I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything in regards to it. So sorry if am repeating this.

This situation has come up twice for me in the past few weeks and I wasn't sure what the ruling on it is.

At one course, there is a chain link fence that is considered OB. At one point in the fence though, the fence has been bent over into the in bounds territory. The disc I threw landed on the fence. If I were to follow the line of the bottom of the fence posts, my disc would have been in bounds, but since the fence is bent over I wasn't sure if it was considered OB or not.

At a different course there is another chain link fence. At some parts the fence has been ripped off the posts. The disc I threw landed on the OB side of the fence, but if I were to follow the line of the fence posts it would be in bounds.

So my question is in each of these instances is whether or not my disc was OB?

Thanks in advance for any input.

In most cases, the point the fence line meets the ground is considered the OB line unless there is a special condition on the course where the OB side of the fence is considered OB. Where the fence is no longer connected to the fence posts, I would follow the intended fence line (along the fence posts).

If it was my home course, I would try to get the fence repaired.

It's up to how the TD/Course Pro defines the OB line.

This is an interesting twist actually. We have discussed at length fences being used as OB lines, but never to my knowledge a disc landing ON the fence.

Here is the way I would rule and why:

Ruling: The disc was OB.
Why: Under our rules a disc that is completely surrounded by OB, not touching an IB surface, is OB. In your description you said that the fence was OB, not that it was the OB line, which would lead me to assume that the OB line is where the IB surface comes in contact or is directly in line with the nearest OB surface, in this case the bottom of the fence. There is no physical OB line really in this case, it is a seam between the two surfaces, kind of like where water meets the shore or concrete meets turf.

The fence "being OB" would mean that anything resting on or attached to it and NOT in contact with any IB surface is OB. Penalty throw and releif.

Check out the PDGA Rules Committee Q & A: Bridge Over OB (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)

Hope that was helpful. This rule does need some additional clarity, I believe this is one of the action items for the PDGA Rules Committee. The conflict is between our old OB line definition, as a vertical plane extending up and down, or whether surfaces of different IB/OB designations trump that vertical plane. The Q & A seems to clearly illustrate that surfaces of other designations above or below another do trump that vertical OB line plane. We shall see though.

I will say that the second interpretation, the new one of stacked surfaces, does seem more appropriate for a game played in 3 dimensions.

The "bridge over OB" scenario is a completely different situation. There is a distinct OB line which is formed by the meeting of the water and dry land. By virtue of the rule of verticality, the disc is ruled as being completely surrounded by OB and thus ruled OB.

The fence situation is different in that the fence is not vertical, but leaning towards the IB side of the fence. By following the rule of verticality, a disc that is under the fence could also be ruled OB since it is, vertically speaking, competely surrounded by the plane of the fence. This won't do, as the disc is also touching IB territory

My interpretation would place the OB line where the fence meets the playing surface, therefore the disc, resting on the fence, but over IB territory should be ruled IB.

Steve,

I think I answered that point. Here is a picture of what we are talking about.

http://www.madisc.org/OBfence1.gif

The In Bounds Playing Surface can exist beneath the OB Playing Surface of the fence. Stacked IB/OB. The OB line is between the contiguous surface of the IB and the contiguous surface of the OB. The verticle plan of the OB line ends when it is circumvented by a surface of a different designation (the bridge or a in this case the fence.

If the TD says that the fence is "the OB Line" and not as in this case "OB" then the OB line would become the entire physical fence, and be as thick or thin as the fence is at any given point. Furthermore in that instance the OB line would extend up and down from that line.

I am really becoming less and less a fan of the old OB line definition, particularly the rule of verticality. I greatly prefer the holistic designation of contiguous playing surfaces as being IB or OB.

This clearly needs some resolution.

But in this case, with the fence being declared "OB" and not the "OB Line" that disc, I am quite sure, was OB, and a disc under it on the IB playing surface would be IB.

I agree with Nick. :o
If the fence itself is declared the out of bounds line, then the disc resting entirely on the fence should be OB.

Thanks for everyone�s replies on this.

Nick�s diagram is basically what the situation is. I�m not sure if this would change anyone�s opinion on this, but this fence in question sits on a hillside. At the part that is bent over the fence is basically horizontal. I agree that the best idea would be to fix the fence, but the fence is between the park and a house. I think that is something that the homeowner would have to fix although I�m sure they wouldn't mind some of us disc golfers going in there and fixing it for free.

I didn�t see any responses in regards to the second situation where the fence has been ripped from the fence posts. I wanted to clarify this a bit more. There is a very clear and defined line of wooden fence posts. The actual fence itself is very old and rusted. Some parts of the fence are OK. In other parts though the fence is completely missing or ripped a good 5 to 10 feet off the fence posts into IB territory. The point where my disc landed the fence was ripped off about 3 feet from the fence post and had been trampled on so many times that what was originally about a 4 foot tall fence was bunched up into about 1 foot.

After really thinking about it, it seems that this may just be something that the TD would have to determine or in the case of leagues or casual rounds it needs to be stated ahead of time. I just like to have rules set in stone and was hoping that there was more of a set standard for this.

Thanks again.

Drew,

In my experience fences make lousy OB lines. Even though the way your TD declared it does work the best solution I can think of is to make the entire fence the OB line. As such anything in physical contact with that line is IB, anything completely outside it is OB. In both situations some imagination and plum lining is in order for a proper ruleing.

The other options involve a lot of string...

Nice graphic. That is how I understood the scenario. However, I still say that if you rule a disc OB in that position, you have to rule it OB if it is directly below that position. Owing to the rule of verticality, the rules do not allow for the playing surface to also be underneath OB territory.

"803.08C. The Rule of Verticality- The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane..."


Just to continue the scenario, where do you now mark the lie? Is it 1m from the point where the fence meets the ground? Or is it 1m from the top of the fence? Let's say this fence is 2m high. If you have to mark it from the bottom of the fence, you are still ostructed by the fence and have not received any relief. If you mark from the top of the fence, you are admitting that a disc under the fence is OB.

I would say both lies are not completely surrounded by OB, and therefore IB. Besides if there is a doubt, its supposed to go in the players favor.

The Rules Q&A for-> Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces) largely take the rule of verticality out of the consideration when multiple playing surfaces are present.

I would like to see the wording made more specific in that the OB line extends up from the line until another playint surface is encountered, but from this ruling, the grass under the fence is in bounds.

Nice graphic. That is how I understood the scenario. However, I still say that if you rule a disc OB in that position, you have to rule it OB if it is directly below that position. Owing to the rule of verticality, the rules do not allow for the playing surface to also be underneath OB territory.

"803.08C. The Rule of Verticality- The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane..."


Have you read the ruling on multiple playing surfaces in the Rules Q&A?

The Rules Committee specifically finds that the "vertical plane" ends when it reaches another playing surface, and that the IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the status of a playing surfaces above or below it, so you can have an OB playing surface extending over an IB surface or an IB surface over an OB surface.

Nice graphic.

Thanks! I slaved over it in Adobe Illustrator 10 for hours. The coloration had to be just right.

[/QUOTE]Have you read the ruling on multiple playing surfaces in the Rules Q&A?

The Rules Committee specifically finds that the "vertical plane" ends when it reaches another playing surface, and that the IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the status of a playing surfaces above or below it, so you can have an OB playing surface extending over an IB surface or an IB surface over an OB surface.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I have read the Q&A. The multiple playing surfaces opinion of the Rules Committee allows for an IB ruling in the event there is an OB 'playing surface' on the same vertical plane as the lie of the disc. This is a bit different, though, in that there is no other playing surface, above or below, to be concerned with. The fence is not a 'playing surface', it is an object on the course that defines the OB line. This is strictly a question of how the fence defines that OB.

I agree with Nick. :o
If the fence itself is declared the out of bounds line, then the disc resting entirely on the fence should be OB.



Isn't the OB line itself in bounds?

Read 803.08A

If the fence is the line. The fence itself is in-bounds, and any disc touching any part of the fence is in bounds.

That is one of those changes that were going to go in for 2005, Jim. Now it will wait until '06.

Nice graphic. That is how I understood the scenario. However, I still say that if you rule a disc OB in that position, you have to rule it OB if it is directly below that position. Owing to the rule of verticality, the rules do not allow for the playing surface to also be underneath OB territory.

"803.08C. The Rule of Verticality- The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane..."


Just to continue the scenario, where do you now mark the lie? Is it 1m from the point where the fence meets the ground? Or is it 1m from the top of the fence? Let's say this fence is 2m high. If you have to mark it from the bottom of the fence, you are still ostructed by the fence and have not received any relief. If you mark from the top of the fence, you are admitting that a disc under the fence is OB.



In everyone's eagerness to dispute the verticality rule, you missed what I think is the interesting part of this, the last paragraph: "Where do you mark your lie?"

If you allow OB planes (we have them occasionally in the UK when the fences are good, well maintained chain link), you may get the problem with angled planes as in Nick's diagram. Imagine a 3m fence at 30 degrees from the horizontal, and the disc wedged right into the angle. You're IB. Mark 1 meter in from the base and you only have 58cm of headroom!
Mark 1m in from the top of the fence (from where it is projected vertically down onto the ground, sound familiar?) and you're 2.6m from where your disc was!

You don't get this issue with an OB line. If the TD states that the base of the fence is the line, ok, you're IB, but you're gonna have to deal with that 58cm headroom. If he states it's the top of the fence, you're OB, but at least you'll get a run up/clean swing.

OTOH, I think the OB plane is a much cleaner way of actually determining the OB, unfortunately, in the real world, fences rarely live up to the job.

I agree with Nick. :o
If the fence itself is declared the out of bounds line, then the disc resting entirely on the fence should be OB.



Isn't the OB line itself in bounds?

Read 803.08A

If the fence is the line. The fence itself is in-bounds, and any disc touching any part of the fence is in bounds.

That interpretation assumes that the entire fence constitutes the OB line, which need not necessarily be the case. If one face of the fence is defined as the OB line, it is possible for a disc to be touching the fence yet still OB.

If the fence in question is a 14" wide stone retaining wall and the inside face is defined as the OB line, a disc leaning against the outside face of the wall would be OB, as would a disc at rest on top of the fence completely outside the inside face of the fence.

So too, on a course that borders on a ballfield surrounded by a chainlink fence, it is not inconceivable that the OB rule would be that a disc that is touching the fence on the course side of the fence would be IB, but a disc inside the ballfield that is touching the fence would be OB.

The fence is not a 'playing surface', it is an object on the course that defines the OB line. This is strictly a question of how the fence defines that OB.

Not sure I agree entirely. IMO, the multiple playing surfaces is relevant via 803.00.E (logical extention of the closest existing rule or principle embodied in the rules) because it provides the clearest guidance to date of how "vertical plane" is to be construed.

Even though the fence is not a playing surface per se, if OB is defined by the inside face of the fence rather than simply "the fence," then it is at least arguable that a leaning fence defines an area (volume) of OB above the playing surface. In principle, at least, it would not differ significantly from the "above 2m OB" proposal being bandied around in the "Does getting rid of the two meter rule help big arms?" thread.

I agree with Nick. :o
If the fence itself is declared the out of bounds line, then the disc resting entirely on the fence should be OB.



Isn't the OB line itself in bounds?

Read 803.08A

If the fence is the line. The fence itself is in-bounds, and any disc touching any part of the fence is in bounds.



That is not what I said and it is not what the original poster said. They said that the Fence was OB. I said that if it is OB that the OB line is now the seam between it and the IB playing surface.

If the Fence is the OB Line, then any disc in contact with it is IB (according to current rules). That is not the scenario describe though.

There in lies our challenge. Is the fence playing surface or object. It is not clear within our rules which one it is.

If, as described by the original poster, the fence is nearly flat on the ground at that point, it is quite likely that the player could take a stance on it and throw from there (if it were considered IB). But if it is an object on the course and not playing surface then relief would likely apply or the player would be required to mark it on the playing surface as a disc above the playing surface, in which case they would likely have to lie down on the ground and stick their leg in up under the fence to take a legal stance (that or take an unsafe lie and take relief according to that rule, or perhaps count it as a large solid obstacle preventing a legal stance and take relief under that rule).

If on the other hand, everything is considered "playing surface" then the disc in this scenario is completely laying on an OB surface and is OB, penalty throw taken and relief taken according to the OB rule.

The only rule preventing the clean understanding of this is the use of "playing surface" within the 2 meter rule, because it seems to differentiate playing surface from objects capable of suspending a disc more than 2 meters above what I am guessing is the dirt and ground covering vegetation.

If that language is removed, everything, and I mean absolutely everything (not defined elsewhere in the rules), would be considered as �Playing Surface�, including trees, park buildings and equipment, bushes, piles of logs and sticks, everything. And all of them would be able to be declared as Out of Bounds Surfaces or Casual OB Surfaces and fall under those rules influence.

Let�s say in the case of a bush, with fragile branches, that a disc comes to rest 3 feet up in that bush, and the bush surface has not been designated as OB or Casual OB by the TD or Course Pro. The player in taking their legal stance would have to have a supporting point, likely a finger on the surface within the bush at the point of release on their next shot. According to other rules within our current rules, if that player damages the bush in taking their stance or making their throw, there are penalty throws involved, so some might opt to take relief anyway. ( I�d prefer TDs to at the least make these bushes casual OB to remove even the chance of damaging them.)

There would be no more �Above the Playing Surface�. There would only be �Playing Surfaces� of differing declarations (IB, OB, Casual, etc). If a TD doesn�t want players climbing their trees or buildings, then those surfaces need to be declared OB or Casual OB. Designations of height from the �Playing Surface� are not possible under this ruling.

This also happens to allow stacked playing surfaces of differing IB/OB/Casual designations. It also is not far from the existing understanding of the PDGA RC Q & A Bridge Over OB ruling.

Rather than trying to define what �Playing Surface� is and is not, i.e. ground we walk on, weight bearing structures, ground covering plants, etc., it would be simpler to just say everything is and protect more fragile surfaces against damage by making it a penalty to break it (we already have this�). This would remove quite a bit of complication from our current rules while at the same time provide a far greater degree of freedom to TDs and Course Pros to design their course the way they want (and protect the things they want protected).

Regards,
Nick

Incidentally, there is a "Fences as OB lines" Q&A that, given 803.00.E, is not without relevance to the discussion.

Incidentally, there is a "Fences as OB lines" Q&A that, given 803.00.E, is not without relevance to the discussion.



The fence IS OB not the fence IS THE OB LINE in this discussion. The rule works no matter the situation however.

Again, "playing surface" needs clarifying is all.

The fence IS OB not the fence IS THE OB LINE in this discussion.

Not quite. The original post only states that the fence is only "considered" OB, not that it is, in fact, OB, so the prior question is, "Considered by whom?"

Magic does not state whether the two situations to which he refers occurred in casual or tournament play. In tournament play, if the TD's designation differs from generally accepted local practice, the designation of the TD always takes precedence, therefore, the fence itself is OB if and only if the TD specifically designated it to be so; if, instead, she designated "outside" or "beyond" "the fence" to be OB, the fence itself may very well be IB, despite whatever local customs or practices exist regarding the status of the fence.

Annie,

I'm not sure. But I think you just agreed with me. The fence is OB and NOT the OB line. If it were the OB line then it would be considered IB as would anything touching it...