This is similar, but not the same as the Q&A about a disc on a bridge over OB water. In this case a thrower threw a disc and it skidded under a bridge, but did not go into the water which was OB. Therefor the disc was not OB, but was in a hard lie. Give me your best guesses at the ruling and I will then tell you what I ruled.....

Was the disc within 1m of the OB line? If so:

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

So they can mark it on the bridge. If not, play it where it lies.

One of our local players experienced a similar situation during a tournament earlier this year. His disc landed beneath a bridge, but his disc was not in the OB creek, thus, his lie was in bounds. Unfortunately, there was not enough clearance for him to place his foot behind his disc so he marked his lie on top of the bridge because the bridge is considered in bounds. He and the other players on his card cited the rule of verticality.

When he was describing the scenario to me after the round, I asked him if he could have placed his hand or fingertips on the ground behind the disc. He said he could have used his hand, but he didn't consider that option.....he said he never thought of using another body part as a supporting point on the playing surface. Because he could have used his hand as a supporting point behind his disc, my opinion was that he marked/played his lie incorrectly.

from the rules Q&A on the bridge question: If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would

Taking this into consideration, I don't think that there would ever be a situation where you can move your lie from underneath to on top of the bridge. If you are prevented from taking a stance b/c of the bridge as in gotcha's scenario, the rules say:

803.04.E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.


Also, I would think that the case for moving the marker up to the bridge b/c you can't take a stance is a bad one. You would either need to be able to move up there any time you find yourself under a bridge or never. But not just under conditions that make it difficult to throw.

One of our local players experienced a similar situation during a tournament earlier this year. His disc landed beneath a bridge, but his disc was not in the OB creek, thus, his lie was in bounds. Unfortunately, there was not enough clearance for him to place his foot behind his disc so he marked his lie on top of the bridge because the bridge is considered in bounds. He and the other players on his card cited the rule of verticality.

When he was describing the scenario to me after the round, I asked him if he could have placed his hand or fingertips on the ground behind the disc. He said he could have used his hand, but he didn't consider that option.....he said he never thought of using another body part as a supporting point on the playing surface. Because he could have used his hand as a supporting point behind his disc, my opinion was that he marked/played his lie incorrectly.



Yes he did, and he would have done even if he couldn't get his hand behind it, the rule you're after is:

803.04 E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc.

So he should have played from a lie behind the bridge on the LOP.

Beat me to it curt :)

There are only 2 ways to get out from under the bridge:

1) if you cannot physically get to our lie because the bridge is an obstacle, then move back on the LOP until you can mark a lie.

2) if you are repositioning due to being within 1m of OB, the rules explicitly state that you can move in the vertical plane.

803.04 E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc.

So he should have played from a lie behind the bridge on the LOP.



You are correct.

2) if you are repositioning due to being within 1m of OB, the rules explicitly state that you can move in the vertical plane.



Though I'm not sure that in the case of stacked playing surfaces, it allows one to change which playing surface they mark the lie on.

In the Q&A the statement is made "The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface."

2) if you are repositioning due to being within 1m of OB, the rules explicitly state that you can move in the vertical plane.



Though I'm not sure that in the case of stacked playing surfaces, it allows one to change which playing surface they mark the lie on.

In the Q&A the statement is made "The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface."



I can't see what use the statement would be if you couldn't? If you can't, surely you're just waving your mini around in the air! :D

803.04 E. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.04 A other than being within 30 centimetres directly behind the marker disc.

So he should have played from a lie behind the bridge on the LOP.



You are correct.



After giving this additional thought, I'm thinking I was incorrect in stating you were correct. :)
I say this because of the specific wording "legal stance". For example, the American Heritage Dictionary provides the following definition:

stance The posture of a standing person [< Lat. stare, to stand.]

Okay.....that dictionary definition is clear and concise, however, here's the first part of disc golf rule 803.04 in regard to "stance":

<font color="blue"> 803.04 Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds. </font>

Because the rule does not specify "what" a supporting point is, I believe my original opinion of using the player's hand as a supporting behind the disc is the correct call.

Neil, you can only move vertically to the closest playing surface and your disc is already on the ground.

Since this bridge is a known entity on the course, I would fault the TD for not providing the method of playing these inbounds lies on or under the bridge. The TD could say that inbounds lies o nthe ground could be marked and played from up on the bridge. Or, the area under the bridge could be called OB whether in water or not. Usually the area under a slightly elevated deck is called OB to avoid stretching under the deck to throw.

Neil, you can only move vertically to the closest playing surface and your disc is already on the ground.

Since this bridge is a known entity on the course, I would fault the TD for not providing the method of playing these inbounds lies on or under the bridge. The TD could say that inbounds lies o nthe ground could be marked and played from up on the bridge. Or, the area under the bridge could be called OB whether in water or not. Usually the area under a slightly elevated deck is called OB to avoid stretching under the deck to throw.



How have you drawn that conclusion from the rule? It says nothing about closest anything, simply that you can reposition vertically.

I entirely agree about the second part BTW...

After giving this additional thought, I'm thinking I was incorrect in stating you were correct. :)



No, you were correct in saying I was correct, I agreed with your original call; that he could/should have taken a 'stance' with his hand.
I merely clarified that even if he couldn't do that, he couldn't just go straight up to the bridge, he would have to move behind it... :D

Oh....in that case, you are correct. :)

Oh....in that case, you are correct. :)



Excellent, I stand corrected.
No, wait, what? :confused: :D

How have you drawn that conclusion from the rule? It says nothing about closest anything, simply that you can reposition vertically.


The disc is already on a playing surface and the Q&amp;A also refers to this issue. Verticality rule just allows you to place the disc in a different position on a sloped playing surface connected with the OB such as a steep bank. If you have stacked playing surfaces, it would be inconsistent to allow some lies within 1m of OB to jump to another playing surface like teleportation and not allow lies more than 1m from OB to jump to the other surface.

It does pose an interesting twist though. What if the OB was something like an above ground swimming pool and the surface of the water was the same distance to the ground as to a higher platform you can walk on? Player choice in that case.

Besides, going back to gotcha's specific situation, that person had a legal stance using his hand. Far too many players in these situations seem to think they are entitled to a good stance, when LEGAL and GOOD can sometimes be rather different things. The simple solution, as always, is to not throw there in the first place. At least that's what I keep telling myself. :D

Not to pick nits...but by his (Jerry's) own definition "Stance" involves standing. Are you refering to the very common practice of standing on your hands? :)

This is a common interpretation of the rules as written.

The interpretation might be common, but the practice sure isn't. ;)

Come to think of it, that's almost as much true in my experience for the humorous perspective (standing on your hands) as it is for the serious (using it as a supporting point, which the definition of supporting point allows). This has a lot to do with this being an interpretation that is perfectly reasonable, even arguably straightforward, but not intuitive, much like playing your shot from the previous lie after it goes OB.

Of course, given how much of the rulebook the average player has read (not much), it isn't surprising that few think to use those options. Or maybe I just need to play more outside of NC? :eek:

If it doesn't have to be a good stance, then there are few lies I can think of that you couldn't physically somehow get behind.

True, though a lot of players seem to think they are always entitled to a good stance and not just a legal one. My brother-in-law, on the other hand, will take that argument and run with it...in the opposite direction. I've seen him take some strange and unnecessary stances, but I've never had reason to say they weren't legal.

How have you drawn that conclusion from the rule? It says nothing about closest anything, simply that you can reposition vertically.


The disc is already on a playing surface and the Q&amp;A also refers to this issue. Verticality rule just allows you to place the disc in a different position on a sloped playing surface connected with the OB such as a steep bank. If you have stacked playing surfaces, it would be inconsistent to allow some lies within 1m of OB to jump to another playing surface like teleportation and not allow lies more than 1m from OB to jump to the other surface.

It does pose an interesting twist though. What if the OB was something like an above ground swimming pool and the surface of the water was the same distance to the ground as to a higher platform you can walk on? Player choice in that case.



Personally, I think in the case of stacked playing surfaces, the player should always have choice, or more to the point, the stance should be within 30 centimetres in the horizontal plane, but any distance vertically. This would get rid of issues with drainage ditches, rabbit burrows etc.

my disc stops - a leaner on the front of a huge oak tree. in front of the lie is a thicket of smaller trees. beyond that, the basket. i climb the oak, straight up 50' to an opening in the limbs. clear shot to the basket.

my disc stops - a leaner on the front of a huge oak tree. in front of the lie is a thicket of smaller trees. beyond that, the basket. i climb the oak, straight up 50' to an opening in the limbs. clear shot to the basket.



I don't think you'll find much support for calling that a playing surface, if so, you could already do that based on Chucks definition, arguing that the trunk is simply a steep extension of the ground...

Give me your best guesses at the ruling and I will then tell you what I ruled.....


I believe that the lie should have been played as stated, behind the solid object on the LOP. I also believe that Jerry has either lied to us, or his internet still isn't back up after hurricane IKE :D