Situation: Surrounding a short par 3's basket are several sand bunkers that are OB. The OB is defined by a plastic border.

A player lands in the bunker. The disc goes into the sand and part of it protrudes under the plastic border, still 100% in the sand of the bunker, but, the player claims to be in bounds since part of his disc is underneath the in-bounds grass above. The player's disc is not touching any grass or any surface that is in-bounds though.

The player pulls a jedi mind trick on the rest of the group and claims he is in-bounds due to the "rule of verticality". The group, being full of quote-unquote "professional disc golfers" (pardon my oxymoron), of course has no idea what the correct ruling is since the pDGA doesn't require pros to know the rules and/or pass any rules test to play on the national tour.

Question: Was the player in or out? hint: you may want to read the Rules Q&A on this website before answering.

Next Question: Why is the pDGA Rules Committee too lazy to incorporate their Rules Q&A into the pDGA rulebook, so that maybe the tour can have a more level, fair playing field where all the players know the rules and are capable in any and every group of calling them correctly?

Follow-up Bonus Question: Is the Rules Committee just that busy hustling their immensely profitable Innova products 24/7 to welcome a fresh volunteer onto their committee to clarify this rule and several others once and for all?

I would say the disc is OB based on the overhang principle. It's not uncommon for the edge of a body of OB water to undercut the bank. If the disc is completely surrounded by water but part of it is vertically under the overhang, it's still OB even though a disc landing on the overhang is considered IB. If the disc slid under the plastic but is still surrounded by sand it should be OB unless the TD specified that the plastic was the line vertically below it.

RC doesn't determine whether the Q&A goes in the Rulebook. PDGA HQ and the Board decide based on cost of reprinting in between rulebook updates.

so, the cost of reprinting rules is more than the cost of creating a better, more foolproof rulebook? now that's an organization with some real principles.

a million dollar budget and we can't get a level playing field. your score too often depends on who is in your group.

a million dollar budget and we still can't get a Rules Committee that can give this sport some credibility. what diety must rise from the grave before the RC realizes the damage they do to this sport every day that they let unfair competition continue?

the RC probably can't hear the complaints over the sound of the cash registers ringing up sales at Innova HQ.

aannnddd mike is back!!!!!!! let the games begin :D :p :D

Having the Q&A in the rulebook wouldn't really change things that much other than making it bigger and less likely to be carried in peoples bags. Making decisions like this is why we have TD's and officials at tournaments. So long as a decision is the same in any particular tournament, the playing field remains pretty level. I guess it's just eternal optimism on my part though...

Provisional. Talk to the TD after the round.

Having the Q&A in the rulebook wouldn't really change things that much other than making it bigger and less likely to be carried in peoples bags. Making decisions like this is why we have TD's and officials at tournaments. So long as a decision is the same in any particular tournament, the playing field remains pretty level. I guess it's just eternal optimism on my part though...



I would say that's eternally-doomed-to-fail optimism unfortunately. This sport has not been around long enough to work out all the kinks in it's rules. Thus, we have the problems illustrated by the discussions herein and the varying interpretations thereof.

I'm certain that one day rules interpretations will be fairly consistent from case to case. I also feel that having all the rules in one book, along with the "case law" decisions (Q & A) is key to that goal.

Well, If my disc is in a tree and I can play from underneath it with no penalty, I can see what this guy is getting at. But on the other hand, the tree is not always out of bounds, like the marked bunker is.

That's always made me think too. If I can play under my disc in a tree for no penalty (from the fairway), It would seem that the "lie" goes up and down on an invisible column, and I can simply play this lie from the ground. But if my disc is in a tree directly above the basket, it doesn't count as a made shot because it's not supported by the target, but if I wanted to mark the disc, it could essentially be in the basket, on this "column of a lie"

Now that makes sense to me, but I may not have explained very well? I just wanted to share my thoughts on this "Rule of Verticality"

I had this happen to me at TX states two weeks ago. I didn't argue it because I don't think I would have been proud to get away with it but my disc was past the line due to it being pushed up under about a 4-6in outcropping which the line was painted on. Basically my disc slid under the line but was still in the bunker.

With that said I hate having bunkers on the course that are OB even though there is no BG played there.

The rule of verticality is only in effect until it reaches another playing surface when there are stacked multiple playing surfaces. Check the Rules Q&A regarding Bridge Over OB.

The basket is not a playing surface so marking it in the basket directly down from the tree couldn't be done. Since the bunker is a playing surface as is the grass lip over it, the OB marked on the grass does not go downward to the bunker and the bunker OB line only goes upward until it reaches the grass playing surface. So discs completely in the bunker are OB even if under the grass OB line (or plastic marker in the case of UPM example).

I am guessing he is referring to a ruling made here in BG over the weekend. There are some sand bunkers on Hole 18 at White Park. The disc landed in the bunker, but penetrated underneath the black wire. Basically, the disc was like this...

In Bounds
---------------O---------------
OB

The TD cited the Rule of Verticality, and that the disc was therefore in bounds according to him.

Had the TD said before the event started that the plastic wire line would be the reference going downward regardless of a lower playing surface, then the ruling would have been correct. If not, then the TD was incorrect with that ruling based on the Rules Q&A.

Had the TD said before the event started that the plastic wire line would be the reference going downward regardless of a lower playing surface, then the ruling would have been correct. If not, then the TD was incorrect with that ruling based on the Rules Q&A.




Which is not in the rule book.

The rulebook is only for the sport in general. The Rules Q&A and Competition manual in addition to the rulebook are specified as official documents in force for PDGA sanctioned competition, just like the PGA has competition rules that aren't in the USGA Rules of Golf.

Yes, the Competition manual is in force, but the Q&A is not. Nothing in the Rules or the Competition manual specify that the Q&A is an additional rule book. They are merely guidelines for interpreting the rules. If you can show otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Rule of Verticality is in the rulebook. Multiple playing surfaces each with their own vertical reference plane require an interpretation on how to resolve this difference which the Q&A provides. It's not a new rule but the way to resolve conflicting verticals defined in the rulebook.

You avoided the question. Your statement: "The Rules Q&A and Competition manual in addition to the rulebook are specified as official documents in force for PDGA sanctioned competition"
Where is the Rules Q&A specified as an official document in force for PDGA sanctioned competition?

It's not stated as official but provides the interpretations of the rules where needed. In this case, the rulebook is still sufficient, but the Q&A helps TDs provide a consistent decision faster. I'm asking Dave to add the Rules Q&A to the sanctioning docs to eliminate this "loophole."

Then please refrain from making statements that the Q&A is an official document in force during tournaments.

If the Q&A is added to the sanctioning doc, then there needs to be better methods for announcing changes to the Q&A rather than people randomly looking at the Q&A to see if something might have been posted. Also, the URL of the page that contains all of the Q&A on one page should be made available to more than just a couple of us that have found it. Even then, the sanctioning document is only seen by the TDs. Players at large would need to be informed that there are new rules in addition to the rules in the Rules book (e.g. limiting small pads under knees to a maximum of 1 cm.)

It's as official as any other document that indicates PDGA policy. Not every doc is referenced somewhere as "official" but they are because "unofficial" things don't get posted by PDGA officials unless indicated as such (new ideas, proposals, etc). I don't disagree that it could be updated in a better manner. But to hide behind that lack of officialness in writing as a way to negate the Q&As usefulness is unnecessary.

After asking Dave about this, I've just heard back that dealing with better Rule Q&A communications will be a topic for the upcoming Summit meeting in two weeks.

It's not stated as official but provides the interpretations of the rules where needed. In this case, the rulebook is still sufficient, but the Q&A helps TDs provide a consistent decision faster. I'm asking Dave to add the Rules Q&A to the sanctioning docs to eliminate this "loophole."

That's really the bottom line. The TDs agree to follow the Official Rules, the Competition Manual and the Tour Standards documents. They don't agree to follow the Q&A. The Q&A is an official commentary on the rules issued by the rules committee, but the rules committee does not have unilateral power to adopt or modify any rules.