I was made aware of a PDGA-sanctioned tournament with an OB island hole. Apparently it was about 170' and if you went OB, you had to keep reteeing until you went in. If you didn't make it in with your 4th tee shot, you were given a score of 8.

Now I'm not familiar with whether the tournament director can obtain a special compeitition ruling to allow for such, or if he had already done so, but failing that, would this not be an egregious breach of PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf by the TD?

Hmm... I would think the player would still need to hole out to move on. You cant get a score for a hole if the disc isnt at rest in the basket, regardless of what special conditions the TD has defined.

The only way I could see the 8 being legal would be if the drop zone was identified to be next to the basket itself for a drop-in 8. But the player should still have to drop it in.

Wouldn't you get or a 7 or 9 under that scenario, Chuck? Yes, of course I am assuming you make the drop-in.

Wouldn't you get or a 7 or 9 under that scenario, Chuck?



Yep. It still doesn't allow the TD to just provide a score unless you really stretch the drop zone rule and define the drop zone as in the basket itself. :eek:

There was an island hole at VDC at the '90 Worlds. I saw Cloyes ace that during the tournament. You had to hole out to score.

Sounds like your basic putt-putt rule.

Sounds like your basic putt-putt rule.



I was just wondering if they had to throw through a windmill first.

Oh #$*&$!... I've just given someone an idea..

I have played a few tournaments with holes similar from different TD's. Did not realize it was wrong..If it is.

There is nothing wrong with an island hole, or restricting the replay on OB to a re-tee or drop zone, or even restriting it to a re-tee for X number of failed attempts before moving to an easier drop zone.

There is a problem with giving the player a score without them completing the hole by holing out.

803.13.A 2 & 3.

There is nothing wrong with an island hole, or restricting the replay on OB to a re-tee or drop zone, or even restriting it to a re-tee for X number of failed attempts before moving to an easier drop zone.

There is a problem with giving the player a score without them completing the hole by holing out.

803.13.A 2 & 3.

Have played two (at least) that if you missed the island on your drive you went to a drop zone. If you missed from the drop zone you rethrew until you either got on or would just card a nine. Seen it done few different ways though. I like the idea of double drop zones and limited throws. I have heared stories of empty bags due to attempting to get in.

I took an 18 once. Very DISCouraging for a newb.

There is nothing wrong with an island hole, or restricting the replay on OB to a re-tee or drop zone, or even restriting it to a re-tee for X number of failed attempts before moving to an easier drop zone.

There is a problem with giving the player a score without them completing the hole by holing out.

803.13.A 2 & 3.



Exactly.

There was an island hole at VDC at the '90 Worlds. I saw Cloyes ace that during the tournament. You had to hole out to score.

I onced aced the island hole at Whites' Acres on my fifth drive for a 9! :D

I played this unsanctioned tournament a few years back where the TD put hay bales in a 20' circle around the basket and made the rest of the fairway OB creating an island hole. The only rule he made was the player must keep throwing until the disc came to rest on the island, you couldn't pick up any disc until your whole bag was emptied which included putters. The only problem was there were am's playing this tournament and that the 170' fairway consisted of a lot of trees, the only route was a righty hyzer shot. I ended up playing with a lefty who couldn't throw a turnover shot, he ended up going through his bag 3 times and even used a couple of our discs before he finally got a disc in bounce. He ended up taking a 30 circle 62 for that 170' hole. The best part was we had an am women in our group who stepped up after this guy took 10 minutes throwing 30 shots and she preceeded to park the hole for a drop in 2 :D

Wasn't that Camden Chaos? Didn't you play AM there?

Doesn't make sense. If O.B. is involved(surrounding the island) and u cross in bounds(land) and exit into O.B. you take it where last seen exiting in bounds. T.D's shouldn't be able to stretch the"special circumstances" rule or any rules to require a disc to "land" in a specific spot and having to empty the bag to get into the area. Not all golfers will be able to reach it and thus you have the problems stated earlier. The rule book doesn't address this but maybe it should.

It's all Harold's fault starting with #17 at Winthrop. However, since the early USDGCs where some people took double digit scores, the drop zone has been added which has kept scores in the single digits. Other TDs need to catch up on this more appropriate way to design island holes.

It is possible to define a "landing area" in which the disc must come to rest. This is not the same as defining everything outside that area as OB. In this case, there isn't an OB line to cross... therefore the standard OB rules do not apply.

That said, I think that there's a grey area for what is an appropriate "island hole" and what is not. With little-to-no wind, an island hole is a fun challenge. With wind more than 20 mph or so, it can become more of a nuisance for most players.

I would suggest the following standards regarding island holes:

1.) The landing area must be at least 2 sq ft in area for every foot of distance between the teebox and the pin if using haybales or some other sort of raised boundary line. i.e., a 200 ft. hole would require (at minimum) a 20x20 landing zone (400 sq ft.). If no raised boundary is used, the landing area must be at least 3 sq. ft. in area for every 1 ft of distance from the teebox to the pin. i.e. a 200 ft hole would require a 20x30 landing zone. There may not be more than a 50% difference between the length and the width of the landing zone.

2.) island holes must not exceed 175ft for recreational divisions, 200 ft. for intermediate, 250 ft for advanced, and 300 ft. for pro.

3.) A drop zone must be provided for players receiving 3 penalty strokes or more. The drop zone cannot be farther from the pin than 50% of the distance between the teebox and the pin. For recreational divisions, the distance for the drop zone is reduced to 25% of the distance from the teebox to the pin.

4.) island holes may not be used if the projected wind speed for the tournament exceeds 25 mph according to the national weather service.

There is probably more that needs to be included, but these are my ideas for keeping island holes fair and within reason. If you want to criticize, please be constructive.

Doesn't make sense. If O.B. is involved(surrounding the island) and u cross in bounds(land) and exit into O.B. you take it where last seen exiting in bounds. T.D's shouldn't be able to stretch the"special circumstances" rule or any rules to require a disc to "land" in a specific spot and having to empty the bag to get into the area. Not all golfers will be able to reach it and thus you have the problems stated earlier. The rule book doesn't address this but maybe it should.

We have had an "island hole" for the past few years at the Mile High Classic and this (see quote above) is how the TD arranged it. Our "island" is artificial; a spray-painted line circling (about 10m, I think) around the basket. Every year there is a volunteer who spots and players only re-tee if they NEVER touched OR crossed OVER the "island". I've had to re-tee several times, but if all else fails, I'll just throw a line-drive bullet over the island and take one meter in from where the spotter says I crossed back out of the island. Personally, I like this arrangement better than an automatic, no-hole-out score because I think it adheres to the spirit and intent of the existing rules.

It's all Harold's fault starting with #17 at Winthrop. However, since the early USDGCs where some people took double digit scores, the drop zone has been added which has kept scores in the single digits. Other TDs need to catch up on this more appropriate way to design island holes.



Yeah! It's Harold's fault. Didn't he make you miss the island two or three times before going to the drop zone?

How about a drop zone progressive tourney? On every shot, if you don't land on the island green or landing zone (or fly over 'em), you move to the next drop zone which is 25 feet closer.

Didn't he make you miss the island two or three times before going to the drop zone?




At one point you had to throw a few before going to the drop zone but now I think you go there immediately upon missing. On the Highbridge island hole, you go to the short tee after missing from long tee. Then, if you miss from there, you go to a drop zone about 80 feet away.

the island hole at the Live Oak Summer Open ,hole #4 in Live oak,Tx ( suburb of San Antonio) has a tough island hole that can change scores quickly,especially if its windy.

I would like more island holes if they were truely treated as islands. IE. imagine it is water surrounding the basket instead of a painted line so if you land in the imaginary water you would also be OB instead of skipping in bounds. than that would be a true island hole. At round rock we had artificial OB but the majority of the players would just roll through the OB back into bounds. Pretty lame. :confused:

it's certainly possible to skip off of water though.

definately!!! just ask the amature ladies world champion.the spotter at redhawk intulsa said" itwent into the creek and then it jumped back up onthe bank. theres no way to understand why mine stayed wet and hers bounced dry. just blessed at that point intime with that throw i guess. ive been called "pond skipper" at more than one occasion. :D :D :D

certainly possible to skip off of water though

i have never seen a roller bounce out of the water. yes have seen flat shots skip across

i have never seen a roller bounce out of the water.



Perhaps not. But you can see them roll across OB water (ice) in the winter here :D

I want to make a disc that rolls across water and call it the CE Jesus.

Perhaps the CE Savior would be more PC...?!! ;)

CE Savior AS

A Savior for All-Seasons...I like it! :D

Innova'll have to make a super-super premium plastic so we can have the SuperSTAR Jesus Christ. ;)

Didn't he make you miss the island two or three times before going to the drop zone?




At one point you had to throw a few before going to the drop zone but now I think you go there immediately upon missing. On the Highbridge island hole, you go to the short tee after missing from long tee. Then, if you miss from there, you go to a drop zone about 80 feet away.


<3 that hole.

There is nothing wrong with an island hole, or restricting the replay on OB to a re-tee or drop zone, or even restriting it to a re-tee for X number of failed attempts before moving to an easier drop zone.

There is a problem with giving the player a score without them completing the hole by holing out.

803.13.A 2 & 3.

What PDGA rule allows you to instruct players to re-tee X number of failed attempts before moving to an easier DZ?

The OB rule 803.09 B(1) gives the TD the right to specify where a player may play their next lie when going OB and if it happens to be X number of times a player goes OB, then that change for the next lie is just part of that same rule for specification.

Good job EricJ with the reviving of a topical thread rather than starting a new one.

The OB rule 803.09 B(1) gives the TD the right to specify where a player may play their next lie when going OB and if it happens to be X number of times a player goes OB, then that change for the next lie is just part of that same rule for specification.
So, to be clear... there is no rules verbiage that specifically allows a TD to change the OB lie restrictions after X number of attempts, but there is no verbiage that specifically disallows that either. So it falls to 804.01 (Special Conditions) that it is allowable because it does not contradict any existing PDGA rules. Correct?

Yes. Essentially, each OB throw after the first one, is like a new OB where the TD gets to declare the next lie options for the player using 803.09 B(1). It's not necessarily Special Conditions unless the TD does something other than continuing to specify the next lie under the regular options available in 803.09 B(1).

It's not necessarily Special Conditions unless the TD does something other than continuing to specify the next lie under the regular options available in 803.09 B(1).
Well, except that 803.09 B says it's a "special condition" (http://www.pdga.com/rules/80309-out-of-bounds) for the TD to restrict the options in the first place.... ;)

Yes. Special Conditions allow the TD to restrict the next lie in general. But if the next lie is one or two of the regular three options, that's simply using 803.09 B(1) multiple times on how it's done. Special Conditions could be used in addition if an option other than the regular three was chosen such as not having a penalty after the first two OBs for example.

Special Conditions could be used in addition if an option other than the regular three was chosen such as not having a penalty after the first two OBs for example.
But since that contradicts the standard PDGA rules of play it would require prior approval by the PDGA Tour Manager, right?

No approval required since that option is already specified in Special Conditions 804.01B. For example, buncrs are approved but are just not labeled as such by invoking 804.01B: throwing into a marked area and getting no penalty and going to the drop zone.

In other words, the OB area is only OB because the TD says it is OB. After three attempts to land on an (artificial) island, the OB area could be changed to a special play area, or removed entirely.

I understand the practicality of having a special rule that says, "After X attempts to land safely have been unsuccessful, proceed to the drop zone", but I am not crazy about the precedent this sets.

No where in the rules do we address the temporal or sequential status of a lie. That is, the definition of a drop zone states that it is to be used after the preceding went OB, missed a mando, or landed in a protected area.

In this example, a drop zone is used, but only after x shots went OB, but, according to the rules, if a drop zone is used, it is to be used immediately after the disc is OB. That's kinda what "preceding" means.

Again, I understand the use of "after X times of unsuccess, proceed to the drop zone", but this use does not fit inside the framework of our rules, so a special waiver would be necessary.

I read it that "If OB from position A, proceed to position B" is OK. As such, "If OB from position B, proceed to position C" and "If OB from position C, proceed to position D" are OK. Kinda like a series of drop zones.

Let's say (for the sake of argument) that position A is the tee. It could be set up that each successive drop zone (B-->C-->D) is progressively closer to the hole, giving progressively weaker arms a better & better chance to clear the OB. It could also be set up that positions B & C are the tee, effectively making the "real" drop zone (position D) only accessible after 3 successive failures from the tee (two of which were actually from drop zones located at positions B & C, which just happen to be at the same location as the tee). The second time you drove, you wouldn't really be from the tee, but from position B & the third time, you'd not be at the tee, but at position C, though tee & positions B & C are located at the same place.

The locations of positions B, C, D, . . . could be manipulated to allow for any # of attempts before proceeding to the "real" drop zone. No special waiver necessary.

Rule 803.09B(1), part (3), referring to choices in where to play the next shot after going OB, states: "Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided".

Drop Zone is singular, indicating that there is only one Drop Zone available for the hole. Not only does the rule not indicate multiple Drop Zones, it does not indicate the legality of conditional Drop Zones, such as "if you land in this area of OB, use this particular Drop Zone", or "if you have thrown from the tee between 1 and X times, you may use the tee as the drop zone, but after that, use the "non-tee" Drop Zone.

I'm not arguing the necessity of doing this, I still think that it requires a waiver to implement.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong, but I would like to see a rebuttal to my view that is more simplistic in its use of the rules (see: Occam's razor), and I would like to know others' interpretation of the Rules to allow more than one Drop Zone for a hole.

Wouldn't you agree that certain rules are temporally specific for each throw? For example, the mando line is only relevant for each throw prior to crossing the good side of the mando line. Once crossed, even if the shot bounces back to the tee side, the mando line does not exist and the player may throw around the wrong side of the mando. In the examples being discussed above, there is only one Drop Zone relevant for each throw in a sequence, even in Vegan's example with progressive drop zones. Just one drop zone is valid per throw. That's all within the OB and Special Conditions rules with no waiver required.

Rule 803.09B(1), part (3), referring to choices in where to play the next shot after going OB, states: "Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided".

Drop Zone is singular, indicating that there is only one Drop Zone available for the hole.

I appreciate the lack of clarity, but disagree. I believe it indicates that there is only one Drop Zone available for the throw. TD has full right to change the Drop Zone for each successive throw, depending on from where each throw is taken.

Is it per throw, or per OB area? I could see cases where if you throw OB on the left, you use DZ A, but if you throw OB on the right you use DZ B.

Each OB area could have its own Drop Zone but you couldn't have two possible Drop Zones per throw for one OB area. But as Vegan pointed out, Drop Zone A could be the only drop zone for an OB area for the tee shot, then there could be another Drop Zone B specified on the same OB area that was the only DZ you could play from if you went OB on your second throw. Nothing like confusing players but it would be legal without waiver.

Interpreting the rules as being only one DZ per throw seems reasonable to me, so I'll buy that for a dollar!

carry on

So here's another way to think about the multiple DZs for a given throw. Lets say you have 5 mandos on a hole on the right side of the fairway, forcing you to throw to the left, each spaced 50 feet apart. Each of the 5 mandos has a drop zone to the left of the mando. Lets say the hole is 300 ft long (a reasonable distance to drive from tee to pin), so, for your tee shot, there are 5 possible DZs you could land in? I'm not interested if it's a good hole design (because it's obviously not), but more curious to having multiple drop zones for a given throw.

From my interpretation, once the disc passes the mando, that mando has been completed, and no longer applies to the throw. So would the correct statement be that only one DZ can be used for a given throw at a specific point in time?

It's OK to have exactly one DZ per hazard on a throw so the 5X mandos are fine.