Rule question,,up in tree

[Doug Callaghan]

Hey this happened to someone in my group at Newton hill tourney. Our group wasnt sure if it was a re-tee and a stroke penalty and forgot to ask after the round.

The guy put his disc way up in a tree. No 2 meter rule. We could see the disc so we knew where it would be marked. We didnt get it down and he threw from a mini under his disc in the tree. We didnt give him a stroke penalty.

It seemed like this should have been treated as a lost disc but i wasnt sure at the time since we could see it and he could accurately mark where it was.

[Todd Lapham]

You played it correct.

[Brad Harris]

As long as the disc is located (seen), it is not lost. Being unable to reach it does not make it lost.

[Chuck Kennedy]

You don't even have to see the disc in the tree if the group feels there's reasonable evidence it's in THAT tree. Reasonable evidence would perhaps be that it's the only tree in the area where the group saw it fly and the ground around the tree is clear enough that a disc could have been found if it didn't land in the tree.

[Josh Connell]

You don't even have to see the disc in the tree if the group feels there's reasonable evidence it's in THAT tree. Reasonable evidence would perhaps be that it's the only tree in the area where the group saw it fly and the ground around the tree is clear enough that a disc could have been found if it didn't land in the tree.

If you can't see the disc in the tree, how do you go about marking the lie, then, Chuck?

"Reasonable evidence" applies to discs that have entered an OB area, not discs that might be in a tree. I'd say you have to at least spot A disc in order to mark the lie under the tree, otherwise you have to proceed as if the thrown disc is lost.

[Chuck Kennedy]

You mark it the same as you mark a disc that reasonably landed in an OB area but can't be found. For many years, discs that suffered a 2-meter penalty were never actually located in those cedar trees. So the group made their best effort to figure out a "fair" spot to mark below it. I've already discussed this issue in the past with the RC and the interpretation I gave is considered an acceptable extension of the principle embodied in the lost/OB reasonable evidence rule.

[Josh Connell]

You mark it the same as you mark a disc that reasonably landed in an OB area but can't be found. For many years, discs that suffered a 2-meter penalty were never actually located in those cedar trees. So the group made their best effort to figure out a "fair" spot to mark below it. I've already discussed this issue in the past with the RC and the interpretation I gave is considered an acceptable extension of the principle embodied in the lost/OB reasonable evidence rule.

But you can't mark it the same as a disc in an OB area. It's two separate ways of determining the lie.

Rule 803.08

If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other obstacle on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it.

Rule 803.09

The player may elect to throw the next shot from:
(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 the majority of the group and an official.

In cases of OB, the last in-bounds point is always a group decision, otherwise known as their best guess/estimate/approximation. In cases of suspended disc, there is no group decision allowed for by the rules. You play it directly below the suspended disc. No guesswork, no estimation, you have an exact point from which to work. No disc, no way to determine "directly below".

The "reasonable evidence" clause in the OB rule is for instances where a disc can enter the OB and be irretrievable, and also where upon entering the OB there's no chance of the disc somehow finding its way back in bounds. Perfect example being a disc in water...once it's in the water, there's little chance of it skipping out and landing on the shore in-bounds.

But a disc thrown into a tree doesn't always stick and it doesn't always pass through the tree on a predictable trajectory. It could carom off a branch and go in any direction, including trickling down and rolling off somewhere. So to walk up and look around a tree and not see the disc on the ground, and then just assume it is still in the tree is not correct at all. Unlike a body of water, the disc can escape unseen from a tree and end up in a completely different location than "somewhere" in the tree.

If your interpretation has been standard practice for years, why when the "reasonable evidence" clause was added to the OB rule (due to the change in the lost disc rule) was it not also added to the suspended disc rule? Seems to me if the way we're supposed to play an unlocated disc suspected to be stuck in a tree as a suspended disc, then the suspended disc rule should contain that information.

The RC has buggered up interpretations before. If they agree with your viewpoint here, then it's just another interpretation they've buggered up.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The RC hasn't gotten around to updating the wording in the 2-meter rule other than making it optional. But the process of making it optional meant that other clauses needed to be updated which hasn't been done. Regardless, it takes more evidence for a disc to be declared in a tree than it does in water for the reasons you mention. But if "reasonable" is met whether OB or in a tree, it's not unreasonable to mark it where the group feels it last was IB or below where it likely might be in the tree. The position the disc ends up in the tree is just as random as the mark when you can't see it so I don't see the problem. The player has already lost distance and possession of their disc on the throw as penalties.

[Josh Connell]

The RC hasn't gotten around to updating the wording in the 2-meter rule other than making it optional.

They made that rule change for the 2006 edition of the book. The text of the rule changed from the 2006 to the 2011 edition. Don't tell me they "haven't gotten around" to updating, they've already done it twice (once in 2006, again in 2011).

But the process of making it optional meant that other clauses needed to be updated which hasn't been done.

Again, they've had two opportunities since the decision to change the 2-meter rule to update the other affected areas. So what you're saying is they updated the OB rule, but haven't bothered to update anything else they intended to update? What kind of screw-ups are responsible for writing the rule book that they can't get their act together over the course of FIVE YEARS?

Perhaps they haven't done it because they don't actually intend to, and the current rules are written as intended.

Regardless, it takes more evidence for a disc to be declared in a tree than it does in water for the reasons you mention. But if "reasonable" is met whether OB or in a tree, it's not unreasonable to mark it where the group feels it last was IB or below where it likely might be in the tree.

BUT THERE IS NO "REASONABLE EVIDENCE" AS PERTAINS TO THE SUSPENDED DISC RULE. I don't really care if the RC "meant to" or "intended to" include the reasonable evidence clause, the fact is, it isn't there, and until it is, it does not apply. The only evidence needed or allowed for in order to declare a disc suspended is locating the suspended disc.

The position the disc ends up in the tree is just as random as the mark when you can't see it so I don't see the problem.

Huh? The disc's position IS THE DISC'S POSITION. There's nothing random about it. How can you say that a fixed position is the same as a group pulling it out of their ass position? I mean, why not just be allowed to pick a random spot anywhere under the tree on a suspended disc whether you locate it or not? After all, if the disc's actual location is random and inconsequential, why have the rule state you have to mark directly under it at all? Hell, let's just get rid of all marking rules all together. I mean, a disc in the fairway's location is just as random as me just picking a spot to throw from, right?

The player has already lost distance and possession of their disc on the throw as penalties.

Well, gee, maybe we should just do away with the penalty throw for all lost discs, since the player's already lost possession of the disc and the distance. Let's just ignore all the rules and make up our own.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Sorry, Josh but the interpretation comes right from the Fairness rule 803.01F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

And the RC has admitted that the 2-meter rules still haven't been properly updated. This phrase in 803.08:
(Sections C through E are only used if the two meter penalty is in effect.)
Negates section D:
D. No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls, unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than two meters above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve.
when the 2-meter rule is not in effect and doesn't directly make clear what to do if the disc falls out of the tree before the player gets to it. However, we can rely on the Rule of Fairness up above again because the principle embodied in the 2-meter rule D can be applied to the situation. See how it all ties together nicely?

The biggest issue with this scenario is the RC has not defined what it means in general when a disc should be considered lost.A disc is obviously not "lost" when it's in your possession. Next level of "not lost" is you can see the disc and your ID on it but can't retrieve it at the moment. The next level of "not lost" is seeing a disc of the same color but can't see the ID mark. The last level of "not lost" is the "reasonable evidence the group knows where it landed but can't see it." The 2-meter/disc above/below playing surface rule does not indicate what level of "not lost" is acceptable. And thus, the Rule of Fariness can be invoked based on the parallel principle embodied in the OB/lost reasonable evidence rule. Yes, it needs to made explicit when the rules are updated again.

[Josh Connell]

Sorry, Josh but the interpretation comes right from the Fairness rule 803.01F. Rule of Fairness. If any point in dispute is not covered by the rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with fairness. Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness.

You like to cite the Rule of Fairness a lot, Chuck. Too much, in fact. The key phrase in that rule is "if any point in dispute is not covered by the rules". But if the point in dispute IS covered by the rules as currently written, then the Rule of Fairness need not apply.

In the scenario you present in which a disc can not be located, it's lost. There is only one exception to an unlocated disc being played in accordance with rule 803.08, and that's a disc for which reasonable evidence exists that it went OB. If it's not believed to be out of bounds, and the disc can not be located within 3 minutes of the start of a search, it's lost. Period.

It's really that simple. There's no need to cite 803.01F and get cute with rulings extrapolated from other parts of the rule book when the situation is covered explicitly by an already existing rule.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Nope. "Not lost" is not directly defined. And the way it's been played over the years when 2-meters was always in force was play it below the cedar or other dense tree where "the group knew" the disc must be. So it's been a de facto "not lost" rule for quite a while. The only difference is that now the 2-meter rule is not in force by default AND the Lost disc rule involves a rethrow. When the lost disc rule used to be "last point seen" and the 2-meter rule was always in play, it didn't matter as much whether the disc could not be seen above 2-meters because the penalty and resulting lie would essentially be the same whether the group declared it lost or stuck above 2-meters. This de facto judgment probably indirectly contributed to the reasonable evidence principle and wording in the current OB/lost rule. I know I've been bugging the RC regarding clarification of "not lost" for over 18 years now. Carlton was a fan of the Rule of Fairness so the RC wouldn't have to write more detailed rules covering all contingencies and potentially get tripped up with conflicting wording or principles if they did. The unwritten linkage between 2-meter/lost "not seen" was simply missed when the rules shifted over the past 6 years to make it more explicit.

[Titan Bariloni]

interesting read josh/chuck..

in another thread speaking about marking a disc in water then finding it was not yours...how can ya tell if the disc was actually the players...if it is 60 feet in the tree...seems pretty open to allow the group to just say yeah that is his..and then ok just mark it here...I don't see any alt..just think it is yet another rule that is confusing

[Chuck Kennedy]

I agree it's dicey. I think we need clarification from the RC on this since false ID avoids a penalty whereas in the old rules, you had a penalty above 2 meters whether it was your disc, or if it wasn't, then a lost penalty with the mark essentially the same place.

[Mike Cormier]

So for those of us far enough north playing in a couple feet of snow the last level of "not lost" means that after 3 minutes of looking for a disc the group is to choose a spot based on "reasonable evidence" as to where the disc landed?

[Chuck Kennedy]

That's actually how we play it in MN when there's snow on the ground if it's not PDGA. If it's PDGA, then we get a waiver that allows us to play the old Lost rule where you mark the lie where the group last saw it and get a 1-shot penalty.

[Mike Cormier]

Why is it different when it is PDGA? If you play that rule where there is reasonable evidence to support the disc being unseen in a tree with no penalty why is there a penalty if the group agrees the disc to be within a 15 foot circle in the snow? I also remember a thread a couple years ago where the ground was so dry on a desert course that cracks opened in the ground and a disc dropped down out of site. Why would this be different? With all of these situations they were last seen and believed to be in bounds. The rules (doesn't matter which way) should be applied the same to all of them.

[Chuck Kennedy]

In the case of the snow, the disc is presumed to be "lost" on the playing surface. In the case of being presumed lost down a crack or in a tree, the disc would not be on a playing/playable surface.

[Steve Solbo]

In the case of the snow, the disc is presumed to be "lost" on the playing surface. In the case of being presumed lost down a crack or in a tree, the disc would not be on a playing/playable surface.

yay

[Bobby Direnzo]

I make my own rules.

[Kevin Gardner]

I make my own rules.

You don't like it, you can Bobby my Direnzo.