brock
May 12 2010, 11:18 PM
I know you can't stand in OB when you throw, and you get 1 meter relief no penalty from OB. But, i'm not sure i understand the rule of verticality as it pertains to this (if at all.)

scenario: Disc is leaning against the fence (over fence is OB), player takes his 1 meter relief from fence, but as he crouches to putt, his butt touches fence. Is this a legal stance?

What if there is no fence, but a sidewalk that is OB. As player crouches to putt, his feet are IB, but his butt is now hanging over OB. Is that legal?

I looked in the rule book, can't find the answer. Just doesn't seem legal to me.

We ruled it was "ok" and watched him can this sweet 45 footer to win by a stroke on the last hole!

HUGGY
May 13 2010, 12:46 AM
I can't find the rule but you are not allowed to support yourself against an object while throwing or putting, ie a tree , fence, bridge. As far as you second question if feet are in but his rear was hanging over but not touching the it's allowed.....If I'm correct

curt
May 13 2010, 02:09 AM
There is no rule that prevents a ruler from using anything completely behind the line of play for support. What makes the fence in this scenario questionable is its status of "out of bounds" or not. The rules now state that the line is out of bounds, and the answer to the original question depends a little bit on how the TD defines the course. If the TD says, the fence is out of bounds, then you can't touch it. If, on the other hand, the TD paints a line on the ground, that is out of bounds. If the line is actually inside the fence, then you could use it as a supporting point.

Recap: For the most part, you would not be allowed to use a fence defining the OB line as a supporting point.

The stance rule states that a player must have all of his "supporting points" in bounds. There aren't any restrictions on non-supporting points (a.k.a- the rest of your body that isn't touching the ground, or any other OB object)

I would also argue that the "Rule of Verticality" only applies to the act of marking your disc. The language is pretty specific and refers specifically to the act of marking a disc that was out of bounds.

bruceuk
May 13 2010, 07:49 AM
I can't find the rule but...

In recorded history has there ever been a sentence that started with these words that ended up with a correct statement on the rules? :D

As correctly stated by Curt, you can use any in bounds point further from the hole than your lie as support, providing that it does not move anything in front of your lie.

Regarding the original point, if you contact an OB point when you release the disc then that is a stance violation. Contact before or after release is perfectly acceptable, as is any part of your body hovering over OB.

As to whether the inside of a fence constitutes OB, that depends on the line defined by the TD. I would argue not, as the OB line should be a line of zero thickness on the playing surface, but that isn't always the case.

krupicka
May 13 2010, 08:15 AM
The rule states "(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds."

Unless he's supporting himself with his rump, he can have it up against the OB fence at the time of his throw.

HUGGY
May 13 2010, 09:53 AM
I can't find the rule but :(.....If I'm correct

I stand corrected...... But............haha thanks bruceuk:D

rhett
May 13 2010, 11:38 AM
The rule states "(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds."

Unless he's supporting himself with his rump, he can have it up against the OB fence at the time of his throw.

All points of contact are supporting points.

You cannot have your butt or any other body part touching the OB line at the time you release the disc. All supporting points (ie, all points of contact) must be inbounds at release.

krupicka
May 13 2010, 12:08 PM
Supporting points are defined as "Supporting Point: Any part of a player’s body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object capable of providing support, at the time of release."

There's a great picture that I can't find right now of one of the competitors at the USDGC leaning through the bamboo to putt. Their mark was behind the bamboo and were obviously touching the wall. Would you rule that as a stance violation (803.04.A.3) as well since they were in contact with the bamboo wall which was in front of their lie? If not, how are these different.

veganray
May 13 2010, 12:35 PM
I would.

exczar
May 13 2010, 01:18 PM
In regards to this particular situation, it appears that we have the sticky wicket of a flexible, three-dimensional object defining the OB. Since Brock said that "over fence is OB", it is apparent that said rump is not "over fence" and hence not touching anything that is OB.

Now if the OB standard was the line defined by where the part of the fence that is "over" contacts the ground, then said rump flexed the fence, then that part of the fence would be OB and not allowed by the rules.

Rhett nailed it. IMO, you can lean backwards (or forwards) on something as long as it is no closer to the hole (or mandatory) than your mark, and said leaned-on object is not OB.

Re: USDGC pic - leaning on, or even touching, the bamboo wall in front of the lie would be a no-no, but who knows, maybe the USDGC received a waiver for this particular situation.

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 01:27 PM
All points of contact are supporting points.

You cannot have your butt or any other body part touching the OB line at the time you release the disc. All supporting points (ie, all points of contact) must be inbounds at release.

This interpretation of supporting points opens up a can of worms.

So if I am putting out of a bush, and I release in front of the back of the marker, and my wrist (or any part of my body as long as the part is in front of the back of the marker) is touching the bush, then I have violated the rules?

veganray
May 13 2010, 01:38 PM
IMHO, yes.

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 02:48 PM
I find that interpretation untenable. Mere contact cannot be sufficient to define a supporting point. As my example points out, the implications of using that standard are absurd.

I'm not arguing that a foot on the fence isn't a supporting point, just that it isn't due to "contact" alone.

exczar
May 13 2010, 02:53 PM
If the disc was released at a point no closer than the mark, and said bush was contacted during the follow through, I would say no violation, according to 803.04 A(2),which stipulates "When the disc is released".

If you contacted part of the bush that was closer to the hole than your mark before you released, that would be a violation.

veganray
May 13 2010, 02:54 PM
"Supporting point" is not the only applicable rule in your scenario. You must also not disturb any obstacle between your lie & the target. In your example, It would be extremely easy to argue that your wrist is definitely moving an obstacle between your lie & the target when your wrist touches it.

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 03:08 PM
If you contacted part of the bush that was closer to the hole than your mark before you released, that would be a violation.

Don't you mean "as you release"? One can have a supporting point in front of the lie prior to release.

Ray, forget the other rule about moving obstacles, I'm just saying mere contact with something in front of the lie at the time of release is not a violation of the "supporting point at the time of release" rule.

krupicka
May 13 2010, 03:14 PM
If the author's of the rule wanted it to be any contact to be illegal, they wouldn't have bother with using the term supporting point.

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 03:24 PM
Edited to delete double post

veganray
May 13 2010, 03:26 PM
PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf, Section 800 (Definitions):
Supporting Point: Any part of a player's body that is in contact with the playing surface or some other object capable of providing support, at the time of release.
Doesn't say an object that "is providing support", merely an object that is "capable of providing support". And it doesn't specify what that object needs to be capable of providing support for, so one must infer that if it is capable of providing support for anything (such as a CO2 molecule), it would qualify as a "supporting point" if any part of a player's body is in contact with it at the time of release.

Thus your scenario fails two different rules, not just the one you are asking me to ignore.

However, the poor wording of the rule seems to allow for a player's equipment or clothing (as they are not "any part of a player's body") to touch such an object without explicit violation. Hmmm…

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 03:37 PM
You are taking "capable" way too far. A leaf on a limb that is touching my elbow as I release the disc of course, when I am stepping out of the schule, is not capable of supporting me.

veganray
May 13 2010, 03:41 PM
As I wrote above:
(The rule) doesn't specify what that object needs to be capable of providing support for, so one must infer that if it is capable of providing support for anything (such as a CO2 molecule), it would qualify as a "supporting point" if any part of a player's body is in contact with it at the time of release.

Even if you choose to rewrite the rule in your mind & have the object need to be able to provide support to the player to qualify as a "supporting point", that bastardized rule would work in conjunction with 803.05B to effectively disallow making contact with anything between your lie & the target before releasing. If you touch it & it moves, you have violated 803.05B. If you touch it & it doesn't move, it must be capable of providing support & you have violated your fantasy-world version of 803.04A(2).

No amount of wishing, hoping, or linguistic gymnastics will change the fact that what you seemingly desperately wish to do, James, is against the rules.

havasuDG
May 13 2010, 03:55 PM
and fortunately these are things that would be ruled on by your group. I am in agreeance with James, and think it'd be very rare to play in a group that agreed with the VeganRay intrepretation. He's absolutely correct in taking "capable" much too far. I think the "linguistic gymnastics" are coming from another angle.
It would technically be a violation however to hit branch in front of the lie on the throw itself. But there are putting styles that can keep your arm behind the lie.. so that's not insurmountable.

veganray
May 13 2010, 04:00 PM
I'm merely going by the simple English-language words that comprise the rule. If you don't like what it says, blame its writer, not me.

(Or just let fairness be damned & make up your own rules as you go, which it seems that many of y'all want to do, anyway.)

krupicka
May 13 2010, 04:04 PM
As I wrote above:


Even if you choose to rewrite the rule in your mind & have the object need to be able to provide support to the player to qualify as a "supporting point", that bastardized rule would work in conjunction with 803.05B to effectively disallow making contact with anything between your lie & the target before releasing. If you touch it & it moves, you have violated 803.05B. If you touch it & it doesn't move, it must be capable of providing support & you have violated your fantasy-world version of 803.04A(2).

No amount of wishing, hoping, or linguistic gymnastics will change the fact that what you seemingly desperately wish to do, James, is against the rules.

803.05 does not say you can't touch anything in front of your lie. In fact it even allows for incidental movement in both 803.05.A and 803.05.B.

veganray
May 13 2010, 04:14 PM
I stand corrected on 803.05B. Never absorbed that last sentence before, in dozens of readings. Thanx for setting me straight.

I still contend that the non-bastardized version of 803.04A(2), as written, prohibits the activity.

james_mccaine
May 13 2010, 04:26 PM
No amount of wishing, hoping, or linguistic gymnastics will change the fact that what you seemingly desperately wish to do, James, is against the rules.

Whoa there. Linguistic gymnastics? I'm not not taking the clause out of context by assuming support can apply to a molecule and not the player, just so that I can go somewhere no one before would dare venture to. I am only wishing that absurdity be eliminated from rule discussion.

As to the other rule, as Krupicka points out, incidental contact is allowed. I have never seen that rule called unless someone was creating new or easier paths with their stance, prior to their throw.

PhattD
May 13 2010, 08:07 PM
PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf, Section 800 (Definitions):

Doesn't say an object that "is providing support", merely an object that is "capable of providing support". And it doesn't specify what that object needs to be capable of providing support for, so one must infer that if it is capable of providing support for anything (such as a CO2 molecule), it would qualify as a "supporting point" if any part of a player's body is in contact with it at the time of release.

Thus your scenario fails two different rules, not just the one you are asking me to ignore.

However, the poor wording of the rule seems to allow for a player's equipment or clothing (as they are not "any part of a player's body") to touch such an object without explicit violation. Hmmm�

This is possibly the worst rationalization of a rule I have seen to date. I mean really? a CO2 molecule? Thats what you think the rule is referring to when it says supporting point? I think a more logical interpretation would be that they are referring to supporting the disc golfer. Now granted they don't specify how much of the disc golfers weight but your interpretation would mean that you can't touch anything in front of you lie regardless of how incidental. If that was how the rule was intended don't you think they would have just said you can't touch anything in front of your lie? For that matter CO2 molecules are pretty light I think an argument could be made that the air in front of the golfer can support a CO2 molecule and is therefore a supporting point. So where do we go from here do we lean way back so our arm doesn't go in front of the lie or should we put on space suits and play in a vaccum?

krazyeye
May 13 2010, 11:30 PM
Is Veganray an uncommon cunning linguist or does he just rape the language?

johnrock
May 14 2010, 09:53 AM
I think he's just pointing out the strict interpretation of the rule as it's written currently.

I would also say that no contact with an OB area is allowed at the time of release. Before or after, sure.

RhynoBoy
May 14 2010, 10:23 AM
Maybe when they said "support" they meant the definition of "to give moral aid or courage"

"a point that is capable of providing moral courage"?

That really changes the way the rule looks to. One can be strict with their interpretations, but one cannot take all context out of how the rule is written.

exczar
May 14 2010, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry, but there seems to be some thread drift here. Could someone who is keeping up here please summarize where we are, or any conclusions, if any, that have been made?

Thx,

johnrock
May 14 2010, 03:46 PM
If the TD says a particular fence is OB, don't rest your rear-end on it while releasing a throw.

exczar
May 14 2010, 04:34 PM
Now, wait a minute, Amarillo Slim, doesn't it make a difference in how the TD defines how the fence is to be used in determining OB? If they say that it is the, say, side toward the ball field that is OB, can't you lean on the side that is not toward the ball field, even if it flexes?

Of course, if the TD actually defines the OB boundary as the line created by the ball side part of the fence and the ground, then almost any flex by backing up to the fence would put you in contact with an OB object, which is not allowed.

However, if the fence is solid, wood or brick for example, then one could back up to it or lean on it, because the part of the fence you are touching is IB.

pterodactyl
May 14 2010, 05:16 PM
I think the rule says something about not "standing" OB to throw. Leaning on the fence should be OK. I'll have to look this one up.

pterodactyl
May 14 2010, 05:22 PM
After you take your meter from OB there would be no reason to put your butt on the fence anyway.

veganray
May 14 2010, 05:24 PM
Nope, nothing about "standing". 803.04A:
When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

johnrock
May 14 2010, 06:27 PM
Now, wait a minute, Amarillo Slim, doesn't it make a difference in how the TD defines how the fence is to be used in determining OB? If they say that it is the, say, side toward the ball field that is OB, can't you lean on the side that is not toward the ball field, even if it flexes?

Of course, if the TD actually defines the OB boundary as the line created by the ball side part of the fence and the ground, then almost any flex by backing up to the fence would put you in contact with an OB object, which is not allowed.

However, if the fence is solid, wood or brick for example, then one could back up to it or lean on it, because the part of the fence you are touching is IB.

Why do you want to bring my physical stature into the fray?

I said if the TD says a fence is OB, then the fence is OB. Pretty simple. If you need to rest your big ole you know what on that fence when you throw, it's not allowed.

I don't know, maybe the big booty player got stuck behind a bush that was next to a fence. The meter relief did not help at all because the bush was worse that way, so he tried to squeeze his big fat bottom into a space too small and penetrated into the boundary. Maybe even pushed them down so hard some of the pieces of the fence crumpled. Keep in mind all this happened at the time of release and all of his group was watching the squeeze play.

I don't know, just guessing. (sorry, no catchy, town related knickname.)

Martin_Bohn
May 14 2010, 06:35 PM
I think the rule says something about not "standing" OB to throw. Leaning on the fence should be OK. I'll have to look this one up.

hey get this figured before next week, i dont want to have to call you on it. :) and be wrong.....

pterodactyl
May 15 2010, 10:03 AM
Now if it's a cyclone fence and your butt has a lot of cellulite that protrudes through the holes, you're OB.

Hi Mr. Toad!