Rules question pertaining to O.B. and bridges

[geoblime]

Hey all. Had a situation the other day which I'm not totally clear on (and the rule book only partially speaks to, go figure ).

We have multiple creeks running thru our course...all designated OB. One creek is 3ft wide with a 4" thick foot bridge running across the water, maybe 1ft above the water's surface at most. A disc came to rest in the creek leaning on the edge of the bridge with water all around it. Some people said it was OB due to being completely surrounded by water and others said it was IB due to a supporting point being on the side of the bridge. The rules book only talks about a disc which lands ON a bridge.

Thoughts?

 

[JC17393]

There's a reason the rule book isn't clear and it's because this is not a question that the rule book is supposed to answer. Whether the bridge (and its supports) are in bounds or out of bounds is 100% up to the course designer and/or the TD of the tourney/league. They are the ones that determine where the line is and whether the "side" of a bridge constitutes an inbounds area or not.

 

[kerplunk]

JC is correct IMO, but I think maybe there should be a "default" in the rule book, like with the 2 meter rule. Something like "The tops of bridges are considered a playing surface unless declared out-of-bounds by the TD." I know I have played many tourneys where it was not discussed whether or not bridges were OB. I am happy to hear contrary opinions or why this wouldn't work.

According to that "rule," I think the shot in question would have been OB if it was leaning on the bridge support and not on the bridge surface. If the whole bridge were in bounds the shot would be in, but I think it makes way more sense to just have the surface of the bridge as a playing surface and not the entire thing.

 

[JC17393]

JC is correct IMO, but I think maybe there should be a "default" in the rule book, like with the 2 meter rule. Something like "The tops of bridges are considered a playing surface unless declared out-of-bounds by the TD." I know I have played many tourneys where it was not discussed whether or not bridges were OB. I am happy to hear contrary opinions or why this wouldn't work.

According to that "rule," I think the shot in question would have been OB if it was leaning on the bridge support and not on the bridge surface. If the whole bridge were in bounds the shot would be in, but I think it makes way more sense to just have the surface of the bridge as a playing surface and not the entire thing.

I disagree with having any types of "default" in-bounds/out-of-bounds determinations in the rule book. Because once you start identifying one object for a default, you're going to have to start creating defaults for others. If the book is going to address bridges, for example, why wouldn't it address water, or pavement, or sidewalks? It's a slippery slope in a direction opposite to what many of the changes to the book over the last 10-15 years have taken. The book shouldn't be designing courses. Determining by-default OB/IB areas is designing courses.

The OP's question is better and more simply addressed by playing provisionals and having the TD make a ruling after the fact.

 

[JoakimBL]

A 4 inch wide area should NOT be inbounds. Not speaking from a rules stand point, but from design, that is just stupid. A 3 foot wide creek is borderline too in my opinion.

But to anwser the queston. It is only in, if any part of the disc is on or above an inbounds playing surface. Even if the side of the bridge is the defined OB line, the line it self is considered OB.

 

[geoblime]

It's not practical to always ask the TD or course designer. 1000s of courses across the country are played without ever seeing a TD or designer. The only real time OB is designated happens during a tournament (and by the PDGA). The other times 95% of people refer to the rule book or just make a call.

The bridge surface itself is specifically talked about in the rule book but not the surrounding areas. This to me is similar to the old question about a land bridge created by rocks out into a body of water. There's clearly an extension of land which rocks have formed but underneath and around water is everywhere. O.B. or not? Same with the bridge.

The bridge is 4" thick, not wide. It's prob 2ft wide. Why would there ever be an issue with a 3ft creek running thru a fairway? It's part of the course. Not stupid in any way. Makes the holes more interesting.

 

[biscoe]

Why would there ever be an issue with a 3ft creek running thru a fairway? It's part of the course. Not stupid in any way. Makes the holes more interesting.

Because it is so small that it becomes essentially a random penalty.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Because it is so small that it becomes essentially a random penalty.

:thmbup:

 

[JC17393]

It's not practical to always ask the TD or course designer. 1000s of courses across the country are played without ever seeing a TD or designer. The only real time OB is designated happens during a tournament (and by the PDGA). The other times 95% of people refer to the rule book or just make a call.

The bridge surface itself is specifically talked about in the rule book but not the surrounding areas. This to me is similar to the old question about a land bridge created by rocks out into a body of water. There's clearly an extension of land which rocks have formed but underneath and around water is everywhere. O.B. or not? Same with the bridge.

The bridge is 4" thick, not wide. It's prob 2ft wide. Why would there ever be an issue with a 3ft creek running thru a fairway? It's part of the course. Not stupid in any way. Makes the holes more interesting.

The bridge is discussed in the Q&A specifically to address stacked playing surfaces, not whether it, by default, is in bounds or out of bounds. It still remains 100% up to the TD/course designer to determine whether a bridge (its surface and/or its supporting structures) over an OB area is in bounds or out of bounds.

If the question arises during a non-tournament round, there's no reason for the rule book to apply at all. Use your own judgment if it's not clearly marked or determined on site (via tee signs, OB markings, scorecards, etc). If the people you're playing with agree with a ruling, play on.

 

[rickles]

It's not practical to always ask the TD or course designer. 1000s of courses across the country are played without ever seeing a TD or designer. The only real time OB is designated happens during a tournament (and by the PDGA). The other times 95% of people refer to the rule book or just make a call.

The bridge surface itself is specifically talked about in the rule book but not the surrounding areas. This to me is similar to the old question about a land bridge created by rocks out into a body of water. There's clearly an extension of land which rocks have formed but underneath and around water is everywhere. O.B. or not? Same with the bridge.

The bridge is 4" thick, not wide. It's prob 2ft wide. Why would there ever be an issue with a 3ft creek running thru a fairway? It's part of the course. Not stupid in any way. Makes the holes more interesting.

We've treated sidewalks running through the course as a "river", where if you're fully on it you're OB. I like that it makes your risk/reward calculation harder. Typically only used in tourneys here, but casually I play it that way to prep.

 

[Cgkdisc]

We've treated sidewalks running through the course as a "river", where if you're fully on it you're OB. I like that it makes your risk/reward calculation harder. Typically only used in tourneys here, but casually I play it that way to prep.

Paths 5-8 feet wide that cross through fairways should not be called OB but casual relief areas so players don't throw from them. No problem with parallel paths being "OB and across" but not just OB itself. Paths themselves are fluky OB because a shot that would be OB if it were a trench, creek or flower bed does not end up OB because the disc skips or slides across the path inbounds. You have to be more unlucky versus less skillful to actually land on a path.

 

[coupe]

The bridge is discussed in the Q&A specifically to address stacked playing surfaces, not whether it, by default, is in bounds or out of bounds. It still remains 100% up to the TD/course designer to determine whether a bridge (its surface and/or its supporting structures) over an OB area is in bounds or out of bounds.

Actually, the Q&A specifies that bridges over OB playing surfaces are in bounds by default:

QA 2: Bridge Over OB
Q:
My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land?

A:
A bridge is an example where one playing surface is vertically stacked above another playing surface. Each playing surface is treated independently. The bridge is in-bounds unless the TD has explicitly declared it to be OB, regardless of whether a playing surface above or below it is OB. If the two-meter rule is in use, it does not apply because your disc is on, not above, the playing surface. You mark your lie on the bridge, and there is no penalty. Applicable Rules: 802.02 Establishing Position; 804.04 Out-of-Bounds; 800.02 Definitions (Playing Surface).

Doesn't settle the question of whether the disc in this scenario is OB or in bounds, though.

 

[ThrowBot]

Because it is so small that it becomes essentially a random penalty.

That's true. We have essentially the same situation at our local 9-hole park course: a little creek that is only a few feet wide in most spots. If you take a water penalty stroke, it's more bad luck than a bad shot. (It still is a bad shot, but there are lots of other bad shots that don't get penalized. Either way, a good shot won't get punished, so it's not a completely random penalty.)

Back to the original question: if "the bridge" is IB, I'd say the disc is IB. It's analogous to the disc leaning up against a rock at the waters edge (if the rock is in bounds). Whether the disc is supported by a horizontal or vertical surface of the rock isn't that important; it's still being supported by the in-bounds rock.

If it's been previously and expressly stated that only the top surface of the bridge is IB, then the disc is OB. In that case there's a precedent that the vertical surface doesn't count as in.

 

[JC17393]

Actually, the Q&A specifies that bridges over OB playing surfaces are in bounds by default:



Doesn't settle the question of whether the disc in this scenario is OB or in bounds, though.

It calls the bridge in bounds by default because EVERYTHING is in bounds by default. The QA is specifically addressing stacked playing surfaces of any kind, not just bridges. Just as the surface under the bridge (be it water or not) is by default in bounds unless it is declared otherwise by the TD, same as the bridge.

I still maintain that what constitutes the in bounds portion of the bridge versus out of bounds (if any) is up to the TD and not the rule book.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Paths 5-8 feet wide that cross through fairways should not be called OB but casual relief areas so players don't throw from them. No problem with parallel paths being "OB and across" but not just OB itself. Paths themselves are fluky OB because a shot that would be OB if it were a trench, creek or flower bed does not end up OB because the disc skips or slides across the path inbounds. You have to be more unlucky versus less skillful to actually land on a path.

I don't exactly agree with you Chuck. I think that, in the case of the 3 foot creek, you've gotta look at the way the designer is using the creek to determine if it is a bad OB. As some examples...

260 foot par 3 - wide open - 3 foot wide creek running through it at 160 foot
If you're a new player that can't throw 200 any time you land anywhere it is often going to be random, so bad punishment for them. And it is irrelevant to most players with some moderate skill. - NOT OB

260 par 3 - wooded tunnel - creek at 220
Assuming a fair 260 foot tunnel that a pro player can achieve, say 80% of the time, the creek becomes a decision you make. You have an 80% chance of achieving the green, and a 20% chance you don't. What this means is that 1 in 5 shots are going to clip something. Are you willing to take the chance that you may clip a tree near the creek and wind up out of bounds, compounding the damage? Or do you play for it? Chuck you've got a better sense of the numbers than me, but my experience has me feeling like it is more like a 60-40 chance for a high intermediate to advanced player. If you're clipping a tree nearly 50% of the time it becomes a question of: "Do I take the risk of going for the green, or do I play a layup to 200 which is more like an 80% proposition for me and then lay a conservative up play? - OB

450 par 4 - wide wooded tunnel - creek at 390
Even for a high caliber pro player a 450 foot wooded par 4 reachable with some sort of natural line, maybe a slight S play or a right pan with minimal fade, with a tucked green on one side or the other (preventing direct approach to the basket without a kiss right or exaggerated late skip [tough at the end of a 450 foot shot]) - those trees at the edges of the tunnel are going to come into play for a shot with horizontal movement. The pro player is left with a decision: risk reward. Run for the green, and the very eagle-able par 4, or lay up and avoid all of the risk? - OB


Obviously I'm thinking mostly about advanced and Open players and I don't want to type forever - but there are hundreds of ways to lay out examples for amateurs as well and hundreds more for the open and advanced guys. Regardless, in the end, the small creek turns into something that helps dictate the decision making strategies of the player. Just because it takes poor 'luck' to wind up in the OB does not mean you shouldn't make the creek out-of-bounds. It works well to shape the way you want players to approach the hole by virtue of its presence. At least, when I'm building my home-course in the future that is how I'll be thinking of it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

C'mon, Woj. I said nothing about calling creeks OB or not, just hard surface walkways NOT being OB. However, regarding creeks, whether wet or dry, 3 feet wide is still too narrow for OB in a fairway unless one side or the other is also OB. It's even worse when it's blind like some of the creek beds on the Warner course at the IDGC which sometimes have pockets of water even less than 3 feet wide called OB. When a disc is about 9 inches wide, you have to land unluckily in a 12 inch band to end up OB when it's 3 feet wide. It's usually enough punishment to just call it casual because your footing will likely still not be good since you would have to throw from close to the trench or even in the trench when it's dry. If you do have a 3 ft wide trench or creek bed that you want to be OB, just mark it with a stake or string line far enough from the edges to make the overall hazard at least 10 feet wide.

 

[Cgkdisc]

That way, all discs in or touching the trench walls will be called OB and you don't need to make those fully surrounded by water calls or touching either side of the trench calls.

 

[ChrisWoj]

C'mon, Woj. I said nothing about calling creeks OB or not, just hard surface walkways NOT being OB. However, regarding creeks, whether wet or dry, 3 feet wide is still too narrow for OB in a fairway unless one side or the other is also OB. It's even worse when it's blind like some of the creek beds on the Warner course at the IDGC which sometimes have pockets of water even less than 3 feet wide called OB. When a disc is about 9 inches wide, you have to land unluckily in a 12 inch band to end up OB when it's 3 feet wide.

Chuck, sorry - I was responding to the implication on your "thumbs up" post to the idea of that OB being random more so than the text of the follow up. That lack of specificity is my bad. I get what you're saying about three feet being particularly small and random, but by virtue of that logic there are any number of narrow trees that could be called random as well that are held up by many as valid aspects of design. I think it comes down to theory regarding the nature of design - but I see the mental aspect of the creek's presence just as important as the exact dimensions of the creek. It has design implications that go beyond the physical probability of a stroke being taken, to me. What width does a creek need to be in order to no longer be "random" in your eyes?

 

[ChrisWoj]

Slow down CK34!

 

[Cgkdisc]

The randomness isn't only the creek bed but whether there's always water and whether it's location is blind. The minimum width is relative to the width of the disc and the certainty that a bad throw that first touches down in it will stay OB similar to most throws that land in a pond (yes, some might skip safe, but in general). So if you want to create an OB trap that's an area in the fairway (versus an edge trap), it should ideally be visible so players can actually throw to avoid it and be able to snare bad throws consistently so it uniformly penalizes them. So it's your job as a designer to look at the surface that will be OB and make a judgment on how well it will consistently penalize shots landing in it and ideally making the edges of the hazard as clean as possible to reduce difficulties/controversies on calling In/Out.

Another consideration: Is it fair if a worse throw offline doesn't get penalized? That's why parallel hazards the designer decides to assign OB should probably have the area farther past the hazard left or right labeled OB also. Otherwise, you're penalizing the somewhat offline throw and not the really offline throw.