Allow some/all of stance in OB?

[Cgkdisc]

In watching the OTB yesterday, it looked like Drew may have had his back foot still touching the OB line (hole 18) as he released his throw. No one called it, and I suspect, would likely do so. From a practical standpoint, is there a reason we should not allow a player to have one to all supporting points in contact within OB or the line if they choose to do so? I'm not sure there's any advantage, especially since they likely took a penalty already. Seems like it's more of a "gotcha" type penalty that has little bearing on the game.

We now have the Hazard rule where we're allowed to throw from a penalty area even though it's technically considered inbounds so you can legally take a stance in it. A disc landing on the Hazard boundary line creates the odd situation where the mark means the player may need to take a stance where one foot is in the hazard and the foot on the lie is not in the hazard. For that matter, if the hazard is considered an IB area, are you allowed to mark in the hazard even though you landed on or near the hazard line?

I can still see a reason for the disc landing near to or being moved from OB to be marked inbounds so that part of one supporting point would still have to be IB upon releasing the throw. But with the weirdness of marking and playing hazard lies near their boundaries as noted above, maybe some of those options should be allowed for OB stances.

 

[txmxer]

In watching the OTB yesterday, it looked like Drew may have had his back foot still touching the OB line (hole 18) as he released his throw. No one called it, and I suspect, would likely do so. From a practical standpoint, is there a reason we should not allow a player to have one to all supporting points in contact within OB or the line if they choose to do so? I'm not sure there's any advantage, especially since they likely took a penalty already. Seems like it's more of a "gotcha" type penalty that has little bearing on the game.

We now have the Hazard rule where we're allowed to throw from a penalty area even though it's technically considered inbounds so you can legally take a stance in it. A disc landing on the Hazard boundary line creates the odd situation where the mark means the player may need to take a stance where one foot is in the hazard and the foot on the lie is not in the hazard. For that matter, if the hazard is considered an IB area, are you allowed to mark in the hazard even though you landed on or near the hazard line?

I can still see a reason for the disc landing near to or being moved from OB to be marked inbounds so that part of one supporting point would still have to be IB upon releasing the throw. But with the weirdness of marking and playing hazard lies near their boundaries as noted above, maybe some of those options should be allowed for OB stances.

You would know better than I, but I think of it from a historical standpoint. OB was probably most common for things like water and roadways. It was logical to allow someone to move out of OB and to require them to be out of OB as well--keep the rule "simple".

Now, with great white lines of OB whose exact location is arbitrary, is it critical that all supporting points be IB? While it may not be enforced in a marginal situation, I can see that you wouldn't want someone to be able to take a stance that is primarily OB. I'm thinking about a roadway parallel to the fairway with vegetation along the road line. If a player could stand with a foot in the road, they might be able to create a line that is not supposed to exist for multiple reasons.

So, I'm going to conclude that a player should not be allowed to have a supporting point OB.

Hazard is not OB. It's an IB penalty box, play it where it lies.

 

[seedlings]

Saw Anthony Barela with his back foot OB on a putt late final round. This rule where you can take 1m relief toward the basket in an arc will keep some throws very close to OB.

 

[Nova P]

I'm really tall (6'4") and long-legged (38" inseam), and one meter of relief from the OB doesn't really give me enough space to take a comfortable stance.

 

[Jimb]

OB means out of bounds, right? Seems that maybe you shouldn't even be allowed to take your stance in the OB area at all regardless of the timing of the release. Something like "all supporting points must be IB before, during, and after release of the disc." So there would be no run up from OB before release. There would be no placing one foot OB and then lifting it before release. To your point Nova, maybe this would be even more incentive to stay in bounds?

I'm not saying I support this idea, but it could be an option.

 

[Nova P]

To your point Nova, maybe this would be even more incentive to stay in bounds?

(sarcasm)Of course! Stay in bounds! Why did I not think of that? Disc golf is easy!(/sarcasm)


The wording of the rule affects some people more than others. It could be written in a way to not do that.

 

[Cgkdisc]

One issue is that relief options in DG are not as completely unencumbered compared with ball golf. Your new lie in BG after taking a hazard penalty is usually not encumbered with bushes, walls or fences. If it's possible, they usually have a drop zone option to avoid returning to your previous lie.

If we continue to not allow contact with OB/OB line, perhaps provide two meters of relief IF a player is taking a penalty but keep it at up to one meter relief if you landed near the OB line but inbounds? On the other hand, maybe just move both penalty and no penalty relief to two meters and then TDs don't have to remember to ask for the 2-meter relief exception for barbed wire or cactus.

 

[Rastnav]

McBeth either did this, or came really close, in round 1, I think right after he putted OB. And the rule doesn't seem to make much sense for most OB as it exists today.

I don't know the history of the rule, but I have to wonder what the very original OB was. I have some suspicion that OB was originally just an import from ball golf, which would go some ways towards explaining the "no supporting points in OB" rule.

Out-of-bounds in ball golf is not a design feature of the course. It is (usually) just the legal property line for the course. Having a rule that means your aren't supposed to be playing your ball (or disc) from someone else's property pretty much a no-brainer. And obviously some OB in disc golf continues to be a property line, so you might not be able to do away with the rule, at least not completely. But it certainly doesn't make much sense when applied to an arbitrary painted line.

 

[gooberau]

I'm really tall (6'4") and long-legged (38" inseam), and one meter of relief from the OB doesn't really give me enough space to take a comfortable stance.

But think of all those advantages reaching around trees and other obstacles

 

[BogeyNoMore]

... maybe just move both penalty and no penalty relief to two meters and then TDs don't have to remember to ask for the 2-meter relief exception for barbed wire or cactus.

I like this suggestion. I don't think a player should have any part of their body OB. In some cases, the OB may be someone else's property. This simplifies rule interpretation/enforcement.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've thought this, ever since I started in the mid-90s (the "old days" before ropes, etc.). The course I played on had a little-used roadway that was OB, near the basket, and there didn't seem a good reason that you couldn't put your back foot on it while putting.

Much of the reason seems to be simply that you "should" be entirely inbounds, without a gameplay reason. That's common, but not universal, in other sports. For example, in soccer a player's feet may be OB, as long as the ball (the object being played) is inbounds.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here's an extreme ball golf example where a player legally stands out-of-bounds with no relief allowed from barbed wire: https://www.golfmagic.com/golf-news/did-you-know-rule-about-standing-out-bounds-your-ball-play

 

[biscoe]

I would prefer the clear cut 2 meters off of OB to the idea of being allowed to have supporting points OB which seems like a good idea in some cases (arbitrary lines for lines sake) and a bad idea in others (roads, property lines, etc).

 

[seedlings]

I would prefer the clear cut 2 meters off of OB to the idea of being allowed to have supporting points OB which seems like a good idea in some cases (arbitrary lines for lines sake) and a bad idea in others (roads, property lines, etc).

Seems like an occasional uncomfortable stance inside of 1m relief is not burdensome since players are often forced into uncomfortable stances inside the lines. With all the OB and added obstacles, occasional uncomfortableness is assumed. Tall players and short players have advantages in certain situations.

 

[biscoe]

Seems like an occasional uncomfortable stance inside of 1m relief is not burdensome since players are often forced into uncomfortable stances inside the lines. With all the OB and added obstacles, occasional uncomfortableness is assumed. Tall players and short players have advantages in certain situations.

To be more clear- I also have no problem with the rule remaining as is.

 

[fishballer06]

I'm really tall (6'4") and long-legged (38" inseam), and one meter of relief from the OB doesn't really give me enough space to take a comfortable stance.

I have the same issue. I can't take my normal (comfortable) putting stance at just one meter in bounds, but I have always just brought my feet a little closer together and made it work whenever I have come across this situation.

 

[Steve West]

Here's an extreme ball golf example where a player legally stands out-of-bounds with no relief allowed from barbed wire: https://www.golfmagic.com/golf-news/did-you-know-rule-about-standing-out-bounds-your-ball-play

That brings up a great point, but probably not the one you were trying to make.

The article says:"as a right-handed player, the man was required to stand on the opposite side of the fence where the out-of-bounds was". (Bold added.)

Which is not true. He could have flipped the club over and hit left-handed. He could have quit.

Neither golf rules nor disc golf rules can force a player to do anything unsafe. It's the player who chooses to take a physical risk for a lower score or to finish the round.

Rules do not, could not, and should not, guarantee that you can always safely do whatever you feel will give you the best chance at the best score.

If we allow the player to take a stance in the OB area, there will be a complaint from someone who got injured doing that. They will claim they were "forced" to take a stance in OB because that's how they could make their best throw and the rules didn't prevent standing in OB.

That's not a valid argument against the rule change, but it is one that would come up - but only after it goes into effect.

 

[Dcinmd]

But think of all those advantages reaching around trees and other obstacles

Not if you have to go underneath them.

 

[Dcinmd]

From a practical standpoint, is there a reason we should not allow a player to have one to all supporting points in contact within OB or the line if they choose to do so?
I can still see a reason for the disc landing near to or being moved from OB to be marked inbounds so that part of one supporting point would still have to be IB upon releasing the throw. But with the weirdness of marking and playing hazard lies near their boundaries as noted above, maybe some of those options should be allowed for OB stances.

My best guess as the primary reason is safety. Edge of cliff, bank of a stream or a river, or even a fence all pose a risk for injury.

We should not be placing disc golfers is a position where a simple rule can prevent injuries.

Now a line in the grass. It's not a big deal.

I have always encourage safety and taking a solid stance, mostly for selfish reason of not want to have to carry someone back to tournament central.

 

[uncle pennybags]

I have basket at my course that is about 2 meters from a road that is OB in tournament play. SO you could go OB and wind up with a drop in for par. yay!