Legal or not?

[VINCENT25149]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200472874120452
watch the video is this legal or not?

 

[jongoff09]

Playing Surface
A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision shall be made by the Director or an official.

I guess if you can convince the TD or an official that it is reasonable to take a stance there, then it is good. If you're willing to climb up there and make the motion of a throw then I wouldn't argue that it is unreasonable. I can see where one might think the dangers of doing so are an unreasonable risk though.

You could mark with a mini right behind the tree and throw with no penalty.

 

[scarpfish]

I'd have to say no. Any disc that ends up above or below the playing surface is supposed to be marked on the playing surface vertically from where it is located. That constitutes where your lie will be. You're required to have a supporting point in contact with the lie at the moment of release. So I don't think that any point up in a tree could constitute a lie.

 

[scarpfish]

Still probably one of the strangest get out of jail shots ever attempted...

 

[VINCENT25149]

I want more opinions on this. Can the tree be considered a playing surface? I think not but I have a discussion on another site I want to apply opinions here to.

 

[bradharris]

I want more opinions on this. Can the tree be considered a playing surface? I think not but I have a discussion on another site I want to apply opinions here to.

Here are a few excerpts from the rulebook.

From 800.02 Definitions

A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision shall be made by the Director or an official.

I don't think you can argue that "a stance can reasonably be taken" in a tree.

From 802.02 Establishing position

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.

From 802.03 Marking the Lie

E. If a large solid obstacle prevents the player from taking a legal stance behind the marker disc, the player may instead mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play.

If the trunk is directly below the lie, this allows you to mark the lie on the line directly behind it.

And finally from 808, Rules Q&A (which is an official part of the rulebook). QA 17

Q. Rule 803.08 describes what to do if the playing surface below the disc is "inside a tree", but I'm not sure what that means. Does it refer to the area encompassed by the ground-level branches, or just the trunk?

A. It refers to the trunk, or any other large solid part where it would be physically impossible to place a marker disc. If there is room to mark your disc directly below, that is what you do. If not, you mark at the first available spot back along the line of play.

 

[VINCENT25149]

Legal or Not

So Mr. Harris Legal or Not

 

[bradharris]

So Mr. Harris Legal or Not

Not legal. The playing surface is the ground and that is where the lie should be marked.

 

[JC17393]

I don't think you can argue that "a stance can reasonably be taken" in a tree.

I disagree with this because the player clearly could and did take a stance in this instance. I think the words "reasonably be taken" are the operating ones here. They imply that it is a judgment call. In the player's judgment, he could climb up in the tree, take a stance and make a throw...and then did so. Nothing illegal about it at all, IMO.

The bigger question in my mind is why is this an issue at all? Only reason I can think of to question the player's decision is if the 2-meter penalty was in play. If it was, maybe it's worth an argument because he's potentially sparing himself a penalty by climbing up there to play the disc. If the penalty wasn't in play, then what difference does it make? A throw from in the tree or a throw from on the ground behind the tree both put him in roughly the same position to make roughly the same shot he did.

I say legal, but the only call that matters here is the TD's. If the TD says it was cool, there's no point arguing it. The book specifically makes the TD the final say.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not legal without express indication from the TD in advance that "places in trees where players could take a legal stance" can optionally be declared a playing surface.

 

[bradharris]

I disagree with this because the player clearly could and did take a stance in this instance. I think the words "reasonably be taken" are the operating ones here. They imply that it is a judgment call. In the player's judgment, he could climb up in the tree, take a stance and make a throw...and then did so. Nothing illegal about it at all, IMO.

The bigger question in my mind is why is this an issue at all? Only reason I can think of to question the player's decision is if the 2-meter penalty was in play. If it was, maybe it's worth an argument because he's potentially sparing himself a penalty by climbing up there to play the disc. If the penalty wasn't in play, then what difference does it make? A throw from in the tree or a throw from on the ground behind the tree both put him in roughly the same position to make roughly the same shot he did.

I say legal, but the only call that matters here is the TD's. If the TD says it was cool, there's no point arguing it. The book specifically makes the TD the final say.

Just because you can establish a stance doesn't mean it is reasonable to expect that.

The real question here becomes, is the tree considered part of the playing surface? If so, the two meter rule does not apply to that case, but anyone that ends up in the tree has to play from that lie or take a penalty.

There are plenty of players who would not be able to climb into a tree to take a shot because of physical limitations. So you would be establishing an unfair penalty for those players.

So yes, it's possible to take a stance and throw a shot from there. But it is not reasonable to expect that. So the tree does not meet the criteria for consideration as a playing surface. Thus, a stance in the tree does not have at least one supporting point in contact with the playing surface.

So it is a stance violation which results in a warning if it is the first violation of the round, or a penalty if a warning has previously been called, and rethrow.

 

[JC17393]

Not legal without express indication from the TD in advance that "places in trees where players could take a legal stance" can optionally be declared a playing surface.

Can you show me where in the rule book it says "places in trees where players could take a legal stance" are not allowed to be declared a playing surface? The definition of playing surface is dependent on being "capable of supporting the player" and being a place "from which a stance can reasonably be taken". That tree clearly fits the definition.

As for accessibility (or "expectation"...where is that word in the rule book?) being a factor, I disagree with that too. There are plenty of situations in which a disc on the ground can be more accessible to some players than others. Say a disc lands under a picnic table, which as park equipment can't be moved and free relief is not granted. Or forget the picnic table, call it a bush or a thick shrub. A nimble, agile player can position himself to put a foot behind the disc and get a good throw off where someone who's maybe older or heavier or otherwise less agile could not take the same position or any position. Should the agile player be penalized or not allowed to take an otherwise legal stance because somebody else can't physically do what they can do?

This guy has the physical ability and willingness to climb the tree where others don't or won't. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to climb up in that tree and throw from there if he chooses to. Like I said, it gets more questionable if there is a 2-meter penalty in play. In that case, I'd tell him to play provisionally from both in the tree and behind it (w/2-meter penalty) and let the TD make the final call. But without the 2-meter penalty in play, I see no harm or reason to disallow that throw.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The default definition for playing surfaces is taken to be the ground where people walk or places prepared where they are intended to walk. The definition indicates the TD may specify additional playing surfaces. Places in trees would not be considered default playing surfaces but subject to specific allowance by the TD.

 

[shags17]

I'm with JC17393 on this one. Whats not reasonable about it? He was able to take a stance, and he was able to make a legal throwing motion. Reread the definition that you posted. It does not state the the ground is the only place that can be a playing surface. It says that it is generally the ground, and it also states that a playing surface may be above or below another playing surface. Also nowhere, at least to my knowledge, does it say that you have to limit something like this because of people's limitations. Why should I be forced to take relief and give myself a worse lie if I could throw from there and am willing to climb up there?

Case in point, hole 2 on the Green 9 of Diamond X DGC in Billings, Montana. There is a giant boulder (about the size of a small house) on the right side of the fairway that is flat on top. If you land on that boulder, you have a fairly decent look at a putt. Take relief behind it and you have no look at the basket whatsoever. But it is a legit playing surface because you can take a reasonable stance up there.

I would say that the only thing prohibiting someone from throwing from either location is getting up to your disc in a timely manner and not going over the 30 second rule when it is your turn. Coming from a TD I would allow it.

 

[shags17]

As already posted by bradharris, the definition from the PDGA rule book:

Playing Surface
A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision shall be made by the Director or an official.

I don't think you can say there is a "default" definition for something when it is clearly defined in the rule book, unless you are quoting that exact definition given.

 

[JC17393]

The default definition for playing surfaces is taken to be the ground where people walk or places prepared where they are intended to walk. The definition indicates the TD may specify additional playing surfaces. Places in trees would not be considered default playing surfaces but subject to specific allowance by the TD.

"generally" <> "default"

Default appears nowhere in the rule book definition of a playing surface. The ground is certainly the most common and readily identifiable location which fits the criteria of the definition, but that doesn't limit it to the "default" playing surface.

And the definition states that in instances in which there is a question (the book term is "unclear") whether the surface is a playing surface, the TD or official makes the final call. That doesn't equate to nothing is a playing surface unless they decide it is. As with most other rules, the players are the first arbiters of legal/illegal. If they can't reach a decision, it moves up the chain to an official or the TD.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Nevermind

 

[Bamm]

I just have to chime in that the shot by Barry Schultz was amazing and amazingly ballsy.........
And it looked more dangerous to get to his stance that the guy in the tree IMHO

 

[Tpro]

I mean if the guy really wants to throw from up there, I wouldnt care. Honestly if he throws the shot in from there, Im buying him a beer, soda, ice cream cone, etc. Im competitive as H*LL but if you wanna climb your ass up into a tree and throw a shot. DO IT

 

[Dan Ensor]

From experience, I can tell you that there generally is a significant advantage to throwing from a tree.