Is this in our out?

[Cgkdisc]

This might clarify it further. Consider JC's diagram in post #15 where the green area is actually a deck (versus a tree) partly over the water. In this case, landing on the deck would likely be defined as inbounds because it's a playing surface where you can mark your lie and take a stance. However, since the tree is not considered a playing surface where you are allowed to mark and take a stance, where your disc touches or lands in the tree does not matter in terms of calling IB or OB. The disc's position must be projected down to the surface to make that determination. If the surface directly below is OB, the disc is OB. If it's inbounds, the lie is inbounds.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Well that's even more strange. You can stand on a device which is surrounded by OB and supported by OB yet likely would be considered "in" while if your disc lands in a actual part of the course which is in play you are "out" lol...

where your disc touches or lands in the tree does not matter in terms of calling IB or OB. The disc's position must be projected down to the surface to make that determination.

but it does matter when crossing over a boundary which is less clearly defined than a tree is. seems to contradict what you are saying in the end.

 

[JC17393]

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

So, essentially, point B on the graphic? No, it couldn't.

Rule 802.03 D is the rule covering an in-bounds disc near an OB line.

If the position of the thrown disc is in-bounds but within one meter of an out-of-bounds line, the lie may be marked by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface at any point on a one-meter line that extends perpendicularly from the nearest point on the out-of-bounds line and passes through the center of the thrown disc, even if the direction takes the lie closer to the target. For the purpose of marking the lie, the out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane.

The trunk of the tree isn't likely to be within a meter of the disc at rest in the branches.

 

[PhattD]

People are missing the point. The tree, just like the blade of grass reaching over the pavement, is irrelevant in determining where the shot was last in bounds or whether or not it was in bounds. If the disc crossed the border between the water and land on the far side then you get a meter from OB over there. Otherwise your lie is on the near side of the pond. If the OB line is the edge of the sidewalk blades of grass hanging over the edge of the sidewalk and touching the disc doesn't make it in bounds. Yes where it hits the tree can make it difficult to determine whether or not it crossed the far border. But the tree itself is neither in bounds nor out of bounds it's just an obstacle. If you disc is hanging from a tree over OB it is out of bounds. It doesn't matter where the tree is rooted.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Adopt stroke and distance OB rule.

 

[TAFL]

If it's a casual round, I don't care how you call it for yourself because the score is meaningless (I don't track my own scores on casual rounds). If it's a competitive round of any sort (even if just for buying drinks after the round), then that's OB--and you're an ass if you try to argue it otherwise. If using the rules that I use when I want a strict round, no part of the disc can be hanging OB and the lie be IB, so that one's a full disc OB.

 

[BirdieMachine]

The real rule is any part touching in bounds is in. It's clearly on dirt in the upper right side just next to the grass. It's in folks.

 

[krupicka]

What I would do in this situation is take a CTP flag or other thin metal object and poke around the disk. If it is blocked from going into the ground by asphalt on all sides, it's OB.

 

[1978]

Out cause its prodigy.

 

[Future_Primitive]

The real rule is any part touching in bounds is in. It's clearly on dirt in the upper right side just next to the grass. It's in folks.

There is no dirty in the upper right side, what photo are you looking at as this one is clearly OB. The OB line is determined by the outer edge of the road regardless if any grass, weeds and dirt has crept onto the road.

Disc is OB.

 

[The Happy Gilmore]

The real rule is any part touching in bounds is in. It's clearly on dirt in the upper right side just next to the grass. It's in folks.

I'm going to let you on my insurance plan so we can get you some good glasses cuz that is 100% out of bounds

 

[JC17393]

The real rule is any part touching in bounds is in. It's clearly on dirt in the upper right side just next to the grass. It's in folks.

I'll grant that the picture isn't ideal for determining this, but I don't think it's "clear" at all that there's dirt under the disc. I assume you're referring to the part I circled. To me, that looks like asphalt in shadow, not dirt.

 

[WhiteyBear]

The correct answer is...

You can't use media to determine any decisions. This picture is null and void, and those if you using it to make an official decision need to read the rules again.

 

[jjpitt29]

The correct answer is...

You can't use media to determine any decisions. This picture is null and void, and those if you using it to make an official decision need to read the rules again.

Very true, but it's something I hope they change. I think in the next rules revision they'll include something to allow pictures to be used for later determination on provisional's etc.

For the OP, it's out. If the sidewalk is the OB, then the side of the sidewalk is the line/plane. Grass growing over the edge of the sidewalk doesn't affect the line. Granted, it would be easier for the TD to paint/rope etc, but many times the TD doesn't have time for it.

 

[kingjames1014]

Sorry, gotta agree. If it was my throw that landed there, I'd call OB on myself.

I would too. this is similar to what happened to me last year during the BG ams at White hole 10. just a 1/2" of gravel between my disc with grass growing onto the OB. I called it out.

 

[Broken Shoulder]

Very true, but it's something I hope they change. I think in the next rules revision they'll include something to allow pictures to be used for later determination on provisional's etc.

For the OP, it's out. If the sidewalk is the OB, then the side of the sidewalk is the line/plane. Grass growing over the edge of the sidewalk doesn't affect the line. Granted, it would be easier for the TD to paint/rope etc, but many times the TD doesn't have time for it.

I kinda hope they don't allow photo evidence. I think you're just going to have TDs looking at a bunch of crappy cell phone pics after rounds and delaying everything. This thread, and most of the others around here, prove that even when provided with photo evidence we're almost never coming to an agreement on these rulings. I certainly could be wrong, but I think I'd prefer just having the ruling made at the time and getting on with things.

 

[jjpitt29]

I kinda hope they don't allow photo evidence. I think you're just going to have TDs looking at a bunch of crappy cell phone pics after rounds and delaying everything. This thread, and most of the others around here, prove that even when provided with photo evidence we're almost never coming to an agreement on these rulings. I certainly could be wrong, but I think I'd prefer just having the ruling made at the time and getting on with things.

IF everyone was bringing in pictures that would be bad. I'm thinking only in the cases where there is disagreement where people are taking provisionals. Those situations shouldn't be any more if we allow pictures. It would just make it a bit easier on TD's. Having a picture to see instead of listening to players story's.

A case of OB or not really shouldn't be addressed to the TD, unless it's a debate on whether an area is OB or not.

 

[JC17393]

I kinda hope they don't allow photo evidence. I think you're just going to have TDs looking at a bunch of crappy cell phone pics after rounds and delaying everything. This thread, and most of the others around here, prove that even when provided with photo evidence we're almost never coming to an agreement on these rulings. I certainly could be wrong, but I think I'd prefer just having the ruling made at the time and getting on with things.

Nail on the head as far as why we won't see photographic evidence allowed any time soon. Unless we start requiring camera phones with a minimum resolution, or providing cameras to each group for taking those evidential photos, there'd be no consistency in the photos being used. Ditto for video...not every group has a camera on them. No reason they should be penalized or get the benefit of a call based on video when other groups go unfilmed.

Either make the call as a group or stand aside and let the TD come out and take a close look where he can see all angles and get in close (something he can't do from photos).

 

[Broken Shoulder]

IF everyone was bringing in pictures that would be bad. I'm thinking only in the cases where there is disagreement where people are taking provisionals. Those situations shouldn't be any more if we allow pictures. It would just make it a bit easier on TD's. Having a picture to see instead of listening to players story's.

A case of OB or not really shouldn't be addressed to the TD, unless it's a debate on whether an area is OB or not.

Okay, fair, I see your point. (And I did leave myself an out in my post. )

It's just...knowing how people are...I think it has the potential to get ugly.

 

[jjpitt29]

Nail on the head as far as why we won't see photographic evidence allowed any time soon. Unless we start requiring camera phones with a minimum resolution, or providing cameras to each group for taking those evidential photos, there'd be no consistency in the photos being used. Ditto for video...not every group has a camera on them. No reason they should be penalized or get the benefit of a call based on video when other groups go unfilmed.

Either make the call as a group or stand aside and let the TD come out and take a close look where he can see all angles and get in close (something he can't do from photos).

From a professional stand point or a #growthesport.... Wouldn't the ability to use photo or video evidence be a good move? PGA players can get penalties based on what is seen on video.