Sharky
Jul 06 2011, 01:27 PM
This is the situation that a friend of mine told me about while playing the Tyler Masters tournament at Tyler State Park recently: He threw OB his disc landing in a narrow OB stream/ditch the disc did travel past both OB lines (the one going in and the one leaving) and then fell back into the OB area. The area beyond the OB was not a great place to play from the normal procedure would be to place the mini perpendicular to the last place he was in bounds anywhere within 1 meter but the lie would still be on a bank, doable but not as good as the lie he would get if he took the 1 meter from the same line but went across the OB area from the other direction back across the narrow OB area and created a lie on that side of the OB area, would that be legal?

hill disc went to here then fell back in OB area
============================================
less than 1 meter wide
==========================================
flat X OK to play from here?

krupicka
Jul 06 2011, 01:32 PM
He can play from the last place in bounds or his previous lie. What you are proposing is not supported by the rules.

jconnell
Jul 06 2011, 01:51 PM
It's an interesting thought exercise, Sharky, but I don't think it would be legal to do what you're proposing. The rule says the next shot is to be played from a point "that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds..." It's the "away from" part that clinches it for me. I take that to imply that you can only move the lie away from the OB line, not back through the OB line to the other side.

The rule isn't worded to provide for the best lie or the most comfortable lie or the most favorable lie. I think it provides a one-meter line on which to choose a legal lie, period. If the lie options are not favorable to the player, they can always take optional relief anywhere along the line of play behind the original lie with an additional one-throw penalty (803.05C).

pterodactyl
Jul 06 2011, 03:16 PM
I believe that what Sharky is supposing is correct within the rules. I've done it before (not without first consulting the rulebook and the other players in my group). I made the putt for a Berkeley par.

pterodactyl
Jul 06 2011, 03:31 PM
I take that to imply that you can only move the lie away from the OB line, not back through the OB line to the other side.



If I ask you to move away from me I don't care which direction you take, just move away. The rule is a little fuzzy, but open to interpretation. It could be cleaned up a little.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 06 2011, 04:09 PM
The rule says the next shot is to be played from a point "that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds..." It's the "away from" part that clinches it for me. I take that to imply that you can only move the lie away from the OB line, not back through the OB line to the other side.

What happens in nearly all OB line cases is that the OB is of such sufficient width that in order to assume a legal stance and not in the OB, you must move the lie away from the OB line, otherwise you'd be standing in OB. Think about it - most OB lines are the edge of a property, a parking lot, a street, a building, etc. Here that is not the case.

The player is fulfilling every condition of the rule - his next shot is being played from a point that is up to one meter away and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, and he is assuming a legal stance in bounds. As long as the stance is perpendicular, nowhere in the rules does it explicitly explain that "away" means one direction or the other on that horizontal perpendicular plane. As such, I don't see how one can make the progression in logic to the bolded part above.

jconnell
Jul 06 2011, 05:42 PM
What happens in nearly all OB line cases is that the OB is of such sufficient width that in order to assume a legal stance and not in the OB, you must move the lie away from the OB line, otherwise you'd be standing in OB. Think about it - most OB lines are the edge of a property, a parking lot, a street, a building, etc. Here that is not the case.

The player is fulfilling every condition of the rule - his next shot is being played from a point that is up to one meter away and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, and he is assuming a legal stance in bounds. As long as the stance is perpendicular, nowhere in the rules does it explicitly explain that "away" means one direction or the other on that horizontal perpendicular plane. As such, I don't see how one can make the progression in logic to the bolded part above.
Did I say "explicitly explain" though? No, I said "imply", which by its very definition is not explicit. Perhaps it would be better if I said I infer the meaning to be away in a particular direction? Either way, I never said anything about this being explicit or clear.

My interpretation of "away" in this rule is in the direction from which the disc came. It entered the OB from a particular direction, therefore the lie should be on that side of the OB area. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The only person or people that can rule definitively on this is the rules committee.

wsfaplau
Jul 06 2011, 08:49 PM
Jconnell I agree the RC is the only one who can make the call but I do believe the lie could be from either side of the creek. I understand what the rule seems to imply. Take a look at the rules q and a for reteeing after an OB drive and in the answer the RC includes this....

2) The player can play from a spot up to 1 meter from where the point the player's tee shot was last in-bounds

Another gray area. Only an email to the RC can resolve.

I would give him a spot within 1 meter of the last in bounds spot in any direction, you might give him a spot on the side he entered. One thing for sure is one of us would be right.

jconnell
Jul 06 2011, 11:10 PM
Jconnell I agree the RC is the only one who can make the call but I do believe the lie could be from either side of the creek. I understand what the rule seems to imply. Take a look at the rules q and a for reteeing after an OB drive and in the answer the RC includes this....

2) The player can play from a spot up to 1 meter from where the point the player's tee shot was last in-bounds

Another gray area. Only an email to the RC can resolve.

I would give him a spot within 1 meter of the last in bounds spot in any direction, you might give him a spot on the side he entered. One thing for sure is one of us would be right.
A spot in "any direction" would certainly be wrong, even if my interpretation is wrong. Assuming I'm incorrect that the lie must be on the same side of the OB as the shot came from, the spot would still only have two directions it can go: up to one meter from the last point in-bounds in a line perpendicular to the OB line.

perica
Jul 06 2011, 11:45 PM
I'd think that it hinges upon the width of the OB area. If it was less than one meter, then the player could take the shot on either side - but if not, only the side where the disc was last in bounds would be available.

cgkdisc
Jul 07 2011, 12:24 AM
This is why our Course group is working towards a Competition rule that OB cannot be less than 2 or maybe 3 meters wide. Narrower than that isn't a fair hazard partly due to the width of a disc, especially OB less than 30 cm wide. Even if a creek narrows to a trickle less than 2 meters wide, it doesn't mean you can't stake it so the OB zone is at least 2-3 meters wide.

davidsauls
Jul 07 2011, 08:58 AM
I sincerely hope not....I can think of a lot of holes that would be much less interesting under such a standard. Small creeks positioned where you want to try to avoid them for the chance of going OB---if they're casual, they lose their impact.

cgkdisc
Jul 07 2011, 09:52 AM
Not saying they shouldn't necessarily be OB, but they should be marked with stakes or some other method so the OB area is wider than 2 or 3 meters. It's especially bad when the water is only spotty. Unfortunately, some of the creek beds on IDGC courses are some of the offenders with this narrow OB issue and either need to be staked or left casual.

Calling just the paths OB that cut across fairways is another design peeve and those are 2-3 meters wide. At least creek beds that narrow actually trap most shots that go into them OB unlike pathways where it's more bad luck than poor skill that results in the disc landing and remaining OB on them.

davidsauls
Jul 07 2011, 12:08 PM
Not saying they shouldn't necessarily be OB, but they should be marked with stakes or some other method so the OB area is wider than 2 or 3 meters. It's especially bad when the water is only spotty. Unfortunately, some of the creek beds on IDGC courses are some of the offenders with this narrow OB issue and either need to be staked or left casual.

Calling just the paths OB that cut across fairways is another design peeve and those are 2-3 meters wide. At least creek beds that narrow actually trap most shots that go into them OB unlike pathways where it's more bad luck than poor skill that results in the disc landing and remaining OB on them.

Agreed that there are plenty of poorly-chosen OBs; particularly those in your 2nd paragraph. But I'd sure hate to see a blanket rule applying to OBs less than 2-3 meters, which would wipe out many well-placed OBs as well.

I play more casual golf than tournament golf, in places where permanent staking/marking is impractical, and always play by tournament rules. I'm perhaps biased because the 3 courses I play the most all have LOTS of well-placed, narrow O.B., and would be diminished if it were made casual.

wsfaplau
Jul 07 2011, 12:34 PM
A spot in "any direction" would certainly be wrong, even if my interpretation is wrong. Assuming I'm incorrect that the lie must be on the same side of the OB as the shot came from, the spot would still only have two directions it can go: up to one meter from the last point in-bounds in a line perpendicular to the OB line.

I agree, perpendicular is correct. I probably should have said in either direction, not in any direction.

pterodactyl
Jul 07 2011, 03:07 PM
With a lot of those creek scenarios, it is impossible to tell which side of the creek that the disc entered. Example: The disc hits the far bank and falls backward into the creek (this is not always going to be seen by the competitors). In this scenario, if the creek is less than a meter wide, marking on either side would take care of the problem. On the other hand, I would like to see a rule that says "disc must be marked no closer to the hole" for creek situations.

davidsauls
Jul 07 2011, 03:54 PM
Not always easy, as some creeks are not easily crossed to the far side, and rethrow from previous lie isn't terribly practical either.

pterodactyl
Jul 07 2011, 04:35 PM
Not always easy, as some creeks are not easily crossed to the far side.

I've never had a problem crossing a creek that isn't even a meter wide.

davidsauls
Jul 07 2011, 05:38 PM
I've never had a problem crossing a creek that isn't even a meter wide.

Sorry, I read

"On the other hand, I would like to see a rule that says "disc must be marked no closer to the hole" for creek situations. "

as applying to all creeks, not just the little ones.

Some creeks are wide or deep enough to be troublesome to cross. Where creeks (or other OB) are near the basket it seems odd to give relief closer to the basket---but when they're 200' away, it matters very little that the relief is slightly closer to the basket.

I think a rule change here is an awful big hammer for a mightly small problem.

jconnell
Jul 08 2011, 09:09 AM
Sorry, I read

"On the other hand, I would like to see a rule that says "disc must be marked no closer to the hole" for creek situations. "

as applying to all creeks, not just the little ones.

Some creeks are wide or deep enough to be troublesome to cross. Where creeks (or other OB) are near the basket it seems odd to give relief closer to the basket---but when they're 200' away, it matters very little that the relief is slightly closer to the basket.

I think a rule change here is an awful big hammer for a mightly small problem.
If a creek is wide enough or deep enough to be difficult to cross, there probably is a bridge to cross to the other side. And if there isn't, it's poor course design to have a hole cross it.

If the creek runs alongside the hole, and there's no means to cross it along the fairway (no bridge, no narrow points), then the side of the creek opposite the fairway should be OB as well (creek and beyond kind of situation). Makes no sense to have a part of the in-bounds fairway be inaccessible except to wade through the creek.

I don't think rules need to be added/modified/re-written to account for poorly thought out course design. I also don't think the relief rule for OB lines needs to have conditions based on proximity to the basket. Up to 1-meter perpendicular from the line is simple and universally applicable...no need to complicate it.

Sharky
Jul 08 2011, 01:57 PM
The real question is how would SnapChing handle this.
Thanks for the input all!

Jeff_LaG
Jul 08 2011, 03:29 PM
The real question is how would SnapChing handle this.

Now DAT wuz funny! :D