Your playing a hole that is next to a lake or ocean and the water is very choppy. Your disc lands near the waters edge but is not surrounded by water. A wave comes in and the disc is surrounded by water. Then the wave receeds and the disc is at the waters edge but is not surrounded by water.

Is this disc considered safe or OB? :confused:

IN tournaments maybe the TD declares the waters edge to be OB? Such that the farthest point inland that the water reaches defines the OB line? This way if the disc gets surrounded by water then the disc is OB.

Of course this line would chage depending on high tide or low tide.

Or if possble paint an OB line along the edge they define as OB?

Should be interesting to see what folks come up with, the obvious answer is to have a marked line that avoids all of the ambiguity, but in the real world that is not always practical, I would say the disc is inbounds benefit of the doubt to the player.....

The common ruling is that the disc is only OB if it is always surrounded by water in all wave positions. If the disc is not surrounded by water 100%, it's still IB. That's why marking OB with stakes/flags is usually better for lakes plus most bodies of water.

Thanks for the help!!!

On some courses, water (http://discgolfcruise.com/) may not be considered OB.... :)

That's obviously just very wet sand... :D

water is not OB unless the TD says it is. just like the 2MR.

Even when water is not OB, many of those body boundaries should be marked to indicate where casual relief is allowed. For example, creek beds with steep banks or marshes where the water edge transitions to soggy ground is unclear and can change daily based on rain and drying patterns.

http://iowadg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3251

We had a downpour in Austin during lunch one year and many fairways had casual water a few inches deep for the afternoon round. The funny part was the hole along a creek bed and watching players who threw close to it on that hole gingerly walk along so they wouldn't fall in. Nonetheless a few weren't so fortunate...

a situation came up in league yesterday - a player's disc was in the water at the edge of a small lake, but not completely submerged

we were playing in a 3 person group - when the wave came in, it was clear to everybody the disc was surrounded by water, but when the wave went out, it looked to me like the disc was still "surrounded by water" but not submerged - player argued that it was only wet mud, not water - maybe I should have taken a picture, but again, to me, it looked like there was a clear string of water completely surrounding the disc, but were talking centimeters

the other player in the group, not being a tournament player, said he wasn't sure - it was only league, so no OB line was painted and no need to break out the rule book, because this situation was entirely based on interpetation of what the ground around the disc was, wet mud or water?

normally you would say if the group isn't sure, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the player, but unlike the player who was not sure, I was quite sure that the disc was surrounded by water, and well, the player whose disc it was obviously was arguing that it wasn't

what do you do?

Well, I am going on the assumption that you know that the rule is surrounded by out of bounds and in this example that is the water hazard. There is nothing about being submerged as you can be out of bounds floating in the middle of the pond.

Since you could not really come to a consensus, 1 for OB, 1 for not OB, and 1 undecided I would say that it should be ruled in bounds.

It is just league. Have fun! :)

yes I know it doesn't have to be submerged, just wanted to clarify how "close" it was, to be able to touch ground, yet not be submerged at the same time

I'd approach this as such ...
As a group determine where exactly the OB line is. This line extends vertically indefinately regardless of weather the dics is submerged or not and doesn't move in and out with the wave. If the disc is completely surrounded (behind the line) it is OB. If not, it is safe. If in doubt, play it both ways and then take it to the TD for a ruling. I would probably be played the same weather it was OB or not. 1 meter in bounds, and play ... only question is if it is a penalty stroke or not.

That brings up an interesting question. If the decision is to "play it both ways and then take it to the TD for a ruling", does the player throw two shots from the new lie (one for each potential ruling) & play them both out, or just one, since the lie would be the same anyway? If the former, which does he throw first?

If there is a disagreement as to where the OB line is, then 1m in from the OB should be different between the two shots.

That brings up an interesting question. If the decision is to "play it both ways and then take it to the TD for a ruling", does the player throw two shots from the new lie (one for each potential ruling) & play them both out, or just one, since the lie would be the same anyway? If the former, which does he throw first?



You just made my head spin :D

At first I thought what is the difference, they are both from the same spot, but reading the rule I think you'd have to play it twice even though it is the same lie. Chuck ... can we get a messageboard ruling over here?

You play provisionals from where each of the alternate rulings would apply. In some cases the locations could be far apart. For example, someone might retee for one provisional line and play the other provisional line from near where the tee shot went OB if the group didn't remember whether or not the TD specified a required retee on that hole if the tee shot went OB.

Which one first, particularly in the case where the lies are identical or very close?

Chicken.

Egg.

Six of one...

1/2 dozen of the other

Six of one...



What if it is an identical lie, 25 feet away from the basket, misses the first, makes the second or vice versa.

Both lines of play need to be holed out if a provisional will be played. No order is specified but it would make sense to do them in the order that will likely take the least amount of time. In fact, there's no reason they can't be played out together if the two starting lies are near each other as long as you keep track of the score for each sequence.

Thanks!

I strongly disagree with the 6/half-dozen argument. (You should have known I had a problematic scenario in mind when I asked the seemingly innocuous question.) Consider the following:
1) Holly Hyzer throws a shot that is close to the line but relatively obviously OB.
2) Holly insists that it is IB (knowing that it is not) & successfully lobbies for the "throw twice & let the TD sort it out" resolution. Assume that the lie is identical between the two throws.
3) Holly then sneakily insists on throwing the IB version of the throw first.
4) She does so, then throws the OB version, knowing full well that it is the one that will be ruled valid.
5) Holly has weaseled herself into a free practice throw at the very shot that will ultimately be counted on her scorecard.

Therefore, the order of operations could, indeed, be quite important. Maybe the rulebook should address the issue.

In this example, no provisional sequence is required because the lie is identical. The only point in question is whether there's a 1-throw penalty.

I agree with chuck's assessment of the situation, but not with his insistence on throwing chicken in Vegan Ray's face. That's just cruel... the dude doesn't eat meat (nor eggs for that matter). Really Chuck... think before you fling poultry at your fellow golfers. You never know who might conscientiously object to your choice of weapon-food.

In this example, no provisional sequence is required because the lie is identical. The only point in question is whether there's a 1-throw penalty.


Could you show me where that is in the rulebook? I didn't see any reference to identical lies. I only saw this:

C.Provisional Throws. Provisional throws are extra throws that are not added to a player�s score if they are not ultimately used in completion of the hole. The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling. The unused throws shall not be added to the thrower�s score nor treated as practice throws if the player announces that such additional throws are made as provisional throws prior to taking them. Provisional throws are appropriate in the following circumstances: (1) To save time: A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory. When proceeding under this type of provisional the thrower shall complete the hole from whichever of the two throws is deemed by the group or an official as the appropriate lie according to the rules. (2) To appeal the group�s or an official�s ruling: A set of provisional throws may be taken to complete a hole pursuant to 803.01 D (3) when the player disagrees with the majority group decision and an official is not readily available, or if the player wishes to appeal the decision of an official. <u>The scores from both sets of throws shall be recorded.</u> The proper ruling and score are then determined by the director at the end of the round.


If a provisional is called, at least 2 sets of throws must be made.

The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling.


There is no question regarding the thrower's lie, just the penalty throw, and a provisional sequence would definitely not speed play.

OK, so you are arguing the use of a provisional, and not the throws after the provisional is called.

Yes. This situation is not uncommon and happened in my group back at 1999 Pro Worlds. You play out the hole and take an official back to the location and ask whether the spot was OB or not to determine the penalty. If the lie would be different based on OB or not, then both lies would be played to hole out.

In Vegan's example, Holly would have to be pretty clever to set up a scenario where she would learn something by throwing from one lie before the other lie. If you're good enough to set that up, you're probably good enough to not need that crutch.

I disagree with Chuck's interpretation of when to take only one throw (and concur with 28003's), but Holly could still defeat it. Slight change of scenario after the same original throw &amp; decision to "play two" of Holly:
1) Holly throws her "IB" shot.
2) Holly chooses her "OB" lie .001m back from the "IB" lie. (It could be anywhere up to 1m back on the LOP, or, of course, her previous lie.)
3) Since the lies are no longer identical, Holly still takes a second throw for the "OB" shot (citing Chuck's interpretation of the rules as her justification), still gaining a for-all-intents-and-purposes perfect practice throw with no penalty.

Discuss.

BTW - I'm definitely good enough to set that up and nowhere near good enough not to want that crutch.

Courtesy violation 804.05. Especially if player is obviously OB and the group ruled as such and the player not only takes the provisional but does so in the manner proposed. We're not talking about someone who is unclear on the rules but is clearly trying to circumvent the intent of the provisional.

2) Holly chooses her "OB" lie .001m back from the "IB" lie. (It could be anywhere up to 1m back on the LOP, or, of course, her previous lie.)


Actually, it's not 1m back on LOP, its 1m perpendicular to OB line. So Holly could take her "IB" lie from 2 ft. in and take her "OB" lie 1 ft. in and produce 2 different lies, requiring 2 different sets of throws.
But still, in the rules, if a provisional is called, 2 sets of throws are required.

I stand corrected rule-wise, but you should, too. It is not "tangent", but rather "perpendicular":

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).


I agree with your assessment that 2 sets of throws are required even if the lies were identical, and that Holly could circumvent the rule (as you have pointed out in your post) even if this were not so.

Courtesy violation 804.05. Especially if player is obviously OB and the group ruled as such and the player not only takes the provisional but does so in the manner proposed. We're not talking about someone who is unclear on the rules but is clearly trying to circumvent the intent of the provisional.


L-A-M-E response.

in the rules, if a provisional is called, 2 sets of throws are required.


But the HH case does not require provisional throws. Also, you could never "call a provisional" and then not throw one. that simply doesn't make sense. I think there's a terminology mixup here. in the HH case, she should proceed by taking relief from the OB line, then asking the TD later if her disc was OB. Her lie is the same regardless of the TD's ruling, thus negating the need for provisional throws.

I think the rules could use some clarification here but they're not really all that ambiguous as they are.

L-A-M-E response.


L-A-M-E example.

The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play or when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling.



Includes the base phrase:
<font color="blue">The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations</font>
plus two conditions
the first condition(both parts must be met):
<font color="blue">where there is a question regarding a thrower�s lie and a provisional would speed play</font>
the second condition(only one condition needs to be met):
<font color="blue">when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling</font>

The second condition makes no mention a lie, only a ruling dispute.

it's an improperly phrased statement. it should be inferred that only lie rulings would necessitate a provisional throw. Interpreting the rule using only the second condition:

"The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations when the thrower questions the group�s or official�s ruling"

would mean that any time any ruling (whether or not it is related to a throw, a lie, or even a disc in play) is contested, provisional throws are suggested. That's just silly.

-edit: to correct a rhyming grammatical error :)

Maybe. But that's the letter of the law.

For every gray area rule, there's the option for the TD to interpret the player's action as circumventing the rules and DQ. Vegan and others can call it lame but that's the final authority. Take extra throws by invoking that apparent provisional loophole wording at your own peril.

We had a situation at a recent event. A player threw OB from far away and a spotter marked his lie on the far side of OB where he had last been IB. As the group arrived at their lies and took their shots, this aforementioned player marked where his disc had first crossed into OB. Asked the gtoup if they agreed this is where he went OB. He got confirmation and threw his shot. After the group completed the hole, the spotter asked who had thrown the disc that was marked by them. When we discovered the misplay the Official was called in and he said this very same thing has happened before at NT events. Can you guess the ruling?











The player was allowed to throw from the marked spot as a sort of provisional. He scored from the correct lie.

it's an improperly phrased statement.



There is nothing with the grammar or structure of the statement. The meaning, as written, is clear and straightforward.

Whether that meaning is the intended meaning or even a fully valid meaning is a different question entirely. Personally, I agree with the idea that only ruling questions which result in necessarily different lies should use provisional shots. This would exclude situations where the player can choose differing lies, and include situations where the player is forced to play differing lies based on the ruling.

My opinion doesn't really matter because the rule is not currently written that way and is not ambiguous in the way it is written.

For every gray area rule, there's the option for the TD to interpret the player's action as circumventing the rules and DQ. Vegan and others can call it lame but that's the final authority. Take extra throws by invoking that apparent provisional loophole wording at your own peril.


You're darned right I call it lame that the rulebook explicitly allows for a situation where a player could get a free practice throw &amp; a beleaguered TD is expected to be able to nip it in the bud using the "circumvent the rules" DQ rule without being able to point to what rule is being circumvented. If a player plays it by the book (and in my examples, Holly Hyzer is doing just that), how can a TD point to a rule &amp; say, "Holly, you circumvented this rule, despite the fact that you performed only operations specified by the rulebook itself, and you're DQ'ed."

My point is (and almost always is when I dream up these rules-oriented "thought experiments") that the rulebook is deficient in many areas &amp; scenarios such as this should be a spark for rewording &amp; revision, not an excuse to try to manufacture justifications that the status quo is OK.

I absolutely agree that various areas in the rules can be written better or more explanation provided. On the other hand, there are two rules that have been in there for a long time that take care of any inconsistencies. Rule 803.01F on Fairness and 804.05 A(3) on cheating. When you find rules that need to be rewritten or need more clarification, take note of it and try to get it updated in the next Rules update. But in-between updates the Fairness and Cheating rules are the options available for TDs to deal with those who wish to exploit these situations or press the issue.

it's an improperly phrased statement.



There is nothing with the grammar or structure of the statement. The meaning, as written, is clear and straightforward.

Whether that meaning is the intended meaning or even a fully valid meaning is a different question entirely. Personally, I agree with the idea that only ruling questions which result in necessarily different lies should use provisional shots. This would exclude situations where the player can choose differing lies, and include situations where the player is forced to play differing lies based on the ruling.

My opinion doesn't really matter because the rule is not currently written that way and is not ambiguous in the way it is written.


while the sentence is grammatically correct, its meaning is not properly conveyed because of the way it is phrased. Of course... "meaning" is subjective. One could argue that the meaning is defined by the words or that meaning is defined by the intent of the author. It's reasonable to to assume that the authors intended to indicate that only lie disputes should necessitate a provisional throw. The author just did not properly convey that message.

On the other hand, unless you were privy to the discussions about the rule, you do not know what had been considered or what they intended to say. In some cases, you can make an assumption of intent when a rule is ambiguous, but you can not make an assumption of intent that goes against the actual wording of the rule.

I think that in this case it's reasonable to assume their intent, based on common sense... but then again, I'm not so sure we should assume they have common sense ;)