The Rules Committee is proposing to make stroke and distance the penalty for some, but not all, of the following situations. Which do you think should be stroke and distance?

Fascinating if you factor in that 50% will say "no change" regardless of the facts or reasons behind the change.

Nearly a dead heat...

Stroke and Distance is the only option that removes "All" judgment and possible favoritism from the equation.

I have not voted yet. I'm not sure what I think.

Stroke and Distance is the only option that removes "All" judgment and possible favoritism from the equation.



If you're carrying around a tape measure. If not, it sure calls for a lot of judgment.

stroke AND distance seems incredibly harsh for some of these. unless i am misunderstanding the term. "undesirable" lie? sure... make 'em take a penalty AND set 'em back where they started. but lost disc and OB? geez, they're actually considering saying "well too bad you went OB 350 feet down the fairway... go back to the teepad and throw again.... oh yeah, you're laying 2 on the pad :) "

way too brutal!

please tell me i'm wrong!

The current options for OB work well.

Stroke and distance for lost disc and above 2m would add a lot of time and confusion to the rounds.

Both of those involve discs that may not be thought in penalty when the marker disc is picked up from the previous shot. If it is determined that the player has to go back and rethrow the shot, he has to go back to the last spot. If it is determined that he does not have to rethrow, he still has to go back and pick up the marker he left in case he would have to rethrow. If the player failed to leave a marker at the previous lie, the card would have to go back and help establish the previous lie. If he throws a provisional instead (where the above 2m status or there is a possibility of a lost disc), the first disc may be easily found while the provisional may be lost.

It would be nice to finally call the unplayable lie an undesirable lie since that is the way the rules really read, but I think the existing relief rules are adequate for that issue.

The rules committee wants stroke and distance for lost disc and undesirable lie. Apparently they all play courses that don't really have undesirable lies. Two stoke penalty for landing over the ground wasps' nest? Two stroke penalty for landing in the impenetrable thicket of wild roses? Whatever.

and more than two strokes if you land there (or another wasp nest) again!

BAD RULES COMMITTEE! :D

of course, wasp nests should be given blanket casual relief by the TD prio to the start.

i dont understand the extra penalty for lost disc... a one stroke penalty is enough. at worst make it a 2 stroke penalty for lost in an OB area. but i dont really like that either.

It sounds like a big mess.

I can remember several occaisions where a disc that looked to be in the middle of the fairway ended up being lost or a disc that looked like it would never be found was on the edge of the fairway. 2m status is often decided when you reach the thrown disc. Having to leave a marker at the last lie until a decision is made requires that a player return to either pick it up or play it every time.

That's too much walking for an old guy like me. :D

Too brutal for non pro's. If they do stroke and distance then they should add them to the NT/Supertour rules. Too much of a penalty for those just starting. My 2 cents.

I say bring the Rules guys down to San Saba for a weekend of playing these courses .That might change some minds

enforce the rules we have

i could go for rethrow on a lost disc instead of 1 stroke and having to deside where it was last seen.

OB should stay the way it is unless you can rethrow without a penalty.

I kinda like the unplayable lie as it is right now.

This is still to complicated for my little brain. Basically if you fall into any of these categories it's a rethrow and you add an extra stroke beyond the one you just took? If that is correct, it seems harsh to me too.

Stroke and distance is the standard in ball golf. I think the people who think that disc golf should keep its regulations and rules closer to ball golf support the stroke and distance changes.

so if you go into water in BG its stroke and re-shoot? i dont think so!

and a lot of our OB functions a bit like BG sand traps... so stroke and distance is about 2.5 times harsher than landing in a sand trap.

these proposed changes are extremely draconian!

Ball golf they play through clean fairways and at tournaments they have spotters, marshals and spectators everywhere, so it is less of an issue on the lost ball/disc part.

On the OB s&d is just too harsh. No need for that, even ball golf plays where it went out.

Undesired lie, I revert back to what disc golfers have to play through sometimes that b-golfers don't.

So imo s&d is just too harsh for our game.

Silly, silly. As if our rounds don't take long enough, now you have to leave a marker? And then go back to retrieve? C'mon! So, on any water hole, hit the basket and then bounce back in the water. You are now shooting 3 from the tee-pad?! How about 2 like in BG? No stroke penalty just throw again.

On a side note, you wanna be like BG? Give me relief from anything that may cause me injury.
Oh, wait. IT ALREADY HAS HAPPENED!! At this year's Memorial I watched a Marshall give relief from a light post to a female Pro because she couldn't safely throw a backhand DRIVE. She could've plopped it in the fairway or thrown sidearm, but NO, she was given relief from an intregal part of the course.
The Rules Committee can do what it wants, it won't be enforced correctly and will probably change two or three times throughout the year anyway.

exactly!

the option could be stroke OR distance, but not both.

sheesh, and they were moaning about the double penalty when a is disc 40 feet up in a cedar with low branches?!? are these the same people???

Stroke and distance is the standard in ball golf. I think the people who think that disc golf should keep its regulations and rules closer to ball golf support the stroke and distance changes.

Ball golf allows lateral relief with a one stroke penalty for an undesirable lie. I don't understand the rules committee's hostility to this rule. Unlike ball golfers, we play on courses that have some really nasty stuff. Like at 2000 Worlds there were some patches of schule on the Tobbogan that were 90% giant stinging nettle. I once saw Terry Calhoun shred his shirt to ribbons trying to take a stance in a honeysuckle bunch that had thornapples growing in it.

I like looking to ball golf when it makes sense, but in these cases I don't like it.

No stroke and distacnce for me.

Ball golf has two kindsthings: OB, which is stroke and distance; and hazards like lakes, which play like our OB.

I think it works just fine the way we do it.

Could someone clarify how the BG OB rules work?
My understanding was that water hazards aren't exactly OB in BG, so, for example, if you hit the green on an island hole and roll into the water, it isn't S&D, you take a line from where you went wet, in line with the tee, no closer to the hole, and play shot 3 from there? Plus you get a drop, club length or so from that point, to make the best of your position?

If you go outside the boundaries of the course and/or hole, it is S&D, but these are defined differently to water hazards etc?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

Just like I said.

They have two kinds of things: OB and hazards.

Disc golf plays OBs very similar to the BG hazard. Disc golf has nothing like the ball golf OB.

Ok, you were assuming I replied to that message in the thread, rather than an earlier one. Apologies for jumping in before reading the whole thread :p

Thanks for the clarification though, even if it was well before I'd jumped in with my worthless 4p worth...
(that's about the exchange rate these days, right?)

The rules committee wanted to eliminate the 2-meter penalty.

Stroke and distance is currently a player choice for OB. No change was/is proposed.

Determining a lie after a lost disc is currently one of the most judgmental and inconsistent situations in our rulebook. Stroke and distance would remove the ambiguity and inconsistency. In some cases, stroke and distance would be more severe than �last seen.� In other situations, e.g. downhill tosses, stroke and distance would be les severe. Returning to play from an approximate lie will take time, but it�s a stretch to say that rounds would take significantly longer to play. If folks start timing when they are supposed to, the rounds may speed up.

Undersirable lie would still allow you 5 meters for 1 stroke. The change really involves the second part of 803.05A. Instead of returning to the fairway no closer to the hole (which sometimes is impossible to do), the player would replay from the previous lie. Like lost disc, the change for undesirable lie is designed to reduce ambiguity and inconsistency.

Most of us have experience nasty situations where we did not want to get the disc. Generally, these are known right away. Why waste time with the current rule when you can just throw again? Most competitors will still do everything they can to throw from where the disc came to rest.

This change could be significant if there are lots of undesirable situations where players are currently invoking the 2 throw option to get back to the fairway no closer. My experience over the years with this rule is that it is not very common, but neither I nor the rules committee play everywhere the PDGA rules are used. If this situation is common, it would be good to know.

Take care,
Harold

I think it should be played like ball golf. There is two different color obs. Im not sure what they are anymore, but one is stroke and disctance and one is drop where it went out. I think this makes a lot more sense and then can be applied appropiately and take out some of the judgement involved. I dont like the judgement factor involved in the way things are now. It may mean that you have to take stroke and distance, but that means everyone will have to also. No more, "I think it went out here."

Sorry Bruce. It's just that you actually did hit the reply button on my post that said that stuff. :)

Bruce, why did you include an "over 2 meters" question since next year it is being eliminated? Does the "leave the rule unchanged" mean leave it as no penalty -- treat it like we have always treated discs suspended 1.9 meters high (mark it below on the playing surface and play on)?

C'mon now. You knew I had to come on here and scold even our venerable RC member Harold for "stroke" and distance. The word 'stroke' doesn't show up in our Rulebook yet. Perhaps that's a part of the proposed changes, too?

Why not treat a lost disc like a practice throw? You have to rethrow but there's no additional penalty besides the actual throw. I think your group would be more inclined to help you find your disc, depending on where you threw it, so you'd have to play it from the schule.

Chuck, that sounds like a great idea for the lost disc scenario -- though imo we do need to do something to disincline a player from using the undesirable lie call unless it's absolutely necessary -- so for that i'd like to see a rethrow plus a penalty.

if you are hosting an important tournament make sure your courses are groomed of major thorns, nettles, and wasps (as much as possible) or simply make such areas OB

I *might* have hit reply on a message at random... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Hey Chuck � Good point. �Stroke and distance� was the language of the original post. Different language was used by the Committee.

Speaking for myself here: A lost disc and a practice throw are differentiated by competitive intent. To equate the two would stray from golf�s model. It would then be difficult to reconcile the consequences for lost disc versus unplayable/undesirable.

Take care,
Harold

Dear Harold,

�The rules committee wanted to eliminate the 2-meter penalty.�
Without going into greater detail, I hope you get your way.

�Stroke and distance is currently a player choice for OB. No change was/is proposed.�
Yes, all that would seem to be proposed is the removal of the option to guestimate where it was last in bounds.

�Determining a lie after a lost disc is currently one of the most judgmental and inconsistent situations in our rulebook. Stroke and distance would remove the ambiguity and inconsistency. In some cases, stroke and distance would be more severe than �last seen.� In other situations, e.g. downhill tosses, stroke and distance would be les severe. Returning to play from an approximate lie will take time, but it�s a stretch to say that rounds would take significantly longer to play. If folks start timing when they are supposed to, the rounds may speed up.�
Agreed. 100%.

�Undesirable lie would still allow you 5 meters for 1 stroke. The change really involves the second part of 803.05A. Instead of returning to the fairway no closer to the hole (which sometimes is impossible to do), the player would replay from the previous lie. Like lost disc, the change for undesirable lie is designed to reduce ambiguity and inconsistency. �
Agreed. 100%.

�Most of us have experience nasty situations where we did not want to get the disc. Generally, these are known right away. Why waste time with the current rule when you can just throw again? Most competitors will still do everything they can to throw from where the disc came to rest.

This change could be significant if there are lots of undesirable situations where players are currently invoking the 2 throw option to get back to the fairway no closer. My experience over the years with this rule is that it is not very common, but neither I nor the rules committee play everywhere the PDGA rules are used. If this situation is common, it would be good to know.�
It is extremely rare in my experience, to your north. I think the correct description would be �never�, as in I have �never� seen a person use an undesirable lie option in a PDGA.

�Throw and Distance� and "Drop Zone" are the only ways to ensure fairness. The "Last Point In Bounds" option involves a very large degree of subjectivity and the potential for favoritism or even vindictiveness.

The repositioning of the 2 meter language and the removal of one option for lost and OB situations are both excellent developments in my opinion.

I am intrigued by the options, that they have in bg, of having separate �hazards� and �out of bounds� area designations. Seems like a natural fit for dg. If course pros don�t want to take the time to differentiate then the default should be set at OB. The value of having �hazards� would be that (as disc golf courses get more and more dynamic with multiple drive/approach shots per hole) is that the need for designating �drop zones� everywhere would be eliminated. Though on courses with only a few (or no) multiple drive/approach shot holes occasional drop zones would still likely be more advisable.

Regards,
Nick Kight

In general, I hate to see penalties the equivalent of 'throw and distance' unless absolutely necessary because that level of penalty is a higher percentage of throws in DG vs BG on most courses. It's a little more tolerable at the USDGC since the number of total throws there is closer to BG scores.

Chuck,

Don't forget that the drop zone option will continue. So in the instances where throw and distance is overly punitive (i.e. tee pad of a 600'+ fairway) a drop zone may be utilized.

Nick

I'm not sure how you would do a drop zone for a lost disc though.

I would rather see it added as an option first.

We do play on a quite a few courses where you will be looking on every other hole for someone's disc, usually found, but sometimes not. It is quite often from the Tee, but a few courses where it's the second shot that is the tough one to see.

Why do we need to make undesirable lie an undesirable call ?
If 5m is a good deal for 1 stroke what more penalty does the player need ?

2 strokes to return to the previous spot is kind of strange. How about as above adding the return to previous lie as an option at the 2 stroke penalty level ?

I know the rule is seldom used, but if the name changes to undesirable lie, it may get more use.

I'm not sure how you would do a drop zone for a lost disc though.



Hence, only provide the throw and distance option for lost disc.

Any area of a course where a lost disc is very likely should probably be marked OB anyway (that or a 'hazard' if we introduce such a thing, and I think we should). Where a course does not provide such designations we would have throw and distance, which is fair, consistent and lacks any and all need for judgment calls and removes favoritism/vindictiveness.

Simialr to Chuck and PG, I would love to see the rules committee consider just "distance" instead of "throw and distance." A rethrow with no extra penalty stroke seems like a win-win. It addresses the concerns over uncertainty over placement and favoritism and such, but still is not an overly onerous penalty. However, in my mind, I would limit the "distance" only option to shots off the tee.

I am not necessarily advocating this as a universal rule, but an option for flexible and creative TDs. They could possibly design tougher tee shots without worrying that the particular tee shot defines the whole round. For example, a really tough island hole might be palatable with the "throw" option, but unreasonable with the "throw and distance" option.

After more thought, I think the 'distance only' penalty from the tee is a good idea. Leaving the options:

1) Throw and Distance
2) Throw and Drop Zone
3) Distance

Distance only could also be used for Drop Zones, don't you think?

I feel the current penalty's for OB, suspended 2 meters or above, and a lost disc are sufficient. No need to try and confuse the masses anymore than they currently are.

Drop zones are fine with me. They do have a certain utility. One drawback, which is also present in both the "throw and distance" and "throw" is that they treat all shots the same. I have seen situations where the drop was was a reward for some awful shots. However, I realize there are no perfect solutions.

As to to the unlimited throw scenario, it can happen already. I've never seen an "unlimited" amount, but it must have felt close to it by the thrower. :D

I guess my point is this: If I was the czar of golf, I would allow multiple options available under the rules. The list would include all of our present penalty rules; the throw and distance option; the throw option; the drop zone option. Each of these options might be the best fit for the hole/shot in question. In this way, the TD has the flexibility to apply what I call fairness to the course design and has the flexibility to design more demanding holes, fully knowing that the penalties for that hole can be "reduced" to make it more fair. I understand that what I just described is similar to what we currently have, I would just like to see the "throw" option added to the TD's arsenal.

Sorry, didn't re-edit in time James. I agree with you.

1) Throw and Distance
2) Throw and Drop Zone
3) Distance



Option 3) needs a catchier name like "Do-over" (could even be pronounced 'duver' which is similar to duffer)

C'mon now. You knew I had to come on here and scold even our venerable RC member Harold for "stroke" and distance. The word 'stroke' doesn't show up in our Rulebook yet.

So?

"Stroke" is simply a figure of speech; it is not, nor does anyone purport it to be, a literal description of the action thereby designated. Any number of commonly used and commonly understood disc golf expressions, such as "foot fault," "jump putt," "dq," "schule," "birdie," "bogie," "tap-in," "out" (as in the expression, "You're still out"), [/i]etc.[/i] don't appear in the Rulebook either. Should we eliminate them from our vocabulary on that account?

Fore's on ignore.

I think the Unsafe Lie (undesirable lie [puke]) rule is dumb. :o:eek: :p

Here is how I would word it --

The player may deem his disc unplayable at any place on the course except when the disc is out of bounds. The player is the sole judge as to whether his disc is unplayable.
If the player deems his disc to be unplayable, he must, under penalty of one stroke:
a. Mark the new lie as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original disc was last played; or
b. Mark the new lie behind the point where the disc lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the new lie is marked, with no limit to how far behind that point the new lie may be marked; or
c. Mark the new lie within two meters of the spot where the disc lay, but not nearer the hole.

Isn't that easy? :D:p Doesn't take a genius.

1) Throw and Distance
2) Throw and Drop Zone
3) Distance



Option 3) needs a catchier name like "Do-over" (could even be pronounced 'duver' which is similar to duffer)



Personally I like "Monback", as in "Come On Back".

The kicker is that the course pro should only use this rarely and when distance is clearly enough of a penalty; otherwise throw and distance or throw and drop zone should be utilized.

On the "stroke and distance" tangent, I used "stroke and distance" because the Board used "stroke and distance." I think what they meant was "throw, penalty and distance." Perhaps someone from the rules committee could clue us in:

Is the rules committee lobbying for throw, penalty and distance for lost disc and undesirable lie or merely throw and distance. For example, the tee throw is declared lost. Is the rules committee lobbying for a rule that says the thrower is now throwing 2 or 3 from the tee?

Why do suspended and lost discs deserve to be that severly punished. They are not exactly bad shots on the courses where they are common. If there is an area that players should not be throwing over or through and the TD thinks a penalty is appropriate, make the area OB. For shots that are just unlucky, why add an additional stroke to the penalty.

Leave it up to the course designer/TD where the really bad areas are.

On a lost disc, you have to throw again since we can't extablish a new lie for you without finding your disc. Go back and do it again without an additional penalty.

Disc is suspended above 2m. Play it underneath or from the previous lie without penalty or play it underneath and declare it undesirable. Relocate according to the undesirable lie rule.

I like the 2 strokes + distance option for undesirable lies as a catch-all for instances where "anywhere - no closer to the pin" does not work.

Bruce,

Didn't you get the memo from the RC when you were on the BOD? What about the questionaire about this very topic?

You must have.

And Harold IS on the RC.

Are you just being coy?

nk

Fore's on ignore.

Real mature response there, Chuckles. What? You think that if you ignore the issue it'll just magically disappear?

Could someone clarify how the BG OB rules work?
My understanding was that water hazards aren't exactly OB in BG, so, for example, if you hit the green on an island hole and roll into the water, it isn't S&D, you take a line from where you went wet, in line with the tee, no closer to the hole, and play shot 3 from there? Plus you get a drop, club length or so from that point, to make the best of your position?

If you go outside the boundaries of the course and/or hole, it is S&D, but these are defined differently to water hazards etc?



According to my father, who is my personal BG expert, ball golf plays stroke and distance for OB. Water, like disc golf, is only OB if it is marked or declared such. Some courses or tournaments might have drop zones. Most casual ball golfers play a drop but I thought the default for tournament BG was stroke and distance.

Jon, does "stroke and distance" mean re-tee hitting two? Or does it mean "stroke, distance and penalty," re-tee hitting three?

Nick, puppets don't get the memos.

Jon, have I ever sent you a memo?

Nick, see?

I'm not being coy. I'm just an outsider who is paying attention to what little scraps of information they throw our way and I'm trying to figure out what they mean.

Jon, does "stroke and distance" mean re-tee hitting two? Or does it mean "stroke, distance and penalty," re-tee hitting three?

Nick, puppets don't get the memos.

Jon, have I ever sent you a memo?

Nick, see?

I'm not being coy. I'm just an outsider who is paying attention to what little scraps of information they throw our way and I'm trying to figure out what they mean.



I thought in BG it is stroke, penalty and distance. I think if you go OB off the green, you are shooting 3 from the tee. I'll check with Dad the next time I see him. Ball golf really rewards the player who can keep it on the fairway consistently...that and the guy who can putt! Disc golf is really forgiving to the player for making mistakes when you compare to ball golf.

it we're trying to crack down and make it tougher, and to reward good shots and punish bad shots, then i have a proposal: what about awarding a penalty stroke to shots that end up stuck way high in trees. i'm thinking it would make sense to set the height at about the average height of a player... that would be about the upper reach of a junior player too. in the 6 foot vicinity. whaddya think? would it fly?

it we're trying to crack down and make it tougher, and to reward good shots and punish bad shots, then i have a proposal: what about awarding a penalty stroke to shots that end up stuck way high in trees. i'm thinking it would make sense to set the height at about the average height of a player... that would be about the upper reach of a junior player too. in the 6 foot vicinity. whaddya think? would it fly?

We tried that at a tournament once. It was not popular. :D

Can somebody please comment on my above wording for the Unplayable Lie rule?!??!?!? :)

If a player decides to take an Unplayable Lie, they take a stroke penalty and take their next shot from any one of:
a) previous lie
b) anywhere on the line of play
c) 2m any direction no closer

Why wouldn't this work? Why should we keep a rule that uses the term "fairway"? :D

Oh and by the way I think I would make a lie over 2m be an automatic Unplayable Lie and the player proceeds under that rule. That is, assuming we need to keep the dang thing at all. :p :D

Does this all simply make too much sense? Or have I been in the sun too long? :D:D

it we're trying to crack down and make it tougher, and to reward good shots and punish bad shots, then i have a proposal: what about awarding a penalty stroke to shots that end up stuck way high in trees. i'm thinking it would make sense to set the height at about the average height of a player... that would be about the upper reach of a junior player too. in the 6 foot vicinity. whaddya think? would it fly?

We tried that at a tournament once. It was not popular. :D



I guess we'll find out just how unpopular (or other reason) it really is when TDs have to "opt in" to it. If it is more than 75% then I'd say it remains popular, if it is less than 75% then it is not popular (it is just the normal showing of folks adversion to "any" change at all).

Bruce,

I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of this discussion or the positions of the PDGA Rules Committee considering that you voted to postpone the implementation of the changes. Are you saying that you did so from a position of ignorance, concerning the arguments for or against provided by the RC?

Aren't your strings cut?

nk

If a player decides to take an Unplayable Lie, they take a stroke penalty and take their next shot from any one of:
a) previous lie
b) anywhere on the line of play <font color="red"> but no closer to the hole </font>
c) 2m any direction no closer

If a player decides to take an Unplayable Lie, they take a stroke penalty and take their next shot from any one of:
a) previous lie
b) anywhere on the line of play <font color="red"> but no closer to the hole </font>
c) 2m any direction no closer



Correct, thank you. That was in the original wording, I just forgot it in my summary. Doh! :D:D

And if you want to go 5m instead of 2m in part (c) to preserve the hippy love fest in the rules whatever that's fine.

not to be the contrarian (not me, never!)... but if a player wants to exercise one of these options, why couldnt they simply throw their disc to where they would "prefer" to be? if its 2-5 meters, they oughta to be able to pull that off 99% of the time. back to the lie might be more difficult, but they're throwing backwards, so who cares where they end up. ditto for backwards on line of play.

so the rule does nothing other than alow the player to make another throw, does it?

not to be the contrarian (not me, never!)... but if a player wants to exercise one of these options, why couldnt they simply throw their disc to where they would "prefer" to be? if its 2-5 meters, they oughta to be able to pull that off 99% of the time. back to the lie might be more difficult, but they're throwing backwards, so who cares where they end up. ditto for backwards on line of play.

so the rule does nothing other than alow the player to make another throw, does it?



I get what you are saying. :)

But by choosing their lie with a stroke penalty, they get to choose their lie. So they can choose the best footing available and best line of flight available. This is not guaranteed with a throw from the unplayable lie nor do I think it's as easy as the 99% you quote.

Besides -- the REAL reason ( :D) for this rule is truly Unplayable lies. And if it's unplayable, then they pretty much can't throw from there right? :p

Of course the other side benefit is getting rid of the IMO dumb 2 stroke to move to fairway rule. This is somewhat replaced by the ability to move any distance back on the LOP or back to the previous lie. If you move back to the previous lie AND take a stroke penalty it's essentially the same as the old 2 stroke rule just slightly harder. The LOP option is actually more lenient than the old rule.

You are NOT a contrarian! :D :D :cool:

If you don't get it, you need to get out and about more. I think both the undesirable lie rule and the two-meter rule make sense mainly to people who play courses that have the features that bring those rules into play. Not too many courses have the features that bring the 2-stroke infinite relief rule into play, and the TD should declare those areas o.b., but they don't always. I played two tournaments last year where those areas were not declared o.b. One was an A-tier and one was a major.

The 2 tier penalty for unplayable lie rule was there to handle unexpected situations.

One stroke for anywhere within 5m no closer to the hole should allow a clear shot from almost every situation on almost every course. There have been times where I have been in stuff so dense that just tossing back to the fairway which was less than 5m away was not guaranteed. If you are in a spot where it is a better choice to take a stroke to get 5m than try to throw, you need some type of relief.

The 2 stroke penalty is there to prevent a single misthrow from costing a player more than 3 strokes on a really bad or unlucky shot. I see the need for continuing the 2 levels of penalty for guaranteeing a clear shot.

Two strokes for unlimited relief no closer to the hole (which includes LOP) or to return to the previous spot even if it is closer to the hole.

On courses like Down Under in KC, it is not unlikely that the previous spot be closer than where your disc ends up when it goes down the hill. It is also very likely that it could take you more than 2 strokes to return to the fairway.

hmmm... after reading all these responses, maybe i need to think this through a lot more. because so far you all have convinced me that there SHOULD be a 2 stroke penalty instead of a 1. after all, we're saying the moving of the lie is better for the player because it removes the chance that a throw would entail, and the player can pick the precise spot he wants.

no fo rthe unplayable lies, that as gary ponts out, has been the escape clause that allows players to get out of bad spots that presumably they put themselves into and have no one to blame but themselves.

except of course for wasp nests, etc. standard language in the rulebook should provide for some of these. and a TD who does not include any extra special exemptions in the meeting/playerspack/event rules is negligent.

I think the beauty of Hank's recommendation is that (IMHO) it simplifies the rules. Rather than it being this far + 1 stroke or farther + 2 strokes. It gives you three options. (Yes the three seems to me more simpler than the two) The same three options work rather nicely for > 2m regardless of the type of tree/bush etc that prevented the disc from finding terra firma. Its not so much as how often is the goto fairway +2 is used, but in providing a fair and simple selection to respond to various hazards along the course.

Two things.

First. If you throw into such a spot that it is worth it to you to take a stroke to move 5m, you deserve a penalty stroke to do so. Allowing more relief than 5m from "where it lies" is not in keeping with attempting to "play it where it lies" and should exact a higher price.

Second. If you have thrown so deep into such a spot that 5m will not give you a reasonable shot out of there, you deserve 2 penalty strokes to gain further relief. Mere stroke and distance is not enough.

BTW. Wasps are harmful insects and covered under casual relief.

Again, speaking for myself and not the Committee: The Unplayable/Undesirable rule strives to balance the fundamental disc golf tenet of �Throw from where you threw it� against the real world challenges that make certain lies too time consuming or too impractical. A one throw penalty is too lenient in my opinion for players to choose not to play from where they threw it. That is why I favor the �Stroke and Distance� which is, in effect, a two-throw penalty.

With the variety of disc golf situations, it is difficult to assign a value to the �distance� component of the penalty. The option embodied in 803.05A allows throwers to make their determinations as they see fit. Options enhance strategy and course management for golf. Disc Golf would do well to follow golf�s example in the area of rules options, I believe.

Whether throwers should pay 1-throw for 2-meters or 5 meters on the line of play is debatable. My experience is that 2-meters would be insufficient for most undesirable situations. Allowing the player more than 5 meters for only one throw starts to stretch �Throw from where you threw it.�

Take care,
Harold

Again, speaking for myself and not the Committee: The Unplayable/Undesirable rule strives to balance the fundamental disc golf tenet of �Throw from where you threw it� against the real world challenges that make certain lies too time consuming or too impractical. A one throw penalty is too lenient in my opinion for players to choose not to play from where they threw it. That is why I favor the �Stroke and Distance� which is, in effect, a two-throw penalty.

With the variety of disc golf situations, it is difficult to assign a value to the �distance� component of the penalty. The option embodied in 803.05A allows throwers to make their determinations as they see fit. Options enhance strategy and course management for golf. Disc Golf would do well to follow golf�s example in the area of rules options, I believe.

Whether throwers should pay 1-throw for 2-meters or 5 meters on the line of play is debatable. My experience is that 2-meters would be insufficient for most undesirable situations. Allowing the player more than 5 meters for only one throw starts to stretch �Throw from where you threw it.�

Take care,
Harold



Harold,

From your post it is unclear if the Ruless Committe is considering modifying the unplayble lie rule to only allow relief on the line of play.

There are times when the line of play is of no benefit, no matter how much farther behind the lie it may be. Like the disc resting precariously on the side if the ledge. The disc is not OB. The thrower risks his life to attempt a legal throw and the line of play beyond the disc is OB or supremely hazardous. I found just such a lie at the Worlds in Iowa. Unfortunately, the lie was mine.

The option of unplayable lie under the current rule or the stroke and distance penalty works well. Either penalty is substantial and the strategy option makes the game more challenging and interesting.

The best part of the undesirable lie rule is that every time I have seen it used it generated controversy amongst the uninformed. What!! That can't be legal! Show me the rule! Well, what if the group decides it is not unplayable? So anyone at any time can just claim any shot is unplayable and move their disc!! This can't be! I'm a Certified Official and I have never heard of the rule. When did this get added to the rules?

In the final round of the Charlotte Worlds I threw a drive into the middle of this huge nasty tree on the temporary ball golf course. It would have cost me all exposed skin just to take a legal stance. I declared an unplayable lie and never attempted to retreive the disc. It may still be there. The resulting commotion was superb.

Amazingly, with as much as I have proved capable a scattering shots to bad locations, I cannot recall ever declaring an unplayable lie in a casual round. I seem to save those opportunities for major tournaments.

Mark Ellis

Disc Golf would do well to follow golf�s example in the area of rules options, I believe.



Harold, I don't know if you were replying to me Bruce sandalman or whom, but my rule for Unplayable Lie was cut-and-pasted from usga.com and then substituted "disc" for "ball". And substituted "2m" (or 5m if you want to be more lenient) for "2 club lengths". :D ;) :cool:

In other words, in Ball Golf, if a players chooses Unplayable Lie, they can, with 1 stroke penalty:
a) drop within 2 club lengths any direction (no closer to hole)
or
b) drop anywhere on the LOP (no closer to hole)
or
c) go back to previous lie

This is exactly what I've proposed for DG Unplayable Lie (to replace Unsafe), and throw in the 2m suspended disc rule as well. :) :D

Thanks for your responses!! :)

One thing to remember about drops in BG. It is a toss up if you get a good lie from a drop in anything other than the fairway. So allowing a drop isn't guaranteeing a good lie like it would be in DG.

Hank - At the risk of appearing to talk out of both sides of my mouth: I believe that disc golf should pattern itself after golf, but we also need to recognize where the two games differ. Disc Golf has many more obstacles to flight than golf. Golfers� flight trajectories are not impeded or affected by obstacles nearly as often as disc golfers�. There could be a substantive difference between the two games in the affect of proceeding further back along the line of play. That is why I believe it would be too lenient for us to adopt golf�s Rule 28 b & c.

Mark�s point about the Line of Play is well taken. Sometimes you can�t go back at all, and to force Stroke and Distance may be too harsh. 5 meters no closer may be a better option than the current 5 meters no closer on the line of play.

The 2 meter rule, in my mind, bears little resemblance to anything in golf. I would be hesitant to extend the unplayable lie logic to 2-meters. Hopefully, this point will be moot next year.

Take care,
Harold

5 meters no closer may be a better option than the current 5 meters no closer on the line of play.




Lost me there. The current rule IS 5 meters no closer. LOP isn't mentioned. Unless I'm batty. :D

As for the rest of your post, well, viva la difference! :D

Hey Hank - You are correct; my bogey. The rule does not mention line of play. It simply mentions "no closer."

I was trying to reply from memory. This is just another example to show that you should always have your rulebook in hand whether you are on the course or on-line.

Take care,
Harold

Hi Harold,

Off this topic. I recall hearing ones, I believe via email from Carlton that if a disc is left in a basket and is struck out by another disc that the disc knocked out should be replaced in the basket and still considered as holed out. Is that correct?

Thanks,
Nick

You could have asked the question from the thread that had the background.

My question was does a disc that is suspended above the playing surface get replaced if it is moved (even by another disc in play).

My understanding is that it does not, and that the basket is not part of the playing surface so discs at rest there are not replaced if moved.

Which all started from wedgies at rest in the basket should be replaced if they fall out.



It's 803.07 Disc Above the Playing Surface
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. ...

and 803.06 Interference
B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official....

Only discs at rest on the playing surface are replaced if moved. The basket as a playing surface issue was related to a DROT question asked of the RC and specifically asked about the top of the basket, not the target area. There may be some difference, but with the wording of the holing out rules I don't think there is.

Hey Nick -

I am not sure I understand your question. "Holed out" and "disc still in basket" do not seem to be compatible.

I have seen a disc at rest in the chains knocked out to the ground by a subsequent putt. My Spirit-of-the-Rules interpretation was that the disc was "removed" (last word of 803.12B) from the chains by the subsequent putt thereby completing the hole. I considered an alternative solution via interference, but I did not know if I had enough spirit to consider the chains the playing surface. If we had proceeded along those lines, I guess we would of have created a replacement scenario to fit your question.

Take care,
Harold

That would indeed be a very liberal interpretation of "removed", but if that's the way to call it then it will be called that way.

Before that response, if it happened to me, I would have taken the additional stroke as a penalty for being too lazy to remove the disc before the other player putted.

I would prefer that the disc be removed by a player as a conclusion to the holing out process. I would probably ask the player to remove a disc suspended in the chains before I putted to remove the distraction and prevent one disc from knocking the other out.

Hey Gary -

The situation I described involved a subsequent putt thrown before the player had a chance to remove his disc from the chains.

But now that I've considered the situation a little more, I believe the better interpretation would have been interferance with the entrapment area (chains) being considered a playing surface.
As such, the disc would be replaced.

Take care,
Harold

That would also help with DROTs that have the possibility of getting knocked or falling in to the basket. If the basket is a playing surface, they would have to be replaced if moved after being at rest. No chance for anything to happen to it.

Now with a wedgie. Interference counts for anything that moves your disc except water. If a wedgie hits, sticks, and is at rest, but subsequently falls out before it is removed, does it get replaced ?

You see, there are at least three interrelated questions concerning baskets being playing surfaces and replacing moved discs. I am hoping for a consistent ruling that can be used for all three. The other 2 came back with rulings that the basket was not a playing surface so that discs were not replaced.

If we make the inside of the basket a playing surface, we then have no need of the "until removed" wording in the holing out section since the disc can never be anything else once inside the entrapment sections.

Not really looking for an answer, just venting frustration.

Hey Gary -

I guess consistency should start with consistently applying the Spirit of the Rules. With almost all wedgies, it is only a quirk in the rules and a measure of luck that creates a chance for the putt to be good. If it drops out before the thrower arrives, the Spirit of the Rules tells me that it was never really at rest or that the player was not quick enough to take advantage of a break he did not deserve.

As an aside, I would support dissallowing wedgies where an official or the majority of the group saw the disc go in through the side of the basket.

I believe that each version of the rules has been more internally consistent than its predecessor. Hopefully, we will develop the rules equivalent of the Unified Field Theory but until we do, common sense, fairness, and the Spirit of the Rules will need to carry the day.

Take care,
Harold

Thanks, I guess I spend too much time interpretting technical manuals where it all has to be spelled out specifically. It's hard to readjust to reading rules without using the same technical eye. :cool:

So true story, a disc was thrown into a basket from 50 feet away. The basket was on a hill and it was very windy. the disc appeared at rest but with a sudden gust of wind the disc lifted from the basket and flipped out. Granted this was with an old Midnight Flier which has a greater surface area than most discs used today, but according to your theory was it at rest or not?

We said that it was. Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you, just curious on your take.


Hey Gary -

I guess consistency should start with consistently applying the Spirit of the Rules. With almost all wedgies, it is only a quirk in the rules and a measure of luck that creates a chance for the putt to be good. If it drops out before the thrower arrives, the Spirit of the Rules tells me that it was never really at rest or that the player was not quick enough to take advantage of a break he did not deserve.

As an aside, I would support dissallowing wedgies where an official or the majority of the group saw the disc go in through the side of the basket.

I believe that each version of the rules has been more internally consistent than its predecessor. Hopefully, we will develop the rules equivalent of the Unified Field Theory but until we do, common sense, fairness, and the Spirit of the Rules will need to carry the day.

Take care,
Harold

Hey Jerry - I have seen the same situation, and I think y'all made the right call. If the disc was resting on the ground (playing surface) and the wind moved it, you would replace in accordance 803.06A. As I wrote above, I think the chains are a special kind of playing surface. So if the disc is resting in the chains and is blown out, it would likewise be replaced.

I also believe that the disc can be at rest even as the chains are swinging in the wind, but I would approach this situation much more circumpsectly to ensure that the chains are moving from the action of the wind and not the action of the disc.

Take care,
Harold

PS. As I wrote several times upthread, these are my opinions; they are not authoritative pronouncments of the rules committee.

I love the idea of inching disc golf rules towards those of ball golf.
While I may be an ultra liberal when it comes to rules for nympho bisexual women, I'm ultra conservaltive when it comes to disc golf/ball golf rules.

I am going from memory here, so if anyone actually knows the ball golf rules feel free to chime right in.

In ball golf there are 3 types of ob/hazards:
I'm pretty sure they are marked Yellow when its a Hazard, like a funky ditch, tall grass or maybe a rocky area that they dont want you to play from.
In this situation you would drop maybe 1 meter from the stakes.
Red stakes mark water, like creeks and lakes.
You are able to take the ball back anywhere along the flight it took to go in the water.
This keeps you from being double penalized and would be perfect for the 2 meter rule.
I for one rally like the 2 meter rule, but wouldnt mind it being 3 meters.
For those who think the 2 meter rule is random, You can easily avoid being 3 meters in a tree by either keeping the disc lower or avoiding hitting the tree alltogether.

White stakes will mark out of bounds.
When you throw the disc out of the boundries of the park/course the penalty should be more than a water Hazard thats on the course.
This is why I think stroke and distance is more of a punishment to fit the crime than a meter in from where you went out.
I have seen some pretty favorable lies when a player loses his disc. Stroke and distance here would be much more consistant and better for the game.

I'm not sure about the unplayable lie rule, I will give it more thought.

I love the idea of inching disc golf rules towards those of ball golf.
While I may be an ultra liberal when it comes to rules for bisexual women, I'm ultra conservaltive when it comes to disc golf/ball golf rules.

I am going from memory here, so if anyone actually knows the ball golf rules feel free to chime right in.

In ball golf there are 3 types of ob/hazards:
I'm pretty sure they are marked Yellow when its a Hazard, like a funky ditch, tall grass or maybe a rocky area that they dont want you to play from.
In this situation you would drop maybe 1 meter from the stakes.
Red stakes mark water, like creeks and lakes.
You are able to take the ball back anywhere along the flight it took to go in the water.
This keeps you from being double penalized and would be perfect for the 2 meter rule.
I for one rally like the 2 meter rule, but wouldnt mind it being 3 meters.
For those who think the 2 meter rule is random, You can easily avoid being 3 meters in a tree by either keeping the disc lower or avoiding hitting the tree alltogether.

White stakes will mark out of bounds.
When you throw the disc out of the boundries of the park/course the penalty should be more than a water Hazard thats on the course.
This is why I think stroke and distance is more of a punishment to fit the crime than a meter in from where you went out.
I have seen some pretty favorable lies when a player loses his disc. Stroke and distance here would be much more consistant and better for the game.

I'm not sure about the unplayable lie rule, I will give it more thought.



Just like in Ball Golf !!! :D

10 foot putt doinks the top link, falls to the ground and proceeds to roll 80 -100 feet downhill and into an o.b. road... I'd gladly take the stroke and distance

10 foot putt doinks the top link, falls to the ground and proceeds to roll 80 -100 feet downhill and into an o.b. road... I'd gladly take the stroke and distance

That is an option under the current rules.

The one reason I greatly prefer throw and distance to last place in bounds is that it removes all judgment calls. In most instances (previous one excluded) it is a more severe penalty and therefore gives OB a little more kick. Which it seems to me it should have, since we don't want folks throwing there, right?

Generally I would prefer the stroke and distance vs. the current last point in bounds, but at a local course there is o.b. less than 5 ft. behind or in front of the basket, so a nice throw will get you up there, but you could throw quite a few times off the tee if your unfortunate enough to land ob everytime.

Generally I would prefer the stroke and distance vs. the current last point in bounds, but at a local course there is o.b. less than 5 ft. behind or in front of the basket, so a nice throw will get you up there, but you could throw quite a few times off the tee if your unfortunate enough to land ob everytime.



And your point is? :)

In such a case, if I were the Course Pro, I would provide a drop zone outside 10 meters at least, and if it is really a pitch and putt hole, just use the tee pad as the drop zone.

Again, no need for a judgment call on where it was last in bounds, right?

Do you really think that folks should just be able to throw OB and walk away with a 3 on a super easy hole?

Generally I would prefer the stroke and distance vs. the current last point in bounds, but at a local course there is o.b. less than 5 ft. behind or in front of the basket, so a nice throw will get you up there, but you could throw quite a few times off the tee if your unfortunate enough to land ob everytime.



And your point is? :)

In such a case, if I were the Course Pro, I would provide a drop zone outside 10 meters at least, and if it is really a pitch and putt hole, just use the tee pad as the drop zone.

Again, no need for a judgment call on where it was last in bounds, right?

Do you really think that folks should just be able to throw OB and walk away with a 3 on a super easy hole?



Interesting.............Or , just have the hole set up , where you would have to Re-Tee if you missed it !!!!!

Yes, it is OK to walk with a 3 on a super easy hole.

Because everyone else should be taking 2's. You take your penalty stroke and move along.

Yes, it is OK to walk with a 3 on a super easy hole.

Because everyone else should be taking 2's. You take your penalty stroke and move along.



I agree, if that 3 is earned via hitting a significant putt (drop zone), or from parking it from the tee, but just marking it from last place in bounds 10 feet from the target is not what I would deem "earning it".

The hole at USDGC is extreme, but hard par 2s, or holes that might otherwise be easy par 2s, can be vastly improved by adding significant risk/reward via OB and dropzones. Not to the point folks take 17s, but toss in some 3s, 4s, and a couple 5s and you have a hole with a terrific scoring spread. Without it, folks will either get a 2 or 3 and where is the fun in that?

You forget that you described the hole as "super easy".

I would say that it is a bad design to start with, and no significant scoreing spread is expected. Adding an additional punitive stroke (via a tough drop zone)for players that choose to run at the ace instead of laying up is an option, but it is not the only one.

You forget that you described the hole as "super easy".

I would say that it is a bad design to start with, and no significant scoreing spread is expected. Adding an additional punitive stroke (via a tough drop zone)for players that choose to run at the ace instead of laying up is an option, but it is not the only one.



I didn't say it was Gary. I said that, IMO (of course), it beats the tar out of a hole where all you can get is a 2 or 3. And it is, as far as this discussion, a case where Throw and Distance as the option over Last Place In Bounds can improve the design of a hole by adding greater risk. Drop in drop zones and you've got some pretty potent options to improve a hole (again, in my opinion).

But the best reason for dropping the "Last Place In Bounds" from the options is that you remove the challenge of keeping inconsistant favoritism out of the equation (where we normally have a tendacy towards cutting the guy a break in giving them a spot, rather than just deciding where was the actual spot).

Every hole is different, and the most favorable option for the player is different as well. My argument here would be much like your argument against the 2M rule. A blanket ruling forced upon all players in all circumstances for all hole designs is not the best approach. TDs and course designers already have the tools they need to restrict the relief used for OB throws, the overall rule shouldn't be changed.

Anytime there is a judgment call that can easily be removed from our rules, that doesn't decrease fairness, we should do it.

Consider any situation where a player throws OB 360 feet away, and the TD has not restricted the OB options.

The group arrives at the general area where the disc when out of bounds, probably an area between 20 and 50 feet of leeway. They all look up to see the preferred flight path to the target within that area and give the guy a mark as close to that preferred flight path as possible. (Consider also the opposite.)

Why not remove that favoritism(/alternative) or the potential for favoritism.

If Throw and Distance is too extreme, then provide a fair drop zone. Seems elegant to me.

I can see some of your point. In marking my own lies, I try to accurately mark the lie first and consider the line to the target after it is marked. I have seen some cases where the line out is considered, but haven't done that myself.

Let's consider a hole nearby that goes along a pond and doglegs around the end of the pond. Along the water's edge there are two very different types of terrain. a large portion is fairly flat with grass mowed to the water's edge, the other portion (nearer the tee) is steep and overgrown with trees and reeds. It is clearly better to choose to mark the throw that cross into OB territory over the mowed section where they went OB. For those that go OB early over the overgrown section of the bank, it is clearly better to choose stroke and distance. The addition of a drop zone may be a good option for all OB drives, but what of approach shots that find OB ?

I would say that keeping all of the options currently listed in the rules is the best approach since the rules also stipulate that the TD/designer has the ability to limit the options available on any hole or situation where it may be required.

Leave it up to the designers to decide the best approach instead of forcing it down from above.

Gary, I hear what you are saying and would agree but for the ability to make our game fairer by removing any possibility of favoritism in such fluid judgment calls.

Now if the default were throw and distance, then drop zone and finally last place in bounds, I might agree with maintaining the option; because it would be up to the TD or Course Designer to think it out and decide where such an option would be in fact fairer than T&D or DZ. Rather than what we have today where everything is more or less LPIB, which as stated leaves the greatest room for favoritism or possible spitefulness.

I think that you are right in leaving the option perhaps, just reprioritize the default settings.

Do they really have any prioritization as they are now ?

Though they are listed in an order, no preference is stated as to which a player should use.

Do you think reordering the list will imply one has precedence over the others ?

Stoke and Distance is used in Ball Golf.

Should Disc Golfers , start implementing this same rule ?

Stroke and distance is used for OB, but ball golf uses OB rarely and usually in the case of the edge of the property.

Ball golf uses lateral hazards more often and in the same way that DG normally uses OB. I believe the relief rules are similar between BG lateral hazards and DG OB.

In ball golf, can't you play it anywhere on the line between your lie and the place it entered the lateral hazard? That's what I do at least when that little ball flies into the lake. :p

In ball golf, can't you play it anywhere on the line between your lie and the place it entered the lateral hazard? That's what I do at least when that little ball flies into the lake. :p



Lakes usually are not stipulated as lateral hazards. Duke has it correct. In ball golf it all depends on the color of the stakes that outline the hazards and/or what it says on the scorecard.

Stroke and distance is used for OB, but ball golf uses OB rarely and usually in the case of the edge of the property.



Rarely??? What cheesy, easy courses are you playing? You are wrong on this one. NOw don't get mad. If there were any real ball golfers out there, I'm sure they would agree with me. 50% accuracy.

It should either be DZ or Re-Tee if you ask me on water hazards. This takes all of the guess work out of the equation. I've been railroaded before, more than once, by players in my group that say stuff like, "I don't think your disc was ever over any land" or "It didn't hit the land on the other side of the lake". Even spotters are sometimes unsure and are forced to make a call. Drop zones are the definitive answer to this problem. No more Berkeley pars!!! Re-teeing usually wastes too much time walking back to your original lie/tee. Also there may be an argument as to where your original lie was exactly. DZs take away all of the guesswork. JMHO...KL

Stroke and distance is used for OB, but ball golf uses OB rarely and usually in the case of the edge of the property.



Rarely??? What cheesy, easy courses are you playing? You are wrong on this one. NOw don't get mad. If there were any real ball golfers out there, I'm sure they would agree with me. 50% accuracy.

It should either be DZ or Re-Tee if you ask me on water hazards. This takes all of the guess work out of the equation. I've been railroaded before, more than once, by players in my group that say stuff like, "I don't think your disc was ever over any land" or "It didn't hit the land on the other side of the lake". Even spotters are sometimes unsure and are forced to make a call. Drop zones are the definitive answer to this problem. No more Berkeley pars!!! Re-teeing usually wastes too much time walking back to your original lie/tee. Also there may be an argument as to where your original lie was exactly. DZs take away all of the guesswork. JMHO...KL



I have to agree with Kenny on this one.

If, and that is a big if, I were to agree to keep the option of LPIB, it would need to have some guidelines about when it would be appropriate to use. And I'm not sure where it would be; perhaps within 10 meters of the pin, I don't know...

The judgment call stuff is just way too subjective when there would be no loss of "fairness" in making them either T&D or DZ. OB after all is a quantifiable hazard that can be purposefully and reasonably avoided in most cases. (This unlike the 2 meter violations...)

Sorry, not an avid ball golfer, but the few times I have played, there was rarely (twice in about 10 courses) any OB near the projected ball flight. Unlike DG where the OB is often played over in the normal completion of the hole.

IMO, drop zones work fine (meaning that I think they are relatively fair) for certain instances where the OB must be crossed on the way to the basket. For whatever reason, treating all OB shots when OB must be crossed seems "somewhat fair" in my mind. However, for OB on the side of the fairway, the drop zone option violates my sense of fairness. In these cases, I am just not comfortable treating OB throws landing 100 feet apart in an identical fashion.

As a related aside, I understand the subjectivity argument that group members are not always objective when marking where a competitor went OB. I witnessed this at worlds on the lead open card where one player went OB almost pin high at LL #5 (in my mind at least, as a nuetral observer who was closer to the basket than the group). Well, the group placed him 30 feet short of the basket. It cost him a stroke. However, even though I am aware of this inequity, I don't envision how any drop zone scheme could make the OB calls on either side of LL #5 any fairer.

IMO, drop zones work fine (meaning that I think they are relatively fair) for certain instances where the OB must be crossed on the way to the basket. For whatever reason, treating all OB shots when OB must be crossed seems "somewhat fair" in my mind. However, for OB on the side of the fairway, the drop zone option violates my sense of fairness. In these cases, I am just not comfortable treating OB throws landing 100 feet apart in an identical fashion.

As a related aside, I understand the subjectivity argument that group members are not always objective when marking where a competitor went OB. I witnessed this at worlds on the lead open card where one player went OB almost pin high at LL #5 (in my mind at least, as a nuetral observer who was closer to the basket than the group). Well, the group placed him 30 feet short of the basket. It cost him a stroke. However, even though I am aware of this inequity, I don't envision how any drop zone scheme could make the OB calls on either side of LL #5 any fairer.



I think James makes an excellent point. One option is to have multiple DZs, but this reintroduces subjectivity, although in a controlled fashion.

James,

My definition of "fair" in this case is not related to relative position of the mark to where the disc was last in bounds, but rather that all discs that go out of bounds be treated the same, and without judgment call, marked either from where the OB throw started or to a dropzone.

If a TD wanted to use LPIB as an option in a few instances, then it might be advisable to also provide an impartial spotter to mark where that LPIB was.

I am not saying that there aren't instances where LPIB might be better, I am saying that unless there is an impartial person there to mark the LPIB that the situation can easily result in an unfair and inconsistant ruling. (And even then it remains a judgment call.)

I think that different people's answers to this question might shed some interesting light on different attitudes toward the game.

Let's say that a longish, straightish hole has OB all down one side of it...make it an artificial lake, just for kicks. Now suppose there are a few trees over on the left, and one tree near the edge of the OB that prevents throwing straight at the basket safely. Essentially what I'm trying to describe here is a hole where a RHBH player can throw an anhyzer over IB that might hit trees if it swings too wide, or a hyzer over OB that has less to hit but...is flying OB.

Of four players on a card, one throws the hyzer and barely makes it back in bounds; one throws the hyzer and lands OB by about a foot; one throws an anhyzer too wide and hits a tree halfway; the last throws a forehand hyzer and skips 60 feet OB.

Which was the smarter shot, the wide-open shot over OB or the tighter line IB? Does the answer change depending on what options the TD has limited...and should it?

Which, in your opinion, SHOULD be considered the smarter shot?

Should the forehand shot that skipped OB be considered a better shot than the backhand that never quite made it back in? Would it make a difference if it hadn't skipped but had flown out before hitting the ground?

Also, just out of curiosity...would you like a hole with this type of design or not? Would it be a better or worse hole if there were some smaller trees potentially blocking the hyzer shot from coming back in bounds at the ideal spot? And would Schweb throw a thumber? :D

The best shot is the wide open hyzer over the OB the person that didnt make it back in just threw a smart shot poorly. I always try to take the path of least resistance and in that case I would throw a Hyzer out over the OB every single time I played the hole.

I think that different people's answers to this question might shed some interesting light on different attitudes toward the game.

Let's say that a longish, straightish hole has OB all down one side of it...make it an artificial lake, just for kicks. Now suppose there are a few trees over on the left, and one tree near the edge of the OB that prevents throwing straight at the basket safely. Essentially what I'm trying to describe here is a hole where a RHBH player can throw an anhyzer over IB that might hit trees if it swings too wide, or a hyzer over OB that has less to hit but...is flying OB.

Of four players on a card, one throws the hyzer and barely makes it back in bounds; one throws the hyzer and lands OB by about a foot; one throws an anhyzer too wide and hits a tree halfway; the last throws a forehand hyzer and skips 60 feet OB.

Which was the smarter shot, the wide-open shot over OB or the tighter line IB? Does the answer change depending on what options the TD has limited...and should it?

Which, in your opinion, SHOULD be considered the smarter shot?

Should the forehand shot that skipped OB be considered a better shot than the backhand that never quite made it back in? Would it make a difference if it hadn't skipped but had flown out before hitting the ground?

Also, just out of curiosity...would you like a hole with this type of design or not? Would it be a better or worse hole if there were some smaller trees potentially blocking the hyzer shot from coming back in bounds at the ideal spot? And would Schweb throw a thumber? :D



Actually, Tom Bass in Houston has a very similar hole, its called the Dragon. Approx 600 feet, fairway is 25 feet wide, on the right is a pond that runs 550 feet along the side of the fairway. On the left is a road that runs the entire length of the hole. At 450 feet the pond bulges into the fairway (about 5 to 10 feet and most players play over the bulge to the basket which is at the far end of the pond and 40 feet to the right of a line running right down the center of the fairway.

To make it even funner, there is a light pole in the middle of the fairway about 200 feet out. Finally, along the edge of the bulge is a small line of trees 30 to 40 feet in height. You can play out and around them but you will definitely add a stroke. If your distance is 300 feet on the first drive then you have a 250 foot drive over OB to the basket. If your short on your first drive (many players are) then you've got 320 feet over H2O.

BTW - Schweb would definitely thumb... :D

In ball golf, can't you play it anywhere on the line between your lie and the place it entered the lateral hazard? That's what I do at least when that little ball flies into the lake. :p



Lakes usually are not stipulated as lateral hazards. Duke has it correct. In ball golf it all depends on the color of the stakes that outline the hazards and/or what it says on the scorecard.



Lateral water hazards must be played within 2 club lengths of where the ball last crossed in play and no closer to the hole.

Water hazards must be played either from closest to the original spot as possible or anywhere on the line of flight that the ball took to make it to the water hazard.

My 2 cents...I like that ball golf has identified water hazards, lateral water hazards, and OB differently. This gives the designer a little room to play with. If the designer wishes for a more severe punishment then make it OB (stroke and distance). If the penalty is already enough, take it as a hazard (LOP).

On a 250 ft hole with water running along the side with the pin located <30ft from the water's edge, it should be a penalty to throw into the water. If you throw over the basket and it hyzers into the water, then you make your <30ft putt for 3, how is that actually risk/reward? The guy who plays away from the water (smarter/safer), and gets up and down for 3 is not rewarded for playing smart/safe.

Another example is a hole where there is 250 ft to the water, 400ft to carry it and another 250 ft to the pin from that edge. The risk in going over the water is penalized already if you come up short. You then play from the front edge of the water. Now you are laying 3 and still 400 ft from the pin. If you lay up, you are laying 2 and still 400 ft from the pin. That is a good example of risk vs reward.

I don't want to go into the first part of this question without some clarification of how I see the question.

The player in question can throw comfortably about 350' with a little hyzer. The hole in question is about 375' with an OB lake taking up the right half of the normal fairway. The left side is tight to the lake (about 50' away) with several larger trees taking away chunks of the free space above the left line.

The player in question can reach 375, but has to do one of three things to get that far.
1) Hyzer-flip an overstable driver knowing that once it gets flat, it may not come back enough to get back IB.
2) S out a forehand flick which will be starting out over OB, but most of it's flight will be over IB, and it may skip OB at the end.
3) A big anhyzer/S that will be close to the trees that guard the left side. This shot adds the danger of the trees on the left to the chance that it will turn too much and end up OB, or spend the glide portion of it's flight over the OB before turning back to the target at the end.

The best choice is a 350'ish drive and a 30'ish putt, but that is not one of the options.

With no drop zone and a 50/50 chance of ending up in the water for all choices, the best shot is the one that is most likely to cover the most ground closest to the basket. This should be the forehand.

With a drop zone, shot choice is left up to which one of the shots is most likely to have a good finish if done properly. For most players, that would be the flip-hyzer over the OB, but quite a few perform the big anhyzer/S very well for max distance.

In the case of no drop zone, the player has to play the shot conscious of flight path and where it may leave them for the next shot if it does not land safely.

In the case of the drop zone, the only concern is the result of the throw.

Both approaches have their merits, but I lean toward the one that requires more course management and awareness of the suroundings.

The only diference in the flick skipping or flying out is that the skip is easier to mark LPIB.

Yes, trees forcing the player to decide to go long or short (reduces the advantage of big arms) of the target to be safe, or trees that block only the area short of the target (go big or stay home) would make for a better design.

Interesting, but what does it have to do with T&D?

It would be interesting if the rule was that any TD wanting to use LPIB would have to also provide an official to mark such lies, otherwise use the options that do not involve judgment calls.