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.


If the line it self is not OB, then the sentence needs to be redefined or removed from the rule. It is very confusing. <font color="red"> </font>

The line IS Ob.

The line itself is OB but a disc touching it is not necessarily OB unless the rest of the disc is all on the OB side of the line. Otherwise, the disc is IB if any part of it is IB.

:confused:Sorry, but your statement is as confusing as the rule. If the disc is touching the line it is OB. (The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds.) There is no definition that says it differently. It needs redefining. We had this happen this week end and half the players said it was OB if the disc was touching the line. I agree as the rule reads the same

I've never understood this distinction. The "line" is the divide between IB and OB. It has no thickness and therefore can be neither IB nor OB.

Nope. The line was IB last year and the disc still had to be completely OB to be OB last year. No difference this year. The disc has to be completely OB to be OB. It's just now the OB area is slightly larger due to the thickness of the line which is now OB.

Chuck you dont see the question over what was written in the rule? The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. I think it was fine the way it was before they added that phrase.

The "line" is the divide between IB and OB. It has no thickness and therefore can be neither IB nor OB.



Technically, sometimes the object that defines the OB line has thickness (cable, fence) but the edge itself is really the OB line. This year, the line is just the opposite edge of the object from last year. Last year the object was IB and this year the defining object is OB. In the case of edges like that between cement and grass, nothing is different this year from last. It's still the vertical plane between the grass and cement that creates the line.

I hate arguing about this rule. I thought it was confusing at first but it isn't. You have to be sorrounded by OB to be OB. The line could have thickness, and should, that just isn't practical. If the line were a painted or chalk line two inches wide and part of your disc was on the line and the rest out and none in..You are out. With lines of no thickness if 51% of the card says your out I guess you are or you need to get an official ruling.

It is easy. :p

A few weeks back someone posted some excellent graphics here demonstrating inbounds and out of bounds situations. Maybe they can be re-posted here and also added to the rulebook for people who are confused by the rule's wording.

--Mike

Chuck you dont see the question over what was written in the rule? The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds.



Water is usually considered out-of-bounds also but you still aren't considered OB just because your disc is partly touching or in it. It has to be completely surrounded. Why would you think your disc touching or being partly over the OB line would now automatically make your disc OB if being partly in water or partly on OB cement doesn't?

Chuck you dont see the question over what was written in the rule? The out-of-bounds line itself is considered out-of-bounds. I think it was fine the way it was before they added that phrase.

it was ok before. but this way is clear also. the first thing it says is the fisc must be completely surrounded by OB. then it says the OB line itself is considered OB. this solves the case of what happpens is the disc is completely OB except for a teeny bit touching the line. now its clear - its still OB.

[QUOTE]
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.


If the line it self is not OB, then the sentence needs to be redefined or removed from the rule. It is very confusing.

Read that first sentence again and again and again.

I don't know where you read or saw that description, but it is not in the rule book. There fore it is your definition. That is what I'm talking about. There are too many ambiguous descriptions and it is not fully described in the rule :D

I think the point is being made that when there is an *object* *marking* the line (like a fence or a painted line), that object is to be considered OB. The wording in the rules state that the *line* itself is OB, which can't be the case. That's where the confusion lies.

Thats fine, Im saying the added line is confusing and does not need to be in the rule.

It does need to be in the rule to deal with the fence issue a little better which was hammered out extensively on here earlier in the year. However, the fence issue still needs further resolution due to the problem of angled fences.

I don't know where you read or saw that description, but it is not in the rule book. There fore it is your definition. That is what I'm talking about. There are too many ambiguous descriptions and not fully described rule.:p



I quoted your post /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

It does need to be in the rule to deal with the fence issue a little better which was hammered out extensively on here earlier in the year. However, the fence issue still needs further resolution due to the problem of angled fences.



It probably just needs to explain that the *object* marking OB is OB.

The angled fence scenario can be solved by making the OB line be the point where the fence meets the playing surface plane. This is the only way to remain consistent with the rule of verticality. Of course, then we'll have to make the "OB line is IB" again to make it work correctly.

Oy vey!

Exactly.

Logic would when this argument. Ask a question only yes and no answers are acceptable.

Where an OB angled fence is concerned.

Is the disc on the ground? No = OB
Yes = Is it on the OB side? Yes = OB
No = It is there fore In.

And it does not matter which way the fence leans it is out if it suspended by the fence. A fence has thickness and is the OB line.

But is the two meter rule in affect? Rhett? Nick? Chuck?

If the fence is leaning toward the IB side and the disc is on the ground on the OB side leaning on the fence, part of the disc could be in the vertical plane made by the fence and the IB side of the ground. In theory, the disc should be OB, but with verticality, the IB/OB plane from the ground passes thru the disc making it IB. What the RC needs to do is to allow surfaces to be declared OB or IB so that non-vertical surfaces like angled fences would make this disc OB even if leaning.

What you say is what confuses people. The fence itself is the line if the disc is on the ob side touching the fence it is still ob.

The OB line as it is currently defined is a vertical plane. In the case of the fence, it is (usually) defined in 2006 as the edge between the fence and the ground on the IB side of the fence. If the fence leans toward the IB side and a disc up against the fence on the OB side is leaning against it, the vertical plane passes thru the disc making the disc IB even if it is completely on the OB side of the fence. Unless the RC decides to allow TDs to define non-vertical surfaces as OB, we'll have these verticality issues even with the currently revised rule.

I would go read the thread OB Line Out? (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=530216&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1). This leaning fence scenario was hashed out with some nice pictures to show the problem with the current wording of the rules. As Chuck said, if the rules provided for surfaces to be declared IB/OB, it helps greatly.

The main issue with this rule and its confussion is how ppl explain it. They compare it to what it use to be.

All I say is if your disc is touching anything in bounds, you are in. However, the line is not considered something in bounds.

It's really that simple.