Disc Golf Rule Nazi Stories

[Steve West]

Even if we consider all components of the fence OB including the pipe, only part of the disc is wedged between OB elements with the majority of the disc in IB territory.

Are you being serious? If the OB line is "the fence", it and all its components are "the Line". Every part of the fence is OB, as is anywhere that is toward the OB side of the inner most IB-ward edge of the fence.

If I painted an OB line, went back over it to give it a second coat and happened to create a split OB line, would you say a tombstone that sticks into the unpainted portion between two lines was IB?

 

[Cgkdisc]

The fence is an OB surface where it exists. In ths case, the OB "line" appears to be "the fence" which means the OB line is different at the bottom where the fence is only as wide as the chain mesh but is as wide as the mesh plus support pipe at the top. Just below the pipe it's just chain mesh again for OB width so the part of the disc suspended on the IB side of the mesh is IB making the disc IB.

 

[jjpitt29]

The fence is an OB surface where it exists. In ths case, the OB "line" appears to be "the fence" which means the OB line is different at the bottom where the fence is only as wide as the chain mesh but is as wide as the mesh plus support pipe at the top. Just below the pipe it's just chain mesh again for OB width so the part of the disc suspended on the IB side of the mesh is IB making the disc IB.

How can the OB line change thickness? You have defined it before as a plane extending upwards. Think verticality. How does a plane have thickness? If a line is painted on the ground which part of the line marks IB? Front edge or back edge? Or are you saying the whole line would be ob?

 

[JeremyKShort]

Where the OB line is supposed to be??? What does that mean? The fence is the boundary line, unless you physically went there and moved the fence yourself the line is where the line is. So what if the OB line was a body of water... the water level dropped from the previous day and you land in the mud where the water was? Would they argue you were OB because that was where the water was yesterday?

It's me trying to describe their argument, and not doing a good job.

This is what they argue. The OB line is the fair side edge of the chain link. When the chain link in moved by something, the OB line is not moved. So the disc wedging between top rail and chain link moves the chain link, but does not move the OB line. The OB line is still the Edge of the OB side of the top rail.

Even if that argument is valid, you can argue that there is about a 1/4" gap between the top rail and chain link, even when there is nothing pushing the chain link away, so the OB line is about a 1/4" off of the top rail, so a little bit of the disc is fair.

I argue the OB line flexes with the chain link, so not part of the disc is OB, and I believe I have the rule book on my side.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We've lost power so I need to keep it short for now. But essentially when you have mostly vertical surfaces like fences define OB, the IB/OB line follows that contour where the surface exists. It's not a vertical plane there until you get above the surface/fence where the line then continues vertically the way we normally understand OB planes.

 

[Timeetyo]

I know I shouldn't do this - but I can't get past my first initial thought which is - common sense dictates that is in as if you had to ask 100 random folks if that was inside or outside the fence - you'd get mostly 'in'.

Now - I realize common sense doesn't always fit rules which are written for the normal circumstances not the odd possibilities - but sometimes it seems common sense should rule the day when the rule doesn't necessarily fit the specific (odd) circumstance.

 

[Steve West]

We've lost power so I need to keep it short for now. But essentially when you have mostly vertical surfaces like fences define OB, the IB/OB line follows that contour where the surface exists. It's not a vertical plane there until you get above the surface/fence where the line then continues vertically the way we normally understand OB planes.

That's OK if the OB is defined as beyond the chain link.

If it were defined as "beyond the fence" how do you get "between" OB elements which are part of the same border between OB and IB?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Part of this disc got wedged between OB elements - the chain mesh and the pipe. But only that part between the mesh and pipe is actually OB. It's similar to the case where a disc is suspended and poking through a big tear in the chain link where part of it was on the OB side and part on the IB side of the mesh. It's just more common to see a disc straddling IB/OB when horizontal than vertically as in this case.

 

[JC17393]

Just want to re-iterate...

That said, fences make ****ty OB lines.

 

[Broken Shoulder]

If the disc came to rest on the ground vertically up against the fence on the IB side it's inbounds. Part of the disc at least in the photo has also come to rest in that "area." Seems logical to call the disc IB in this photo then.

If none of the disc was protruding below the bottom edge of the pipe then it's probably a different story.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If none of the disc was protruding below the bottom edge of the pipe then it's probably a different story.

Yes, that would be tricky. The part of the disc above the pipe and chain link is OB by rule of verticality. The pinch point between the pipe and mesh would also be OB. Below the pinch point is IB. I think it would be hard for a disc to wedge in there like this one without having even a small part IB below the pinch point.

 

[Steve West]

We've lost power so I need to keep it short for now. But essentially when you have mostly vertical surfaces like fences define OB, the IB/OB line follows that contour where the surface exists. It's not a vertical plane there until you get above the surface/fence where the line then continues vertically the way we normally understand OB planes.

Show me in the rules where vertically up is treated differently than vertically down.

Or, for that matter, anything that describes your theory of OB line being glued to the surface of the fence. The Q&A answer is consistent with treating the entire fence as the line, so anything up or down from it is vertical to the line, and therefore OB.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Are you saying that if the disc was leaning vertically against the bottom of the fence on the IB side, you would consider the disc OB because the disc was inside the vertical projection of the pipe downward? I don't think so.

 

[Steve West]

Are you saying that if the disc was leaning vertically against the bottom of the fence on the IB side, you would consider the disc OB because the disc was inside the vertical projection of the pipe downward? I don't think so.

The fence is the line. The pipe is part of the fence. Therefore, the pipe is part of the line.

" 804.04 Out-of-Bounds...B. The out-of-bounds line is part of the out-of-bounds area. "

Therefore, the pipe is OB.

"804.04 Out-of-Bounds...E. The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane."

So, everything under or over the line is OB.

If your leaning disc were resting so that all parts of it were under the pipe (or more accurately, on the OB side of the inner edge of the pipe), it would be OB.

This is consistent with the Q&A.

"QA10: Fences as OB Lines ...The fence defines an OB plane which flexes as the fence flexes."

Notice is says "the fence defines an OB plane", not "the fence IS the OB plane". Big difference. There is no reason to assume that a fence defines a plane in a manner different than any other kind of line defines a plane.

The way in which all OB lines define an OB plane is the vertical plane above the inner-most edge of the OB line.

In the Q, the fence flexed, so the vertical plane that intersects the edge of the fence moved, and thus so did the edge of OB. The disc remained OB not because it did not get through the part of the fence it touched; it remained OB because it did not get out from over (or under) all parts of the vertical plane along the farthest (toward IB) edge of the fence.

If the TD doesn't like this, he can say the chain link part of the fence is the OB line.

 

[araytx]

I'm sure I do have a narrower scope as you say. I don't think rules should be changed. I was trying to reinforce the fact that most people can't deal with them being called. I don't think jump putts are pushing limits really. It's just hard to call. People should not be upset when t hey get called. Now not having a foot on the tee and arguing it was in the air on release is pushing it imo because I don't think the rule was intended for that. I think it's also forcing your card mates into an uncomfortable judgements call, but I suppose jump putts do that too.

I remember b the unplayable lie debate. Wasn't the reason they changed it to optional rethrow was that people weren't using it as intended, but as you said made sense. So they reworded it to accommodate the new waybit v was being used and eliminate disagreement?

I hear where you're coming from. But if you want to be sure what the rule was intended for, write to the RC and get their response. You might find that your beliefs about the intent of this or any rule is correct or you might find it was not correct. But "assuming" (thinking) is the problem there...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Steve, I know what you're saying but it's not a correct interpretation. When simply "the fence" is given as the OB definition, the full contour becomes the IB/OB demarcation within its boundaries top to bottom. That is indicated by the QA where it shows the OB surface bends. Above and below the fence, the last width of "the fence" before projecting upward which includes the pipe in this case defines the plane in that direction and the width of the fence at the bottom indicates the width of the plane projecting downward to the playing surface if there's a gap between the bottom edge of the mesh and the ground.

If the TD had declared the OB line to be the width of the fence at the top which includes the pipe, then the disc in the example would have been OB as would my example of a disc leaning vertically against it on what would appear to be the IB side. However, that would be a nonsensical definition for OB if in fact a disc on what would appear to be the IB side of the fence could be called OB. Non-intuitive.

Even if a wider pipe ran along the bottom of the fence near the ground, it would be nonsensical to use that width as the OB line projected upward. It would make no sense to call a disc on the IB side of that fence that was vertically standing on the pipe and leaning against the mesh OB. That's why the Rules Committee has made the thickness and possible bending or angles of a fence within its upper and lower height the actual OB demarcation within that height range.

 

[1978]

With fences I always call the front face of the fence the OB line. That way discs flying out over the fence, hitting the backside and falling OB cannot be declared to have "hit inbounds."

 

[jjpitt29]

Wouldn't all the confusion be solved by simply stating that in a chain link fence, the mesh is the OB line? Or state that all fences mesh or otherwise define the OB plane by the inner most part, whether that is post or mesh? Using what you are saying chuck adds an incredible amount of confusion I think.

 

[jjpitt29]

I hear where you're coming from. But if you want to be sure what the rule was intended for, write to the RC and get their response. You might find that your beliefs about the intent of this or any rule is correct or you might find it was not correct. But "assuming" (thinking) is the problem there...

Very good point. I was just trying to explain my feelings why it was written. Right or wrong though, it shouldn't affect how the rule is called.

 

[Cgkdisc]

With fences I always call the front face of the fence the OB line. That way discs flying out over the fence, hitting the backside and falling OB cannot be declared to have "hit inbounds."

Still may not technically be satisfactory but has come to be accepted as valid once the chainlink flex QA became official. If you take a driver to a chainlink fence, I believe you can contort the disc into an angle where just the smallest amount of the leading disc edge will project slightly past the chain surface. So it's possible a disc can hit the fence at this angle and break the plane even if the fence flexes.

So to be on the safe side as a TD, simply say that discs hitting the chainlink on the OB side and remaining on that side are presumed not to have penetrated the chainlink.