Unplayable lie or below ground?

[jugglerbri]

Having a discussion with some guys in my league and I was wondering what you all thought.

Here's the situation, I was playing up in Montana last week (just out by myself so it doesn't really matter what the correct call on the rule turns out to be) and my shot ended up in a crevice that actually went underneath the basket. The basket is bolted to the face of a 15' cliff and you tee off facing the cliff. There is no OB on the hole.

Is the disc "Unplayable" or "Below the Playing Surface"?

 

[jugglerbri]

Here's a link to the course if anyone is interested: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=1189

 

[discgolf4lif3]

That's a sick hole.. How did you get your disc out? And have no idea anyone know the rules for this one? Prerube any threads?

 

[jugglerbri]

I was able to flick it out with a stick. Absolutely no way to play it where it was that's for sure. I suppose if it's not considered "Below the Playing Surface" then a rethrow would be required.

 

[Colorado Redbeard]

I would play that as Below the playing surface

 

[Cgkdisc]

The disc is on a playing surface that is not accessible for taking a stance. My first inclination would be to invoke solid object relief 803.04E and move back on the line of play until you could get a plant foot behind it (even if it means lying on the ground to get foot placement) IF that direction was possible. If moving back on the line of play would not bring you out, then I would look at marking vertically on the cliff using the "Below Playing Surface" rule

There's no "unplayable lie" rule any more. Now it's called Optional Relief where you can choose to rethrow from your previous lie but it costs you a penalty. You shouldn't have to use that rule in this case presuming either of the above options is available.

This looks like something that would have happened before on that hole. So it would make sense if the course pro had specified how it should be handled via signage.

 

[SomeChump]

You big pussy. Climb down there and play it as it lies. One out of the cave. One back up the cliff, and one into the basket. Unplayable my ass. That's just a tough green. If you can reach it with a stick you can put your feet behind it.

Just kidding. I'd take a penalty, come out 3 feet from the wall and throw it in the basket from below!

 

[JC17393]

Seems like a poor design to me. If the hole is played facing the cliff and you're suppose to throw up at the basket, I would think the frequency of shots ending up like the example wouldn't be an uncommon occurrence. Either some contingency should be in place for such shots by course rule (free relief, drop zone, designated below the playing surface, OB, etc) or the crevice should be covered up somehow (build up some rocks in front to block discs). As is and as described, there is too much ambiguity on how it could or should be played.

 

[Crazy Runner Guy]

Just sayin, that hole is beyond awesome. Tough, tough green to park.

 

[bombmk]

Chuck, it must rub you a little the wrong way to apply either one rule or the other, depending on whether the first is able to provide relief?

As far as I see it, either it is "Below the playing surface" or it is not. That cannot depend on whether another rule is able to grant relief.
Given that there is playing surface above it, I would be inclined to rule it Below Playing Surface. But that just seems like a completely easy out on that hole.

The other approach would be to say "You move back on line of play to gain relief from the large object prohibiting you from taking a stance - and if that is not possible you are forced to declare it unplayable." In this case that result would be a rethrow.

I would agree that it would help the players if this was specified on the hole.

 

[JoakimBL]

The disc is on a playing surface that is not accessible for taking a stance.

Isn't that contradictory? If you look at the definition of Playing Surface:

Playing Surface: A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance may reasonably be taken. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is the playing surface, the decision shall be made by the tournament director or a course official.

If you cannot reasonable take a stance, then it's not the playing surface. Hence, the disc is below the playing surface.

 

[bombmk]

If you cannot reasonable take a stance, then it's not the playing surface. Hence, the disc is below the playing surface.

I would agree. In which case a strategy on that hole would be to throw for that hole and get a putt up next to basket.

 

[araytx]

Isn't that contradictory? If you look at the definition of Playing Surface:


If you cannot reasonable take a stance, then it's not the playing surface. Hence, the disc is below the playing surface.

I would agree. In which case a strategy on that hole would be to throw for that hole and get a putt up next to basket.

I do not agree that it's "below" the playing surface. That part of the disc-above-the-playing surface rule was added for courses like we have in Texas when the droughts can cause huge cracks. Below means below. It does not mean "on a level where you can stand but don't like the lie." That disc is on the playing surface. :doh:

These situations constantly confuse the common sense meaning of stance with the rule definition. A legal "stance" only means the body can be supported and one supporting point can be placed within 30cm. I'd say play it where it lies. If you have to lay in the ground and stick a hand or foot right behind that disc, then that's what you have to do. Play it for there. (btw it happens all the time when it works to our advantage)

I do agree it's poor design, or either the course has deteriorated to the point that is nothing like its original design. The TD or CD needs to designate a casual relief drop zone down on the bottom there. There's always someone wanting to relocated from a lower playing surface to a higher one when it doesn't work for them.

 

[JoakimBL]

araytx, you are completely disregarding the definition of playing surface. I agree that the definition leaves room for interpretation. I'm not debating what constitutes a legal stance, I'm debating what constitutes playing surface. And the definition does not mention legal stance, but reasonable stance. The OP said he needed a stick to get to his disc. That is neither a legal nor reasonable stance.
If the disc is not on a playing surface and not OB, it must either be above or below.

 

[JC17393]

These situations constantly confuse the common sense meaning of stance with the rule definition. A legal "stance" only means the body can be supported and one supporting point can be placed within 30cm. I'd say play it where it lies. If you have to lay in the ground and stick a hand or foot right behind that disc, then that's what you have to do. Play it for there. (btw it happens all the time when it works to our advantage)

From the picture and diagrams, it would appear that to take a legal stance behind that disc, one would have to cram their entire body into the crevice behind the disc. There's no reaching in from outside the crevice with one hand to have a supporting point behind the mark because any other supporting points would fall closer to the target than the rear of the marker (or disc in this case), rendering the stance illegal.

If a legal stance cannot be taken, is it really a playing surface? It's unfortunate that that key word, "legal", is absent from the rule book definition. I suppose you could argue that "legal" is implied since one can't advance from an illegal stance, but people don't seem to agree on implied rules like that.

 

[bombmk]

I do not agree that it's "below" the playing surface. That part of the disc-above-the-playing surface rule was added for courses like we have in Texas when the droughts can cause huge cracks. Below means below. It does not mean "on a level where you can stand but don't like the lie." That disc is on the playing surface. :doh:

These situations constantly confuse the common sense meaning of stance with the rule definition. A legal "stance" only means the body can be supported and one supporting point can be placed within 30cm. I'd say play it where it lies. If you have to lay in the ground and stick a hand or foot right behind that disc, then that's what you have to do. Play it for there. (btw it happens all the time when it works to our advantage)

I do agree it's poor design, or either the course has deteriorated to the point that is nothing like its original design. The TD or CD needs to designate a casual relief drop zone down on the bottom there. There's always someone wanting to relocated from a lower playing surface to a higher one when it doesn't work for them.

How does your argument conform with Joakims pertient quote above:

Playing Surface: A surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and from which a stance may reasonably be taken. In cases where it is unclear whether a surface is the playing surface, the decision shall be made by the tournament director or a course official.
?

You would be hard pressed to argue that the player can reasonably be expected to take a stance there. What we have here is basically a crack just like ones you are talking about. Just not vertically.

I would agree, that if he CAN get a foot behind the disc and therefore take his stance, he should. But from the way it was described it did not sound like it.

There is of course a slightly separate debate on what "reasonably be taken" covers. What amount of body contortion is reasonable?

 

[JC17393]

There is of course a slightly separate debate on what "reasonably be taken" covers. What amount of body contortion is reasonable?

I've always taught players that the rules aren't written to guarantee a comfortable or preferable stance, just a legal one. So if a situation allows for one to lay on the ground to get a supporting point behind the marker and still be legal (no points closer to the target than the rear of the marker), then that's the stance you must take or you take a penalty and move the lie via the optional re-throw rule. In the example, I don't see a reasonable or even slightly unreasonable way to take a legal stance behind that disc. No amount of body contortion is possible to do that, let alone reasonable.

 

[bombmk]

I've always taught players that the rules aren't written to guarantee a comfortable or preferable stance, just a legal one. So if a situation allows for one to lay on the ground to get a supporting point behind the marker and still be legal (no points closer to the target than the rear of the marker), then that's the stance you must take or you take a penalty and move the lie via the optional re-throw rule. In the example, I don't see a reasonable or even slightly unreasonable way to take a legal stance behind that disc. No amount of body contortion is possible to do that, let alone reasonable.

Agree, on all points.

 

[jugglerbri]

Just to add a bit more to the conversation, there is absolutely no way I could have taken a legal stance on this lie under the crack. The disc was lying up against the back of the "cave". I suppose, if I had belly crawled, I probably could have gotten the disc out with my hand but I couldn't get completely behind it.

I thought this might spark some good debate.

 

[tripp]

I would agree. In which case a strategy on that hole would be to throw for that hole and get a putt up next to basket.

If you have the accuracy to aim for that hole you should probably be aiming for the basket.