#71  
Old 03-31-2020, 01:50 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 13.7
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,305
Niced 350 Times in 212 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Picture WACO #17...

Let's say B's disc is at the exact same point on the OB line where A's disc crossed the line. They both take 1m relief: why is A then permitted get choose a more advantageous lie than B? (other than the text of 802.02E, of course)

I suspect that the RC had WACO #18 in mind, and #17 is an unintended consequence.
Just an opinion, but knowing two members of the RC I don't think so. I DON'T think they meant free optional relief only to "make throws longer if you took OR" at all. And I think they wanted players to better utilize rules for both pace of play and allowing them to showcase their skills, so I don't see holes like #17 WACO as an unintended consequence. I saw the new 803.02 utilized a few times on other courses last year. I think it goes back to the RC's 'not wanting penalties stacking' philosophy. I also think it came about due to more and more TD's and course designers having these types of holes, par 4/5's with landing zones, long doglegs, etc., whereas that is a relatively new thing (in popularity among designs) the past ten years or so -- that combined with the increase in both disc technology and player's skills at the top of the mountain.

Plus, you're still calling A's mark after OB "relief". It's not. It's different than what B is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Will anyone ever be tempted to kick that disc OB to get that advantage?
YES.^^^ THIS. obviously not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Well no, or more accurately it doesn't matter. Assuming the post-OR lie is your goal, IB or OB you'd be lying 2 either way (after one throw and one penalty).

Remember we started with the OP asking if Matt Bell should have taken OR after his OB tee shot on WACO #17 because Bell's next throw went OB. The premise of ARay's question is that OR would have offered Bell a more favorable angle to land a forehand IB on the peninsula.
I can clearly see this is more of a case of "you don't like it" vs. the merits. You know the difference is Player A has already taken a penalty throw vs Player B who has not, and you don't like that. You somehow are asserting that A having more choices of lie after an OB penalty is BETTER or MORE ADVANTAGEOUS than what B has. I just don't agree with that, because the one-throw penalty has to be factored in. As I said before, if B (somehow on God's green earth) believes that throwing 3 from A's optional relief spot is BETTER than throwing 2 from his own 1m-from-OB relief spot, THEN, by all means, go for it. He can just toss his disc easily and un-obstructedly (if that's a word) to A's OR spot. So B STILL gets that exact same option as A, albeit coming from a different set of circumstances.

So, yes, in the OP I thought Matt should have invoked 803.02 D. & E. because YES, he would have had a little better angle on the next throw -- but that was the cost of throwing his first shot OB and having to take that penalty throw.
Sponsored Links

Last edited by araytx; 03-31-2020 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:56 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,586
Niced 552 Times in 272 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Just an opinion, but knowing two members of the RC I don't think so. I DON'T think they meant free optional relief only to "make throws longer if you took OR" at all. And I think they wanted players to better utilize rules for both pace of play and allowing them to showcase their skills, so I don't see holes like #17 WACO as an unintended consequence. I saw the new 803.02 utilized a few times on other courses last year. I think it goes back to the RC's 'not wanting penalties stacking' philosophy. I also think it came about due to more and more TD's and course designers having these types of holes, par 4/5's with landing zones, long doglegs, etc., whereas that is a relatively new thing (in popularity among designs) the past ten years or so -- that combined with the increase in both disc technology and player's skills at the top of the mountain.
I'm not saying it is *always* bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
...
Plus, you're still calling A's mark after OB "relief". It's not. It's different than what B is doing.
Aren't they both "marking within one meter of the OB line?"

806.02F: The out-of-bounds line extends a vertical plane. When marking within one meter of the out-of-bounds line, the one-meter relief may be taken from any point up or down on the vertical plane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
I can clearly see this is more of a case of "you don't like it" vs. the merits. You know the difference is Player A has already taken a penalty throw vs Player B who has not, and you don't like that.
That's your interpretation; but it's not how I'm thinking about it. I'll try to clarify below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
You somehow are asserting that A having more choices of lie after an OB penalty is BETTER or MORE ADVANTAGEOUS than what B has. I just don't agree with that, because the one-throw penalty has to be factored in. As I said before, if B (somehow on God's green earth) believes that throwing 3 from A's optional relief spot is BETTER than throwing 2 from his own 1m-from-OB relief spot, THEN, by all means, go for it. He can just toss his disc easily and un-obstructedly (if that's a word) to A's OR spot. So B STILL gets that exact same option as A, albeit coming from a different set of circumstances.

So, yes, in the OP I thought Matt should have invoked 803.02 D. & E. because YES, he would have had a little better angle on the next throw -- but that was the cost of throwing his first shot OB and having to take that penalty throw.
Let's get the definition of advantageous out of the way. Can we agree that a lie with a greater probability of success can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a lesser probability of success? Or, in the reverse sense, that a lie with a lesser probability of failure can be called advantageous when compared to a lie with a greater probability of failure?

I think we agree that the post-OR lie meets the above definition of advantageous to the post-1m lie either by p(success) or p(failure).

Now let's define success and failure.

Matt could have pitched forward to get a clean shot at circle one (or at least a puttable distance), but he tried a "hero" shot from the 1m lie to get within c1. I'm going to use a measure from Steve West: Matt's "hero shot" success is reducing his expected score to par, and failure is increasing his expected score above single bogey (like going OB).

So let's say the 1m lie p(success) =.2 and p(failure) = .4 whereas the OR lie is p(success) = .3 and p(failure) = .4, then relocating via OR reduces the expected score by 10%.

In a more extreme case (for example the 1m lie is immediately behind a tree) where p(success) = virtually zero, then it's a 30% difference in p(success).

Overall, an increase in p(success) and/or a decrease in p(failure) *might* negate the OB penalty's impact on the relative scores of player A & B.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:23 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.9
Courses Played: 373
Posts: 5,130
Niced 1,821 Times in 898 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
Overall, an increase in p(success) and/or a decrease in p(failure) *might* negate the OB penalty's impact on the relative scores of player A & B.
Yes, if the player's best option from the in-bounds lie was to take Optional Relief, then the OB penalty didn't hurt. Just like going OB doesn't hurt if you also missed a mando.

However, there is a vanishingly small chance that the in-bounds lie would not have had someplace better to toss than straight back. So the expected score from an OB lie will be greater than the expected score from the in-bounds lie with a probability that is as close to 100% as possible without being 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-31-2020, 10:38 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,586
Niced 552 Times in 272 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Yes, if the player's best option from the in-bounds lie was to take Optional Relief, then the OB penalty didn't hurt. Just like going OB doesn't hurt if you also missed a mando.

However, there is a vanishingly small chance that the in-bounds lie would not have had someplace better to toss than straight back. So the expected score from an OB lie will be greater than the expected score from the in-bounds lie with a probability that is as close to 100% as possible without being 100%.
I'm more concerned with dog legs (and other shapes) where free OR gives the player an increase in p(success) + decrease p(failure) in excess of (say) +15% relative to the 1m lie. Theoretically, that makes the OB a 0.85 throw penalty (of course, in the real world it never is less than 1); what it does is favorably change the expected score -- of course there is no guarantee that a player will make the putt after a success, or that a failure will only cost one throw.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-01-2020, 12:11 AM
brutalbrutus's Avatar
brutalbrutus brutalbrutus is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the nati
Years Playing: 9.7
Courses Played: 53
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 10,735
Niced 4,873 Times in 2,559 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Consult20 View Post
So my original post above is a correct way to handle this? Sounds like you're saying it is.

Speaking of rules questions, where has JC been lately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peabody View Post
His last post was on 2/21. I do miss his posts.
Hope he is OK.
Doesn't he live somewhere in New York? That's obviously not a great place to be right now, I hope he's ok, too...

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
 

  #76  
Old 04-01-2020, 10:06 PM
ToddL ToddL is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Years Playing: 23.9
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,068
Niced 460 Times in 210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutalbrutus View Post
Doesn't he live somewhere in New York? That's obviously not a great place to be right now, I hope he's ok, too...
Maine. Probably a good place to be.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apologies If Answered - Newish Rule About "Lie" and "Flipping Disc" phishbiscuits Rules Questions & Discussion 24 07-31-2019 02:13 PM
How to set "Years played" in the forum profile? wims Newbie Intros and Q&A 3 08-21-2014 07:37 PM
A couple old Omegas: "appoved" Q-mega and "no run" SS both SM Mold $20 each apdrvya The Marketplace 0 05-02-2012 01:11 PM
"The One Ring" GL Pain, 10/10 - The One Disc to Rule them All! yawpstang64 The Marketplace 6 08-10-2011 07:12 PM
2009 Special Edition Rocs "20 Years of Roc" #19325 Discs 37 09-09-2009 08:55 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.