2006 Rules: Changes from 2005

[Chainmeister]

First, regarding BASKETBALL, the rule is still if any part of the disc is touching in bounds it is in bounds.

What is new is (a) the line has no width and ( touching the line is touching out of bounds, not touching in bounds.

I am confused.  I read the two comments as contradictory.  You say that if any part of the disc is touching in bounds it is in bounds.  Yet you say that touching the line makes it out of bounds.  

I think you were right in the second comment based upon what I have read elsewhere in this thread.  If your disc touches the imaginary o/b line it is out. If I throw a disc and it touches the rope its out of bounds. Its just like basketball.  I do not see how the width of the line really matters.  Once the line is touched, the disc is out.

I do question how a fence would apply.  If I hit the outside of the Fence on #2 at Bevier am I touching the line? Or, is the line really just one angstrom inside of the fence, or on the inside border of the fence.  The fence does have width. We can reason that the outside border of the fence is inbounds and the inside border is OUT. I suspect that w/ the new rule it is important for TD's to define such things.  I assume that a disc lying on the fairway touching the fence on #2 was not intended to be o/b.  However, If the TD defines the OB line as the fence it might create confusion.

[Jon Brakel]

A disc still needs to be completely surrounded by OB to be OB. If you are leaning on the fence on #2 at the Bev on the fairway side and the fence is OB, you are still IB, no penalty. The only thing that has changed is that the OB line (in this case the tennis fence) is OB instead of IB. In 2005 if you threw into the tennis courts but hit the far side inside of the fence, you could take your next shot 1 meter off the far side of the fence. In 2006 you need to go back to where you were last in bounds.

[Bruce Brakel]

Jon has it right.  If any part of your disc is in bounds, no penalty.  If all of your disc is out of bounds, you get a penalty.

If your disc is in bounds, but leaning on the object which was imprecisely used to define the out of bounds line, your disc is in bounds.  If your disc is entirely out of bounds but leaning on the object imprecisely used to define out of bounds, you disc is out of bounds.  

What has changed is that last sentence.  It used to be that a disc on the tennis courts but touching the fence was in bounds. Now touching the object used to define the line does not save you.  Your disc has to partially cross the line for your disc to be in bounds.  

It also used to be that if your disc flew over the tennis court fence, flew over the tennis courts and then touched the fence on the inside somewhere else, that last point of touching was where it was last in bounds.  Now that last point of touching does change where you were last in bounds because the fence itself is entirely out of bounds.  

[damonshort]

At Fairfield for the IOS Fairwell the rule change would have a very small impact on yellow rope issues.  The roap usually has a little tail wherever it begins and ends.  Under the old rule you could be touching the tail but otherwise sevral inches into the o.b. area, and you were in bounds.  I don't think it ever happened but it could have happened.  Under the new rule that disc is o.b.

So the new rule really only impacts a few freaky kinds of throws, but at one time or another I've seen every one of them.

On Fairfield #5 that Sunday the very edge of my disc was on the rope, everything else was out. I remember thinking that it couldn't be more out and still be in. Now I guess it'd be out.

The situation with a fence is pretty clear, IMO, but in the case of 'artificial' lines like ropes (with a definite thickness)  I'm not so convinced. Could this fall under TD's discretion/special conditions maybe?

I was going to suggest anyhow that the OB situation at Streamwood be more clearly defined next year (with paint or something since that'd obviously need a lot of rope). I see that being even more of a pain to define with the new rule (although I do think having OB around the 'wilderness' is completely reasonable.)

[Jon Brakel]

At the IOS Consortium Pow Wow held a couple of weeks ago it was agreed that all OB will be clearly defined in 2006 by rope, paint, physical change of surface (like grass to cement), structures (fences) or water. I don't think I'm leaving anything out on that list. We will NOT use foliage changes as a definition of OB because of the trample effect and other gray areas that naturally occur with such definition.

[Bruce Brakel]

If a TD wanted to make the rope inbounds he could declare that the out of bounds line is an imaginary line just beyond the outside edge of the rope line.  We won't do that because it would be confusing.  We'll just say that the rope line is the o.b. line, and under the new rules, the rope is out of bounds.  

I like the o.b. on that short temp swamp hole Brett put out there, so I'll have to get out early with the rope and nails.  

[Guest]

Bruce, you could make Curious George sound like Plato. And vice versa.  

I have not read the new rulebook; I've just read these posts about the new rules.
So, of course, I am cornfused.  I am surprised that the invisible vertical OB line's width was not specifically defined.  This will indeed lead to disagreements....

Questions:

Situation 1:  Bevier, Hole 2.  Player drives. Disc comes to rest nearly upright against the outside of the tennis court fence.  OB or IB?

Situation 2: Bevier, Hole B. Player drives. Disc comes to rest on the middle of the bridge, directly above the water.  OB or IB?

[Jon Brakel]

Bruce, you could make Curious George sound like Plato. And vice versa.  

I have not read the new rulebook; I've just read these posts about the new rules.
So, of course, I am cornfused.  I am surprised that the invisible vertical OB line's width was not specifically defined.  This will indeed lead to disagreements....

Questions:

Situation 1:  Bevier, Hole 2.  Player drives. Disc comes to rest nearly upright against the outside of the tennis court fence.  OB or IB?

Situation 2: Bevier, Hole B. Player drives. Disc comes to rest on the middle of the bridge, directly above the water.  OB or IB?

Actually they did define the OB line as an imaginary line with no width. However, we don't play on imaginary courses, so it gets confusing. It's not as confusing if you just think of it as the rules have moved the imaginary line from the OB side of the physical line to the IB side of the physical line.

Situation 1: I rule IB because the bottom of the disc must be resting on the ground. The ground on the IB side of the fence is IB. If it is hanging in mid air (like on a slightly protruding wire on the fence) it would still be IB because part or all of the  disc is directly over IB ground.

Situation 2: That depends on whether the TD has declared the bridge as a playing surface. If it is a playing surface then it is IB. If it is not a playing surface, then you would mark directly below. If directly below is in the water and the water has been declared OB, then the lie is OB. I always like to play bridges as playing surfaces because I think if you are "skilled" enough to land on the bridge you should be able to play it from there. I believe at the Bev we have always played the bridges as a playing surface.

[Guest]

Excellent, Smithers, and thank you for the clarification.
-jimklem