OB 'in the woods' question

[dshort]

On the new Official Exam, I missed one question (whoopee):

"Player N throws a drive that lands in the woods close to an out-of-bounds (OB) line. He goes over, marks his lie and quickly throws before anyone in his group can verify that his disc was in-bounds. How should the group proceed?"

"Correct answer:

Player N's lie is considered to be OB, for which he receives a one-throw penalty, and they play on."

I can't find a rule that specifically addresses this - ?

 

[brutalbrutus]

Rule 806.02 H.

If the thrower moves the disc before a determination regarding its out-of-bounds status has been made, the disc is considered to be out-of-bounds.

 

[elmexdela]

lol someone playing quick in a tourney? hahahahahaha

 

[Sharkbite]

Lol I have never went into the woods to verify someone's lie and I'm not sure anyone has ever mine. I could only imagine the positive vibe in the group after handing out a penilty for something no one saw.

 

[PMantle]

I am going to pretend I never saw this.

 

[Cgkdisc]

In a related issue, I'm curious why the RC didn't indicate a player should get a stance penalty if they throw too quickly before at least one other player in the group is able to get close enough to watch their feet?

 

[PMantle]

On the new Official Exam, I missed one question (whoopee):

"Player N throws a drive that lands in the woods close to an out-of-bounds (OB) line.

Is it a defense to say, "My disc was not close to an out-of-bounds line." ? Thinking more about this, I don't think it is going to come up very often where I play.

 

[Steve West]

In a related issue, I'm curious why the RC didn't indicate a player should get a stance penalty if they throw too quickly before at least one other player in the group is able to get close enough to watch their feet?

For one thing, you can't determine a legal stance before the throw is made. A thrower could get confirmation that a specific stance would be legal, then lift their heel and commit a violation anyway.

Are you thinking there should be a general "don't commit a violation unless someone is looking" clause?

Like these (THESE ARE NOT REAL RULES AND HAVE NOT ACTUALLY BEEN PROPOSED):

If the thrower makes a throw before a determination regarding the position of the supporting points in relation to the lie has been made, the thrower is considered to have made a stance violation.

If the thrower makes a throw before a determination regarding the legality of the thrower's marking method has been made, the thrower is considered to have made a marking violation if the thrower has already had a warning.

If the thrower makes a throw before a determination regarding whether the movement of obstacles in taking a stance was minimal, the thrower is considered to have made more than minimal movement of obstacles.

Etc. for every rule that involves a penalty throws?

It's up to the OTHER players to watch the thrower. That's their responsibility. They should be able to get there in time. Most of the time the away player's lie is somewhat along the way to all the other player's lies, so the detour for at least one of the players should be short enough. If not, they need to go there anyway.

We don't want to introduce more waiting into the game while a thrower begs someone to come into the woods with him to check out his object movement.

I think a better question might be why the rules about determining the status of the disc for OB, two-meter, and now Hazard are needed. Do you know the history?

I guess the reason is that they could involve some sort of close scrutiny and discussion, where the evidence allows careful consideration. Unlike most other calls which need to be called at the time and only when they clearly happen.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The rationale for the OB ruling where a player needs to wait until another player can confirm the player's disc is IB probably came about after someone played their shot near or even unknowingly from OB and it was later discovered they were actually OB. The fact that the situation involved a penalty or not was likely felt important enough to make the rule that a group needed to confirm IB before player marks and throws. The implication would be that this rule should be applied any time a penalty might be involved where a player marks and throws before others in the group can determine the penalty or not status.

Before 2018, stance violations were warnings. Now, a stance violation/foot fault is a penalty and should probably fall under the same rule scenario where a player must wait to throw until players in the group are ready to watch for the stance violation or it's assumed the player foot faulted. Not saying I like it. But it would seem to be consistent with the long standing rule of waiting until the group can confirm the IB/OB status of your disc.

 

[Steve West]

The rationale for the OB ruling where a player needs to wait until another player can confirm the player's disc is IB probably came about after someone played their shot near or even unknowingly from OB and it was later discovered they were actually OB. The fact that the situation involved a penalty or not was likely felt important enough to make the rule that a group needed to confirm IB before player marks and throws. The implication would be that this rule should be applied any time a penalty might be involved where a player marks and throws before others in the group can determine the penalty or not status.

Before 2018, stance violations were warnings. Now, a stance violation/foot fault is a penalty and should probably fall under the same rule scenario where a player must wait to throw until players in the group are ready to watch for the stance violation or it's assumed the player foot faulted. Not saying I like it. But it would seem to be consistent with the long standing rule of waiting until the group can confirm the IB/OB status of your disc.

So, you're guessing at the origin, too?

Only the first stance violation was a warning. Even if it was a warning, it's still a violation and the decision of whether to call it or not is just as serious.

There is no logic in extended the IB/OB "wait for a ruling" case to all violations.

If you want to make the case that the first stance violation should still be a warning, please do it more directly. Don't create false cons.

 

[Cgkdisc]

With regard to rules history, it's available on the PDGA site. In 1990, it was a 2-throw penalty if any player, including the thrower, moved a suspended disc before its status above or below 2 meters could be determined. Nothing about a penalty for throwing before group could determine if you were IB/OB.

Then in the 1997 rules update, the rule was changed to 1-throw penalty if the thrower moved their suspended disc before group determined 2m status AND also 1-throw penalty if thrower threw their next shot when landing near OB before group could determine IB/OB status. So the precedent seemed to be set that the group needs to determine penalty status for these 1-shot penalty situations before player can mark and make their next throw.

Now that stance violations involve an immediate 1-throw penalty, it would seem to fall into the same category where the group needs to be within reasonable sight of a player's stance upon release of the throw or the thrower is assumed to foot fault. Of course, the rules require players to watch other players' throws anyway. It just appears the onus should also be on the thrower to make sure at least one group member is watching them throw to avoid a penalty.

(I have no ax to grind on whether faults should revert to just a warning or not.)

 

[biscoe]

For lack of a better term the 2 meter determination and the OB determination occur in a different "phase of play" than any violation which occurs during the making of a shot. They are based upon static physical parameters where there is no human element involved in making a determination rather than on a kinetic action where the human element is the only thing involved in making the determination. Casting them in the same category because they all involve one stroke penalties doesn't make sense.

 

[krupicka]

There was also a rule that if the disc was OB and a player moved it before the thrower arrived, it was automatically considered in bounds (don't recall at which point that rule changed). It seems that there was a general rule if the disc status was uncertain it needed to be verified by two before continuing.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There was also a rule that if the disc was OB and a player moved it before the thrower arrived, it was automatically considered in bounds (don't recall at which point that rule changed). It seems that there was a general rule if the disc status was uncertain it needed to be verified by two before continuing.

That was the rule in 1990 where anyone including the thrower moving a disc before IB/OB status was confirmed got a 2-throw penalty and disc was determined to be inbounds. I suspect that this allowed the loophole where a non-player could toss a disc back inbounds before group got to it and the disc had to be declared IB and the non-player couldn't get the 2-shot penalty. I know I've seen times where a pedestrian will think they're being helpful bringing in your disc to the fairway from the edge of the water or street.

 

[JC17393]

There was also a rule that if the disc was OB and a player moved it before the thrower arrived, it was automatically considered in bounds (don't recall at which point that rule changed). It seems that there was a general rule if the disc status was uncertain it needed to be verified by two before continuing.

This was changed with the 2013 revision. The provision about a disc being moved by a player other than the thrower was removed in favor of simply ruling on the situation as interference (2-throw penalty to the mover, disc put back in its original position). I think the idea behind the change was to not potentially reward the thrower (by negating an otherwise deserved penalty if the disc was OB) just because another player moved the disc. Wouldn't be shocked if there was an argument made that players could conspire together to save strokes. One that was probably more hypothetical than an actual problem, but since when has infrequency of such cases of "abuse" stopped rule changes designed to thwart the abuse?

 

[Cgkdisc]

For lack of a better term the 2 meter determination and the OB determination occur in a different "phase of play" than any violation which occurs during the making of a shot. They are based upon static physical parameters where there is no human element involved in making a determination rather than on a kinetic action where the human element is the only thing involved in making the determination. Casting them in the same category because they all involve one stroke penalties doesn't make sense.

They are all related to marking to the player's advantage to avoid a penalty. A player throwing into the woods can be tempted to mark further sideways or stretch more than allowed sideways and avoid a stance penalty.

 

[PMantle]

Is there any rule that takes a disc out of play besides damage?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Is there any rule that takes a disc out of play besides damage?

Non PDGA Approved or overweight. There have been occasions where a TD declared a disc landing in a marked OB area was "lost" for the round, i.e., player couldn't throw it. Would require waiver if TDs wanted to do this now.

 

[PMantle]

Non PDGA Approved or overweight. There have been occasions where a TD declared a disc landing in a marked OB area was "lost" for the round, i.e., player couldn't throw it. Would require waiver if TDs wanted to do this now.

The OB one is what I was thinking of. Thanks.

 

[JC17393]

Non PDGA Approved or overweight. There have been occasions where a TD declared a disc landing in a marked OB area was "lost" for the round, i.e., player couldn't throw it. Would require waiver if TDs wanted to do this now.

Would have always required a waiver, not just "now". The notion of being allowed to carry a legal disc but not being allowed to throw it has never been something the rules support in any way.