Interpreting hole signs

[Jeff in June]

I know what a mandatory is but am unsure how it is indicated on a tee sign. Does a line on a sign from the tee to the hole indicate a mandatory?

[IMG]https://www.dgcoursereview.com/media.php?id=10706&mode=media&start=19&page=1&cimg =203115[/IMG

[sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Jeff in June

I know what a mandatory is but am unsure how it is indicated on a tee sign. Does a line on a sign from the tee to the hole indicate a mandatory?

Pretty sure those are just lines of measurement from the tee to each of the pin positions. Typically a mandatory would be marked 'M" with an arrow indicating the side on which your disc must pass.

[Jeff in June]

Thanks, that is what I thought but I overheard another party saying it was mandatory. I am sure they were wrong, thanks.

Another similar question
If an area is ob, lets say the tennis courts, can I throw over it and land in-bounds and call it good? I never see anyone doing this on our course but it seems like the only way to birdie the hole 4 me.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by Jeff in June

Thanks, that is what I thought but I overheard another party saying it was mandatory. I am sure they were wrong, thanks.

Another similar question
If an area is ob, lets say the tennis courts, can I throw over it and land in-bounds and call it good? I never see anyone doing this on our course but it seems like the only way to birdie the hole 4 me.

Can you? Depends on your arm.

Should you? Definitely not. Please don't do that.

Would you get penalized? Not if you cleared the tennis courts.

A mando could be defined to keep you from throwing over the tennis courts, but making them OB doesn't do it.

[BogeyNoMore]

To elaborate on Steve's point:

A hole that encourages players to throw over, through, near, toward.... an area clearly intended for another park activity (e.g. tennis courts, ball fields, walking paths), is IMHO a poorly designed hole. A good designer may place a tee near a tennis court, but will orient the hole such that players throw away from the court, field, path.

Shared use park space isn't a problem when courses are responsibly designed. People who are exactly where they're supposed to be while engaged in other park activities have every right to not be part of our game.

Even if most players can easily clear the court, some will undoubtedly end up on the court. If those tennis courts get any real traffic, it's probably just a matter of time before a disc interrupts a tennis match, hopefully being no more than a minor annoyance.

[Jeff in June]

Kinda harsh IMO as far as calling the design poor. I feel they did a good job with what they had. I guess the other option would be to not have the course as any hole location could potentially interfere with another user group. They chose to place it away from the more heavily used areas, the main being the parking lot to the right. I agree that going over the court is a bad idea if there is anyone using it. I have only played the course a handful of times but have yet to see anyone on the court.

[ToddL]

Originally Posted by Jeff in June

I guess the other option would be to not have the course as any hole location could potentially interfere with another user group..

Sometimes this is actually the right answer.

[JC17393]

Originally Posted by ToddL

Sometimes this is actually the right answer.

Exactly. I don't think "did the best they could with what they had" is an adequate excuse for designing holes that potentially endanger other user groups. If you can't create a design that is safe, the best solution may just be not creating a course at all.

[biscoe]

Originally Posted by JC17393

If you can't create a design that is safe, the best solution may just be not creating a course at all.

I often wonder if some of my fellow course designers ascribe to this. I certainly do personally. I see courses going into places where they have no business being on a semi-regular basis in addition to seeing 18 hole courses that would be much better served as 9 or 12. We are way past the point where "any course is a good course".

[araytx]

Originally Posted by Jeff in June

Kinda harsh IMO as far as calling the design poor. I feel they did a good job with what they had. I guess the other option would be to not have the course as any hole location could potentially interfere with another user group. They chose to place it away from the more heavily used areas, the main being the parking lot to the right. I agree that going over the court is a bad idea if there is anyone using it. I have only played the course a handful of times but have yet to see anyone on the court.

What makes it poor design is the potential risk. Sure, there is "very little" tennis court activity during the many times you've been there. Currently. I hope you see how designing a course with only the "current" status of park usage (in a multi-use park) is still poor design. Someday there may be people who use that court often. And then you're going to have to "trust" all the players who regularly, occasionally, and newly play that disc golf hole to make no errors in either intent or ability -- in order to keep the tennis players safe. It's simply a poorly designed hole if it is designed in a way which the designer CAN TELL might interfere with another park activity.