What rules would you add (not really, but you might wish for)

[Casey 1988]

Rule I would add and this is for Paul McBeth at a Pro Tour event the Maple Hill one where the Tournament Director had to Ask what the OB was due to how the rules were made for one hole. The Rule is that all tournament directors must declare all OB from the start in the Rules or Book and where it is on every hole, this saves time in having to contest oddities where you would think that something is inbounds when it is not just a mistake in how the rule was written.

[BillFleming]

Originally Posted by Casey 1988

Rule I would add and this is for Paul McBeth at a Pro Tour event the Maple Hill one where the Tournament Director had to Ask what the OB was due to how the rules were made for one hole. The Rule is that all tournament directors must declare all OB from the start in the Rules or Book and where it is on every hole, this saves time in having to contest oddities where you would think that something is inbounds when it is not just a mistake in how the rule was written.

I believe the issue wasn't on how it was marked, but how it was interpreted.

Rule: Pond is OB go to drop zone. Past the 'wall' is OB, take 1 meter in and play from there.

What happened: Paul's disc went past the wall (OB, 1 meter, play) into water (argued as Pond, OB, drop zone).

Paul's argument was that his disc was OB past the wall - which keeps him from having to go to the drop zone.

My understanding of the rules: More than one penalty happened. His disc went over the OB wall (penalty: OB, 1 meter in, one stroke, play) AND then it went into the water (OB, one stroke, go to drop zone). By the rules, you can only take one penalty....therefore, even if the water past the OB wall was meant to be 'go to the drop zone', the FIRST thing that happened and the FIRST penalty, was his disc going over OB wall. So I believe, that regardless of what the rule was for being long in the water, he would only be penalized for the first penalty - OB over the wall.

Common sense interpretation....the "water to to drop zone" rule was to save multiple throws over the pond possibly going into the water and creating high scores. Water behind the green wouldn't be included, because you wouldn't be throwing over water again and going to the drop zone wouldn't make sense for that reason.

[cheesethin]

Originally Posted by BillFleming

I believe the issue wasn't on how it was marked, but how it was interpreted.



Rule: Pond is OB go to drop zone. Past the 'wall' is OB, take 1 meter in and play from there.



What happened: Paul's disc went past the wall (OB, 1 meter, play) into water (argued as Pond, OB, drop zone).



Paul's argument was that his disc was OB past the wall - which keeps him from having to go to the drop zone.



My understanding of the rules: More than one penalty happened. His disc went over the OB wall (penalty: OB, 1 meter in, one stroke, play) AND then it went into the water (OB, one stroke, go to drop zone). By the rules, you can only take one penalty....therefore, even if the water past the OB wall was meant to be 'go to the drop zone', the FIRST thing that happened and the FIRST penalty, was his disc going over OB wall. So I believe, that regardless of what the rule was for being long in the water, he would only be penalized for the first penalty - OB over the wall.



Common sense interpretation....the "water to to drop zone" rule was to save multiple throws over the pond possibly going into the water and creating high scores. Water behind the green wouldn't be included, because you wouldn't be throwing over water again and going to the drop zone wouldn't make sense for that reason.

Bill, OB is determined by where the disc comes to rest, not the route it took to get there. So multiple penalties didn't come into it in this case. It doesn't matter if your disc flies over several distinct OB areas en route - it only makes where it comes to rest. So there is no working out which OB 'happened first'.

(Mandos of course are different - both the route taken, and the resting place figure in the determination.)

On this particular hole, the problem was the caddy book had confusing/conflicting description of what the resultant lie was if you went into water long. As you correctly pointed out, going into water long wasn't intended to send the player to the drop zone.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[DavidSauls]

OB is also determined by "last place inbounds". Missing a mando is crossing a vertical plane; so is going OB. A disc that is both OB and lost is played as OB, despite coming to rest as lost, if there is evidence that it went OB.

Without knowing the specific incident, it sounds like a disc that crosses the wall (OB) and never returns inbounds, is OB for crossing the wall.

But.....

It also sounds like a bit of the perils of rules-making -- in this case, ground-rules-making. In wording rules, the author must imagine every scenario, to make sure the rules play out as intended. I once defined an OB as "over a fence", not thinking someone would somehow find a hole and their disc go "under the fence". (Henceforth, it was "beyond" the fence). I defined an OB with as beyond a creek, not imagining that someone would throw a disc at a 60-degree angle to the intended flight path, and reach a point where the creek entered a pipe under the ground.

The problem isn't that TDs aren't establishing rules in advance, as Casey suggests. It's that they're susceptible to not establishing them clearly enough.

[cheesethin]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

OB is also determined by "last place inbounds". Missing a mando is crossing a vertical plane; so is going OB. A disc that is both OB and lost is played as OB, despite coming to rest as lost, if there is evidence that it went OB.

Without knowing the specific incident, it sounds like a disc that crosses the wall (OB) and never returns inbounds, is OB for crossing the wall.

Being OB and lost is a special case scenario, with its own rule governing it.

Normally, when the disc is not lost, crossing the OB plane is only trivially involved because it is physically impossible to enter an enclosed area without crossing the threshold. The rule as written defines the disc as being OB when it's resting position is clearly and completely surrounded by an OB area, that's it, nothing about how it got there is required to make the ruling. Also importantly, the route a disc took into an OB area has absolutely no power to prevent the disc being OB - so the route a disc took is irrelevant.

In the special case of a disc being OB and Lost (806.02.C) the normal requirement that a disc is seen to be clearly and completely surrounded by an OB area get substituted out and replaced with compelling evidence that the disc came to rest completely and clearly surrounded by an OB area. Having seen the disc cross an OB boundary can be part of that compelling evidence but it also requires that the disc had no chance of crossing back into inbounds. So essentially it is just acting as a proxy for the disc coming to rest OB.

Mandos are different in that both the the resting position of the disc and the route the disc took to get there there are both critical to whether a throw has missed the mando. A disc lying on the ground 10 m past a mando could have got there either by going the good side of the mando and therefore be safe, or by going past the bad side of the mando and therefore be a penalty. So the route here is critical to determining whether a mando has been missed.

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

But.....

It also sounds like a bit of the perils of rules-making -- in this case, ground-rules-making. In wording rules, the author must imagine every scenario, to make sure the rules play out as intended. I once defined an OB as "over a fence", not thinking someone would somehow find a hole and their disc go "under the fence". (Henceforth, it was "beyond" the fence). I defined an OB with as beyond a creek, not imagining that someone would throw a disc at a 60-degree angle to the intended flight path, and reach a point where the creek entered a pipe under the ground.

The problem isn't that TDs aren't establishing rules in advance, as Casey suggests. It's that they're susceptible to not establishing them clearly enough.

Totally agree! It looks really hard to write ground rules clearly and concisely, and without opportunities for 'under the fence' lawyering types.