2014 United States Disc Golf Championship

[HiFi]

I agree about the vendors. Last year was my first time going and I went again this year. I didn't know there use to be other vendors but that's why I tried to allow for time to go by PIAS and Another Round disc golf store.

What they should really have is a test area. An extra hole where one can test all kinds of different discs. Like a driving range. Maybe have a few players on hand to teach. Trade area would be great too.

Driving range in disc golf is unrealistic. You aren't hitting balls you can go pick up with a cart and golf clubs do not have quite the immediate depreciation a disc does.

And @ master of forum settings Matt: not everyone logs in to browse.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

I know I'm late to the game but.....
How does a outdoor fold-up-chair get confused for a permanent fixture or a design feature of a course? The fact that someone was on a phone trying to make that decision is funny.

 

[JTacoma03]

if they are playing at the level of the men then they can qualify just like anyone else.

In theory that logic is perfect, the problem is there's so many people that qualify throughout the year at NT's/Majors at different courses because all of the top level players already have invites. That's why I said that hypothetically giving the FPO winner (and I'm saying winner only vs top 10 for MPO or whatever the exact specs are) of majors an invite. If somebody places 25th and the 24 people in front of him are already qualified and he gets in, is that really better competition than say, Paige Pierce?

or am I totally misunderstanding the qualification process?

I think we may be looking at the Performance Flight a little in the wrong way. Many of the people who play in the Performance Flight once played in the USDGC when it was "One Division, One Champion". They were just happy to be there, and enjoying getting to play in the USDGC, even if they had zero chance of cashing. I'm trying to remember how many participants there were in 2010 (the last year of ODOC), but it was a few more than the 136 that were playing on Thursday. At least all those "happy to be there's" now have something to play for, even if it is a bit of a different game.

Interesting perspective, I'll admit it's a hard line that's being taken (and I wouldn't for other tournaments, i.e. it's cool that the Memorial is a Pro-Am) but to me this is the US Championships - the pinnacle and finale of the season. JMHO.

PS - I can't remember the last time I saw you post, where have you been?

 

[DiscChainBasket18]

I know I'm late to the game but.....
How does a outdoor fold-up-chair get confused for a permanent fixture or a design feature of a course? The fact that someone was on a phone trying to make that decision is funny.

While the lawn-chair in question was not on the course map, it did appear to have been in the same position since the start of the round. So it becomes "part of the course" in that it may affect somebodies throw positively or negatively. McB's throw prior to landing near the chair was a huge sky hyzer right over the hedges (out of bounds area). It appeared to have been slightly grip-locked (a gasp or two could be heard!). But it did come back in bounds right in front of the lawn-chair. Strangely, nobody was anywhere near this chair!? Maybe the spotter was in the port-a-john? Some could say that if you remove the chair then the next thrower may be affected. Some say that McB or somebody else should've been allowed to re-locate the chair away from the area temporarily so he could throw unimpeded (I'm in this group).

 

[Cgkdisc]

My question is where specifically in the rulebook does it say anything about the timing for when obstacles are on the course? I think an older rulebook may have said something. But if you look at the Obstacles and Relief section 803.01, there's no wording there other than "not moving any obstacles with the exception of those denoted" regardless of how long they might have been there.

 

[sidewinder22]

My question is where specifically in the rulebook does it say anything about the timing for when obstacles are on the course? I think an older rulebook may have said something. But if you look at the Obstacles and Relief section 803.01, there's no wording there other than "not moving any obstacles with the exception of those denoted" regardless of how long they might have been there.

It's right here:

 

[TalbotTrojan]

Driving range in disc golf is unrealistic. You aren't hitting balls you can go pick up with a cart and golf clubs do not have quite the immediate depreciation a disc does.

And @ master of forum settings Matt: not everyone logs in to browse.

For the record, Discraft has set up a test drive area/driving range each of the last two years at Am Worlds. The idea is not totally lost. You throw what discs they have there for you to throw, they send a poor volunteer out there to pick up the discs. I am not sure why this couldn't be done at an event like USDGC's as long as space permits.

 

[heartman]

My thread has 41 pages. You mean to tell me there's 120 more somewhere?

weird ... mine has 42 pages, apparently you're missing one :\

 

[noobynoober]

Thought about this exact clip as I watched the Immovable Chair incident. Too funny. "Play it as it lies, I had to hit it off of Frankenstein's fat foot."

 

[blackcatsmith]

Someone that's no me should commission a bronze of that chair and have it permanently located in that exact spot to commemorate the occasion... and to answer the obvious question- Yes. I have been drinking.

 

[New013]

I think most of you are having the wrong argument. It doesn't matter what the rule currently says or how it affected McBeth, what does matter is how were going to fix the damn rule so this stupid **** doesn't happen again.

Clearly the chair should not be part of the course, I seriously doubt when Harold was going around designing the course he wanted a chair placed precisely there. If the rule doesn't allow him to move it or if its a grey area then fix it so anyone in that position can move the chair. There should also perhaps be a rule saying that chairs belonging to a marshall or anyone shouldn't be allowed to sit in bounds on the course... put the damn chair OB.

 

[elmexdela]

idk ive went out for drinks with harold before and he said "i personally think courses need more chairs strategically placed. makes for an interesting hazard. and also people on dgcr will circlejerk about it for days on end"

funny he was right

 

[bombmk]

I think most of you are having the wrong argument. It doesn't matter what the rule currently says or how it affected McBeth, what does matter is how were going to fix the damn rule so this stupid **** doesn't happen again.

Clearly the chair should not be part of the course, I seriously doubt when Harold was going around designing the course he wanted a chair placed precisely there. If the rule doesn't allow him to move it or if its a grey area then fix it so anyone in that position can move the chair. There should also perhaps be a rule saying that chairs belonging to a marshall or anyone shouldn't be allowed to sit in bounds on the course... put the damn chair OB.

There is nothing wrong with the rule in regards to this specific situation.
Right now the rules allow McBeth to ask the spotter to move his belongings.The spotter was there, and to my knowledge offered to move it, if allowed.

I think the rule should be worded to allow the belongings to be moved, regardless of the owners presence, but that would not have changed things here.

Because they were discussing whether it was a permanent part of the course - and that McBeth apparently moved a little to fast before getting a final ruling (though he might have thought it was final). The latter part I would still like to hear McBeths version of. They might have come to the right conclusion had he waited. (again, if he indeed moved to fast)

I cannot quite understand why they would need a discussion that long about making such a call. The spotter puts a random object at a random spot. Of course it is not part of the course. (the spotter should of course be allowed to have it there, to sit down during the day.)

So the problem was not so much with the rules, but with the officiating of them.

As for the proposed change: Where would you put a spotters chair on a hole with no OB?

 

[Flick Maniac]

Innova Europe also has had events in Finland where there was a driving range of sorts. Sure, the discs get scuffed up, but they dont instantly change flight characteristics, and the patrons are buying brand new discs. The company can bear a few damaged discs if it helps sales.

 

[elmexdela]

As for the proposed change: Where would you put a spotters chair on a hole with no OB?

why do the spotters need a chair? why do throwers need a stool?

pathetic lazy. its already a low physical activity sport. make it lazier? might as well assign all players a segue so they can get around the course. i bet you could even modify the segues so that it can hold your bag because its too hard to carry it on your back.

 

[bombmk]

why do the spotters need a chair? why do throwers need a stool?

First of all: That was not my question.

Second:
Are in you in all seriousness proposing to make a spotters job more uncomfortable? Some of them are out there on the course the entire day to make life easier for the ones that are actually having fun playing. And not all of them are necessarily in top physical condition.
So yeah, allowing them to have place to sit down does not exactly come across as either lazy or unneeded.

As for why the players need a stool? (disregarding the irrelevance of it in this context)
Personally it is mainly so I don't have to bend down to get discs in and out of the bag the entire day. Makes a noticeable difference, so to me that is just a smart decision. And regardless of disc golf being a low physical activity sport, sitting down and resting your legs can make difference at the end of a round - or several rounds. So again, smart decision.

 

[elmexdela]

First of all: That was not my question.

Second:
Are in you in all seriousness proposing to make a spotters job more uncomfortable? Some of them are out there on the course the entire day to make life easier for the ones that are actually having fun playing. And not all of them are necessarily in top physical condition.
So yeah, allowing them to have place to sit down does not exactly come across as either lazy or unneeded.

As for why the players need a stool? (disregarding the irrelevance of it in this context)
Personally it is mainly so I don't have to bend down to get discs in and out of the bag the entire day. Makes a noticeable difference, so to me that is just a smart decision. And regardless of disc golf being a low physical activity sport, sitting down and resting your legs can make difference at the end of a round - or several rounds. So again, smart decision.

you have plenty of excuses for being lazy. i would hate to employ you as a worker

 

[kman]

Regarding the conversation about laying up on 17; I seem to recall that Schusterick's game plan was to lay up on 17 when he first won the USDGC in 2010.

There was even a YouTube video where he was asked about laying up in the final round, and his reply was that he did it in every round.

 

[TimSyl]

elmexdela...it's always amazed me disc golfers need places to "rest" during a less than 2 mile walk in the woods...several times...I don't get it. Read course reviews...most of them talk about lack of benches to "rest" on.

 

[kman]

"For the fourth time in a row, Schusterick laid up to the safe area near hole 17′s tee – a strategy he said he'd stick with on the first day of the tournament."