when i played in AZ one winter, they always had a 10 meter circle around each pin position for the tourneys. it was really cool, actually, and i always wondered why the other places i've played (mostly cali and texas) do not do this. it defines the 10m rule and even looks cool. it seems like it would work really well for discTV.

do other locales practice the same thing? any ideas as to why it is not more of a standard?

SoCal Disc Golf has been painting the 10m circle for SoCal Series events for the past couple of years.

It takes 2/3 of a mile of paint to do solid 10m circles around just 18 holes. Not exactly good environmentally unless you use chalk or perhaps flour (expensive). It's also difficult to do properly on wooded holes not only physically working around trees but being able to mark wood chips well.

agreed that on wooded holes it more challenging. reasonably priced environmentally sensitive solutions probably exist... what do AZ and SoCal use?

At the one annual B tier we use striping paint on our two tournament courses. The courses are mostly flat and open, it helps to dress them up a bit.

It would be a huge help to us jump-putters...especially us that jump at 32'9"!!!

it seems that something flush to the ground, like partially buried stones or something similar would make a cool looking 10m ring around a basket...

I love the 10 meter circle because, I love to jump putt if at all possible.

stones are too permanent, and make movingthe basket a lot of work... strips of some sort degrade within days

Hey Shweb, address that last comment directly to all my doubters...EW,CC,J.Markov...all have told me I was crazy to jump at every chance. It's like sex with a goat...IT JUST FEELS GOOD...no matter how it looks!!!

bring a weedeater out and scalp the 10 meter ring.

sandles,

most courses never move baskets.


bb,

that is more information about goats than we probably need. :^p

If stones are too large and permanent, you could always just line the circle with PEBBLES. /msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif

You will know be know as "OUTSIDE THIRTY JOHNSON". I you ask me if you are outside,when you are about 50 ft away,i'm going smack you and your goat!

Just tie a string to the bottom of the pole hole. Then you can use it for ctp's and the 10 meter rule. A very inexpensive way to solve the problem.

i like the rock/brick thing... and the string attached to the basket sounds easy and economical. i have heard of people carrying a 10 meter string with a small hook on it and just hook it on the basket and measure.

that was funny mark! cant wait to make ya pay /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

string thing sounds cools also...

www, sort of true, but since most course are on public parks, holes tend to move, albeit slowly, to accomodate changing patterns in park use.

anyway, i basically know nothing, and really just wanted to say i liked the circles, and hope more events give them a try.

We just spray paint the grass with whatever we have. Environmental concerns? pshaw! Whaddya think we are, NorCal'ers??? /msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif

<FONT SIZE="-2">we'd line 'em with old 55 gallon drums of PCBs if we hadn't already dumped it all in Arizona.</FONT>

We had a debate at our last Beaver State Fling meeting about painting 10 meter circles around the baskets for the event. Other than some concern about types of paint and the aesthetics of having the circles painted on objects other than grass (stones, roots, etc.), the discussion focused on why the players like the lines and how they can be used.

The obvious benefit to the players is convenience, for two main purposes: 1) estimating the distance for longer putts, and 2) deciding who putts in what order. However, when we started talking about using the line to make calls, there was a disagreement about whether the line should be used for rules enforcement or not. There are two problems with using it for enforcement: 1) the line may not be accurately measured, and 2) which part of the line is actually the 10 meter mark? (it sounds like the O.B. line issue, doesn't it?)

So my question goes out, in particular to officials and TDs: if 10 meter circles are provided, can they be used for enforcement of the rules (falling putts), or are they just a convenience for reference? And do you think this is something that should be spelled out more in the rules or tournament standards?

-Theo

I think that if a tournament wants to mark a green then that should be considered the putting area. It should be required to be a minimum of 10m radius all the way around though. The putting area rule would stil apply but it would be for the marked green and not 10 meters.(i hope that made sense)

If a 10m line was used the TD for the event would have the following options.

They could use the line to enforce rules as mentioned above. However, meticulous care must be maintained in the application of the line to give accuracy of measurement from the pin in all directions. A rope 10m long could be tied to the pin and used as marking the circumference. Secondly, the TD during the players meeting, and in the players program if offered needs to explicitly state what part of the line is the 10m mark (inside edge or outside edge).

If the TD follows those such specifications then I see that the lines could be used as rules enforcement marks. However again, the line should be made as solid as possible. This does get difficult as some grass is uneven or long on disc golf courses.

If the TD does not specify that the line is used in rule enforcement, and does not ensure that the lines are exactly 10m from the baskets, then the lines are merely guidelines for reference. Any stance violation in question would have to be verified by a measuring tape thereafter.

I personally do not think that it should be in the rule book. Because then it would allow for gross misinterpretation and sloppy TD's could paint lines that are not exactly 10m from the pin and by default have the rules state as so. An extreme example is putting the line at 25ft or whatever that is in meters, and since the line determines the 10m mark, you could have someone do a "jump putt" from only 25ft away, which would be a stance violation under any other normal tournament situation. I think that 10m circles should be considered a special condition that would fall under the special conditions sections in the rule book. Guidelines for special conditions are spelled out sufficiently to cover this situation, in my opinon.

At one or two of our tournaments last year a volunteer marked 10 meter circles. Spray paint is Brett's realm of authority, so since he was fine with it, so was I.

I think we told the players that they should treat the line as being ten meters, and did not address the width of the line issue. Now that I am starting to develope a useful falling putt, we'll probably be more specific. Without us being more specific I would suspect that any liners were ruled in favor of the thrower, but I don't recall that coming up. Someone did ask if the line was authoritative and we did say that it was, anywhere it was visible.

As a practical matter, if you have a painted line it makes sense to play it as authoritative. If any care at all was taken in painting it, it is bound to be more accurate than having your foursomes just guess. Not that many players carry a tape measure.

We should probably put a line in the Tour guidelines that the 10m rule is applied in the absence of a painted line which takes precedence for falling putt violations. I'd rather eliminate the 10m zone and allow the same type of putts all the way to the basket to make the game more visually interesting at times for spectators and videos. (Slam dunks occasionally for emphasis. Let's see ball golf duplicate that!)

We had a nice mini-controversy at the Golden State Classic either two years ago or last year, when Barry called Kenny for a falling putt when Kenny jump-putted from outside the painted circle.

I'm really surprised there was no banter about it here, but that's another issue.

In any event, we went out and measured the circle on that hole and it was within 1 inch of being spot-on 10 meters. We then measured a sampling of other circles and the worst spot on any of them was 2.5 inches.

So if you have someone as detail oriented as our line-painter that year, then you can absolutely make a special condition that the painted lines are the official 10 meter markings.

I don't think a rule should be added to the rulebook and I don't think this special condition should be used everytime a line is painted because I have seem some really really poorly painted "circles" where I was outside the "circle" and someone else that was inside was twice as far away!

I don't think a rule should be added to the rulebook and I don't think this special condition should be used everytime a line is painted because I have seem some really really poorly painted "circles" where I was outside the "circle" and someone else that was inside was twice as far away!



I've seen ball golf greens that are nowhere near circular. I'm not suggesting that we allow freeform artwork, but I don't see why we shouldn't allow the painted line to become the official mark. But eliminating the need for one solves it and saves a lot of paint.

or deisel

If a 10m circle were to be used, would it be alright to have it on only the holes with grass as the green area?

I would think it is being used as a reference, then it should have a valid use for enforcement. At almost every tournament I have played someone will measure 10m by walking it out. I have to believe if someone took the time to measure and paint a circle they have to be pretty close to the 10m distance and at least more accurate than someone's feet.

I've seen ball golf greens that are nowhere near circular.


Umm.....okay. er........so what? What do ball golf greens have to do with disc golf's 10 meter putting circle?



I'm not suggesting that we allow freeform artwork, but I don't see why we shouldn't allow the painted line to become the official mark.


Because we have Rules of Play that define a 10 meter circle for falling putts?

I think that if a line is provided that it should be the official distance for falling putt measurements, and the outside of the line (away from the basket) be used as the limit so that the line itself is considered part of the area that it is defining in the same manner that the OB line does now.

On the exact size and shape of the line, I am not decided. In the one case, it would be a fairness issue that the line be as close to 10m as possible from all sides. In the other case, having differing green sizes and shapes could add some interest and strategy to the game. I think there should be a minimum length (25') requirement, and possibly a maximum length (20m) as long as the siaze and shape of the "green" was visible from the normal approach areas.

I've seen ball golf greens that are nowhere near circular.


Umm.....okay. er........so what? What do ball golf greens have to do with disc golf's 10 meter putting circle?
<font color="blue">It's the same mental game, just different equipment</font>


I'm not suggesting that we allow freeform artwork, but I don't see why we shouldn't allow the painted line to become the official mark.


Because we have Rules of Play that define a 10 meter circle for falling putts?


<font color="blue">It could easily be a default measurement to be used in the absence of a defined area. Since I am not a jump putter, I am a poor judge on it's effect on tournament play, but it sounds interesting.</font>

They paint 10m circles around the pins at all Amarillo TX events. I have never witnessed or heard of an incident where the line was needed to make a judgment call (other than to determine who is out), but I now see that it could. The lines up there are roughly 1-2 inches thick...and, I would think that if you could keep the circle within ~5 inches of 10m (about 1/8 of a meter) all the way around, no one would be gaining any real advantage or disadvantage. I dont even think it would matter which side of the circle you mearsured from.

I suppose thats not strict adherence to the rules, but any reasonable attempt at a 10m circle is better than no circle IMO. Plus, it just makes the course look more professional IMO.

I think that if a line is provided that it should be the official distance for falling putt measurements, and the outside of the line (away from the basket) be used as the limit so that the line itself is considered part of the area that it is defining in the same manner that the OB line does now.

On the exact size and shape of the line, I am not decided. In the one case, it would be a fairness issue that the line be as close to 10m as possible from all sides. In the other case, having differing green sizes and shapes could add some interest and strategy to the game. I think there should be a minimum length (25') requirement, and possibly a maximum length (20m) as long as the siaze and shape of the "green" was visible from the normal approach areas.



I agree

With sloped greens, the 10m line is already not consistent from a stance and energy standpoint plus what if a tree trunk is in the middle of the 10m radius? You could specify that the line be marked +/- 1m of 10m and that would be official. With no line, then 10m is the group call like the current rules.

Like I said, I've seen painted 10 meter "circles" that were a joke. Like where you can see exactly where the rope or cable got hung up on a tree and the "circle" dives towards the basket, only to be hand painted out to reach the other end.

Yes I've seen some hack-jobs.

Here's the problem with saying that if a line is painted, it's the limit: Donny can paint the circle at 125 feet and eliminate jump putts, I can paint the circle at 300-400 feet and eliminate fairway runups, and Chuck can paint it at 1 inch and allow falling-face-plant crowd pleasing putts all the way up to the basket.

Maybe y'all think those are great options to have, but they aren't per the PDGA Rules of Play. They would normally require X-tier status so that players know what they are getting into and can choose not to play if they don't agree.

I painted the 10 meter lines for the Players Cup. I tied a string to the paint can and looped it around the base of the pole. I know that the lines were not 100% perfect due to wind, me getting dizzy from walking in circles, etc. I guarantee, however, that they were all much more accurate then having a player pace off 10 meters.

We stated at the players meeting that the lines were drawn for convenience, not controversy. We wanted players to be given the benefit of the doubt and not to have officials brought into questions of whether or not a player was outside of the 10 meter line.

I did not hear any negative feedback on this issue.

If the lines are not used for official purposes, I'd consider it unnecessary environmental damage unless flour or some other environmentally safe marking agent is used.

The lines were drawn for official purposes. I just didn't want our officials to get bogged in determining whether a disc was touching a paint fleck or not. I thought the players would be able to determine themselves whether or not the disc was inside or outside of the drawn circle.

The marking paint that was used is the same kind of environmentally safe paint that golf courses everywhere use.

I'm just saying that if the effort is made to put down the paint lines, that they need to be considered "official" even if they were not done perfectly and that overrides the rules, even if a tape measure is whipped out.

I think would be great to make actual greens and not have them have to be compliant to the 10m rule. Also you should be able to use whatever style of putt you want to as long as when you cross your maker (even if your body is in the air) the disc should be out of your hand. i have seen a couple of people jump putt and their body is in the air and completely across their maker then they release in the air right before they land and end up being a foot closer then they should be.

i would just like the rules to give less room for interpretation and be written more clearly. get the political style writing the hell out of the rule book. and not only that many of the rules are clear and people feel it necessary to interpret the rules. that is not needed. its like the OB line rule this year, it clearly states that if your disc is on the line its out end of discussion.

like the OB line rule this year, it clearly states that if your disc is on the line its out end of discussion.



As long as the rest of the disc is also OB. If any part of the disc is IB, the disc is IB. It's very clear.

Agreed. Maybe I didn't word the first post well. The lines were the official 10 meter lines. If a player's disc was clearly inside the line, but they thought the line was drawn incorrectly, they did not have the option of pacing or measuring. The only question that the groups needed to determine was whether or not the disc was inside or outside of the painted line. I just wanted to emphasize at the players meeting that the lines were created with convenience in mind and shouldn't be micro-analyzed to the point of bringing an official in to intepret them. If in doubt, make the call to the player's benefit and allow them to jump-putt.

I agree with all of that as long as the lines were drawn to the best of the drawers ability as circles and at 10 meter length.

I don't agree with using just any ole painted line....UNLESS we are spcifically talking about changing the 10 meter rule and y'all want to discuss that.

the 10 meter rule's great the way it is :D

I will actively work to remove the 10m rule and also allow jump putts where you can't land in front of your lie before releasing the disc after taking off from the proper position behind your lie. That will make the game more exciting and reduce the timing issue for making calls. I believe it's much easier to make the call where a player releases before coming back down than the current scenario.

Maybe my memory's a bit fuzzy, but Chuck weren't you in favor of making the baskets smaller to make putting more difficult? Wouldn't allowing jump-putts inside of 10 meters make putting easier for some?

I wasn't in favor of making the baskets smaller necessarily. It is a possible solution to make putting tougher so those who insist on ball golf metrics being applied to disc golf would be satisfied.

Putting is the least interesting part of our sport visually versus being the most interesting aspect of ball golf. Eliminating the 10m line and allowing players to properly jump (following our current stance rules) and release before hitting the ground, would solve some rules issues and make the shots visually more interesting. The last time some of these ideas were discussed, it seemed like the primary downside was a higher risk of injury. But the shot would be optional and flashy, just like dunking, which has a risk of injury that several players, who could dunk, choose not to take.

I am in favor of allowing jump putts to be legal as long as the disc is released before landing.

As far as no 10 meters AND allowing that style jump putt, I am torn but leaning toward no 10 meter.

One potential problem i see is ratings....alot of players ratings are gonna go up if they are allowed to falling putt. No biggy cause everyone would be allowed to do it but it would put an asterick on any ratings record with a change like that. Maris didnt mind the asterick so much and I doubt Dgers would either.

No ratings impact. Possibly the round SSAs would slightly decrease.

Well I can tell you from experience in helping players, if they are chronic falling putters then their gonna play better in tournies if they are allowed to do it in tournies. Having to keep balance behind their mark on putts in events kills their putting 99% of the time.

Is this so much that it would effect all players drastically , no way, but it will some and that is where that asterick comes in IMO.

Also, there will be less whoopsies on 5-10 footers all around.

I think I am behind you on a change like this though. Silly little potential negetives are far overshadowed by the positives on this.

;double post;

I think the jury is out on whether it will change things too much. We'll see a lot more dramatic misses on video with the occasional woohoo, but potentially not any more than the special "makes" we see now, just more dramatic looking. It's hard to say whether players will find that jumping from 10 feet will be a higher percentage shot worth the wear and tear. The fun times will be on windy days at flat courses when slam dunking will probably be a better bet for several putts. I think it would be interesting to see the types of grips and throws that are the best percentage for short range jump shots.

As far as the jury being out, yeah.

Just think though....Say Joe Pro after the change shoots an 1105 rated round......Skinners 1101 would be veiwed by many as the "Real" ratings record and Joe Pro would be left to roam the earth with an asterick forever by his side :D

No one at that level has been foot faulting enough in comparison to other players to make a difference. Like I said, the SSA will go down slightly and the records will be solid. If we worried about these things then any new disc technology or basket like the Titan would change the record books. But the records in this area are solid when everyone is impacted the same (in theory).

In fact, if MTL sees this, the way we do ratings dynamically is much better than fixed (SSA) course rating like ball golf because new technology is automatically accounted for with slightly reduced SSAs in addition to the weather which most people understand.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

Keep the ten meter rule and enforce the bejeebers out of it.

Actually, I think Chuck has a point - this recreational activity called disc golf has a group of players who are interested in making a real living form it, and almost certainly media coverage will be an important component of the package that allows that to happen. If pro baseball can allow "livelier" stitched balls and ignore Barry's shrinking ones :eek: to make the game have more visual (read TV) impact, why can't we consider the idea of irregularly shaped greens and a rule change that says a putt is legal if the disc is released before a supporting point RECONNECTS with the ground. I believe Chuck's idea of the Disc Golf Slam Dunk has merit on a number of levels.

Call this thread merge with the PDGA reformation thread - I'm OK with that :)

I like the idea of allowing differently shaped greens or no-falling putt areas. Some could stretch halfway down the fairway, while others might sneak to within less than 10 meters of the pin.

If the course pro leaves them undefined then you either could puttjump from anywhere.

You have to admit, the imaginary 10 meter rule is a bit on the strange and inexplicable side to any outsider (as well as to a few insiders).

No, you don't have to admit that.

I think the 10MR is understandable to most of us - when you have only a basket in the middle of an open spot in a park, and you want to say that at some certain distance additional restrictions on how you can throw apply, a circle of whatever diameter is the easiest shape to specify and for the players to determine.

If you are going to go to the trouble of painting lines though, the players don't have to do any determining so the shape doesn't matter as much.

And you have to admit, the idea of a younger, spryer Ken Climo or Julianna Korver taking a huge run-up and then leaping twenty feet forward to slam the disc home as they go flying by the basket two feet off the ground has a certain vividness of imagery. And as the player ages, presumably her/his skills and wisdom will continue to develop, partially offsetting the ability of the younger players to make those flying leaping putts.

Hmmmmm.....

I thought that that the falling putt rule was instituted to stop Dan "Stork" Roddick from doing just that, and gaining an advantage over players like Houck.

Urban legend. Stork would need more than that to shoot over 940 these days. And Houck has no rated rounds... ever. (so we don't know "what a player like Houck" is :D)

I think the 10MR is understandable to most of us - when you have only a basket in the middle of an open spot in a park, and you want to say that at some certain distance additional restrictions on how you can throw apply, a circle of whatever diameter is the easiest shape to specify and for the players to determine.

If you are going to go to the trouble of painting lines though, the players don't have to do any determining so the shape doesn't matter as much.

And you have to admit, the idea of a younger, spryer Ken Climo or Julianna Korver taking a huge run-up and then leaping twenty feet forward to slam the disc home as they go flying by the basket two feet off the ground has a certain vividness of imagery. And as the player ages, presumably her/his skills and wisdom will continue to develop, partially offsetting the ability of the younger players to make those flying leaping putts.

Hmmmmm.....



Maybe I'm missing it here, but how does removing the 10mR allow for 'slam dunk' putts? Current rules on stance still apply. You still have to release the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

I am kinda on the fence about this proposed eliminating the 10m rule.

On one side I like the idea of having well defined, often illregular greens where no falling putts would be allowed.

Then on the flip side, give me a disc golf course that has 18 well defined greens that seperate themselves from the fairways.

Our current 10m rule is the closest thing we have to creating a senario like that in ball golf when it comes to holing out.

Perhaps a change could be made to eliminate the 10m rule at the discression of the TD if and only if the greens have been clearly marked, with either paint or natural objects. Perhaps even having someone take a lawn mower and trim down the grass significantly around the basket.

Eliminate the 10m rule all together and we are just hucking frisbees at metal things.

The 10m circle has an air of pressure around it. No one really complains when they miss putts outside this mark, but when they miss putts "inside the circle" it affects their head games. If you watch closely, you can see the affect on the players faces when putting inside the circle, there is intense concentration, they know it is possible to miss, but deep down they try not to, to avoid dissapointment.

We need to keep the 10m rule until disc golf courses can be kept up as well as ball golf courses and the greens are easily identified by all players and observers.

You still have to release the disc with a supporting point on the ground.




No. It's a package deal. No 10m line any more (nor alternative irregular putting green). And players would have throw before landing once they took off from a proper stance with a foot behind the marker. This eliminates most of any problems with making jump putt calls and makes the game around the basket visually more exciting.

Maybe I'm missing it here, but how does removing the 10mR allow for 'slam dunk' putts? Current rules on stance still apply. You still have to release the disc with a supporting point on the ground.



Cuz you could "fall" forward keeping one point in contact behind your marker, stretch your arm out and slam dunk from about 7'-8' releasing the disk before face planting into the ground. Maybe 8.5' if you're Stork, and 6' max if you're Houck. Hence the rule to make it more fair for the little guys.

Dunking discs. Let's see. Let's put the 10 meter line in and give them a six step running approach and then comes the dunk. Failure to reach the basket would result in a stroke penalty or maybe we could raise the basket to ten feet off the ground. Then they wouldn't look so silly dunking on a basket that close to the ground. I think I should be on the rules committee. :D:D:D:D

But I'm proposing you wouldn't need to keep the foot planted either. You could take a running start, place your foot in the proper position behind your mark and leap in the air toward the basket as long as the disc was released before any part of your body touches ground. The more interesting shots if this was allowed wouldn't necessarily be toward the basket but sideways or jumping straight up to get a better angle over a bush. Watching a player leap out sideways from behind a bush and launch a throw before landing would be pretty dramatic, especially if it goes in.

Jim I hope you don't go in for this style of putting. You could break a hip.

I think Chuck is having fun.

. You could take a running start, place your foot in the proper position behind your mark and leap in the air toward the basket as long as the disc was released before any part of your body touches ground.



I think Chuck is already facing withdrawl from NCAA basketball. Next thing you know, he is going to propose we starting hitting our discs with heavy carved wooden sticks, or prop them up on a tee and try to kick the disc into the basket while 11 other golfers charge at the person.

Come one....slam dunk putts.....

That just seems plain silly.

Okay, how about this? We put the basket on a pendulum, so we have to time it just right. Oh and you have to balance on one foot. :D:DWho knows, maybe I will see these in the rule book in a few years. :)

Come on....we're talking about reasonable 10m circles. Not 50m circles or 100m circles. Probably the best thing is to paint reasonable 10m circles for convienience, and include a string attached to the pole that is exactly 10m for official measuring purposes (if its too close to call). Or, include a tape measure at ever hole (do they currently do that at high profile events? National Tour, Majors?)

The 10m rule should stay for any unmarked green but if there are clearly marked greens then that shuld be followed. I don't jump putt so I don't really give a **** about it.

Instead of Air Jordan disc golf would have Air Climo....lol.

No one has given reasons why my proposal:
1. wouldn't make putting more visually exciting
2. wouldn't make the jump putt infraction call easier or non existent
3. wouldn't eliminate different rules inside and outside 10m and thus eliminate the need for any line

No one has given reasons why my proposal:
1. wouldn't make putting more visually exciting
<font color="blue"> First of all, why? We are golf after all, and last I heard we were not trying to make disc golf an X-Game. I personally like the calm, zen like format. Will it make it visually exciting? Yes for those who can stomach a basket ball game. But would it make it more appealing? No. </font>
2. wouldn't make the jump putt infraction call easier or non existent
<font color="blue"> Yes, but I think jump putting is crazy anyway. </font>
3. wouldn't eliminate different rules inside and outside 10m and thus eliminate the need for any line
<font color="blue"> I might not personally like the falling putt rule, however I learned to control my balance on putts. I really do not see a need to change the current rule. Allowing wild and crazy putts would still require rules. What is needed is a clearly identified green. </font>

1. Might be more exciting, but I think it will give an unfair advantage to those that can do it.

Now, I know that there are some that can throw shots that others can not...but, when you get in the 'green', everyone is forced to excecute the same skill under the current rules. <font color="blue"> Under your proposal </font> : Lets say 2 people are exactly 9.9m out. One is tall and lanky, young and athletic. The other is old, fat, and can not move near as well as his young counterpart. The old man must excecute his putt from around 30ft. The young man can take a running start, leap up just before his marker, fly through the air, and release his disc just before he touches the ground around 15ft from the basket. And, with his momentum, he wouldnt have to 'putt' much at all. He could almost just let it go, on line, and it would crash chains. Old guy...30ft putt. Young guy...15ft putt. (and they both had the same lie). Extreme example, I know. But, I think this visual would come to life eventually. HOWEVER, if somehow this could attract more media attention (like a slam dunk, or a homerun does)...it might be worth it.

2. It would make it just as hard to make the close calls, just from the opposite end of the spectrum.

I think you would have just as hard a time determining when their foot landed(and when they released their disc) as you do determining when their foot left the ground (and when they released their disc).

3. The line would not be needed.

Maybe just a convienience to determine who was still away.

The old versus young guy scenario is played out many places on the course. That's no argument. If someone is more athletic and can use those skills, we should be letting them develop those skills if this is truly a sport. I think you should try the running jump putt and see how easy it is before saying it will make things so much easier for athletic players. I really think it will only be used for special situations when there's an obstruction (or for emphasis) and not used under most circumstances.

When players are doing slam dunks or just floating thru the lane like Michael Jordan, it's pretty easy to tell whether they have touched down before releasing the ball. It will be the same thing here. Much easier to tell if a player released before touching back down than it currently is to tell if they released before leaving the ground.

A rope 10m long could be tied to the pin and used as marking the circumference.


parkntwoputt, I used this exact method at a ST 2 years ago and there were quite a few pros who complained about the circles not being measured correctly (off by 1"-6", etc.).

Bottom line: ultra-accurate circles are not possible on disc golf courses. I feel the circles are helpful but should be used as a rough reference. Players should measure exactly if there is a concern.

I think follow through should be allowed on putts (it will eliminate the 10m issues). If someone wants to add a lot of extra movement to their putting motion then I say fine... it will ultimately be a detriment. The problem with 'slam dunks' is are you going to abolish all stance violations? I.e. anything is legal as long as you launch from behind your market (on an approach, putt, or fairway drive)?

anything is legal as long as you launch from behind your market (on an approach, putt, or fairway drive)?



It's really not much different from what we have now. We already have jump putts beyond 10m that are hard to call whether a player has released before leaving the ground.

I think a side benefit of allowing players to release as long as it's before hitting the ground will be more foot fault calls that aren't being made now. If players are allowed to do running jump putts near the basket, it will place more of a premium (and risk) on making sure you plant your foot properly behind your mini before leaping. More players will start paying attention to other players near the basket than they currently do out on the fairway. This increased attention near the basket will likely have a halo effect such that more calls will be made on the fairway in the future.

The problem with 'slam dunks' is are you going to abolish all stance violations? I.e. anything is legal as long as you launch from behind your market (on an approach, putt, or fairway drive)?



Not all stance violations, Just those that involve maintaining balance behind the lie within 10 meters of the basket.

When players are doing slam dunks or just floating thru the lane like Michael Jordan, it's pretty easy to tell whether they have touched down before releasing the ball. It will be the same thing here. Much easier to tell if a player released before touching back down than it currently is to tell if they released before leaving the ground.

Sure, if we put the basket on a ten foot pole! Come on. It is easy in basketball because once Michael is down, he can't dunk anyway.

I agree with JRoc that this rule would change almost nothing in terms of making the call. You are still going to have players who push the rule and you are still going to have an impossible split second event that will not be called.

The slight advantage to Chuck's rule is that you could listen for the foot while you watch the hand and disc, the same way the umpire makes the call at first base.

The irony of Chuck's rule is this: All the jump putters say, "Oh, no, I'm definately on the ground when I release the disc. If I was in the air I would lose all my accuracy." If that's the case, why would anyone learn the long jump putt if it were allowed? To close the gap on a 15 footer? Maybe on a really windy day.

If it is slam dunks that you dislike then the answer is simple, don't change any of our rules other than making the 10 meter designation down to about 3 meters. No disc golfer I know can reach up and grasp a basketball rim while standing on the ground.

Since it is already required that 1 supporting point be in contact with the lie at the point of release, jumping and slamming would not be allowed.

If you want to change that rule too, I'd be willing to give it a try during X tiers or minis, but not during regular PDGA rounds.

I would think the variable green would be especially appealing to course designers. It would be cool to have some areas around the pin where you could puttjump closer than 10 meters and others on the same pin where you couldn't within 30 or more meters. Or as some have suggested, have hazards where follow through is not permitted (like remote putting greens). This stuff should get tested out first. But it is intreging.

1. Might be more exciting, but I think it will give an unfair advantage to those that can do it.

Now, I know that there are some that can throw shots that others can not...but, when you get in the 'green', everyone is forced to excecute the same skill under the current rules. Under your proposal : Lets say 2 people are exactly 9.9m out. One is tall and lanky, young and athletic. The other is old, fat, and can not move near as well as his young counterpart. The old man must excecute his putt from around 30ft. The young man can take a running start, leap up just before his marker, fly through the air, and release his disc just before he touches the ground around 15ft from the basket. And, with his momentum, he wouldnt have to 'putt' much at all. He could almost just let it go, on line, and it would crash chains. Old guy...30ft putt. Young guy...15ft putt. (and they both had the same lie). Extreme example, I know. But, I think this visual would come to life eventually. HOWEVER, if somehow this could attract more media attention (like a slam dunk, or a homerun does)...it might be worth it.




That is pretty funny...you should go out and do a couple test runs on that style and see how ridiculous that example is....lol

I could possibly beleive:

Lets say 2 people are exactly 12 ft. out. One is tall and lanky, young and athletic. The other is old, fat, and can not move near as well as his young counterpart. The old man must excecute his putt from around 12 ft. The young man can take a running start, leap up just before his marker, fly through the air, and release his disc just before he touches the ground around 2ft from the basket. And, with his momentum, he wouldnt have to 'putt' much at all. He could almost just let it go, on line, and it would crash chains. Old guy...12ft putt. Young guy...2ft putt. (and they both had the same lie). ............

Alternate Ending: The old man nails the 12 footer and the young guy nails the basket....with his FACE!

Other alternate ending: Old guy nails the 12 footer and the young guy while trying to throw on his way down makes the putt but misses his feet...oops Watch Out for That Basket!!!.....ewwww

Try looking up your average High School long jump lengths...then come back and tell me you still beleive some disc golfer is gonna jump 15 feet AND throw a disc at the same time AND make it AND not fall flat on his face.

Better yet, try it yourself and report back :D

[this post was done mostly in humor. the distances are not completely accurate. i take no responsibily for any injuries resulting from attempting this experiment]


:D

My jump putt is getting better and better. I made a couple of nice long ones last weekend at Rolling Hills. But I never leave the ground, before or after the throw. It is really just a falling putt.

My puttjumps grow less visually appealing as I grow.

Yeah, that'd look good on TV!

Any of what you said that is.

Vivid imagery :)

To answer Theo, I believe that if the TD paints the cricle, that is gospel. I do this for the USADGC and I have not head 1 issue with players having issue with it, in fact I have heard many thank you's for it.
As for the 10m circle itself.... I am biased as I put the same from 10ft as I do from 100. Move it to 50m and eliminate the "putt jump" controversy. If it goes in from that distance, it's a fairway ace and you deserve it. Make putting harder, not easier..... :D

I wasn't in favor of making the baskets smaller necessarily. It is a possible solution to make putting tougher so those who insist on ball golf metrics being applied to disc golf would be satisfied.

Putting is the least interesting part of our sport visually versus being the most interesting aspect of ball golf. Eliminating the 10m line and allowing players to properly jump (following our current stance rules) and release before hitting the ground, would solve some rules issues and make the shots visually more interesting. The last time some of these ideas were discussed, it seemed like the primary downside was a higher risk of injury. But the shot would be optional and flashy, just like dunking, which has a risk of injury that several players, who could dunk, choose not to take.



This isn't the first time that this topic has come up nor the first time that Chuck has made this proposal.

I'll repeat some of what got said then. While some find putting boring, personally, I find it extremely exciting. A leap and a stuff of the disc into the basket isn't nearly as exciting a 30 foot putt in my opinion.

The notion that we need to make disc golf more exciting always amuses me. If I wanted to play in a more exciting (ahem, more physical or more active is really what Chuck means, as if physical or active makes something exciting) sport that involved discs, I would go to DDC or Ultimate etc. I am sorry that some find putting boring, but I might suggest they watch some match play pool, or perhaps poker, where they will quickly discover that the person who wins doesn't have to slam his que into the pocket or throw her cards in the air for the play to be exciting.

BTW - I fail to see why a ball golf putt is any more exciting that a beautiful putt. The reason Chuck finds it boring might be because good players make it look easy. That's why they are good players.

It has to do with speed and the inability to see "wind" in our sport versus the break on a ball golf green. Ball golf drives are visually unexciting on TV whereas putting is very interesting (relatively) because you can see the ball slowly moving across the green and watch the break. Putts in disc golf are do fast that you can't see much other than the finish. Plus, very few putts curve much except maybe lob putts up and down.

On the other hand, our drives are much more interesting than ball golf but usually it will require too many cameras to video properly or it's not even possible to properly capture the flight paths on wooded holes. These video problems I believe will retard the growth of professional coverage in our sport to the extent it may never be covered live like ball golf. Anything we can do to make the sport more athletic and visually interesting is a step in the right direction for potential broadcast coverage.

Plus, very few putts curve much except maybe lob putts up and down . . . Anything we can do to make the sport more athletic and visually interesting is a step in the right direction for potential broadcast coverage.


Watching a disc golfer athletically stretch as far as they can to nail a delicate 60 ft. flick-turnover around a tree with a steep drop-off behind the basket is very exciting.

As I've posted before the 10 meter line in disc golf parallels 3-4 ft. putts in golf. Rarely do those putts in golf break more than 4-6 inches and the break is barely seen on TV. Visually, a 3-4 ft. golf putt isn't exciting. The excitement comes from the pressure that creates the drama of the moment.

In order to increase the amount of excitement in disc golf putting we need to design holes where players face many putts in the 40-80 ft. range. In order to win tournaments players will need to be a bit more agressive and make 20-40% of these putts while introducing a greater chance of three putts.

I think disc golf course design is in it's early adolescence. Many creative innovations are yet to come through which disc golf can adapt the best elements of ball golf without major rule changes and/or stretching the intentions of existing rules. This will particularly be evident once utilizing a modest amount of earth moving is incorporated into the norm of course design.

One of the great elements of the game of golf is the way the rules have resisted many urges for change over their long history. I strongly support the maxim that rule changes should only be made once an overwhelming case has been made. I am not saying that the proposed changes to the 10 meter rule are without merit, but I am saying that it's far from a "slam dunk".

Also, I'll state it before someone else does for me: I am very strongly in favor of utilizing parallel concepts from ball golf. (This does not, however, mean that I think that ball golf courses are the very best grounds for disc golf courses.)

I know, pretty amusing visuals I created. I would never add this shot to my bag, legal or not, but I actually DID try it a bit this weekend. It turned out to be a little harder than I thought, BUT with practice, I could make it happen. (And, someone more athletic than I am could do it easier). As far as distances, 15 ft may be a little long, but I think my out of shape self could get to 10ft. The face plant in the basket would be pretty funny, unless someone broke their nose /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif (I dont think saving one throw is worth potentially having surgery to put your nose back in place :eek:) If someone could successfully do it, it might look kind of cool. I will stick with the boring old supporting point on the ground method.

Regardless, after thinking about it some this weekend, I dont think it would give as much of an advantage as I originally thought. (I do still think it would be just as difficult to call) I like Nick's idea of allowing a follow-through closer than 10m though.

And no, I didnt face plant :D Some of the other guys did wonder what the he-- I was doing though :D

Come on....we're talking about reasonable 10m circles. Not 50m circles or 100m circles.


That's not what everyone in this thread is talking about. Many are talking about wholesale changes to this rule.

Well, thats what we were talking about. Could we use them for enforement or reference? Now, we are more talking about slam dunk putts and face plants :p

This is kind of drifty, but--

What do people think about installing 10m rings of brick (bricks dug in so that the top of the brick is even with the ground) on every hole at a certain course? We want to give back to our local park and are thinking about doing this over the next year or so.
Thoughts/suggestions?

I think that would be cool. You want to use brick pavers rather than wall brick because pavers won't absorb water then explode when they freeze.

Thank you BB. Anyone else?!?

That would look pretty cool. I may borrow that idea for our course :D

If I own the idea, I give you permission

You want to use brick pavers rather than wall brick because pavers won't absorb water then explode when they freeze.



???? Oh, that must be an issue that those weirdo Northeners have to worry about.

Great Idea!
Make is so, number one.

This is kind of drifty, but--

What do people think about installing 10m rings of brick (bricks dug in so that the top of the brick is even with the ground) on every hole at a certain course? We want to give back to our local park and are thinking about doing this over the next year or so.
Thoughts/suggestions?



Nice Esthetic's too !!!!! It also may help by doing this through Brick Fundraisers for each course.

This is kind of drifty, but--

What do people think about installing 10m rings of brick (bricks dug in so that the top of the brick is even with the ground) on every hole at a certain course? We want to give back to our local park and are thinking about doing this over the next year or so.
Thoughts/suggestions?



Nice Esthetic's too !!!!! It also may help by doing this through Brick Fundraisers for each course.



I think Donny is on to a great idea with that one. Fundraisers to get your name in a brick. That sounds like a super cool idea to me.

I still prefer the idea that directors can designate any area they want as no follow through areas and allow them to make greens any shape and size they want as well as use this option for hazards anywhere on the course.

To me it seems like a maturing point for the sport of disc golf. Like we are finally taking off the 10m training wheels...

chuck, would you compromise on allowing leaping shots outside of 10m and just falling putts inside of 10m (meaning only a point of contact on the playing surface at time of release)?

there is something classic about the current rule - the zen analogy seems right. i dont have any real objection against doing away with the 10MR, but am not entirely attracted to the X-games style that could (and likely would) result.

removing the 10MR for sure would eliminate any putting stance controversies, and also the need to define/mark a "green", which in disc golf is better sculpted by either obstacles or giant fans anyway.

but shots stuck in trees 15M above the basket should still be penalized. (just had to get that in somehow :cool:)

After the early years of the sport, the influx of players has been primarily golfers versus Frisbee players. Their perspectives have squeezed some of the life out of the original game with a more golflike evolution. Early play had more creative and athletic moves and players had the skill to make more types of shots with the discs available at the time. I'm sure the early players would confirm this.

The primary contribution from all of the years of advancing disc technology is distance. The tradeoff has been loss of shot skills and a huge cost increase for more course property to handle this length. (Hopefully, EDGE and Skillshot will encourage players to braoden their skills)

I see removing the 10m line and allowing jump putts, where the release must be made before landing, as retro changes that simplifies some rules calls, plus bring back a little bit of the creativity and style in the early game.

Referencing you last paragraph, I don't really disagree about the jump putt inside 10m. But perhaps we could find a middle ground.

Allow jump putts/falling putts inside 10m. But also state the the player must maintain a level of control and balance. So if they jump putt they must land square and upright. Diving at the basket to "dunk" the disc not only is risky to the player, but could possibly damage the baskets if the golfer forgets to let go and bends the rim of the basket.

As for the majority of new players being golf oriented, and not frisbee oriented. I do not see these two groups being mutually exclusive. Each group has a lot to bring to the table. And yes, the newer versions of course design takes up more land then prior years. But I do see a lot of the older "frisbee" players throwing Wraiths and Surges. So the players, regardless of origin, adapt to the technology.

I know I am not alone in my sporting history, a lot of guys I play with in tournaments have similar backgrounds. These guys in the 18-30 year old disc golf demographic like me, have played mutiple disc sports (DDC, Guts, Ultimate), and even ball golf (been playing since I was 6 years old) before they evolved to disc golf.

Sure this sport is changing, all sports do. I don't think that trying to go back to the old school days is the precise way to advance the sport. Sadly, the old frisbee players will no longer play disc golf, and all that will be left are golfers.

The future course designs are going to dictate what we call a putt. Eventually the 10m rule will be almost pointless, but for now it is all we have. It is the only thing controlling the difference between a putt and a approach shot (besides if the disc goes in the basket or not).

I'm perfectly fine if we go the other way and make putting more different from approach shots than it is now. The 10m line seems like a waste for the slight difference it makes between shots inside it versus outside it. Ball golf putts use different equipment and the ball rolls more than flies like shots off the green.

For us to make putting different, we might need discs that are even more specialized than they are now and require their use on the "green" which could be shaped by the designer/TD like Nick is proposing. We might need to require more restrictive stance options than we have now. We might need to modify the basket so it is more suitable to catch the modified putters versus non-putters.

I'm not saying we should go this way. But currently, the minimal rule difference for the 10m rule seems like a lot of effort for nothing that truly differentiates putting from throwing. Better to just accept the fact that there's no difference between outside 10m and inside and eliminate a superfluous rule.

If we allow jump putts from anywhere, then there would be no pressure on a 25' putt. You just jump as far as you can towards the basket, and if you don't make it to the pin on your first try, just hold on to your disc and try again until you get close enough to drop it in. I am against doing away with a jump putt line. I think it would be fine to move it back to 100' or so tho.

If we did away with a jump putt line, disc golf would turn into a long jump contest.

The more I think about this, the more it seems it could be a good change to remove the 10 meter rule. IMO the best thing to come out of such a change would be the elimination of the definition of a "putt" as anything inside 10 meters. I'll keep hammering on the concept of a 10 meter putt in DG equating a 3-4 foot putt in BG.

I do think, however, that the idea of allowing the release of the disc up to the point that the player relands on ground would make it more difficult to call foot faults, not less. Inside the 10 meter line could end up being like in the paint in the NBA.

The difficulties could extend to full shots. i.e. A player is 250 ft. out, but totally blocked by a bush. They do, however, have enough room to run on a perpendicular line to the target, plant behind the disc, leap out past the reach of the bush, and fire off a sweet sidearm just as they land on the ground. Imagine that a popular player just threw that "miracle" shot during a final 9 in front of a big crowd. Now imagine that you're the fellow competitor who has the obligation of calling foot fault on that one.

I've seen plenty of video of pro tournaments with our best players foot faulting and have never seen video of a pro being called for a foot fault. Many of those instances, however, are an accidental mistake of a couple of inches and really not an advantage to the thrower. If a player's jump could make a few feet of difference, then it really matters if they release the disc before they hit the ground or not.

On the idea that players could jump-throw only if they demonstrate control on their landing: we might want to change the name of the sport to discnastics.

As I mentioned on the sandtrap thread, I'm coming around to the use of "casual" hazards that do not add penalty strokes, but do require the player to move to a more difficult location. I definitely would oppose any hazards where rules require a certain type of shot be played.

Everyone who says everyone will leap putt and make it so easy needs to go out and actually try it. It won't be used as much as some think, just in special situations. And even then, only few will try it. On the other hand, a large number of foot faults and the need to call them will disappear.

"On the other hand, a large number of foot faults and the need to call them will disappear."

this is true, and is a significant simplification of the rules.

it also takes us away from the concept of green being a 10M circle. there really isnt a green in DG, imo.

at the pro level, allowing a falling putt will reduce the scores slightly. i wouldnt be surprised if it increased scores at lower levels, cuz players who miss the basket at those fast speeds are gonna find themselves even further away for their next shot.

The falling putt rule is a weird one anyway.

I am a clumbsy (spelling) fellow. If I am on a sloped green, and release my putt, and my foot slips just beyond my lie before I can catch myself, who really says that my slipping created an advantage? Instead I am penalized and have to putt again if it was my first foot fault, and I get a shot added to my score if my foot slips again. Pretty silly to be that picky.

To answer the original questions (and ignoring the thread-drift silliness about allowing running/jumping slam dunks):


So my question goes out, in particular to officials and TDs: if 10 meter circles are provided, can they be used for enforcement of the rules (falling putts), or are they just a convenience for reference? And do you think this is something that should be spelled out more in the rules or tournament standards?



IMO, they should be used for enforcement, but allow a caveat. If the player proves before his shot that the line is inaccurate, his newly measured distance shall override the incorrect circle. The majority of the group would need to agree with the player that the line is wrong, and an overriding measurement is correct. Thus, the line is presumed to be correct, but allows for the players to overrule this line if there is reasonable evidence that it is incorrect. And this would need to be spelled out in the rulebook since it involves an actual playing situation. It could also be added to the TD sanctioning agreement to require TDs (above certain tier levels) to require "accurate" 10m circles.

The only thing I don't like about my proposed solution is that some groups may play it differently than other groups. Say the line is marked at 11m, and group 1 has a tape measure proving that a disc just inside the circle is really outside 10m thus allowing the player to jump putt. Another group with a lie in the same spot, but without a decent measuring device isn't able to to "fix" the line. Well, too bad for them, maybe it'll get more people to carry tape measures.

eliminate the 10 meter limit. only allow falling putts if you release the disc before contacting in front of your lie and must maintain contact behind your lie. jump putts would be gone, which wouldn't matter much since most are illegal anyway. refer to the feldberg jump putt in the worlds video. obviously he releases long after leaving the ground...

The rules and I agree that players must have a point of contact with thier lie at the point of release. This makes slam dunk putts virtually impossible outside 3 meters.

I disagree with the rules that every putting green need be the identical shape ans size of 10 meters. Better for the course designer and event director to specify where and where not a player may have a follow through. Some may say the whole course, others just stick with the unimaginitive 10 meters, others yet may create unique putting greens of an infinite variety of size and shape, and yet others may use the no follow through (and possibly no run up) in a variety of hazard areas.

As to the 10 meter circles in Theo's original post, if they are not correctly marked then they are meaningless under current rules of play. Proving they are mis-marked would take a player with a 10 meter measuring device (which should be readily available considering we have rules that require a 5 meter measuring device for casual relief).

The rules require that players carry a 5m measuring device? Please let me know where.

To answer the original questions (and ignoring the thread-drift silliness about allowing running/jumping slam dunks):


So my question goes out, in particular to officials and TDs: if 10 meter circles are provided, can they be used for enforcement of the rules (falling putts), or are they just a convenience for reference? And do you think this is something that should be spelled out more in the rules or tournament standards?



IMO, they should be used for enforcement, but allow a caveat. If the player proves before his shot that the line is inaccurate, his newly measured distance shall override the incorrect circle. The majority of the group would need to agree with the player that the line is wrong, and an overriding measurement is correct. Thus, the line is presumed to be correct, but allows for the players to overrule this line if there is reasonable evidence that it is incorrect. And this would need to be spelled out in the rulebook since it involves an actual playing situation. It could also be added to the TD sanctioning agreement to require TDs (above certain tier levels) to require "accurate" 10m circles.


I like that proposal.

To answer the original questions (and ignoring the thread-drift silliness about allowing running/jumping slam dunks):


So my question goes out, in particular to officials and TDs: if 10 meter circles are provided, can they be used for enforcement of the rules (falling putts), or are they just a convenience for reference? And do you think this is something that should be spelled out more in the rules or tournament standards?



IMO, they should be used for enforcement, but allow a caveat. If the player proves before his shot that the line is inaccurate, his newly measured distance shall override the incorrect circle. The majority of the group would need to agree with the player that the line is wrong, and an overriding measurement is correct. Thus, the line is presumed to be correct, but allows for the players to overrule this line if there is reasonable evidence that it is incorrect. And this would need to be spelled out in the rulebook since it involves an actual playing situation. It could also be added to the TD sanctioning agreement to require TDs (above certain tier levels) to require "accurate" 10m circles.


I like that proposal.


I want to qualify that with "I would like to see that language in the sanctioning agreement."

We found out from the PnR department at our new course that if we showed the mowing crews where to mow, the would let the grass grow long, and then right before a tournament mow out the fairways.

We could have them mow oblong and asymetrical shapes around the pins, and not allow falling putts inside the mowed areas. (Everyday I am liking this PnR department more and more).

The rules and I agree that players must have a point of contact with thier lie at the point of release. This makes slam dunk putts virtually impossible outside 3 meters.



They also allow no contact with any object in front of the marker which would make the typical "dunk" illegal from virtually any distance. Contact with the basket rim is in front of the marker unless the marker is under the basket.


I disagree with the rules that every putting green need be the identical shape ans size of 10 meters. Better for the course designer and event director to specify where and where not a player may have a follow through. Some may say the whole course, others just stick with the unimaginitive 10 meters, others yet may create unique putting greens of an infinite variety of size and shape, and yet others may use the no follow through (and possibly no run up) in a variety of hazard areas.



While I don't disagree with you, I don't really see the purpose. The only thing the "putting green" (10m circle) does is define an area where you must demonstrate balance before proceeding past your mark. IMO non-uniform shaped greens, while possibly asthetically pleasing, have very little impact on play. The only thing they do is disallow jump-putts.


As to the 10 meter circles in Theo's original post, if they are not correctly marked then they are meaningless under current rules of play.


Agreed. My response to Theo would require a rule change, and I included the concept (if not the exact wording) in my post.


Proving they are mis-marked would take a player with a 10 meter measuring device


Agreed, again I included that in my post.

The rules require that players carry a 5m measuring device? Please let me know where.



I marked the nylon cord attached to my disc diver retriever with a black sharpie; at 30 centimeters, 1 meter, 3 meters, and 10 meters. Guess I'll have to go add a 5 meter mark now!

You could always fold the 10m section in half...

Might as well put 2m on there too. I'm pretty sure some TDs will use the optional 2m rule this year.
And if you're really anal, marks at 3, 7 &amp; 15 cm.
<font color="white">Rhett will be along shortly to explain why</font>

You have to make sure those minis are legal, too. :)

They also allow no contact with any object in front of the marker which would make the typical "dunk" illegal from virtually any distance. Contact with the basket rim is in front of the marker unless the marker is under the basket.

it would allow a "fly-by" dunk from say 2 meters out where the player launches from his mark, slams the disc into the basket on the way by, and lands on (roughly) the opposite side of the basket - but more than 2 meters away from the pole. the rule is "no closer than", not "in front of".

As long as the player doesn't make contact with the basket itself, I'll agree with you (though read 803.04 B)

Yes, I know that we agree on the ruling.


IMO non-uniform shaped greens, while possibly asthetically pleasing, have very little impact on play. The only thing they do is disallow jump-putts.



Disallowing jump-putts (from varying distances) or follow throughs (in designated areas) would "have very little impact on play"?

I would have to disagree with you on that point.

If a player was not permitted to have a follow through from 400 feet away from the pin on a second throw, in 99% of cases that would have an impact.

If a player was not permitted to have a follow through (falling putt) from 20 meters away, it will have an impact on all of the players who would have normally taken a puttjump at the target.

If there is one area near the basket from which a player may take a puttjump within say 5 meters, and they opt for that puttjump there is at least a little impact.

If a course designer is allowed to limit follow through or run up within designated areas other than the 10 meters around the pin, then that would have to have some impact, wouldn't it?

I agree that no follow throughs from 400' would make a big difference. Of course it seems kind of silly to me to make a "putting green" with a 400' radius, but I concede that it would be theoretically allowable if the rules gave CD/TD carte blanche in defining the green. However, at that point, it's no longer a "putting green" but a "no follow through zone". Whatever...

I disagree that allowing jump putts from 5m would make any difference at all. Who wants/needs to jump putt from that range?

In the 10m - (pick-a-number) 50m range it would have little impact because players who would previously jump putt will simply learn to either conventional-putt or throw without follow through instead. I can't imagine it changing scores in any significant way.

I agree that no follow throughs from 400' would make a big difference. Of course it seems kind of silly to me to make a "putting green" with a 400' radius, but I concede that it would be theoretically allowable if the rules gave CD/TD carte blanche in defining the green. However, at that point, it's no longer a "putting green" but a "no follow through zone". Whatever...
<font color="green"> I'm sorry, I thought I mentioned that such use would represent "hazards" and not putting greens. That directors/course designers could designate such areas anywhere on the course. But in watching the Masters, it did occur to me that the size and shape of the green did make a big difference. If all putting greens in ball golf were perfect 10 meter circles it would be a major difference, don't you think? I'm willing to bet that if we removed the default and allowed directors/course designers to designate greens in any shape or size they feel best suits the situation that it would indeed make a big impact on how our game is played (and viewed as a whole). </font>

I disagree that allowing jump putts from 5m would make any difference at all. Who wants/needs to jump putt from that range?
<font color="green"> Are you speaking from personal preference Jim or do you honestly believe that no players would develop the skill of an under 5 meter puttjump? </font>

In the 10m - (pick-a-number) 50m range it would have little impact because players who would previously jump putt will simply learn to either conventional-putt or throw without follow through instead. I can't imagine it changing scores in any significant way.


<font color="green"> Your opinion is as valid as the next I suppose; still there would be only one way to find out if either of us were mistaken; to test it out. And in a sport where our putting is already the least interesting and appealing of all throws (drives, approach shots, and putts) I'd think we, as a sport, would want to exhaust every avenue of making it more appealing to do and watch be done.

Rules can help in that regard, but most of the onus I place at the feet of the less than imaginative disc golf target manufacturers, who, despite all evidence, seemingly refuse to provide any significant improvements or alterations to our faulty and let's face it, less than attractive targets.

But this is a topic for another thread.

What I want to say here is that I think it would be an improvement if directors/course designers were permitted, by rule, to create their own no follow through & no run up areas in the form of both hazards around their fairways and as in and infinite variety of putting green shapes and sizes.

The 10 meter circle was useful, as training wheels, but if we want to really improve the design and watchability of our courses and sport we now need greater freedom to add challenge and variety. If we are going to keep any standard for green size, then let us make it something more able to be substanted, like the pin may be no nearer than 3 meters from the edge of the green.</font>

I can support designer shaped greens only if putting was actually made more different from shots outside the green. If that doesn't happen then better to eliminate the 10m line and current minimal difference in shot styles.

But in watching the Masters, it did occur to me that the size and shape of the green did make a big difference. If all putting greens in ball golf were perfect 10 meter circles it would be a major difference, don't you think?


Absoultely, but Golf != Disc Golf. Especially when it comes to putting.




I disagree that allowing jump putts from 5m would make any difference at all.

<font color="green"> Are you speaking from personal preference Jim or do you honestly believe that no players would develop the skill of an under 5 meter puttjump? </font>




Mostly personal experience, but also observation that even at 10.0001 - 12m very few players use a jump-putt. I think for 98.3% of disc golfers jump putts only come into play from 15m to 30m. And I don't think elimination of them in that range (or any range) will have an appreciable difference on scoring. Of course that is just opinion, which is worth the bits it's typed on.




What I want to say here is that I think it would be an improvement if directors/course designers were permitted, by rule, to create their own no follow through & no run up areas in the form of both hazards around their fairways and as in and infinite variety of putting green shapes and sizes.



Sounds like a great idea for a eXperiemental tournament. I support you in your quest to run an X-tier with these rules and I'd love to see comparison stats betweeen such a tournament, and another tournament with the existing rules.


If we are going to keep any standard for green size, then let us make it something more able to be substanted, like the pin may be no nearer than 3 meters from the edge of the green.</font>


Huh? Why is 3m any more or less substantiated (I assume that's the word you meant) then 10m? (Or are you now talking about OB near the basket?)

I can support designer shaped greens only if putting was actually made more different from shots outside the green. If that doesn't happen then better to eliminate the 10m line and current minimal difference in shot styles.



You must surround yourself with some very odd players indeed Chuck; how many players do you know that use the same technique on their put as they do on drives or approach shots.

The only person I can think of that uses the same technique for putts and approach shots inside 120 feet or so is Mike Moser; and his tee shots sure shinola don't look like his putt.

But in watching the Masters, it did occur to me that the size and shape of the green did make a big difference. If all putting greens in ball golf were perfect 10 meter circles it would be a major difference, don't you think?


Absoultely, but Golf != Disc Golf. Especially when it comes to putting.


You�re right, and largely due to our rules surrounding green size and shape and our targets; and that is why I suggest we improve them, or at least open up experimentation.




I disagree that allowing jump putts from 5m would make any difference at all.

<font color="green"> Are you speaking from personal preference Jim or do you honestly believe that no players would develop the skill of an under 5 meter puttjump? </font>




Mostly personal experience, but also observation that even at 10.0001 - 12m very few players use a jump-putt. I think for 98.3% of disc golfers jump putts only come into play from 15m to 30m. And I don't think elimination of them in that range (or any range) will have an appreciable difference on scoring. Of course that is just opinion, which is worth the bits it's typed on.


I like your use of decimal percentages to add credence to your �personal opinions�. I could easily produce similar statistics that would indicate an alternative conclusion. The point is that neither you nor I �KNOW� what the consequences would be. One thing is for sure, allowing putt jumps from inside 10 meters would absolutely, 100%, no denying it have �SOME� effect on the game. Most disc golfers are very expressive and love to experiment with throws and anything allowable by the rules. If the rules allowed it, I am certain players would develop a use for it. Again, there is only one way to find out.




What I want to say here is that I think it would be an improvement if directors/course designers were permitted, by rule, to create their own no follow through & no run up areas in the form of both hazards around their fairways and as in and infinite variety of putting green shapes and sizes.



Sounds like a great idea for a eXperiemental tournament. I support you in your quest to run an X-tier with these rules and I'd love to see comparison stats betweeen such a tournament, and another tournament with the existing rules.


I will run an event using this and many other innovations being discussed here. But it shouldn�t be necessary to demonstrate that an idea has merit for us to discuss it, right?




If we are going to keep any standard for green size, then let us make it something more able to be substanted, like the pin may be no nearer than 3 meters from the edge of the green.</font>


Huh? Why is 3m any more or less substantiated (I assume that's the word you meant) then 10m? (Or are you now talking about OB near the basket?)



The 3 meters is cited because it just as effectively negates the �slam-dunk� technique we so desperately wish to avoid. 10 meters is total overkill. I�m guessing it was the �training wheels� for unimaginative disc golf designers faced with creating a putting area.

how many players do you know that use the same technique on their put as they do on drives or approach shots.



I'm just saying that the 10m line rule doesn't change the shot from 9m to 11m to make it worthwhile to have it at all. The fact somone can jump forward after releasing from 11m and not 9m is not enough difference to merit a rule difference. Either make putting even more different or eliminate the rule.

how many players do you know that use the same technique on their put as they do on drives or approach shots.



I'm just saying that the 10m line rule doesn't change the shot from 9m to 11m to make it worthwhile to have it at all. The fact somone can jump forward after releasing from 11m and not 9m is not enough difference to merit a rule difference. Either make putting even more different or eliminate the rule.



So you are saying that if you had total control over the shape and size of the putting area, where no follow through would be permitted that it would have no effect?

How about for mid-fairway bunkers where you could designate that no run up or follow through is allowed? Would that have no effect?

Though possibly minor, there would have to be an effect of some sort, right? Where there is potential gain and nothing to lose really, I say we give it a go, don't you?

I will run an event using this and many other innovations being discussed here. But it shouldn�t be necessary to demonstrate that an idea has merit for us to discuss it, right?



No, feel free to discuss all you want. I thought you were advocating actual change though, not mere discussion. Since I personally don't see a problem with the existing 10m circle, I don't see a reason for change unless it can be shown that something different would be an improvement. And again, I'm all for an X-tier that attempts to demonstrate this improvement.

Hey, while you're here. Why is the rule 10 meters rather than 5 or 3 meters if it wasn't an attempt to create a default putting area. Actually why is there anything at all? I know all of the historical reasons, but what effect are we really worried about if it were totally eliminated from our rules?

Dunno, that rule has been around long before me. I'd always heard/assumed (like Rhett) that it was so Stork couldn't do a falling slam dunk with a 80 mph headwind and gain an unfair advantage over Houck or Junebug. But Chuck says that's Urban Legend.

Isn't Rothstein supposed to be our DG historian? Maybe he knows the impetus for this rule change.

I played with Stork at Worlds last year and at some point it came up. I think he said the falling putt rule originated at about the same time as the Championship where Stork won the car. But it was coincidental and I think Stork was later humorously connected with it but it was not created specifically to handicap him. Before Ed's baskets, there were ground baskets and the rule came about more due to those than the new fangled pole holes.

In any case, how many disc golfers do you know with an 11meter reach? Even a 3 meter reach? If the default were 3 meters, then directors and course designers could extend it using no follow through designated hazard areas where they see a need, rather than a one size fits all rules design dictum. Sound good?

how about if it was ZERO meters, rather than simply tweaking the details of a rules dictum?

how about if it was ZERO meters, rather than simply tweaking the details of a rules dictum?


Because that would allow slam dunk putts. No follow through from within 3 meters should completely satisfy the no slam dunk contingent while allowing course designers to create differently shaped and sized no follow through putting areas (greens) to suit their design needs.

Another proposal:

1. Eliminate the baskets altogether.
2. Replace the 10m circle with a "donut".
2. Allow the Course Designer/TD to vary the size and shape of the donut within a range. Say 2-4m for the hole and 8-15m for the outer donut.
3. Players landing in the inner circle (the donut hole) add one stroke to their score, and automatically hole out.
4. Players landing in the outer circle (the donut body) add two strokes to their score, and automatically hole out..

Benefits:
1. Makes course installation much cheaper.
2. Makes par more like ball golf (strokes to reach the green plus two).
3. Gives the course designer more flexibility in shaping the green.
4. Speeds up play.
5. Eliminates the boring part of the game for TV purposes.
6. Equalizes the game. i.e. it takes away the unfair advantage of all those people who actually practice putting.

Another proposal:

1. Eliminate the baskets altogether.
2. Replace the 10m circle with a "donut".
2. Allow the Course Designer/TD to vary the size and shape of the donut within a range. Say 2-4m for the hole and 8-15m for the outer donut.
3. Players landing in the inner circle (the donut hole) add one stroke to their score, and automatically hole out.
4. Players landing in the outer circle (the donut body) add two strokes to their score, and automatically hole out..

Benefits:
1. Makes course installation much cheaper.
2. Makes par more like ball golf (strokes to reach the green plus two).
3. Gives the course designer more flexibility in shaping the green.
4. Speeds up play.
5. Eliminates the boring part of the game for TV purposes.
6. Equalizes the game. i.e. it takes away the unfair advantage of all those people who actually practice putting.



It'll never work because it removes the potential for aces, and TV audiences really like aces.
You need a 1m circle for automatic hole outs, then a larger +1 circle, then the larger +2 area. :cool:

Ok, I could live with a 25-30cm circle for aces (and +0 for upshots that land there). We still need to keep them rare.

how about we just paint a mark on a tree and then try to hit the mark? that would be really cheap to install. i wonder why no one has thought of this before :cool:

That game already exists; it's called lawn darts...

I suggest using a Speed Deamon for such a game, especially after a night of solid rain.

The first course I played with 10-meter circles was Woodson Park in Oklahoma City. That was probably 1993 or 1994 during the Oklahoma Doubles Championships. Rather than use paint, some sort of grass/weed killer was used as all the circles were basically rings of dead grass. The 10-meter circle is a great idea and I wished more greens were marked that way.

Amarillo has painted 10m circles at their events since I have been playing them (5 years). I think its a very professional touch. We started painting 10m "dashed" circles at our events here. Paint on for 2 steps, paint off for 2 steps, etc. Uses half the paint...but still serves its purpose. Also, it is announced that the line is APPROXIMATE. So, if there are any questions about putting vs. jump putting...it needs to be measured.

Unless its obviously closer than 10m, most players around here will allow a jump putt.

How about invisible fencing at the 10 m mark and microchips on all discs used for putting that would signal whether or not it's acceptible for those avid putt-jumpers? :D

i was hoping that your invisible fence suggestion would be followed with electric collars, so that if you jump put inside or over the 10m line you get shocked.

i was hoping that your invisible fence suggestion would be followed with electric collars, so that if you jump put inside or over the 10m line you get shocked.



2nd

i was hoping that your invisible fence suggestion would be followed with electric collars, so that if you jump put inside or over the 10m line you get shocked.



2nd



And you have to hole out to shut the fence off... that way you're encouraged to go for the long putts since going to mark the drop in after the layup/miss will also be painful... :D

one of the west side courses in phoenix used surveyors nails (big nails with plastic bristles attached). Be sure to drive them down so that the bristles are only 1 or 2 inches above the grass. This keeps mowers and people from pulling them out.
Gaff

Oh, and I am the one who has done the rings at the Memorial for the last 8 years. I use striping paint, I get three holes per can if I walk fast. Lasts nearly two weeks. I use a paint stick with rubber coated cable preset to 32 ft 10 in. A quick clip with two wire clamps to set the proper distance. Have the cable 3 feet out the other side of the paint stick to pull on, this keeps tension on the wire making the circles accurate and saving your arm at the trigger of the paint stick.
Gaff

I ran a skills competition and used surveying flag/tape (you know the thin stuff used to mark trees and such. One roll covers each hole and at $1 a roll it's not a bad deal for 18 holes. I used the biggest U nails that I could find to hold it in the ground. This worked pretty well and was pretty easy to pull back up when the event was over. Takes some time (about 2-3 hrs to get it setup) but it really clearly defines the 10m circle and gives everyone something to shoot for on upshots.

I love the 10 meter circle too. Not enough tourneys do it though. I am putting a 30' string with a hook on it in my bag tonight....Love that idea!!!

I love the 10 meter circle too. Not enough tourneys do it though. I am putting a 30' string with a hook on it in my bag tonight....Love that idea!!!



Make sure it isn't a 30ft circle though! I have seen this done many times.

Methinks you need to get a longer string. 10m=32'10".

The idea was brought up today when talking about an up coming tournament we are running. I wasn't too sure on it as I didn't know what others thought about it.The circle would be done in marking paint.
What do you all think about this?

Make sure it's 10m (32' 9.6") radius.

I voted yes. It cant hurt.
10m's is the rule. (32' 9.6" as so duely noted by Chuck)
why not have a clear line of demarcation for all to use and follow?

I honestly wondered why more TD's dont do this.

I honestly wondered why more TD's dont do this.



Because it takes a lot of time.

not if you aren't working alone... or even if you are it can be done days ahead of time when baskets are set in Tourney locations.

The line cannot be made official enough if a player wants to measure. Plus, the cost of paint and environmental impact are negatives. We provided 10m tapes in the player packs at Pro Worlds last year to avoid massive need for painting circles and using string for OB lines. Seems like a much better way for players to take the responsibility to carry a measuring device (as ball golf does it) for the few times where a measurement is needed including CTPs.

Does the 10m start at the pole or the basket edge?

i have always seen it done from the pole.

803.04C reads:
Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

Thanks much.

The line cannot be made official enough if a player wants to measure.



I think Im following that, here would be my response:

It's 10m painted, not 9.5. If you think the line is 1/2 inch off and are that worried about the type of shot you are able to make, then by all means you have the right to prove it's off, otherwise you are making a putt. Not too difficult there.


Plus, the cost of paint and environmental impact are negatives. We provided 10m tapes in the player packs at Pro Worlds last year to avoid massive need for painting circles



Cost of paint and tapes I'm sure would negate eachother. Yes, I know the tapes can be reused so maybe you have me there. I also know there is very enviro-friendly marker paint out there now. I know for sure Lesco carries it as well. They were even running a deal a bit ago that if you bought a case of paint they would give you a free marking sprayer (IMO, necessary to do a good clean job). Should have bought it then, oh well.

I'm not starting a this or that, and I can clearly see how a 10m tape would be useful, I just personally think a painted 10m ring is an easy and fair way to mark the putting area.

While as a player I like the painted circles, as a course designer, I think it's unfortunate there's not an inexpensive way to make the marks permanent so it's truly part of the day-to-day game. Likewise, if we did have a way to mark them permanently, I would want the rule to be changed so that the line was in fact valid by definition, even if not measured correctly. In other words, in the same way that a string or paint line for OB is our "official" line, whatever marking method was used for the 10m line would also be considered official.

Frankly, I'd be fine allowing "green" shapes like ball golf other than circular with restrictions such as the line can maybe be no closer than 5m and no farther than 20m from the basket to add some creativity in green definition.

While as a player I like the painted circles, as a course designer, I think it's unfortunate there's not an inexpensive way to make the marks permanent so it's truly part of the day-to-day game.



As stated, there are ways, none are easy or tamper proof in my eyes (too bad peeps cant leave well enough alone and respect what they have).. none are "inexpensive" either, at least the solutions that I can think of.

Not as a designer, but as someone who has put alot of blood and sweat into his local course, I could not agree with what you said more Chuck.


Frankly, I'd be fine allowing "green" shapes like ball golf other than circular with restrictions such as the line can maybe be no closer than 5m and no farther than 20m from the basket to add some creativity in green definition.



I've been thinking this same thought since I started playing Disc Golf... more than agreed.

I'm actually hoping at some point our local course will allow us to make "bunkers" utilizing elevation changes (large dirt/grass mounds and bunker-like indendations) for drastic elevation changes around greens and up fairways around approach shot distance, and I HATE to say this, much like ball golf. Using these would "outline" green areas and provide exactly what you were referring to, SHAPED greens with varying "putt" distances. There would have to be a new rule giving parameters, as you mentioned, to do this effectively. These elements would also make approach shots much harder when you are at the bottom of a bunker 6 feet below ground level (no not in a casket) wondering what shot to throw over and out, all while having a tough time even seeing the basket because its tucked there behind a 4ft grass bunker in the front left corner of the green. You're kidding yourself if you think these are not some of the elements that will take our game to the next level.

just my $.02

what about the paint they use to mark football fields with. they repaint the football fields all the time and im pretty sure there are more football fields than disc golf courses. i personally love the idea.

The football budgets are much bigger along with the number of paid people doing that work. Now maybe when we get Astroturf courses, the markings could be permanent...

While as a player I like the painted circles, as a course designer, I think it's unfortunate there's not an inexpensive way to make the marks permanent so it's truly part of the day-to-day game.



What about metal / vinyl garden edging sunk into the ground? It's pretty thin (a few milimeters I believe), so the line would be fairly definite and the material is easy to bend. You could use a bright color to make it stand out (not sure if that actually exists...I've only seen green and black), leave it maybe a few centimeters above the ground so that it's visible, but not a hazard to walking or mowing. There may be other factors I'm not considering, but it seems like it would work. Thoughts?

Sink some bricks in the ground at 30'...you don't even have to make a complete circle but enough to be able to make the call..maybe 8 or so on a hole

many people have piles of bricks that were left over from their homes being built so the cost can be NIL

I've only seen green and black), leave it maybe a few centimeters above the ground so that it's visible, but not a hazard to walking or mowing. There may be other factors I'm not considering, but it seems like it would work. Thoughts?



Expensive and likely damaged without chance of repair at a public course. Possible at private course but doing 18 holes is pretty expensive like $2500+. It takes around 200 feet per hole.

Too bad waaay too many players are lazy and won't get out and help do the work for this. If 1/4 of the players would help tournament setup rather than selfishly getting a morning round in, it would make a huge difference. I see far too many groups play right past me as I'm moving baskets, clearing brush, getting ready for events etc. AND have the gall to glare at me like I'm messing up their selfish routine. If you want a 10m circle, you better be willing to get out and do a few!

While as a player I like the painted circles, as a course designer, I think it's unfortunate there's not an inexpensive way to make the marks permanent so it's truly part of the day-to-day game.



Just plant cedars like hole 4 at Rock Hill, they're easy to see. :D

The line is kind of firry though...

I set'em up and you knock'em down. :D

Too bad waaay too many players are lazy and won't get out and help do the work for this. If 1/4 of the players would help tournament setup rather than selfishly getting a morning round in, it would make a huge difference. I see far too many groups play right past me as I'm moving baskets, clearing brush, getting ready for events etc. AND have the gall to glare at me like I'm messing up their selfish routine. If you want a 10m circle, you better be willing to get out and do a few!



wow, do I ever hear you on this one....

I work 2 full time jobs plus I'm helping build a course plus helping to run the Lexington Open as Co TD.

I think I do all this because I have a low self asteem and I crave the occasional praise I get from fellow golfers. :p j/k
Actually though I love the satisfaction I get from actually accomplishing a huge task and the praise is just a bonus.
I don't get on people for not helping to do the work required to keep the sport of disc golf moving because I know that people are motavated to do different things.
And hey if it wern't for the pure players that only care about playing and nothing else the sport would just be a bunch of hacks like "us". :D We do all this work for them and trust me they do appreciate it.


Anyway getting the derail train back on track....

What about instead of "marking" a circle you use a different color grass or dirt (depending on the green) to define the perimiter of the circle when you initionally put in the fairway? Of corse this means more work but it also means a one time deal.

You can use powder agricultural limestone or "lime" for marking the circle. It's cheap, readily available, and good for the environment. It's a naturally occuring mineral that is used to lower the PH/acidity in lawns which is a problem everywhere in the environment because of acid rain. It's a white powedery substance that looks like flour. Temporary but completely safe and good for the environment.

didn't notice if Wiggins Sr. had posted yet but i heard he has a contraption he built/put together to help spray the 10m lines... maybe he'll share more info on that

totally agree that it adds a little extra something to a tourney to have the lines there

So Cal has a heavy duty field line marker machine like the one shown below to mark 10 meter circles around baskets. Simply attach a 10 meter rope to the striper and the other end to the pole and walk around the circle. It is extremely quick and easy.

This site will give you a free striper machine with a quantity purchase of paint. It also shows a striper "wand" for only $21.00. That seems like a great value.



Krylon Athletic Field Striper (http://www.utilitysafeguard.com/K08305-Athletic-Field-Striping-Paint-White)

Now all I need to do is cut down all of the trees within 10m of the basket to make drawing the circle easy. :cool:

didn't notice if Wiggins Sr. had posted yet but i heard he has a contraption he built/put together to help spray the 10m lines... maybe he'll share more info on that



It's called the THE MEAN GREEN MACHINE. offered by Scientific Disc Golf.

and? anymore info Wyatt... i remembered lil wigg talking about it after they did Mooky's

i'll go back and look and change/edit this if I find the info but how many cans does it take to do a course?

Stack, For the Oak Hollow Open on the holes with trees one person one can of paint would make a dashed line around the tree's (big mean green machine) a second person would fill in by hand. with that being said several holes where completed before the cans where empty.

I will see if any one remembers how many open holes you can do with one can.


.

I've been running an event for the past four years and marking the 10 meter circle for the past two. My experience...

Players really liked it.

I purchased a case (12 cans) of spray chalk (environmentally friendly) for about $60-70. That lasted two years marking 18 holes with second day touch ups. In fact, I've still got a couple cans left.

I used a piece of twine wrapped around a tube. Simply unroll the twine, use the spring loaded clip on the end to wrap around and secure to the pole. I've got a washer tied to the twine at the 10 meter mark. I just walked around the basket with the twine in one hand and spray chalk in the other.

This works well for wide open holes and is more challenging on wooded holes. I suggest skipping the 10 meter circle on holes where the line itself is wood chips. It doesn't last very long.


Mike

I think the paint is one thing that adds that extra touch of class to a tournament. If you have the time and resources, it means something to the players. It's also a great stat to keep track of. I ask my groups if they want to play dollar dollar dollar for in the circle drives. You can also use a circle dot star method for in circle missed putt, in circle made putt, and out of circle made putt. Keeping track of your stats gives you good info for where you need to focus your future practicing energies.

A double wrapped hook coat hanger makes a good pole end anchor. just twist the bottom of the hanger so it won't flex and stretch. the double wrapped hooks are a lot stronger for grabbing the pole.

At the Jersey Jam we have always used flour as our marker of choice. Enviromentaly frendly, highly visible, cheap, only lasts a day or so though, and is easily washed away by any rain.

But the local squirrels seem to love it.

That is sweet a baseball line machine and some flour and your set....great idea. :D

I used to play as many courses as possible on trips from NoVa to NOLa in the late 1980's. Playing new courses alone at unusual hours without course maps made finding the next tee pretty hard at times.
In 87or 88 I had the opportunity to play at UAH in Huntsville AL early on a Tuesday morning. When I finished the 3rd or 4th hole, there was an arrow of BLUE grass under the basket and a subsequent arrow 40 feet further showing the location of the next tee.This saved a lot of time because I never would have found the next tee without it.
On the trip back from New Orleans I hit UAH in the afternoon and had the pleasure of playing with a group of locals (including Lavone). They told me that the arrows were made when a local rocket scientist poured some liquid nitrogen on the grass. The grass froze and quickly died but when it grew back it was a dark shade of blue.
I realize very few people have access to liquid nitrogen but it "may" be possible to pour a high nitrogen content fertilizer in a circle around the pole on grass greens to change the color or growth characteristics of the grass.
It would only work on grass or other similar consitant types of surface growths and I have no Idea how long it would retain its color. Bleeding from rain and drainage will occur but it could show a general outline for putting..
Anyone who worries about 3 or 4 inches of error will probably have a tape measure in their bag for close calls.
Timber

hmmm, i have access to liquid nitrogen, one more thing on the never-ending list of things to try. thanks timber.

at HH i have set bricks into the ground by the baskets with painted arrows on them directing you to the next tee.

When Giles Run reopens I am going to request small red, white, and dual color (Red/White) plastic arrows, approximately 4 inches long by 1 inch wide, to hang on the basket spokes pointing in the direction of the next tee.
I intend to hang them with plastic zip ties as close to the pole as possible. The plastic shouldn't? wear off the galvanization or the red powder coat finish.
Small size, proximity to the basket assembly/pole, and ability to swing in the wind should diminish any arguments about discs being unfairly stopped in flight.
If the arrow Idea does not come to fruition, I will just tie Red or White flagging tape to the appropriate spoke. This will be easy at Giles since all holes have 2 baskets which never move.
I tried using the bricks at Bluemont on a few of the 35 pin placements, but they usually get covered with dirt and dissapear.
It may be possible to use Red, White, and Blue flagging tape; removing the old tape and applying new tape to the appropriate spokes every time the baskets are moved.

Permanently marking the 10 M radius in the grass around the pins at Giles may be possible. Bluemont would be pretty tough due to the lack of ground cover. Field chalk seems to be the only viable short term solution on dirt in the woods.

I was at the Discraft 2008 Shoot the Breeze Open this weekend. 10m painted with orange marking. Awesome.

I want every tourney to do this and everyone I asked felt the same.

Orange is not the best color choice though. White is better because many color blind players, mostly males, in any sport have trouble with red-green separation and can't see orange on grass very well. That's one reason white is used for important marking lines in many sports played on grass.

Orange is not the best color choice though. White is better because many color blind players, mostly males, in any sport have trouble with red-green separation and can't see orange on grass very well. That's one reason white is used for important marking lines in many sports played on grass.



The other reason is that, originally, powdered lime was used to mark foul lines, football fields, etc. Since it was not available in fashion colors such as red, orange, etc., the traditional color became white. I don't think that there was much consideration given to color blindness at the time.

I know that this is one of your favorite causes, Chuck, but we will need, sometime, to come to an agreement about color coding various types of course markings as to intent. Traditional golf uses various color stakes and lines to indicate lateral hazards, casual relief, ground under repair, etc. I'm sure that color blind players, upon encountering a line, which purporse isn't readily apparent, will ask a playing companion, caddy, or official before making a play that may result in penalty.

Most people know that I am sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities (in this case, color blindness could be considered one, though not in the general sense of the word). There is, though, the concept of 'reasonable accommodation' which says that compromises may be made. In this case reasonable would mean that the small percentage of players with color blindness may have to ask about the meaning of a line, rather than every player having to ask about the meaning of a plethora of white lines denoting everything.

I'm not saying which lines should be which color, but OB, being the most obvious, and most likely to result in a penalty might be the one designated as white, reinforced with occasional white stakes, with OB marked on the top. A 10 meter circle, while a nice touch, is only a courtesy to players and not required (and often inaccurately measured). It is often scuffed off after one or more rounds of play, and on 'greens' with little or no grass, are difficult to paint, anyway. They could be another light color, such as yellow. Casual relief areas, danger areas (read ground wasps, like at Highbridge and Nockamixon), and other marking could have their own unique colors.

As our sport matures, we will come to agreement on a system of marking. Color blindness may be taken into consideration, but intent and meaning are more important in the effort to codify markings.

If the type of marking only lends itself to being on the ground, with nothing above ground nearby, then white is probably best. At least the guys in my club, one is a designer, can't even see the line if it's pink or orange. For danger areas or other markings, as long as it also has something above ground like stakes, pylons, string or signs, then other colors can work such as painting temp blue or red teeing lines.

I agree, also white doesn't mess with your vision as much as bright orange or hot pink!

Another thing that anoys me about the 10m putting circle is that not everyone who plays knows that the actual distance is closer to 33' than 30'. So we all should be saying " Hey does this look like it is outside of 33 feet".... If there is a 10m circle painted there is no doubt.. But when there is not, that extra 2'-9" makes a difference. People act like I am crazy sometimes when I point out that 10m is only 3" shy of 33' and is not 30 feet...

Senior, what do you expect? When you deal with a sophisticated system that uses straight forward denominations of ten, us Americans get confused... :D

Product marketing by young NCian disc golfers. Proceeds go back to the kids! Works great!

http://scientificdiscgolf.com/greenmachine.html

^^ any better pics?!? better product description?!?..

I'm very interested, however, with what is there I'm not too sure if I'd buy. I can get 2 clamps (one for the pin and one for the spray can) and ten meters of chain at Lowes for ~15 dollars.

let me know. I'd like to see whats really there as I am truly interested.

I have sent Dr. Wiggins a PM to take a look at this thread.

His email address is [email protected] .

Good luck Josh, I have seen it used, but Dr. Wiggins can give you all the details.

thanks Tyson.

BTW...I cannot blame you for wanting a better picture, but that model is hot stuff!!!

This product costs $21.49 plus shipping and you don't need to bend over.

Krylon Striping Wand (http://www.utilitysafeguard.com/all-items_us/Line-up-Striping-Wand)

Suzette, those are great tools. Clean lines and SIMPLE to use.

I used to work at a golf course and I still have access to some groundskeepers at those local courses. the "wand" comes borrowed for free to me and is most likely what I will use when it comes time, however, if the Wiggins crew has a useful tool that will last me a long time then why not support them?....

and btw, check with Lesco/Krigger CO. if you truly are interested in a striping wand... last I saw if you bought a case of marking paint the wand was free.

Dr. Dave W., please let me know what the story is with this GreenMachine. YOu may get a sale! :cool:

RE marking wand,

I tried that, but it seems best suited for wide open grassy greens and does nothing for the 10 meter measurement. It is intended to paint straight lines on smooth surfaces. Bumpy surfaces and curves make it difficult to keep the circle smooth and one still has to measure the circle with something else

Josh C


I can get 2 clamps (one for the pin and one for the spray can) and ten meters of chain at Lowes for ~15 dollars.




Good luck with that. :)

My design works well, and works fast. It is simple compact and light weight. The only thing you will need to make a 10 meter circle is the cans of paint. I experimented with a lot of designs and found a simple one that works very well with chain and the right hardware. We're selling it for $30 shipped.

http://scientificdiscgolf.com/greenmachine.html

It could be knocked off, and anyone who wants to won't hurt my feelings at all, (I don't do this for a living) but the parts will cost you almost that much at Lowe's not counting the time expended going there, figuring out exactly what you need and then building it. Or you make it easy on yourself and buy one of ours ;-)

As I said above, I liked the idea of a wand because one does not have to bend so I tried it, but it does not work that well. It does not paint a nice smooth circle (especially over roots, etc) it is bulky and it does not measure the circle. Not to mention it is more expensive.

Dave

I've got a bad back, I'm thinking that you need to combine the two and have a wand with a chain.

have a wand with a chain.



That's what I use. My chain is 13+ meters long, with a small loop of wire tied (on a specific link) on the chain so I can wrap it around a pole and hook the end on the wire loop. The chain is marked every 2.5 meters (paint and a piece of wire tied at 10 m.). Just grab a little past the mark you want to paint and line up your wand with the mark on the chain and start walking/spraying.

dito here...though I wish the wand were longer. It is hard on the back.

Anyone tried the "high concentration" of nitrogen? In theory, it should work, but I wonder about the proper amount and the duration of the effect.

I have used the high concentration of nitrogen as a practicle joke on some one before. I wrote something in their yard and you could see it for 6 months. At first it is burned in, then it turns a dark green compared to everything else. :D

If you want to burn them im permantely, then I suggest diesel. We use this to burn in the lines on our soccer fields, works great.

I've painted a few courses and IMO the Krylon wand is the best option. I use a large snaplink + non stretchable rope (tied to the wand). This way I just snap on the post and go. Walk toward to open end of the snaplink, otherwise the rope will tighten/wind around the basket post. Another tip is to use dashed lines... each can of paint will last much longer.

I more often than not find that painted circles around baskets to be less than 10 meters. However, guys are taking them as "official" 10 m marks and jumping from them.

I think the PDGA needs to officially ask TD's to NOT paint circles. It simply encourages cheating.

When I asked a tournament official about some of the 10m circles I saw on some of the holes at last years WDGC, I was told that they were painted to assist in determing the away player, and that they were not to be used as an official measurement.

Maybe that is why the circles you saw were less than 10m in radius. I have no problem with these circles, if the TD expressly informs the participants the purpose of the circle, and to not use it as a 10m measurement.

I'm thinking I should just paint 12m circles for my tournament this summer and see if anyone notices. ;-)

When I asked a tournament official about some of the 10m circles I saw on some of the holes at last years WDGC, I was told that they were painted to assist in determing the away player, and that they were not to be used as an official measurement.

Maybe that is why the circles you saw were less than 10m in radius. I have no problem with these circles, if the TD expressly informs the participants the purpose of the circle, and to not use it as a 10m measurement.

Sounds like a good counter to the complaint :)

Yeah, if the TD expresses that they are not 10m then fine. But I have never heard stated at a player's meeting.

Might be a moot point by next year...

Which proposal is being discussed by the RC?

I think painted circles are more work for the TD but when they are there they are good. There is no ambiguity about what is and what is not. If the circle is not correct it is incorrect for everybody on the field and it seems to me that the only person who gets an advantage is the player who has perfected the running and falling 9.5 meter putt. If an umpire keeps calling a ball 2" off the plate a strike but makes the same call for everybody there is no advantage.

Gleaning from Chuck and Mike's posts I feel any movement amongst the powers that be to ban the circles would be a poor choice. We don't want to ban them because some make them improperly. We just want them done correctly. Would we ban run ups because some people commit foot faults? (Mike that one was for you.:-) ) Would we ban disc golf from parks because some kids smoke weed on the wooded holes? The only argument that would make any remote degree of sense to me would be that painting a 10 meter circle in some way violates 802.04. Of course, I think that would be silly and once again there would be no advantage to any one player.

Which proposal is being discussed by the RC?
A whole bunch of options but I'm not part of that dialog. I just know it's proceeding. If a circle of any size or shape could still be involved in any rule change, I would hope that the rule would say that if a line were painted, it would be the official line regardless what it's actual measurement from the pin might be at that point so no one needs to get out the tape.

If the circle is not correct it is incorrect for everybody on the field and it seems to me that the only person who gets an advantage is the player who has perfected the running and falling 9.5 meter putt. If an umpire keeps calling a ball 2" off the plate a strike but makes the same call for everybody there is no advantage.
That is apples to oranges.

The strike zone is subject to personal interpretation. The 10m rules isn't. The painted circle isn't the umpire, the ruler is.

Tanner,

Did you actually measure the circles this weekend? I know when I paced it off, it all the ones I checked were 11 paces, which is usually where I jump putt from. Regardless, It's still up to the players and group to make sure that they are in jump putting range. I know a lot of people don't, but but I don't see how a TD would be accused of "encouraging cheating" in an instance like this. It's up to the players to know the rules.

The thing I like most about painted circles is it helps eliminate the "Who's out? I think it's you," "No, I think it's you" banter that goes on. Also, when you're at an A-tier it really adds to the "The Big Time" factor. When you go to an A-tier event, you should have a sense of feeling that you are playing on one of the biggest stages in Disc Golf. I think the circles at large tournaments are part of what separates them from smaller tournaments.

I know we didn't use a 30' rope to make the circles, but I'll bring this up in our planning for next year (If it's still going to be a problem). We'll be marking them as close a possible to the 32.82' or whatever it really is :)

Chris

Tanner,

Did you actually measure the circles this weekend? Regardless, It's still up to the players and group to make sure that they are in jump putting range. I know a lot of people don't, but but I don't see how a TD would be accused of "encouraging cheating" in an instance like this. It's up to the players to know the rules.



First off, I'm NOT accusing any TD of encouraging cheating. I stated that improperly marked circles do that. And in many many instances over the last few years, circles are 10 paces, not 10 meters. It's a tricky subject because it's nice to have them and it's alot of work by a volunteer, which I appreciate very much. I'm simply stating that if you're going to do it, it needs to be accurate. Otherwise do like we do here in DM, spend your time doing other things rather than giving 'whiney pros' something to ***** about :)


I paced off 5 different circles, and had 5 different distances, the worst being one that was only 9 paces. No matter how you slice it, that will never be 10 meters.

I've learned over the years that my sticking up for the rules usually creates a situation where I perform poorly. Learning from other top players, I just keep my mouth shut on the course.

I know we didn't use a 30' rope to make the circles, but I'll bring this up in our planning for next year (If it's still going to be a problem). We'll be marking them as close a possible to the 32.82' or whatever it really is :)

Chris

Its 10 meters.

The "Green Machine" looks like it would work well to paint good circles.
http://www.scientificdiscgolf.com/greenmachine.html

Its 10 meters.


Excuse me, 32.81'. I live in the U.S. :D

Excuse me, 32.81'. I live in the U.S. :D

Yes, but your whiskey still comes in liters! ;)

...the worst being one that was only 9 paces. No matter how you slice it, that will never be 10 meters.

Well, since this thread is all about precision, a "pace" is measured from the point at which the heel of one foot is raised to the point at which it is set down again after an intervening step by the other foot.

A Roman pace is set at five feet. So, 9 paces would be more than 10 meters. 9 steps would be less.

Well, since this thread is all about precision, a "pace" is measured from the point at which the heel of one foot is raised to the point at which it is set down again after an intervening step by the other foot.

A Roman pace is set at five feet. So, 9 paces would be more than 10 meters. 9 steps would be less.

I don't pace, but measure with my foot, which oddly enough with my shoes on is exactly 12" which happens to be the exact same size as my ... wait for it ... ruler!

I don't pace, but measure with my foot, which oddly enough with my shoes on is exactly 12" which happens to be the exact same size as my ... wait for it ... ruler!

12 inch ruler? I didn't know that Rick Perry was that short! :D

A whole bunch of options but I'm not part of that dialog. I just know it's proceeding. If a circle of any size or shape could still be involved in any rule change, I would hope that the rule would say that if a line were painted, it would be the official line regardless what it's actual measurement from the pin might be at that point so no one needs to get out the tape.

Yes, thank you. A voice in the wilderness.

I think the 10 meter circles are great, however, this year we figured over 1 mile of marking was required. 1 mile of paint, chalk, whatever, is extremely time consuming and rather expensive. And then, if you do it a day or so ahead of the event, it tends to get worn off rather quickly. My club has talked about several alternates to paint, but it is the quickest and just about the cheapest.

Every dollar we have to spend on marking comes directly off of the Pro payout. I do like the circles though.

B-Tiers and up pay at least 100% to the pros.

B-Tiers and up pay at least 100% to the pros.


Added cash to pro's comes from sponsorship. We solicite sponsorship with the understanding that a maximum of 20% is used for tournament costs, including, but not limited to signage, scorecards, trophies, PAINT, etc. What I don't spend on tournament costs goes to the pro payout. Paint costs money, therefore the pros get less money:p

Every dollar we have to spend on marking comes directly off of the Pro payout. I do like the circles though.

I like accurate circles. They can be tough to find. I say forget them and keep the money.

I just mowed all the circles for our course. Mow it down low!