Allow some/all of stance in OB?

[Cgkdisc]

If you consider the guy playing his ball through that fence "professional looking" then I seriously doubt we have any common ground to be found here. What would be "professional looking" in disc golf is someone actually calling one of these violations occasionally.

Professional looking in that he knew the rules and provided an interesting and creative visual for the audience with an element of danger. If the DGPT wants to attract and retain more viewers it will continue to look for ways to tweak the rules and formats that won't always sit as well with old time rules curmudgeons. I don't care as much about DGPT success as I do finding ways to fairly reduce penalty elements and increase design challenges in an effort to keep the recreational game engaging and fun.

 

[Steve West]

I'd say it is an OB issue in that relief options should be automatically incorporated in the rule and not require TDs to specify special relief for commonly occurring situations near walls and barbed wire fences, typically used as OB lines, and other obstacles, some which may require a PDGA waiver.

If there should be automatic relief from walls and fences, then it should be encoded in a rule that includes all walls and fences, not just those that happen to be used as OB lines. (There are already some automatic relief options in the rules for walls and fences - if they physically prevent a stance, for example.)

If a TD can go to the trouble of saying a fence or wall is an OB line, they can also say what extra relief the player can get, if any is needed. (Which it may not always be.)

Some walls and fences are not OB lines, so anything we do for OB will not solve the problems associated with those non-OB-line fences and walls. Greater relief from specified obstacles already solves that problem, so we don't need to adjust OB rules to solve problems with these obstacles.

The standing-in-OB issue comes up even when there is no wall or fence, so the broader OB issue is independent of the presence of a wall or fence on the OB line.

There is no waiver needed to grant any amount of greater relief from any obstacle. I don't know what else you might be thinking a waiver is needed for.


In other words, it's not an OB issue.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm fine with allowing up to 2 meters from any obstacle, but no closer to the hole. It's not an issue if everyone is allowed to do it. It's just a game design tweak. But since that would cause old schooler heart attacks, better to deal with it specifically as a "penalty issue", not just for OB. It would be ironic to also provide 2 meters of relief to either side of the LOP when moving back after taking a 2-meter penalty.

 

[biscoe]

I'm fine with allowing up to 2 meters from any obstacle, but no closer to the hole. It's not an issue if everyone is allowed to do it. It's just a game design tweak. But since that would cause old schooler heart attacks, better to deal with it specifically as a "penalty issue", not just for OB. It would be ironic to also provide 2 meters of relief to either side of the LOP when moving back after taking a 2-meter penalty.

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

 

[Cgkdisc]

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Course designs with extensive OB are already much worse than minor general rule tweaks because general tweaks don't change relative scoring among competitors. Even allowing players an option to use one mulligan on each hole still works to sort players fairly. The idea that disc golf has to have rules that parallel golf because it's in our name holds us back from potential improvements. We can be better, more fun and still have fair competition, taking advantage of unique aspects connected with throwing discs at targets above ground.

 

[Steve West]

Anyway...

Other than sometimes protecting players from sticking their foot where they shouldn't, is there any other reason a player shouldn't be allowed to have a supporting point OB?

 

[seedlings]

Anyway...

Other than sometimes protecting players from sticking their foot where they shouldn't, is there any other reason a player shouldn't be allowed to have a supporting point OB?

Depends how disc golf defines for it's own sport. If 'the playing field' is defined by the boundaries (American football), then yes. If boundaries only apply for how the disc lands (baseball), then not at all.

In American football, nothing happens out-of-bounds. In baseball, once the ball lands inbounds, then all the rest of the play can take place out of bounds. IMHO, disc OB should apply for how the disc lands and not how the disc is thrown (more like baseball or soccer). In soccer, the player can stop the ball in bounds, then step out of bounds to kick.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how OB is defined and played, as long as it IS defined AND played.

 

[txmxer]

Anyway...

Other than sometimes protecting players from sticking their foot where they shouldn't, is there any other reason a player shouldn't be allowed to have a supporting point OB?

Yes.

Already addressed.

 

[DavidSauls]

Part of the problem may be our use of the term "out of bounds". We use it for a boundary, but also within the field of play, for hazards that may cross the fairway (creeks, roads) or be completely within it (ponds, other areas). I'm not sure about golf, but can't think of any other sports where out-of-bounds may be within in-bounds.

 

[jakebake91]

Here's a thought that I had, reading through this thread, as it pertains to player safety. Maybe I'm interpreting something incorrectly, as I'm no.rules guru, but:

If a player is concerned more about their safety than their score (which I deem the correct attitude without question), and they approach lie they deem legal, but unacceptably unsafe, they always have the option to re-throw from their previous lie, right? Or is that not how that works?

 

[smoothplayer]

Course designs with extensive OB are already much worse than minor general rule tweaks because general tweaks don't change relative scoring among competitors. Even allowing players an option to use one mulligan on each hole still works to sort players fairly. The idea that disc golf has to have rules that parallel golf because it's in our name holds us back from potential improvements. We can be better, more fun and still have fair competition, taking advantage of unique aspects connected with throwing discs at targets above ground.

We already have a big problem of having so many different rules on different holes and as such players playing holes wrong has been a repeated issue. I imagine most of these are not even caught. So the result of the competition is in the end unfair, but it is also somewhat unfair to expect players to know every rule for every hole as well.

Not only that the spectators in person and on video don't have a caddy book and don't know the repercussions of an errant shot. Sure they know good or bad, but they don't know does the player go to a drop zone over here, play from where the disc went OB, etc. It's non sensical to a casual viewer what is going on.

I think that simplifying the rules would help the game for both the viewers and players. Not only that the DGPT courses/setups have little to nothing in common with a regular disc golf course. Part of what makes a course great or that a player wants to go play is play the same thing they see on video. When a setup is so far different then what a person can play that is an issue in my eyes.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Of course, other players can't play what they see on video most of the time with mostly temp courses or extended layouts on existing courses being played.

 

[robdeforge]

Here's a thought that I had, reading through this thread, as it pertains to player safety. Maybe I'm interpreting something incorrectly, as I'm no.rules guru, but:

If a player is concerned more about their safety than their score (which I deem the correct attitude without question), and they approach lie they deem legal, but unacceptably unsafe, they always have the option to re-throw from their previous lie, right? Or is that not how that works?

Correct. You always have the option to re-throw from your previous lie, except for situations like where the rulebook says you HAVE to proceed to the drop zone (as far as I know).

Additionally, a "player may elect at any time to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score."

 

[Steve West]

Correct. You always have the option to re-throw from your previous lie, except for situations like where the rulebook says you HAVE to proceed to the drop zone (as far as I know).

Additionally, a "player may elect at any time to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score."

You always have the option to re-throw.

 

[Rastnav]

I wonder if the biggest issue here is simply that, AFAICT, this is the only rule that requires you to be aware of something other than the lie itself, and that the foot is behind you when it happens? That's what leads to people playing "footsie" with the lines.

It also seems to me that one of the issues that is being dealt with is that we have two terms for penalty areas (hazard and OB), but they are used in something like 6 different ways which overlap each other.

PA1. OB to protect property lines. I doubt one really wants to change the rules so that they allow people to use non-disc golf course property as the playing surface. Yes, this does lead to a semi farce where someone runs up to a lie by what technically might be trespassing, but trying to use rules to prevent people from even setting foot on another persons property during the round is not likely to be fruitful.

PA2. OB to prevent playing from an area that disc golfers may damage. This is, I believe, why every golf green is OB. Allowing plant and pivot on a golf green would be highly deleterious to its condition. You also don't want too many discs landing on it with severe downforce, like you would with a spike hyzer. Sure, OB greens get incorporated into designs as if they were ponds, but that's not why they are OB.

PA3. OB to prevent people from taking a stance because it may be dangerous to them. I believe I have seen various TDs and designers discuss making certain steep slopes OB for this reason. Especially if that slope is behind the disc relative to the basket, OB is the only way in the rules currently to deal with this. A required relief area wouldn't allow the disc to moved toward the basket, I believe?

PA4. OB to penalize a disc that is literally unplayable (usually because it is underwater).

PA5. OB to create artifical rough (schule, bushes, flora of any kind) that imitates a situation where the rough prevents continued forward progress of the disc and significantly impedes the next throw.

PA6. Hazard to create artifical rough that imitates a situation where the rough hasn't impeded forward progress, but is significantly impedes the next throw.

Uses PA1 through PA3 are all ones where preventing taking a stance in the OB makes a certain amount of sense. Uses PA4 through PA6 are uses where it makes significantly less sense (and PA6/hazard obviously doesn't).

It's really because golf greens (PA2) and artificial rough (PA5) and painted lines defining water OB (PA4) are all rapidly becoming ubiquitous in pro coverage that we are even having the conversation, especially because the most likely scenario where you might have a supporting point on the ball golf green is one where it's right next to the basket (so damage to the green isn't an apparent issue).

 

[DavidSauls]

We already have a big problem of having so many different rules on different holes and as such players playing holes wrong has been a repeated issue. I imagine most of these are not even caught. So the result of the competition is in the end unfair, but it is also somewhat unfair to expect players to know every rule for every hole as well.

The players have a caddy book, and plenty of time to read it.

The danger is that the rule won't be clearly written in the caddy book, leading to confusion. But after that, it's on the players to pay attention -- particularly the ones who call themselves professionals.

 

[smoothplayer]

The players have a caddy book, and plenty of time to read it.

The danger is that the rule won't be clearly written in the caddy book, leading to confusion. But after that, it's on the players to pay attention -- particularly the ones who call themselves professionals.

Wouldn't it not be better if we didn't have a different rule for every hole?

 

[DavidSauls]

Wouldn't it not be better if we didn't have a different rule for every hole?

We don't have different rules for every hole.

Designers have all sorts of tools at their hands -- from deciding on distance, to removing or leaving trees, to determining ground rules (what is or isn't OB, etc.), to applying special rules.

They might use them well, or poorly.

Where they use them well, it's a poor trade-off to take them away for the sake of simplicity, or just to save players from reading the caddy book.

If a design feature is used well and improves the play, then not having it de facto diminishes play.

 

[BillFleming]

Correct. You always have the option to re-throw from your previous lie, except for situations like where the rulebook says you HAVE to proceed to the drop zone (as far as I know).

Additionally, a "player may elect at any time to take optional relief by declaring their intention to the group. The lie may then be relocated by marking a new lie which is farther from the target and is on the line of play. One penalty throw is added to the player's score."

As an aside....the totality of rule 803.02 Relief From Obstacles includes item E:

No penalty throw is added if optional relief is being taken following a penalty taken for a disc out-of-bounds or above two meters.

Jennifer Allen took advantage of that part of the rule during the last round of the Memorial this year.

 

[robdeforge]

You always have the option to re-throw.

this is the situation that made me put the qualification:
https://www.dgpt.com/news/pauls-provisional/

The daunting hole 6 throws over a baseball field. Players can play safe around the perimeter or opt to cut the distance significantly by throwing over the outfield. McBeth, like most of the top players, opted to go for the hero shot. His shot went OB at which point he asked if a retee was allowed.

Unless stated otherwise, a player can always rethrow from their previous lie with a one stroke penalty. The course rules indicated that all shots that go OB should proceed to the drop zone. The wording was not iron clad as to whether this meant that the retee was not allowed.
...
the assistant TD, who had reached out to the course director, informed the group that players must proceed to the drop zone if tee shots go OB and that there is no option to retee.

waiver required?