|
Register | Members List | Social Groups |
- View All Groups | ||
- Your Group Messages | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 Sponsored Links
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
Last edited by BogeyNoMore; 01-09-2020 at 10:43 PM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sometimes this is actually the right answer.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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".
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cheap, semi-temporary next hole signs? | goosefraba1 | Course Design | 28 | 07-24-2016 12:45 PM |
Tee Signs | codyroberts18 | Course Design | 3 | 03-21-2012 08:38 PM |
What are the best signs? | Jivecody | Course Maint. & Equipment | 36 | 08-28-2011 10:08 PM |
Cheap way to do signs | billnchristy | Course Maint. & Equipment | 21 | 05-21-2009 12:40 PM |
SIGNS ON A COURSE... | D.W.G. | Disc Golf Courses | 13 | 02-03-2009 11:00 PM |