Is this in our out?

[araytx]

Different situation but the same principle applies here as does to the "blade of grass" scenario.

The question is whether this OB shot is played from spot A or spot B. The correct answer is of course, A. The reason it is A is because where it struck the tree before falling into the OB water was over the OB area and thus OB. The whole tree itself isn't in bounds because it is rooted in bounds.

Same thing applies to a blade of grass. Just because it is rooted in bounds does not mean the whole thing is in bounds. The portion of the blade hanging over an OB area is considered OB.

This seems a little weird. I understand fully but it technically would have to mean that the tree top is considered OB. By real land definitions the tops of the trees which extend over dividing lines that cloud up division should be trimmed or removed and considered a part if the ground. If a disc goes through the tree but kicked back out and fell into the water how do you know for sure it didn't touch in bounds? The tree IS in bounds....?

To me the tree technically needs to be coming out of the pond as that is the dividing line on OB and where the tree would need to be rooted. The branches are not hanging freely.

Nope.

We "judge" OB planes high up in the air all the time -- where did it cross the plane of the fence, road, or pond; did that thumber make the mando, etc. Your card can make the call as to whether it penetrated far enough to be over in-bounds before it kicked out. But that doesn't make hitting the tree anywhere safe -- not by any stretch

 

[Aim For The Chains]

right and that's judging where it last was in bounds, correct? I have a hard time with the fact that the tree can dictate the plane boundary when its not the defining line between what is OB or safe but the pond is. The disc technically touched part of the land that is safe. Seems wrong that "where" you hit the tree matters, that's all.

 

[The Hammer]

OUT!!!

 

[Timeetyo]

The problem here is that there is not a defined OB line. There is a gray area that has both grass and asphalt.

My only problem is that the pic is hard to see what the dark area under the grass actually is. Based on the pic, I am assuming that it is road, but it is hard to tell. If this were in person, there would be no doubt as I'd be able to take a better look.

Assuming there is road underneath following a line like the red line drawn in the pic earlier in the thread, then it is clearly out. If that dark area wasn't road and was dirt, then it wouldn't be completely surrounded by OB.

 

[namar]

To the OP, that one is OB.

right and that's judging where it last was in bounds, correct? I have a hard time with the fact that the tree can dictate the plane boundary when its not the defining line between what is OB or safe but the pond is. The disc technically touched part of the land that is safe. Seems wrong that "where" you hit the tree matters, that's all.

Unless it seems like the disc penetrated to a part of the tree not directly above the water, it never crossed the OB and should be played from A. And "where" a disc did what is ALL that matters when considering OB rulings.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Right.

You can't determine exactly WHERE that is way up in a tree with leaves-- is my point.

You would need a spotter under or up in the tree it seems to be able to make that determination if we are going to get as specific as to a few blades of grass or tiny string line lol.

 

[kenjiac]

Just from the pic alone I would say in because of the poorly defined pavement line and benefit of the doubt to the player. Not because the grass is touching it but right where the grass is touching it, it looks like there is dirt under the edge of the disc. If I was a TD i'd run some string down the pavement line to make it better defined. If I was there in person you could move those blades of grass to better see if there is dirt or gravel under the blades. If there is gravel it's out. But from the pic alone it's hard to tell.

 

[namar]

Even if one can't say with 100% certainty which particular branch was struck, which is an unreasonable standard for this kind of situation in my opinion, I think most folks would agree that a disc hitting a tree and falling directly into the water was likely never in bounds. If it seems like a big deal, I suppose it falls to the TD to say "if you hit this or that tree and you disc falls into the water without first touching land, play from A."

 

[TheArnoldPalmer]

Wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. There is a defined O.B. Line with the gravel and you can clearly see gravel between the disc and the grass/dirt. I hope you are never on my card

lol, luckily I don't think you'll have to worry about that :hfive:

If he was on my card I would give it to him and say in.

The problem here is that there is not a defined OB line. There is a gray area that has both grass and asphalt.

good point.

 

[The Happy Gilmore]

lol, luckily I don't think you'll have to worry about that :hfive:

You're a rec player for life, eh? :clap:
In all seriousness, the benefit does go to the thrower. However, with my eyes,I can definitely see pavement between the disc and the "grass-line." Therefore, I am inclined to say O.B.

 

[JC17393]

right and that's judging where it last was in bounds, correct? I have a hard time with the fact that the tree can dictate the plane boundary when its not the defining line between what is OB or safe but the pond is. The disc technically touched part of the land that is safe. Seems wrong that "where" you hit the tree matters, that's all.

The entire tree IS NOT a part of the land that's safe. That's the point here. Just because it is rooted in-bounds does not make the entire thing in-bounds.

Look at it this way, if instead of bouncing off a branch and dropping into the OB water, the disc stuck in the branch exactly at the point it hit the tree, is the disc in-bounds or out of bounds? By rule, a disc suspended is marked on the playing surface directly below. If where you would mark the lie below the disc is OB, then the disc is OB and you would play it at point A (using the graphic I posted). There is no support in the rule book for playing it at point B.

And that's what I'm trying to get across with the blade of grass in the OP. Only the parts of the blade that are over an in-bounds playing surface are actually in-bounds. The part of the blade that is over asphalt is OB, so touching it does not constitute touching in-bounds.

The only grey area with the OP is if the boundary line between the asphalt and dirt is difficult to determine. From the photo, I think the disc is far enough from any questionable boundaries to be in doubt (as I illustrated earlier with my red line). Without being able to see the disc in person and examine exactly what is underneath the disc, there's no way to be 100% certain. My inclination based on what we are given is that the disc is without any doubt out of bounds.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

so it wouldn't matter at all that the disc was being supported by part of the in bounds playing surface? I just don't see tree branches as separate parts of the tree. Its all one piece and there is no definitive boundary within the upper part of a tree as defined with a pond, rope, paint, different ground and so on.

I actually agree with your initial explanation and answers to the OP. Just having some fun with discussion. I have had this happen off a tee and just threw from right before the waters edge but thinking back I should have watched closer to WHERE the disc hit the tree

 

[JC17393]

so it wouldn't matter at all that the disc was being supported by part of the in bounds playing surface? I just don't see tree branches as separate parts of the tree. Its all one piece and there is no definitive boundary within the upper part of a tree as defined with a pond, rope, paint, different ground and so on.

I actually agree with your initial explanation and answers to the OP. Just having some fun with discussion. I have had this happen off a tee and just threw from right before the waters edge but thinking back I should have watched closer to WHERE the disc hit the tree

No, it wouldn't matter. As far as disc golf goes, the only thing that ever matters is the exact location of contact, not any other part of the object that is contacted. For all intents and purposes, a tree isn't "all one piece".

Take my example of the disc sticking at the point it made contact, where would you propose the next lie should be if the entire tree is considered in bounds? If there was no pond/OB, you would mark directly below the disc and play on. Why should that principle change just because the OB pond is brought into the equation?

 

[scarpfish]

The tree over the water edge example would be best handled by the TD using a drop zone. Takes the ambiguity of "did it break the plane on the other side or not" away.

I would call the OP's example OB. But that example also stresses the need for clearly defined boundaries and perhaps using paint or string in areas where they're not so clearly defined so things like that are less likely to happen.

 

[JC17393]

The tree over the water edge example would be best handled by the TD using a drop zone. Takes the ambiguity of "did it break the plane on the other side or not" away.

Agreed. In fact, the real hole on which I based the graphic does have a drop zone for shots landing in the water. I only left it out since the reason I drew it in the first place was to illustrate the point about the tree hanging over the OB not being in-bounds. It's been a long time debate/misconception.

The trouble with paint or string is that someone has to make the effort to put it down for events since for most courses, it can't be permanent. My guess is the shot in the OP was a league question rather than a tournament question. Much less likely to have paint or string up for a league round.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

No, it wouldn't matter. As far as disc golf goes, the only thing that ever matters is the exact location of contact, not any other part of the object that is contacted. For all intents and purposes, a tree isn't "all one piece".

Take my example of the disc sticking at the point it made contact, where would you propose the next lie should be if the entire tree is considered in bounds? If there was no pond/OB, you would mark directly below the disc and play on. Why should that principle change just because the OB pond is brought into the equation?

well being a player can't actually throw from OB it would be pretty easy just like any other situation with relief when landing near OB...?

 

[chevis]

to the tree example, I think there is a lot more grey area; how far into the tree did the disc penetrate before falling into the water; it could very well hit the tree above inbounds then fall out of bounds into the water. I think if it is close the benefit of doubt goes to the thrower. Going OB is already costing a stroke anyway (adding more on that is mean to casuals).

 

[JC17393]

well being a player can't actually throw from OB it would be pretty easy just like any other situation with relief when landing near OB...?

But where are you taking relief from? That is the question. You don't take relief from the location of the disc, you take it from the last point it was in-bounds. If we're saying the disc is in-bounds because it is suspended in the tree, where do you go with your relief? One meter from the line? Which line? Are we standing in the tree to make the next throw?

 

[JC17393]

to the tree example, I think there is a lot more grey area; how far into the tree did the disc penetrate before falling into the water; it could very well hit the tree above inbounds then fall out of bounds into the water. I think if it is close the benefit of doubt goes to the thrower. Going OB is already costing a stroke anyway (adding more on that is mean to casuals).

Please take the tree example graphic as gospel for the sake of the discussion. The disc hit the tree exactly where it is indicated...over the OB area. No sense in trying to muddy the waters here since the point in bringing it up in this thread has nothing to do with that grey area. The exact position of the disc in the OP is known.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

couldn't 1m relief would be from the tree trunk part nearest to the OB?