Allow some/all of stance in OB?

[dmoore1998]

My best guess as the primary reason is safety. Edge of cliff, bank of a stream or a river, or even a fence all pose a risk for injury.

We should not be placing disc golfers is a position where a simple rule can prevent injuries.

Now a line in the grass. It's not a big deal.

I have always encourage safety and taking a solid stance, mostly for selfish reason of not want to have to carry someone back to tournament central.

Ok but what's the REAL risk for injury here? It makes all the sense in the world to have a meter off of OB...but not really in terms of not allowing a supporting point to be OB.

Let's use the edge of a cliff as an example: What's more risky? You can have your feet where it feels most comfortable for you, including one foot near the edge (and past the marked OB line)? Or you can have your feet where it feels most comfortable for you, including one foot near the edge, but you have to quickly raise that foot up as you throw?

The current rule does nothing to prevent you from standing in the same position you otherwise might, it only makes you lift the foot when you throw.

To the point in prior posts on 1 meter not being enough for tall folks. I'm 6'6", it's a little tight sometimes. But it's also tight sometimes when there's a tree behind me and I can't take a "comfortable stance". I'm not sure the rule should have anything to do with whether it's comfortable or not. I might not be able to take a comfortable swing of my arm because of an obstacle in front of me...it happens.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The point is that in ball golf the player is allowed to contact/stand in OB even if not required to do so. There are at least four complications related to fairly handling this situation.
1. Disc golf using the term "out-of-bounds" for both property boundaries and hazards within the inbounds area of the course.
2. Marking lies landing inbounds near OB lines versus marking lies near OB lines AFTER a penalty has been taken.
3. Some OB lines extend vertically as physical barriers like walls, fences, and even curbs, making it difficult for players not to contact the barrier when marking close to the barrier is required by current rules.
4. There can be obstacles inbounds next to the OB line making it difficult to get "fair" relief, especially after taking penalty.

The new rule that allows players to mark farther back on the LOP from their last point inbounds after going OB is a start at providing better relief but is incomplete at providing relief in cases where the player cannot move back without moving back into the OB area. My thought would be that, if they've taken a penalty, players should be allowed to move back on the LOP as far as they want (like ball golf) until encountering an OB line (which may already be nearby) and continue along the OB line, even if it bends away from the LOP, and get up to a 2-meter offset from the OB line once getting to their preferred spot. For consistency, this option would also apply when player chooses "optional relief".

In the case where a player lands inbounds near the OB line/barrier, also provide up to 2 meters relief from the OB line/barrier and retain the current "no contact with OB during throw release" policy.

 

[flatflip]

Every putt I've seen where someone had their push leg planted out of bounds lifted that plant before release. I've slowed down the video to see. As disc golf defines a stance as where your supporting points are when the disc is released, this is not a problem.

Drew definitely kept his foot planted out of bounds when he threw that sidearm on 18. Yes, it should have been an additional penalty. You are allowed a stance, not your preferred stance. He had a couple of other questionable throws that round where he was definitely pushing the bounds of permissibility on the course, to the point where Philo had to say "Disc don't lie" when he missed a putt.

 

[Monocacy]

Priorities dictate the best solution(s):

Safety: Up to 2m relief from OB, distinguish between "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" OB with regard to taking a stance.

Simplicity: Up to 2m relief from OB, stance partly in OB is acceptable (eliminates the need to police split-second timing)

Either way, it seems like allowing up to 2m relief from OB would simplify things without too much adverse effect on competition. The main problem would be holes where OB is close to the basket.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The main problem would be holes where OB is close to the basket.

That's a design issue/problem unrelated to this topic meaning basket may be too close to OB if one versus two meters of relief matters, and it can easily be relocated if designer deems it necessary.

 

[Steve West]

...
3. Some OB lines extend vertically as physical barriers like walls, fences, and even curbs, making it difficult for players not to contact the barrier when marking close to the barrier is required by current rules.
...

This is not an OB issue. The TD can grant as much relief as they want from obstacles whether they mark an OB line or not.

803.02 Relief from Obstacles
A. A player may obtain relief from [...] any item as designated by the Director. To obtain relief, [...] (unless greater relief is announced by the Director).

Instead of saying "You get two meters from OB where there is barbed wire", the TDs out there should be saying: "You can move your lie perpendicularly two meters away from any barbed wire fence."

They can do the same for curbs, buildings, or anything.

 

[Cgkdisc]

This is not an OB issue. The TD can grant as much relief as they want from obstacles whether they mark an OB line or not.

I'd say it is an OB issue in that relief options should be automatically incorporated in the rule and not require TDs to specify special relief for commonly occurring situations near walls and barbed wire fences, typically used as OB lines, and other obstacles, some which may require a PDGA waiver.

 

[dmoore1998]

Priorities dictate the best solution(s):

Safety: Up to 2m relief from OB, distinguish between "hazardous" and "non-hazardous" OB with regard to taking a stance.

Simplicity: Up to 2m relief from OB, stance partly in OB is acceptable (eliminates the need to police split-second timing)

Either way, it seems like allowing up to 2m relief from OB would simplify things without too much adverse effect on competition. The main problem would be holes where OB is close to the basket.

The question of safety remains though: How is it safer to take a stance with a supporting point OB and quickly lift that supporting point right before you release the disc than it is to simply allow that supporting point to remain in contact with OB? I'm failing to see how the act of lifting your foot up off the ground at the last minute results in a safer action than being allowed to leave it on the ground (I'm using foot as the most obvious example, clearly it could be a different supporting point as well).

It seems like the easiest way to enforce safety would be to REQUIRE the 1 meter, or 2 meter "relief", because we know at that point the player must have at least 1 point of contact safely in bounds.

 

[dmoore1998]

That's a design issue/problem unrelated to this topic meaning basket may be too close to OB if one versus two meters of relief matters, and it can easily be relocated if designer deems it necessary.

I disagree that it is unrelated. Your definition of "may be too close" is not everyone's. Same for your idea of "can easily be relocated". There are over 6,000 courses in the US, most of which seem to be low-budget and handled by volunteers using whatever help and funds they can come up with. The PDGA should absolutely consider how rules changes might impact those courses that already exist under the current rules. Same goes for the idea that the vast majority of players are not professionals, and moving a putt in by 3 feet might be significant for a lot of them.

Now ultimately my opinion would be "it might still be worth changing even if it makes some holes easier by 3 feet". I just don't think it is "unrelated". IMO opinion it is definitely related but ultimately probably not so impactful as to discourage the change.

 

[txmxer]

1. Disc golf using the term "out-of-bounds" for both property boundaries and hazards within the inbounds area of the course.

Though I'm not sure what your point is, the rules call a hazard a hazard, not "out-of-bounds".

806.05 Hazard
A. A hazard is an area designated by the Director which incurs a penalty throw.
B. A disc is in a hazard if its position is clearly and completely surrounded by the
hazard or by a combination of the hazard and an out-of-bounds area.
C. A player whose disc is in a hazard receives one penalty throw. The lie is
not relocated.
D. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination whether it is in a hazard has
been made, the disc is considered to be in the hazard.

I would tend to agree with Biscoe--moving 2 meters off OB or leave it as is.

I think moving 2 meters off OB is consistent with some of your other discussions where you make the point that the person is already penalized a full stroke for the OB.

2 meters would moderate the penalty.

 

[dmoore1998]

Though I'm not sure what your point is, the rules call a hazard a hazard, not "out-of-bounds".




I would tend to agree with Biscoe--moving 2 meters off OB or leave it as is.

I think moving 2 meters off OB is consistent with some of your other discussions where you make the point that the person is already penalized a full stroke for the OB.

2 meters would moderate the penalty.

What would you suggest for relief for someone who did not go OB but is near the OB line? 2 meters also even though they did not incur a penalty?

 

[biscoe]

What would you suggest for relief for someone who did not go OB but is near the OB line? 2 meters also even though they did not incur a penalty?

Whichever it is (1 or 2 meters) I would hope that the relief for non-OB discs is the same for the sake of simplicity.

 

[txmxer]

What would you suggest for relief for someone who did not go OB but is near the OB line? 2 meters also even though they did not incur a penalty?

Yes to be consistent, that would be the case IMO, if 2 m is agreed to.

I'm not sure 2m is needed, just adding my .02 to help vet the concept.

I am solid on not allowing a support point or contact point in OB.

JMO.

 

[biscoe]

The question of safety remains though: How is it safer to take a stance with a supporting point OB and quickly lift that supporting point right before you release the disc than it is to simply allow that supporting point to remain in contact with OB? I'm failing to see how the act of lifting your foot up off the ground at the last minute results in a safer action than being allowed to leave it on the ground (I'm using foot as the most obvious example, clearly it could be a different supporting point as well).

It seems like the easiest way to enforce safety would be to REQUIRE the 1 meter, or 2 meter "relief", because we know at that point the player must have at least 1 point of contact safely in bounds.

This is what I have always done with barbed wire at HH- you must take a minimum of a meter and can take up to 2.

 

[Dcinmd]

Ok but what's the REAL risk for injury here? It makes all the sense in the world to have a meter off of OB...but not really in terms of not allowing a supporting point to be OB.

Let's use the edge of a cliff as an example: What's more risky? You can have your feet where it feels most comfortable for you, including one foot near the edge (and past the marked OB line)? Or you can have your feet where it feels most comfortable for you, including one foot near the edge, but you have to quickly raise that foot up as you throw?

The current rule does nothing to prevent you from standing in the same position you otherwise might, it only makes you lift the foot when you throw.

To the point in prior posts on 1 meter not being enough for tall folks. I'm 6'6", it's a little tight sometimes. But it's also tight sometimes when there's a tree behind me and I can't take a "comfortable stance". I'm not sure the rule should have anything to do with whether it's comfortable or not. I might not be able to take a comfortable swing of my arm because of an obstacle in front of me...it happens.

Obviously someone going to be more balanced with two feet on the ground rather than one.

I've taken a meter of relief in the past and had the ground give out and falling into a ditch before. Not the best feeling in the world on first hole of a tournament where ticks, thorns and poison ivy is prevalent. Lucky no injuries other than my ego.

Course can change on a dime during an event due to rain. Depending on where the OB lines are drawn, I have seen player taken unsafe position per the rules on steep, wet and muddy embankments that I have not consider safe.

Do you draw the OB line at the water edge or the top of the embankment? And what is more important, giving a slight competitive advantage of an extra meter for a total of 2 meters or someone ending up in the hospital?

 

[dmoore1998]

Obviously someone going to be more balanced with two feet on the ground rather than one.

I've taken a meter of relief in the past and had the ground give out and falling into a ditch before. Not the best feeling in the world on first hole of a tournament where ticks, thorns and poison ivy is prevalent. Lucky no injuries other than my ego.

Course can change on a dime during an event due to rain. Depending on where the OB lines are drawn, I have seen player taken unsafe position per the rules on steep, wet and muddy embankments that I have not consider safe.

Do you draw the OB line at the water edge or the top of the embankment? And what is more important, giving a slight competitive advantage of an extra meter for a total of 2 meters or someone ending up in the hospital?

I think giving 2 meters is fine. I just don't think it's any safer regardless of the relief to say "you can stand there but you have to lift that foot up before you throw" in comparison to letting them leave their foot there.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The most important reason these days, to allow players to have contact with OB during the throw, is simply to eliminate one more rule violation for the catty chatters to complain about.

 

[biscoe]

The most important reason these days, to allow players to have contact with OB during the throw, is simply to eliminate one more rule violation for the catty chatters to complain about.

In other words no reason at all.

 

[Cgkdisc]

In other words no reason at all.

Only if you think looking more professional on camera isn't important for how the game at the highest levels is perceived by the wider public. Note the video link for ball golf I posted where the golfer played from OB through the fence because he was allowed to. More professional looking that it wasn't a violation.

 

[biscoe]

Only if you think looking more professional on camera isn't important for how the game at the highest levels is perceived by the wider public. Note the video link for ball golf I posted where the golfer played from OB through the fence because he was allowed to. More professional looking that it wasn't a violation.

If you consider the guy playing his ball through that fence "professional looking" then I seriously doubt we have any common ground to be found here. What would be "professional looking" in disc golf is someone actually calling one of these violations occasionally.