Unsafe and/or Unplayable lie?

[Pbmercil]

So I got in a somewhat heated discussion with another cardmate at a tournament this weekend. The course we were playing has a small and shallow OB creek running thru several holes on the course. The banks of said creek are IB, but extremely steep. This discussion is mostly hypothetical, as it didn't really directly pertain to our play. The discussion was as follows:

Player A's drive is OB in the creek. marking his lie 1m from the last point in bounds would leave him attempting to take an extremely difficult, if not impossible, stance on the steep bank of the creek. Player A claims that because his lie is unsafe and unplayable he is allowed to take relief to the top of the bank without an additional penalty and play from there. I politely pulled out my rule book and asked him to show me what rule gives him that option, and he not so politely told me "I don't know where it is but I know its a rule and that's how we've always played it". In this hypothetical situation, the only option I can think of for player A if he cannot take a stance he is comfortable with on his lie is to invoke optional relief, relocate the lie back along the line of play and take a 1 stroke penalty.

Do I have the correct interpretation of this? I looked everywhere in the rule book, and I cannot see any place where players are allowed relief from a lie for anything other then the following (803.01B):

casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, people, or any item or area specifically designated by the Director before the round

I could not find an option for unsafe or unplayable lies anywhere, other then in reference to solid objects like trees.
Do I have this correct?

 

[PhattD]

The unsafe/Unplayable lie rule has been renamed the optional rethrow rule and involves going back to the previous lie with a stroke penalty. It really doesn't apply here because the OB lie would allow the player to go back and throw from the previous lie with a stroke penalty anyway. If the banks are actually steep and unsafe it would be better to make the OB line the top of the bank instead of waters edge.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Optional Relief would be an option but unfortunately its 1-throw penalty would be tacked on to the 1-throw OB penalty. Optional Re-throw as mentioned above would just be 1 throw overall in place of the OB penalty. The only way to move up to the top of a really steep bank would be if that position was less than 1 meter horizontally in from the vertical plane of the OB line. That's what your cardmate may have been remembering. However, sounds like it was more than that in this case, even with the steep bank.

 

[araytx]

So I got in a somewhat heated discussion with another cardmate at a tournament this weekend. The course we were playing has a small and shallow OB creek running thru several holes on the course. The banks of said creek are IB, but extremely steep. This discussion is mostly hypothetical, as it didn't really directly pertain to our play. The discussion was as follows:

Player A's drive is OB in the creek. marking his lie 1m from the last point in bounds would leave him attempting to take an extremely difficult, if not impossible, stance on the steep bank of the creek. Player A claims that because his lie is unsafe and unplayable he is allowed to take relief to the top of the bank without an additional penalty and play from there. I politely pulled out my rule book and asked him to show me what rule gives him that option, and he not so politely told me "I don't know where it is but I know its a rule and that's how we've always played it". In this hypothetical situation, the only option I can think of for player A if he cannot take a stance he is comfortable with on his lie is to invoke optional relief, relocate the lie back along the line of play and take a 1 stroke penalty.

Do I have the correct interpretation of this? I looked everywhere in the rule book, and I cannot see any place where players are allowed relief from a lie for anything other then the following (803.01B):



I could not find an option for unsafe or unplayable lies anywhere, other then in reference to solid objects like trees.
Do I have this correct?

First I am going to say, What a ridiculous situation for the TD of a tournament to leave the players in! If he didn't want to mark OB lines at the top of the bank of that type of creek, just call the water the OB line and everything from the water to the top of the bank bunCR. Easy. Eliminates the problem.

Now you are correct with what you state, ASSUMING, the player can't make the argument about playing surface. I believe in the liberal-est of definitions, if it can support you WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE STANDING, in any shape or fashion, it's a playing surface. I disagree with players who say "I can't stand there." Nowhere do the rules say you get to stand. The legal definition of stance is about getting a supporting point on that lie. Could the player lie down on the ground of that steep bank behind the lie and be supported? If so, you're right. His only argument has to be that the bank doesn't meet the definition of playing surface, in which case the one-meter point along the playing surface wouldn't begin at the water but at the top pf the bank.

 

[Steve West]

...His only argument has to be that the bank doesn't meet the definition of playing surface, in which case the one-meter point along the playing surface wouldn't begin at the water but at the top pf the bank.

You're saying the start of the one-meter isn't at the point above the OB line, but somehow jumps back to the nearest playing surface?

 

[Pbmercil]

First I am going to say, What a ridiculous situation for the TD of a tournament to leave the players in!

I've always agreed with this. I just don't get why the OB line isn't all the way to the top of the bank. Its a very real problem on this course, because the creek is SO narrow 90% of the time it's VERY difficult to actually be OB in the creek. So all ending up in the creek generally does for you is cause a really weird and awkward stance with no penalty and a horrendous lie. Because of the narrowness of the creek you basically have to ignore it as OB, you can't let a such a low probability of taking a stroke factor into your decision making. If the whole bank is OB then you actually have to factor it into your risk reward decision and choose to attack over the OB or lay up short of it. Its just poor design, and this creek is in play on multiple holes. And a similar ditch plays thru a different course on the property that HAS rope to the top of the bank. AND this place hosts NT events. Oh well I guess.

Now you are correct with what you state, ASSUMING, the player can't make the argument about playing surface. I believe in the liberal-est of definitions, if it can support you WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE STANDING, in any shape or fashion, it's a playing surface. I disagree with players who say "I can't stand there." Nowhere do the rules say you get to stand. The legal definition of stance is about getting a supporting point on that lie. Could the player lie down on the ground of that steep bank behind the lie and be supported? If so, you're right. His only argument has to be that the bank doesn't meet the definition of playing surface, in which case the one-meter point along the playing surface wouldn't begin at the water but at the top pf the bank

That was one of the points I made to the dude while we were arguing. There are a lot of legal ways for him to take a stance. They all SUCK, and none of them allow him to make a good throw, but they are legal stances. I even demonstrated some of them to him. Just because he's not "Standing" doesn't mean its not a "stance" as defined by the rulebook.

 

[araytx]

You're saying the start of the one-meter isn't at the point above the OB line, but somehow jumps back to the nearest playing surface?

Steve, it's not me personally who's saying it; I am going by the rule on relocation and marking the lie, 802.03 D. It so civically says the nearest spot on e playing surface.

 

[araytx]

Steve, it's not me personally who's saying it; I am going by the rule on relocation and marking the lie, 802.03 D. It specifically says the nearest spot on the playing surface.

FTFM

That was one of the points I made to the dude while we were arguing. There are a lot of legal ways for him to take a stance. They all SUCK, and none of them allow him to make a good throw, but they are legal stances. I even demonstrated some of them to him. Just because he's not "Standing" doesn't mean its not a "stance" as defined by the rulebook.

Bingo

 

[Steve West]

Steve, it's not me personally who's saying it; I am going by the rule on relocation and marking the lie, 802.03 D. It so civically says the nearest spot on e playing surface.

it says:

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.

That applies to a disc that is not OB, which is not the situation in the OP. But, let's talk about the not-OB scenario for a while. I take 802.03 D to mean you need to hold one end of the (virtual) meter stick to the OB line (or horizontally in the air directly above the OB line), and you can mark on any playing surface you can find within that meter. I don't read it as guaranteeing a full meter of playing surface, no matter how far you need to go to get it.

If there were a gopher hole along that meter, would you get to move the meter stick to start at the solid edge of the gopher hole? Or, add the width of the gopher hole to the end of the meter?

For a disc that is OB, the rule to apply is 804.04 D.

A player whose disc is out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next throw from:
1. The previous lie; or,
2. A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, even if the direction takes the lie closer to the target; or,
3. Within the designated drop zone, if provided.
Those options may be limited by the Director as a special condition only by prior approval of the PDGA Tour Manager.

This one doesn't even talk about the playing surface, so I don't think you could read a guarantee of a full solid meter of playing surface from it.

The only argument I could make for marking up on the flat would be if the meter from the OB line did not go all the way back to the flat, AND the bank was steep enough to be declared not a playing surface. Then QA6 might apply, sort of, if a lie that will end up below the playing surface is treated like a disc below the playing surface.

QA6: Disc Below the Playing Surface
Q: How do I mark a disc in an inaccessible location below the playing surface like a crevice? Is there a penalty?
A: The rules that apply to a disc above the playing surface have been extended to apply to a disc below the playing surface. If you can locate your disc in the crevice, you can mark your lie directly above it on the playing surface without penalty. If the point directly above the disc is in the air or within a solid object, mark your lie back along the line of play.

 

[JC17393]

For illustrative purposes, this is how relief from an OB line is supposed to work, whether 802.03D for a disc not actually OB or 802.04D for a disc that is OB.

There is nothing, short of a special condition announced prior to the round/tournament extending the relief beyond 1-meter, that would allow a legal mark any further from the OB line than is illustrated by the red line.

If an OB creek was set up this way with the water line marking the OB boundary, it's a piss-poor job by the TD/designer (another discussion all together) but the player has to bite the bullet and mark on the slope somewhere. Either that, or declare an optional re-throw and go back to his previous lie with penalty.

 

[araytx]

it says:

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.

That applies to a disc that is not OB, which is not the situation in the OP. But, let's talk about the not-OB scenario for a while. I take 802.03 D to mean you need to hold one end of the (virtual) meter stick to the OB line (or horizontally in the air directly above the OB line), and you can mark on any playing surface you can find within that meter. I don't read it as guaranteeing a full meter of playing surface, no matter how far you need to go to get it.

If there were a gopher hole along that meter, would you get to move the meter stick to start at the solid edge of the gopher hole? Or, add the width of the gopher hole to the end of the meter?

OK. now reading both rules I do see it; however, I must admit, I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that relocation for IB within one-meter and marking for OB should be the same. You must admit that if one rule mentions on the playing surface and another does not, then that's a problem.

To answer your question, NO. In my mind a gopher hole or anything else doesn't "extend" the one meter. I don't particularly see a gopher hole as an exception to playing surface; you can still be supported and get a supporting point behind the marker there. But in the example you gave for the question there was at least SOME playing surface there within that one meter range. I agree with how you assess the options to relocate on the non-OB situation. There's no guarantee of 1 full meter of available relief. Often times you'll run into another OB line (I've see that), so no I agree with you there. But there has to be SOME playing surface relief within that meter, or else the designer/TD should have a drop zone. You can't allow a player to throw to an OB area with no OB relief within the meter at all.

So for the OP's example, IF there's NONE, as in the player can argue that bank isn't a playing surface, I just can't see how it's fair to not give a player any OB relief at all. There has to be a playing surface. That's why we can't throw from out-of-bounds in general. OB areas by definition are not playing surfaces.

For a disc that is OB, the rule to apply is 804.04 D.



This one doesn't even talk about the playing surface, so I don't think you could read a guarantee of a full solid meter of playing surface from it.

The only argument I could make for marking up on the flat would be if the meter from the OB line did not go all the way back to the flat, AND the bank was steep enough to be declared not a playing surface. Then QA6 might apply, sort of, if a lie that will end up below the playing surface is treated like a disc below the playing surface.

Correct, it is 804.04 for a disc that is out-of bounds and I, of all people, should know that. .

The last part you said about being "kinda like QA46 is I'm talking about. And we're both mixing in rule of fairness, because JC's illustration above is about how it's supposed to work (correctly) and he contends there's NO WAY you can mark outside that one-meter. Well the question I have is that if the entirety of that one meter has no playing surface to play from, it has to be -- that's just fair. JC says the player has to mark on the slope somewhere, but what if there's not a playing surface on the slope?

Again, in reality back to what I said earlier -- horrible design and ruling by the TD, and I think all three of us agree to that. I've said I believe if he can safely lay down behind the marker then it is a playing surface and he has to play from there. But as a TD that kind of stuff so slows down your tourney why would you want to do that? I'd have either marked the top of the bank as the OB line as we play in Towne Lake (see the video) or made the banks bunCR if the water HAD to be the OB.

 

[JC17393]

The last part you said about being "kinda like QA46 is I'm talking about. And we're both mixing in rule of fairness, because JC's illustration above is about how it's supposed to work (correctly) and he contends there's NO WAY you can mark outside that one-meter. Well the question I have is that if the entirety of that one meter has no playing surface to play from, it has to be -- that's just fair. JC says the player has to mark on the slope somewhere, but what if there's not a playing surface on the slope?

I would think that the slope would have to be pretty severe to not qualify as a playing surface. And to be that severe and have none of the flat at the top of the slope be within a meter of the OB line, it would be very deep as well (4-5 meters at least). Seems like a very unlikely scenario to me. I'm not really buying that the creek's bank could somehow be disqualified as a playing surface, and even if it was, how that would change the amount of relief the player is entitled to.

Depending on the location of the basket to the OB, it's unlikely that the player would have to be entirely on the slope in order to take a stance. If we're assuming that the creek runs more or less parallel to the fairway, then there is probably a straddled stance of some sort that the player can take with one foot on the slope and one foot (knee?) on the flat at the top. It might not be comfortable or preferable, but there's nothing in the rules that guarantees such a stance. The rules only ensure a legal stance. I'm picturing something like the yellow foot marks and "A" basket in the attached graphic.

I think the only scenario where a stance is iffy and would likely require optional re-throw is if the creek is perpendicular to the line of play and the disc is on the basket side of the creek. Essentially something like the pink B in the graphic.

 

[araytx]

I would think that the slope would have to be pretty severe to not qualify as a playing surface. And to be that severe and have none of the flat at the top of the slope be within a meter of the OB line, it would be very deep as well (4-5 meters at least). Seems like a very unlikely scenario to me. I'm not really buying that the creek's bank could somehow be disqualified as a playing surface, and even if it was, how that would change the amount of relief the player is entitled to.

You and I agree on that, but if you'll look at the creek at McKinney Towne Lake DGC at about :26-27 in the video, it's exactly like that "very unlikely" scenario. And hence this course is always played in tournaments that the top of the bank is the OB line.

Depending on the location of the basket to the OB, it's unlikely that the player would have to be entirely on the slope in order to take a stance. If we're assuming that the creek runs more or less parallel to the fairway, then there is probably a straddled stance of some sort that the player can take with one foot on the slope and one foot (knee?) on the flat at the top. It might not be comfortable or preferable, but there's nothing in the rules that guarantees such a stance. The rules only ensure a legal stance. I'm picturing something like the yellow foot marks and "A" basket in the attached graphic.

I think the only scenario where a stance is iffy and would likely require optional re-throw is if the creek is perpendicular to the line of play and the disc is on the basket side of the creek. Essentially something like the pink B in the graphic.

I see what you're saying ... but requiring the optional re-throw (basically making it a throw and distance OB) is a bigger problem, and I am personally glad that the PDGA is addressing that this year. At Towne Lake, it's possible , and only in some places, that a player might be able to take a stance on that steep bank of the creek. To do so would so disrupt your tournament that it's just not worth it, and it certainly wouldn't be safe enough to efficiently deal with hiking the TD's insurance way up or subjecting him to possible legal issues should someone get hurt down there. Players used go down there at that course, then they'd have to be helped up, it often took 10+ minutes if they were not close to the basket, etc. It was a hassle. Essentially there are much better ways for a TD/designer to handle a course like that

 

[JC17393]

You and I agree on that, but if you'll look at the creek at McKinney Towne Lake DGC at about :26-27 in the video, it's exactly like that "very unlikely" scenario. And hence this course is always played in tournaments that the top of the bank is the OB line.

Of course, when I said unlikely scenario, I was referring to a slope that deep and severe being played with the OB line at the water's edge. Wise and right thinking TDs always mark a line at the top of the bank in those circumstances and render the whole discussion moot.

I see what you're saying ... but requiring the optional re-throw (basically making it a throw and distance OB) is a bigger problem, and I am personally glad that the PDGA is addressing that this year. At Towne Lake, it's possible , and only in some places, that a player might be able to take a stance on that steep bank of the creek. To do so would so disrupt your tournament that it's just not worth it, and it certainly wouldn't be safe enough to efficiently deal with hiking the TD's insurance way up or subjecting him to possible legal issues should someone get hurt down there. Players used go down there at that course, then they'd have to be helped up, it often took 10+ minutes if they were not close to the basket, etc. It was a hassle. Essentially there are much better ways for a TD/designer to handle a course like that

I'm not say re-throwing from the previous lie would be required by the TD, only that it would be the only recourse for a player that couldn't or wouldn't take a stance on the slope. The PDGA isn't doing anything to curb that at all.

I'm really only arguing against the notion that the player is allowed to take any additional free relief beyond one meter in the unfortunate situation that a TD allows the water's edge to serve as the OB boundary in the presented scenario. His hands are essentially tied and it's 100% on the TD for his poor planning.

 

[teemkey]

If I''m interpreting the issue correctly, then in the situation that a meter out from OB is not a playable surface, wouldn't the player be entitled to casual relief?

And, in the event that moving backwards on the line of play results in OB or an unplayable surface, keep reiterating the OB/Casual relief sequence until a playable surface is obtained?

And, if a playable surface cannot be obtained, then rethrow is the one and only option, and, in without a drop zone alternative, the player is subjected to a throw & distance penalty.

 

[JC17393]

If I''m interpreting the issue correctly, then in the situation that a meter out from OB is not a playable surface, wouldn't the player be entitled to casual relief?

And, in the event that moving backwards on the line of play results in OB or an unplayable surface, keep reiterating the OB/Casual relief sequence until a playable surface is obtained?

And, if a playable surface cannot be obtained, then rethrow is the one and only option, and, in without a drop zone alternative, the player is subjected to a throw & distance penalty.

No casual relief unless the TD grants it prior to the round. Casual relief is only allowed from obstacles listed in the rules unless the TD specifies something additional to the list. Absence of a playing surface isn't really an obstacle, nor is it listed in the rule.

I have to re-iterate again that it would require one hell of a steep slope to disqualify it from being a playing surface. Like sheer enough to qualify as a cliff face or something. Even then, you could argue that if you were to scale it, rock-climbing style, you could find foot and hand holds that would provide support to a thrower. After all, nowhere in the definition of playing surface does it say the surface must be horizontal. (I jest, of course)

 

[curt]

I would interpret this a little differently than is being suggested so far.

First, let's assume that the bank is severe enough that it isn't a playing surface for a whole meter fro, the OB. Lets also assume that the TD made the mistake of using the creek and not the bank.

I'd reference the Q&A about the crevice. The PDGA clearly thinks that it is acceptable to take line of play relief if your disc isn't on a playing surface. Accordingly, I would take a one meter relief perpendicular to OB, and then move backward on the line of play until I reach a playing surface.

Additionally, (this is a little anecdotal, I admit) over the years the Chuck and the PDGA seem to favor players being allowed to take a reasonable stance, so if a player is unable to stand, I don't think he should be required to lay down on the surface to throw.

 

[Pbmercil]

First, let's assume that the bank is severe enough that it isn't a playing surface for a whole meter fro, the OB. Lets also assume that the TD made the mistake of using the creek and not the bank.
.

My issue with this is the bolded phrase, "Severe enough". How do you know? What qualifies as "severe enough" to not be a playing surface, and at what point does it stop being a nasty/bad/crappy playing surface and cross over into being so severe that it no longer qualifies as a playing surface?

That is WAY too subjective in my book.

 

[araytx]

My issue with this is the bolded phrase, "Severe enough". How do you know? What qualifies as "severe enough" to not be a playing surface, and at what point does it stop being a nasty/bad/crappy playing surface and cross over into being so severe that it no longer qualifies as a playing surface?

That is WAY too subjective in my book.

My response is "severe enough" means that it doesn't meet the definition of playing surface, specifically, the part about being "capable of supporting a player." I'm not talking about the "reasonable stance" part of the definition because that part IS really subjective. My reasonable and your reasonable is really different from the player whose disc is there.

If the player is giving all full effort to take a legal stance -- he tries to stand, tries to kneel, lays down, looks for spots left and right whereby he might be able to get a supporting point behind, etc. and etc., and that steep sloped ground/bank can't support the player no matter what he tries, then it's not a playing surface. By the definition, not by a subjective opinion. That's how I know it's "severe enough."

I can tell you that at Towne Lake there are many places on the steep-sloped bank of the creek that could not support a player.

 

[curt]

I agree that it is a subjective call, but the rule book has a process for making subjective calls. If a majority of the group (or maybe only the player and a second) determine that it isn't a playing surface, then it isn't.

My standard would be similar to araytx's.

Also, this is definitely a worst case that shouldn't happen with a good TD.