This weekend the following situation came up, and I think the group played it correctly:

Tee shot went into the partially hollowed tree stump of a redwood. The top of the stump was <2 m high, and inside the stump (about 4 diameter) was forest duff and enough footing to take a comfortable stance. This surface was also about 40 cm lower than the top of the stump. The group said it was not a 2 m penalty (disc above the playing surface) since it was <2 m high. AND we said the space INSIDE the trunk was a legal playing surface. The player took a legal stance INSIDE (or atop?) the redwood stump and played with no penalty.

Since the TD did not say these trunks were or were not part of the playing surface, we assumed they were.

I think that was correct play according to the rules. What do you think? :D

It also made me think whether there is a lower limit to the diameter of a stump where it is no longer considered a playing surface?

Cheers,
Steve


803.08 Disc Above the Playing Surface

A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.09. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle. {not all of it copied}

I think the player could have played on the actual playing surface below on a line behind the stump, without penalty. The 803.08 rule is specifically for situations like the one you mentioned and typically occurs when a discs gets wedged in the crotch of a double tree trunk. Sometimes that wedgie is low enough that a player could actually place their foot there to take stance. But they don't have to because it doesn't meet the criteria for a playing surface which is essentially a surface which is either designed for or commonly used for walking traffic, and 803.08 allows no penalty relief. Now, if the TD specifically declares that special situation in redwood trunks as playing surfaces, the stance your group required would have been fine.

Hi Chuck,

I agree that in most cases a person in a stump could/should take a stance behind the stump, without penalty. Given the TD made no mention of playing inside of very large stumps, we assumed by default that it was the playing surface.

Part of my question revolves around what can be considered the playing surface.

PDGA definition =
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.

This definition makes no mention of criteria other than usually it is the ground. In fact, in my reading of it, it is anything UNLESS deemed not so by the TD. So, if the TD doesn't say anything, and you can easily stand on something natural (e.g., a large, rotted log or a slab of stone sticking up from the dirt, etc....), I assume it is the playing surface if you can walk on it or stand on it or put a finger on it (i.e. take a legal stance). Usually, man-made things (e.g., picnic tables, benches, play structures) are covered by the TD during a player's meeting. But rarely do I hear about natural objects. And players will vociferously argue about whether you can stand on a fallen log or not to take your stance! :o

Anyways, thanks for the input. I appreciate it.

Cheers,
Steve

In this case, the 803.08 rule states that a disc being suspended in a tree is not on a playing surface. And that ruling is not in conflict with the Playing Surface definition.

Hi Chuck,

I agree, this was definitely in a tree. But we also have stumps that have been ground down almost to the level of the dirt. If a disc slides/lands on top of a low-lying stump, one that is regularly walked on, is that not still suspended by a tree, and therefore above the playing surface?

I am not trying to be argumentative--my intent is to better understand when to apply 803.08 and when it does not apply.

Thanks!
Steve

The related question relates to roots that are bulging from the earth. Does one get relief, i.e. more then 30cm back to stand on the ground rather than the uncomfortable stance of a root underfoot? Can one stand on the root to get better footing on a slippery slope?

A ground down stump is a tree that has been modified to become a walkable surface so you would take a stance from that position. The roots situation gets into the realm of whether it is bigh enough to qualify as a solid object to get free relief behind it to take a stance.

Hi Chuck,

If one were to remove 'intent' related to the stump (i.e., it may have been cut low to the ground for reasons other than allowing people to walk on it, or reduced in height with a grinder to reduce the likelihood of re-growth), is the determination of 'playing surface or not' a function of common sense as called by the group? That is, if one can walk/stand on it safely, and the TD made no indication to the contrary, it should be considered the 'playing surface'? And, of course, it is in accordance with other applicable rules.

The reason I ask is that different groups would likely make different calls when faced with the same situation. And in some cases, a potentially less favorable (but agreed upon) lie would be played in one instance, while another group would play it where it lies (possibly a more favorable position). It could be the difference between an extra stroke for one of the groups.

In this particular case, putting from inside the stump provided a 30 ft birdie shot. Had the person marked the lie behind the stump, a birdie was highly unlikely (essentially the stump was in the way).

Ultimately this could have been addressed in the player's meeting by the TD and then no one is unclear. :D

Thanks again,
Steve

The confusing part in this case is that there's a specific rule regarding tree trunks and other solid objects that allows the player to mark outside the trunk if it's not clear that the spot inside it is not truly a playing surface as determined by the group. The common sense interpretation has been that a 'playing surface' can be naturally walked on or is designed to be walked on or you can reasonably stand on. Benefit of the doubt is given to the player in the case of things like roots above the ground.

happy b- day chuck