If 804.01 allows TDs to simply ingnore whatever rules they want is there really any purpose to have rules shouldn't the PDGA just give rule suggestions. I mean no wonder there is so much confusion about the rules when at 1 tournament you can do this and at another you can't and at another you can on some holes but not on others.

I'd say 804.01D prevents your concern.

So does that mean a TD can't say "for example" we won't be following 803.06 because the course has hills.

player meetings fix that problem...just go to them and listen.

So does that mean a TD can't say "for example" we won't be following 803.06 because the course has hills.


No. And TDs can potentially be taken before the Disciplinary Committee depending on their unwillingness to uphold the rules at a PDGA event.

A few more details may be useful, but no TD can make course rules that conflict with PDGA rules without a waiver from the tournament director. I can't imagine a scenario caused by hills that precludes use of 803.06. I have seen several holes on severe slopes where 803.06 becomes very useful.

The thing to keep in mind is that I do not know of a designer that expects a more than two stroke penalty for getting off the fairway, though I have seen holes where more than two strokes would be needed to return to the fairway if you land in the wrong area. 803.06 keeps the competition fair by limiting the penalty that can be caused by a single errant shot.

Do you really want to gain 4 strokes on a competitor because their shot glanced off a tree in the fairway and went 200' down a heavily wooded hillside?

So chuck, if my 5 foot duce put falls out, rolls 150 foot down the closely mown hill from the pin, I can just say unplayable lie and put again from the same place taking a 4, rather than going down the hill and risking a 150 foot up shot and another putt?

It seems that the intent of the unplayable lie rule is for the safety of the thrower: Unplayable Lie: A lie from which a
player decides that obstacles to stance
or throwing motion make it impractical
or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is
relocated with a penalty.

On the course Robert ask about extreamly fast greens abound which makes the example I noted very possible. And, the wooded areas mentioned are not dangerous, just steep enough that a 50 foot kick can fall 70 foot down, causing a hike to get to a next shot. I did announce that these areas are in play in the players meeting, and no releaf from that bad shot will be allowed. And addressed Roberts question during the players meeting as well.

This very short course has some of the fastest greens I have ever played on, making the course a true risk / reward management environment; so I envoked the special 804.01A rule so players would have to play the course as designed, and keeping the intend of unplayable lie definition intact.

But, I do totally respect Robert's question and his effort to clarify the rules.

You are correct. The unplayable is totally at the player's discretion, providing the disc is in bounds and has not missed a mando and can be found.

That is why I tried to not go into to many details it isn't that I have a personal problem with the TD and had no desire to report HB to anybody. But if the rule is bad then it should be changed I don't think we should be allowed to say we aren't going to follow a rule. I had several of those that rolled off at least 30 feet but none even made me consider calling unplayable as mentioned I brought it up in the players meeting. Ronnie's that kicked down a hill well over a 100' with probably 50 degree or so slant to within 10' of the bank on a rock after a rainy morning with wet leaves going down hill no less should have been able to call unplayable be dropping 2 throwing 3 which he would have probably played cautious after the previous shot and took a 5 or possible a 6(which he got anyways) but because he couldn't he was forced to play this miserable shot and also led to a 4 card backup and a sore shoulder from tomahawking 100'+ up a hill.

But are rules sometimes used to a players advantage of course they are. I tell my football players all the time if they are beaten in a pass play and can't make a play on the ball and it will be a TD to go after the player a 15 yard penalty from the 40 or 50 is a lot better than a TD. Is that against the intention of the rule of course it is but every good coach from little league to the NFL teaches that. And if anybody has ever watched a profesional baseball game they have seen a ball get stuck somewhere and a player say they can't get it to keep a runner from advancing even though my daughter could probably get it out. Sure some rules in every sport can be misused but we can't go around saying we are only going to follow them some of the time. If it is a rule it should be played all of the time and if you think the rule should be allowed to have exceptions like the 2m rule which is at the TDs discretion then petition the PDGA but I can't stand arguing with players about all of the made up rules and sometime rules everybody at that tournament now thinks you can't call unplayable lies when obviously you can.

And by the way when I say over a 100' it was probably closer to 150'-200'.

Robert,
I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that you are asking for clarification and not squashing sour grapes.

Given that HB got approval for a rules modification from the Competition Director/Tour Manager and noted the Special Condition in the player's meeting, then so be it. Not an unusual thing for a TD to do. Credit for being creative and for planning ahead.

HB, the number workup on those holes might be interesting stuff to see. Hopefully they fleshed out as you expected.

Not unlike Gary's observation, I am curious if in the end it became overly punitive instead of otherwise. BTW, which course?

Ron

Sounds like either weak or unavoidable hole design if in fact a not uncommon fluky result ends up with a player being penalized such that taking a penalty shot and coming back to play the same lie is preferable to playing from the fluky result. And yes, we have common fluky results due to the nature of our baskets and designers need to account for that and not have highly punitive results from those occurrences.

If these scenarios are unavoidable with design, and we know our sport doesn't have unlimited funds to deal with some of these issues, the unplayable option is there on purpose to prevent these situations from becoming too punitive. Look, how many players you know willingly want to take the cost of a penalty and the throw itself unless it's a desperate situation where it's the best choice?

No player should ever be put into a position on the course that requires more than a penalty shot and distance to escape unless they wish to try. Ball golf has the same unplayable lie rule (Rule 28) and I suspect has had it for more than 100 years. And yes, golfers have been able to take advantage of this rule in similar rollaways into heavy schule where coming back onto the green with a penalty was a better choice than hacking out of rocks or schule.

I have no sour grapes I promise I would not have called it one time. I had no intention of mentioning his name or the tournament and that is why I didn't give his name or the tournaments name until after he came on here and pretty much admitted it was him and at that time there was no reason to not give my reasoning anymore. On the contrary I have nothing but respect for HB I have attended a dozen of his events bought dozens of his discs and have had dozens of discussions with him. I would have never called him out on here I think it is very inapropriate my concern is that if any TDs are allowed to just say we aren't going to follow this rule then what is the purpose of having rules and that is the way my question was stated.

I also could be wrong but I don't believe he did get an approval for the rules modification and if he did I will remove all posts and personally appologize.

There is some subjectiveness as to whether a special condition as set by the TD needs a waiver from the PDGA. Given that 803.06 says that "The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable", and that, from what Robert said, under certain circumstances, the TD said that 803.06 was not to be invoked, I would think that a waiver would be necessary.

You gotta watch those Clark brothers, them's tricky folks... ;)

Those who feel the unplayable rule is not punishment enough could design a scenario to bypass it without needing a waiver. A line could be marked near the bottom of the hill such that a disc going beyond it enters a "no penalty" buncr or OB area with penalty with a drop zone nearby. A player would not be able to invoke the unplayable if their disc is in the buncr or OB. The TD could require play from the drop zone near the bottom of the hill. Seems gimmicky but would be legal without needing a waiver.

Bill: you are correct, with over 100 years of competitive disc golf experance and over 100 torunaments put on the three Clark borothers are not only tricky folks but undoubtly some of the pioneers of this sport along with you!

Ron, the course is Lake Cumberland State Resort Park (a couple of photos here: http://www.bluegrassdiscgolf.org/LakeCumberland.html ). This is a must see course if you are in the area, and a great family get away destination.

Chuck: we do use the OB line on a course that has dangerous areas near here (Chalybeate) with the drop zone for safety ofthe players.

Robert: I did not get PDGA wavier for my call, but I will next time. That is why I called myself out. The Park director was so happy with the turnout he wants me to have more events, and I will make that call next time.

And tell James I will help him with his overhand, it sounds like he is throwing a ball not snaping a disc.

Let's go over what it takes to be a TD

- Roughly 125 dollars (PDGA membership, officals test, sanctioning fee)
- Ability to pass an open book test

Yup, that is it.

When I took the test, I was in college. I had my roomate take it after me and I compared his answers to mine. He had two different answers and I received a 100, so he basically got a 92, which easily passes. Now all he has to do is grab 125 bux and he can run a PDGA sanctioned event.

The irony in this story is when he took the test he had only played disc golf maybe 4 times in his life.

While I highly doubt anyone like this would ever step up and run an event, it does prove what many of us who have played lots of events already know - people with no business running events do infact run PDGA sanctioned events. The issue is the PDGA would rather have bad volunteers than tell someone no.

At some point in the future, hopefully very soon, bad TD's will be told no b/c the amount of people willing to run an event will be larger than the number of events. When that day finally comes, the sport will improve drastically.

The part that always confuses me in all of this is I have played some BAD PDGA events. I mean stuff that would make you cringe. I have reported a few TD's for unbelieveable tournament behaivor and those people still run events (however 1 has drastically improved. The other, well........). It boggles my mind that the PDGA would want this person to run an event with it's name attached to it. I just don't see this as good business. I guess as long as that person is providing profit for the PDGA, then who cares right?

So getting back to the original post with all of this said, no - TD's should have no say on any rules during the event. There are waaaaaay to many people out there that run events that have no business running things I certainly don't want people like that making decisions that affect how I and others perform on the course.

TD's should have no say on any rules during the event.



...so you're saying i should not be able to set my special barbed wire condition on my course?

While I understand what the TD may have been trying to accomplish. I don't think forbidding a player the option to take an Unplayable lie is an acceptable means to that end. Not that it matters, but I would not grant a waiver to forbid 803.06

*thread drift* MTL, what is needed is a TD exam. This would have open ended questions like: You have the following field for a 18 hole course:22 MPO, 5MPM, 2 FPO, 19 MA1, 21 MA2. How do you assign the cards to starting holes for a shotgun start?

Those who feel the unplayable rule is not punishment enough could design a scenario to bypass it without needing a waiver. A line could be marked near the bottom of the hill such that a disc going beyond it enters a "no penalty" buncr or OB area with penalty with a drop zone nearby. A player would not be able to invoke the unplayable if their disc is in the buncr or OB. The TD could require play from the drop zone near the bottom of the hill. Seems gimmicky but would be legal without needing a waiver.



Chuck, even with a bunCr and a specified drop zone, what would preclude a player from opting for an unplayable lie and going back up the hill to their previous lie?

I thought of that but I don't think a player can make an unplayable call after being relocated to a presumably acceptable lie (similar to a tee pad) as their only option after going in the buncer as restricted by the TD using 804.01. Otherwise, it also negates the rule where a TD can specify that a player goes to the drop zone as their only option after going OB using 804.01.

In the OB case w/ DZ only, if a player opts for the unplayable to go back to the tee, they would incur a penalty to relocate the lie in addition to the OB penalty. If it was their tee shot they would be throwing four not three if going back to the tee. I don't know of any that would take +2 and distance. Change OB w/ DZ to 2m rule in effect and the argument follows the same path.

With regards to a tee pad, I don't see anything that precludes a player from taking an unplayable and backing up 5 meters with a +1. The Unplayable lie rule is pretty clear about it being solely left to the players discretion.

Except the Special Conditions rule 804.01 allows the TD to specify the only lie playable and whether a penalty is included after a disc lands in a defined area. That overrides any additional choice and it doesn't violate or set aside any PDGA rule by doing so. That's different from choosing to completely set aside 803.06 Unplayable.

I don't think we'll agree on this one. It gets back to the original question. Can 804.01 be used to negate 803.06? The answer is no. A special condition can dictate drop zones and penalties for them, but once that condition is satisfied and the course rules are followed, a player still can declare 803.06 as he is the "sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable". It gives no exceptions for the TD to overrule this.

I think I'd fall on the side of adding another penalty stroke and going either taking 5M or previous lie. I think the 5m part of the rule would even apply to the tee if a player wanted. Makes me re-think a few or the shorter dog-legs I've played.

HB, there is a reason the rule was renamed from unsafe lie to unplayable lie in the last rule change. The safety of the lie has nothing to do with whether it is playable or not.

The key is the unplayable is valid for lies where a player's throw lands or after the player makes their relief choice. I believe it allows 803.06 to be negated when the next lie is specified by the TD. In the case that started this thread, the problem was the illegality of completely setting aside 803.06 for any throw landing anywhere. However, if a specific area a disc lands was specified for relief to a specific drop zone with or without penalty, then 803.06 can be set aside.

It would be interesting to see a player try to call an unplayable on the tee and return to their last lie in the previous target and throw from there to get a 3 on a long par 4 that curves all the way around thru the woods where the next pin was was an easy 60-80 feet from the previous pin but the regular fairway was a torturous route thru the woods. :o

TD's should have no say on any rules during the event.



...so you're saying i should not be able to set my special barbed wire condition on my course?



For those not aware...

John's course has barbed wire fences that are OB around most of the course. The meter off OB line rule comes into effect when you are near them, but he alters it to you MUST take a meter and can take up to 2 meters.

It's a safety thing and as someone who wanted to be as close as possible to the OB line this past weekend so only took 1 meter and had my pant leg ripped open on my follow through (read as NOT my leg), I was happy about that ruling.

However, unless the PDGA grants you special permission during your PDGA event there (which I hope they would), your event should be an X Tier.

Basically all I'm saying is even though you are 100% correct with this decision, you shouldn't be able to alter the rules without consulting the PDGA. I know you have done this John so it doesn't bother me a bit.

actually i have not consulted them nor do i intend to.

Simply specify that the OB line is one meter in from the top wire on the fence BUT just at that height. Of course with no "hovercraft" discs, no disc will ever land in the air in that OB area. However, rule of verticality which is valid for OB line relief allows the player to take up to a meter in from the vertical OB plane which would already be one meter in from the fence. No waiver required. But John knew that all along... :D

Chuck,

Watch what you say here, we may have some newbies that might take you seriously.

I like where Chuck went with the rules, to fit the situation in, but he knows that, if there is OB declared for a course, then there must be an OB line, and that line must be a physical line. It could be a variable line and/or not on the playing surface, but it must be a line. For instance, if OB was defined as the metal line that goes between wooden posts paralleling the street, the line is above the playing surface, and could sway a little bit, if there was some wind and the line was not tight, but it is still a valid OB line.

I don't think that you can define OB and being a line that is a certain distance away from an actual line.

How about 803.05C Casual Obstacles? Even though the, as we say down here in TX, bob war fence may not agree with the title of this rule, the rule also says that a player may obtain casual relief from "any item or area specifically
designated by the director before the round." It seems to me that the TD declared that the area within 1m of the fence was an area one should get relief from.

OR, how about this. The definition of a drop zone, part (3):

"...landed in a protected area (governed by 804.01, Special Conditions)."

The TD could declare that the area within 1m of the fence is a special condition, and that the drop zone is the 1 to 2m line as defined before. This would work, except for the rest of the drop zone definition,

"The throwing area from within the drop zone shall be clearly marked and played in a manner similar to the marking and playing of a teeing area."

TDs are always such easy targets anyway. If someone wanted to take exception to this declared special condition and how it is handled, I'm sure that there would be lots of other areas to "reward" the TD in that person's message to the PDGA.




The issue here is that the TD used a different standard for what relief may be granted than the standard that is given in 803.05C(2). The TD used a variant of the OB rule to grant relief, and some might take issue with that, but given what the TD was trying to do, protect people from nasty barbed wire, I don't have a problem with that.

I like where Chuck went with the rules, to fit the situation in, but he knows that, if there is OB declared for a course, then there must be an OB line, and that line must be a physical line.


I can't find that wording "physical line" in the rules? An example of a projected OB line might be the one created by a row of posts where the TD says the outside edge produces the OB line. That's a legal definition for OB without an actual line. In fact we used that at PW2007 for several OB areas since we supplied all players with a 10m tape in their player packs to stretch between the posts if needed.

as both the td and the owner of the course i stipulate that players must take a minimum of 1 meter from the fences and may take up to 2- protects them from the fences, protects me and my family from getting sued.

i would say the special condition bill suggests is closest to how i would interpret it all if forced to defend it.

I would think between 803.05.C and 804.01 the TD may declare area within 1m of the OB line as a special or casual relief area. The 1m relief from that area as specified seems appropriate and easily understood. I wouldn't think that the required relief would need a waiver, but it wouldn't hurt to specify the ground rules in the Sanction agreement.

Over the years I've heard lots of players complain about how awful they think the PDGA rules are.

What I have never seen is anyone trying to write an improved set of rules. Give it a shot...if you can write something better I'm sure lots of folks would be interested in seeing it.

Just complaining about the rules won't change anything.

Actually, I have a list of rule tweaks that would resolve some of the discussions that have happened on the message board over the past couple of years. I need to send them off to the Rules Committee one of these days.

Chuck,

You are right about the virtual line, but this line is between two actual points. In your example, there are no actual points to go between to create the virtual line, correct?

One meter from the wire is just as specific as the virtual position up to one meter from OB a player gets to place their mark wouldn't you say? It's still a line that can be determined with a measurement by holding a meter stick horizontally from any point along the barbed wire.

But it is unusual and confusing. Declaring the area within 1M of the fence as non-playable with 1M perpendicular free relief (and the fence itself as OB) fits in the rules and is easy to understand. While a virtual 1M thick OB line suspended 3' off the ground eliminates the need for a special area, it is hard to describe in a player's meeting.

I seem to remember that Nick proposed defining OB in three dimensions rather than the simpler definition currently which is in two dimensions projected into the third dimension. I'll have to go see if I can find that thread. Time for some fourth dimensional travel. :D

I'm back. Aerial OB was buried in the middle of the 2m discussions from four years ago. I'd post a link to the thread, but I lost it when I bumped into Bruce. See, he had a lead on a Dimensional Warp Generator (http://www.davesplanet.net/store/), but we had to find the right time to make the transaction.

Actually, Chuck has a valid idea here, under the rules, for dealing with that fence. Per the definitions, the o.b. "line" is actually a plane. The rules do not say that the plane must run perpendicular to the playing surface.

I'm back. Aerial OB was buried in the middle of the 2m discussions from four years ago. I'd post a link to the thread, but I lost it when I bumped into Bruce. See, he had a lead on a Dimensional Warp Generator (http://www.davesplanet.net/store/), but we had to find the right time to make the transaction.

The sale of Dimensional Warp Generators is unlawful on this planet as is indicated on the website Krupicka linked to. The discussion of unlawful activities is banned on this message board. Sorry, Mike but you're out of here. And, I deny that any such transaction took place.

803.09C. The Rule of Verticality. The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane.

True, the rules do not say that the plane must run perpendicular to the playing surface, it says that it is vertical. The two would coincide only when the playing surface is perfectly horizontal. Under normal terrain, the two would be similar.

Chuck,

If you could define that OB line as 1m off of the fence, but only at the height of the fence, wouldn't the rule of verticality project that line down vertically onto the playing surface, and if a disc landed between that projected line and the fence, would it not be OB?

actually i have not consulted them nor do i intend to.



Nor should you have to.
Special course conditions allow for a TD to have specific course rules that do not conflict w/pdga rules. IMO, John's 2 meter relief from barbed wire is not in conflict w/the 1meter relief in the rule book, because it does not reduce the amount of relief, and is safety oriented. These are exactly the reasons why course specific rules are allowed - for special conditions. If a TD decided that his special rule eliminated or reduced allowable relief from OB - THAT would require a waiver. There is absolutley no reason to creatively try and alter the definition of where OB is recognized as suggested by CK.

I agree, it seems like 804.01 was created for just these types of things. Nothing about the added relief seems to conflict with the rules of play.

We have a course here with a three meter relief from a barb wire fence. The special condition has been in play for over a decade and thankfully, no one has ever questioned it.

If you could define that OB line as 1m off of the fence, but only at the height of the fence, wouldn't the rule of verticality project that line down vertically onto the playing surface, and if a disc landed between that projected line and the fence, would it not be OB?


You can have stacked surfaces like an IB bridge over OB waters. Check the Rules Q&A. My hypothetical would have to be a stacked "virtual" OB surface over an IB surface.

The one part about the 1m casual relief idea that doesn't follow the rules is that relief is always backwards on the line of play unless a drop zone is supplied. So even under Special Conditions, it would seem that moving toward or sideways from the pin more than 1m from the barbed wire would be against the rules?

If you could define that OB line as 1m off of the fence, but only at the height of the fence, wouldn't the rule of verticality project that line down vertically onto the playing surface, and if a disc landed between that projected line and the fence, would it not be OB?


You can have stacked surfaces like an IB bridge over OB waters. Check the Rules Q&A. My hypothetical would have to be a stacked "virtual" OB surface over an IB surface.

The one part about the 1m casual relief idea that doesn't follow the rules is that relief is always backwards on the line of play unless a drop zone is supplied. So even under Special Conditions, it would seem that moving toward or sideways from the pin more than 1m from the barbed wire would be against the rules?



Relief from OB is perpendicular, regardless of LOP. It's the one exception in the rule book.

Virtual stacked OB - THAT's a sure fire way to have everyone interpret the rule the same way - NOT :confused:

We're not talking about relief from OB but relief from a casual relief area which is the additional one meter boundary around the barbed wire. You can't have it both ways at least by following the rules where you get to move forward one meter toward the pin from OB and then another meter for casual relief for more clearance. Makes sense for safety but violates the rules even under Special Conditions. No one but the Competition Director needs to understand my explanation which does not violate the rules and supports what John does with no further explantion to the players than what he's done already.

Sounds like the TD has simply declared "greater relief" as allowed in the rules. There is no need for your virtual stacked planes Chuck.

Chuck,

If you could indeed have that stacked virtual OB, then, yes, the movement of the discs as presently done would be accommodated by it, but I don't think the rules allow a line to be defined in that way. Looking at the rules where the word "line" is used, it is obvious that a line (or more accurately, a line or line segment) is defined by one or two real points:

Line of Play: defined by target and marker disc

Front of Teeing area: if no tee pad, then is the line between the two tee markers.

Mandatory: In lieu of a marked line, then it defaults to "a straight line through the mandatory, perpendicular to the line from the tee to the mandatory." (803.12A(2))

The rules do not specifically prohibit an OB area that is not on the playing surface, but to manufacture one such as you have done seems to be pushing the envelope a liiiiiittle too much. Yes, it would be easy to determine where the 1m line would be, by measuring 1m perpendicular to the top of the fence, but nowhere else in the rules is a line defined in this way. Points are defined like this, like the point that is the 1m max away from any OB point, but not a line.

Have I won you over yet, Master?

I like the "greater relief" option mentioned. For this special condition, instead of the 5m-LOP option, the 1m-OB option is provided. I can live with that better than the virtual OB option.

We're not talking about relief from OB but relief from a casual relief area which is the additional one meter boundary around the barbed wire. You can't have it both ways at least by following the rules where you get to move forward one meter toward the pin from OB and then another meter for casual relief for more clearance. Makes sense for safety but violates the rules even under Special Conditions. No one but the Competition Director needs to understand my explanation which does not violate the rules and supports what John does with no further explantion to the players than what he's done already.



Not true Chuck, When you combine 804.01 A & B with 803.05 / 2
The TD clearly defined the special condition, and established in essence, a no penalty drop zone for safety purposes. Saying that he has to get permission from the tour manager to do this is a waste of everyone's time.

Craig,

I agree in principle that this variance is not enough to warrant permission from the Tour Manager, but when you say "drop zone", that phrase has a definition that includes the following:

"The throwing area from within the drop zone shall be clearly marked and played in a manner similar to the marking and playing of a teeing area."

From what I read, when the mark was established for the next throw, the player had the normal 30cm on LOP behind marker disc requirement, and not the "one supporting point in the teeing area" requirement you have for a tee or throwing in a drop zone.

Do you agree? I am not saying that relief cannot be granted in the way it was, I am just saying that should not be considered a drop zone type of relief, because the thrower's supporting point(s) are more constrained then they would be throwing in a drop zone.

I do not see anything in 804.01 that requires a special condition area be defined as a casual area or that relief must follow casual relief rules.

It does say that all special conditions must be explained to the players at the players meeting. I think rules that require waivers from the PDGA are especially important to explain. If it can not be explained clearly and simply, some cards will get it wrong.

Make it as plain and simple as possible. I believe that extended relief from OB is not an unusual thing, but does not require a player to move away from the line. Adding the special no play area along the OB line provides that restriction without needing to provide any additional relief.

So Gary, do you think that this needs to have a waiver?

It reads to me that the bob war fence is between the shot and the target; that's why the TD wanted to 2m pullback. If it was not, why would the buffer zone be necessary, because you would want to throw away from the fence.

Does the fact that this movement out of the buffer zone takes your lie farther away from the target have any impact to the waiver? Moving from OB allows the player to be closer to the target; moving for casual area does not, and it reads to me that this movement does not take one closer to the target.

How about, instead of moving perpendicular to the OB until one is past the 2m zone, one would move on the LOP or laterally in respect to the target until the mark is outside of the 2m zone?

Casual relief is based on LOP.
OB relief is based on the OB line.
I've seen special area relief based on both at different times and even at the same event.

I don't think an additional meter of extended OB relief conflicts with any PDGA rule. I don't think a no play special area within 1 meter of the OB fence conflicts with any rule except the variable relief option of the OB relief rule. So, yes I think it would be appropriate to let the PDGA know and get their approval of the special conditions in the sanctioning request just in case there is an issue at the event.

I will add that I think every TD should to that for every event that has special conditions just to cover the TD in the event someone misses the player's meeting and complains.


I am aware that 803.09 does not explicitly permit extended relief for OB, but the nearest comparable rule (803.05.C(2)) does.