We have a ditch at our course that is 7' deep and 6' wide that runs across the fairway. The ditch is not OB. My disc landed in the ditch up against the wall farthest from the basket. My questions are these:

1) If I cannot take a legal stance, do I move to the top of the ditch w/o penalty (solid obstacle relief) or does it fall under the unplayable lie rule (move it up top with 1 stroke penalty)?

2) What if I could mark it with a mini and be able to play it from the ditch, but opt not to so I could play it from the top of the ditch (obviously assuming that I could do so w/o penalty).

I know that I have seen players mark their lie up top w/o penalty in similar situations (but know that does not make it the right call).

how much horizontal distance are you talking about? does the bank drop off vertically or does it slope?

I always read it as 30 cm horizontaly behind your marker. If that forced you underground then you could take it up at the 30cm point. After that you would have to play it or declare unsafe or unplayable lie.
There could also be a course ruling about this situation. Safety should be paramount and no one should have to throw from a dangerous lie.
Seven feet? That's a deep ditch. You could make it OB and all the confusion goes away.

how much horizontal distance are you talking about? does the bank drop off vertically or does it slope?



It's pretty much vertical.

As long as you are on the LOP within 30cm and are on the same playing surface, then the stance is legal. In this case, if the rear wall of the ditch is completely vertical, a stance taken at the top would be legal if the supporting point is still within 30cm on the line of play from the rear edge of the disc. Extending the rule of verticality from the OB rule to this situation the 30cm would be measured not directly from the rear of the disc to the lie taken, but horizontally from the point in space directly above the rear of the disc.

Does the rule of verticality apply if there is no OB present?

If you read the Rules Q&A for discs landing in a hole (which is not currently online), the RC did not make a ruling. Common sense would indicate that the player take the lie from the top of the hole which is similar to a vertical ditch wall, if that's the case in this example. The ditch could also be called a casual relief area versus OB which would allow relief to the top of the ditch without penalty. Seems like an obvious situation crying for an official course rule.

no - the rule of verticality only applies to OB.
The only options you have in this instance are playing from the ditch, or unplayable which unfortunatelt includes a one throw penalty.

I would say the rule of verticality does not directly apply as all uses of it are clearly in the OB sections. But, to make the best ruling here, I think the principle applies. The point of the rule of verticality is that the OB line is a vertical plane and that one measures in 1m from that plane to determine the appropriate lie (as opposed to measuring 1m along the playing surface up the side of a muddy creek bed). I would apply that same scheme here in that the measurement of 30cm is best done in that manner.

Tangent: When measuring 10m for a putting circle, do you measure 10m following the contour of the playing surface, or with a laser horizontally, thus ignoring the change in elevation? Case: the elevated baskets at courses like Winthrop. I doubt 10m is measured including the traversal down the side of the landscape blocks. Measurement of distances in the rules should be in a consistent manner. Since I believe the OB measurement scheme is the only one specified, I would use that scheme for other measurements.

Following up on the measuring question. If this 6' wide 7' deep ravine was next to the basket, would you measure 10m going down one side, across the bottom and up the other, thus marking 10m at about 18 ft from the basket when measured with a laser? I doubt it.

no - the rule of verticality only applies to OB.
The only options you have in this instance are playing from the ditch, or unplayable which unfortunatelt includes a one throw penalty.


If the disc is in a tree below 2m, you bring it down to the playing surface - I cannot throw from the tree. Why is this any different in your mind? In my mind, it's playing surface - the wall of the ditch is not a playing surface. Maybe worthy of an official ruling from the rules committee.

The ditch is very easy to access from either end and it makes for some interesting shots, but I agree that it is worthy of a course ruling. It seems like a no-brainer that the rules committee would have officially addressed the situation though.

Doing so ignores the inclusion of certain obstacles in the course design. If they didn't make the ditch OB - they were defacto including having to play from it. That's why we have the unplayable lie rule. when obstacles like this are part of the course - you don't get a free pass and get to ignore playing from it without penalty.

Formally, the wall of the ditch is a playing surface unless a course rule specifies it otherwise. So the RC has addressed it directly. However, as the slope gets steeper, more and more players may find it difficult or too risky to play from it. So, the rule states they can choose an unplayable lie with penalty. If you want a more consistent way to play it than relying on each player's goat-like capabilities, then a course rule is needed.

I agree, that is the intent - I just think that the rules are really fuzzy and I have seen it played multiple ways. I think that based strictly on the rule book; one could argue effectively either way.
Honestly, I think that the sheer height of the ditch sways one's point of view. If the ditch were 24" high with a vertical wall, few would say anything about bringing it out to the top of the ditch or conversely to the bottom of the ditch for a safe stance. Under your interpretation both could/would be unplayable lies (depending on the flexibility of the person)? My gut feeling is that it would not likely be called unplayable by most and most would allow the repositioning w/o penalty (right or wrong).

What course are you talking about anyway. Is it one of the courses that will be used at the Atlanta Open NT??

Not trying to be a downer or anything, but your argument that it can be argued effectively both ways doesn't hold water. You may have seen it played both ways, but those that choose relief from the ditch are incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.

never mind

Not trying to be a downer or anything, but your argument that it can be argued effectively both ways doesn't hold water. You may have seen it played both ways, but those that choose relief from the ditch are incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.



The argument he provided for a disc leaning against the vertical wall away from the basket was sufficient to warrant discussion. If you clearly cannot get a foot on the floor of the ditch behind the marker, what rule do you use?

Solid Obstacle relief (no penalty) or Unplayable lie (penalty)?

Anywhere else in the ditch plays from in the ditch.

Not trying to be a downer or anything, but your argument that it can be argued effectively both ways doesn't hold water. You may have seen it played both ways, but those that choose relief from the ditch are incorrect in their interpretation of the rules.



The argument he provided for a disc leaning against the vertical wall away from the basket was sufficient to warrant discussion. If you clearly cannot get a foot on the floor of the ditch behind the marker, what rule do you use?

Solid Obstacle relief (no penalty) or Unplayable lie (penalty)?

Anywhere else in the ditch plays from in the ditch.



It was not leaning against the wall, the back edge was touching the wall.

Everything everyone here (except Krupicka who is trying to justify using an OB rule for a non OB call) is saying is EXACTLY what I told Bob. I also said that for the ATL Open there would be something said about MAYBE making it casual relief because if there is rain sometimes the ditch has lots of standing water.
My thought is that the ditch is a design feature for the basket placement that comes into play as much as the slope the basket is on, and the creek at the bottom of the slope that is OB.
The hole is a perfect example of risk/reward - and BECAUSE of the access from both ends of the ditch there is NO safety hazard to reach your lie.
Play it from where it lies, or take a stroke for unplayable which is totally the players call.

I'm glad to see most of the Rules Zealots seeing it as it should be.

Keith

Clearly if you can't physically stand on the lie - which as described is not obstructed by a solid obstacle (the earth does not qualify as such), but lies on part of the playing surface - that is AN EXACT description of an unplayable lie. I don't understand how it could be argued otherwise. Sorry - take your lumps and play on.

Might not be the most comfortable position to throw from, but it sounds like you could stand in the ditch and lay along the wall to the point where your disc is located, place a hand behind it for your legal "stance" and toss from there?

Might not be the most comfortable position to throw from, but it sounds like you could stand in the ditch and lay along the wall to the point where your disc is located, place a hand behind it for your legal "stance" and toss from there?



Or you could mark it with a mini, stand on solid ground and throw from in the ditch.
I also mentioned on the ATL discussion board where this started, that LEGAL stance does NOT mean your PREFERRED stance.
Another thing not mentioned in the first post, but to keep in mind is that from anywhere in the ditch you are no more than 75 feet from the basket. It runs from about 25-75 feet away, depending on where you land in it and it is also not like you need to take a runup or to torque a long range throw.

At any rate, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you made it out to be on Sunday. I just think it is an interesting question worth discussion. The intent is for one to have to play from the ditch, no doubt. It makes the short hole much more interesting.
Your assertion that I have to mark my disc holds no water if you are playing it as solid obstacle relief (no different than if my disc was against a tree - I could choose to mark and play in front of the tree or not mark and play directly behind the tree). I did not articulate myself well on Sunday - in determining if solid obstacle applies or unplayable lie applies to the situation - that's all.
At the top of the ditch, I still think that it could be argued that: I was directly behind my marker disc, in the line of play, on the playing surface just as 803.04A1 says.
I think that the spirit of the game is that I should throw from the ditch and should not have argued with you (bad day and feeling particularly obstinate).

Everything everyone here (except Krupicka who is trying to justify using an OB rule for a non OB call) is saying is EXACTLY what I told Bob.



You miss my point. How does one measure lateral distances for rules that have distances specified? For OB, the Rule of Verticality spells it out. For all other rules (stance, Unplayable lie, putting circle, etc.), the general text dictates on the line of play up to a certain distance. The method for measuring that distance is not specified. In the trench case above, if the player chose an unplayable lie, would the player get 5m back from the edge of the wall, or is it only 3m as it takes approx 2m of vertical distance to get up to the top? (For sake of discussion, I'm assuming the trench wall is completely vertical. I've not seen the particular hole in question). If the wall has not vertical, but is a steep slope (thus turning into a playing surface), does that change the answer?

I personally would like to hear a clarification from the rules committee on this discussion. Its an interesting topic with no clear conclusion from the people doing the arguing. I'm interested in what is the official ruling if the disc was standing vertical against a vertical ditch wall that is away from the basket, where even putting a mini down only leaves a finger tip to play from, but then your feet would be in front of your lie.

I just find it hard to believe that a vertical piece of land can be considered a playing surface, when you consider that nobody can actually stand on a vertical piece of land. Even if you became like spider man and could stand on this piece of land, part of your body would still be in front of your lie, pretty much making any stance illegal.

part of your body would still be in front of your lie, pretty much making any stance illegal.



this actually would not make your stance illegal. as long as none of your supporting points are in front of your lie. (e.g - as long as the soles of your feet stay in contact with the wall, you would be legal)

Here's an abbreviated version of the Rules Q&A:
<font color="red">
2006.07 : Disc below the playing surface
Question � How do I mark a disc in an unplayable location below the playing surface like a crevice? Is there a penalty?
Response - The PDGA Rules do not address this issue. It�s up to the TD to specify how these known situations will be played which is typically to mark up on the playing surface no closer to the hole and throw from there with no penalty. Without TD guidance, suggest doing just that. Then, ask TD before turning in scorecard if there was a penalty involved or not. </font>

If a wall is truly vertical, then this RC 'non-answer' would apply. If it's more of a steep slope, then you're pretty much faced with an unplayable option if you can't take a legal stance. Of course in both cases, the designer/TD is more at fault for not providing a set resolution for this known potential situation.

Soooooo, pushing the envelope... If the disc is lying flat next to the wall of a vertical drop, could I elect not to mark it with a mini and play from up top? It's really taking advantage of the situation, for sure, but seems that is a legal option.

I agree with Chuck, et al, in that we need to make a local rule. But, it seems that this would come up in a lot of courses with drainage ditches and such and should be formally addressed in the rules.

I would say overwhelmingly that players in a group would allow a player to mark and play from the back edge of a gopher hole their disc landed in, without penalty. For some reason, the RC won't make a broad ruling like this. In the case of the vertical wall, it's essentially the same thing as the gopher hole on a grander scale and marking on top seems like a fair option per the Q&amp;A. Maybe this is something we can get the RC to consider with a formal resolution at the next rules update.

That Q&amp;A doesn't apply - the ditch is not "below" the playing surface - it is just another playing surface at a different elevation.
Funky Bobby - why can't you accept that certain lies are unplayable? Why must this even be a "subject for discussion". Your option above is NOT legal even if you choose not to mark the disc w/ a mini - as the rule of verticality only applies to OB!! If you can't take a stance - and the disc is not ob or within a meter of ob - you must declare it unplayable, take your stroke and move on!!

The Q&amp;A does apply because the gopher hole or any type of hole or deep pit doesn't pass all the way thru the center of the earth, it's just a playing surface a player can't physically get to to take a stance, similar to your disc being suspended above the playing surface.

If a wall is truly vertical, then this RC 'non-answer' would apply. If it's more of a steep slope, then you're pretty much faced with an unplayable option if you can't take a legal stance. Of course in both cases, the designer/TD is more at fault for not providing a set resolution for this known potential situation.



This alone should be enough to illustrate the extreme importance in providing a set resolution or "local rule" as it were. We all know no one is going to measure the angle of the slope to see if it is truly vertical in relation to the local gravitational pull.

Hole #16 at New Quarter has a gully to the right of the green, but this situation hasn't happened yet in tournament play, or casual play to my knowledge. The wall is not uniformly vertical or any other angle since it is a natural drainage way. Everyone just plays it where it lies when they land in there.

That Q&amp;A doesn't apply - the ditch is not "below" the playing surface - it is just another playing surface at a different elevation.



Bingo baby!!! - I played my shot from the playing surface directly behind my disc - it just turns out to be 4 feet higher. You, et al, state strongly that it is crystal clear (the ruling). I suspect that is because of the height that I refer to in my example, but in Chuck's example, I too doubt anyone would call an unplayable lie, but there is very little difference in the 2 situations.

Pick and choose the verbage all you want - thre rule of verticality still only applies to OB.

CK said "it's just a playing surface a player can't physically get to to take a stance"

Accept it - THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN UNPLAYABLE LIE!! No relief without penalty!!

Don't be a cheater just because you want a one in 20 chance of draining that 75-100' putt. Either take the stroke - or lay up from an uncomfortable spot. Geez

gang, using what you've said, there would not be a difference between a ditch and a crevice

a crevice is "just another playing surface at a different elevation" if say the crevice is more than 3 meters deep and the disc is wedged that far down, the "wall" your disc is touching is still a playing surface, so I agree with what Chuck said

afterall, whats really the difference between \-| and \_____-| with " - " being the disc more than 3 meters below level ground, when throwing to the left

I don't disagree that it would be an unplayable lie, but I wish the rules were more clear so that different groups could not come to a different conclusion when looking at the same rulebook (as in a lot of cases unfortunately)

Sorry, Craig. No sale. If your disc is on uneven ground and the back edge of your disc is maybe an inch or two below the ground behind it, we all just take our stance behind the lie even though the disc or marker is below our stance. There's an implied verticality rule that we all accept as long as we're within 30 cm behind the mark. In this case, if the wall is truly vertical, then the player is truly taking a stance within the 30cm behind the lie no matter how high the vertical difference is between surfaces.

On the other hand, the problem comes in when the wall isn't strictly vertical. Then, the player can't play from the top of the ditch without violating "taking a stance within 30 cm behind the mark." That's when the unplayable is unfortunately called for unless the TD or course designer had forseen this problem and addressed it.

ahhh, now we are getting to the good stuff

Hem haw - no sale for you!! You get no relief unless it's OB!! Are you serious? You are comparing uneven ground varying an inch or two to a 2meter deep ditch? Puhlease.

Play it any way you want - but if you try it in my group, be prepared for a hassle that won't be worth it! Implied verticality rule? HA
If you can't take a stance - that is unplayable - period. The choice you get to make is whether or not to make that call. You don't get to choose whether or not a Q&amp;A may or may not apply to a dissimilar, course specific condition. Giving advice like that CK - makes any advice you may offer suspect - that's just absurd.

Craig, when is the difference in height between the back of your disc or mark and your stance too high to require an unplayable? You going to make up that number? The rule states:

<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</font>

Line of Play does not specifically have an elevation component. It's a straight line looking down in a bird's eye view. A player standing on top of a vertical wall of any height will meet the conditions of being within 30 cm behind the marker on the line of play. That's if the wall is actually vertical.

What part of the rule of verticality don't you understand? If you are not OB or within the 1meter distance required to obtain relief - you get NONE!!

Use a little common sense! I bet you were one of those guys that argued hitting the back side of an ob fence "flexed" the fence enough to cross the ib PLAIN!! VERTICAL ELEMENTS ARE PART OF THE COURSE - YOU DON'T GET RELIEF - unless of course you cheat - then you get all the relief you want.

Answer the question Craig based on the rule. How far above the lie does your stance have to be according to your interpretation before you have take an unplayable? Two inches? A foot? When it looks too high that Craig says you have to do it?

The place where players have erroneously tried to claim verticality is when there are two playing surfaces on top of each other and the player wants to play from the other surface than where their disc is located. An example might be a dry creek bed with a bridge over it. A player under the bridge might want to play from on the bridge and claim verticality which they can't do. I recall a situation at Worlds in Iowa where I believe Mark Ellis persuaded his group it was OK to move up from the creek bed onto the foot bridge for his next throw, improperly citing verticality.

Craig, when is the difference in height between the back of your disc or mark and your stance too high to require an unplayable? You going to make up that number? The rule states:

<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</font>

Line of Play does not specifically have an elevation component. It's a straight line looking down in a bird's eye view. A player standing on top of a vertical wall of any height will meet the conditions of being within 30 cm behind the marker on the line of play. That's if the wall is actually vertical.



I could accept an argument that you need a point that is on the line of play, on the playing surface, and within 30 cm of the back of the marker.

If the back of the disc is 6 inches down in a gopher hole, you have to get your foot on the playing surface and within 30 linear cm of the back of the disc.

How to solve the disc in the 3 foot ditch? Two ways:

If you can straddle out left or right of the disc to a place you can stand on that foot, and keep that foot farther out than the back of the disc. Put your other toe on the wall directly behind the disc. Throw. If within 10 meters, demonstrate balance.

If you can't do that, but you are outside of 10 meters:
Jump in the air, kicking the wall within 30 cm of the back of the disc and while your foot is in contact with the playing surface (The wall), release the throw. Land. (If within 10 meters, levitate until balance is sufficiently demonstrated).

The second option could be done by planting your foot vertically and "jump putting" off that foot as well...

I have a few questions about this, rooted in the definition of terms in the rules. (I would like to say that my personal opinion is that you ought to be able to play from the top of the ditch, in agreement w/ Chuck). however, I have a few questions.

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

This definition of the term playing surface requires it to be under the disc. To me this would say you can not play from anywhere above your disc.

Also, the definition of line of play requires that it is on the playing surface. So, if the above assertion is true, then the "bird's eye" argument chuck made a few posts back would not hold water, in my opinion.

thoughts?

Look at a simple example and those who have played Renny may have encountered this. Holes 2, 4 and I think it's around 14 have pins on elevated earthen mounds bounded by terracing timbers. The distance to the ground is more than 30 cm below some of those timbers. If you land on the edge of those timbers, I suspect no one has called players to take an unplayable when they stand below their mini which might be at chest height (more than 30 cm) at the edge of the timber. Now some may put their hand behind the mini on the timber if there's room so that would be their legal stance. But most will believe they are within 30 cm behind their lie even if it's 2-3 feet above their feet.

However, if we reverse the situation where the line of play has your disc leaning almost vertical against the wall on the lower level and some are saying the player has to take an unplayable if they take their stance from the terrace above? I don't think so.

Another point in measurement based on the holes described above. Is the vertical distance of the wall subtracted from the 10m circle for putting?

If the vertical distance is ignored for the 10m circle (as I suspect it is) why is it important for the 30cm distance?

Personally, I favor Chuck's (and the RC's by Q&amp;A) opinion that it plays from the playing surface within 30cm horizontally from the back edge of the marker disc. If you can find a stance and meet that requirement, no penalty is required.

Which brings up the question of whether an earthen embankment can ever be considered a "large solid obstacle".

I was thinking the same thing regarding earth. The tricky part with that is where does the mound "end" in terms of going back far enough? Do you have to go back to the point where the elevation is back down equal to the disc's position? That could be a ridiculous scenario that may not even have a location on the course. :D

Yes, where exactly is "immediately behind" an earthen obstacle?

I still read it as 30 cm horizontaly behind your marker. If that forced you underground then you could take it up at the 30cm point.
After that you would have to play it or declare unsafe or unplayable lie.
There could also be a course ruling about this situation. Safety should be paramount and no one should have to throw from a dangerous lie.

I've always assumed that the rule meant 30cm horizontally, possibly partly because I always assumed that the 10m circle was 10m horizontally away from the vertical line through the center of the basket, rather than following the contour of the playing surface (which in a contrived case could allow you to be outside the circle and have a drop-in). It hadn't even occurred to me that there would be any question about it.

On 1 of our courses we have a stone ledge that you can go under and make it so you can't physically get behind your disc. We allow players to on top of the ledge with no penalty. Note, this makes what would be an easy level 15 ft putt to a nearly impossible putt. The argument made on this discussion board would say you have to an unplayable lie. Which I am not even sure how you would measure it. As you go up the ledge face you would actually be getting closer to the hole and it would be close whether 5 meters would even get you to the top. I would argue that the 30 cm is measured horizontally and not 30cm along the contours of the ground which would have to take into account every granular rise and fall of elevation.

There's no problem if you have a course rule that allows players to play shots from on top of the ledge that land under it. However, without the course rule, it would likely be unplayable.

what really worries me is we have an obvious disagreement with the interpetation of the rules in this thread, with both sides speaking their piece, then the subject is just dropped (and this is only 1 example)

I realize there are people with the PDGA working behind the scenes to improve the rule book, but it just does not seem to be a priority coming from a player's perspective. It should be a very high priority, because a lot of people will not take us seriously if we can not even consistently explain/interpet the rules of the sport, yet we continue to have tournaments using these rules.

It does not make sense to leave the decision in the hands of the TD, because the rules are supposed to be consistent and those who read them before they play tournaments should know what to expect when the situation arises.

Then there are the ideas of forcing touring pros to know the rules, which I would agree with, but even then, they need a consistent rule book so they do not all come up with their own interpetation of how a rule is supposed to be...