due in large part to you not accepting the part of the rule that makes the outside edge of a boundary object the defining edge of the OB area, OB line and OB plane. Once you can conceptually understand that in 3 dimentions you should be fine, and able to make correct rulings according to our rules of play as they are.

<font color="blue">There is no such thing as a boundary object in the rules, and no rule that says the outside edge of an object used to define an OB line is the OB line. There are only OB areas and OB lines mentioned in the rules. The OB plane is mentioned as part of the OB line. Objects can be used to designate OB areas, but there has to be some explanation as to how the object defines the OB line. </font>

Despite the risk of public ridicule, the current rules are rather clear, and there is no need to revert to any rules of fairness to fill in any blanks. There is no need to decide what part of an OB line to use because the definition is clear.

Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.



Those two sentences answer cover everything. They are potentially in the wrong order, but they are there nonetheless.

Consider first "The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds", that says no matter what is used to demark the OB area, the entire width of of the demarker is OB. In other words, the effective (no-width) OB line is at the in bound of the OB demarkation.

Is there any dispute about this interpretation ?

Secondly, "The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward." If the above is true, then the OB line extends a plane vertically upward and downward from inbound edge of whatever demarks the OB area.

There is no gray area requiring the rule of fairness, no ambiguity that requires extrapolation of similar rules. The fact that it leads to counter-intuitive results is not a reson to question to rule either.

The rule is clear, unambigious, and does what the RC intended to do. It just has a couple of unintended consequences.

But what is written is "The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds."




That's right. And you're enough of a math whiz to know that a line is a one dimensional object that mathematically doesn't even have width but we'll give it some for practical reasons. The rule goes on to say that the line produces the vertical plane. No where does it say that a vertical plane (fence) produces the official line on the playing surface.

Consider first "The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds", that says no matter what is used to demark the OB area, the entire width of of the demarker is OB. In other words, the effective (no-width) OB line is at the in bound of the OB demarkation.

Is there any dispute about this interpretation ?




Yes. Because just specifying a 'fence' as the OB demarcation is insufficient. Thus, an interpretation (803.01F) would be required if that's all that is given. However, if a TD says the top or the bottom of a fence creates the OB line then we have our line from which a vertical plane can be produced. If the line is based on the bottom of the fence, then angled fence doesn't move the line position. if the line is based on the top, then we potentially get whacky OB scenarios with angled fences.

That's right. And you're enough of a math whiz to know that a line is a one dimensional object that mathematically doesn't even have width but we'll give it some for practical reasons.



Agreed, on both counts.


The rule goes on to say that the line produces the vertical plane. No where does it say that a vertical plane (fence) produces the official line on the playing surface.



Well if the fence is truly a vertical plane, then there's no problem, right? This whole argument is based on the premise that the fence is not plumb. Otherwise there is no issue, and we're all happy.

Since you agree that our practical line does have thickness (for instance, a rope or paint on the ground), I contend that if the TD is not thinking clearly and states that "the fence is the OB line", that line has some thickness. If the fence is a concrete wall, it's the thickness of the wall, if the fence is a chain link fence that leans, it's the "thickness of the lean" (for lack of a better term).

Finally, since the (thick) line itself is considered OB, the mathmatical line of 0 thickness is where the thick line meets in-bounds, and the plane projects verticaly upward and downward from there (just like in Nick's picture).

Chuck, the objects or seams between objects that define where the OB area, line and plane are what we are discussing.

You are welcome to talk about the OB line and plane as if they exist in the 1st or 2nd dimension, but it does us little good being that we exist in the 3rd one.

But what is written is "The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds."




That's right. And you're enough of a math whiz to know that a line is a one dimensional object that mathematically doesn't even have width but we'll give it some for practical reasons. The rule goes on to say that the line produces the vertical plane. No where does it say that a vertical plane (fence) produces the official line on the playing surface.



That is why I differentiated the OB line that has width from the effective (no width) OB line. If the OB line (must have width since a no-width line is merely a demarkation point and can not have an OB status) is considered OB, the demarkation line must be on the in bounds edge of the line with width.

The sentence you quoted does not specify the line on the playing surface but the other sentence does.

The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward.


Where that vertical plane intersects the playing surface is the demarkation point.

There is no requirement for the marker of an OB line to be on the playing sruface. It is nice that the USDGC has added a string along the ground to the more visible elevated rope, but there is no requirement to do so.

If there is a fence in such disrepair that such a situation could exist, declaring the fence to be the OB line with no additional clarifications would be a very bad thing for the TD to do, but not impossible.

I bow to the greater persuasive powers of Jim and Gary...

Good luck boys!

Well if the fence is truly a vertical plane, then there's no problem, right? This whole argument is based on the premise that the fence is not plumb. Otherwise there is no issue, and we're all happy.




There still might be from Nick's perspective if the fence has a ledge on it that sticks out over IB area.


Since you agree that our practical line does have thickness (for instance, a rope or paint on the ground), I contend that if the TD is not thinking clearly and states that "the fence is the OB line", that line has some thickness.



The only thickness that matters is that which is on the ground. An all the rule change did is shift the IB/OB edge from one side of the line to the other and has nothing to do with the object that was used produced the line.

We had this same angled fence problem in 2005. Nothing changed with the wording for 2006. Moving the IB/OB edge from one side of the line to the other didn't magically change anything for objects above the ground. If the RC wanted to address the angled fence issue, they needed to write something more about non-vertical surfaces above the ground but didn't.

Don't think you're bowing out of this that easily Nick, you grab his knees while Gary and I hit him with a baseball bat.

Consider first "The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds", that says no matter what is used to demark the OB area, the entire width of of the demarker is OB. In other words, the effective (no-width) OB line is at the in bound of the OB demarkation.

Is there any dispute about this interpretation ?




Yes. Because just specifying a 'fence' as the OB demarcation is insufficient. Thus, an interpretation (803.01F) would be required if that's all that is given. However, if a TD says the top or the bottom of a fence creates the OB line then we have our line from which a vertical plane can be produced. If the line is based on the bottom of the fence, then angled fence doesn't move the line position. if the line is based on the top, then we potentially get whacky OB scenarios with angled fences.



No, a fence as the OB demarkation is sufficient, just a bad idea if the fence is in disrepair. The entire width of the OB line is OB regardless of the type of line used or how close to the playing surface it is. Common sense tells us that the farther from the playing surface the line gets, the harder it will be to make an accurate call, but TDs are not required to use common sense.

If as you claim, the line is the base of the fence, we get the equally undesired effect of all discs striking the OB side of the fence where this condition exists as being in bounds where they hit the fence. I would prefer the possibility of being OB against the inside edge to players getting to improve their lie by striking the OB side fo the fence.

But we don't get a choice, the rule is clear as written whether we agree with the outcome or not. Personally, I don't agree with the outcome any more than you do, but the rule is clear.

It is nice that the USDGC has added a string along the ground to the more visible elevated rope, but there is no requirement to do so.




No. But in the process, it made the string the official line and not the yellow rope. If a yellow rope stake got stepped on and shifted the yellow rope out over what was IB area before, the string is still the OB line, not the position of the yellow rope. Imagine the top of a fence as the yellow rope and you'll see that the bottom remains the OB/IB edge, not the top if the fence gets bent over.

The only thickness that matters is that which is on the ground. An all the rule change did is shift the IB/OB edge from one side of the line to the other and has nothing to do with the object that was used produced the line.



This is the crux of the argument. You believe that even in the old version that the OB line had no width, and was just the demarkation point on the playing surface between OB and IB areas. The line is what the TD defines it to be. If it is a 3" wide stripe of paint on the ground, the edge of the sidewalk, or the width of a fence. In the past the effective demarkation point was on the OB edge of whatever defined the line. It was still the object that had recognizable thickness that defined the line, just that is was the OB edge of the object.

Now the effective edge is the inbounds edge. The same things apply. If the TD declares the object, and not a line on the playing surface to be the the OB line, the entire width of the object must be used to define the line. Just as if it was all painted on the ground.

There still might be from Nick's perspective if the fence has a ledge on it that sticks out over IB area.


Fair enough. A plumb chain link fence with a pipe across the top has a thickness greater than the chain itself...


The only thickness that matters is that which is on the ground.


Says you. The rules say nothing about this. You are making an inference which is not there. And in fact that disagrees with the intentions of the RC and (I believe) the wording of the rules.


We had this same angled fence problem in 2005. Nothing changed with the wording for 2006. Moving the IB/OB edge from one side of the line to the other didn't magically change anything for objects above the ground.



I disagree. Prior to the change, it could be argued that contacting the fence (if the fence == the line) from the OB side was considered contacting IB, and the player would get to mark his lie 1m from that point of contact. We no longer have that problem, but a new (opposite) problem, in that a disc could actually cross past the fence, but roll back underneath it, and be considered OB.

It is nice that the USDGC has added a string along the ground to the more visible elevated rope, but there is no requirement to do so.




No. But in the process, it made the string the official line and not the yellow rope. If a yellow rope stake got stepped on and shifted the yellow rope out over what was IB area before, the string is still the OB line, not the position of the yellow rope. Imagine the top of a fence as the yellow rope and you'll see that the bottom remains the OB/IB edge, not the top if the fence gets bent over.



Only because they said it did, not because it was there. If they said in the players meeting that the string was a reference tool, but the official OB line was the rope, the string would be meaningless. The TD in our case has done just that. He said the mainly vertical object was the OB line even in places where it is not vertical.

Don't think you're bowing out of this that easily Nick, you grab his knees while Gary and I hit him with a baseball bat.



PwaHHHH!LOL! Glad you're back Jim.

Any chance of getting an official Q & A about this so we can stop all of this. Folks read this and then show up at the course and say, "Hey, the default is the part of the fence, wall, whatever closest to the playing surface." and spreads like wild fire. Then if you happen to make the right call suddenly you are the Richard or they don't believe you.

Be a Zealot would you and clear all of this up? Please.

Put that list of RC members at the bottom of it and say amen...

The new wording did not solve the angled fence problem. It reduced the number of discs that would get advanced positioning from before, but even then, most fences are close enough to vertical to get away with it.

I've sent email to the rest of the RC with a picture. Not sure whether or not it'll become an official Q&A or not. Nick, If I email you the picture, can you host it?

If he can't, I can.

And Krupicka, a playing surface is something that can be played from, i.e. take a stance. If the RC defined just a 'surface' that could be IB/OB and it can project above the playing surface and not be vertical, then the fence issue could be handled. However, I believe TDs will be reluctant to specify the area under an angled fence OB on the IB side of it even if they could with further rules clarification (at risk of public ridicule).



My intention is to find a simple way for the TD to describe (in the context of the current rules) how the fence should be handled on both sides of it. A playing surface "can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the TD or course official". Declaring the fence as an out of bounds playing surface allows the TD to declare that the out of bounds area includes the fence. The line between the two areas is now where the fence meets the ground. Since the fence is now a playing surface not an object, the out of bounds line is no longer the projection of the fence to the grass on the inward lean thus allowing the discs on the ground on the inbounds side of the fence to be inbounds. The point where a disc strikes the fence could not be used as last in bounds. Discs that are completely suspended on the fence (regardless of direction of lean) would be out of bounds.

I don't disagree with the idea, it's just not a "playing" surface (that you can stand on), but simply a "surface." If wording to that effect had been placed in the new rule, work productivity the past few days might have been saved. :o

I agree with both Krupicka, and Chuck.

No, a fence as the OB demarkation is sufficient, just a bad idea if the fence is in disrepair.



Sufficient to comply with the rule as writtten perhaps, but insufficient, in my opinion, to eliminate confusion, whether the fence is in disrepair or brand new. The rules require OB to be a designated area and suggest that a line be used to delineate the area. While saying "the fence is the OB line" does suggest a line, it doesn't define one. Take the case of a split rail type fence for example. Is it the line created by drawing a line along the outer edge of the support posts? Or is it the centerline of the fence? Without that clarification the OB area has not been adequately designated because the location of the line has not been described in a manner that eliminates other interpretations of where it is exactly.

Ball golf has a standardized way of marking OB. I suggest we find one as well.

Me too.

Are we sure that a director couldn't declare any object on the course a "playing surface"? Even if it doesn't conform to the definition; which is primarily to be used as the default for objects and surfaces NOT defined by the director, right?

This has tremendous potentiality. It is quite different from the discussion of the OB area, line and plane being defined by an object, but it is facinating to think what could be done with it.

Certainly there would be nothing then stoping a object, tree or bush being designated and Out of Bounds "Playing Surface". I still like the idea of using the parameter of the canopy rather than this when a tree of bush stands alone, due to the protective nature of the 1 meter relief out from under the obstacle.

If a director can declare a non-playing surface like a fence or tree an OB playing surface there would be some interesting uses for it. That is a rather big if though.

Do we have another question for the PDGA RC here?

http://www.lsdga.com/images/misc/OBFenceLean2.JPG

Chuck,
In your opinion, if the TD says "the fence is the OB line", what is the status of discs B, C, E, F & G, in this drawing?

Thanks

I've sent email to the rest of the RC with a picture. Not sure whether or not it'll become an official Q&A or not.



I haven't heard back from everyone yet, so I'm not posting the "official answer". I'll just say some varied opinions are coming in.

Under current rules, I would only consider disc D as OB. With the improvement of defining a "surface" (not playing surface) as proposed by Kruzicka, I would then add discs C, E & F to the OB group. That's what I think the RC wanted but needed the additional wording beyond shifting the line to being OB like they did.

For example, I think we had something like this last year. Pretend that the fence disc C is sticking into was an undercut embankment and discs A & B are floating on OB water. I believe under both 2005 & 2006 rules, disc C would be considered IB if it were stuck a little or deep in the embankment.

Jim, why didn't you make the fence go the other way on one of the sides. Basically they are the same thing.

Were you expecting a different answer from Chuck?

http://www.lsdga.com/images/misc/OBFenceLean3.JPG

My list of discs that are In bounds with fence declared as OB line.

Intuitive: A, B, C, G, H
Current Rule (full width of OB line is OB): A, B, H
Previous Rule (full width of OB line is IB): A, B, C, D, F, G, H
If OB line is declared to be the base of the fence: A, B, C, D, H

My list of discs that are In bounds with fence declared as OB line.

Intuitive: A, B, C, G, H
Current Rule (full width of OB line is OB): A, B, H
Previous Rule (full width of OB line is IB): A, B, C, D, F, G, H
If OB line is declared to be the base of the fence: A, B, C, D, H



And if fence is declared as an OB (playing) surface : A, B, C, H

My list of discs that are In bounds with fence declared as OB line.

Intuitive: A, B, C, G, H



Is G "intuitively" out? It made it across the fence, though not all the way past it...

Intuitively G should be in as it is on the inbounds side of the fence. If we could treat the out of bounds area as a 3d space as opposed to a 2d area marked on the playing surface, we might get closer to the intuitive ruling. To add to your drawing, vertical lines would be drawn up from the top of the fence and the OB space would be bounded the fence and these lines.

I'm sure there are way too many problems with declaring OB as a 3d space that I don't think we really want to go there.

My list of discs that are In bounds with fence declared as OB line.

Intuitive: A, B, C, G, H



Is G "intuitively" out? It made it across the fence, though not all the way past it...



Nevermind. I missread that. I agree G should be in, though I don't think that's necessarily true with the current rule as written.

E, F & G are OB under old and new rules. D & G would be OB under Krupicka's 'surface' rule unless TD could specify one side as OB and the other side IB. Then, G would be IB.

Under the old rule, If the fence was the OB line, G is on the line and touching the line is safe.

Only under the unwritten rule that the OB line is where the fence meets the playing surface is G OB under the old rule.

Under the old rule, If the fence was the OB line, G is on the line and touching the line is safe.




In MN we haven't considered objects, just lines, as having OB/IB status so G isn't touching or crossing the true IB line. We've had a lot of experience with whacky hockey rink boards and orange plastic snow fencing which are rarely vertical in public parks so using vertical lines referenced from the ground (per the rules) has been pretty well drilled in. In addition, we always allowed chainlink fence hits to be considered as last point IB regardless of which side also (before 2006).

<font color="blue"> And </font> <font color="green">now we know our </font> <font color="red"> A </font> <font color="purple"> B </font> <font color="red"> Cs... </font> :D

Under the old rule, If the fence was the OB line, G is on the line and touching the line is safe.




In MN we haven't considered objects, just lines, as having OB/IB status so G isn't touching or crossing the true IB line. We've had a lot of experience with whacky hockey rink boards and orange plastic snow fencing which are rarely vertical in public parks so using vertical lines referenced from the ground (per the rules) has been pretty well drilled in. In addition, we always allowed chainlink fence hits to be considered as last point IB regardless of which side also (before 2006).



I just re-read the '97 rules, and there was nothing in there about a line having to be on the ground either. The line was what the TD said it was. Projecting to the playing surface from the lowest point has never been codified.

Under the old rule, If the fence was the OB line, G is on the line and touching the line is safe.




In MN we haven't considered objects, just lines, as having OB/IB status so G isn't touching or crossing the true IB line. We've had a lot of experience with whacky hockey rink boards and orange plastic snow fencing which are rarely vertical in public parks so using vertical lines referenced from the ground (per the rules) has been pretty well drilled in. In addition, we always allowed chainlink fence hits to be considered as last point IB regardless of which side also (before 2006).



I just re-read the '97 rules, and there was nothing in there about a line having to be on the ground either. The line was what the TD said it was. Projecting to the playing surface from the lowest point has never been codified.



Irrelevant Gary. It has been codified, solidified and bonified in Chuck's mind... ;)

Projecting to the playing surface from the lowest point has never been codified.




I would guess it didn't dawn on earlier Rules Committees that anyone would interpret a fence and the resulting line from the bottom any other way, unless specified. They are starting to realize that common sense is slipping away and has to be codified.

Common sense must be codified.

As you said, in your area, contact with the OB side of a fence was considered IB. It was common sense here that contact with the OB side of a fence was OB.

As you said, in your area, contact with the OB side of a fence was considered IB.



No. We played it how Climo played it. When the OB side of a chainlink fence is struck, we gave the benefit of the doubt to the player that the IB/OB plane was instantaneously broken. That was true until the RC wrote the recent Q&A that for the first time allowed the vertical plane to flex with the fence and disallow a disc from the OB side to break the plane.

In MN we haven't considered objects, just lines



Same question for you as for Mike, Chuck: By what method do you define the "line" of which you speak?

Was it there 6000 years ago when God created it, or are PDGA Tournament Directors required to specify them using some physical and decernable reference?

In rereading the definition within the rules I am re-convinced that it is adequate and precise. <font color="blue"> 800 Definitions
Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc. </font> It takes effort to misconstue the meaning, and once the actual meaning has been pointed out there should be no possible misconception left.

<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions
Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. <font color="green"> The director does this by designating the area using either a seam between two different surfaces or by using an object (string, rope, any discernable object). This is a practical matter, since there simply is no other method available to designate an area.</font> The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. <font color="green"> Which means that the OB line extends a plane vertically upward and downward from that seam or object. </font> The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds.<font color="green"> This means that the object itself is considered part of the out of bounds area, which makes its outer most edge, the edge away from the out of bounds area the actual edge or line of the out of bounds area (unless the director specifically stipulates another part of the object to be that defining edge). If it were not talking about the object defining the OB line then there would be no need to include this in the language of the definition.</font> An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc. <font color="green"> Explicitly not allowing the use of out of bounds (in cases not otherwise described in the rules (i.e. water) to undermine our lost disc rule. If you can't locate your disc in an out of bounds area then the lost disc rule applies. </font> </font>

As you said, in your area, contact with the OB side of a fence was considered IB.



No. We played it how Climo played it. When the OB side of a chainlink fence is struck, we gave the benefit of the doubt to the player that the IB/OB plane was instantaneously broken. That was true until the RC wrote the recent Q&A that for the first time allowed the vertical plane to flex with the fence and disallow a disc from the OB side to break the plane.



And since the rule change where the fence IS part of the OB line, it would be virtually impossible for the disc to touch in bounds because as the fence flexes, so does the OB line. Another reason to use the whole fence as the defining of the OB line rather than just the top or bottom.

Another reason to use the whole fence as the defining of the OB line rather than just the top or bottom.



I'm not against this. My whole argument throughout this is that the revised rules still don't address this properly because objects and non-horizontal surfaces cannot expressly have IB or OB status. There's still a line on the playing surface that produces the IB/OB vertical plane (which is now on the other side of the line) with the only exception being the flex fence Q&A. Get it written in the rules or Q&A and we'll all be closer to the same page.

Another reason to use the whole fence as the defining of the OB line rather than just the top or bottom.



I'm not against this. My whole argument throughout this is that the revised rules still don't address this properly because objects and non-horizontal surfaces cannot expressly have IB or OB status. There's still a line on the playing surface that produces the IB/OB vertical plane (which is now on the other side of the line) with the only exception being the flex fence Q&A. Get it written in the rules or Q&A and we'll all be closer to the same page.



Chuck, seems like your challenge with understanding this rule is that you do not register or recognize the method by which a director designates an out of bounds area. The OB line is no defined exclusively by where the OB plane intersects the playing surface; it is designated or defined by the physical 3D object or seam between two surfaces that the director says it is.

The actual OB line exists throughout the OB plane, which is defined by the outermost edge of the object used to define it or by the seam between to surfaces. The line does not define it on the ground where the OB plane intersects it, no more than the branch of a tree 20 feet above outermost edge of the object defining the OB line defines it. The ground and the tree branch are defined by the edge of the object or seam, not the other way around.

This is true even with a string strung along the playing surface. If the string moves the OB line doesn't stay on the playing surface below where the line "was", it is always going to be defined by where the outside edge of the string "is".

The imaginary line and plane that extend from the actual edge of the object or intersecting surfaces is what defines the OB line, not the points or playing surface the plane intersects.

Yes, I know that I am being repetitive, but it seems warranted. The key to getting this rule (Out of Bounds) is to understand that it is the �physical representation� stipulated by the director that defines the OB line and upon which the OB plane is based and finally this that allows rulings to be made that are not on the same horizontal plane as the actual object or seam defining the OB.

Perhaps Jim or Gary could present this in a nice sound bite version.

Projecting to the playing surface from the lowest point has never been codified.




I would guess it didn't dawn on earlier Rules Committees that anyone would interpret a fence and the resulting line from the bottom any other way, unless specified. They are starting to realize that common sense is slipping away and has to be codified.



The blades of grass, dirt or stones beneath a fence (or rope) are incapable of defining anything but their own existance; that is without a polarizing object or seam to base the distinction on. Without an specified object or seam between two surfaces there is nothing to codify and there can be by definition no OB plane, line or area.

Chuck isn't challenged here. Having a different opinion is not indicative of intellectual or comprehensional challenge.

We need to show respect for one another in order to have successful, productive debates.

Chuck isn't challenged here. Having a different opinion is not indicative of intellectual or comprehensional challenge.

We need to show respect for one another in order to have successful, productive debates.



Whoa! What a surprise! When you are left with no ground to stand on as concerns the premise of your "argument" you attempt to make this personal.

Never seen that before here on the message board...


your challenge with understanding this rule is that


Is completely different from saying Chuck is intellectually or comprehensionally "challenged".

I know Chuck. I respect Chuck. I like Chuck. Chuck is my friend. We talk. Now I'm not saying that we don't question eachothers intellect or vantage point from time to time, but isn't that normal between friends? If Chuck was truly insulted he'd let me know and I'd apologize immediately and clarify my intent.

That is a lot different from a perfect stranger coming on here and accusing me of insulting others or insulting me directly without the slightest clue as to who I am; at least in my opinion it is.

That being said, I appreciate your intent to keep things civil here and on topic.

To that end are you ready to admit that you were completely mistaken as concerns the OB line? :o:D;)

I had a detailed response prepared, then thought better of it. Let's not take up space here to debate the issue of whether you insulted Chuck or not. I don't feel that it would result in any agreeable conclusions. If you want to PM me about it, I would be willing to debate it there.

But to respond to your request, I cannot admit to something that I know to be untrue. My argument all along has been that the rules require OB areas to be designated and that the rules also suggest that the manner in which to designate OB areas is through use of a line. This is suggested by the frequent mention of an OB line in the rules. How to establish that line is what we are debating here. And though we may have differing opinions on how best to establish that line, that does not make me (nor you for that matter) "completely mistaken" or "left with no ground to stand on" (sic) and I think you know that. Those remarks are inflammatory and counterproductive to the mutual respect necessary to debate issues in a constructive and courteous manner.

I don't care if you disagree with me and think I'm completely wrong, but to declare such as fact is the wrong approach.

A more correct version would be

"Chuck's challenge in understanding my interpretation of this rule is that"

And it is the same thing that I see. If there is a line defined on the ground, or the TD stated that the line was where the fence met (or came closest to) the playing surface, or the TD declared the fence line (which is stable and not related to abnormalities in the fence) then he would be correct.

The pseudo-fact that the fictious TD in question designated the fence (a semi-stable surface) as the OB line precludes a fixed, straight, or in some cases even a reasonable line on the ground.

Debating facts is a waste of time.

From what I can see, these are the accepted facts.

The OB line itself is now considered to be out, so the imaginary line of no width that determines the effective seam between OB and IB territory is now on the IB side of the physical OB line that has width (or else it could not be seen).

Discs must be competely surrounded by OB area in order to be called OB.

Objects (that are not playing surfaces) do not have an OB/IB status independent of a playing surface.

Principle under debate.

If an object is used to define the OB line, the entire object is considered OB and the OB/IB status of the playing surface below it is determined by the vertical shadow of the object.

Concepts that are being used to debunk the above principle.

All OB lines must be represented by lines on the playing surface.

All OB lines must be stable (not moving during play).

Objects can not be used as OB lines.

Concepts in support of the principle

What the TD declares the OB line to be is what defines the OB plane. The rules do not specify what can or can not be used, nor do they specify that the line needs to be on a playing surface.

Water lines are often used to mark OB, and the water line is constantly moving on most sizable bodies of water. While most agree that using an unstable line is not preferable, it is not against any rule.

I had a detailed response prepared, then thought better of it. Let's not take up space here to debate the issue of whether you insulted Chuck or not. I don't feel that it would result in any agreeable conclusions. If you want to PM me about it, I would be willing to debate it there.

But to respond to your request, I cannot admit to something that I know to be untrue. My argument all along has been that the rules require OB areas to be designated and that the rules also suggest that the manner in which to designate OB areas is through use of a line. This is suggested by the frequent mention of an OB line in the rules. How to establish that line is what we are debating here. And though we may have differing opinions on how best to establish that line, that does not make me (nor you for that matter) "completely mistaken" or "left with no ground to stand on" (sic) and I think you know that. Those remarks are inflammatory and counterproductive to the mutual respect necessary to debate issues in a constructive and courteous manner.

I don't care if you disagree with me and think I'm completely wrong, but to declare such as fact is the wrong approach.



My bad Mike. I didn't follow my own advice and tried to joke around with you. My apology.

What is your contention concerning this rule that is different than mine? I think I got it, but I'd like to be sure. Do you understand what Jim, Gary and I are saying?

Debating facts is a waste of time.

From what I can see, these are the accepted facts.

The OB line itself is now considered to be out, so the imaginary line of no width that determines the effective seam between OB and IB territory is now on the IB side of the physical OB line that has width (or else it could not be seen).

Discs must be competely surrounded by OB area in order to be called OB.

Objects (that are not playing surfaces) do not have an OB/IB status independent of a playing surface.

Principle under debate.

If an object is used to define the OB line, the entire object is considered OB and the OB/IB status of the playing surface below it is determined by the vertical shadow of the object.

Concepts that are being used to debunk the above principle.

All OB lines must be represented by lines on the playing surface.

All OB lines must be stable (not moving during play).

Objects can not be used as OB lines.

Concepts in support of the principle

What the TD declares the OB line to be is what defines the OB plane. The rules do not specify what can or can not be used, nor do they specify that the line needs to be on a playing surface.

Water lines are often used to mark OB, and the water line is constantly moving on most sizable bodies of water. While most agree that using an unstable line is not preferable, it is not against any rule.



A most excellent and accurate synopsis from which to proceed.

What is your contention concerning this rule that is different than mine? I think I got it, but I'd like to be sure. Do you understand what Jim, Gary and I are saying?



I think primarily we differ on how best to define the OB line. I think that you and Jim and Gary have said that designating a fence as the OB line is sufficient, and while I agree that satisfies the current requirement under the rules, I feel that further clarification should be given as to how that fence creates the OB line.

I think coming up with a standardized way to designate an OB area would be a good thing. The ball golfers use of stakes I believe is universal from course to course around the country (maybe even in Scotland too!). I don't think stakes would work as well for disc golf because I think we need a continuous line in order to call a disc in or out of bounds.

The ball golfers use of stakes I believe is universal from course to course around the country (maybe even in Scotland too!).



Good enough for daily play but they do mark continuous paint lines for tournaments.

I think primarily we differ on how best to define the OB line. I think that you and Jim and Gary have said that designating a fence as the OB line is sufficient...



Not sure if I'd agree that it's "sufficient". My argument is that the TD should be very clear about the line, but it all he does is state "the fence is the line" with no further clarification, the logical assumption is that the entire fence (and any lean) defines the thickness of the line. Since Chuck and others disagree, it's obvious that the TD wasn't sufficiently clear, and he should state exactly what he means whether it's my interpretation, or Chuck's; he needs to be clear so everyone plays it the same way.

I think primarily we differ on how best to define the OB line. I think that you and Jim and Gary have said that designating a fence as the OB line is sufficient, and while I agree that satisfies the current requirement under the rules, I feel that further clarification should be given as to how that fence creates the OB line.



I don't think we differ very much on that topic. Defining the fence as the OB line without further explanation is a bad idea. We are just trying to iron out how the current rules work in that imperfect situation. Once that is determined, we may start to work on finding ways to get it to work the way we think it should work.

If we can manage that, we may submit a proposal to the RC for consideration as a Q&A or a change for the next rules update.

The unfortunate thing is that unless TDs have tracked this discussion, most would be unfamiliar with the issues if players bring up this problem at a player meeting or a call has to be made in the event of unknown fence problems that are discovered during the event.

Educating yourself about the rules is an ongoing process involving effort, just like learning how to play disc golf. If you just rely on things you hear out on the course from other folks that haven't really worked at knowing the rules you are likely to get all sorts of misconceptions. Just look at the discussions here, where folks have access to the PDGA Rules Committee and Rules online...

The point of the OB Rule that I would like to make, emphatically, is that even though Chuck and Mike may "dislike" or find it "inappropriate" to use certain obstacles as the defining parameter for the OB Area, does not add up to confusion over what an OB Area is and how it is defined; both of which are explicitly defined and stated within our rules of play.

Whatever condition the fence or object is in will define the boundary, gaps and all. The physical object if declared as a whole, and no further specification (as to just a part of it) is given, defines the OB area, line and plane by it's outermost edge (period and end of discussion).

That some of us would prefer some alterior definition or default part of the defining object, other than the outside edge, is a different discussion. That is one of reform and we certainly can discuss it in those terms. But we should be careful not to add fuel to the fire of rules disinformation by making stuff up off the tops of our heads.

The point of the OB Rule that I would like to make, emphatically, is that even though Chuck and Mike may "dislike" or find it "inappropriate" to use certain obstacles as the defining parameter for the OB Area, does not add up to confusion over what an OB Area is and how it is defined; both of which are explicitly defined and stated within our rules of play.




That's because the rules DO NOT use the word "object" as an appropriate reference for defining the OB line or area, just a specific edge of the object. If the RC amends that or adds a Q&A, then fine and dandy. But not until then.

That's because the rules DO NOT use the word "object" as an appropriate reference for defining the OB line or area, just a specific edge of the object. If the RC amends that or adds a Q&A, then fine and dandy. But not until then.



The rules do not specify anything as to how OB lines are defined. There is no reference to the playing surface or height above the playing surface. As stated in the rules, the OB line is itself OB, and projects a vertical plane up and down. That would include anything directly above or below the OB line in the OB area. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that allows for anything above or below an OB area to be ruled as in bounds except for the provisions in the multiple playing surface Q&A.

The point of the OB Rule that I would like to make, emphatically, is that even though Chuck and Mike may "dislike" or find it "inappropriate" to use certain obstacles as the defining parameter for the OB Area, does not add up to confusion over what an OB Area is and how it is defined; both of which are explicitly defined and stated within our rules of play.




That's because the rules DO NOT use the word "object" as an appropriate reference for defining the OB line or area, just a specific edge of the object. If the RC amends that or adds a Q&A, then fine and dandy. But not until then.



It need not be included. Please explain to us how an OB area could be defined without the use of an object or seam to make "manifest" the OB parameter?

You can't can you?

Thus, in this discussion, and within our rules it is accepted that objects or seams, existing in the 3 dimensional world, most of us (not all), find ourselves a part of are what are used to define the parameters of an OB area. The OB line does not exist independently of the object or seam that defines it. It is wholely dependent upon it.

Of this there simply is no worthwhile debate.

It need not be included. Please explain to us how an OB area could be defined without the use of an object or seam to make "manifest" the OB parameter?

You can't can you?




It's called a "line" which interestingly is what the rules describe as the method to define the OB area.

Perhaps Nick is pointing out that string is an object used to define an OB line, as is a fence. Both are objects used to define an OB line. However, paint can be used to define an OB line and paint is a substance, not an object, so I think I found an answer to Nick's question.

That being said, shouldn't we focus on discussing how best to define an OB line used to designate an OB area, than on what constitutes an object?

It need not be included. Please explain to us how an OB area could be defined without the use of an object or seam to make "manifest" the OB parameter?

You can't can you?




It's called a "line" which interestingly is what the rules describe as the method to define the OB area.



:confused:

Define the word "the". (Bill Clinton)

So, you are saying that you cannot have an OB area without a line, and that the line cannot be defined by an object ?

So, you are saying that you cannot have an OB area without a line,


Yes


and that the line cannot be defined by an object ?




A specified edge of an object CAN define the line. The line itself cannot be the object. Most or all of the object might be on the OB side of the line.

Part of the problem in the OB rule is that the line in 2005 was not truly IB and the line in 2006 is not truly OB. The object edge, string or paint defines the OB/IB plane but is not itself the plane. It's that interface of no thickness between IB & OB that is actually the line. To truly be precise, the 2006 rule should be written such that the marking device or object edge used to define the IB/OB line/plane is on the OB side of that line. In 2005, it happened to be on the IB side of the IB/OB line/plane. The paint, string or object providing the edge is not itself the IB/OB line and never has been. The edge of them produces the true line/plane.

The line itself cannot be the object.



Why not?

If a rope is the line...