Overlapping playing surfaces

[PhattD]

If you have two or more playing surfaces stacked (ie bridge, stairs, etc) is there a rule that determines which surface you can play from? Or is it player discretion?

 

[thirtydirtybirds]

I don't understand the question. How would one play from anything other than whatever the top of this stack is?

 

[Cgkdisc]

When you land on a legit playing surface (not just any surface like a picnic table), you play from it unless it's OB or the TD has indicated you may choose to move up or down.

 

[Steve West]

If you are landing, you are playing the game all wrong. You're supposed to let go of the disc when it starts flying.

Play whichever surface the disc landed on.

 

[chevis]

if you can play it as it lies, you do so. here's some related rules q/a
https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/808-rules-qa#qa-02
https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/808-rules-qa#qa-06
https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/808-rules-qa#qa-38

 

[PhattD]

How about some more difficult examples.
1) A bridge over a dry inbounds gully. There's a bush under the bridge. Disc is stuck in the bush, not on either playing surface. Players choice?
2) what if it's a very low bridge like 1' clearance? What about 6"?
3) What if it's 10' in the middle but gradually slopes up until it meets the bridge?
4) What about steps? First step has 1" gap underneathe it? Next one is 6" higher?

A lot of these are such that you could take a legal stance by laying down and sticking your arm in there. But is that reasonable? If the bridge is low enough that you can't stand under it, should the lower area not be considered a playing surface?

If you have two playing surfaces close enough that your supporting point on one surface could still be within 30cm of the rear of the marker, is that legal?

Wouldn't it be easier if the rule was that you could take your pick of playing surfaces that were stacked?

 

[araytx]

How about some more difficult examples.
1) A bridge over a dry inbounds gully. There's a bush under the bridge. Disc is stuck in the bush, not on either playing surface. Players choice?
2) what if it's a very low bridge like 1' clearance? What about 6"?
3) What if it's 10' in the middle but gradually slopes up until it meets the bridge?
4) What about steps? First step has 1" gap underneathe it? Next one is 6" higher?

A lot of these are such that you could take a legal stance by laying down and sticking your arm in there. But is that reasonable? If the bridge is low enough that you can't stand under it, should the lower area not be considered a playing surface?

If you have two playing surfaces close enough that your supporting point on one surface could still be within 30cm of the rear of the marker, is that legal?

Wouldn't it be easier if the rule was that you could take your pick of playing surfaces that were stacked?

Phatt:

Most of those are not more difficult -- at least not by the rules. They are more difficult to players. By the way most of it has been adjudicated and argued a lot. One such prerube is at the bottom. Now to answer your questions as I see them:

1) A bridge over a dry inbounds gully. There's a bush under the bridge. Disc is stuck in the bush, not on either playing surface. Players choice?

Nope. You play from the playing surface that the bush is on.

2) what if it's a very low bridge like 1' clearance? What about 6"?

If your TD has deemed it a playing surface, then by very definition (800.02 - Playing Surface) it has the ability to support a player in such a way that he can take a legal stance. Don't confuse "legal stance" with the "ability to stand" -- you may have to kneel, stretch a leg out, lie on the ground and place a hand behind your mark, etc., but if you're inbounds, on the ground, you still play from that same playing surface.

3) What if it's 10' in the middle but gradually slopes up until it meets the bridge?

Same as #2. By definition if it's ON the playing surface you play from that one, absent a specific exception or special condition from the TD. Remember -- if he has deemed it a playing surface, by definition you can play from there.

4) What about steps? First step has 1" gap underneathe it? Next one is 6" higher?

Ditto.

A lot of these are such that you could take a legal stance by laying down and sticking your arm in there. But is that reasonable? If the bridge is low enough that you can't stand under it, should the lower area not be considered a playing surface?

That's on the TD. If you know the course, then perhaps that should be discussed with him BEFORE the tourney starts.

If you have two playing surfaces close enough that your supporting point on one surface could still be within 30cm of the rear of the marker, is that legal?

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but as long as you're playing from the playing surface where your inbounds disc is (i.e., you're taking a legal stance on that surface), you can certainly be legal to have an additional supporting point on the other playing surface.

Wouldn't it be easier if the rule was that you could take your pick of playing surfaces that were stacked?

Maybe. But it might also give an unfair advantage on this hole that's not available elsewhere on the course; hence, the way the rule is currently written. I mean if you're in a bush on another hole, do the rules allow you get to relocate to an unobstructed lie? Sorry, if you are inbounds, it's still play it where it lies, or relocate on the SAME playing surface. NOW, if you are OB on one playing surface, AND you can legally re-locate to either, you certainly may choose either by rule. But the OB situation doesn't have the inherent unfair advantage because you've had to take a penalty stroke.

Now read all about this topic and my and others's discussion from several years ago, in this thread:
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53670&highlight=bridge+lawyering

 

[JoakimBL]

If your TD has deemed it a playing surface, then by very definition (800.02 - Playing Surface) it has the ability to support a player in such a way that he can take a legal stance. Don't confuse "legal stance" with the "ability to stand" -- you may have to kneel, stretch a leg out, lie on the ground and place a hand behind your mark, etc., but if you're inbounds, on the ground, you still play from that same playing surface.

I agree with your answer in general, but the definition of playing surface is not that you can take a legal stance, but that you can reasonably take a stance. What is or isn't reasonable is open for interpretation.

800.02
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.

 

[philstine]

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but as long as you're playing from the playing surface where your inbounds disc is (i.e., you're taking a legal stance on that surface), you can certainly be legal to have an additional supporting point on the other playing surface.

Provided that any additional supporting point(s) is (are) both in-bounds and no closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc.

 

[araytx]

I agree with your answer in general, but the definition of playing surface is not that you can take a legal stance, but that you can reasonably take a stance. What is or isn't reasonable is open for interpretation.

True, Joakim. However, if the TD has deemed it a playing surface, then, at the very least a stance can reasonably be taken in his interpretation. The rule even states that if there is a question, the TD can clarify. [Note: Of course, I assume that allows for him to have not to have considered the case specifically being questioned.]

Provided that any additional supporting point(s) is (are) both in-bounds and no closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc.

Yes, agreed. Of course, all other conditions of legal stance must be met.