#161  
Old 06-16-2021, 03:54 PM
coupe coupe is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 959
Niced 73 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Guys:
I don’t subscribe to the theory that anything not specifically prohibited in the rules is allowed. It’s the other way around, particularly for exceptions, or “alternates”. I've been a part of rules-making in other settings and that IS NOT how they are done. If that is the RC's intent in our sport I'd like to hear that from them. Exceptions have to be specifically allowed in order to be legal with in the rules.
Uh ... you do realize that by your logic, players are ENTITLED to mark the lie with a mini, per 802.06.B, since 802.06 SPECIFICALLY GRANTS players the option to to do so WITHOUT limiting in any way when or under what conditions they may do so OR prescribing in any way when or under what conditions they are prohibited from doing so, and that, consequently, any attempt or argument that attempts to restrict a player from exercising that option is prohibited?
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-16-2021, 05:07 PM
Rastnav Rastnav is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Durham, NC
Courses Played: 23
Posts: 764
Niced 582 Times in 294 Posts
Default

I know I keep harping on this, but I've yet to see someone grapple with what I am saying. I would really like people to think through this. People may not immediately see how this pertains to the OP, but I believe it very much does.

Consider the following 3 scenarios for a disc that comes to rest against the base of a rock, piece of concrete, or other solid surface on which a stance could be taken. Which of the 3 spots, A, B and C, can you legally take a stance within your lie (Note at this point I'm not asking any questions about mini placement)?





Attached Images
File Type: png DiscScenario_1.png (4.0 KB, 81 views)
File Type: png DiscScenario_2.png (4.3 KB, 79 views)
File Type: png DiscScenario_3.png (4.7 KB, 79 views)

Last edited by Rastnav; 06-16-2021 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-16-2021, 05:19 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 32.4
Courses Played: 727
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 13,368
Niced 3,317 Times in 1,374 Posts
Default

I would probably allow you to leave the disc as your marker and play from A, but not B or C. You would either have to mark with a mini or, if you needed more room for your foot, maybe you could take solid object relief.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-16-2021, 06:17 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 47.2
Courses Played: 461
Posts: 5,906
Niced 2,864 Times in 1,322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
I would probably allow you to leave the disc as your marker and play from A, but not B or C. ...
Why not? It just looks like a thick sidewalk.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-16-2021, 07:29 PM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 32.4
Courses Played: 727
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 13,368
Niced 3,317 Times in 1,374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Why not? It just looks like a thick sidewalk.
I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 06-16-2021, 09:16 PM
Agricolae Agricolae is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Carolina
Years Playing: 10.2
Courses Played: 68
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 696
Niced 120 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?
The current conversation is not tangled enough for you, Chuck?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-16-2021, 09:44 PM
Rastnav Rastnav is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Durham, NC
Courses Played: 23
Posts: 764
Niced 582 Times in 294 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
I guess I would allow B & C if the drawing is intended to be in true scale such as a berm versus an abstraction to represent significantly different heights. This brings up another twist.

One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples.

Also, do we presume that the 20x30 lie is a horizontal projection onto the playing surface (similar to the 1-meter projection from OB) or measured back from the marker even if the playing surface is sloped for part or all of that 30cm distance? Imagine a shallow slope from point C moving down to the right toward the disc like a river embankment. If C is high enough, the birds eye projection of the 20x30 lie could be completely on the slope. If the player went to point C to take a stance, they would be too far back. And they wouldn't be able to physically take a stance on the slope. In another example, even if the birds eye projection only went back 15 cm to point C, would the player be able to play from point C even though the actual measured distance from behind the disc to point C was more than 30cm?
This is precisely the problem I’m pointing out.

You have, in your head, some arbitrary definition of what constitutes two different playing surfaces. There is nowhere in the rules that A can be distinguished from B or C, regardless of the heights of B and C. If it’s illegal to take a stance at B, it’s illegal at A. But that defies common sense. If your disc comes to rest up against a flat rock a few inches high or a tee pad with an exposed concrete edge, people are assuming that’s all one playing surface, not two distinct ones.

Your point about a projection is potentially a valid one, but I doubt you would be subtracting the vertical height of of the rock or tee pad from the lie in example A or B. Nor would I expect that you would consider it valid to hang your toe over the lip in any of the cases. It seems to me that “behind” generally means “in the horizontal plane”. This is precisely the same conundrum facing us when we talk about placing the mini in various scenarios where the front of the disc isn’t touching anything. It's implied that the mini can be placed so that the trailing edge of the mini touches the vertical plane defined by the front of the disc. Thus the disc is directly behind the mini on the horizontal plane.

Regardless, it’s not made explicit in the rules.

There are a few ways one could go about solving these issues, but I think the lack of explicitly stating how they are to be resolved is precisely the problem. The issues of how one deals with vertical “discontinuity” (which is not precisely the right word) need to be made more explicit, which would include the problem presented in the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-16-2021, 10:20 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 47.2
Courses Played: 461
Posts: 5,906
Niced 2,864 Times in 1,322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastnav View Post
This is precisely the problem I’m pointing out.

...

Regardless, it’s not made explicit in the rules.

...
You make good points. The trade-off is whether to add all the extra wording to make everything explicit in every possible situation (in which case the rule might become unreadable, or at least un-remember-able) or keep the rule as simple as possible and rely on the group to figure out the edge cases.

Perhaps something in-between is possible. Your idea of the lie (and, I presume, also the position) being the projection onto the surface might work.

That is to say, it could work if it would feel natural to most players to stand on a raised sidewalk behind a thrown disc, place a mini on the top edge of a plumb retaining wall which the front of the throw disc is touching, or being able to mark down on the playing surface below the overhanging front edge of the disc on top of that wall.

The case I wouldn't feel comfortable with is if the disc is on a bridge with the front hanging over the edge. Or, the front (but not back) is under a bridge. It wouldn't feel right to be able to place a mini on that other playing surface.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 06-16-2021, 10:28 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 47.2
Courses Played: 461
Posts: 5,906
Niced 2,864 Times in 1,322 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
...
One purpose for the marker whether disc or mini is to provide the location of the lie and potentially be touched by the player's foot to indicate a foot fault. The higher that distance is above the disc in pictures B or C the less connection there is between the lie and the marker in these examples...
There is no rule against touching the marker with your foot. The rule is "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc".

Of course, if everything is on a flat playing surface, you can't touch the marker without violating that rule, but...

If part of your foot was hanging over the disc, then the part of your foot which is in the air is not a supporting point. So, no violation.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #170  
Old 06-16-2021, 11:08 PM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 1.4
Courses Played: 4
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,246
Niced 1,052 Times in 520 Posts
Default

The rule says the market is on the playing surface and the 20x30 rectangle behind the marker is where you have to have a supporting point.

The rules fail to define stacked playing surfaces adequately. They do address obstacles that prevent taking a stance behind the marker.

The delta in A is negligible and I wouldn’t expect anyone to think twice about.

B & C are either stacked surfaces or they are the playing surface (singular). If a singular surface, play on. If a stacked surface, move the marker back along the LOP due to solid obstacle preventing player from taking a legal stance assuming the graphic is the marker.

Or place a mini and take an awkward stance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need a ruling here... BennettUA Rules Questions & Discussion 23 03-06-2015 10:11 AM
What is the ruling on this one? Mr. America General Disc Golf Chat 40 05-04-2011 07:18 PM
Need a ruling AdamE General Disc Golf Chat 34 06-22-2010 12:07 PM
I need a Ruling 1854online General Disc Golf Chat 124 04-23-2010 04:09 PM
Need a ruling... in or not? colodiscgolfer General Disc Golf Chat 25 08-16-2009 12:43 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.