#71  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:50 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.9
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,425
Niced 444 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Picture WACO #17...

Let's say B's disc is at the exact same point on the OB line where A's disc crossed the line. They both take 1m relief: why is A then permitted get choose a more advantageous lie than B? (other than the text of 802.02E, of course)

I suspect that the RC had WACO #18 in mind, and #17 is an unintended consequence.
Just an opinion, but knowing two members of the RC I don't think so. I DON'T think they meant free optional relief only to "make throws longer if you took OR" at all. And I think they wanted players to better utilize rules for both pace of play and allowing them to showcase their skills, so I don't see holes like #17 WACO as an unintended consequence. I saw the new 803.02 utilized a few times on other courses last year. I think it goes back to the RC's 'not wanting penalties stacking' philosophy. I also think it came about due to more and more TD's and course designers having these types of holes, par 4/5's with landing zones, long doglegs, etc., whereas that is a relatively new thing (in popularity among designs) the past ten years or so -- that combined with the increase in both disc technology and player's skills at the top of the mountain.

Plus, you're still calling A's mark after OB "relief". It's not. It's different than what B is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Will anyone ever be tempted to kick that disc OB to get that advantage?
YES.^^^ THIS. obviously not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Well no, or more accurately it doesn't matter. Assuming the post-OR lie is your goal, IB or OB you'd be lying 2 either way (after one throw and one penalty).

Remember we started with the OP asking if Matt Bell should have taken OR after his OB tee shot on WACO #17 because Bell's next throw went OB. The premise of ARay's question is that OR would have offered Bell a more favorable angle to land a forehand IB on the peninsula.
I can clearly see this is more of a case of "you don't like it" vs. the merits. You know the difference is Player A has already taken a penalty throw vs Player B who has not, and you don't like that. You somehow are asserting that A having more choices of lie after an OB penalty is BETTER or MORE ADVANTAGEOUS than what B has. I just don't agree with that, because the one-throw penalty has to be factored in. As I said before, if B (somehow on God's green earth) believes that throwing 3 from A's optional relief spot is BETTER than throwing 2 from his own 1m-from-OB relief spot, THEN, by all means, go for it. He can just toss his disc easily and un-obstructedly (if that's a word) to A's OR spot. So B STILL gets that exact same option as A, albeit coming from a different set of circumstances.

So, yes, in the OP I thought Matt should have invoked 803.02 D. & E. because YES, he would have had a little better angle on the next throw -- but that was the cost of throwing his first shot OB and having to take that penalty throw.
Sponsored Links

Last edited by araytx; 03-31-2020 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:56 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,602
Niced 573 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Just an opinion, but knowing two members of the RC I don't think so. I DON'T think they meant free optional relief only to "make throws longer if you took OR" at all. And I think they wanted players to better utilize rules for both pace of play and allowing them to showcase their skills, so I don't see holes like #17 WACO as an unintended consequence. I saw the new 803.02 utilized a few times on other courses last year. I think it goes back to the RC's 'not wanting penalties stacking' philosophy. I also think it came about due to more and more TD's and course designers having these types of holes, par 4/5's with landing zones, long doglegs, etc., whereas that is a relatively new thing (in popularity among designs) the past ten years or so -- that combined with the increase in both disc technology and player's skills at the top of the mountain.
I'm not saying it is *always* bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
...
Plus, you're still calling A's mark after OB "relief". It's not. It's different than what B is doing.
Aren't they both "marking within one meter of the OB line?"

806.02F: The out-of-bounds line extends a vertical plane. When marking within one meter of the out-of-bounds line, the one-meter relief may be taken from any point up or down on the vertical plane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
I can clearly see this is more of a case of "you don't like it" vs. the merits. You know the difference is Player A has already taken a penalty throw vs Player B who has not, and you don't like that.
That's your interpretation; but it's not how I'm thinking about it. I'll try to clarify below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
You somehow are asserting that A having more choices of lie after an OB penalty is BETTER or MORE ADVANTAGEOUS than what B has. I just don't agree with that, because the one-throw penalty has to be factored in. As I said before, if B (somehow on God's green earth) believes that throwing 3 from A's optional relief spot is BETTER than throwing 2 from his own 1m-from-OB relief spot, THEN, by all means, go for it. He can just toss his disc easily and un-obstructedly (if that's a word) to A's OR spot. So B STILL gets that exact same option as A, albeit coming from a different set of circumstances.

So, yes, in the OP I thought Matt should have invoked 803.02 D. & E. because YES, he would have had a little better angle on the next throw -- but that was the cost of throwing his first shot OB and having to take that penalty throw.
Let's get the definition of advantageous out of the way. Can we agree that a lie with a greater probability of success can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a lesser probability of success? Or, in the reverse sense, that a lie with a lesser probability of failure can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a greater probability of failure?

I think we agree that the post-OR lie meets the above definition of advantageous to the post-1m lie either by p(success) or p(failure).

Now let's define success and failure.

Matt could have pitched forward to get a clean shot at circle one (or at least a puttable distance), but he tried a "hero" shot from the 1m lie to get within c1. I'm going to use a measure from Steve West: Matt's "hero shot" success is reducing his expected score to par, and failure is increasing his expected score above single bogey (like going OB).

So let's say the 1m lie p(success) =.2 and p(failure) = .4 whereas the OR lie is p(success) = .3 and p(failure) = .4, then relocating via OR reduces the expected score by 10%.

In a more extreme case (for example the 1m lie is immediately behind a tree) where p(success) = virtually zero, then it's a 30% difference in p(success).

Overall, an increase in p(success) and/or a decrease in p(failure) *might* negate the OB penalty's impact on the relative scores of player A & B.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:23 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 46.1
Courses Played: 390
Posts: 5,230
Niced 1,950 Times in 956 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Overall, an increase in p(success) and/or a decrease in p(failure) *might* negate the OB penalty's impact on the relative scores of player A & B.
Yes, if the player's best option from the in-bounds lie was to take Optional Relief, then the OB penalty didn't hurt. Just like going OB doesn't hurt if you also missed a mando.

However, there is a vanishingly small chance that the in-bounds lie would not have had someplace better to toss than straight back. So the expected score from an OB lie will be greater than the expected score from the in-bounds lie with a probability that is as close to 100% as possible without being 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:38 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,602
Niced 573 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Yes, if the player's best option from the in-bounds lie was to take Optional Relief, then the OB penalty didn't hurt. Just like going OB doesn't hurt if you also missed a mando.

However, there is a vanishingly small chance that the in-bounds lie would not have had someplace better to toss than straight back. So the expected score from an OB lie will be greater than the expected score from the in-bounds lie with a probability that is as close to 100% as possible without being 100%.
I'm more concerned with dog legs (and other shapes) where free OR gives the player an increase in p(success) + decrease p(failure) in excess of (say) +15% relative to the 1m lie. Theoretically, that makes the OB a 0.85 throw penalty (of course, in the real world it never is less than 1); what it does is favorably change the expected score -- of course there is no guarantee that a player will make the putt after a success, or that a failure will only cost one throw.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-01-2020, 12:11 AM
brutalbrutus's Avatar
brutalbrutus brutalbrutus is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the nati
Years Playing: 9.9
Courses Played: 53
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,044
Niced 5,198 Times in 2,701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Consult20 View Post
So my original post above is a correct way to handle this? Sounds like you're saying it is.

Speaking of rules questions, where has JC been lately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peabody View Post
His last post was on 2/21. I do miss his posts.
Hope he is OK.
Doesn't he live somewhere in New York? That's obviously not a great place to be right now, I hope he's ok, too...

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-01-2020, 10:06 PM
ToddL ToddL is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Years Playing: 24.1
Courses Played: 151
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,098
Niced 501 Times in 230 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
Doesn't he live somewhere in New York? That's obviously not a great place to be right now, I hope he's ok, too...
Maine. Probably a good place to be.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-09-2020, 06:37 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.9
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,425
Niced 444 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post

Aren't they both "marking within one meter of the OB line?"

806.02F: The out-of-bounds line extends a vertical plane. When marking within one meter of the out-of-bounds line, the one-meter relief may be taken from any point up or down on the vertical plane.

Yes to #1 above.

NO on#2, because you took it out of context.

The "relief" is still only given to an inbounds throw within 1 meter of OB, and that's what they are talking about. When marking within 1 meter of the OB plane following an out-of-bounds throw, it is NOT relief. Can we agree that it's not the definition of "relief" per the rules, no matter how similar in reality they may be?


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey

That's your interpretation; but it's not how I'm thinking about it. I'll try to clarify below.



Let's get the definition of advantageous out of the way. Can we agree that a lie with a greater probability of success can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a lesser probability of success? Or, in the reverse sense, that a lie with a lesser probability of failure can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a greater probability of failure?

I think we agree that the post-OR lie meets the above definition of advantageous to the post-1m lie either by p(success) or p(failure).

Now let's define success and failure.

Matt could have pitched forward to get a clean shot at circle one (or at least a puttable distance), but he tried a "hero" shot from the 1m lie to get within c1. I'm going to use a measure from Steve West: Matt's "hero shot" success is reducing his expected score to par, and failure is increasing his expected score above single bogey (like going OB).

So let's say the 1m lie p(success) =.2 and p(failure) = .4 whereas the OR lie is p(success) = .3 and p(failure) = .4, then relocating via OR reduces the expected score by 10%.

In a more extreme case (for example the 1m lie is immediately behind a tree) where p(success) = virtually zero, then it's a 30% difference in p(success).


Overall, an increase in p(success) and/or a decrease in p(failure) *might* negate the OB penalty's impact on the relative scores of player A & B.
Advantageous definition (blue) -- my response is YES if and only if all other things are equal.

Post-OR lie is advantageous (green) -- OH, heck no I don't precisely because of what I said above. ALL is not equal.

Red section: Playing with the numbers. Conveniently decided to leave out the extra throw for the penalty. Reducing 10% (after an OB penalty) compared to what? Just this one throw?? the same player throwing 3 from the OB spot? I don't get that. NO way. It's not apples to apples the way you're doing that.

In other words, (question), you think that Matt or any top pro with an OB followed by OR is going to make a par 4 on that hole how many times out of 10? I can tell you that I think Matt's hero shot is only gonna be OB left in the water only 1 time out of 10 (he just hit the bad luck); he's gonna over-hyzer that sidearm more times than not, ending up right of the basket for a sure easy 4; but on 2 or 3 of those 8 other times he's gonna drain the putt for birdie 3. (Total of 38 or 39 out of 40). And NO MEASURE of perfection throwing 3 from the OR spot beats that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I'm more concerned with dog legs (and other shapes) where free OR gives the player an increase in p(success) + decrease p(failure) in excess of (say) +15% relative to the 1m lie. Theoretically, that makes the OB a 0.85 throw penalty (of course, in the real world it never is less than 1); what it does is favorably change the expected score -- of course there is no guarantee that a player will make the putt after a success, or that a failure will only cost one throw.
And that's where we disagree. That penalty, even averaging at another .85 strokes is less advantageous than throwing from 1 meter from the line being inbounds.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:54 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,602
Niced 573 Times in 280 Posts
Default

It's been a minute. I hope you & yours are doing well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Yes to #1 above.

NO on#2, because you took it out of context.

The "relief" is still only given to an inbounds throw within 1 meter of OB, and that's what they are talking about. When marking within 1 meter of the OB plane following an out-of-bounds throw, it is NOT relief. Can we agree that it's not the definition of "relief" per the rules, no matter how similar in reality they may be?
Since 806.02E specifically refers to an IB disc, wouldn't you think F refers to an OB disc? Do you have your situations reversed?

Nevertheless, I think relief is a good way to describe a relocation of the lie so a legal stance can be taken.

I like the color coding, btw. So I'll borrow the technique (slightly modified).

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post

Advantageous definition (blue) -- my response is YES if and only if all other things are equal


Like what? It would seem that all other things are equal, or would impact pS or pF (given that the players are trying for a hero shot from their lie, i.e. trying to lower their expected score). Perhaps I should have clearly stated that.


Post-OR lie is advantageous (green) -- OH, heck no I don't precisely because of what I said above. ALL is not equal.


I'll wait on your response to blue.


Red section: Playing with the numbers. Conveniently decided to leave out the extra throw for the penalty. Reducing 10% (after an OB penalty) compared to what? Just this one throw?? the same player throwing 3 from the OB spot? I don't get that. NO way. It's not apples to apples the way you're doing that.


I'm referencing their expected score. Let's say at the tee box both players expected score is par. After the players throw their tee shots, the IB player's expected score doesn't change, but the OB player's expected score is now par+1.

So for their next shot: pS (aka p(Success)) means lowering their expected score; IB player -> par-1, OB player -> par; pF (aka p(Failure)) means raising their expected score; IB player -> par+1, OB player -> par+2.


In other words, (question), you think that Matt or any top pro with an OB followed by OR is going to make a par 4 on that hole how many times out of 10? I can tell you that I think Matt's hero shot is only gonna be OB left in the water only 1 time out of 10 (he just hit the bad luck); he's gonna over-hyzer that sidearm more times than not, ending up right of the basket for a sure easy 4; but on 2 or 3 of those 8 other times he's gonna drain the putt for birdie 3. (Total of 38 or 39 out of 40). And NO MEASURE of perfection throwing 3 from the OR spot beats that.


This may be the core of our different positions. I think you're focused on "Should Matt have used 803.02E?" (your original question), and I'm focused on "Should 803.02E exist?"

Focusing on Matt: that was an extreme angle he was facing (at least from the camera's view), but into a head wind to help the disc's rfade (I just checked: it looked like it was actually over water). I'm not certain he could put much more hyzer on the throw, and still get the distance he needed. I agree that a less severe angle would have made the throw easier but would the pin still be in range?


And that's where we disagree. That penalty, even averaging at another .85 strokes is less advantageous than throwing from 1 meter from the line being inbounds.


I hope it's clear now that it's the 0.15 chance that the OR player to get the same score as the IB player that bothers me. Let me throw in also, that on a dogleg right only the players OB right could get free OR, OB left on a dogleg left -- how's that fair?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-11-2020, 08:30 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.3
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,832
Niced 1,261 Times in 724 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Yes, if you choose (or are forced) to go to the drop zone after OB, you could then choose to take optional relief back from the DZ without further penalty.
whoah...just skimming through this thread again and read this. That's...just...insane. lol.. How far back could you go from the dz btw?????
Reply With Quote
 

  #80  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:16 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.9
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,425
Niced 444 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
It's been a minute. I hope you & yours are doing well.
Thanks for the sentiment. We are.
Fyi, I appreciate your style of discussion and debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
Since 806.02E specifically refers to an IB disc, wouldn't you think F refers to an OB disc? Do you have your situations reversed?

Nevertheless, I think relief is a good way to describe a relocation of the lie so a legal stance can be taken.
No, I don't. I think 806.02F is speaking directly to the rule before it, 806.02E. Kinda like here's one thing about this situation (E), and immediately following here's another. (F).

I keep going back to this, but maybe you're missing my point. I've agreed that they are similar. And I understand that YOU refer to it that way. As an analogy, let me go to my years of experience officiating football, under the NCAA rulebook. As were trained the first emphasis in the rules is that "Football Rule-2" (FR-2), the definitions, is the most important one. Knowing the definitions under the rules means everyone is discussing the same thing when they say forward pass, handoff, tackle, holding, pass interference, etc. As a back judge and dealing with punts & kickoff return a lot, we have to know inside and out what constitutes a fumble vs what constitutes a muff. They have slightly different definitions and VERY different applications. A player who has control of the ball and has taken at least one step or football move before losing possession has FUMBLED. On kicks however, the act of touching the ball without gaining possession is a MUFF. It doesn't matter that many lay people see the kick returner not catch the kick in the air and it goes through his hands and say he "fumbled". As the BJ I have to know that it's a muff and that the kicking team can only recover it, they can't pick it up and advance or run with it like they could if it's a fumble. So, like I've said already, I agree that they are similar, but because they have different definitions under he rules, you have to treat them as different. It's just not "relief' when you select the lie after an OB throw. And I am asking that you confirm your understanding that in the rulebook the mark after OB isn't called "relief."

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx
Advantageous definition (blue) -- my response is YES if and only if all other things are equal



Like what? It would seem that all other things are equal, or would impact pS or pF (given that the players are trying for a hero shot from their lie, i.e. trying to lower their expected score). Perhaps I should have clearly stated that.


All other things being equal, and the key here is what throw you're under. You can never say throwing 3 from the OB+OR spot is advantageous to throwing 2 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. Because they are not on the same throw. I'd agree that throwing 3 from the OB + OR spot IS advantageous to throwing 3 from the 1-meter relief IB spot. But that's not the case.

Kinda like comparing Montana and Brady as quarterbacks. No single stat is able to be isolated with all other things equal.



Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx
Red section: Playing with the numbers. Conveniently decided to leave out the extra throw for the penalty. Reducing 10% (after an OB penalty) compared to what? Just this one throw?? the same player throwing 3 from the OB spot? I don't get that. NO way. It's not apples to apples the way you're doing that.



I'm referencing their expected score. Let's say at the tee box both players expected score is par. After the players throw their tee shots, the IB player's expected score doesn't change, but the OB player's expected score is now par+1.

So for their next shot: pS (aka p(Success)) means lowering their expected score; IB player -> par-1, OB player -> par; pF (aka p(Failure)) means raising their expected score; IB player -> par+1, OB player -> par+2.
I think that is an incorrect comparison. I agree the expected scores PRIOR to the hole are the same. Agree with you on that. HOWEVER, after player1 throws and is OB and then player2 throws and is IB at the same spot the other player went OB, that changes. Player2 is now nearly a full throw expected score better, let's just take your numbers for arguments sake, Player 2 is now -0.85 expected score (lower) on this hole than Player1, even with the OB + OR spot to throw from. I am not talking about the "from tee shot" expected score; I'm talking about from that time forward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
This may be the core of our different positions. I think you're focused on "Should Matt have used 803.02E?" (your original question), and I'm focused on "Should 803.02E exist?"

Focusing on Matt: that was an extreme angle he was facing (at least from the camera's view), but into a head wind to help the disc's rfade (I just checked: it looked like it was actually over water). I'm not certain he could put much more hyzer on the throw, and still get the distance he needed. I agree that a less severe angle would have made the throw easier but would the pin still be in range?
Without adding in my clear bias toward I agree with the RC on this particular rule, I have to say I AM NOT focused on whether or not it should exist. My argument, if it were being made in isolation, would be that without it the RC is being inconsistent in it’s philosophy that penalty throws should not stack, if they are saying in other places in the rule book, if you foot fault (legally called & seconded) and the throw lands in the hazard, or if you missed the mando but the disc cannot later be found, that THOSE situations only incur one penalty throw so this situation needs to be consistent with that philosophy.

Now in this particular situation, I can't say if Matt's utilizing OR would have helped that angle or not -- but I sure think he should have at least checked it out. I was watching live and he did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
I hope it's clear now that it's the 0.15 chance that the OR player to get the same score as the IB player that bothers me. Let me throw in also, that on a dogleg right only the players OB right could get free OR, OB left on a dogleg left -- how's that fair?
I see why that bothers you. But “having a better-shot/worse-angle/some-OB’s-get-good-angle some-don’t” happens all the time. For this hole, for example, before they tee-off, all players KNOW that challenging the OB on the right might give you a good opportunity to utilize 803.02F, whereas challenging the OB on the left would not. And vice versa for the opposite dogleg. That has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the essence of disc golf execution: shot selection, disc selection, decision-making and proper technique/execution. I don’t get why that .15 should bother you though. Player1 has a .15 chance of equalling Player2; that’s a small chance and he has to be totally precise AND still take more risk, than Player2 – BECAUSE P1 is OB and P2 is not. That’s why I keep reading between the lines, that you just don’t like the rule. Do you understand at all what I am getting at?

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey
I like the color coding, btw. So I'll borrow the technique (slightly modified).
Green : Thanks. I appreciate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
whoah...just skimming through this thread again and read this. That's...just...insane. lol.. How far back could you go from the dz btw?????
803.02 D & E. Optional relief after an OB throw does not add additional penalty. You can go as far as you would for any other optional relief.

Niced: (1)
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
Apologies If Answered - Newish Rule About "Lie" and "Flipping Disc" phishbiscuits Rules Questions & Discussion 24 07-31-2019 02:13 PM
How to set "Years played" in the forum profile? wims Newbie Intros and Q&A 3 08-21-2014 07:37 PM
A couple old Omegas: "appoved" Q-mega and "no run" SS both SM Mold $20 each apdrvya The Marketplace 0 05-02-2012 01:11 PM
"The One Ring" GL Pain, 10/10 - The One Disc to Rule them All! yawpstang64 The Marketplace 6 08-10-2011 07:12 PM
2009 Special Edition Rocs "20 Years of Roc" #19325 Discs 37 09-09-2009 08:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.