Disc Golf Course Review Layered playing surfaces
 Register Members List Social Groups - View All Groups - Your Group Messages Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

#11
09-03-2018, 02:19 PM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 23.7 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,589 Niced 2,456 Times in 1,160 Posts

QA-LIE-1
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 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 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.

So.....what is the difference between a bridge over water, and a log or large root over water, large enough that it can be stood upon? Heck, we have a tree that fell in a convenient place, and has served as a bridge for the past 2 years.

Is it just intent---the bridge was clearly meant to be a bridge?
#12
09-03-2018, 02:49 PM
 JC17393 * Ace Member * Join Date: Aug 2012 Years Playing: 21.2 Courses Played: 144 Throwing Style: LHBH Posts: 7,031 Niced 2,505 Times in 1,053 Posts

Wouldn't be the first time the Q&A is contradictory or illogical.

I full support the notion of stacked playing surfaces and I support the notion that everything is in-bounds unless it is designated as OB, but they seem incompatible as defaults here. Per 806.02.F, the OB line represents a vertical plane. To me, that means anything within the area defined by that plane should be considered OB unless otherwise specified. Even if there are multiple playing surfaces in the area. If roots and rocks and grass and islands sticking out above the designated OB surface that are capable of supporting a player in a legal stance are considered, by default, as part of the OB area, so too should a bridge.

 Niced: (1)
#13
09-03-2018, 03:05 PM
 pauldst Double Eagle Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Redding, CA Years Playing: 6.8 Courses Played: 105 Throwing Style: RHBH Posts: 1,134 Niced 90 Times in 60 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls We also have places where roots or logs extend over the water. On which discs may come to rest, suspended above the water. These extend from the (inbounds) shore, and are sturdy enough to stand on and take a stance. Absent a specific ground rule, or other marking, should such a lie be considered inbounds?
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DavidSauls The distinction I see between stuck in a tree over water, and this, is that there is no stance in the tree. You can take a stance on these (large) roots, with your supporting point on the root and no other supporting point touching OB.
So, what does being able to take a stance have to do with it?

Say a disc comes to rest on a rock in a stream. The stream is only a few inches deep, and there are many rocks scattered in the stream, such that a player could take a stance on rocks (or even take a stance in the water). Should that stance justify a change from out of bounds to inbounds? I would say that it isn't because it leaves it too open to interpretation, as well as to physical characteristics of various players--one player has smaller feet, say, than another, or better balance, and so can take advantage of something that another can't. The combination of the two...

Otoh, the fun factor of players balancing on a log over water...
#14
09-03-2018, 03:10 PM
 krupicka Double Eagle Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Naperville, IL Years Playing: 17.7 Courses Played: 67 Posts: 1,213 Niced 200 Times in 110 Posts

Ah but with the new rules if the log is considered 806.02.D.3in bounds over water, the player can bring it to a much better lie (806.02.D.3). No need to balance on the log. Even on a narrow bridge, a player has the option of getting off the bridge.
#15
09-03-2018, 03:23 PM
 JC17393 * Ace Member * Join Date: Aug 2012 Years Playing: 21.2 Courses Played: 144 Throwing Style: LHBH Posts: 7,031 Niced 2,505 Times in 1,053 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pauldst So, what does being able to take a stance have to do with it? Say a disc comes to rest on a rock in a stream. The stream is only a few inches deep, and there are many rocks scattered in the stream, such that a player could take a stance on rocks (or even take a stance in the water). Should that stance justify a change from out of bounds to inbounds? I would say that it isn't because it leaves it too open to interpretation, as well as to physical characteristics of various players--one player has smaller feet, say, than another, or better balance, and so can take advantage of something that another can't. The combination of the two... Otoh, the fun factor of players balancing on a log over water...
I don't want to speak for David, but I think his question is tied to the stacked playing surface idea exemplified by the bridge as in-bounds. If it is a large log, or a downed tree that can be used as a bridge, should that be treated as if it were a bridge per QA-LIE-1?

By default, should this...

...be treated any differently than this?

Attached Images
 bridge.jpg (52.3 KB, 127 views) log.jpg (55.1 KB, 126 views)
#16
09-03-2018, 03:25 PM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 23.7 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,589 Niced 2,456 Times in 1,160 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pauldst So, what does being able to take a stance have to do with it? Say a disc comes to rest on a rock in a stream. The stream is only a few inches deep, and there are many rocks scattered in the stream, such that a player could take a stance on rocks (or even take a stance in the water). Should that stance justify a change from out of bounds to inbounds? I would say that it isn't because it leaves it too open to interpretation, as well as to physical characteristics of various players--one player has smaller feet, say, than another, or better balance, and so can take advantage of something that another can't. The combination of the two... Otoh, the fun factor of players balancing on a log over water...
Good question.

The distinction between a rock or island surrounded by water, and a lot or root extending from shore, is that the latter are a continuous extension of the playing surface. At least in the sense that it is uninterrupted, from inbounds down the log.

As is the land that overhangs water, where a creek has undercut it, and is clearly OB.

Or would it be better to say the bridge is different, because the rules Q&A specifically mentioned bridge, not bridge-like features?
#17
09-03-2018, 03:31 PM
 DavidSauls * Ace Member * Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Newberry, SC Years Playing: 23.7 Courses Played: 125 Posts: 14,589 Niced 2,456 Times in 1,160 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JC17393 I don't want to speak for David, but I think his question is tied to the stacked playing surface idea exemplified by the bridge as in-bounds. If it is a large log, or a downed tree that can be used as a bridge, should that be treated as if it were a bridge per QA-LIE-1? By default, should this... ...be treated any differently than this?
We have a tree like that, but larger, fallen across a creek only about 20' from a basket. Unlikely to have a disc come to rest on it, but you never know. It's often used as in informal bridge, to retrieve bad throws.

Then, if that tree is a surface layer, why not smaller roots, which are reasonably permanent? Particularly where we have multiple large roots, capable of supporting a player, and dense enough that a disc is likely to come to rest there.

Of course, the perfect answer is to flag/string/declare our intent. But I'm feeling around for what to do in places where that hasn't been done.

I just find the "layered playing surfaces" can be a bit troubling.
#18
09-04-2018, 11:28 AM
 Smigles * Ace Member * Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Switzerland Courses Played: 9 Posts: 2,329 Niced 50 Times in 32 Posts

Are you allowed to change playing surface on a vertical line as you wish?

Example legal lie under a bridge that you can get to. Can you pick if you wanna play under or on the bridge if both are inbounds?

We had a tree that fell over at a tournament this weekend. A disc landed below the root stock, but was accessable. The player chose to stand on the roots and play from there. IMO he should have played from the bottom if he can establish a lie.
#19
09-04-2018, 11:33 AM
 krupicka Double Eagle Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Naperville, IL Years Playing: 17.7 Courses Played: 67 Posts: 1,213 Niced 200 Times in 110 Posts

You must play from the playing surface below the disc. You may not bring it up to a higher playing surface.

The one exception is if there is no paying surface below the disc (e.g. in a culvert under a street)

Last edited by krupicka; 09-04-2018 at 11:38 AM.

#20
09-04-2018, 12:37 PM
 JC17393 * Ace Member * Join Date: Aug 2012 Years Playing: 21.2 Courses Played: 144 Throwing Style: LHBH Posts: 7,031 Niced 2,505 Times in 1,053 Posts

You play the disc from the playing surface on which it rests. If a disc lands below a bridge and it is accessible to take a stance where it rests, that's where you play it from. You don't get to choose your playing surface.