Here are two scenarios that have recently occurred:

1. Disc comes to rest in a tree above a ditch. The water in the ditch has been ruled by the Director to be OB. The disc is clearly, directly and completely above the water. Is the disc OB?

2. Same ditch with water that is considered OB now has water outside it's banks due to recent rain. Disc lands in water a significant distance from the banks of the ditch (40-50 feet away from what was considered OB) but the water is contiguous with the water in the ditch. Is the disc OB? Would it help to know that the ditch itself is not considered to be OB, just the water in it.

FWIW, I wouldn't consider the disc in the second scenario to be OB when playing a non-tournament round since much of the course can be under water in such a scenario. I just consider it to be casual water. I think the disc in the first scenario is clearly OB, but after looking at the 2013 rules revisions, the only thing to hint at that outcome is the verticality of the OB line.

Jazzcaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Same ditch with water that is considered OB now
> has water outside it's banks due to recent rain.
> Disc lands in water a significant distance from
> the banks of the ditch (40-50 feet away from what
> was considered OB) but the water is contiguous
> with the water in the ditch. Is the disc OB? Would
> it help to know that the ditch itself is not
> considered to be OB, just the water in it.
>


Ha, I have a picture of that.

1. Yes.
2. It's up to the TD to declare what to do. We had this situation where the skies opened up at lunch break and flooded the holes on either side of an OB creek. All water was considered part of the course for the afternoon round - no relief and no penalty. If you couldn't findyour disc or play it (maybe it was in the creek bed), you could take a penalty and rethrow from where it was last seen and/or inbounds (1990s rules).

1, if the tree itself is in bounds, You should take a meter relief from the O.B. line without a O.B. penalty. The disc was never out of bounds, just on the brink of falling O.B.

If I am way off it has been a little while since I have read the rule book, but I trust this falls into Kernan rules.

Eric Day Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1, if the tree itself is in bounds, You should
> take a meter relief from the O.B. line without a
> O.B. penalty. The disc was never out of bounds,
> just on the brink of falling O.B.
>
> If I am way off it has been a little while since I
> have read the rule book, but I trust this falls
> into Kernan rules.


Okay, the tree itself was OB, i.e., the multi "stemmed" trunk actually arose from the water. On top of that, the disc was caught between the multiple trunks. But what if, under your reasoning about the disc being not OB b/c the tree isn't OB, the disc were caught in the limbs of an "OB" tree but directly above the non-OB playing surface, and just to make it more interesting, more than a meter from the OB line if marked on the playing surface directly under the disc?

My interpretation of the verticality property of the OB line leads me to the opinion (that I cannot support with a rules cite) that the disc is OB if marking the lie directly under it would result in it being OB - irrespective if the tree trunk is surrounded by the water (or otherwise completely OB).

Incidentally, this also made me think of the "can you play from a tree thread," in part, because if allowed, I could have wedged a foot between the tree trunks and threw from there although I would have had to use the tree for support with my non-throwing hand.

I always go to the players benefit if there is any question of it being OB. So if there is anyway one could say that it could be in bounds I would agree. The only way I would call it OB is if the base of the tree was O.B. and the the disc was hanging directly over the OB. This could be for any OB's not just water.

Eric Day Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1, if the tree itself is in bounds, You should
> take a meter relief from the O.B. line without a
> O.B. penalty. The disc was never out of bounds,
> just on the brink of falling O.B.
>
> If I am way off it has been a little while since I
> have read the rule book, but I trust this falls
> into Kernan rules.


You are way off. Tell us, what are these Kernan rules you speak of? I know of only one Kernan rule, and it applies only to one disc golf course and is a special condition (or ground rule). There is no other Kernan rule/condition. Please retract your nonsensical inaccurate statement.


The correct answer to question #1 is yes, the disc is OB. Rule 802.02.C:

"If the disc first comes to rest above or below the playing surface, its position is on the playing surface directly below or above the disc."

Therefore if the playing surface below the disc in the tree is OB, the disc is OB. Mr. Jazzcaster, Rule 802.02.C is the rule written that establishes this concept. You refer to another rule that "hints" which is Rule 804.04.E :

"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, the one-meter relief may be taken from a point upward or downward along the vertical plane."

Yes Mr. Jazzcaster, Rule 804.04.E helps clarify that anything above an OB surface is also OB.

On a side note about playing surfaces, Mr. cgkdisc once tried to argue that an OB surface is not a playing surface, and therefore no rules that apply to the playing surface apply to OB surfaces. I wonder Mr. cgkdisc, if you have revised your erroneous opinion on that subject?

A discussion of Jazzcaster's question #2 will be awarded shortly.

Jazzcaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> My interpretation of the verticality property of
> the OB line leads me to the opinion (that I cannot
> support with a rules cite) that the disc is OB if
> marking the lie directly under it would result in
> it being OB - irrespective if the tree trunk is
> surrounded by the water (or otherwise completely
> OB).
>


I see that you reached the correct conclusion while I was typing my last post. I did cite the proper rule for you to remember.

Please disregard and ignore Mr. Day's false assumptions. It is regrettable that an SN BoD member would wildly guess about rules he obviously hasn't studied. A wiser board member would learn to delegate his authority and leave rules interpretations to the experts.

1. Yes. Position and Verticality rules; 802.02. C. and 804.04 E.

2. Not OB. The key phrase is "The water in the ditch has been ruled by the Director to be OB". Notice the director's OB water declaration is limited to "in the ditch". There is no rule making water areas OB, it's just a common declaration. It must be declared OB to be OB. That the water "in the ditch" is OB by declaration does not mean water not in the ditch is OB. The boundaries of the ditch may be fuzzy but under the facts given, the landing spot is not in the water "in the ditch". The contiguousness of water is irrelevant absent a declaration otherwise. The water outside the ditch is also stance casual since it was not there when the event started and is not normally part of the course.

I did say I haven't read the rule book in awhile. Beside I haven't had you talk bad about me in a good while now... I was feeling left out man.

1. Yes. Position and Verticality rules; 802.02. C. and 804.04 E.

This isn't always the case though, I have seen several holes where there is a playing surface above an OB hazard.

Eric Day Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Yes. Position and Verticality rules; 802.02. C.
> and 804.04 E.
>
> This isn't always the case though, I have seen
> several holes where there is a playing surface
> above an OB hazard.


On the very hole where both the situations occurred, there is a bridge that crosses the stream. I'm guessing that it, as well as most bridges, would constitute a playing surface above an OB area. But doesn't the verticality rule of the OB line imply that such an area is also OB?

Quote
On a side note about playing surfaces, Mr. cgkdisc once tried to argue that an OB surface is not a playing surface, and therefore no rules that apply to the playing surface apply to OB surfaces. I wonder Mr. cgkdisc, if you have revised your erroneous opinion on that subject?

I was correct in my logic under previous rules as you can see, if you look at the Definitions for OB and Playing Surface which haven't changed, i.e. OB is not a Playing Surface. However, the RC solved the problem for 2013 to clear things up. First, a disc is now considered at rest whenever it first appears to be at rest whether in OB or even in a tree. This is changed from 2012 where the 'at rest' call couldn't be made until the group got to the disc unless it was on the playing surface or the basket.

The 2013 rules use the new term 'position' to indicate a disc's location before its lie is marked on the playing surface. A 'position' is anywhere the disc stops whether up/down/IB/OB/target/playing surface. Thus, in 804.03C the new Interference rule that replaced 803.07B, the word 'position' replaced 'playing surface' and 'target'. Now it all ties together so I have no problem with the fact that a disc thrown OB stays OB even if moved by some entity before the group gets there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2013 07:50PM by cgkdisc.

I agree with Eric that a "playing surface above an OB hazard" is IB absent a contrary declaration. Each playing surface is treated independently for OB and stance purposes per QA 2. I also agree the parallel playing surface rule applies as an exception to the verticality rule.

The rule example is a bridge and it is by default an IB playing surface even when over OB water because a bridge is (usually at least) "capable of supporting the player" and from it "a stance can reasonably be taken". 800.02. The bridge scenario is consistent with, not an exception to, the rule that OB must be declared.

The tree in the ditch was not part of the original two questions. Assuming a tree is a playing surface, it is not OB unless declared OB. In most cases I don't think a player has time to make a tree a playing surface but I have not read that it is technically prohibited. If a throw lands in a tree not declared OB over water declared OB I think the player should prove the tree is a playing surface in 30 seconds or accept that it came to rest OB water. It's a great question though.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2013 08:44PM by Discjazz.

Jazzcaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 2. Same ditch with water that is considered OB now
> has water outside it's banks due to recent rain.
> Disc lands in water a significant distance from
> the banks of the ditch (40-50 feet away from what
> was considered OB) but the water is contiguous
> with the water in the ditch. Is the disc OB? Would
> it help to know that the ditch itself is not
> considered to be OB, just the water in it.
>
> FWIW, I wouldn't consider the disc in the second
> scenario to be OB when playing a non-tournament
> round since much of the course can be under water
> in such a scenario. I just consider it to be
> casual water.


All water on a course is considered casual unless declared OB by the TD. It appears that the TD declared that the water in the ditch to be OB. The water outside the ditch would still be casual then, even if it is touching the water that is in the ditch.

It is a fuzzy area of the rules that could use a little attention. Rules about water should be added to the rules, or at the least a Q&A.

There's other examples of fuzzy water rules, such as what if the course was next to a lake with waves, and a disc lands where it is submerged by a wave for a moment and then on dry ground the next moment? The rules don't specifically address these situations, as the rules never state that water is OB. It is always up to a TD to declare a certain body of water OB. If a TD does not declare a lake OB, and a player lands 100 feet out from the shore but can find his disc on the bottom of the lake, he can actually play from his submerged lie without a penalty. You can deduce from the rules that a disc in this wave scenario is in-bounds, but it takes a while to get there. That's why a Q & A about water would be a great addition to the rules. Of course it takes the Rules Committee typically about 3-4 years for them to agree with my correct version of the rules, so look for that Q & A in the 2017 edition.

The earliest versions of the rules actually named certain bodies of water as OB. It's instinctive to think of lakes and ponds as OB, but the rules don't actually make them OB, it is up to the TD to do so. That's why the actual "Kernan Rule" in regard to City Park's lagoon is allowed under the pDGA rules, as it is a special condition defined in rule 805.03.A. The "Kernan Rule" states that a disc thrown in the lagoon must be 100% submerged to be declared OB. This rule eliminates the judgment call sometimes made of "if you push the disc down, is it OB?" The Kernan Rule also allows the TD to skip the task of painting an OB line for the lagoon, since there is a 100% fool-proof way to determine if a disc is OB...it must be 100% submerged. If any part of the disc sticks out of the water for any reason, it is in-bounds.

cgkdisc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> I was correct in my logic under previous rules as
> you can see, if you look at the Definitions for OB
> and Playing Surface which haven't changed, i.e. OB
> is not a Playing Surface. However, the RC solved
> the problem for 2013 to clear things up. First, a
> disc is now considered at rest whenever it first
> appears to be at rest whether in OB or even in a
> tree. This is changed from 2012 where the 'at
> rest' call couldn't be made until the group got to
> the disc unless it was on the playing surface or
> the basket.
>
> The 2013 rules use the new term 'position' to
> indicate a disc's location before its lie is
> marked on the playing surface. A 'position' is
> anywhere the disc stops whether
> up/down/IB/OB/target/playing surface. Thus, in
> 804.03C the new Interference rule that replaced
> 803.07B, the word 'position' replaced 'playing
> surface' and 'target'. Now it all ties together so
> I have no problem with the fact that a disc thrown
> OB stays OB even if moved by some entity before
> the group gets there.


The good thing about that debate was that it forced the RC to close your loophole, however flimsy, silly and wrong it was.

Funny that I wasn't given credit in the 2013 edition for that contribution; however I really don't mind the RC implementing my ideas years after I propose them and not crediting me, it's satisfying enough that the right thing gets done. Like requiring players at pDGA NTs to pass a rules exam; that was first proposed by me at the beginning of 2006 in this old gem of a thread: [www.pdga.com]

Thanks Chuck, for taking years to do the right things. At least y'all do the right things eventually :):)

I like the "100% submerged" rule but I might put a floater in my bag. Floaters would never be OB water, so throw from the water or take a stroke and throw dry.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Yes. Position and Verticality rules; 802.02.
> C. and 804.04 E.
>
> 2. Not OB. The key phrase is "The water in the
> ditch has been ruled by the Director to be OB".
> Notice the director's OB water declaration is
> limited to "in the ditch". There is no rule
> making water areas OB, it's just a common
> declaration. It must be declared OB to be OB.
> That the water "in the ditch" is OB by declaration
> does not mean water not in the ditch is OB. The
> boundaries of the ditch may be fuzzy but under the
> facts given, the landing spot is not in the water
> "in the ditch". The contiguousness of water is
> irrelevant absent a declaration otherwise. The
> water outside the ditch is also stance casual
> since it was not there when the event started and
> is not normally part of the course.





That's much more concise than my long-winded discussion Mr. Discjazz. Thank you for an excellent answer.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the "100% submerged" rule but I might put a
> floater in my bag. Floaters would never be OB
> water, so throw from the water or take a stroke
> and throw dry.

Yes, that is correct.

I had a feeling I should have posted a further explanation of the Kernan Rule, but I was trying not to be even more long-winded.

Actually, the rest of the Kernan Rule (which I do announce at all tournaments there) states that if the player can not (or will not) take a stance within 1 meter from where the disc is at rest, the disc is OB. The player is allowed to move his lie up to one meter perpendicular to the shoreline. If the player can not take a stance after moving the lie up to 1 meter, the disc is declared OB.

However, this does allow players to play with their supporting point submerged by water if they choose. I've encouraged the use of floaters at that course, and Mr. Discjazz points out a possible advantage to their use in tournament play at City Park. Use the rules to your advantage when you can.

Jazzcaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> On the very hole where both the situations
> occurred, there is a bridge that crosses the
> stream. I'm guessing that it, as well as most
> bridges, would constitute a playing surface above
> an OB area. But doesn't the verticality rule of
> the OB line imply that such an area is also OB?


Mr. Jazzcaster, Rule 808.QA 2 answers your question perfectly:

"QA 2: Bridge Over OB

Q:
My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land?

A:
A bridge is an example where one playing surface is vertically stacked above another playing surface. Each playing surface is treated independently. The bridge is in-bounds unless the TD has explicitly declared it to be OB, regardless of whether a playing surface above or below it is OB. If the two-meter rule is in use, it does not apply because your disc is on, not above, the playing surface. You mark your lie on the bridge, and there is no penalty. Applicable Rules: 802.02 Establishing Position; 804.04 Out-of-Bounds; 800.02 Definitions (Playing Surface)."

In order to declare the "disc in a tree above the ditch" out of bounds, you have to a$$ume the lie beneath the disc's "final resting place" in the tree is 100% guaranteed to be out of bounds - not subject to any of the "except fors" being discussed in this thread concerning water hazards. In the case of shallow water or a disc stuck in a tree very close to the hazard's boundary this may not be clear cut.

Bluff, note the error in QA2 in that OB is not a playing surface by definition. Probably needs to be updated to stacked surfaces without the word "playing" in there.

Another interesting question is whether casual water is two stacked surfaces? If your disc is floating on casual water, are you allowed to take a stance on the surface at the bottom of the water or do you need to go biblical and walk on water if you don't take casual relief? Of course, water would normally not be a surface that could support a person, except of course this time of year in Minnesota...

Where does it say "OB is not a playing surface"? Only in your imagination Chuck. I see no errors in QA2. The definition of OB refers to an "area" and not to a surface. Yes, the rules don't define "surface" they only define "playing surface" and that is why part of a playing surface can be OB under the current rules. You simply must accept that the RC hasn't cleaned up the definition yet, and until they do, you must realize that "playing surface" means "surface". Otherwise there will be some other rules that will be unenforceable as well.

You were doing so well in your previous post Chuck. You even said "The 2013 rules use the new term 'position' to indicate a disc's location before its lie is marked on the playing surface. A 'position' is anywhere the disc stops whether up/down/IB/OB/target/playing surface. Thus, in 804.03C the new Interference rule that replaced 803.07B, the word 'position' replaced 'playing surface' and 'target'. Now it all ties together."

I know you're getting excited and you want to go off on some tangent, and I have no idea where your wild imagination is running, so I'll wait for you to try to explain your interesting but flawed logic. Why do you say QA2 has an error? You're the one who just said once determining a position, the "lie is marked on the playing surface"! I didn't see you mention anything about "surface" rather than "playing surface" Chuck. This "error" you speak of exists only in your mind.

Bluff, read the Definition for Out-of-Bounds and Playing Surface. A stance is taken on a playing surface. A stance may not be taken on OB. So OB can be a surface, just not a 'playing' surface. While there can be surfaces, only certain ones can qualify as 'playing' surfaces. Thus, my comment regarding the surface of water only being a playing surface when frozen sufficiently to support players. Otherwise, the playing surface is the bottom of the water whether casual or OB. May make a difference when measuring whether a disc in a tree branch over casual water is over 2m if that penalty is in play.

The disc is even with the trash can,

Using common meanings I have to agree illegal should not be read as reasonable. Therefore an OB area cannot be a "playing surface" under these rules. Maybe the problem is that the term "playing surface" is a poor term choice for the concept because it is not descriptively accurate. What the "playing surface" rules are really referring to is a "stance surface".

"Play" in DG is a sequence of three components, the stance, the throw and the landing. Then it starts over again. The throw starts in our hand, may continue in the air and the landing spot can also be incapable of supporting a player. Maybe the air is a surface but really 2/3 of the "playing components" do not typically occur on the "playing surface" under these rules. The way the term "playing surface" is used in these rules it should be renamed "stance surface". That would make it more descriptively accurate. In practice OB is a playing surface because we do play through and on it, just not with a stance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2013 11:05AM by Discjazz.

I'm in agreement that there are theoretically surfaces that are not playing surfaces, however the rules do not make this distinction. I agree that an OB area can not technically be a playing surface under the current rules...but there is no name or definition of the surface of the OB area and therefore we must use the closest existing rules to make rulings on an OB surface.

It should be obvious to someone as familiar with the rules as Mr. Kennedy that absent a definition or rule describing a surface other than a playing surface, the only definition provided, that of "playing surface", must be used when determining correct rules calls.

I remind Mr. Kennedy of Rule 801.01.A:

"801.01 Application of the Rules

These rules have been designed to promote fair play for all disc golfers. In using these rules, players shall apply the rule that most directly addresses the situation at hand. 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."


Until the RC defines "OB surface" we must use the characteristics of playing surfaces and apply them to OB surfaces. The two surfaces are identical with only one difference, that a player can not take a stance in OB and make a throw from an OB surface.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2013 07:56PM by Bluff Magee.

OB is really a volume with multiple surfaces. The surface on top of an OB volume is clearly defined as not a "playing surface." It's either just a surface or a surface with a special rule pertaining to OB. If we think of other surfaces as not playing surfaces such as landing in a pit below a playing surface where relief is provided or even picnic tables or surfaces of branches, the rules work well that these are simply surfaces that you do not play from unless the TD specifies. I think it all ties together and resolves the discussion about whether you can climb trees and play from branches. No, they are surfaces but not playing surfaces.

Ok. But you still haven't proven that there is any error in 808.QA 2.

The 808 QA2 answer reads: "A bridge is an example where one playing surface is vertically stacked above another playing surface. Each playing surface is treated independently."

Do we now agree that OB is not a "playing surface" but simply just a "surface" or a separate category called OB surface per the 800 Definition?"