2022 Memorial Championship in Arizona

[Nick Pacific]

I think circle one putting is close enough that size/strength differences are minimized. Move out to 50-60 feet and I think you start recruiting other muscle groups to help get the disc to the basket.

Think of it this way, if it were simply a matter of lack of strength you'd see a high percentage of made putts within 15-20 feet and drop off as you move back. I would expect when you see people commenting on how FPO putting is not good they're talking about the high frequency of missed 10-15 footers and not 25-30 footers.

I have heard that on this forum many times, and 10+ years of participating/running putting leagues, often multiple ones per year involving more than 100+ players come through during the season, has shown that to be not the case.

Size/strength matters on all the putts, even from inside 15 feet. Add pressure and wind/rain/elevated baskets, it's magnified. I've seen the stats to back it up. We've had putting stations as close as 15 feet, and the best putters at 33ft were the same as the best ones at 15 feet.

There are no gimmies. The elite level men are so good that they make 20 footers seem that way. When you get to FPO, all bets are off. I for one like it, that there are no gimmies and it adds to the drama like you see in ball golf.

Think of how little strength it takes to hold and stroke a pool cue. Yet anyone who has played competitive pool knows that strength is definitely a factor and that male size/strength is a huge advantage over female counterparts.

 

[BillFleming]

Pretty much what I see. If the disc had gone in bounds, and then back over on to the gunite, would she not have been allowed the distance? Thus another reason to call a provisional. When she arrived at the hole, the spotter states that it never touched IB, so no need to throw the additional throws.

Correct, if any part of the disc had crossed the white line and been in bounds, she would have played from that spot and the rethrows (at the time - provisionals) would not have counted against her. As it was, the discs were OB the entire time and the provisionals became rethrows and counted.

Another thing I noticed that may have added to the confusion/decision to use provisionals....the spotter was not one I had taught. I teach my spotters there are two types of OB calls. OB, but never in bound and OB after being in bound. There are different ways to signal that.

OB the entire time....point the red flag to the OB side (in this case the water)
OB after being in bound....point the red flag to the in bound side (towards the basket).

This lets the player know what type of OB they have....then if the spotter forgets or delays putting down a flag to mark the spot the disc was last in bounds...the player still knows if they were fully OB or were in bounds at one point. Since this spotter held the red flag along the OB line, the player may not have known he meant never in bounds.

 

[glassila]

Definition of a loophole:

an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

The ambiguity/inadequacy is that the rule is for Obstacles and allows you to take relief even if there are no obstacles in your lie.

The process should be.....
1. take OB relief
2. determine if there is an Obstacle on the lie.
A. if so, take relief back on the line
B. if not, the Obstacle rule doesn't come into play.

Having an Unplayable Lie rule would resolve the issue above. Move 803.02.D and E to a new rule titled Unplayable Lie. Any player can call their lie unplayable and take relief with a penalty. (ball golf uses this).

Basically, I'm saying D/E are not rules that should be part of the Relief from Obstacles rule as it doesn't apply to obstacles.

But either way....it shows why some players have an advantage over others....they know their rules better and how to use them.

I agree with you that this material should be somewhere else in the rules, not in the "Relief from Obstacles" area.
D. 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.
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.

 

[BillFleming]

I agree with you that this material should be somewhere else in the rules, not in the "Relief from Obstacles" area.
D. 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.
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.

yep, I'd like to see an "Unplayable Lie" section of the rules. That would apply to anything other than Obstacles and could be used at anytime.

Don't like your lie inside a tree.....take relief backwards on the lie...with one penalty stroke. Include the part about no penalty being applied if Item E in the Relief From Obstacles applies.

 

[Cgkdisc]

yep, I'd like to see an "Unplayable Lie" section of the rules. That would apply to anything other than Obstacles and could be used at anytime.

Don't like your lie inside a tree.....take relief backwards on the lie...with one penalty stroke. Include the part about no penalty being applied if Item E in the Relief From Obstacles applies.

You can already elect to move back on the line of play as far as you want at any time for one penalty stroke under 803.02 D. Although the rule is under "Relief from Obstacles" your choice to use it doesn't have to be in reference to an obstacle.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I was on pretty sure that at any time, you can take your lie farther from the basket, along the LOP (with 1 penalty stroke).

 

[chevis]

You can already elect to move back on the line of play as far as you want at any time for one penalty stroke under 803.02 D. Although the rule is under "Relief from Obstacles" your choice to use it doesn't have to be in reference to an obstacle.

I was on pretty sure that at any time, you can take your lie farther from the basket, along the LOP (with 1 penalty stroke).

those guys are just talking about moving 803.02 D to a new section... i don't think we need another section for unplayable lie, but maybe move 803.02D&E to marking the lie(802.06)

 

[araytx]

yep, I'd like to see an "Unplayable Lie" section of the rules. That would apply to anything other than Obstacles and could be used at anytime.

Don't like your lie inside a tree.....take relief backwards on the lie...with one penalty stroke. Include the part about no penalty being applied if Item E in the Relief From Obstacles applies.

those guys are just talking about moving 803.02 D to a new section... i don't think we need another section for unplayable lie, but maybe move 803.02D&E to marking the lie(802.06)

Unplayable lie was removed years ago. And good riddance IMHO. What is "unplayable" is so arbitrary. The problem is that the lies you guys described aren't unplayable -- they are "player don't like them."

 

[Steve West]

..

Basically, I'm saying D/E are not rules that should be part of the Relief from Obstacles rule as it doesn't apply to obstacles. ...

Yep, and it's been in the works. Think of this as one of the last little details of untangling the concept of "relief" (moving a lie) from the exceptions to the "don't move anything" rule.

However, both D and E are fully valid no matter what title they are under. So, is it really important enough to create "Yet another rule change!" to appease the persnicketiest among us?

 

[BillFleming]

Yep, and it's been in the works. Think of this as one of the last little details of untangling the concept of "relief" (moving a lie) from the exceptions to the "don't move anything" rule.

However, both D and E are fully valid no matter what title they are under. So, is it really important enough to create "Yet another rule change!" to appease the persnicketiest among us?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Not really. Players are supposed to know the rules; Jen did and took advantage of it. Personally, I wouldn't have thought of it since it is under "Relief from an obstacle" and there's no obstacle to take relief from....so like Henna (I think that was the other player), I would have missed that option.

Maybe someday down the line when another big change is made to the rules, Relief from Obstacles could just be rename Taking Relief.

It would also make it easier for Tournament Officials....if the question had come to me...I'm not sure I would have realized there was that option under Relief From Obstacles. Or have been 'wise' enough to look there.

 

[Twmccoy]

Couple quick observations. I don't watch a ton of DG, but I caught a couple rounds of the Memorial online.


McBeth looked solidly good. Not remarkable, but consistent. He made the least mistakes, and managed to squeak out a win. I've seen Paul wither and die in those situations before, but not this time.

It was a very "mechanical" win. Little flair, just effective, rote disc golf.

It was obvious Paul was more familiar with the courses than the players he was against.

 

[gwsmallwood]

It was obvious Paul was more familiar with the courses than the players he was against.

I'd have to disagree with this one. I've seen coverage of Adam Hammes, Anthony Barela, Drew Gibson, Cale Leiviska, Paul Ulibarri, and quite a few others at those two courses far more than Paul McBeth. He was just playing really well. He did have a bit of extra time there leading up to the tournament. He was there the entire week before, even did a meet and greet at Spinners the weekend before. Everyone else was in Vegas.

 

[Twmccoy]

I'd have to disagree with this one. I've seen coverage of Adam Hammes, Anthony Barela, Drew Gibson, Cale Leiviska, Paul Ulibarri, and quite a few others at those two courses far more than Paul McBeth. He was just playing really well. He did have a bit of extra time there leading up to the tournament. He was there the entire week before, even did a meet and greet at Spinners the weekend before. Everyone else was in Vegas.

IDK, Paul just seemed very sure of what he was doing with every shot on every hole. He didn't execute all of them perfectly, but his familiarity with the courses was evident.

Barela should have probably won, but he made a few brutal mistakes late.

 

[BillFleming]

I'd have to disagree with this one. I've seen coverage of Adam Hammes, Anthony Barela, Drew Gibson, Cale Leiviska, Paul Ulibarri, and quite a few others at those two courses far more than Paul McBeth. He was just playing really well. He did have a bit of extra time there leading up to the tournament. He was there the entire week before, even did a meet and greet at Spinners the weekend before. Everyone else was in Vegas.

AB and Paul Ulibarri are very familiar with the course, but as you said, they were just coming off of the LVC. Paul McBeth, however, had been playing on both courses (Vista and Fountain) the week leading up to the Memorial...so he had "current" knowledge/experience on the course and was more rested for it.

 

[Ryan P.]

All of this talking about Paul being familiar with the course, and yet he played with new (to him) discs (see the pre-round interview before hole 1):

 

[gwsmallwood]

All of this talking about Paul being familiar with the course, and yet he played with new (to him) discs (see the pre-round interview before hole 1):