Kicking into OB rope during putt

[krupicka]

How wide is a line? In property law, the line itself has zero width. You are either one side of the line or another. Following this logic, the TD would have to specify which side of the {wall, fence, string, etc} is the boundary.

By the clarification you gave earlier, the inbounds side of the physical element is the boundary.

In pretty much every sport a line has some width. Each sport defines if the line is in bounds or out of bounds.

In disc golf, the OB line itself is OB.

 

[Ahildy13]

How wide is a line? In property law, the line itself has zero width. You are either one side of the line or another. Following this logic, the TD would have to specify which side of the {wall, fence, string, etc} is the boundary.

By the clarification you gave earlier, the inbounds side of the physical element is the boundary.

Painted "lines" do have width in this case. The true ob "line" is the edge of the painted area, on the in-bounds side.

Just imagine that the whole OB area is painted instead, if you're on the imaginary paint, you're out.

 

[araytx]

If the rope was the OB marker and not just for crowd control or to help visually identify the actual OB from a distance (similar to what a spotter is for), then the question would become "was the foot supporting the player while touching the rope"? It is possible to have a supporting point above the ground. If the OB was a fence, the player could lift their foot onto the fence and lean their body/weight back onto the fence - or even push off of it. In that case, the foot would be OB.

Also, you have to include rule 802.07.A Stance (bolding mine for emphasis)


The player CAN take a stance OB as long as the supporting point that is OB is no longer OB at the time of the release. I've seen players with a foot OB that lift it (use it to push off) before they release the disc.

Bill, I was speaking about the example in the OP (specifically) and not any other scenarios. In that case, I CANNOT imagine that the rope above ground is supporting the player; therefore it does not matter. Can you give me any reasoning/evidence why you see in THIS SPECIFIC scenario where I am incorrect.

MY evidence: everyone who mentioned this scenario (including the OP and you) uses the words "touching" or "contacting" the rope, and not "standing on" "leaning on", "leaning against", etc. Merely "touching" or "contacting" suggests it is not a supporting point.

 

[txmxer]

Thought we had an example of this at the Memorial. Watching it in slow motion it is clear what happened.

Spoiler

 

[Steve West]

Thought we had an example of this at the Memorial. Watching it in slow motion it is clear what happened.

Spoiler

Almost everyone who picks up their "other" foot does it before they release the disc.

 

[txmxer]

Almost everyone who picks up their "other" foot does it before they release the disc.

That's why I posted this. In real time, it was difficult to judge IMO. Of course, the correct call for that is player gets the benefit of a doubt.

But, by slowing it down, it is clear he lifted his foot before release.

 

[Cgkdisc]

General note: There's no default "player getting benefit of the doubt" unless there's a tie vote among players in the group calling and not calling the thrower's action a fault. What we're talking about is mostly non-calls that result in the player getting the benefit of no one calling their suspect action a fault.