USDGC rules issue

[veganray]

Originally Posted by james_mccaine

I realize a lot of folks don't agree with some of his ideas. However, I applaud the guy for having vision and the courage to pursue it. Two things this sport badly needs. He wants to challenge the skills of the best and he doesn't let convention (or player complaints apparently) hold him back. Some ideas will die on the vine; others, well 50 years from now, they might be the convention waiting for the next Duvall to tear em down.

More power to him if he wants to experiment with wacky rules. I'd wholeheartedly support his running a series of X-Tiers (or, better yet, unsanctioned events) to do just that. But at a PDGA Major event, with a historic title & thousands of $$ on the line, I don't think so.

[bob]

I don't think the PDGA owns the USDGC.
By their own rulings, the TD is the owner of an event.
They can choose to sanction or not.
Final say should and does rest with the TD.

[james_mccaine]

Well, maybe he should run it as an X-tier next year. The biggest X-tier on the planet, one all the super tour events could aspire to.

[veganray]

Better yet, run it as an unsanctioned event, the biggest unsanctioned event on the planet, one to which all the super tour events could aspire. Just like the MSDGC in the good ole days.

I understand the "tournament ownership" angle, Bob, but if he chooses to sanction (as a non-X-tier), part of the deal should be to use PDGA rules in toto.

[bob]

I disagree,
The USDGC is the beat place to try out changes.
You get instant feedback from the best players from around the world.
As well as many of the finest TDs.
The score card for every players from 08 is now a part of all my events.
Bob

[bob]

I do understand that some of the changes could warrant an X tier status.
But as a major, I suspect they gain more flexibility.

[tanner]

Originally Posted by bob

I disagree,
The USDGC is the beat place to try out changes.
You get instant feedback from the best players from around the world.

This could easily happen, with a poll, BEFORE the event.

[cgkdisc]

Polling is not the same as actually playing it in competition. Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.

[veganray]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.

Which of the following are what these proposed rule changes are "intended to do":
1) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parked under the basket backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket, backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket. . .
2) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parks a drive, and (before having to move back & find a suitable spot for his non-drop-in) is called for a violation by a sheepish official because he failed to remember the one spot in the whole sport where he is forced to use a throwing technique that he may never use at any other time ever.
3) Alienate all players not blessed with the brilliant regulatory foresight of the elite think tank.
4) Eliminate the soft-landing precision approach shot as a necessary (or even desirable) aspect of a top player's game.
5) Turn the most prestigious, highest-paying event in our sport into a semi-glorified game of RIPT.

If any or all of those five are the intentions, kudos! I think that the elite think tank is possibly right on track for making sure a "new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do." If somethings other than those, however, are the intentions, I think a little more reflection about tinkering for the sake of tinkering is in order.

[stack]

Originally Posted by bruce_brakel

Maybe we just need a new spotter signal: raise both flags when you are guessing or are unsure so the player will know to say, "This one is a provisional."

funny you mention this... i was the spotter for the island on 888 all day the final round and had one that I knew would be really close on the path near the island. I held both flags out parallel to the ground and tilted them in unison. then held up my hands an inch apart and they figured it out. The guy left his mark... the group walked up and made the group call that it was in. I would have called it in myself but it was extremely close and I wanted to let the group make the call. I didnt know about my ruling being the 'final' answer until I started reading this thread so i'm glad i didnt make the signal. If the group wanted my opinion I would have given it though.

[stack]

one thing i'm curious about is why Christian Sandstrom isn't listed as a DNF. maybe just an oversight but he did make the cut and for whatever reason (probably injury) chose not to play the final round.

sad to think someone missed the cut and possibly could have played in his place

[rhett]

Originally Posted by veganray

More power to him if he wants to experiment with wacky rules. I'd wholeheartedly support his running a series of X-Tiers (or, better yet, unsanctioned events) to do just that. But at a PDGA Major event, with a historic title & thousands of $$ on the line, I don't think so.

You guys are funny. The USDGC *IS* his event! He built it from the ground up with the wacky and unconventional idea that it would be "One Division, One Champion". And that you'd have to qualify to play in it!

There were no tourneys like that.

He wanted to make a brutally tough yet completely fair layout that would challenge the game of the top players for the whole round. That's hard to do, so the yellow rope and Clown's Mouth and Ring of Haybales were used.

Nobody was seriously doing that stuff on grand scale. Does anybody remember all the whining and crying about the Gold Rope?

But then a funny thing happened: he convinced his company to make the 2nd most popular disc ever (Aviar is the first, right?) an exclusive fund-raiser in the newfangled plastic for this weird format event. The money rolled in and the event started filling! Imagine that...

I say, keep doing whatever the heck you want. He will regardless of what I say, but I just wanted to say it. It's the U.S. Championship and the course is hard. And fair. Like it should be. And that's because he does what he thinks would be neat to try.

[tanner]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Polling is not the same as actually playing it in competition. Even then, rules are not a popularity contest if a new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do.

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?

[krupicka]

Originally Posted by tanner

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?

Since in many areas the 2m rule is no longer in effect, a new 2m rule is needed to add to the confusion and help educate discgolfers on metric measurements.

Can't you see it now?
TD: "The 2m rule is not in effect, but the head banging prevention 2m rule is."

[august]

Originally Posted by tanner

Could you explain what the 2m putting rule is intended to do?

Looks like it is intended to penalize those who have the ability, and thus the competitive advantage, to throw a disc and land less than 2m from the pin.

Alternatively, you could just have competitors slice off the index finger of their throwing hand at registration as a requirement for entry. That would even the field a bit eh?

[xterramatt]

One scenario when being directly under the basket won't help is:
You are playing a course with a seriously elevated basket. One side of the green is on a flat, the other side was a severe slope. You may not physically be able to "drop in" when you are under the basket. While some course designers would penalize you for being "too close", this rule allows you to move to a spot where a more reasonable shot can be made. Had you been slightly farther away from the basket, you had the added benefit of throwing the disc FORWARD, but under the basket, you don't have this opportunity.

Just trying to think of some cases where this is an issue. It's happened to me numerous times on Renny 2 gold. It also happens on Hornets 9 and to a slightly lesser degree Hornets 8.

[tanner]

So this new rule would make reward you for being on the wrong side of the basket?

Originally Posted by xterramatt

One scenario when being directly under the basket won't help is:
You are playing a course with a seriously elevated basket. One side of the green is on a flat, the other side was a severe slope. You may not physically be able to "drop in" when you are under the basket. While some course designers would penalize you for being "too close", this rule allows you to move to a spot where a more reasonable shot can be made. Had you been slightly farther away from the basket, you had the added benefit of throwing the disc FORWARD, but under the basket, you don't have this opportunity.

Just trying to think of some cases where this is an issue. It's happened to me numerous times on Renny 2 gold. It also happens on Hornets 9 and to a slightly lesser degree Hornets 8.

[Lyle O Ross]

My personal opinion is that the 2M rule should be, if you land within the 2M circle, you have to climb a tree to a height of 2M and 2M from the pole and putt backwards.

I'm fine to try this... silly rule, but I'd bet money you'd see it one year and then it would be gone (providing of course that I've read the discussion and understand what is being proposed).

On the stand in for #5, I actually support stand and throw, and I see that they are trying this on for size and to see the response. It does change the game and while I have supported the position strongly, I see some real reasons why we shouldn't do it. Nonetheless, I agree with those who think these tests are a good idea in this tournament. It has the power and prestige to make them be taken seriously.

[ishkatbible]

for this two meter putt rule, did the players have the option to move back two meters to give them a better choice of shot, or were they forced?

[haroldduvall]

1. The spotters are volunteers. Volunteers can not make mistakes in my opinion. We (the organizers) made the mistake in that we should have provided better education for them. One advantage that we enjoy with the USDGC is the opportunity to learn from our experience. My list for 2010 already has 24 items. One is to provide hole specific training for the spotters.

2. Stand and deliver has its merits and its drawbacks, but I am not aware that it has been considered for any hole at the USDGC.

3. There has been some accurate and some inaccurate information related to the close-range putting rule variance we requested. So to provide some clarity, I have pasted below the variance that we requested and the rationale for it.

USDGC 1.5M rule
A 3M or 10ft diameter circle will be marked around each target. The area within the circle will be considered a buncr. The outside edge of the circle will be considered the limit of the buncr area at 1.5M or 5ft.

No shot may be thrown from the 1.5M buncr. When a thrown shot comes to rest partially or entirely within the 1.5M buncr area, it will be removed and relocated to the drop zone. The drop zone will be anywhere outside the perimeter of the buncr. No mini mark will be necessary. A play may opt to use a mini, if he chooses

To complete the hole, a player's last shot must come to rest in the entrapment device as stated in rule 803.13B.

Players must demonstrate balance with both feet on the ground and with their momentum toward the buncr area completely stopped before advancing into the buncr area. This is regardless of the distance from the 1.5M buncr. For example, when a player wedges a shot from any distance into the basket, they must at some point, before entering the 1.5M buncr area (to quickly retrieve their disc), demonstrate stopped momentum toward the buncr.

Failure to demonstrate balance before entering the 1.5M buncr will be called encroachment, and will result in a re-throw on the first offense. The player will take the worst of the two results. On the second and all subsequent infractions of this rule, the player will re-throw, receive a one stroke penalty and the player will take the result of his the re-throw.

Rationale for USDGC

The rationale for this rules variance is multi-faceted.

1. We believe the existing 10M falling putt rule has shortcomings. The main shortcoming is that it is not consistently marked and needs to be always marked. The difficulty/cost of temporarily or permanently marking 10M area may be the reason it has not been marked on the vast majority of existing courses. When the ten meter area is not marked, it makes it difficult to know when a falling putt occurs. This can give rise to inequity of application. We believe that a "falling putt zone" must always be marked in order to be in effect. We also believe that some size falling putt zone should be marked to prevent the unsafe and unseemly lunging to the target by desperate putters.

2. Demonstration of balance has been somewhat deficient with the falling putt zone. A one foot up and one foot down "balancing" and continuing toward the target has been a source of concern with regard to completely stopping momentum before advancing. We believe that requiring both feet flat on the ground with stopped momentum toward the zone, rather than a demonstration of "balance" before advancing to the target, would be an improvement.

3. We believe very short range putts have largely been a demonstration of "going through the motions", but are not a real "projection of a disc". We feel that this is not a demonstration of any shot or skill and needs to be amended. When a shot comes to rest completely within 1.5M, it is no longer necessary for many to "project" the shot as required by the rules. It is merely necessary for many players to simply reach out and place the disc in the basket, rather than actually putt it. The longest putt possible, when a lie is completely within the perimeter of the 1.5M zone, is 4' 3". Most are shorter. Rather than going through the motions, we believe that the very close range lies (less than 4' 3") should be (for general play) picked up +1 stroke. Alternatively, and especially if the circle is not or cannot be marked, players would complete the hole under the current stance and hole completion rules but without consideration for falling putts (803.04 C). In the case of the USDGC, we feel that the elite field of USDGC players can be held to a slightly higher standard of pulling back and putting from 1.5M, which requires a real projection, rather than a mere placement of the disc.


4. We feel that the 3M diameter circle is something that can add to the look, interest, and legitimacy of disc golf for the viewing public and the players. This is especially true if the courses have permanently marked areas that are constructed to make mowing easier around targets, allow decoration such as colored gravel, sand, mulch, or some other appropriate medium to differentiate the 3M area from the surrounds and add another dimension to the look of disc golf. Also, for targets placed on hillsides, the 3M area can be built up on the low side to add interest and help prevent unlucky spit outs from the further tragedy of rolling away.

Take care,
Harold

[ChrisWoj]

Just a thought - our greens are larger than traditional golf greens, by virtue of putting being easier. For us a 30 footer is way easier than a 30 footer in traditional golf. Now, to debate your point I submit the fact that when a ball is on the lip, how often do you see traditional golfers walk up and tap in with one hand on the club, barely motioning, just shoveling it in without a real putting stance, motion, etc.

By the same token: as our greens are larger, it makes sense that our players would have the same lackadaisical attitude toward putts out to 2-3 feet. It is no different from traditional golf in that the motion for a "drop-in" is significantly less structured just as the motion for a "tap-in" is significantly less structured. If traditional golf isn't hurt by people tapping in, why are we hurt so much by people dropping in?


-Chris.

[pterodactyl]

Originally Posted by veganray

Which of the following are what these proposed rule changes are "intended to do":
1) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parked under the basket backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket, backs up, checks the wind, moves around a few yards, putts under the basket. . .
2) Make the sport look like a joke when a player parks a drive, and (before having to move back & find a suitable spot for his non-drop-in) is called for a violation by a sheepish official because he failed to remember the one spot in the whole sport where he is forced to use a throwing technique that he may never use at any other time ever.
3) Alienate all players not blessed with the brilliant regulatory foresight of the elite think tank.
4) Eliminate the soft-landing precision approach shot as a necessary (or even desirable) aspect of a top player's game.
5) Turn the most prestigious, highest-paying event in our sport into a semi-glorified game of RIPT.

If any or all of those five are the intentions, kudos! I think that the elite think tank is possibly right on track for making sure a "new rule is successful at doing what it was intended to do." If somethings other than those, however, are the intentions, I think a little more reflection about tinkering for the sake of tinkering is in order.

...and making sense at the same time. "RIPT"...that was brilliant.

In a related story, Tiger Woods expertly hits his 3-iron within 2 inches of the cup, but under the new rules, has to pull it out for a 10-footer to make it interesting to our television audience.

[Patrick P]

Originally Posted by haroldduvall

4. We feel that the 3M diameter circle is something that can add to the look, interest, and legitimacy of disc golf for the viewing public and the players.
Harold

Maybe we should plant flower pots and pixies, and for even better viewing, make the putter hike the disc between their legs, then catch in mid-air and do a slamdunk. That would be far more interesting than drawing a 3m permamant circle.

Hey, wow look at that circle, it looks sooooo interesting and now we can make disc golf look legitimate.

[ishkatbible]

Originally Posted by haroldduvall

USDGC 1.5M rule
A 3M or 10ft diameter circle will be marked around each target. The area within the circle will be considered a buncr. The outside edge of the circle will be considered the limit of the buncr area at 1.5M or 5ft.

No shot may be thrown from the 1.5M buncr. When a thrown shot comes to rest partially or entirely within the 1.5M buncr area, it will be removed and relocated to the drop zone. The drop zone will be anywhere outside the perimeter of the buncr. No mini mark will be necessary. A play may opt to use a mini, if he chooses

To complete the hole, a player's last shot must come to rest in the entrapment device as stated in rule 803.13B.

so basically there is a 3m "reverse island" that is sort of OB, only without the stroke? One of my buddies had that idea a few years ago for a tournament he was going to run. i thought it was a great idea, but he never went through with it. it just makes things more interesting. you just got one more fan!!

[haroldduvall]

Hey Chris,

We tried to consider golf when developing this rule. In tournament golf, tap-ins may be approached more casually than longer putts, but the tap-in still complies with the rules. Rule 14.1 indicates that the ball must be fairly struck with the head of the club and not scraped, pushed, or spooned. Even when the ball is on the lip of the cup, the player still strikes it fairly. In contrast, tournament disc golf drop-ins are not necessarily in compliance with the rules. The definition of a throw is the propulsion of the disc. Drop-ins, in my opinion, are not propelled. Five feet seemed like a distance where almost every player would have to propel the shot.

Underlying this technical issue is a substantive difference in close-range shots between the two versions of golf. In having to strike the ball, the golfer can miss and miss big, especially under pressure. While disc golf drop-ins have been missed, they are practically unmissable. Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

Proportionally, the “meaningless zone” in disc golf is far higher than golf. It is on the order of 1% of the disc golf hole length (4 feet out of 400 feet). In contrast, the golf meaningless distance may be one tenth as much or (1 foot out of 1000 feet). The 5 foot circle seemed to eliminate much of the disparity in the meaningless zones.

I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold

[stack]

Originally Posted by haroldduvall

...Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

what about hitting one out of the park in baseball... the player jogging around the bases is just going through the motions isn't he.

as far as the stand and deliver rule... maybe you could start to see what type of distance people can get by having a side-side event to the distance competition next year and have players throw 3 throws with the stand and deliver method. This would be great data to possibly see which holes to incorporate this rule on. If players are only losing 50' then maybe there is merit to it but if players can only throw 1/2 the distance (likely the number would be somewhere in the middle) it would be great to know.

one thing i'm curious about is if you'd ever entertain the idea of smaller (narrower) baskets? I heard this brought up by a couple top tier players as something that could be good for our sport and I have to say that they made good arguments/points. (the reasons/ideas would easily be cause for another thread and is probably one already somewhere).

whatever anyone's viewpoints I think its important to realize that having Harold come on here and externalize his thoughts is a gift of sorts... he could just say he doesn't care what others think or simply clam up after getting attacked for his 'crazy' ideas but instead he chooses to give out his ideas and even some of the reasoning behind them. its great to be able to pick the brain of the designer ... even if you think there's a little something 'off' inside there

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by haroldduvall

Hey Chris,

We tried to consider golf when developing this rule. In tournament golf, tap-ins may be approached more casually than longer putts, but the tap-in still complies with the rules. Rule 14.1 indicates that the ball must be fairly struck with the head of the club and not scraped, pushed, or spooned. Even when the ball is on the lip of the cup, the player still strikes it fairly. In contrast, tournament disc golf drop-ins are not necessarily in compliance with the rules. The definition of a throw is the propulsion of the disc. Drop-ins, in my opinion, are not propelled. Five feet seemed like a distance where almost every player would have to propel the shot.

Underlying this technical issue is a substantive difference in close-range shots between the two versions of golf. In having to strike the ball, the golfer can miss and miss big, especially under pressure. While disc golf drop-ins have been missed, they are practically unmissable. Close in, the disc golfer is simply going through the motions. There does not seem to be an action in sport that is quite as meaningless as the disc golf drop-in.

Proportionally, the “meaningless zone” in disc golf is far higher than golf. It is on the order of 1% of the disc golf hole length (4 feet out of 400 feet). In contrast, the golf meaningless distance may be one tenth as much or (1 foot out of 1000 feet). The 5 foot circle seemed to eliminate much of the disparity in the meaningless zones.

I believe the other reasons for the 5 foot circle (ease of marking the circle, pageantry, less subjective demonstration of balance) are more compelling, but I believe that it also important that our common practices technically comply with our rules. Our game is wonderful, yet the close-range throw seems like a minor defect that we should attempt to address. One of the reasons that the USDGC was created was to test and share new ideas.

Take care,
Harold

I appreciate your response and discourse Harold, and I agree with some of your points: the drop in can feel like a true gimme at times. However you're talking about only 1.5M or 5' which is hardly a distance that can make a difference with regards to "propelling" the disc. I just did a quick measure of 5' from the basket and was able to easily lean forward on my front foot and drop the disc in with virtually no propulsion. Admittedly my rear leg was out and I felt like a bit of a ballerina, but it wasn't difficult and I had no trouble regaining my balance.

I'm 5'10 with a 6'3 wingspan - and I consider myself along the lower end of the spectrum physically amongst players that have some natural talent for the game. Looking at most of the top pro players, with some exceptions: they're taller with a longer reach than myself. Jay Reading is about 6'4 with a 6'10 wingspan. A 5' circle is a meaningless adjustment, in my opinion. Now if you were forcing everyone to move out to 3M/10' it would be significant. Actually I'm somewhat confused by that part of your post...

You say anything within the 1.5M circle needs to be moved to the outside of the 1.5M circle and propelled in... what is the purpose of the second circle at 3M? I may be missing something here. Although I do like the idea of in some way marking at about 10' around the basket. That WOULD definitely look very cool. I may make that a project at my home course next year in order to add to the unique look of the course.


-Chris.

[MTL21676]

I guess I just don't understand how a tap in is not holing out in our sport. I get what Harold is saying about the lack of being propelled, but on the other end, the player is still controlling when where and how the disc is put in the basket. It is not like on tap ins where a player literally can just pick the disc up and drop it / place it in that he has no control of that. I've seen many different approaches to this action; off handed, forcefully, dropped in, set in, placed in, pushed through the top, intentionally wedging into the side, thumbed in, tomahawked in, and even hiked in.

Everyone of these actions have one thing in common - all were actions controlled by the player and all resulted in a successful completion of said hole since the basket and or chains were now supporting the disc. It's not like that it is impossible to miss these - you have to look further than Barry Schultz in the final round of the 2006 USDGC.

I have tremendous respect for you as a player, promoter and innovator in our sport Harold, but I am respectfully disagreeing with you on this topic. I can see your argument that a drop in may not be a propulsion of the disc but on other end but as I said, it in the end is completely in the players control when and how he taps out. He has to have complete control of the disc and it's flight to successfully hole out even if it is as simple as setting it in the basket and the flight is less than a 10th of a second.

[haroldduvall]

Hey Andrew,

Good example with rounding the bases for a home run. The baseball player does seem to be going though the motion in the same way that a disc golfer does for a drop in. The home run trot is at least consistent with baseball's rules and it is also part of the pageantry of America's Pastime.

Stand and deliver is not an idea we are considering. We are willing to experiment, but only within parameters. One of these parameters is safety. In trying to stand and deliver, some players may hurt their knees as they may not be able to pivot properly. I also am not sure if we want to reduce the distance of throws. The tremendous distances that today's players achieve is part of the wow factor that distinguishes disc golf from our predecessor game, frisbee golf. Finally, the run up is fundamental to throwing itself. Changing the nature of throwing seems like too great a departure. In contrast, the 5-foot circle, is a very modest change in practice. Those who putted from the bricks on hole 12 at Winthrop realized just how short a 5-foot putt really is.

The smaller target, like stand and deliver, would also seem to be too great a departure. The tees and greens in golf may be more difficult for tournament play, but the hole is still the same size. While it would be nice for disc golf's par to more closely approximate golf's, a smaller target may also create more of the meaningless drop-ins. Even for the best players, putting seems plenty difficult as evidenced by all the missed putts inside the 10 meter circle this past week at Winthrop.

Take care
Harold

[haroldduvall]

Hey Chris,

The 1.5 meter radius circle is the same as the 3 meter diameter circle. I should probably stick with one designation or the other.

I am 6'1". From 1.5 meters (5 feet), I can barely flip it over the rim of the tray. Some players, like Jay, may be able to still drop it in from 5 feet. The distance may need to be somewhat longer. Whether it is 1.5 or 2 meters, the circle would be much easier to mark than 10 meter circles.

Take care,
Harold