Dec 25 2005, 11:08 AM
According to the 2006 rules which is the only correctly placed marker disc and why?

Marking Lie Question (http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/Marking-Lie-Illustration.gif)

DGRZ #005

slo
Dec 25 2005, 12:13 PM
I haven't looked, yet, but that LOP is going through the CENTER [only] of the thrown disc; that's a departure from the previous.

...if it's #2, of which I'm pretty sure, guesswise, the 'new' rule is >>>how I USED to mark, before Mr. Sung convinced me otherwise. http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

Dec 27 2005, 01:41 AM
It's #2 because it satisfies all of the requirements of the rule, ie: one the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play and touching the thrown disc.

803.03 (http://pdga.com/documents/2006/PDGA.2006.rulebook.final.pdf)

What do I win?

james_mccaine
Dec 27 2005, 10:58 AM
Thankfully, I didn't read the "argument" that allowed for placing the mini on the side. In a quick perusal of the current vs. the soon to come, I don't see anything different. What am I missing?

hazard
Dec 29 2005, 02:22 AM
I haven't looked, yet, but that LOP is going through the CENTER [only] of the thrown disc; that's a departure from the previous.

...if it's #2, of which I'm pretty sure, guesswise, the 'new' rule is >>>how I USED to mark, before Mr. Sung convinced me otherwise. http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif



It is #2, although someone beat me to it.

I never had noticed that failure under the pre-'06 rules to refer to the actual LOP when placing the mini before. I suppose if one used a rather liberal interpretation of "on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown disc" 3 would have been acceptable pre-'06, but I personally think that anyone trying to claim that "directly in line with the hole" was satisfied that way would have to have been awfully desperate for a one or two inch adjustment...

Wow, wouldn't that have been a fun situation to wind up requiring the use of a set of provisionals?

Dec 29 2005, 12:27 PM
#2 is correct.

And it is clear that this rule has been improved.

Zealots Rejoyce!

slo
Dec 29 2005, 12:52 PM
Far less ambiguous, yes.

I believe the marker can still be in a few different positions than the #2 as-shown, and still satisfy the conditions. Tombstoning and Clam-shelling, specifically.

Old question, redux: Has the "no closer" scenario for foot-faults changed? Does that line perpendicular to the lie divide the fairway into 'sides', or does it form a 'ring of fire' to avoid?

Dec 29 2005, 12:56 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif

slo
Dec 29 2005, 01:10 PM
F. mini one, and a couple positions not shown.

803.03C: any point on a one-meter
line that extends perpendicularly from
the nearest point on the out-of-bounds
line, and <font color="red"> passes through the center of
the thrown disc </font>.

Not the front edge.

james_mccaine
Dec 29 2005, 01:18 PM
Your 1 meter from OB line is not parallel to your OB line.

I don't see that the wording on this has changed at all.

hazard
Dec 29 2005, 01:21 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



B. Only 1. Mini.

As this illustration is drawn, even if one meter from OB is supposed to be the same distance from OB at all points and the three shown mini marker discs are all supposed to be on one line perpendicular to the OB line, only #1 is a correct placement.

803.03 C: If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line, and passes through the center of the thrown disc. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

The old rule:

803.02 C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie is marked by placing a mini marker disc up to one meter away from, and perpendicular to, the nearest out-of-bounds line. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

Now that I look at this, it appears that not only is this a change from the old rule, but I have played the old rule incorrectly several times. According to the old rule, marking the disc normally should not have been an option (though not marking would have been as long as the stance was legal), as the word "may" was not used in the old rule and the "nearest" line would apparently have been determined from the edge of the thrown disc nearest the OB line, and then you have your perpendicular line on which to place the marker...which will go through the middle of the disc somewhere, not the front edge, unless it's a very oddly shaped OB.

Therefore, only mini #1, as shown...which ignores the option of relocating...is valid, and under the old rule, as I read it now, none of them would be.

slo
Dec 29 2005, 01:23 PM
Chicken Dinner, here. http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

james_mccaine
Dec 29 2005, 01:31 PM
I see that the language has changed for IB discs within one meter of OB. Not that it really matters, but I am very confused on how we mark where a disc "crossed into OB." I always took it to be the part of the disc closest to the basket. Marking it this way is certainly different than how you mark an IB disc within one meter of OB.

Dec 29 2005, 01:51 PM
The 1 meter from OB line is should be considered for this example equidistant from the OB line.

Any other interpretations of the rules 06 or 05 as they relate to this question?

Moderator005
Dec 29 2005, 04:43 PM
Your 1 meter from OB line is not parallel to your OB line.



Yea, wtf? Why isn't the 1 meter from OB line parallel to the OB line?

mcthumber
Dec 29 2005, 05:33 PM
Maybe it's a perspective drawing and the "OB line" and the "1-meter from OB line" are meeting in the distance (the vanishing point). And that's probably why the discs are elliptical and not round.

#1 is correct as long as it allows your stance to be inbounds for the next shot. Otherwise there would be an infinite number of correct placements through the center of the disc and perpendicular to, and up to 1 meter from, the OB line. Pick any one that allows an in-bounds stance.

--Mike

Jroc
Dec 29 2005, 05:41 PM
I agree....of the choices given, mini #1 is the only one correct....its being played where it lies.

The difference I see between '05 and '06 is switching the phrases 'is marked' to 'may be marked'...AND...this perpedicular line must pass through the center of the disc.

By strict interpretation of the old rule, you would remark your lie on the end of that one-meter perpendicular line EVERY TIME...the new rule allows you to play it where it lies OR mark it somewhere on that perpendicular line

sandalman
Dec 29 2005, 05:47 PM
just wondering how one marks their lie without moving their disc if the lie must be marked in the center of the disc? :D

neonnoodle
Dec 29 2005, 09:03 PM
Your 1 meter from OB line is not parallel to your OB line.



Yea, wtf? Why isn't the 1 meter from OB line parallel to the OB line?



Photorealistic perspective...

neonnoodle
Dec 29 2005, 09:35 PM
I updated the illustration adding more detail. The situation remains the same.

AviarX
Dec 29 2005, 09:53 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



if minis 1 to 2 and 3 are all lined up perpendicular to the OB line, then the answer is D. same as 2005.

and, judging by the one meter from OB line, you are less than ten feet away from the pin so it shouldn't matter too much as long as you are IB while putting ;)

- - - -
[edit:]
time out :eek: i just read <font color="blue"> slo's </font> post and then re-read the rules and it looks like he is right about 2 and 3 being invalid marks because they are in front of (rather than on) the line perpendicular to OB that passes through the center of the thrown disc. Therefore B is the correct answer (since you aren't relocating the lie you can put the mini on the front edge of the thrown disc per usual). Also, this is a change from the 2005 Rules.

Dec 29 2005, 10:16 PM
Rob,

2 and 3 are "on" the line perpendicular.

(Don't make me redo this illustration again...)

Nick

AviarX
Dec 29 2005, 10:37 PM
Nick they are perpendicular to mini 1 but NOT to the center of the disc at rest -- right :confused: Hence only mini 1 is placed correctly.

rob
Dec 30 2005, 10:21 AM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



if minis 1 to 2 and 3 are all lined up perpendicular to the OB line, then the answer is D. same as 2005.

and, judging by the one meter from OB line, you are less than ten feet away from the pin so it shouldn't matter too much as long as you are IB while putting ;)

- - - -
[edit:]
time out :eek: i just read <font color="blue"> slo's </font> post and then re-read the rules and it looks like he is right about 2 and 3 being invalid marks because they are in front of (rather than on) the line perpendicular to OB that passes through the center of the thrown disc. Therefore B is the correct answer (since you aren't relocating the lie you can put the mini on the front edge of the thrown disc per usual). Also, this is a change from the 2005 Rules.







When marking the lie on the perpendicular line to OB, shouldn't the mini be placed on the center line bisecting the thrown disc and the mini? (Like mini #1, but on the perpendicular line?)

underparmike
Dec 30 2005, 10:36 AM
who cares? the rules aren't enforced at tournaments anyway, since the PDGA doesn't require pros to pass a rules test before being allowed to play. this sport will remain a joke as long as the PDGA does nothing to make pros respect the rules.

rutgersgolfer
Dec 30 2005, 10:42 AM
Definition of Lie: "The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules."

I believe the mini (B or C in Nick's example) should be placed ahead of the perpendicular line so my big toe is right behind but not touching the perpendicular line.

hazard
Dec 30 2005, 01:26 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



B. Only 1. Mini.

As this illustration is drawn, even if one meter from OB is supposed to be the same distance from OB at all points and the three shown mini marker discs are all supposed to be on one line perpendicular to the OB line, only #1 is a correct placement.

803.03 C: If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line, and passes through the center of the thrown disc. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

The old rule:

803.02 C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie is marked by placing a mini marker disc up to one meter away from, and perpendicular to, the nearest out-of-bounds line. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole.

Now that I look at this, it appears that not only is this a change from the old rule, but I have played the old rule incorrectly several times. According to the old rule, marking the disc normally should not have been an option (though not marking would have been as long as the stance was legal), as the word "may" was not used in the old rule and the "nearest" line would apparently have been determined from the edge of the thrown disc nearest the OB line, and then you have your perpendicular line on which to place the marker...which will go through the middle of the disc somewhere, not the front edge, unless it's a very oddly shaped OB.

Therefore, only mini #1, as shown...which ignores the option of relocating...is valid, and under the old rule, as I read it now, none of them would be.



With the latest revision to the diagram, I believe the intent is that all three positions be appropriate under the current rule, and although I suspect many people would not have realized it, position 1) would be the only one not allowed by the 2005 rules. I personally would not dispute any of the shown marks in 2006, but the language of the actual rules would lead me personally to place the mini centered on the perpendicular line from OB under the 2005 rules, and with any part of the mini touching that line under the 2006 rules, though at first I was thinking it should always be the rear edge. However, neither of those interpretations is explicitly supported; each is merely what seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation of the wording.

gnduke
Dec 30 2005, 02:55 PM
I would say that the lie is on the perpendicular line, and the back edge of the marker disc is the point of the marker normally aligned with the lie.

As in the lie is the leading edge of a disc at rest, and the marker goes ahead of the lie to mark it's position. The lie is the 30cm line extending along the LOP immediately behind the marker disc.

At least that's how I interpret the lie and mark.

slo
Dec 30 2005, 04:20 PM
Rob,

2 and 3 are "on" the line perpendicular.

(Don't make me redo this illustration again...)

Nick


Pretty please?

803.03C. If the thrown disc comes to rest
in-bounds but within one meter of
an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be
relocated to any point on a one-meter
line that extends perpendicularly from
the nearest point on the out-of-bounds
line, and passes through the center of
the thrown disc.

I think those minis should be in FRONT of the line suggested in the example; otherwise they would be covering some of that [now even more] precious 30 cm provided for legal contact.

....the marker MARKS the lie; it doesn't CREATE the lie, swat'sane.

Still out there: AGAIN: If projected, do the ends of that 1-M segment go all the way around the globe, and demark two Hemisheres, or do they form a circle [on the playing surface], with the radius = the distance from the lie>>>the pole?!?

sandalman
Dec 30 2005, 04:30 PM
the perpendicular nature of the 1M line prevents it from circling the target. also, they would not, except in rather rare circumstances, demark two true hemispheres.

special hint: dont engage nick in geometry exercises. most kindergardners have a better grasp on the subject.

slo
Dec 30 2005, 04:32 PM
I agree with the perpendicular logic....now. I still have the "ring of fire" "no closer" scenario in my brain, however.

AviarX
Dec 30 2005, 07:44 PM
The drawing mysteriously changed. Even the past drawing i quoted. How did the drawing in my post quoting Nick get changed without my being the editor? :confused:

Also, i think the target should be moved. :eek: :Dit is way to close to OB -- looks like about 4 feet away? :p

sandalman
Dec 30 2005, 08:58 PM
easy - you quoted teh drawing, including the web reference to the image file. someone changed the image file, and your reference, since it only points to the file rather than being the image, links to the updated image. this would not have happened if the 2MR was still ineffect! :D

slo
Dec 31 2005, 03:40 AM
the perpendicular nature of the 1M line prevents it from circling the target. also, they would not, except in rather rare circumstances, demark two true hemispheres.



So the end of the lines wouldn't be on Terra's surface, but would [from a further perspective] protrude from opposite 'sides' of this galaxy, never to meet except in Einstein's head?

bruce_brakel
Dec 31 2005, 03:43 AM
Exactly. That's why the infinite relief, no closer to the hole, 2 throw penalty option had to be eliminated from the unplayable lie rule. We don't have permission to play in Einstein's head.

slo
Dec 31 2005, 04:01 AM
Those 'lines' leave Terra's playing surface almost immediately, then. Maybe it's "really" a plane with>>>zero height?

All this should rule out using 'jumping over the basket' paradigms [ring of fire] as being legal.

hazard
Dec 31 2005, 07:11 AM
Those 'lines' leave Terra's playing surface almost immediately, then. Maybe it's "really" a plane with>>>zero height?

All this should rule out using 'jumping over the basket' paradigms [ring of fire] as being legal.



Wait, what? This discussion changed direction without anyone telling me. How did figuring out how to mark a lie on a one meter line segment perpendicular to OB result in concluding that a point no less distant from the basket but farther away from the tee pad might somehow magically be closer to the hole?

sandalman
Dec 31 2005, 10:42 AM
the ROF putt is still legal because no supporting point is closer to the target. has nothing to do with parallelism or how to mark OB.

i liked the one about extending into space tho. very nice! since "lines" exist in only one dimension, they must by definition extend i the manner you describe. maybe we need a glossary insert that explains that the so-called line follows the surface of the terrestrial body on which you are playing so as too eliminate this confusion. on real long holes it could become a factor :D

AviarX
Dec 31 2005, 11:28 AM
easy - you quoted teh drawing, including the web reference to the image file. someone changed the image file, and your reference, since it only points to the file rather than being the image, links to the updated image. this would not have happened if the 2MR was still ineffect! :D



your explanation was helpful until you interjected your irrational attachment to force feeding the 2 meter rule. :p

as long as you don't try to use the 'Patriot' Act to enact the 2 meter rule in all US States and territories as part of a so-called
'War on terror' -- i'll stand by and let gravity bring you down to Earth :eek: :D

sandalman
Dec 31 2005, 01:25 PM
good idea! i'll get Rummy right on it! :D

happy new year! :cool:

slo
Dec 31 2005, 02:10 PM
... How did figuring out how to mark a lie on a one meter line segment perpendicular to OB result in concluding that a point no less distant from the basket but farther away from the tee pad might somehow magically be closer to the hole?



Well, it's a thread about the new rules; this one in particular is associated with stance, and foot-fault calls. It's an old question this, what constitutes "no closer". I'm guessing you call that area a circle with the basket's pole in the center. I think the re-write demonstrates otherwise. I DIDN'T before.

Sandals, what about a [new] 803.04A(2) call, you don't think this 'perpendicular line' affects a stance violation?!? Not to mention the post-release/inside the circle [foot fault] aspect? I now read the "no closer" to mean any contact into the 'far' Hemisphere. Don't you concur?

gnduke
Dec 31 2005, 03:01 PM
803.04.A.02 has no wording other than closer to the hole. That is still a circle. What other reference do you have to support no contact beyond a line perpindicular to LOP ?

slo
Jan 01 2006, 01:59 PM
That's just the [new] call; it's not that language which is different. But the different language in 2006 [or perhaps the different way I read it] would make me call "A" 803.04A(2). This would be an 'encroachment' stance violation. I can't provide a diagram, unfortunately, but if the "trail" foot is no closer to the basket [outside the ring-of-fire], but 'ahead' of the perpendicular line, I'd cry 'foul'.

Another way: Just what constitutes "no closer"? Well, I "get" the circle/ring-of-fire logic; I just think no closer is 'posed to mean <font color="red">anything beyond the line perpendicular to the Lie </font> . Now. Sure, it's >>>a mathematical insignificance, but the geometry can't be ignored. Even the most unlikely scenario is bound to happen, eventually.

....is there a better name for this 'line'?

slo
Jan 01 2006, 02:10 PM
...What other reference do you have to support no contact beyond a line perpindicular to LOP ?



I see that I basically sidestepped Duke's question. WHY do I feel differently now?

...why do you ask so early in my morning?

sandalman
Jan 01 2006, 04:50 PM
....is there a better name for this 'line'?

yep.

a circle

:D

slo
Jan 02 2006, 01:52 AM
No, that's measuring a certain fixed distance, only; I'm talking about the line which demarks "past/not past", along the LOP>>>the basket.

As in "past" the marker disc. As in, "stepping <font color="red">past </font> the marker disc is/isn't", etc. See 803.04B.

Remember, the rear of the marker disc is now a single point, with no mass, taste, colour, or smell. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

sandalman
Jan 02 2006, 10:19 AM
where do you get this "past/not past" idea. the rule says no point closer that the back of the marker. if the back of the marker is 100cm feet from the hole, and both feet are 102cm from the hole, then no point is closer and its a legal stance. regardless of how wide the putter's legs are spread.

rizbee
Jan 02 2006, 05:50 PM
I know I'm jumping in to this horribly late, but please let me know if these are accurate characterizations of your positions:

slo: There is an imaginary line perpendicular to the line which could be drawn between the center of the basket (or closest edge ofthe basket?) and the marker. The two lines intersect at the point of the marker farthest from the basket. Cross the perpendicular line and you violate the stance rule.

Sandalman: The lie is at a specific distance from the center of the target (or front edge?). You violate the stance rule if any supporting point is closer to the target than this distance, at the point of release.

Am I close on either one?

sandalman
Jan 02 2006, 05:52 PM
i think youve got it

gnduke
Jan 02 2006, 08:16 PM
I think I see Slo's conundrum.

It's the wording of 803.04 {A(2) & C} and 803.04.B.

The phrase "no closer to the hole" clearly indicates a circle around the target. The phrase "past the marker disc" indicates a line perpendicular to the LOP.

As you near the basket the ability to step around the circle of "no closer to the hole" with one foot "past" the rear edge of the marker increases.

If you are inside 10M, and straddle out with a stance the meets 803.04.A.2 and 803.04.C, after you putt, you could be in violation of 803.04.B without having moved your feet.

sandalman
Jan 02 2006, 08:36 PM
not necessarily because "past the marker disc" does not imply "past a perpendicular line". actually, it implies a measurement, and when that measurement is taken in every direction from the target, one get a circle.

gnduke
Jan 02 2006, 08:47 PM
I agree with that interpretation, I was speculating on what slo was seeing that was causing his concern.

slo
Jan 03 2006, 12:03 AM
not necessarily because "past the marker disc" does not imply "past a perpendicular line". actually, it implies a measurement, and when that measurement is taken in every direction from the target, one get a circle.


Rebuttal: I agree with roughly zero of that, premisewise, and >>>logicwise.

It's not-at-all what you say; "past" is not a measurement, but a threshold. It's going from A>>>B. No measurement [can one even technically measure 'nothing'?] implied, or needed. Useless info. That would be like 'measuring' when a Basketball fieldgoal becomes good; it either is, or isn't.

Like sides; a 'no'/'yes' side; a not-past/past side. In in this case the Tee, and Target <font color="red"> sides </font> of the <font color="red"> point [not arc] </font> of the lie.

You've provided the definition of a circle [above][Sandals], but the circle language isn't in the rules.

Summary: Demur the circle concept; it's a case of either/or.

How dat? :)

slo
Jan 03 2006, 12:06 AM
803.04.A.02 has no wording other than closer to the hole. That is still a circle. What other reference do you have to support no contact beyond a line perpindicular to LOP ?



The lie now is a single point, not an arc.

slo
Jan 03 2006, 12:14 AM
I concur w/ sandals about risbie's spin.

slo
Jan 03 2006, 12:30 AM
The phrase "no closer to the hole" clearly indicates a circle around the target. <font color="red"> Not necessarily that clear if, as I feel, it's an either/or paradigm.</font> The phrase "past the marker disc" indicates a line perpendicular to the LOP. ...As you near the basket the ability to step around the circle of "no closer to the hole" with one foot "past" the rear edge of the marker increases. <font color="red"> I get the geometry DESCRIBED, and I'd ordinarily agree with the language implications, but feel 'no closer' now <font size=4>=</font> 'past', due to the lie being but a single point. </font>

If you are inside 10M, and straddle out with a stance the meets 803.04.A.2 and 803.04.C, after you putt, you could be in violation of 803.04.B without having moved your feet. <font color="red"> �? </font>


...I don't know how to format it, but that "<font size=4>=</font>" should have three lines, not just the two. :cool:

hazard
Jan 03 2006, 01:32 AM
The phrase "no closer to the hole" clearly indicates a circle around the target. <font color="red"> Not necessarily that clear if, as I feel, it's an either/or paradigm.</font> The phrase "past the marker disc" indicates a line perpendicular to the LOP. ...As you near the basket the ability to step around the circle of "no closer to the hole" with one foot "past" the rear edge of the marker increases. <font color="red"> I get the geometry DESCRIBED, and I'd ordinarily agree with the language implications, but feel 'no closer' now <font size=4>=</font> 'past', due to the lie being but a single point. </font>

If you are inside 10M, and straddle out with a stance the meets 803.04.A.2 and 803.04.C, after you putt, you could be in violation of 803.04.B without having moved your feet. <font color="red"> �? </font>


...I don't know how to format it, but that "<font size=4>=</font>" should have three lines, not just the two. :cool:



Actually, as long as we are nitpicking...

803.04.A defines where the player's supporting points may be at the time of release.

803.04.B states that stepping past the marker after the throw is permitted outside 10 meters. Presumably this assumes that the stance was legal at the time of release.

803.04.C defines what restrictions exist from 10 meters or closer after the release that do not exist otherwise.

The problem is that the language of the rule does not clearly state that "past" in 803.04.B refers to the same "closer" language used in parts A and B. The result is that, if one chooses to interpret "past the marker disc" as "past a line perpendicular to the line of play and intersecting the lie" rather than "past the arc at the distance from the hole as the lie defined by the marker disc," it becomes possible to violate 803.04.B without violating either of the other two rules, which could be interpreted either as being a stance violation or as being an undefined violation of the rules with no clearly defined consequences.

On the other hand, if one does not assume that the language of 803.04.B is intended to refer to the same situations covered in A and C, it is just as valid to point out that "past the marker" could as easily refer either to any necessary angle, so that one must be careful not to move one's supporting points in any direction except directly away from the marker, or alternatively that "past" is only fulfilled by stepping beyond the front of the marker, which unless one is fairly close to the hole will be precluded by C anyway.

Jan 03 2006, 09:45 AM
http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/No-Closer-to-the-Target.gif


The phrase "no closer to the hole" clearly indicates a circle around the target. The phrase "past the marker disc" indicates a line perpendicular to the LOP.



Where do you get that? Can you show me within the actual rule where is indicates a line perpendicular to the LOP? I don�t see any such indication. As you can see in the illustration, the supporting point not on the line of play is neither perpendicular nor closer to the hole, therefore it is in compliance with our stance rule.

<font color="blue">
803.04 Stance, Subsequent to
Teeing Off
A. 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.
B. Stepping past the marker disc is
permitted after the disc is released, except
when putting within 10 meters.
C. Any throw from within 10 meters or
less, as measured from the rear of the
marker disc to the base of the hole, is
considered a putt. A follow-through after
a putt that causes the thrower to make
any supporting point contact closer to
the hole than the rear edge of the marker
disc constitutes a falling putt and is
considered a stance violation . The player
must demonstrate full control of balance
before advancing toward the hole.
D. A player must choose the stance that
will result in the least movement of any
part of any obstacle that is a permanent
or integral part of the course.
E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a
player from taking a legal stance within
30 centimeters directly behind the
marker disc, the player shall take his
or her stance immediately behind that
obstacle on the line of play. The player
must comply with all the provisions of
803.04 A other than being within 30
centimeters directly behind the marker disc.
F. A stance violation must be clearly
called within three seconds after the
infraction to be valid. The call may
be made by any member of the group
or an official. When the call is made
by a member of the group, it must
subsequently be confirmed by another
member of the group. A player shall
receive a warning for the first violation
of a stance rule in the round.
Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the
same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.
G. Any throw that involves a validly called
and seconded stance violation may not
be used by the thrower. Re-throws must
be taken from the original lie, prior to
subsequent play by others in the group.
H. The player may not retrieve the
originally thrown disc prior to the
re-throw, except in the case of a putt
from within 10 meters. Where a disc is
retrieved in violation of this rule, a one
throw penalty shall be imposed without
a warning.


[/QUOTE]

I can find no reference to it. As concerns the rule under discussion �Thrown Disc Within 1 Meter of OB� the perpendicular line is used only for marking your lie, not for taking your stance. For that you must use the Stance rules above.

james_mccaine
Jan 03 2006, 10:05 AM
Nick, did you get a new toy for Xmas?

I can't believe there is any argument at all over this rule. It's starting to become clear to me on why so few players know the rules.

neonnoodle
Jan 03 2006, 10:38 AM
I am puzzled at the confusion myself.

The rules are relatively short. Read them once or twice. When a question arises, don't guess based on recollection or preconceived notions, go back and read all the rules that possibly pertain to the specific situation.

We are talking an effort of no more than 5 minutes there.

gnduke
Jan 03 2006, 11:10 AM
Nick, I interpret the stance rule as you stated.

I know a line of "no closer to the hole" is a circle.

I know that "past the marker" is not defined anywhere in our rules.

I know that when I pass something, it is not measured in an arc from the target. I normally consider past to be measured by a line perpendicular to direction of travel.

In interpreting the rules regarding stance and passing the lie, I tend to ignore this discrepancy since it seems clear that the same definition should be used for all instances, and the "no closer to the hole" description is clearly defined.

I have been told in the past that common sense trumps semantics. If there are two ways to interpret a word/rule, and one interpretation contradicts other rules, it must be the wrong interpretation. Therefore I interpret "past the marker" as meaning past the arc described as "no closer to the hole" than the back edge of the marker.

AviarX
Jan 03 2006, 11:55 AM
I am puzzled at the confusion myself.

The rules are relatively short. Read them once or twice. When a question arises, don't guess based on recollection or preconceived notions, go back and read all the rules that possibly pertain to the specific situation.

We are talking an effort of no more than 5 minutes there.



not everyone has good reading skills. changing that might take more than 5 minutes...

rutgersgolfer
Jan 03 2006, 12:15 PM
Not that I would want to, but if I have a 4 foot putt, I guess I can get a running start, leave the ground within 30 centimeters behind my mini, slam dunk the disc in the basket and land 5 feet past on the other side.

AviarX
Jan 03 2006, 12:32 PM
i suppose so, if one's interpretation is based more on semantics than common sense...

gnduke
Jan 03 2006, 12:43 PM
Not that I would want to, but if I have a 4 foot putt, I guess I can get a running start, leave the ground within 30 centimeters behind my mini, slam dunk the disc in the basket and land 5 feet past on the other side.



Except for 803.04.A.1 which states "(A) 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".

rutgersgolfer
Jan 03 2006, 12:53 PM
Oh yeah, forgot that rule. Guess I'll have to release it before I go airborn :)

sandalman
Jan 03 2006, 02:03 PM
for those 4 footers, you know the ones that are just a bit too far to drop in so they actually have to fly, i will absolutely do a wide straddle stance. a wide straddle keeps both feet no closer to the pin and turns it into a dropin. very useful in a severe headwinds and in particularly nerve-wracking situations. and completely within the rules.

slo
Jan 03 2006, 03:22 PM
The problem is that the language of the rule does not clearly state that "past" in 803.04.B refers to the same "closer" language used in parts A and B. The result is that, if one chooses to interpret "past the marker disc" as "past a line perpendicular to the line of play and intersecting the lie" rather than "past the arc at the distance from the hole as the lie defined by the marker disc," it becomes possible to violate 803.04.B without violating either of the other two rules, which could be interpreted either as being a stance violation or as being an undefined violation of the rules with no clearly defined consequences.

On the other hand, if one does <font color="red"> not </font> assume that the language of 803.04.B is intended to refer to the same situations covered in A and C,...



Whoa; I do PREsume the language in the same 'heading' [80x.xx] would comply with itself, yes.

slo
Jan 03 2006, 03:30 PM
I know that "past the marker" is not defined anywhere in our rules.

I know that when I pass something, it is not measured in an arc from the target. I normally consider past to be measured by a line perpendicular to direction of travel.


...and since all the 'components' of the rule must comply....

I'm not certain if I'm in the 'semantics' or 'common sense' group? Neither?!? :D

gnduke
Jan 03 2006, 06:08 PM
The bad part is that none of the rules being discussed here are new to the 2006 rule book. The new rules 803.04.A-C are direct copies of the old rules 803.03.A-C .

neonnoodle
Jan 03 2006, 07:42 PM
The bad part is that none of the rules being discussed here are new to the 2006 rule book. The new rules 803.04.A-C are direct copies of the old rules 803.03.A-C .



What specifically would you alter Gary?

Have we found some discrepancy somewhere in them?

Jan 03 2006, 07:54 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



The answer is D.

<font color="blue"> C. If the thrown disc comes to rest
in-bounds but within one meter of
an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be
relocated to any point on a one-meter
line that extends perpendicularly from
the nearest point on the out-of-bounds
line, and passes through the center of
the thrown disc. This holds true even if
the direction takes the lie closer to the
hole. </font>

A thrower may move there lie "anywhere" on that perpendicular line, even towards the OB. Because the word "may" is used, normal marking of the lie is permitted as well.

The difference from 2005 is only the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc. Otherwise the rule behaves the same way. Few folks other than officials and tds knew that you could actually move closer to the OB. It can come in handy in a few rare situations.

AviarX
Jan 03 2006, 07:58 PM
:confused:
can you please explain to me why -- in order to be legal alternative lies -- the minis to each side of the thrown disc are not centered on the line perpendicular to the center of the thrown disc?

neonnoodle
Jan 03 2006, 08:00 PM
:confused:
can you please explain to me why -- in order to be legal alternative lies -- the minis to each side of the thrown disc are not centered on the line perpendicular to the center of the thrown disc?



Can you show me where the language "centered on the perpendicular line is? All I see is "on".

rhett
Jan 03 2006, 08:09 PM
Why is Nick posting on this thread with multiple personalities???

Afraid people are ignoring you, Nick?

All I see is "*** You are ignoring this user ***" with either one. I thought Nick wanted that second login for official MADC business.

gnduke
Jan 03 2006, 08:38 PM
Expand "past the marker" (803.04.B) to include "to a point closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc" to remove any ambiguity between the phrases "no closer to the hole" (803.04.A.2 & 803.04.C) and "past the marker".

Only because I can see the validity of interpreting "past the marker" as referring to a line perpindicular to LOP is read in isolation. I think that all of the wording regarding stance validity should lead to the same conclusions whether read as a group or in isolation.

AviarX
Jan 03 2006, 09:49 PM
you've been at this longer than i. i am going by what i find intuitive. if the minis aren't centered on the perpendicular line, shouldn't their back (rather than front) edge be what is touching the line? i am asking what your reasoning is for placing the minis as you have in relation to the perpendicular line, because at first glance it seems counterintuitive and i'd like to know what the correct interpretation is.

Gary, Rhett -- is Nick right?

hazard
Jan 03 2006, 11:23 PM
If your disc comes to rest within 1 meter of an OB line as illustrated in the below illustration, which is (are) the correct placement(s) of the mini marker according to 2006 PDGA Rules?

A. Only 3. Mini.
B. Only 1. Mini.
C. 3. and 1. Mini.
D. All Minis.

Extra Credit: Does this represent a change from 2005 PDGA Rules?

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration.gif



The answer is D.

<font color="blue"> C. If the thrown disc comes to rest
in-bounds but within one meter of
an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be
relocated to any point on a one-meter
line that extends perpendicularly from
the nearest point on the out-of-bounds
line, and passes through the center of
the thrown disc. This holds true even if
the direction takes the lie closer to the
hole. </font>

A thrower may move there lie "anywhere" on that perpendicular line, even towards the OB. Because the word "may" is used, normal marking of the lie is permitted as well.

The difference from 2005 is only the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc. Otherwise the rule behaves the same way. Few folks other than officials and tds knew that you could actually move closer to the OB. It can come in handy in a few rare situations.



Actually the 2005 rules never used the word "may." Allowing the lie to be marked as it normally would under the 2005 rules technically required a more liberal interpretation of either "perpendicular" or "nearest" than I would consider appropriate.

Good thing that doesn't matter anymore.

rutgersgolfer
Jan 03 2006, 11:29 PM
Rob, I agree with you. Nick, I believe you are wrong. The "lie" by definition is where I take my stance, not where I place my mini. I get to place the front of my foot up to the line which runs through the center of the thrown disc.

sandalman
Jan 03 2006, 11:34 PM
i'm weighing in with rob and rutgers on this one.

see, we can be buddies rob! :D

AviarX
Jan 03 2006, 11:36 PM
i'm weighing in with rob and rutgers on this one.

see, we can be buddies rob! :D



it is easy to be buddies with a guy who gives away stacks of plastic, Pat :D (actually your fair and generous trading behavior with me in the midst of our vehement disagreement with one another vis-a-vis the 2 meter rule proved to me you were a good guy)

i know it sounds weird to you to hear me say this, but i think Nick is wrong :D

rutgersgolfer
Jan 03 2006, 11:55 PM
proved to me you were a good guy



It's nice to hear some love on the board for a change :)

gnduke
Jan 04 2006, 12:40 AM
I agree with rob, The lie should be at the line, the rear edge of the markers should be on the line.

AviarX
Jan 04 2006, 12:52 AM
wow, now that Gary concurs with me i know i am right. Nick, time [once again] to re-draw :o:eek: :p /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 02:14 AM
Why is Nick posting on this thread with multiple personalities???

Afraid people are ignoring you, Nick?

All I see is "*** You are ignoring this user ***" with either one. I thought Nick wanted that second login for official MADC business.



You and Jeff LaGrassa should get together. I can see your type of personalities are a perfect match.

Paranoid and will hold a Grudge 'til dooms day.

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 02:19 AM
I agree with rob, The lie should be at the line, the rear edge of the markers should be on the line.



Interesting. Where do you read or find that in our rules of disc golf Gary? There is no insinuation that I can find anywhere that the mini should be placed with it's back edge against the perpendicular line.

All that is necessary is that it be "on" the perpendicular line. And whoever mentioned the "lie " needs to reread the question (i.e. placement of the mini marker NOT lie).

You guys are funny. You act like I will somehow mind being corrected.

I'm not Rhett or Pat here...

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 02:22 AM
wow, now that Gary concurs with me i know i am right. Nick, time [once again] to re-draw :o:eek: :p /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D



I'll need more than Gary's word, good as it often is. Like some quotes from the rules for starters. If you find it I'll be the first to champion it from on high.

slo
Jan 04 2006, 02:50 AM
The bad part is that none of the rules being discussed here are new to the 2006 rule book. The new rules 803.04.A-C are direct copies of the old rules 803.03.A-C .


These are affected by the 'enlightenment' that the LOP never has thickness, and that the lie and the rear edge of the marker are but a single point, never an arc.

Was that a rule change, per se?? With this puzzling re-numbering, they're all new, in a sense. At least we now have a playing surface. :p

gnduke
Jan 04 2006, 09:57 AM
Okay, step-by-step.
First the definitions of Lie and Marker from the Definitions (800).


Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player <font color="blue">takes his or her stance</font> in accordance with the rules.

Marker: A term used to indicate either the mini marker disc or the thrown disc at rest, both of which can be used to <font color="blue">indicate the lie</font> from which a thrower�s next shot shall be played.

Mini Marker Disc: A disc used to mark the <font color="blue">location of the lie</font>. (See 803.03 marking the lie, and 802.03, size restrictions).



Now we know that the lie is where we play from and the marker is used to indicate where the lie is. Now I'll quote the rules on how the lie is indicated by the marker.

The basic Lie/Marker rule.

803.03 Marking the Lie
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play, touching the thrown disc. A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker. The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location.



Nothing of use here but the concept of the marker establishing the lie. Still nothing about the positional relationship.


803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface <font color="blue">on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc</font> (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,



Finally something positional about the lie (where you play from) and the marker used to indicate it. The marker is immediately in front of the lie. Well technically, the lie is directly behind the marker, but since we are told in 803.03.C where the lie is, we need to know where to put the marker so the that lie ends up in the correct location.


803.03 Marking the Lie
C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the <font color="blue">lie may be relocated</font> to any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line, and passes through the center of the thrown disc. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole. See the following sections for other considerations in marking a thrown disc:



Now that we have all of the peices necessary, the rule states that the lie is repositioned to any point on the one meter line extending from the OB line through the center of the thrown disc. The lie is 30 cm long and along the LOP.

Now we know that the lie is the thing that is relocated anywhere along the one meter line, where do we place the marker ? The marker is placed on the LOP immediately in front of the lie.

Now for the next question.

Under the wording of 803.03.C, is there a requirement that the leading edge of the lie be placed on the one meter line through the center of the thrown disc, or will any part of the lie being placed on that line satisfy the requirements of the rule ?

sandalman
Jan 04 2006, 10:04 AM
I'm not Rhett or Pat here...

how could you possible know anything about me when you have me on ignore? ignoranus!

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 01:30 PM
I'm not Rhett or Pat here...

how could you possible know anything about me when you have me on ignore? ignoranus!



I've tried to take you off ignore, but since you have been working on the code it has not allowed it. Are you pleading "ignorance"?

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 01:33 PM
Thank you Gary. How does any of that support the idea that once the lie is marked it should be addressed any differently than any other lie as far as the supporting point that is not on the actual lie (30cm line of play)?

How does this make it necessary to make the players have to mark the lie with a marker disc differently than just having it 'on" the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc?

Thanks.

slo
Jan 04 2006, 01:42 PM
Under the wording of 803.03.C, is there a requirement that the leading edge of the lie be placed on the one meter line through the center of the thrown disc, or will any part of the lie being placed on that line satisfy the requirements of the rule ?



I'm not sure if this is a trick question; I don't believe there's any 'leading edge' language anymore, is there? But what I THINK you're getting at is: Can a lie be chosen and marked to where>>>part of the marker is 'spilling' over into OB?

...also, an obstacle may alter the placement to somewhere off this line.

gnduke
Jan 04 2006, 01:56 PM
I don't have a clue where you are going.

The orignal question was whether the mini markers used to mark the relocated lie should go in front of, on, or behind the one meter line perpendicular to the OB line and through the center of the thrown disc. Your illustration showed the markers placed where the leading edge of the mini markers were touching the one meter line. This puts the lie several inches behind the one meter line. The rule states that the lie should be on the line, so the marker must be placed in front of the line.

Now the question is how far in front of the line is allowed.

If any part of the lie is sufficient, the marker could be placed up to 29cm on LOP in front of any part of the one meter line. I am mixed on that point since intuitively, the mark would be at the same point (front edge of the thrown disc) since the center of the lie under normal marking rules falls in the center of the previously thrown disc.

In answer to your other question, the lie (really all supporting points) must be in bounds. I don't see any requirement that the marker be fully in bounds.

slo
Jan 04 2006, 02:02 PM
How does this make it necessary to make the players have to mark the lie with a marker disc differently than just having it 'on" the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc?

Thanks.



In your illustration above, the minis are 'covering up' some of that precious 30cm available behind the actual lie, is what I see different.

slo
Jan 04 2006, 02:03 PM
I appreciate the effort, though! :cool:

sandalman
Jan 04 2006, 02:06 PM
my patb account is admin,. not my sandalman account. if you are experiencing technical difficulties with message board features, you should send a note to Rhett. oh wait - he's on your ignore list also! :D

rhett
Jan 04 2006, 02:22 PM
my patb account is admin,. not my sandalman account. if you are experiencing technical difficulties with message board features, you should send a note to Rhett. oh wait - he's on your ignore list also! :D


My "Rhett_the_Admin" account does not have anyone on ignore, so all users can send PMs to that account.

I also limit my opinionated posting to this account only, and only use the Admin account to post official business stuff, so hopefully there is no rational reason for anyone to have my Admin account on ignore. (i.e., everyone should be able to send PMs to Rhett_the_Admin)

neonnoodle
Jan 04 2006, 02:33 PM
i'm weighing in with rob and rutgers on this one.

see, we can be buddies rob! :D



it is easy to be buddies with a guy who gives away stacks of plastic, Pat :D (actually your fair and generous trading behavior with me in the midst of our vehement disagreement with one another vis-a-vis the 2 meter rule proved to me you were a good guy)

i know it sounds weird to you to hear me say this, but i think Nick is wrong :D



Perhaps you could be swayed by another stack of plastic then? :p ;)

AviarX
Jan 04 2006, 02:41 PM
throw in a seat on the RC and we have a deal :D

just kidding -- [serving on the RC] would be work :p

Jan 04 2006, 03:29 PM
<font color="blue">
803.03 Marking the Lie
C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line, and passes through the center of the thrown disc. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole. </font>

My humble apologies; I now see where you are going Gary. If the thrower does not use the actual thrown disc to mark their lie with a mini marker in compliance with the rules, she/he may mark their lie with a mini marker by placing the rear edge of the marker anywhere along and against the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc. It would be improper to mark it in front or in back of that line (unless other relief is allowed by the rules).

Allow me to redraw the illustration with the correct placements of minis 2. and 3..

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration2.gif

I am certain the answer is all of the minis from this illustration are proper marks.

I think that you and others saying the lie itself is actually a point on the line of play, or in this case along the perpendicular line, is correct. The 30cm extends from this point back along the line of play away from the target.

Nice catch.

I'm going to send the link to this thread to Harold and see if we have gotten it correctly.

Was there some lingering question on your part beyond this?

Again, sorry for the confusion.

gnduke
Jan 04 2006, 05:20 PM
That was basically it.

Now, as you pointed out, the rule does not say anything about the leading edge of the lie. The lie represented by a 30cm line from the back edge of the marker along the LOP.

Are the requirements of 803.03.C met "the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line" as long as any portion of the 30cm line that represents the lie crosses (is on) the one meter line ?

quickdisc
Jan 04 2006, 11:18 PM
<font color="blue">
803.03 Marking the Lie
C. If the thrown disc comes to rest in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line, and passes through the center of the thrown disc. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole. </font>

My humble apologies; I now see where you are going Gary. If the thrower does not use the actual thrown disc to mark their lie with a mini marker in compliance with the rules, she/he may mark their lie with a mini marker by placing the rear edge of the marker anywhere along and against the perpendicular line through the center of the thrown disc. It would be improper to mark it in front or in back of that line (unless other relief is allowed by the rules).

Allow me to redraw the illustration with the correct placements of minis 2. and 3..

http://www.madisc.org/dgrz/images/1M-Within-OB-Illustration2.gif

I am certain the answer is all of the minis from this illustration are proper marks.

I think that you and others saying the lie itself is actually a point on the line of play, or in this case along the perpendicular line, is correct. The 30cm extends from this point back along the line of play away from the target.

Nice catch.

I'm going to send the link to this thread to Harold and see if we have gotten it correctly.

Was there some ing question on your part beyond this?

Again, sorry for the confusion.



Interesting..............marked though the center of the thrown disc.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 01:27 AM
Nice catch.


Is my extra credit a Chicken dinner? :p

slo
Jan 05 2006, 01:36 AM
...Now, as you pointed out, the rule does not say anything about the leading edge of the lie. The lie represented by a 30cm line from the back edge of the marker along the LOP.

Are the requirements of 803.03.C met "the lie may be relocated to any point on a one-meter line" as long as any portion of the 30cm line that represents the lie crosses (is on) the one meter line ?



The lie is a single point [I do believe that's been mentioned]; there is no 'leading edge'. The 30 cm is a measure of tolerance only, and only in a direction away-from-the target...only.

The 30 cm line is not the lie.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 01:51 AM
The 30 cm line is not the lie; I thought that was obvious. If my mini is entirely in the circle, but I take that extra 30cm allowance, to where my contact point is 10.01 M away from the target, I'm still subject to the 10-M rule, because the lie is inside the circle. It's a single point.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 01:54 AM
The 30 cm line is not the lie; ...the lie... It's a single point.


In 2006.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 02:11 AM
The contact point isn't the lie.

gnduke
Jan 05 2006, 02:53 AM
According to the rules, the lie is defined as

Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon
which the player takes his or her stance in
accordance with the rules.



The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his ir her stance is defined in 803.04.A.1 as being within 30cm on the LOP behind the marker disc.

Given that the Lie is defined as a spot, the lie is anywhere along that 30cm line. :cool:

slo
Jan 05 2006, 03:16 AM
Seems like the definition for "contact point", rather than lie, is my first reaction. Does that mean I'm now nit-picking; yikes! If it is truly as per the glossary, that the placement of the foot is the lie, and the point which determines the lie is not the lie, what about my example above, where the lie is in the circle, but the point of contact is outside? The rule goes>>>the lie, not the point where the contact is.

Sorry; I have trouble with that PARTICULAR definition>>>used as a rule.

...I always thought one played from BEHIND the lie, not upon the lie...am I alone on this one?

How can a point be a line, anyways.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 03:41 AM
If instead of
Lie: The spot on the playing surface <font color="red"> upon </font>
which the player takes his or her stance in
accordance with the rules.

it read:
Lie: The spot on the playing surface <font color="red"> BEHIND </font>
which the player takes his or her stance in
accordance with the rules.

I could dig it.

or,
if he rule read,
Lie: The line on the playing surface upon
which the player must make contact in a stance in
accordance with the rules.

then I could see the lie>>>a line!

But it's currently neither, *sigh*. See y'all in the morning.

gnduke
Jan 05 2006, 03:44 AM
The spot and line do not go together very well.

I always thought we played from the lie which was directly behind the marker disc. I never bothered about the exact definition until I was looking at Nick's question.

By strict definition, the marker can be placed anywhere such a line 30cm long along LOP crosses the one meter line from OB, but the stance must be taken at the intersection of those 2 lines. If the lie is the actual spot the player throws from, and the lie must be on the one meter line.

Better yet, just forget I brought it up. Mark with the back edge of the mini touching the one meter line and call it good.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 01:13 PM
OK and I'll pretend I never suggested the contact point and the lie are two seperate things.

neonnoodle
Jan 05 2006, 02:11 PM
OK and I'll pretend I never suggested the contact point and the lie are two seperate things.



Does it help to think of them this way:
One is your "mark".
The other is your "lie".

Perhaps someone other than me could ask the RC if they feel this needs clarifying? I'm not convinced it does.

slo
Jan 05 2006, 03:13 PM
I could see the mark as fixed, and the lie [if it's merely just another name for contact point] as moving, yes. I can see how a Teepad>>>throwing from UPON the lie, I guess, however, thinking of the front edge as the lie, and staying behind THAT is really more how I've approached it.

[but][can't let it go] Even then [if the lie isn't 'fixed'] the "contact point" would be a line-segment, not a "point", because even a fingertip has 'area', and the 30cm line is a line, and that line and the contact area share the same plane. [I think that intersection of the two is called a "chord"; not certain.]

Semantics, but is the lie really a POINT then [and WHICH point is it, on this legal line-of-contact], if the lie is not a single, known point, the intersection of the LOP and 'past' lines, as I've suggested?

gnduke
Jan 05 2006, 07:03 PM
This is giving me a headache.

What's a "contact point" and where is it described ?

neonnoodle
Jan 05 2006, 09:27 PM
The mark is not the lie,and the lie is not the mark. They are separate though related. The mark is the point on the line of play which provides the furthermost point on the 30cm one may have contact with.

There is only one point to mark your disc, you can take your stance on your lie anywhere along the 30cm line that represents your lie.

Mark and lie. Lie and Mark.

chrispfrisbee
Jan 05 2006, 09:54 PM
People have been telling me I have to RE-Take the Officials Test since there were Rule Changes. Is this true? I have received NO correspondence from the PDGA on this matter.
What's the DEAL-E-O?

sandalman
Jan 06 2006, 12:35 AM
OK and I'll pretend I never suggested the contact point and the lie are two seperate things.

lie and contact point ARE two seperate things, cuz lie is a point and contact point is an area. for most peoples feet. unless they mean the center of the foot (contact point) must be on the lie. which could lead to absolute inanity. but since we're headed that way already, maybe who cares :D

slo
Jan 06 2006, 01:04 AM
By contact point I mean "Support point". That's use of an incorrect term; my bad. I knew what I meant, though! http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

OK, the MARK is what is but a single point, now, due to its being the intersection of two lines. Last year, the mark had a second dimention. Stop.

haroldduvall
Jan 06 2006, 10:23 AM
Here's how I pull it all together in my mind.

The Lie is THE singular, theoretical spot from which the player plays the next shot. This spot is identified by a Marker Disc. The Stance rules provide some leeway from the specific spot identified by the marker disc to allow for play in the real world.

Take care,
Harold

gnduke
Jan 06 2006, 10:28 AM
That's how it fits, but when you are relocating the "lie", where to you put the mini marker in relation to the relocated lie ?

I know that if I intend to throw the disc from a particular spot, I would like the back of the marker to be 2-3 inches ahead of that spot.

neonnoodle
Jan 06 2006, 10:57 AM
By contact point I mean "Support point". That's use of an incorrect term; my bad. I knew what I meant, though! http://www.pdga.com/discus/clipart/proud.gif

OK, the MARK is what is but a single point, now, due to its being the intersection of two lines. Last year, the mark had a second dimention. Stop.



Rules discussions are fun, yes, but only to a point. I think we have reached that "contact point".

The rules provide what a lie is.
The rules provide how to take a proper stance on that lie.
The rules provide what relationship we have to have upon release of the disc.

Now we need to Know, Follow and Call it out on the course. They've done their part in this, now we have to do our part.

Note: I never want to see our sport have volumes of law journal-like books to contain all the possible extrapolations of every minute point. The beauty of our rules, since the beginning, is that we have been able to play a mostly fair competition under very omni-sized rules that cover a great many situations in as clear and consice a manner as possible.

This discussion, along with other rules discussions, should never lose sight of the fact that our rules have been excellent ever since the very first rule book came out. Further that all of the names and people who have served on that committee are deserving of every player's appreciation who has ever played a competitive round of disc golf.

Zealots discuss rules because we have a passion for getting them right, yes, but always from the vantage of being meaningfully constructive. Looking at all sides is fine and well, even discussing imaginative scenarios is ok, just so long as when we walk out to the course we don't lawyer the rules, but instead understand them as clearly as we can, follow them religiously, and call them when necessary.

Being inquisitive is a part of it too, but mainly to get it right so that it is clear to others and to ourselves.

rutgersgolfer
Jan 06 2006, 12:11 PM
Well said Nick. I have another rules question concerning marking the lie (803.03A) (nothing new except the phrase "on the line of play" which isn't important to this scenario.)

Say my throw ends up in a drain pipe (not OB). I can see it but cannot reach it without the help of a stick. Since I can't place my marker disc on the playing surface this means I must take an unplayable lie penalty, right? (Assuming the TD did not make any special conditions for this case.)

In past casual rounds we have played free relief above the drain pipe on solid ground (about one foot above the original lie.)

slo
Jan 06 2006, 01:59 PM
This discussion, along with other rules discussions, should never lose sight of the fact that our rules have been excellent ever since the very first rule book came out. Further that all of the names and people who have served on that committee are deserving of every player's appreciation who has ever played a competitive round of disc golf.



I'll second that. I'm having fun and hopefully learning stuff; I don't know 'better' than the 'real pros'; the cognoscenti of the sport.

slo
Jan 06 2006, 02:05 PM
The Lie is THE singular, theoretical spot from which the player plays the next shot. This spot is identified by a Marker Disc. The Stance rules provide some leeway from the specific spot identified by the marker disc to allow for play in the real world.

Take care,
Harold



*ahem* :D

OK, SOMEBODY [ :cool:]agrees with what I was saying; the LIE = Mark = a single spot, and the STANCE [support 'point'] is taken in RELATION TO this spot [in accordance, etc].

Time-out for y'all to take your headache medication.... :o

slo
Jan 06 2006, 02:45 PM
rutgers, inside a drainpipe isn't my idea of a safe playing surface. What's directly above? Seems like it'd be one of two things. Either directly above is playing surface, or directly above is obstacle. So it appears to-be a two-part question you're asking, so-far.

rutgersgolfer
Jan 06 2006, 06:56 PM
Directly above is safe, normal playing surface. The drainpipe is pretty small, but discs have found their way into it sometimes. Since it is not possible for the mini to be "placed on the playing surface, touching the thrown disc", I would think it's got to be an unplayable lie.

haroldduvall
Jan 06 2006, 09:44 PM
Hey Gary - Are you asking a general question about relocated lies, or specifically about a disc within 1 meter of OB?

Take care,
Harold

slo
Jan 07 2006, 02:32 PM
I'm missing how a thrown disc could get in, but a mini couldn't? How about a hand; that's all it takes for a support 'point'.

Sounds like a plain ol' obstacle, so far. The mark would be directly behind, where feasible.

rutgersgolfer
Jan 07 2006, 08:27 PM
If you get down flat on your stomach you might be able to reach in and touch the disc if you really stretch. I guess you could conceivably use your hand as the support point, but I don't think you could get off a throw.

sandalman
Jan 07 2006, 08:34 PM
honest question:

at what point can a player be required to play A stance, and not his DESIRED stance?

gnduke
Jan 08 2006, 12:06 AM
I was asking about the lie within 2 meter of OB since most other lie relocations are along LOP, and a specific point of intersection of 2 lines for the spot that is the lie is not defined in other relocations.

If the lie is specific point, and the mark is a specific point that has some relation to the lie, and the stance rules allow a player 30cm of leeway, and you are not allowed to step on your marker when you throw, but you are supposed to be on the LOP, and on the perpendicular line from the OB line through the center of the previously thrown disc when you release the disc (which is the exact definition of a lie), should you place your marker to allow room for a stance on the perpendicular line without stepping on your marker disc ?

But with the amount of attention given to stance violations anyway, it's probably a waste of time even thinking about it.

gnduke
Jan 08 2006, 12:10 AM
Pat, does that refer to casual relief?

I think the wording is vague and basically not enforceable.

What defines the first point along a 5 meter path back along LOP ? The first place that isn't underwater (but several inches deep in mud) or the first point that is firm and allows a run-up ?

krupicka
Jan 09 2006, 09:29 AM
honest question:

at what point can a player be required to play A stance, and not his DESIRED stance?



Based on 803.1, I'd say 30 seconds.

sandalman
Jan 09 2006, 10:23 AM
true dat, but i guess i worded it wrong. i mean, can i tell someone they need to use their fingers/nand as a supporting point to get in between the tree and the lie (or whatever), rather than relocating behind the obstacle

haroldduvall
Jan 09 2006, 10:41 AM
Hey Gary � In my opinion: Line of Play does not impact the lie position because to do so would defeat the purpose of the relocation rule in many near-OB situations. (The original example that Nick provided, where the Line of Play parallels the OB line, seems atypical.) The relocated lie is on the perpendicular line, and the back edge of the mini marker must abut the perpendicular line.

The Line of Play is not established until after the lie is relocated. Once the lie is marked and the Line of Play is established, the Stance rules provide some flexibility for foot placement, but I do not see where there is leeway for forward-backward mini placement.

Take care,
Harold

gnduke
Jan 09 2006, 11:26 AM
So for the sake of relocation, the lie and mark are basically synonymous, and your stance isn't your lie, but behind your lie as allowed by the stance rules.

I would think the definition of lie should then be slightly different than the one given in the rules, but can't come up with a succinct way to phrase it.

chrispfrisbee
Jan 09 2006, 01:06 PM
Thanks for the info guys and taking time to address my question. Jerks. :confused:

haroldduvall
Jan 09 2006, 01:16 PM
Hey Chris - This decision is not made by the Rules Committee or the folks participating on this thread. I believe the answer is "No," but you may want to contact Dave Gentry or Brian Hoeniger.

Take care,
Harold

ck34
Jan 09 2006, 01:24 PM
I'm on the phone with Dave right now and no current official will need to be recertified. However, a new test based on the updated rules is almost ready for people who have not yet become an official in the past and want to become one now.

chrispfrisbee
Jan 09 2006, 02:48 PM
Thank you. I''m not sure if it was a rumor or what. Sorry about the "Jerks" comment as well. I was just disappointed no one had responded in a couple of days.

neonnoodle
Jan 09 2006, 04:22 PM
Hey Gary � In my opinion: Line of Play does not impact the lie position because to do so would defeat the purpose of the relocation rule in many near-OB situations. (The original example that Nick provided, where the Line of Play parallels the OB line, seems atypical.) The relocated lie is on the perpendicular line, and the back edge of the mini marker must abut the perpendicular line.

The Line of Play is not established until after the lie is relocated. Once the lie is marked and the Line of Play is established, the Stance rules provide some flexibility for foot placement, but I do not see where there is leeway for forward-backward mini placement.

Take care,
Harold



Worth repeating.

gnduke
Jan 09 2006, 04:57 PM
Offhand, I would say never since a finger is not normally used as a supporting point, but there is nothing in the rules that says that it's not a legal stance, and nothing that says you get a "normal" stance. You are by rule required to take a legal stance if possible before taking relief behind a solid obstacle.

803.04.E only allows for relief when a legal stance can not be taken within 30cm behind the marker disc.

sandalman
Jan 09 2006, 05:02 PM
thats what i was thinking also. so who's gonna be the first to tell another player they have to use a hand/finger as a support point? :D

gnduke
Jan 09 2006, 05:49 PM
Since you so cleverly uncovered this previously unnoticed requirement in the rules, I would not dream of taking the distinction of being the first to enforce it from you. I will then leave it to you to find an appropriate circumstance to force an unfortunate miscreant to follow the letter of the rules and then bask in the singular glory. :cool:

(roughly translated: Don't look at me, you brought it up)

rhett
Jan 09 2006, 06:05 PM
Are you talking about making someone put a finger between their mini and a giant rock?

gnduke
Jan 09 2006, 06:15 PM
That's what it sounds like to me.

sandalman
Jan 09 2006, 07:05 PM
yup.

you are entitled to A stance, not the stance you want.

says so in the rules.

rhett
Jan 09 2006, 07:13 PM
I be happy if we could get people to stop moving stuff between their lie and the hole by clearing a swath via the "big booty backup maneuver".

Relocating to behind a giant rock when there is not room for your foot is pretty much in line with the mythical "spirit of the rule", whereas BigBooty clearly is not.

quickdisc
Jan 09 2006, 07:14 PM
:D Close only counts in horseshoes.

sandalman
Jan 09 2006, 08:08 PM
true. the funny (?) thing is that they'll tell you that since the trunk ofthe tree.bush/whatever is behind teh lie then its ok to move the branches in front.

actually, its a one stroke penalty with no warning.

rhett
Jan 09 2006, 08:13 PM
I the BigBooty maneuver comes up a heck of a lot more in real life than people trying to relocate behind a solid obstacle when they have room for "A" stance, too.

sandalman
Jan 09 2006, 08:17 PM
yes but this board is for mindless minutiae. get with the program. :D

AviarX
Jan 09 2006, 08:20 PM
Since you so cleverly uncovered this previously unnoticed requirement in the rules, I would not dream of taking the distinction of being the first to enforce it from you. I will then leave it to you to find an appropriate circumstance to force an unfortunate miscreant to follow the letter of the rules and then bask in the singular glory. :cool:

(roughly translated: Don't look at me, you brought it up)



Gary, thanks for making me laugh with your well-crafted reply :D

Pat's response above, is another good one :D

rutgersgolfer
Jan 09 2006, 11:30 PM
I have often wondered myself if you are required to use a finger as your supporting point when your foot won't fit. It doesn't seem quite fair, but the rule says "if a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters..."

gnduke
Jan 10 2006, 01:24 AM
Glad to be of service.

Of course, I was being completely serious in my reply.

AviarX
Jan 10 2006, 01:27 AM
right, the 'singular glory' phrase gave that away :D

quickdisc
Jan 10 2006, 04:32 PM
yes but this board is for mindless minutiae. get with the program. :D



Mindless , clueless ......................maybe we could get Carlos Mencia to talk about it !!!!! :cool:

Alacrity
Jan 13 2006, 03:47 PM
Mindless , clueless ......................maybe we could get Carlos Mencia to talk about it !!!!! :cool:




Mindless, yes, clueless no. There is a difference.

quickdisc
Jan 13 2006, 08:40 PM
Almost like refusing to pay attention ?