If a rope is the line...




Read the end of the previous post. The rope is not the line. It's the edge of the rope that creates that actual IB/OB line of no thickness. This year the rope is on the OB side of the true line and last year it was on the IB side.

Yes, the rope is an object used to define the OB line, just as a fence, building, tree, or concrete slab is an object used to define an OB line, but they are not the line themselves. Some part of these objects defines the line.

Part of the problem in the OB rule is that the line in 2005 was not truly IB and the line in 2006 is not truly OB. The object edge, string or paint defines the OB/IB plane but is not itself the plane. It's that interface of no thickness between IB & OB that is actually the line. To truly be precise, the 2006 rule should be written such that the marking device or object edge used to define the IB/OB line/plane is on the OB side of that line. In 2005, it happened to be on the IB side of the IB/OB line/plane. The paint, string or object providing the edge is not itself the IB/OB line and never has been. The edge of them produces the true line/plane.



I believe that is exactly what I've been saying all along. The edge is what determines the effective line, and in 2006, it's the inbounds edge of whatever is used to mark the OB boundary.

Part of the problem in the OB rule is that the line in 2005 was not truly IB and the line in 2006 is not truly OB. The object edge, string or paint defines the OB/IB plane but is not itself the plane. It's that interface of no thickness between IB & OB that is actually the line. To truly be precise, the 2006 rule should be written such that the marking device or object edge used to define the IB/OB line/plane is on the OB side of that line. In 2005, it happened to be on the IB side of the IB/OB line/plane. The paint, string or object providing the edge is not itself the IB/OB line and never has been. The edge of them produces the true line/plane.



I believe that is exactly what I've been saying all along. The edge is what determines the effective line, and in 2006, it's the inbounds edge of whatever is used to mark the OB boundary.



I understand the logic behind saying that the inbounds edge of an object used to define an OB line is the line, because the OB line itself is OB. However, "edge of object is the line" is not the case unless the TD specifies it so. There is nothing preventing a TD from saying "centerline of the fence is the OB line" and in that scenario, the inbounds edge of the centerline would be the line. Not saying that's a good line definition, just that the rules allow it to be done that way.

This discussion has clearly turned into much ado about nuttin'.

Whether the OB line is separate from the object or seam used to define it or is the edge of that object or seam is of 0 import.

What is of import is that the line is able to be defined and universally applied. That some folks would like, seemingly, that it be given some new definition is what we should be discussing and really haven't.

What is it precisely that Chuck and Mike would like the rule to be changed to. Please provide precise and exact wording and tell us why it is A) different and B) better.

Thanks. I look forward to reading your responses.

If a rope is the line...




Read the end of the previous post. The rope is not the line. It's the edge of the rope that creates that actual IB/OB line of no thickness.



Well that's how we get from a physical, visible line (with measurable thickness (which is OB)) to the mathematical concept of a line (no thickness).

And if the rope can define the line in that manner, why can't a fence?

I don't think it needs to be changed necessarily, but perhaps clarified so that a universal method of defining the OB line is created. I don't have the time or desire to come up with exact wording. That would have to be carefully though out. However, it would be different and better because TD's would have a universal (single) method of defining the OB line. As it is now, several methods appear to be used with varying degrees of clarity to different people. In VA the only one I have seen is the string-on-the-ground method and that pretty much nails it.

I think the fence CAN define the OB line, but simply needs a bit of clarification in order to do so. A fence is much more complex than a rope. A rope can lie on the ground and be in contact with the ground for its entire length. A fence usually involves some posts in contact with the ground and the rest of the fence suspended off the ground by the posts. The only part of that type of fence that physically creates a line on the ground is the post. A concrete wall/fence is more analagous to a rope because its entire length is in contact with the ground.

In any event, my whole point in this discussion is that designation of OB areas should be standardized so that it is the same from course to course and tourney to tourney. As the rules are written now, different methods can be used that may mean different things to different people. Let's just standardize it and take the guesswork out of it.

A rope can lie on the ground and be in contact with the ground for its entire length.
...
The only part of that type of fence that physically creates a line on the ground is the post. A concrete wall/fence is more analagous to a rope because its entire length is in contact with the ground.



What does "contact with the ground" have to do with anything?


In any event, my whole point in this discussion is that designation of OB areas should be standardized so that it is the same from course to course and tourney to tourney.



Yes, standardization is good. Every basket must be the same; Chainstars only (since they are the best), Mach I-V, Strokesavers, Discatchers, and all others must be removed for uniformity. And every course must be 18 holes, no more 9, 24, or 27 hole courses allowed, we wouldn't want to be inconsistant. And every course must have the same number of holes under 300', between 300'-400', and over 400', because homogeny is good. Also they must have the same type of foiliage, elevation change, and OB areas otherwise, they'd be incongruous. And everyone should carry the same discs, conformity is good. Yes, standardization is good.

I think he meant you're allowed to use different kinds of rope... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If the object being used to define the OB line comes into constant contact with the ground, it makes it more clear, in my opinion, as to exactly where the line is. I used this as an example of the difference between saying "the fence is the OB line" and "the rope on the ground is the OB line". If I said it the first time in too complex a manner, I apologize.

And though sarcastic in nature, I will respond to your last paragraph. All the baskets you mention meet standard specifications set by the PDGA. If you truly think that's a bad thing, give them a call and let me know how that goes. As for the rest of the things you mention, what do hole length, number of holes, elevation changes and type of foliage have to do with standardizing the manner in which an OB line is delineated on the course?

Any object that has the added benefit of projecting a vertical plane upward and downward will define a line on the ground.

The question is whether the point of physical contact with the ground overrules the vertical plane projected from the inner (referenced from the inbounds side) edge of the object.

If the object being used to define the OB line comes into constant contact with the ground, it makes it more clear, in my opinion, as to exactly where the line is.



But there is nothing in the rules, or the sanctioning agreement, nor any other documentation (that I'm aware of) preventing the line from being elevated.


As for the rest of the things you mention, what do hole length, number of holes, elevation changes and type of foliage have to do with standardizing the manner in which an OB line is delineated on the course?


It goes to consistency. By your logic, consistency is a good thing, so I gave examples of that taken to the extreme.


While I agree that there are problems with the way some TDs designate OB, I think dictating consistency with OB marking goes way too far, and puts a huge burden on TDs where there is not necessarily a problem now. Is Yellow Rope the standard? How about white rope, how thick must the rope be? How about the use of caution tape instead of rope? What about painting a line on the ground instead of using rope? Does the paint have to be a certain color? Why?

I could give dozens of examples of OB designation that is just fine, and a few that are bad (leaning fence, water's edge, grass/dirt-road boundary).

Does the paint have to be a certain color? Why?




Yes, white. Best color for those who are color blind to see against the ground whether grass or dirt. And it's in the TD guidelines currently being updated.

I prefer Orange. If you're red/green color blind, I suggest you not come to any tournaments that I may run in the future.

Does the paint have to be a certain color? Why?




Yes, white. Best color for those who are color blind to see against the ground whether grass or dirt. And it's in the TD guidelines currently being updated.


Arrrrrrr.....they're not rules per se. More like guidelines.

I'm glad they're guidelines. A bunch of years ago when U.S. Masters was on a temp course, Tim made "fake lake" OBs using blue paint. That was fun.

Using white is the reason you "see" it done in all other sports for their key field markings. Ball golf uses red and yellow stakes which are visible to go along with painted lines (that don't always look white) at events. We have at least three active color blind players in the area here. I suspect that white will become a requirement for OB lines at least. It was already done for PW2005. Selinske can paint blue waves in his OB lakes with white "sand" borders. Temp tee painting could be other colors as long as you have marking flags.

Arrrrrrr.....they're not rules per se. More like guidelines.



...and since they're "currently being updated", nobody has seen them yet outside those doing the updating.

The 100 members of the course design group have seen them for a while and they're the ones doing a lot of the marking. You commented on painted lines and were perhaps surprised there was a desired color and guidelines are coming forth. That's all I was posting.

You commented on painted lines and were perhaps surprised there was a desired color and guidelines are coming forth.



Not really surprised, and it seems logical. I'm glad there are guidelines being posted, and I'm glad those are coming from a group of presumably intelligent, thoughtful and experienced course designers. I'm also glad that these are merely "guidelines" or "recomendations" as mandating one and only one way to mark OB seems unnecessarily dictatorial, and places unnecessary further burden on TDs.

If the object being used to define the OB line comes into constant contact with the ground, it makes it more clear, in my opinion, as to exactly where the line is.



But there is nothing in the rules, or the sanctioning agreement, nor any other documentation (that I'm aware of) preventing the line from being elevated.


I think that's the complaint that some want fixed, that there's nothing in the rules preventing the line from being elevated. People are making recommendations on how the rules can be clarified further. It's sort of circular to respond that the clarification doesn't presently exist in the rules, therefore the rules don't need to be clarified.

It's sort of circular to respond that the clarification doesn't presently exist in the rules, therefore the rules don't need to be clarified.



Point taken. I guess I was reading more into it then that. I was thinking he was making Chuck's assumption (which isn't supported by the rules) that a fence can only define the OB line where it is close to the ground. Instead he's making a suggestion that there should be a clarification.

I was thinking he was making Chuck's assumption (which isn't supported by the rules) that a fence can only define the OB line where it is close to the ground.



That's the default with no other qualifying info provided by the TD, but not the only option. As long as the TD states exactly what edge on the fence produces the vertical plane, it can be anywhere on the fence- top, middle or bottom.

And exactly why is that the default (other than "because Chuck says so").

I'm wondering if there'd be a market for wrist bands stamped with BCKSS

And exactly why is that the default (other than "because Chuck says so").



If you have to make a call, the fairness rule helps you out. 803.01F. Since discs are usually on the playing surface and players mark their lies on the ground with a mini, it's not too much of a stretch that the edge closest to the playing surface would be the most fair reference to determine the IB/OB line in the absence of a specific edge of the object being defined by the TD.

Since we're back to page 7, I'll just quote Nick:


That doesn't help when a fence is angled over and the TD said nothing. The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground. 803.01F "...the PRINCIPLES embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness." Rule of Verticality as a guiding PRINCIPLE for example. Marking a lie on the Playing Surface, for example.



<font color="blue"> 803.01 General F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.. </font>

How does that rule trump the rules clearly providing definition and proper play concerning Out of Bounds?

How does that make "The default would be the fence edge closest to the ground."?

There is no need for logical extention when we have rules that read like this:

<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc. ...and...
803.09 Out-of-Bounds

A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area. In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B.

B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from:
(1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or
(3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

C. 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.

D. If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered out-of-bounds, and he or she shall proceed in accordance with 803.09 B counting all throws made prior to the determination of the in-bounds status of the original lie. If a player other than the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.07 B and C. </font>

Where in here is your "default" Chuck?

If you are a tournament director and you want the part of a fence closest to the playing surface to be the defining edge for the OB line and plane then you MUST specify such. Our rules do nothing of the sort for you.

"Default" means when the TD does not specify the edge. I'm perfectly fine with whatever the TD specifies if (s)he actually specifies an edge. But if the TD says "the fence is OB" there is no edge specified so the default process I proposed would be invoked if a call needs to be made. Not saying it's a good thing for TD not to specify the edge. But you asked how I came up with a default in the event OB wasn't specified completely.

If the TD says no more than "the fence along the back of the park is the OB line", the entire width and height of the fence is the OB line.

With the new rule, the default edge moves from the farthest away from inbounds to the edge nearest inbounds. There is nothing in the rules that leaves any question. It is a little non-intuituive in some cases, but so are many rules in unusual situations.

To move away from the default ofthe entire width, the TD would have to specify that the OB line follows the fence line (where the poles are planted), or the top edge.

If the TD fails to specify, the default should be the entire thing used to mark the OB line.

"Default" means when the TD does not specify the edge. I'm perfectly fine with whatever the TD specifies if (s)he actually specifies an edge. But if the TD says "the fence is OB" there is no edge specified so the default process I proposed would be invoked if a call needs to be made. Not saying it's a good thing for TD not to specify the edge. But you asked how I came up with a default in the event OB wasn't specified completely.


I'm with Jim on this one. I can find no default in the rules, so you can't say "that's the default...", no matter how common-sensical your approach to the problem may be. I like the idea of using the fence line on the ground as the OB line, too, but I can't see how the current rules make that the default case in the absence of clarity from the TD. The current rules leave the issue open, I think.

You can say, "I think that should be the default..." if you're proposing a change to the rules to close this issue.

Sorry Gary, an object cannot be the line. It's not a line, will never be a line. Any EDGE of an object can produce the IB/OB line but not the general outline of the object itself (although that's what's missing and is needed in the rules). An object is currently not in the OB rules anywhere.

If the TD says no more than "the fence along the back of the park is the OB line", the entire width and height of the fence is the OB line.


Until the re-written rule says that, or a posted Q&A clarifies this, I don't think you can say this with certainty. Same problem with Chuck saying "that's the default..." We need a better written rule or a Q&A to settle the matter, I think.

I agree it's not a default in the normal sense like the default drop zone for an unmarked mando drop zone which is actually specified. But anywhere in the rulebook where no default is provided, the fairness rule 803.01F is a way to make a fair ruling when not enough info has been provided. I just indicated how the principles of playing surface and near playing surface would lead to the ruling I proposed under those circumstances.

OK, I'll go real slow.

If the sidewalk and beyond is OB, where is the effective OB line ? (no line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the sidewalk.
Seems to be no issue.

If the Pond is OB, where is the effective OB line ? (no line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the water.
Seems to be no issue.

If the OB line is painted with a 3" stripe of paint just above the water's edge, and the painted line is declared as the OB line where is the effective OB line. (OB line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the line.

If the OB line is declared to be a cable strung through posts that define the parking area, where is the effective OB line ? (Cable is declared to be the OB line)
At the inbounds edge of the cable.

Some of these are objects, most are near or on the ground making determinations simple. There is nothing in the rules that requires that though.

They also share one thing in common. The most inbounds edge (vertically speaking) is the effective OB line.

Why is this not the case for a fence, wall, or building ?
All of these objects define lines in the generic sense. They are easily seen and recognized by players. What in the rules prevents objects that are basically linear from being used as the definition of the OB line ?

Gary, none of those examples involves an object with any vertical height that might not always be perfectly vertical in parts. Technically, only the very outside radius of the (circular) cable closest to IB defines the IB/OB plane. The top and bottom of the cable are half the thickness of the cable on the OB side from the actual IB/OB plane.

Another approach, then I will rest my case.
Please answer based on the written rules, not conjecture.

1. Is the entire area of the OB line considered part of the OB area it defines ? (i.e. the OB line is itself considered OB).

2. Is the entire vertical space above and below the OB line considered to be part of the OB space ? (discs in flight above OB area must considered to be OB since the can be spotted where they were last "in bounds" and the out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward)

3. Is there any limitation on what can be used by the TD define or establish an OB line ? Is it required to be flat or vertical ?
We have used the angled stone walls at the Carrollton course in the past as the OB lines so that discs striking the wall were inbounds at that point, but relief was 1m from the part of the wall nearly level with the grassy playing surface. In some places the vertical width of the wall is just over a meter.

4. If there were no to be no OB lines suspended above the playing surface, why is the statement "upward and downward" included in the definition of out of bounds in the glossary ?
There should only be need for the version in 803.09 that the OB line define a vertical plane, not an additional statement the specifically lists both up and down. Then again, whenever the rules have 2 slightly different definitions for the same thing, it causes problems.

(one last thing)
Is there anything in the rules that specifies an OB line cannot have height?

Based on how I answer these questions, I reach the following conclusions.

1. The TD may define the OB line however he would like. (no listed restrictions)

2. It may be defined with paint, string, concrete, stone, or chain-link. (see above)

3. The entire width of whatever is used to establish an OB line is by rule included in the OB area. (the OB line itself is OB).

4. The entire vertical space above and below whatever is used to establish the OB line is also included in the OB space. (the out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward)

Please show me the error in my logic, or what rule or definition I have misinterpreted.

gary has a good point here. the suspended cable is the best and most relevant example.

the only difference between a cable and the leaning fence is that one (the cable) has a curved surface and the other (the fence) has a flat (hopefully).

most fences do not have a contiguous physical interface with the ground, aka playing surface, so they are are similar to cables in how they relate to the ground. in fact if a fence had a very solid intersection with the ground it would be a wall. but thats another thread.

if the fence is defined as OB with no further clarification, then it seems perfectly reasonable and fair to assume that means the OB line would be the inside of a shadow created by a directly overhead sun.

granted though, its not as easily measured as using the physical fence-ground interface.

gary has a good point here. the suspended cable is the best and most relevant example.



Except the cable is more like the top edge of a fence, not the fence itself. That of course is fine to use the top edge of the fence but will potentially mess with players if the fence is damaged or bent somewhere along its length.

If the sidewalk and beyond is OB, where is the effective OB line ?



Gary provides some excellent common sense examples (which happen to support my opinion).

However, I'll also agree with Paul:


If the TD says no more than "the fence along the back of the park is the OB line", the entire width and height of the fence is the OB line.


Until the re-written rule says that, or a posted Q&A clarifies this, I don't think you can say this with certainty. Same problem with Chuck saying "that's the default..." We need a better written rule or a Q&A to settle the matter, I think.



The fact that there is debate on this means that it is not clear. I'll work with the RC to try and get this clarified.

If the object being used to define the OB line comes into constant contact with the ground, it makes it more clear, in my opinion, as to exactly where the line is.



But there is nothing in the rules, or the sanctioning agreement, nor any other documentation (that I'm aware of) preventing the line from being elevated.
<font color="blue">I agree, but I think that elevated lines are problematic. </font>


As for the rest of the things you mention, what do hole length, number of holes, elevation changes and type of foliage have to do with standardizing the manner in which an OB line is delineated on the course?


It goes to consistency. By your logic, consistency is a good thing, so I gave examples of that taken to the extreme.
<font color="blue">I think you have misunderstood my logic. I'm not proposing that every aspect of the game be standardized to the extent you illustrated. Not by a long shot. </font>


While I agree that there are problems with the way some TDs designate OB, I think dictating consistency with OB marking goes way too far, and puts a huge burden on TDs where there is not necessarily a problem now.
<font color="blue">Fair enough. I disagree however. I think the discussion at hand illustrates the potential for problems in adjudicating the IB/OB status of a disc unless the OB line is clearly and precisely defined. And it's not a huge burden at all. Here in SE Virginia we always mark OB with paint, string, or rope on the ground to eliminate ambiguity. </font>

Is Yellow Rope the standard? How about white rope, how thick must the rope be? How about the use of caution tape instead of rope? What about painting a line on the ground instead of using rope? Does the paint have to be a certain color? Why?

<font color="blue"> Well, we don't want brains to explode now do we? Why not take all of those taxing decisions out of the equation? </font>

I could give dozens of examples of OB designation that is just fine, and a few that are bad (leaning fence, water's edge, grass/dirt-road boundary).
<font color="blue">No doubt, as could I. I'd just like to see it cleaned up a bit to reduce the opportunity for bad decisions. </font>

gary has a good point here. the suspended cable is the best and most relevant example.



Except the cable is more like the top edge of a fence, not the fence itself. That of course is fine to use the top edge of the fence but will potentially mess with players if the fence is damaged or bent somewhere along its length.



The important thing is to have a discernable line and though some are better than others, the responsibility to choose objects or seams that define those OB lines "wisely" is on the tournament director, not our rules of play. And this is as it is and should be.

The guideline is simple and straightforward. Use the edge of an object or seam. That�s it. Common sense should dictate anything beyond that.

A question I'd like Jim and the RC to answer is would the TD be permitted to say something like: "The OB line is the fence, any gaps are to be visually connected by lining up the last two outermost parts of the fence."

A question I'd like Jim and the RC to answer is would the TD be permitted to say something like: "The OB line is the fence, any gaps are to be visually connected by lining up the last two outermost parts of the fence."



There's certainly no rules preventing that, and again that kind of thing doesn't really belong as a "rule of play", but as a TD guideline.

There's certainly no rules preventing that, and again that kind of thing doesn't really belong as a "rule of play", but as a TD guideline.



I can invision the TD guidelines as the place to clarify/codify this. After all, they are the ones who are tasked with defining the line. On the other hand, a definition of "OB line" could be added that handles it without incorporating it into the rules per se.

There's certainly no rules preventing that, and again that kind of thing doesn't really belong as a "rule of play", but as a TD guideline.



I can invision the TD guidelines as the place to clarify/codify this. After all, they are the ones who are tasked with defining the line. On the other hand, a definition of "OB line" could be added that handles it without incorporating it into the rules per se.



Mike, please provide that definition in specific and precise detail, just as it would be added to the rules. I do not think you, Chuck, or even members of the PDGA Rules Committee could; and if they could it wouldn't belong in our rules of play but in some kind of event course design specifications.

Jim, that's what I thought, and I am glad that it is that way. We use that specification at Kennett for the group of erosion fences around the big sports field; where if your disc lands between a gap in the fences you have to line up the ends of the two nearest fences to make the determination. Putting string from one to the next would not be practical.

On the other hand, a definition of "OB line" could be added that handles it without incorporating it into the rules per se.



We already have:
"Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc."

So you think we should add a definition something along the lines of
"The OB line defines the border of the OB area as designated by the TD, and is generally marked with yellow rope, or white paint on the ground. Often it is not marked as a line, but physical objects such as fences, concrete roads, and water. In these cases the "line" is the seam between the OB object to the in bounds playing surface. In cases where the object rises above the playing surface the seam is either [ck] where the object is touching, or closest to the surface, or [jg] the entire vertical projection of the object onto the ground below."

Yuck, just trying to describe it gets cumbersome...

Proposed Glossary revision in red:

Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line <font color="red"> is marked on or projected to the playing surface from a defined edge of an object above the playing surface. A plane from this line extends </font> vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.

This could be a Q&amp;A or maybe added after the Rule of Verticality clause in the rule:

C. 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. <font color="red"> If the bottom of a linear barrier like a fence divides the playing surface into inbounds and out-of-bounds areas, any disc landing on and fully supported by this barrier will be deemed out-of-bounds.
</font>

projected to the playing surface from a defined edge


This still leaves us with the same problem as before when the TD declares the object, and not a specific edge as the OB line. It's basically the same as before.


If the bottom of a linear barrier


Again, this is specific to a situation where a TD declares the bottom of the fence, and not the fence itself or the top of the fence as the OB line.

--------------------------------------------

One thing I would really like to see is a definitions/Glossary section that defines conditions, and rules that reference the provided definitions. Not situations where both the glossary and rules define the condition in slightly different language.

One I remember from the old rules was the Mandatories rule where different subsections both provided differing definitions of passing a mando successfully.


Glossary definition:
Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.



The title should be "Out-of-Bounds Area" since that is what is being described, and should include the fact that the area is defined by an out-of-bounds line. The reference to out of bounds disc and lost disc should be in the rules section, not the glossary.

"The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds." may be less confusing if phrased "The out-of-bounds line is itself considered part of the out-of-bounds area."


Rules definition:
803.09 - Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.03 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds.



The bolded section is a repitition of the glossary entry and should not be included since future changes will require changes to both places.

My wording resolves the issue and doesn't prevent the TD from using another edge besides the bottom to create the line. Look at Nick's diagram and it 100% resolves the calls. What it does prevent is an object itself from becoming the line (which isn't allowed currently anyway) but allows the complete barrier object to be OB if a disc lands on it in the event it's odd shaped, damaged or bent over.

If you read it very carefully, it implies that a TD must define an edge to be used as the OB line, but falls short of clearly stating that.

Wouldn't simpler wording that allows the common practice of using a linear object to define the OB line and provides a clear statement of how the OB line is projected to the playing surface in the event the TD fails to declare a specific edge be better ?

"The OB line itself and all areas included in the vertical plane projected by the OB line are considered part of the out-of-bounds area."

Maybe add "If the OB line is described by an object, then the entire width of the object is considered to be the OB line."

That removes all ambiguity, and may even encourage TDs to go out and mark (or at least state) where they really mean the line to be in the case of fences in poor condition.

Though I would prefer language specific to vertical barriers (fences or walls) that states what we really want to say. This is also more in line with the multiple playing surfaces Q&A.
<font color="blue">"If the OB line is described by a linear barrier (fence, wall, etc.) the inbounds playing surface extends to the base of the barrier on the inbounds side. The barrier itself is considered out-of-bounds even if portions of it are vertically above the inbounds playing surface."</font>

If TDs wish to use the vertical plane definition, they need only specify an OB line other than the fence itself.

We could use both if we want to include Nick's definition of a tree (and it's associated drip line) as OB.

My wording eliminates an object from being declared the actual OB line which is also the way the rule is right now without being clear about it. The proposed wording forces the line to be identified first on the playing surface by marking or projection if it's an object edge like a cable that defines it. That's a key part missing now. The reference needs to be marked or identified on the playing surface in some manor so it's the place hwere the vertical plane originates.

Then the wording allows the barrier object itself to have OB characteristics without the shadow of the object itself affecting the status of the playing surface below. If it's such a non-uniform object that a disc can stick in it and be supported, the disc will be OB. That's all we really need.

3. The entire width of whatever is used to establish an OB line is by rule included in the OB area. (the OB line itself is OB).


Here's the problem in your logic. The width of a leaning fence, taken at a horizontal cross-section along the ground, is different than the width of the fence along its top, taken at a horizontal cross-section across its top.

You would have to be clear that when you say "the width of the fence" in the clarified rule or in the Q&A, that you mean to include the lean of the fence, from top to bottom.

If you do this, then I think the problem becomes greater for rooflines over buildings, because if a building is defined as the OB line, then it is more likely a disc can fit under a roofline than it would be for a disc to fit entirely under the shadow of a leaning fence. And this would be confusing.

So I think the problem might be helped best for leaning fences if you either mark the OB line along the ground, indicating the roof line or the lean of the fence, as Chuck is proposing, or you state that for fences that are not perfectly vertical, the OB plane is not perfectly vertical, either, following the lean of the fence until the top of the fence, where it becomes perfectly vertical.

Chuck's method is probably best for tournaments, while I bet something like the imperfect vertical OB plane is already being used in more casual rounds, without anyone really thinking about it (where we just assume the outside of the fence is OB, no matter the lean, and the inside of the fence is IB, again, no matter the lean).

The important thing is to know that if no cable, line, rope or string is provided on the playing surface (for which their outermost edge defines the OB line) is present in such situations and leaning fences and buildings that directors, officials and players be educated RIGHT NOW, under current rules that it is the outermost edges of the fence or building, whether on the playing surface or 10 feet up that "DEFINES" the OB line.

The object (fence or building, string for that matter) IS NOT THE OB LINE. It only defines the OB line, plane and area.

This is already crystal clear. The "changes" suggested are not even available as interpretations in situations where the director didn't provide greater definition (top of fence, bottom of fence, where the building meets the playing surface), to say that the part of the object closest to the playing surface "is" the current default would essentially be cheating and misreading our current rules.

The only possible grey areas are a result of the director not clearly describing the OB area or using unclear boundaries. The challenge is not with the rules.

If you believe otherwise, please provide an example of exactly how the rules fail; and not the td's definition or parameters.

My wording eliminates an object from being declared the actual OB line which is also the way the rule is right now without being clear about it.

...according to Chuck Kennedy's interpretation. I'll quote an earlier post which presents a counter-opinion


OK, I'll go real slow.

If the sidewalk and beyond is OB, where is the effective OB line ? (no line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the sidewalk.
Seems to be no issue.

If the Pond is OB, where is the effective OB line ? (no line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the water.
Seems to be no issue.

If the OB line is painted with a 3" stripe of paint just above the water's edge, and the painted line is declared as the OB line where is the effective OB line. (OB line declared)
At the inbounds edge of the line.

If the OB line is declared to be a cable strung through posts that define the parking area, where is the effective OB line ? (Cable is declared to be the OB line)
At the inbounds edge of the cable.

Some of these are objects, most are near or on the ground making determinations simple. There is nothing in the rules that requires that though.

Jim, you will not see the word 'object' in the Glossary or the rule itself, nor would the word 'line' imply that it could actually be an object. The edge of an object is the only part of it that could define or represent a line.

All I ask is to read my proposed wording and see if it's bullet proof. I don't think there's a scenario we've discussed that it doesn't handle.

Jim, you will not see the word 'object' in the Glossary or the rule itself, nor would the word 'line' imply that it could actually be an object. The edge of an object is the only part of it that could define or represent a line.



Please follow this to its natural conclusion.

Your proposal adds nothing a director couldn't add, nor does it clarify the rule. It only expands on what a director might need to do to provided clearer definition in very rare occasions.

We have been saying all along that the outside edge of what the director uses to define the OB area is what the OB line and plane are based on. So what is your point in addition to this Chuck? What basic fundamental part of the rule needs expansion? I know that you have an opinion that more definition is needed; you need to provide some reasons for the change now. Saying that the object or seam used to define the OB line, plane and area is not the OB line is little more than stating the obvious to those who understand the rule.

Jim, you will not see the word 'object' in the Glossary or the rule itself, nor would the word 'line' imply that it could actually be an object. The edge of an object is the only part of it that could define or represent a line.



Is yellow rope an object? Can yellow rope be designated as the OB line?

If the answer to those two questions are "yes" (and I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to tell us what precedent says about that), then is the change in wording from last year to this year (the line is in / the line is out) make a difference when a disc is mostly OB, but touching the rope?

An object can most definetly be used as the OB line.

Sorry but the rope is NOT the line. It's the edge of the rope at the tangent point closest to the OB side of it. Neither the top nor the bottom of the rope actually define the line because they are completely OB. It's the same with string.

Sorry but the rope is NOT the line. It's the edge of the rope at the tangent point closest to the OB side of it. Neither the top nor the bottom of the rope actually define the line because they are completely OB. It's the same with string.



Its comforting to see Chuck arguing my points now.

Still, there is the practical matter of the td usually stipulating that "The string is the OB line." or "The wall is the OB line." or "The creek is OB." or our favorite "The fence is the OB line."

In the truest sense of the rules those objects are not the OB line, they do however define the parameter of the OB area, line and plane. In that sense they are the only available physical representation of the conceptual OB line.

I've never not argued that point. However, the IB/OB edge of the string or rope is evident. Objects with multiple edges at different heights are not acceptable unless the specific edge is specified. That's why the rule needs a default edge for these objects near the playing surface to cover the times when the TD is not specific.

Sorry but the rope is NOT the line. It's the edge of the rope at the tangent point closest to the OB side of it.



No, this year, it's the tangent point closest to the IB side of it. And that's only if you insist on translating a real world "line" into the mathematical concept of a "line". C'mon, we're talking disc golfers here, how many have actually passed high school geometry?

This 'line/plane of no thickness' isn't anything new. It's the same as it was last year, just the other side of the string or rope. We've gone thru this plane discussion several times dating back to the old rec.sport.disc days.

Frankly, I was lost on this a long time ago.

Is part of this argument: A fence, declared as the OB, leans severly in one direction or another, let's say leans INward. I'm reading some to say that if the fence is 30 deg off vertical, a disc which lands under that 30 deg lean, and is completely surrounded by that 30 deg plane, is OB. So, is that a vertical plane from the top inside edge of the fence?
This seems, to me, to the point of nitpicking. Just as a tree has to be specified as OB, if the trunk is outside the OB line yet has branches into the IB area, so should the vertical plane extending from the inside edge of the top.

Can't common sense apply? Does a property line change just because a fence leans? (isn't there a lawyer in this mix somewhere?) True, a fence probably shouldn't be that close to a property line, but there are instances where this situation exists, and THE PROPERTY LINE DOESN"T CHANGE. (personal experience) So, why should the top edge of a fence change the OB.

If I'm reading these arguments right, that is.

Sorry. I just think there are better things to argue about. How about the Japan Open's 150g restriction, but nothing is weighed, acceptablility is based on the written weight on the disc. How about the 2M rule? :eek:

steve

No comments on my proposals ?

1) Never define the same thing in more than one place so there will never be conflicting definitions.

2) Though I would prefer language specific to vertical barriers (fences or walls) that states what we really want to say. This is also more in line with the multiple playing surfaces Q&A.
<font color="blue">"If the OB line is described by a linear barrier (fence, wall, etc.) the inbounds playing surface extends to the base of the barrier on the inbounds side. The barrier itself is considered out-of-bounds even if portions of it are vertically above the inbounds playing surface."</font>

Chuck, you keep saying that it is what the RC was after, but failed to clearly state.

Nick, I'll decline, especially since you have made up your mind that it cannot be done. As a result, anything I submit will be trashed. No need to go there.

I'm not sure what the RC was after. But objectively looking at the OB rule change, the only change was moving the IB/OB plane from one edge of the line (or the object producing the edge), to the opposite edge of the line. I can't believe they believed this would somehow solve the leaning fence issue because both the old and new rule are silent on that. Common sense would seem the intent of any TD would be for discs on one side of a fence to be IB and the other side OB regardless of the shape, lean or damage to a fence. Likewise, I can't imagine a TD being sadistic enough to want a disc still on grass under an overhang of an OB building to be OB. But unfortunately, the rule is not clear enough as it is to come to that conclusion or we wouldn't have spent this much time on it.

Jim - That's a definition of OB, not OB line. It describes how the OB line is a vertical plane, but it does not define it or describe how the line is created.

And no, I don't think we should add a definition along those lines (no pun). Too wordy.

The more I think about it, the TD guidelines would be a better place for this. Something like "The OB line shall be marked in a clear and visible manner on the ground."

No comments on my proposals ?

1) Never define the same thing in more than one place so there will never be conflicting definitions.



This point is excellent and makes maintenance of the rules simpler. In addition, the glossary should not be where one finds new rules. Let the rules be rules, and the definitions give clarity to the terms in the rules.


2) Though I would prefer language specific to vertical barriers (fences or walls) that states what we really want to say. This is also more in line with the multiple playing surfaces Q&A.
<font color="blue">"If the OB line is described by a linear barrier (fence, wall, etc.) the inbounds playing surface extends to the base of the barrier on the inbounds side. The barrier itself is considered out-of-bounds even if portions of it are vertically above the inbounds playing surface."</font>



Great succint clarification that should be added to the rules.

The problem with Gary's language is it doesn't clearly state that a disc supported by the fence is OB even if it's suspended over the IB area.

I think my proposed wording for a Q&A is specific.
"If the bottom of a linear barrier like a fence divides the playing surface into inbounds and out-of-bounds areas, any disc landing on and fully supported by this barrier will be deemed out-of-bounds."

The only issue that will be difficult to address is the original problem that was attempted to be resolved - A disc hitting the fence and getting a forward lie even if it ended up OB. If the fence is declared OB and is leaning over the IB area, a disc approaching and striking the fence from the OB side might have been over IB for a little bit. Benefit of the doubt is given to the player. This is an unlikely combination of events but that's the kind of stuff we're trying to resolve. If the fence was allowed to be like multiple playing surface, then a leaning fence could have OB projecting upward on the upward facing side of the lean and not downward on the bottom side over the IB area. I think that's what we want if it's possible to write that.

Can't common sense apply?



Unfortunately, common sense is in direct conflict with the wording of the rules. Read the rule on disc above the playing surface, then look at this picture.
http://www.lsdga.com/images/misc/OBFenceLean3.JPG

Common sense says Disc C is in bounds, and Disc D is out of bounds, but this conflicts with the wording of Disc Above the Playing surface (unless we define the fence as a playing surface).

Chuck wrote:

I'm not sure what the RC was after.
...
I can't believe they believed this would somehow solve the leaning fence issue because both the old and new rule are silent on that.



No, we didn't think this would solve the leaning fence issue. As I said earlier in the thread, it solves the issue that striking the line (fence) from the OB side would be considered contacting IB at that point.

I think common sense also says that these leaning fences are a liability issue and should be replaced. :D

Wouldn't it be nice if we infinite resources to repair fences?

With infinite resources, I wouldn't bother repairing it when I could afford to replace it.

This is already crystal clear.


Don't be insulting. If it were "crystal clear", we wouldn't be talking about it.

No comments on my proposals ?

1) Never define the same thing in more than one place so there will never be conflicting definitions.



This point is excellent and makes maintenance of the rules simpler. In addition, the glossary should not be where one finds new rules. Let the rules be rules, and the definitions give clarity to the terms in the rules.


2) Though I would prefer language specific to vertical barriers (fences or walls) that states what we really want to say. This is also more in line with the multiple playing surfaces Q&A.
<font color="blue">"If the OB line is described by a linear barrier (fence, wall, etc.) the inbounds playing surface extends to the base of the barrier on the inbounds side. The barrier itself is considered out-of-bounds even if portions of it are vertically above the inbounds playing surface."</font>



Great succint clarification that should be added to the rules.



The OB plane is defined by the outermost edge of whatever the director stipulates and the OB plane extends upward and downward from that outermost edge (whether and eighth of an inch off the playing surface or 10 feet) to the first playing surfaces it hits; where upon the OB line rests and can be used to determine if a disc above the playing surface is IB or OB.

Can we all agree on this? Jim? Chuck? Mike? Everyone?

If a director, say for example Chuck, doesn't want a disc in the shadow of a fence to be OB but doesn't want to put a string out along the bottom of the fence, then I'd suggest that he declare the following at the players meeting:


The OB area is marked by the fence posts where they meet the playing surface.



The only challenge would be that the disc resting on top of the OB side of the fence but over the IB area would still be IB. Like Gary said, if the rules allowed the director to declare the fence a playing surface that would solve that little problem as well.

Jim, do our rules permit a director to define anything as a playing surface? What sorts of challenges do you see if we did this?

Again, I think the rule as is already 100% works as intended, it's just that some here clearly believe that it should work differently, which is fine. Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of changing rules when necessary. But we should all be clear that we want this change not because the current rule has some failing or doesn't work, but because some would like it to work differently. There is a BIG difference; and folks that or kind of shakey on the rules to begin with are clearly getting confused between the "suggested changes" and the "actual rule as it exists and already functions". (Gary, are you in agreement on this? Jim?)

Nick, I'll decline, especially since you have made up your mind that it cannot be done. As a result, anything I submit will be trashed. No need to go there.



Mike, I'm sorry if I offended you or have kept you from making your point. That is not the affect I intended. By all means present it as clearly as you can manage. I won't trash it.

I might disagree with it, but you can be sure I'll share the reason why.

So far there is nothing to trash. No actual hole has been found in the existing rule; more it is just personal preferences about how some folks would prefer it to work. Which is fine; but should not be confused with the rule malfunctioning. It doesn't. If you want to say it does, then please explain why.

We're just talking here...

This is already crystal clear.


Don't be insulting. If it were "crystal clear", we wouldn't be talking about it.



Likewise don't be insulting Paul. You took the quote completely out of context.

I was talking about the rule being crystal clear. Even Chuck understands it; he and others just would "like" for it to work differently. And if their reasoning is convincing enough I might join them in supporting a modification; but that is a far cry from declaring the existing rule isn't "clear" and able to be uniformly applied.

I wish you would make a point rather than just provide commentary on how we discuss things. You're a smart guy, apply those smarts to the actual topic rather than the styles of debate. That's when you do your best and the discussion progresses.

The current rule does not work if you insist the leaning fence over IB will produce an OB area under the leaning fence. The one way that's possible is to specify that the top of the fence (or some other edge part way down) produces the OB line. No other specification including the comment, "the fence itself is OB" would produce an OB area under the leaning fence with the current wording of the rule.

I can see how this could be resolved without the RC doing anything. We'll just clarify it in the Tour Standards for 2007 regarding accepted methods for marking OB.

The current rule does not work if you insist the leaning fence over IB will produce an OB area under the leaning fence. The one way that's possible is to specify that the top of the fence (or some other edge part way down) produces the OB line. No other specification including the comment, "the fence itself is OB" would produce an OB area under the leaning fence with the current wording of the rule.
<font color="blue"> I understand that you would like for it to work differently Chuck, but the area beneath the fence is OB if the fence is declared the defining edge for the OB line and plain. This by the way is no different than if the object used to define that edge were a rope or string. </font>

I can see how this could be resolved without the RC doing anything. We'll just clarify it in the Tour Standards for 2007 regarding accepted methods for marking OB.

<font color="blue"> I know that tournament directors are not permitted to make special condition rules in conflict with our rules of play; so I seriously doubt if the PDGA Competition Committee is permitted to do it either.

Gary has provided you the option that would make what you suggest possible, now it is up to you to convince the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors to support that rule change in the next rules update, due out in like 2012 or something. That is unless the PDGA RC says it is already ok to declare the fence as a playing surface and make it OB and the playing surface beneath it IB... </font>

I might be interested in supporting such a change myself.

I also like the idea of being able to declare contact "at all" with certain playing surfaces and objects as being OB. This has many potential uses (including the declaration of trees or bushes as OB (that way all a disc has to do is be in contact with the OB surface or object to be considered OB and gain relief from it)).

The point you need to figure out, or just acknowledge is that the area beneath the object used to define the edge of the OB line is also Out of Bounds. It just is. Gary and Jim, isn't that how you read the rule?

Nick, until the RC puts the word 'object' in the rule, a fence cannot be called the OB line. Pick an edge, any edge, and you're fine. A string or rope annot be OB either. We already went thru that. It's the side of the string closest to IB, not the whole cross section of the string.

The Competition Committee can interpret the rule for everyone in the Tour Standards so that TDs know exactly how the course MUST be defined or marked. I'm sure that will be sufficient so leaning fences are handled properly without any new rule being created or special condition. I'm sure it will be done in concert with the RC but I'm pretty sure there won't be a new rulebook printed. So the Tour Standards are the place to do annual clarifications where needed. The Tour Standards made the alcohol rule more stringent so it's not true that the Competition Committee can't override the printed rule.

I tend to agree that a rule change is not necessary on this. TD guidelines can handle it.

And Nick, I hope this doesn't upset you, but I would like to see the loophole closed that allows TD's to declare the drip line of a tree as the OB line. I just don't think that's clear and definitive enough for tournament play. Now, if the TD wanted to mark that drip line on the ground, that's fine.

Nick, until the RC puts the word 'object' in the rule, a fence cannot be called the OB line. Pick an edge, any edge, and you're fine.
<font color="blue"> This is interesting. We keep saying �an object used to define the outside edge of the OB area� and you, Chuck, keep saying that the we are calling the fence the OB line. The fence fleshes out the OB line, you know, manifests it, brings it into this realm of existence, this plane of awareness. </font>
A string or rope (c)annot be OB either.
<font color="blue"> If it is within the OB line it sure as shinola can be OB. Everything inside the outside edge of the string or rope (including the string or rope) is in fact and by rule Out of Bounds. The only exception is, as Gary pointed out, multiple playing surfaces; of which a fence, as far as I know, is not a playing surface.</font>
We already went thru that. It's the side of the string closest to IB, not the whole cross section of the string. <font color="blue"> Oh yeah! Me too. I thought we had settled this here some time back. So why now say something that flies directly in the face of that very understanding or our OB rule Chuck? The 'cross section' or 'shadow' of the 'object' used to define the outer edge of the OB area most certainly IS OUT OF BOUNDS. To say it isn�t is a contradiction. </font>

The Competition Committee can interpret the rule for everyone in the Tour Standards so that TDs know exactly how the course MUST be defined or marked.
<font color="blue"> Sure, that is if it were an interpretation we were discussing here, but it ain�t now is it? And there is no way on earth that you can mark it so that the basic OB rule still doesn�t make what ever is inside the outside edge of the OB area in bounds. Not with the OB rule the way it is now. </font>
I'm sure that will be sufficient so leaning fences are handled properly without any new rule being created or special condition.
<font color="blue"> How? You can�t declare the fence a playing surface with different IB/OB status. Saying the bottom of the fence is the outer edge of the OB area won�t solve any of this either. You�re not really talking about a solution to a challenge with the OB Rule, but your opinion about how you wish the OB rule worked.

At this point, without a new Q&A by the PDGA Rules Committee, what you are proposing is not permitted by our current PDGA Rules of Disc Golf. That is, that you are not permitted to designate a 'non-playing surface' as Out of Bounds and apply the 'Multiple Playing Surface' Q&A to it under standard rules. So it won't matter how you define it in the PDGA Tour Standards to show a TD "exactly how the course MUST be defined or marked", it won't change how the rule Out of Bounds rule 'must' be properly applied. So yes, you would need to seek at least an official PDGA Rules Committee Question and Answer in order to put such a requirement in the PDGA Tour Standards, and have a non-playing surface be able to be designated OB while the ground below it is IB. </font>
I'm sure it will be done in concert with the RC but I'm pretty sure there won't be a new rulebook printed. So the Tour Standards are the place to do annual clarifications where needed. The Tour Standards made the alcohol rule more stringent so it's not true that the Competition Committee can't override the printed rule.
<font color="blue"> I don�t see this as having anything to do with 'exactly how the course MUST be defined or marked'. Your suggestion would not represent a clarification of the Out of Bounds rule, but a significant and far reaching 'change' to the Out of Bounds rule according to your �preference� and not based on how the rule currently does function. And it does 100% function.</font>





Related Rules to this Subject:
800 Definitions

Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc.

803.09 Out-of-Bounds

A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. �

C. 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. �

Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)
Question: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. The TD has not said anything about playing from the bridge. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land? Does it matter if the bridge is more than two meters above the ground below?

Response: The answers to these questions revolve around the definition of OB. In the glossary section of the rules, it states that the OB line "extends a vertical plane upward and downward". Where does that plane end? The rules do not address that directly. There seem to be two reasonable choices:

A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.

Although the term "playing surface" is not defined in the rules, it is used frequently and it is unlikely to be a source of confusion. Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it. Otherwise, a number of non-intuitive rulings result:

* In the bridge example, the part of the bridge that is above the OB creek would be OB. A perfectly playable lie on the bridge could be OB, a foot away from a lie that is IB, when there is no direct reason for it to be OB. Players will have difficulty extrapolating where the OB part of the bridge is, especially if the OB line below is uneven (if it follows the creek's edge). Even if the TD uses paint or string to mark OB on the bridge, those lines will see a lot of foot traffic and may not last.
* At least one course has an OB culvert that runs under and opens into a fairway. If the vertical plane of the OB line extends indefinitely, then there is a strip of OB on the fairway over the culvert.
* If an OB creek undercuts a bank, then the top of the bank is OB even if it is obviously playable. Someone would have to determine how far the creek undercuts the bank to figure out just where the OB line on the bank is.
* There is an overpass with a street high above a section of the course. The street, of course, is OB. If the plane extends downward, then a street-wide chunk of the course below is also OB.

If you interpret the vertical plane to end when it reaches another playing surface. you get much more intuitive rulings in the above scenarios. The bridge is IB, the fairway above the culvert is IB, the bank that overhangs the creek is IB, and the ground below the steet overpass is IB. All of the playing surfaces above are easily distinguished from those above or below which contain OB.

Conclusion: You play a disc on a bridge as you would play it anywhere else on the course. Assuming the bridge is not OB, you mark your lie on the bridge and proceed with the hole. If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would. Of course, the TD or course designer is free to make any or all of the bridge OB, in addition to the creek below.

The PDGA Rules Committee

Carlton Howard, Chair
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
Jim Garnett
Rick Voakes

I tend to agree that a rule change is not necessary on this. TD guidelines can handle it.

And Nick, I hope this doesn't upset you, but I would like to see the loophole closed that allows TD's to declare the drip line of a tree as the OB line. I just don't think that's clear and definitive enough for tournament play. Now, if the TD wanted to mark that drip line on the ground, that's fine.


As posted, such a stipulation in the PDGA Tour Standards would not be an 'interpretation' or 'clarification', it would be a total and complete change with far reaching rules complications.
And no, it doesn't upset me, thanks for your concern. I don't see it as a loop hole though, more a matter of practicality and customer satisfaction. i.e. if the players can't understand and apply the tree that is designated OB then it is just a bad TD declaration of OB, like a dirt road...

I am willing to allow actual play and experience dictate the direction of this rule. Are you and Chuck?

I am willing to do so, but only because I accept that this is what will actually take place. I realize that a rule or TD guideline cannot prevent all bad decisions, but I personally believe that something should be written down that describes a preferred way of defining an OB line. I also believe that if decrepit, leaning fences in danger of toppling over are being regularly used to define OB lines, then clarification on how they define the OB line is needed.

This is already crystal clear.


Don't be insulting. If it were "crystal clear", we wouldn't be talking about it.



Likewise don't be insulting Paul. You took the quote completely out of context.


This'll be fun. What you wrote:

The object (fence or building, string for that matter) IS NOT THE OB LINE. It only defines the OB line, plane and area.

This is already crystal clear.


The reason why it's not "crystal clear" is because the rule doesn't really say how an object can be used to define an OB line. You say the top of the fence, Chuck says the bottom of the fence, and Jim says it can be any part of the fence the TD wants. Because of this ambiguity, this lack of crystal clarity, we have this thread. So I didn't take you out of context, and I was trying to say one of the reasons this thread exists is because the rule isn't clear about how to define an OB line using an object.

I was talking about the rule being crystal clear. Even Chuck understands it; he and others just would "like" for it to work differently. And if their reasoning is convincing enough I might join them in supporting a modification; but that is a far cry from declaring the existing rule isn't "clear" and able to be uniformly applied.


I think even Jim is saying the rule is not clear, that there will need to be a Q&A to address the points raised here, or the rule will need to be re-written.

I wish you would make a point rather than just provide commentary on how we discuss things.


I'm versatile enough to do both. And I've already made my point on this rule in a few posts -- I just don't repeat myself ad nauseum in post after post, so maybe you missed it. Scroll back and look for yourself, rather than accuse me of not making topical points, please.

You're a smart guy...


Thanks!

The reason why it's not "crystal clear" is because the rule doesn't really say how an object can be used to define an OB line. You say the top of the fence, Chuck says the bottom of the fence, and Jim says it can be any part of the fence the TD wants.



I never said anything of the sort Paul. I have repeatedly said that it is the outer edge of the object used to define the OB area, line and plane; not the top or any other "part" of the fence. Jim is correct that the director can designate any part of the object they want as that edge. Chuck is incorrect that there is some default other than the outside edge.

This should be equally fun. Please answer the following question:

Do you really need to be told to use seams between surfaces and the objects to designate OB areas? What alternatives are there?

I am willing to do so, but only because I accept that this is what will actually take place. I realize that a rule or TD guideline cannot prevent all bad decisions, but I personally believe that something should be written down that describes a preferred way of defining an OB line. I also believe that if decrepit, leaning fences in danger of toppling over are being regularly used to define OB lines, then clarification on how they define the OB line is needed.



Thanks. And your points are understandable.

So to make sure I am getting what you are saying: You would like for our PDGA Rules of Disc Golf book to contain detailed proper techniques of designating out of bounds areas.

Can you provide a sample of how such wording would be added and where in the rules book you would want it put?

You have said that the inner edge of a fence leaning inward should be the OB/IB line, which means the top of the fence.

You have also said that a roof overhang on a building and a tree's overhanging branches can define the OB/IB line.

These are not seams on a surface, are they?

Do you have to be told what you said?

I am willing to do so, but only because I accept that this is what will actually take place. I realize that a rule or TD guideline cannot prevent all bad decisions, but I personally believe that something should be written down that describes a preferred way of defining an OB line. I also believe that if decrepit, leaning fences in danger of toppling over are being regularly used to define OB lines, then clarification on how they define the OB line is needed.



Thanks. And your points are understandable.

So to make sure I am getting what you are saying:


If his point is understandable to you, you should already get what he's saying.

You would like for our PDGA Rules of Disc Golf book to contain detailed proper techniques of designating out of bounds areas.

Can you provide a sample of how such wording would be added and where in the rules book you would want it put?


As far as I'm concerned, Mike has clearly expressed his concerns, so has Chuck, so has Gary, so have I, and Jim also has concerns and has forwarded those to the rest of the RC for their review. I think Jim and the RC are presumably going to work on it, and I think we're just about done here. Let's not drive Mike out of the PDGA with endless requests for examples of rule changes when he's already made his point very well.

You have said that the inner edge of a fence leaning inward should be the OB/IB line, which means the top of the fence.
<font color="blue"> Perhaps I did say that, but the meaning is that the outer edge of the object, in this case the fence, is what gives definition to the OB area, line and plane. </font>
You have also said that a roof overhang on a building and a tree's overhanging branches can define the OB/IB line.
<font color="blue"> If the building is declared OB then the outer edge of the building is what defines the OB area, line and plane. Or in the case of a tree the outer points of the tree branches. </font>
These are not seams on a surface, are they?
<font color="blue"> No, they are 'objects'. </font>
Do you have to be told what you said?
<font color="blue"> Sure, sometimes. Why are you the rainman? </font>

Paul, aren't you being a tad over dramatic and confrontational?

Mike is not going to be "driven from the PDGA" because someone disagrees with him in a message board discussion. If he is then there are other issues at work here.

Repeating something back to someone who has just said something to you to confirm that you have it right is a normal form of dialog as far as I am aware. It's called creating common ground. I am interested in solving the same challenges you, Mike, Gary and Chuck percieve, I just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

I did ask you a question in my last post, that was addressed to you and not Mike. Would you please answer it?

And I'd like an answer from Mike too concerning the question I had for him.

I'll be glad to answer any of your questions in turn. You do seem to be taking a very hostile tone Paul. If you'd like to discuss that sort of thing with me send me a PM.

I thought you were so good at going back and reading prior posts?

Here you go again:


Do you really need to be told to use seams between surfaces and objects to designate OB areas? What alternatives are there?

I am willing to do so, but only because I accept that this is what will actually take place. I realize that a rule or TD guideline cannot prevent all bad decisions, but I personally believe that something should be written down that describes a preferred way of defining an OB line. I also believe that if decrepit, leaning fences in danger of toppling over are being regularly used to define OB lines, then clarification on how they define the OB line is needed.



Thanks. And your points are understandable.

So to make sure I am getting what you are saying: You would like for our PDGA Rules of Disc Golf book to contain detailed proper techniques of designating out of bounds areas.

Can you provide a sample of how such wording would be added and where in the rules book you would want it put?



No, Nick. My post just prior to the one quoted above states that I believe the TD guidelines can handle the issue. Just include an explanation that if an object is used to define an OB line, that the TD will need to clarify for all players what part of that object creates the OB line, since there is no default in absence of TD clarification. Examples of preferable designations could also be given.

This really isn't much of an issue for me because we always mark OB with string, rope or paint for our tournaments. I accept that all TD's may not want to designate their OB areas the same way, but I think that they should at least do so in as clear a manner. TD guidelines in the tournament agreement can accomplish this.

TD will need to clarify for all players what part of that object creates the OB line, since there is no default in absence of TD clarification.



Mike, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no "default" as far as what part of the object creates (defines)the OB area, line and plane?

Our rules seem to pretty clearly declare that it is the outer edge (towards the IB side) that defines it. You don't find that?

No, I did not find anything in the rules that states anything about a default OB line in the absence of clarification by the TD. On the other hand, if you look at the definition of OB and OB line as well as the OB rule, one may be able to deduce that the inbounds edge of an object being used to designate and/or define an OB area is the OB line. But I don't think it's a good idea to leave that up to player deduction. What may be crystal clear to one player may be muddy waters to another, dependant upon their respective deduction skills. String, rope, or paint on the ground is crystal clear to all in my opinion and takes deduction out of the equation for the most part.

So you would like for our rules to say something like:


C. The Rule of Verticality. <font color="blue"> The out-of-bounds line is represented by the outside edge of an object used to designate the out-of-bounds area or by the seam between to surfaces. </font> 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.



This of course would not solve the disc on the ground, on the IB side, in the shadow of an OB fence. For that you'd need to be able to declare the fence as a "playing surface" with another IB/OB status.

Nick, I have stated several times already that I believe this can be handled in the TD guidelines. I am not proposing that the rules be revised for this. Besides, you revision infers that an object is the only way to define an OB line.

Paul, aren't you being a tad over dramatic and confrontational?

Mike is not going to be "driven from the PDGA" because someone disagrees with him in a message board discussion. If he is then there are other issues at work here.



Nick, you are the very example of over dramatic and confrontational, which I'm willing to bet has driven more than few people from the PDGA.

Besides seam, name one please.

Jeff, don't know what you said, and really don't care to know, but I have an X out innova disc of yours. Teebird?

Did anyone else read the above post, and think "who the hell is Seam?"

Paint, a substance.

Did anyone else read the above post, and think "who the hell is Seam?"



Yes, I did. And I don't know who he is, but I suspect he's from Ireland. :D

Jeff, don't know what you said, and really don't care to know, but I have an X out innova disc of yours. Teebird?



This is classic. Nick has me on Ignore and won't read anything I write, yet informs me that he's got a disc of mine, and I have no way of getting it back.

Nick, I have stated several times already that I believe this can be handled in the TD guidelines. I am not proposing that the rules be revised for this. Besides, you revision infers that an object is the only way to define an OB line.




Paint, a substance



Painted line, an object.


ob�ject Audio pronunciation of "object" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bjkt, -jkt) n.

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.




Many things used to designate an OB line are technically objects. sidewalk, rope, painted line, wall, fence, concrete slab.

Did anyone else read the above post, and think "who the hell is Seam?"



Being your normal helpful self, eh JG?

Any word from the better7/8ths of the PDGA RC yet on this?

I thought you were so good at going back and reading prior posts?

Here you go again:


Do you really need to be told to use seams between surfaces and objects to designate OB areas? What alternatives are there?




I already answered what alternatives there are to seams by listing the examples you seem to favor. You called me "the rainman" for listing them, and now you're asking for the answer again?

I thought you were so good at going back and reading prior posts?

Here you go again:


Do you really need to be told to use seams between surfaces and objects to designate OB areas? What alternatives are there?




I already answered what alternatives there are to seams by listing the examples you seem to favor. You called me "the rainman" for listing them, and now you're asking for the answer again?



I'll take that as an unqualified "No, I have no alternatives. Either a seam between two surfaces or an object are the only two ways to designate an OB area."

If you had an answer, how hard could it really be to repost it afterall?

Nick, I have stated several times already that I believe this can be handled in the TD guidelines. I am not proposing that the rules be revised for this. Besides, you revision infers that an object is the only way to define an OB line.




Paint, a substance



Painted line, an object.


ob�ject Audio pronunciation of "object" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bjkt, -jkt) n.

1. Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.




Many things used to designate an OB line are technically objects. sidewalk, rope, painted line, wall, fence, concrete slab.



Sidewalk, rope, wall, fence, concrete slab, string = objects
Paint = substance.
With all due respect, a difference of opinion.

Sidewalk, rope, wall, fence, concrete slab, string = objects
Paint = substance.
With all due respect, a difference of opinion.




Alright, well in the interest of moving the discussion along and finding common ground, let's say we agree that there is a third option: substance. So we have the outside edge of an object or substance and the seam between two surfaces as possible mechanisms for defining an OB area. Can we agree on this?

These "things" provide the physical representation of what will define the OB line and consequently the OB plane. Any of them can exist anywhere from the playing surface up; though practicality and usability will decide what in the end works best in individual instances.

Mike, are you suggesting that the painted line on the playing surface should be the ONLY standard for designating an OB Area?

Thank you Nick for moving us along!!!

And no, I'm not suggesting that paint should be the only standard, even though it is clear and leaves no doubt as to where the OB line is. Some may consider paint to be an unwanted intrusion on the natural landscape and/or beauty of a course. String or rope placed on the ground using nails to fix it in position accomplishes the same thing in a way that can be removed easily after the need for it is over.

These are just my preferred ways and I don't expect everyone to buy into my preferences. I'm sure there are other ways to do this that I haven't thought of, but that I would consider clear enough to reduce or eliminate confusion. I think the main point for me is that if the TD designates the OB area in a verbal manner using objects such as fences and buildings as a reference, then the definition should go on to explain how that object creates the OB line. Even with string, the TD should say "the string on the ground on Hole X defines the OB line" or with a suspended rope "the yellow rope on Hole X and the space directly beneath it defines the OB line" in order to be clear. I think this makes the line clear to everybody, not just those with heightened skills of deduction and comprehension.

So we have the outside edge of an object or substance and the seam between two surfaces as possible mechanisms for defining an OB area. Can we agree on this?




Yes, I agree with this.

So we have the outside edge of an object or substance and the seam between two surfaces as possible mechanisms for defining an OB area.



How 'bout stakes like in ball golf? The player has to draw an imaginary line between the stakes, so there is no physical object, seam or substance on the ground.

So we have the outside edge of an object or substance and the seam between two surfaces as possible mechanisms for defining an OB area.



How 'bout stakes like in ball golf? The player has to draw an imaginary line between the stakes, so there is no physical object, seam or substance on the ground.



Aren't the stakes physical objects just like fence posts? And aren't they on the ground?

Such a line could be defined as "the imaginary line formed by the inbounds edge of the stakes". Not my preference, but it seems clear enough.

Yeah, but they're not contiguous. In Nick's other examples there is a physical line, with stakes, the line is imaginary between the stakes.

Did anyone else read the above post, and think "who the hell is Seam?"



Being your normal helpful self, eh JG?


It's pretty funny if you read it in context with the post immediately above it. Of course, you can't do that...


Any word from the better7/8ths of the PDGA RC yet on this?


Lot's of 'em, but no consensus.

I thought you were so good at going back and reading prior posts?

Here you go again:


Do you really need to be told to use seams between surfaces and objects to designate OB areas? What alternatives are there?




I already answered what alternatives there are to seams by listing the examples you seem to favor. You called me "the rainman" for listing them, and now you're asking for the answer again?



I'll take that as an unqualified "No, I have no alternatives. Either a seam between two surfaces or an object are the only two ways to designate an OB area."


Well, I'm sure I wasn't saying that, especially because you've just changed your question in your answer. Your original question was about a "seam between surfaces and objects" -- for example, a seam between a playing surface and an object like a fence -- and now you say your question was about OB lines being defined by 1) "a seam between two surfaces" or 2) "an object".

Those are two different questions. I answered the question you wrote, not the one you apparently intended.

I don't know what a "seam between two surfaces" is without one of those being caused by the edge of an object. Can you provide an example?

And I don't know how an object by itself can define OB without going further to say what edge of the object you're talking about. Can you provide an example of that, too? How do you just simply say an object defines the OB line and be sure that everyone has the same understanding if you don't go further and say the inside edge of the object, or the object's outside edge?

And would you please re-word your question, too, so it is more clear what you are asking for, so that way you don't keep insisting I haven't answered a question that I say I have.

And would you please re-word your question, too, so it is more clear what you are asking for, so that way you don't keep insisting I haven't answered a question that I say I have.


Welcome to the world of trying to discuss anything with Nick. :p

So we have the outside edge of an object or substance and the seam between two surfaces as possible mechanisms for defining an OB area.



How 'bout stakes like in ball golf? The player has to draw an imaginary line between the stakes, so there is no physical object, seam or substance on the ground.



Yes, that's a good one. Still there are physical objects defining the line, the posts; not contiguous, but they are there and they set the parameter.

So we have an object, substance, seam or non-contiguous objects that can define the outer edge of the OB area, line and plane. If a TD wishes to designate some aspect of these possible parameters other than the outer edge then they need to do so at the players meeting. It really is on them to make sure that the designations of their OB areas are understood and able to be uniformly enforced. If that means stringing the playing surface, then do so. If it means painting the outside edge that is to be used then do so. If it means putting posts in to mark the area then do so.

It is also the responsibility of the players to listen to, understand, ask questions if needed, and play by those parameters within the bounds of our rules of play.

The only grey area or loop hole that I can get out of this are the ones created by a TD using poorly defined OB areas or players trying to use self perpetuated confusion over a rule in order to gain an advantage (or in plain English; cheating).

I would like to see how the rules could be written to make bad designations and purposeful cheating impossible.

paulM is FUNNY :D

I can see how you might misinterpret the isolated question, but find it hard to believe that you would misinterpret it in the context of all of my other posts and the discussion as a whole.

Still, that is of minor importance. You get it now.


I don't know what a "seam between two surfaces" is without one of those being caused by the edge of an object. Can you provide an example?



A road and a field of grass. A lake and the ground. A creek or stream and the surrounding bank. These could be considered two separate substances or two separate objects I suppose, but then the importance of such distinctions is minor at best; what matters is that there is a discernable outer edge that designates the OB area, line and plane.


And I don't know how an object by itself can define OB without going further to say what edge of the object you're talking about. Can you provide an example of that, too?



The object used to define the OB areas outer edge IS considered in 2006 to be part of the OB area. If you say that the picnic tables are OB, then the outer edge of the picnic tables designate the OB area, line and plane, anything inside that area is OB. You do not need to say what edge you are talking about, just as you do not need to say what edge you are talking about with any other object used to designate OB. Whether string, rope, painted line, etc, they are all covered. Only the TD can change the outer edge to some other physical aspect of an object, substance, seam or non-contiguous boundary defined by a physically descernable feature.


How do you just simply say an object defines the OB line and be sure that everyone has the same understanding if you don't go further and say the inside edge of the object, or the object's outside edge?



Again, the outside edge is the default when our rules state the following:

<font color="blue"> 800 Definitions
Out-of-Bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself out-of-bounds. An out-of-bounds disc is not a lost disc. </font>

Paul, if a specific situation out on a real course, during a real event, requires greater definition, then I as a TD, or a player for that matter bringing it to the TDs attention, will resolve it via adding any greater definition needed. Can you provide an example of where saying an object on the course is OB would be inadequate?

I see my entourage of fans are following me around again.

I'm quite sure they are adding rich content to the discussion here. Intellegent, insightful, adding to the value of the dialog. And don't forget! They aren't flaming or entering into petty personal attacks. No, a person could be banned from the DISCussion board for such repeated childish, idiotic and spiteful content, right?

That's what the rules of the message board say at any rate... for what they're worth.

I see my entourage of fans are following me around again.


Don't let Nick fool you: he reads all of the posts from Pat, Rhett, and Jeff. The proof is that he comments about the ones he doesn't like with stuff like "I can't read that one", but he says no such thing about posts that aren't about him.

I see my entourage of fans are following me around again.


Don't let Nick fool you: he reads all of the posts from Pat, Rhett, and Jeff. The proof is that he comments about the ones he doesn't like with stuff like "I can't read that one", but he says no such thing about posts that aren't about him.

;)

Paul, if a specific situation out on a real course, during a real event, requires greater definition, then I as a TD, or a player for that matter bringing it to the TDs attention, will resolve it via adding any greater definition needed. Can you provide an example of where saying an object on the course is OB would be inadequate?



If you can come up with your own interpretation on every loosely written rule, submitting them for TD review later, then all rules are adequate, aren't they?

What would make for an inadequate rule, from your perspective?

For example, what if the OB rule said specifically that trees could not be OB, leaving you no wiggle room for you to be able to make trees OB. Would you call that an inadequate rule?

Paul, if a specific situation out on a real course, during a real event, requires greater definition, then I as a TD, or a player for that matter bringing it to the TDs attention, will resolve it via adding any greater definition needed. Can you provide an example of where saying an object on the course is OB would be inadequate?



If you can come up with your own interpretation on every loosely written rule, submitting them for TD review later, then all rules are adequate, aren't they?
<font color="green"> I don�t get your correlation. I don�t foresee any challenges that the OB rule as is could not handle. If such challenges exist they will not be known until the situation actually happens. Directors do their best to foresee and account for all possibilities out on their courses; but they can�t possibly account for everything. Our rules provide for that with catch all rules such as in this rules (OB) that the TD will have to make the final call on IB/OB status. That precedent will remain the foundation for all other similar calls on that hole for the round.

Again, I can�t even think of a situation where that would be necessary for a TD concerning the OB rule, can you?</font>

What would make for an inadequate rule, from your perspective?
<font color="green"> Nothing that I can think of; that was my question to you� </font>

For example, what if the OB rule said specifically that trees could not be OB, leaving you no wiggle room for you to be able to make trees OB. Would you call that an inadequate rule?
<font color="green"> Are you talking about a rule in the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf, or of a TD stipulating such a rule as a special condition? In either case I can�t imagine a situation where such a designation would be of any use, can you? So I�d call that an useless or a purposeless rule. </font>




I�m serious though Paul, what designation of an OB area would be inadequate in your mind?

I did just think of one, it was brought up in another discussion concerning a casual area designated as �The marshy area to the left of the fairway is a special condition area where casual area is permitted according to rule to move back out of muddy or wet areas, or if that isn�t possible to a drop zone.� This is what I�d call an inadequate designation (though not of an OB area�) because there is no discernable line between the casual area and the non-casual area. So inadequate designations would lack a recognizable or usable difference between the separated areas. There has to be some physical representation of the delineation and a provision for how to uniformly interpret it. I am of the camp that agrees that a TD may use two physical objects and provide that the imaginary line between the two objects may be used to designate the OB area. That, practically, they should be very careful about using such designations is a given, but if done properly they can function just as well as that other options. What do you think?

The manner of defining OB lines came up this weekend. OB was defined by a yellow rope secured with wooden stakes. The rope went through the stakes and was slightly suspended above the playing surface by 2-3 inches perhaps.

Someone's disc landed on the rope in a manner such that the disc was leaning on the rope, causing the rope to flex to a position other than its default/detente position. There was no debate about the disc being completely surrounded by OB. All players in the group agreed that it was. The question was whether or not the OB line moved with the rope, or if it was in a fixed position designated by where the rope lies without outside forces being exerted on it.

Three officials debated the matter and it was determined that in the case at hand, the OB line moves with the rope. I think that was a sound decision. But it shows how important it is to designate OB in a clear manner.

Depends on definition.
If the rope was declared to be the OB line, the line moves with the rope, if the imaginary line between the stakes was the OB line then the rope was just a handy measuring device.

I've seen it declared both ways. In one case, there is a fence line along the edge of the course with quite a bit of fence missing. The TD puts string down along the fence line, but knowing that it often gets moved states that the fence line is the OB line and the the string should be pulled tight between the fence posts to determine the OB line.

The TD puts string down along the fence line, but knowing that it often gets moved states that the fence line is the OB line and the the string should be pulled tight between the fence posts to determine the OB line.



perfectamundo!! THAT is the way to define and establish. well, one good way, at least

so gary, in regards to play at the lake course, the ob line is the wire, and disc that comes to rest below the wire the would intercept the the plane of the wire would be o.b.?

this was an issue this past weekend.

Intercepting the wire plane in itself does not make the disc OB. It is OB only if the whole disc is on the OB side of the wire plane and just the very edge of the disc curve is touching/under the wire plane. If any part of the disc is on the IB side of the wire plane, the disc is IB.

Again, read the first sentence of 803.09.A "A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."

If I remember the player's meeting correctly, the cable was not the OB line at the TX10, the roadside edge of the posts defined the line.

i thought there was a new rule put in this year that said if any part of the disc is touching an ob line , then the disc was considered ob?

:confused:

Popular myth but every member got the new rulebook and it's clear that the only change was the line itself is now OB.

This thing has reached the level of an urban myth, at least amongst disc golfers.

so, if the line itself is now o.b., wouldnt something touching it , be ob as well?

like, this fence is charged with electricty, i will still get shocked to death if i touch it even though im not on the other side of the fence.

I think that came up at Oxbow Hole #1 at Michiana Open I believe.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe they said the wooded fence behind the hole that had a OB line under it meant the hole fence was OB.

maybe??

haha

Read the rule book and you will see that it must be completely surrounded by the designated OB area for it to be declared OB.

If you get shocked by a plastic golf disc touching an electric fence, let me know and I will make a note that the laws of physics have been revised, probably by the Bush administration. :cool:

If you get shocked by a plastic golf disc touching an electric fence, let me know and I will make a note that the laws of physics have been revised, probably by the Bush administration. :cool:



thats a metaphor. i didnt mean the disc, i meant my body, or better yet,..............yours.

duh. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

so, if the line itself is now o.b., wouldnt something touching it , be ob as well?



If that were true, then why wasn't a disc partly on an OB area considered OB last year when the line was considered IB? There's nothing magic about the line being OB versus the area of ground on the OB side of the line.

so, if the line itself is now o.b., wouldnt something touching it , be ob as well?



If that were true, then why wasn't a disc partly on an OB area considered OB last year when the line was considered IB? There's nothing magic about the line being OB versus the area of ground on the OB side of the line.



Whilst I think the new rule is very clear, I can totally see where the confusion comes from. I know I've had to explain it slowly with words of few syllables to many of the UK members.
It's to do with common rules in other sports I think, take football (the proper one with a round ball where you use your feet), and rugby as examples:

In football, the whole of the ball must be over the whole of the line to be considered out of play (or a goal). This is directly analogous to the old OB rule.
In rugby, if any part of the ball or the player touches the line, they are considered out of play.

Now try racket sports. Tennis, badminton, squash, all play the line as IB. Just as in football, the whole of the ball (shuttle etc) must be over the whole of the line.

I can't think of single sport where the line is considered out in the same way as our current rule. Plenty of sports call touching the line out (rugby, Ultimate, cricket), which is why I think it's confusing a lot of people.

Not that I'm suggesting the rule change is wrong, or that we should change it back, but I'm interested as to the rationale for the change. There was already a default condition that had precedent in many other popular sports, why change it to a different default?

If you get shocked by a plastic golf disc touching an electric fence, let me know and I will make a note that the laws of physics have been revised, probably by the Bush administration. :cool:



thats a metaphor. i didnt mean the disc, i meant my body, or better yet,..............yours.

duh. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Right. Got it!

Bruce - This was something that had been debated in the past and the rule change was made to fix a particular problem.

There are situations where you have, for example, a fence that is being used to define an OB line. A disc goes over the fence into OB territory, then starts curving back towards the fairway, but hits the back of the fence. Under the old rule, the fence being the OB line, the disc was last inbounds when it hit the back of the fence so that was the point used for marking the disc for play. Now that the OB line itself is OB, you mark the disc for play using the point where it first crossed over the fence into the OB territory. You no longer get to mark your disc further down the fence line where the disc hit the back of the fence.

Took me a few seconds, but when you say "football" you mean soccer. :)

Took me a few seconds, but when you say "football" you mean soccer. :)



No, I mean football, as has existed in its modern form since the early 17th century, or put another way, at least 150 years before your country did :eek:

Upstart colonials... ;) :D

Thanks Mike, that explains it. I guess we're the only sport I can think of that has vertical external boundaries in that way, so maybe it does call for a unique ruling.

Yes, word has it that the term "soccer" first appeared in the 1880's as a slang word for association football. American football is more like rugby football, except rugby is more brutal.

Yes, word has it that the term "soccer" first appeared in the 1880's as a slang word for association football. American football is more like rugby football, except rugby is more brutal.


and doesn't stop every 8 seconds with a 30 second break in between.