here the scenario: a disc is thrown and passes a creek and wedges underneathe the bridge but is not OB. The bridge also extends about 1.5 meters past the creek. Getting the disc out is difficult. My question is regarding how this should be played:

A. should the player have to either contort his body to place a finger (support point) or foot up under the bridge behind the disc to resume play or declare an Unplayable lie and move it back up to 5 meters on the Line Of Play with a penalty stroke for the relief?

B. can the player mark his disc vertically above where it lies by putting his marker up on the bridge and playing form there?

C. can the player use the rule cited below to mark his disc back to the other side of the bridge and play it from there w/out penalty? If yes, why couldn't the player instead simply mark his lie up on the bridge vertically above where the disc is stuck (6 inches below the bridge surface)?

803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off

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.

I don't want to trouble the RC if this is an issue that is already ruled upon or clear. They do have a "disc beneathe playing surface" question int he Q. & A. but it seems pretty vague in terms of what *the* right call would be...

If you read the Glossary definition for Playing Surface, the course pro or TD should have already clarified whether the bridge can be a playing surface. If so, then player could move the lie up on the bridge.

I once landed under a bridge that I could easily stand under and the bridge was a playing surface. With out the TD defineing anything else could I move my lie to the bridge surface? I played it from under and it worked but was wondering.

You used to be able to before the new rules, which finally have a definition for Playing Surface, which is below the disc as a default. Moving up is OK, but requires the Course Pro or TD to have defined it as allowable.

They also have a multiple playing surface ruling.

Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)

A. is always an option.
B.* there has been some question about the rule of verticality when the disc is within 1 meter of the OB line. Otherwise, there's no help.
C. the rule cited (803.04.E) is very specific in the manner in which relief may be taken. It's directly behind the object or nothing.


803.03.D The Rule of Verticality: The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane. Where a player�s lie is marked from a particular point within one meter of the out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules, the one-meter relief may be taken from the particular point upward or downward along the vertical plane.



The discussion was that if the disc was within 1m of the OB line, it can be repositioned to anywhere in the vertical space within 1m of the OB line. Like the top of the bridge.

The RC ruling in the above cited Q&A entry prevents that interpretation. The OB line does not exist on top of the bridge, so the vertical plane stops below the surface of the bridge.

Your options are A. or C.

Unless I am overruled.



:D

Really starting to like the thought of play it where it lies. Get wet. Climb a tree. Don't be a baby and just throw the thing.

Playing Surface: The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official.



Okay Chuck. But, assuming the TD / Course Pro has not clarified whether they want the bridge considered a playing surface, how should the scenario above be handled?

So, if the bridge has been declared a playing surface -- no problemo -- mark the disc on the playing surface (bridge surface) and play it from there.

Otherwise -- it is either you call an Unplayable Lie and relocate back up to 5 meters on the line of play with a one stroke penalty -or- contort a finger or foot (a support point) up under the bridge and play it where it lies.

Correct?

If you read the Glossary definition for Playing Surface, the course pro or TD should have already clarified whether the bridge can be a playing surface. If so, then player could move the lie up on the bridge.



Which rule allows you to move up to a playing surface. Even the ruling concerning discs below the playing surface does not allow such a move.

Really starting to like the thought of play it where it lies. Get wet. Climb a tree. Don't be a baby and just throw the thing.

Me too. Our proto rule was, "Play it where it lies. If you really can't because it went down a sewer or something, take a stroke and play from as close as is safe and reasonable." In golf the rule is, play it where it lies, or take two club lengths and a stroke penalty, or go back to where you hit it from with a stroke penalty.

"This multiplication of laws is an evil, because they cannot be multiplied without being weakened." Jeremy Bentham

I agree with Gary. There is no rule that allows you to move the disc up onto the bridge unless it is within a meter of the OB line. You do not have an unlimited amount of vertical latitude as with discs above the playing surface, because the disc IS ON a playing surface already.

Intuitively it always seemed to me -- that disc below the playing surface should be just like disc above the playing surface. If 2 meters or higher above is a ruled a penalty -- then 2 meters or deeper below should be ruled a penalty. If less than or equal to 1.99 meters above is no penalty -- then less than or equal to 1.99 meters below should be no penalty.

no 2 meter rule makes it simpler and more elegant

the crux of the matter -- it seems to me -- is this: why do we treat below the playing surface differently than above? :confused:

also, i wouldn't mind a truer play-it-where-it-lies approach. Don't want a penalty? Stick your foot in the creek and play on. Just so long as we accomodate "play it where it lies" to frisbees. golf balls may be hit on the ground (unless propped up by tees) but we pick up frisbees and throw them generally speaking from 2 to 7 feet above the ground. :p

I would agree for discs that were below any playing surface, but not for discs that were both above and below a playing surface. The concept of stacked playing surfaces was hashed out last year, and the disc always went to the surface immediately below.

As in the case of a disc on top of an overpassing road, even though it is above inbounds territory, it is considered OB because the street on top of the overpass is OB. A disc on top of a playing surface bridge is IB even though it is immediately above an OB creek one playing surface below. The Q&A make it pretty clear that the disc moves down to the playing surface below.

Do you mean you agree with my intuitive notion that below and above should be considered the same (except for stacked surfaces scenarios)?

The RC in the Q & A did not seem to me to gravitate to that sort of ruling for a disc in a crevice. Wouldn't it be more consistent (and wouldn't it make more sense) to treat above the playing surface and below the surface as mirror images that yield the same ruling? (excepting extenuating circumstances) :confused:

Yes that is what I meant.

This is the most intuitive way to read it for me.

<font color="red">(warning - non-rule below)</font>
When there is only one playing surface, anything not on that playing surface is marked for play on that playing surface.

When there are multiple playing surfaces, the disc always moves down to the playing surface below, unless it is below the lowest playing sruface.
<font color="red">(non-rule done)</font>

I agree with Gary, short of the idea that below the playing surface should be considered or handled the same as above the playing surface; this mainly due to the fact that below the playing surface is still "on" the playing surface.

If your disc is inside a 1' round concrete pipe and you can not get your foot in there to take a proper stance then you do not have the option of moving your lie up onto the playing surface above it unless you use and unplayable lie or the director has provided some other form of relief.

Nick, do you agree that the most intuitive/elegant way to treat disc below the playing surface is to have it mirror disc above the playing surface? I'm puzzled why the RC did not move in that direction?

In talking about this, I am talking about natural situations, not man made situations.

In many parts of Texas disc swallowing cracks open up in the ground in the summer. These cracks can be several inches across, and many feet deep. This past weekend we had a hole that appeared to have been dug by an animal come into play. A disc fell into this 18" diameter hole that was about 6' deep. Both of these situations have the disc in a place that can not be played from, and there is no large solid obstacle preventing a stance. The only difference between below and above would be that the disc be placed as near as possible to where it went below the playing surface instead of directly above the disc.

I think the same option should be used for man made areas below the playing surface. Mark the lie where it was last on or above the playing surface.

There is no clear rule to support this, but I think the TD/course pro should be able to declare special conditions for these situations if they are likely on their course.

18 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep? Who couldn't throw from that spot? And what kind of animal was that? Or do you mean inches(")?

Any animal that can dig a hole 18 feet in diameter and six feet deep is not an animal you want to share a hole with!

I just don't know what y'all are carrying on about. :o

You must have edited! I don't want to be in any animal's hole for that matter, and an animal's hole is not a playing surface for a lot of reasons other than rabies. When we play in natural areas that we are sharing with permanent residents we need to respect their homes, businesses and places of worship.

Should the TD have the option to make it a penalty for discs more than 2m below the playing surface? :D

I had played this course where there was a foot bridge , crossing the fairway. Your disc could land under the foot bridge without any penalties , but the shot moving forward was Impossible. Less than 3 feet of total clearance , both above and below the foot bridge. You could try and lay down underneath or step back and play a unplayable lie. Sometimes there was water underneath the bridge.

What would be the appropriate call ?

Should the TD have the option to make it a penalty for discs more than 2m below the playing surface? :D



[sandalman mode engage]

Yes, in fact the TD should only have the choice to turn the penalty OFF -- the default MUST be that the penalty is in effect. otherwise, you are going to put yourself in the absurd position of treating a shot 40 feet below the pin as IF it is a great shot! :eek: :D

Don't know what it is like up there in Minn-eee-sow-tah, but here where I play there are many holes right next to pins and they are like vacuums when it comes to sucking in discs. If you don't call 2 meters below the playing surface a penalty -- it makes it waay too easy to birdie all of these holes!

[disengage]

apologies Pat, if that was a little over the 'top' /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p :D

Wow that was amazing.

I thought Pat was here. :cool:

I am with you Bruce, even if I can see my disc down a hole that looks to have been used lately by a live animal, it's unlikely that I will need the disc enough to reach in to grab it. Then again, if the slamming a stick around in there for a few minutes does not get a response, I will probably go in after the disc.

Nick, do you agree that the most intuitive/elegant way to treat disc below the playing surface is to have it mirror disc above the playing surface? I'm puzzled why the RC did not move in that direction?



No, I do not agree. We finally have a definition for "Playing Surface" and further subdividing that to allow relief in such situations will, imo, open up too large a whole in our rules. It is far more elegant to have the status of the disc either be on the playing surface or not.

This situation is so rare, I don't think it has ever come up for me personally, I haven't given it that much thought. One thing to check out are the rules concerning obstacles to stance. The playing surface itself might qualify as such an obstacle, I'm not sure without looking into it further.

I definitely do not agree that it should be treated the same way as a disc above the playing surface; as stated, mainly because it is still "on" the playing surface.

Should the TD have the option to make it a penalty for discs more than 2m below the playing surface? :D



The director has several good options.

At the players meeting he/she can declare all animal holes as casual relief areas; they could also declare them OB using a criteria of the edge of the hole being the OB line as determined by the group (if not marked).

This is similar to the solution I would greatly prefer to the 2MR in any form (optional or not). Directors declaring all trees and bushes OB. If your disc is completely supported by them, yes even their contiguous roots, you are OB and must move outside the outer line of the canopy, take a throw penalty and play on. Or the TD could make the same thing a casual relief area, so it would work similarly but with no penalty.

Course Pros with sensitive but valuable course elements such as bushes, tall grass bushes or trees that can easily be fubared would be wise to use those options to protect them. As our courses all atest to, the 2MR was and is a total failure at protecting important course obstacles.

that wasnt its goal. the goal was to play it where you threw it - THE SINGLE MOST FUNDAMENTAL aspect of the game of golf.

of course, NOT having a penalty for crashing into those trees/bushes/etc is gonna help save the trees, right?

you crack me up.

The problem with relying on the "TD method" for dealing with holes is that it seems these are more likely to occur unexpectedly. There should be a rule that deals with the generalized situation of discs below playing surfaces to minimize confusion when it arises, not just the relatively vague Q&A. The ultimate resolution is to take an unplayable lie penalty. But I believe many would feel that taking a penalty in many of these situations is more than what's warranted.

Chuck, please provide the exact wording of the rule you would add to our rulebook.

If it is elegant and clear enough I will support your petition to update our rulebook with it.

If you are not able to formulate a precise and elegantly worded rule that fulfills your claims so far, then please join me in promoting the options that are already available under our current rules.

Sound fair?

I would just include it under the casual relief rule 803.05C ...player's equipment, spectators, {discs below the lowest playing surface in unmarked holes where the group determines a legal stance can't safely be taken} or any item or area specifically designated...

that wasnt its goal. the goal was to play it where you threw it - THE SINGLE MOST FUNDAMENTAL aspect of the game of golf.

of course, NOT having a penalty for crashing into those trees/bushes/etc is gonna help save the trees, right?

you crack me up.



Concerning the 2MR, I have yet to find a convincing reason for it�s original addition to our rules. The 2MR does not penalize all players that crash into trees etc. only ones that stick above 2M. We do not play it where you threw it below 2M what makes you think we should play it where we threw it above 2M? The 2MR was and is ineffective at stopping players discs from crashing into trees and bushes.

Thankfully this issue was decided upon by the PDGA Rules Committee who recommended that the 2MR be completely removed from the rules and replaced with an optional elevated Out of Bounds option, and fortunately the PDGA Board of Directors agreed to at least make the 2MR default off. I fully expect the 2MR to be made invalid in the next rules revision due to all the reasons discussed. The only thing that kept if from being completely removed from our rules is that it has political consequences.

Which is an understandable compromise.

I fully expect the 2MR to be made invalid in the next rules revision due to all the reasons discussed.

yes, that was your wish all along.

so much for your high falutin' "let the TD decide" argument. honestly nick if you were any less consistant you would rival the shape of snowflakes.

{discs below the lowest playing surface in unmarked holes where the group determines a legal stance can't safely be taken}



<font color="blue"> (Understand that this is a definition and does not usurp our rules) Playing Surface: The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official. </font>

How can a disc be below the lowest playing surface? It is physically impossible isn�t it?

<font color="blue"> (Understand that this is a definition and does not usurp our rules) Unplayable Lie: A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is relocated with a penalty. </font>

This is an option already in the rules with penalty throw. It covers all situations. I understand that you feel it is too severe due to the penalty throw, but you do admit that it covers this situation.

I put myself in your shoes Chuck, and I could find no way to make �playing surface� a �casual obstacle� qualifying for relief, other than by special condition stipulated by the director at the player meeting. It is just too squirrelly, as your attempt shows, to be defined in an elegant fashion.

Directors simply �MUST� know their own courses and provide relief where necessary. If they do not then we already have excellent rules to make up any gaps a director may leave open.

How can a disc be below the lowest playing surface? It is physically impossible isn�t it?




The definition for Playing Surface says "generally the ground," but in the case of the crotch tree, there is no playing surface and relief on the LOP without penalty is granted. It's not a playing surface if a legal stance can't be taken. The hole seems just the "negative space" opposite of the tree. It's air space upon which a stance can't be taken above the disc the same as solid space prevents a suspended disc from being brought down.

Come to Texas this summer, and I'll be glad to show how a disc can get below the playing surface. In some of the cracks the disc can drop so far as to be unrecoverable.

Should discs that end up in culverts or storm drains be treated the same as discs that fall into holes ?

My suggestion is more for dealing with unexpected situations or ones where the TD hasn't specified relief rules. For culverts and drains, these should be known and the way to play them already established when the course went in.

My suggestion is more for dealing with unexpected situations or ones where the TD hasn't specified relief rules. For culverts and drains, these should be known and the way to play them already established when the course went in.



We already do, unplayable lie. Why should a unknown course obstacle be treated any differently than any other unknown obstacle of situation such as thornbushes or tight fit spots?

If there is a good reason, then likely the situation is known and the director can take care of it.

Consider the number of times you have seen a player take an unplayable lie during a PDGA round over the course of your entire history of play. This is a known criteria the PDGA Rules Committee uses to decide if a new rule or a change is needed. My guess is that they felt this was a rare occurance of a rare ruling and decided unplayable lie was enough of a measure.

The key being that any expansion of a rule tends to weaken it and make it more vulnerable to misinterpretation. Yes, this can, in some folks opinion, result in seemingly unfair situations, but the alternative is often worse.

Just because the rule handles it doesn't mean it's good. Look how much better the new lost disc rule is once the RC had a chance to rewrite it...

Explain why the solid column of air above a disc that's below the playing surface (in a location where a stance can't be taken) should be handled any different from a disc suspended above the ground by a solid column (of anything?) In both cases, there is no playable surface directly above or below to take a stance. Why should "up" not be penalized and "down" be penalized?

Because the disc is still resting on the "playing surface".

Like I suggested earlier, where these sorts of things are known the TD can provide casual relief from them by saying something like, all groundhog (whatever critter) holes or cracks in the surface too small or deep for you to take a legal stance down in are eligible for normal casual relief.

This is what I would do on a course with tons of these playing surface features. I have never played on a course with them though.

In the case of the bridge, the player must play under the bridge though(on topic).

Because the disc is still resting on the "playing surface".



No it's not. Just like it's not a "lie" until a disc is marked, it's not a "playing surface" if a stance cannot be legally taken, just like the disc in the tree is not on a playing surface. A disc resting on the ground in OB is not on a "playing surface." The Playing Surface definition states that the playing surface has to be "suitable for play."

(I think the RC missed the opportunity to indicate that a Playing Surface must be IB.)

There is nowhere in our rules that makes surface qualify as a �playing surface� by the act of being able to �take a legal stance� upon it. If that were the criteria that defined �playing surface� then any obstacle on the course that you could stand on would be �playing surface� and that clearly is not the case, nor the intention of the rules. Furthermore, if that were the case, then there would never be an unplayable lie, because you could just say the lie is not on the playing surface because I can't take a legal stance on it, which is equally not the intention of the rule.

Essentially what you are say here Chuck, is that if a lie, on the playing surface, is unplayable, then we need some other rule to cover it than our �Unplayable Lie� rule. Though I can appreciate why you feel this is unfair, I can�t agree that it is not fully and completely handled by our existing rules.

Such course oddities are better left to directors to provide what you would consider �fair� relief. If they don�t our rules, in my opinion, properly provide full coverage of any of these situations with the �Unplayable Lie�, �Obstacles and Relief� and �Special Conditions� rules.

If an elegant solution could be found, great! But so far none has been offered, and more importantly, none has really been needed (the single highest criteria the PDGA RC uses when considering changes, and a good criteria it is).