What's the ruling.....

[coupe]

I'm not sure how these specific rules establish that positions A, B and C are all legal. Are you talking about moving the lie according to some other rule, referenced by 806.02.C? If so, what rule?

Mark the thrown disc with a mini in accordance with 806.02.B, AS IS ALWAYS YOUR RIGHT, take a stance and play on.

 

[chevis]

This is precisely the problem I'm pointing out.

You have, in your head, some arbitrary definition of what constitutes two different playing surfaces. There is nowhere in the rules that A can be distinguished from B or C, regardless of the heights of B and C. If it's illegal to take a stance at B, it's illegal at A. But that defies common sense. If your disc comes to rest up against a flat rock a few inches high or a tee pad with an exposed concrete edge, people are assuming that's all one playing surface, not two distinct ones.

Your point about a projection is potentially a valid one, but I doubt you would be subtracting the vertical height of of the rock or tee pad from the lie in example A or B. Nor would I expect that you would consider it valid to hang your toe over the lip in any of the cases. It seems to me that "behind" generally means "in the horizontal plane". This is precisely the same conundrum facing us when we talk about placing the mini in various scenarios where the front of the disc isn't touching anything. It's implied that the mini can be placed so that the trailing edge of the mini touches the vertical plane defined by the front of the disc. Thus the disc is directly behind the mini on the horizontal plane.

Regardless, it's not made explicit in the rules.

There are a few ways one could go about solving these issues, but I think the lack of explicitly stating how they are to be resolved is precisely the problem. The issues of how one deals with vertical "discontinuity" (which is not precisely the right word) need to be made more explicit, which would include the problem presented in the OP.

you know what is made explicit in 802.06B.... touching the front of the disc:
"Alternatively, the player may mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface, touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play."
so if we are following the rules explicitly, all of these situations are clear that you cannot mark a disc that is suspended with out one of the other rules that specify otherwise.
here's the argument for being able to place a mini above/below a disc:

Not so fast:
...
Consequently, if the front of the thrown disc is elevated higher than the height of a mini, a player may mark the lie by placing the mini on the playing surface touching the thrown disc at a point along the front of the thrown disc that touches the playing surface OR the disc may be be treated as above the playing surface via the rule of Fairness (801.01), with the mini placed in accordance with 802.06.C.

i wonder if there are more things in the rules that are explicitly defined that fairness will overrule

 

[chevis]

really it is this line in 801.01 that allows the marking below a slightly elevated disc: "Often a logical extension of the closest existing rule or the principles embodied in these rules will provide guidance for determining fairness."
to most ppl, the logical extension of the principle of "touching the front of the disc" would be the spot directly below it. seems fair to me until we get to stacked surfaces. then we have some guidance qa-lie-1, but the rare case where the disc lands on the edge of a stacked surface is not covered, so this is where fairness gets hazy. i want to say it wouldn't be fair to move to the other surface when they are stacked, but if there are just 2 different playing surfaces (not stacked), then it would be fair to move/mark to/on the other surface (solid obstacle). now if i were a td & had to make the call, i would go with what the card decided.

 

[peabody]

Before placing the mini you have to establish line of play on the playing surface where the disc is at rest. That line extends back beyond the disc and forward to the pin.
Doesn't moving to another playing surface change LOP? (as in the op scenario)

JMTC-
In the spirit of the game play it from the playing surface your disc rests upon.

 

[Rastnav]

Mark the thrown disc with a mini in accordance with 806.02.B, AS IS ALWAYS YOUR RIGHT, take a stance and play on.

None of those examples involve marking with a mini. They are all using the disc at rest as the marker for the lie.

 

[Rastnav]

Before placing the mini you have to establish line of play on the playing surface where the disc is at rest. That line extends back beyond the disc and forward to the pin.
Doesn't moving to another playing surface change LOP? (as in the op scenario)

JMTC-
In the spirit of the game play it from the playing surface your disc rests upon.

Line of play isn't a one dimensional line in the way you are thinking about. Otherwise any change in the slope of the ground would cause a spot behind the disc to no longer be on the line of play (it would be above or below the line you are talking about). The line of play might hyper-literally be thought of as a plane defined by the line you are describing and extending perpendicular to the surface of the earth (not the slope of the surface you are on, the surface of the earth, i.e. its the direction that gravity points).

 

[Rastnav]

Not so fast:

801.06 does not define the "front" of the disc as the point on the disc closest to the target. Furthermore, it does not require a player to place the marker disc centered on the line of play established by the thrown disc: it merely requires that the marker disc be placed touching the "front" of the thrown disc, which could be anywhere along the entire arc of the disc closer to the target than the imaginary line perpendicular to the line of play established by the thrown disc and that the subsequent stance be taken on the line of play established by the mini.

[N.B. - per 802.05.D, the line of play for any throw not made from a teepad or drop zone does not exist until the player has marked the lie, either by electing to use the thrown disc to mark the lie or by placing a mini to mark the lie.]

Consequently, if the front of the thrown disc is elevated higher than the height of a mini, a player may mark the lie by placing the mini on the playing surface touching the thrown disc at a point along the front of the thrown disc that touches the playing surface OR the disc may be be treated as above the playing surface via the rule of Fairness (801.01), with the mini placed in accordance with 802.06.C.

This would mean that a disc cocked up sideways should be marked at the sideways edge of the disc touching the playing surface. It would also mean that this spot was also the spot of your lie without marking, and that you could take a legal stance that was completely to the side of the disc, and that taking a stance directly behind the other side of the disc would be illegal.

I don't believe that is how people play it.

 

[peabody]

Line of play isn't a one dimensional line in the way you are thinking about. Otherwise any change in the slope of the ground would cause a spot behind the disc to no longer be on the line of play (it would be above or below the line you are talking about). The line of play might hyper-literally be thought of as a plane defined by the line you are describing and extending perpendicular to the surface of the earth (not the slope of the surface you are on, the surface of the earth, i.e. its the direction that gravity points).

I contend that LOP can not exist on two different playing surfaces.

 

[txmxer]

I contend that LOP can not exist on two different playing surfaces.

I agree, the LOP exists in 3 dimensions. Changing surfaces changes the LOP.

 

[Rastnav]

I contend that LOP can not exist on two different playing surfaces.

If the only place to place a mark (that needed to be on the LOP behind the disc) was on a "separate" playing surface, would you not be entitled to place a mark at all?

Regardless, the fundamental issue I'm pointing out is that, other than two places that you can take stances being stacked on top of each other, such as a bridge over a gully, we have nothing in the rules that states anything at all about what constitutes a separation of playing surfaces. So you are essentially begging the question here, and assuming that we can determine, by the rules, that some of my examples constitute separate playing surfaces.

 

[Agricolae]

If the only place to place a mark (that needed to be on the LOP behind the disc) was on a "separate" playing surface, would you not be entitled to place a mark at all?

Regardless, the fundamental issue I'm pointing out is that, other than two places that you can take stances being stacked on top of each other, such as a bridge over a gully, we have nothing in the rules that states anything at all about what constitutes a separation of playing surfaces. So you are essentially begging the question here, and assuming that we can determine, by the rules, that some of my examples constitute separate playing surfaces.

Agreed.

Where does the concept of adjacent, non-stacked, playing surfaces come from? Consider one single playing surface that can be marked by discontinuities only it (the surface) cannot support the player and/or where a stance cannot be reasonably taken. Those discontinuities would include the vertical and near-vertical edges of sidewalks, walls, rock faces, etc.

If in doubt as to whether a stance can reasonably be taken - i.e., it the disc's position on the playing surface? - work it out within the group if possible; if not, appeal to TD or Official for a decision.

Mark the lie in accordance with the existing rules BUT with clarification in a rules update or Q&A that in some instances the marker disc may be vertically above or below the position established by the disc at rest.


*802.05 A. The lie is the place on the playing surface upon which the player takes a stance in order to throw. The playing surface is a surface, generally the ground, which is capable of supporting the player and on which a stance can reasonably be taken. A playing surface may exist above or below another playing surface. If it is unclear whether a surface is a playing surface, the decision is made by the Director or by an Official.

 

[coupe]

None of those examples involve marking with a mini. They are all using the disc at rest as the marker for the lie.

All of those examples CAN be marked with a mini. Unless THE THROWER chooses to use the thrown disc to mark the lie, neither YOU nor anyone else has the right or the authority under the Rules to deny THE THROWER the option to mark the lie with a mini. Mark the d**n lie with a mini and play on.

In the context of a rules discussion, you cannot legitimately bracket off from the discussion of a rule an action that a rule specifically permits because to do so is to violates both the letter and the intent of the rule.

 

[coupe]

I don't believe that is how people play it.

Most don't, because they don't bother to think about what The Rules permit and what they don't permit; some, including three Hall of Famers, one of whom was the Rules Committee chairman when stacked playing surfaces was defined, do.

 

[Rastnav]

All of those examples CAN be marked with a mini. Unless THE THROWER chooses to use the thrown disc to mark the lie, neither YOU nor anyone else has the right or the authority under the Rules to deny THE THROWER the option to mark the lie with a mini. Mark the d**n lie with a mini and play on.

In the context of a rules discussion, you cannot legitimately bracket off from the discussion of a rule an action that a rule specifically permits because to do so is to violates both the letter and the intent of the rule.

They most certainly cannot mark with a mini to play from lies A, B and C. I'm asking whether taking a stance on the lies A, B, or C are legal if the disc comes to rest in the situations we see depicted.

They could play from a lie in front of the disc in all of those scenarios using a mini. That wasn't the question I was asking.

 

[Rastnav]

Most don't, because they don't bother to think about what The Rules permit and what they don't permit; some, including three Hall of Famers, one of whom was the Rules Committee chairman when stacked playing surfaces was defined, do.

You are saying that people mark their disc not at its front, closest to the basket, but at its side, if that's the only point resting on the ground, with the disc otherwise resting on reeds, tall grass or propped against the limb of a bush?

Even if that's so, then it's still in contravention to the explicit rule:

Alternatively, the player may mark the lie by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface, touching the front of the thrown disc on the line of play. A mini marker disc is a small disc, not used in play, that complies with PDGA Technical Standards for mini marker discs.

The rules do not specify that one can place the mini at the point the disc is touching the playing surface that is closest to the basket, they state that the mini must touch the front of the disc. Like I said, the rules, as written don't conform to how people actually play in these situations.

It's essentially minor most of the time, but it leads to very large ambiguity in the not infrequent edge cases that are being brought up in this thread.

 

[coupe]

They most certainly cannot mark with a mini to play from lies A, B and C.

Incorrect.

All three drawings clearly show the basket on the side opposite the raised playing surface. Self-evidently, a mini CAN be placed on the lower playing surface touching the front of the thrown disc, i.e. the side closest to the basket, to mark the lie, enabling the thrown disc to be removed and a legal stance taken on the playing surface the lie is marked on. As long as the thrower has a supporting on the lie, there is NOTHING in the Rules that prohibits the thrower from placing one or more additional supporting points on playing surface A, B, or C. Consequently, all three surfaces can legally be played from.

 

[coupe]

You are saying that people mark their disc not at its front, closest to the basket, but at its side, if that’s the only point resting on the ground, with the disc otherwise resting on reeds, tall grass or propped against the limb of a bush?

Even if that’s so, then it’s still in contravention to the explicit rule:


The rules do not specify that one can place the mini at the point the disc is touching the playing surface that is closest to the basket, they state that the mini must touch the front of the disc. Like I said, the rules, as written don’t conform to how people actually play in these situations.

It’s essentially minor most of the time, but it leads to very large ambiguity in the not infrequent edge cases that are being brought up in this thread.

The "front" of the disc is not a point; it's the entire perimeter of the thrown disc closer to the basket than the line bisecting the center of the thrown disc perpendicular to the line from the center of the basket to the center of the thrown disc.

The only requiremeds in placing a mini are that it be placed:
a) on the playing surface;
b) touching the front of the thrown disc;
c) on the line of play.

As long a the placement of the mini conforms to those three* conditions, the placement is legal for purposes of rules enforcement.

* c) is moot because, per 802.05.D the line of play does not exist until the lie is marked.

 

[hiflyer]

* c) is moot because, per 802.05.D the line of play does not exist until the lie is marked.

?????

How do I place a mini on the line of play per 802.06.B if the line of play doesn't exist?

I believe the lie is "marked" by the thrown disc per 802.06.A, then you can alternatively mark it with an alternate method, that is to say the marker.

 

[txmxer]

?????

How do I place a mini on the line of play per 802.06.B if the line of play doesn't exist?

I believe the lie is "marked" by the thrown disc per 802.06.A, then you can alternatively mark it with an alternate method, that is to say the marker.

I believe there are some aspects of the rules that might garner some attention and debate in a tournament.

I also believe that if people tried to argue some of the rules and details of the rules the way people do online the card might just bury them on the course.

 

[krupicka]

The "front" of the disc is not a point; it's the entire perimeter of the thrown disc closer to the basket than the line bisecting the center of the thrown disc perpendicular to the line from the center of the basket to the center of the thrown disc.

The only requiremeds in placing a mini are that it be placed:
a) on the playing surface;
b) touching the front of the thrown disc;
c) on the line of play.

As long a the placement of the mini conforms to those three* conditions, the placement is legal for purposes of rules enforcement.

* c) is moot because, per 802.05.D the line of play does not exist until the lie is marked.

Please stop perpetuating this incorrect understanding of the rules. The marker must be placed on the LOP which does exist.

Relevant rules

802.05.D ...The marker disc, or marker, is the disc used to mark the lie according to 802.06.

802.06.A The position of the thrown disc on the in-bounds surface marks the lie.

So at this point in time, the thrown disc is the marker disc and has established the LOP. When marking the lie under 806.06.B, the LOP has already been established by and does not change when marking with a mini marker disc.