Maple Hill OB question

[Erik Zarazinski]

Hole 8 at maple hill.

From the tee, the disc hits the ice and slides under the rocks just before the land and basket (never hits any point in bounds). The player went to retrieve the disc, while laying on the ice, reached under and pulled the disc out.

Since the disc was far enough into the rock wall to come to rest under a point in-bounds, (approx 3 feet) he claimed it was in-bounds. marked his lie on land just above where the disc was pulled from, and dropped in for 2..

Was he in or out?

[Jeff Prendergast]

Hole 8 at maple hill.

From the tee, the disc hits the ice and slides under the rocks just before the land and basket (never hits any point in bounds). The player went to retrieve the disc, while laying on the ice, reached under and pulled the disc out.

Since the disc was far enough into the rock wall to come to rest under a point in-bounds, (approx 3 feet) he claimed it was in-bounds. marked his lie on land just above where the disc was pulled from, and dropped in for 2..

Was he in or out?

This is very easy. He was not inbounds. Not at all. He was OB.

[Josh Connell]

Hole 8 at maple hill.

From the tee, the disc hits the ice and slides under the rocks just before the land and basket (never hits any point in bounds). The player went to retrieve the disc, while laying on the ice, reached under and pulled the disc out.

Since the disc was far enough into the rock wall to come to rest under a point in-bounds, (approx 3 feet) he claimed it was in-bounds. marked his lie on land just above where the disc was pulled from, and dropped in for 2..

Was he in or out?

If he could mark directly over the disc in-bounds, I'd say he was in-bounds. The question in my mind is was he the only one who knew the exact position of the disc before he pulled it out of the water? A disc is presumed to be out of bounds if the player doesn't get verification before he moves it. (Rule 804.04 F).

[Jeff Prendergast]

No. On the hole he mentions, with the shot as it was described, the disc was OB. No question about it. It's one of the ground rules of that hole. That hole has some odd rulings, but that isn't one of them.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Yeah, I don't see how that could be ruled anything but OB. It was wet. Take this to the extreme and say that somehow, the water continues to flow to a point directly below the basket. It is a clear plexiglass ground around the pin, so you can see the water flowing below the pin. You can see that the disc is wet and under the plexiglass. Based on your interpretation of the rules, this disc would be marked in bounds and directly under the pin for the two, even though it never touched land?

[Josh Connell]

Wet does not automatically mean OB, but course ground rule does trump PDGA rule interpretation so it's OB.

But if there is no ground rule and the land directly over the disc is in-bounds, you'll have a hard time arguing that the disc isn't in-bounds. Particularly if there is a defined line at the water's edge (such as the stone wall in the example). OB lines are plane extending up and down from the playing surface. If you break the plane, you're in-bounds. Doesn't matter if it breaks the plane under the playing surface or above it.

[Mike Dussault]

In bounds. Ask Steve dodge

[Dave Jackson]

Mike is right.
In bounds.
Ask me.

[Jeff Prendergast]

I stand corrected. That is one of them.

[Tim Carter]

If there was any doubt left after mikes and worms posts, I also know for a fact that the answer is in bounds. Steve Dodge himself played it this way himself to beat me on that hole in a TC match a couple years ago.

In my mind, it's the same rule that allows you to play from on top of a rock/picnic table from the spot directly above where the disc lies below the rock/ picnic table, etc. the so called "rule of verticality"

All the plexiglass and water stuff is a strange hypothetical. In reality, the water/ OB ends where the wall begins, cross that plane and your inbounds. Your lie is directly, vertically on top of where the disc came to rest across the plane in bounds. Then take a meter relief from the OB line, and dunk the putt.

[Chuck Kennedy]

From what I can tell from this situation, the default ruling might be OB without the specific declaration made by the TD/Owner/Dodge to extend the IB plane vertically down to the bottom of the water or dry land extension of water bottom, known as an OB surface under an IB surface. OB surfaces that undercut IB surfaces are OB by default following QA2 that covers stacked surfaces. But if a disc in water or the land extension is partly or completely under the marked OB line on top of the overhang and is partly touching land that's part of the overhang, it would be IB presuming you could see it.

It would definitely be a judgment call where the OB surface meets the bottom of the overhang surface back where the overhange disapppears. Thus, the practical ruling was made here where the OB line was specifically stated that it extends down to the lower surface so any shots under the overhang are IB. It's a reminder that other course owners, designers should make similar rulings in advance where they might have similar wet or dry vertically overlapping surfaces/overhangs where one surface is OB.

[Dave Jackson]

Thanks Chuck!!!

My favorite rule, our house rule: Never give yourself an unfair advantage.

[Tim Carter]

There's no overhang on the hole, so to me this is a confusing response from Chuck. The edge of the stone wall creates the OB line, and the wall is straight up and down. Discs get wedged in the wall, particularly in the winter but summer as well.

Part of the disc is in bounds. (Past the vertical plane of the OB line). This really requires a special ruling by td/owner/dodge?

[Chuck Kennedy]

The OP said the disc was ~3 feet in the wall, not just protruding from a crack in the wall face which is the OB line?

[Kevin Gardner]

Is the disc surrounded by water or submerged?
I am a little confused about where this disc went still, haha

[Tim Carter]

Guessing not submerged, bc there's been ice on the pond.

Sounded to me like the disc was wedged into the wall (the edge of the wall being the vertical OB line). The reference to 3 feet is a little odd, I have never seen that much space on the wall and keep in mind that much of the wall is concreted in place thanks to workhorse Palache if I recall.

I wonder if the disc was just wedge in the wall a little bit (enough) and then the three feet mark was the relief afforded from the OB line? Resulting in a mark three feet from the waters edge?

Where's the little smilie face guy for beating a dead horse? Troy???

[Mike Dussault]

Since the disc was far enough into the rock wall to come to rest under a point in-bounds, (approx 3 feet) he claimed it was in-bounds. marked his lie on land just above where the disc was pulled from, and dropped in for 2..

Looks like it found a way into the wall...

[Erik Zarazinski]

His disc slid across the edge of the ice and went directly into the wall. I only say about 3 feet because to retrieve the disc, he had to lay down on the ice and stick his arm into the wall up to his shoulder. I'm assuming that if the pond was not frozen that his disc would have been surrounded by water.

I hear that the general consensus is that it was In bounds. But I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable playing it that way.

-seems wrong-seems dirty...

[Kevin Gardner]

If the disc isn't submerged or surrounded by water, and it's wedged into the wall with some portion of the disc being in bounds via the rule of verticality, that disc has to be in bounds...
It's shenanigans that it made it there, but rules are rules

[Gage Benson]

Yah I say in bounds. Fishy but in

[Adam Hassett]

Even without taking into account ground rules, this would appear to be an example of a disc below the playing surface, which would be raised to the playing surface with no penalty to the player. The same rule would apply, say, if your disc fell into a crack in the ground. The OB line there makes the call somewhat interesting, but OB's are always (to my knowledge) two-dimensional unless specified otherwise (i.e., ground rule saying "under the rocks is OB".)

From the PDGA site:

QA 6: Disc Below the Playing Surface
Q:

How do I mark a disc in an inaccessible location below the playing surface like a crevice? Is there a penalty?
A:

The rules that apply to a disc above the playing surface also apply to a disc below the playing surface. If you can locate your disc in the crevice, you can mark your lie directly above it on the playing surface without penalty. If the point directly above the disc is in the air or within a solid object, mark your lie back along the line of play. Applicable Rules: 802.02 Establishing Position.

Essentially it would be the same as skipping your disc off the ice and landing it in-bounds.

[Chuck Kennedy]

It's not really a Disc Below playing Surface situation where a disc goes down into a crack or hole vertically from the playing surface. It sounds like it's more like this:

QA 38: Relief from Culvert in Side of Hill
Q: Our course has two horizontal rainwater run-off culverts that exit from the side of a hill into the fairway. They are about 2 feet in diameter with metal grills over their exits that have gaps big enough for discs to enter but not a player. If a disc enters a culvert, can the player simply mark higher up on the hillside directly vertical from their disc's location in the culvert with no penalty by following the Disc Below Playing Surface rule?

A: Yes. Inside the culvert is not a playing surface, but the hillside above it is. If the TD has not provided guidance on how to handle discs entering these culverts, then players can mark on the hillside directly above their disc's location with no penalty. Applicable Rules: 802.02 Establishing Position.

[Adam Hassett]

It's not really a Disc Below playing Surface situation where a disc goes down into a crack or hole vertically from the playing surface. It's more like this but with OB that may be relevant:

According to the wording of the rules, it's the same situation. Same spirit, no, but there's nothing in the extremely ambiguous PDGA rules to differentiate how the disc ended below the playing surface. If the disc is below a playable surface, you raise it to the nearest playable surface and play as if it landed there.

To my knowledge there are no rules which specify how a disc needs to cross an OB line; just that it comes to rest within the OB line. (Not talking about mandatories, obviously.)

[Karl Molitoris]

If you guys are expecting me to change out of my SCUBA gear, put on my spelunking gear and 'go subterranean' to rescue your discs now, you're nuts!

[Chuck Kennedy]

QAs are written based on situations that come up after rules are written to help clarify the more generic rule. QA6 was written for discs that land down in a hole or crack where the player can essentially look vertically down at the disc but cannot take a stance where it lands. QA38 is for discs that go into a hole of some sort in the side of a hill or in this case a wall. The result of using either QA as the rationale for making a ruling in this example is the same. But QA38 is just more direct for this scenario and can satisfy those who might say QA6 does not apply.

For a wintertime thought experiment, what if a normally OB pond is frozen and the TD declares the ice an inbounds surface. However, a disc disappears through a hole in the ice (maybe an ice fishing hole?). Is the disc OB or is it temporarily casual water since the ice is IB? Could you use QA6 to declare it's a disc below the playing surface and mark it on safe ice? What if you can't see the disc to retrieve it?

[Titan_Bariloni]

would be cool if people remembered to snap a pic of the scene..myself included

[Tim Carter]

Curious Chuck how your ruling changed from Sunday (absent ground rule, likely OB) to now? Just better facts to which you are applying the rules? Probably explains it, but also demonstrates the ambiguity at play in such decisions.

[Dave Jackson]

Bingo

[Chuck Kennedy]

Curious Chuck how your ruling changed from Sunday (absent ground rule, likely OB) to now? Just better facts to which you are applying the rules? Probably explains it, but also demonstrates the ambiguity at play in such decisions.

It's the complication that can be introduced with multiple overlapping playing surfaces without clear natural boundaries. I didn't originally understand the setup.

[rick belhumeur]

Rules funk Suck! Oooops wrong thread.


Gonna be banned faster than Buttons