DGPT: 2021 Ledgestone Insurance Open Aug 5-8

[Ryan P.]

During the Jomez coverage, Nate commented that the rule for marking a lie might have to be re-looked at. He said due to the way some holes were set up, it would be possible to mark your lie - has to be marked towards the target which is the basket - and have your stance in front of your marker for your actual throw. For example, a hard turn your marker is placed towards the target/basket but you have to throw 'backwards' as your best option. So you stand behind the marker (away from the target/basket), but with the marker actually behind you based on the direction of throw.

Maybe the definition of target should be where you are throwing to; which isn't always the basket.

I have to admit, I used to think that the target was were I was aiming for my disc to go - not necessarily the basket.

(I don't recall which round it was that Nate made the comment).

yeah I think that's an odd situation. I didn't bring it up because that's not bad course design; it's a lack of thorough rule design. I think the mando rule is fairly comparable; maybe if there's a sharp bend in the fairway, a TD can state that the cornermost tree can be played as if it were a mando for purposes of stance only, and if a player wants to he/she can declare that they are playing toward that mando instead of the basket (so as not to break stance rules). There's probably holes in that as it's just off the top of my head.

 

[BillFleming]

yeah I think that's an odd situation. I didn't bring it up because that's not bad course design; it's a lack of thorough rule design. I think the mando rule is fairly comparable; maybe if there's a sharp bend in the fairway, a TD can state that the cornermost tree can be played as if it were a mando for purposes of stance only, and if a player wants to he/she can declare that they are playing toward that mando instead of the basket (so as not to break stance rules). There's probably holes in that as it's just off the top of my head.

Yeah....the change I would recommend is for Target to be defined as the intended line of play. Basket straight ahead, but you have to play to the right (for example: to make a mando)? Intended line of play is to the right.

But it is difficult to get rules wording perfect to cover every situation.

 

[Ryan P.]

Yeah....the change I would recommend is for Target to be defined as the intended line of play. Basket straight ahead, but you have to play to the right (for example: to make a mando)? Intended line of play is to the right.

But it is difficult to get rules wording perfect to cover every situation.

In most sports, I wish there were a rule that said "If a rule is stupid and doesn't make sense, or if something should be a rule, do what's logical and ignore the grammar." But then there's Bill Belichick and Roger Neilson.

 

[autocrosscrx]

Here's an example of the marker/foot issue....

The white cord shows the Line of Play (LOP) to the basket. The marker is on the LOP, but due to a very huge bush (pretend with me), I have to throw to the left of the LOP. Look at my feet, by the rules, my back foot is in my lie like it needs to be. But, based on the direction of my throw, both feet would be ahead of my marker. The rules however, require the marker and your stance to be on the LOP to the target (basket) not on the intended LOP.

Now imagine that I'm in the fairway of a winding hole or a huge dogleg....the white cord points to the basket, but the direction of my feet is where I need to throw down the fairway.

In both cases, my stance is legal....but at the same time, I am not behind the marker based on my intended throw.

((Disclaimer, I would have liked to do a better photo, but it is raining heavily here...so I did the best I could indoors.))

Yeah. I understand the example. I just don't see it as an issue. Unusual? Yes. An issue? Not really.

I don't think you can make a rule based off intention, especially if you don't have to state your intention beforehand. And I don't think you can change that rule without a bunch of unintended consequences on scramble shots.

Also, your toes are long as hell.

 

[Ryan P.]

Yeah. I understand the example. I just don't see it as an issue. Unusual? Yes. An issue? Not really.

I don't see it as some glaring issue, but it is unintuitive. The simplest example comes from Eagle McMahon's second shot on hole 6, round 3. He came very close to foot faulting, and would have if he were closer to the dogleg. Timestamp is 31:25 if I messed it up.

I don't think you can make a rule based off intention, especially if you don't have to state your intention beforehand. And I don't think you can change that rule without a bunch of unintended consequences on scramble shots.

Yeah that's fair. I'm sure there's a way to word it that makes sense, but I don't care enough to think about it.

 

[roblee]

In both cases, my stance is legal....but at the same time, I am not behind the marker based on my intended throw.

When you take a legal stance your direction of throw is immaterial. LOP and LOT(hrow) are independent. Your picture & description are legal and you're behind your lie no matter what way you throw.

 

[BillFleming]

Also, your toes are long as hell.

Yeah, except for my small toes...they are really short.

 

[ToddL]

The stance rule is a very simple rule that can be applied to all situations. Point at the target, draw a line, put your foot on that line. Draw the perpendicular (or more accurately, arc), keep your other foot behind it. Done.

Whether it looks goofy while you're taking a stance is immaterial. We know it looks goofy at times, but we're okay with that.

Note that if you change the stance rule, you'll also have to change casual relief, optional relief, large solid obstacle, and probably a couple of others that I'm forgetting.

 

[rjnoodlearm]

Reading comprehension matters

Hmmmm....I spoke for nobody but myself. I attacked nobody.

There is no discussion, outside of a storm and the rules. Perhaps this is enthralling to some newer players, but the horse was more than beaten when I posted.

I don't really recall much input on the topic from you. Wish we had a name for posters who add nothing to a discussion, but want to attack and post about other posters.

Remind us again, what it is you wanted to add to the Ledgestone last round cancellation topic. Maybe me, or some of your "handful of posters" can provide some insight into your comments. I am willing to learn about the interwebz from you and be a better forum member. :thmbup:

Show me were I said anyone "attacked" someone? Why do you make up stuff?

It's an interesting thread to some of us, but you and a couple others seem bothered that anyone has the effrontery to discuss the issue.

Why do you and others keep mentioning "new players" or "newer posters" ? Is this site meant only for those of you who already know everything?

Don't you want disc golf to be inclusive?

The decision made at Ledgestone was the only reasonable option. I haven't seen anyone say/write otherwise. But the issue will still bear some discussion. As the pro tour matures and more money flows into the upper tier events, I imagine steps will be taken to deal with this sort of situation. But there will still be times when the weather or some other disaster will just blow up the best laid plans.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Calvin and Ricky can split the pot from Ledgestone, but since they can't split the trophy...

They agreed that whomever does better at Idlewild, gets to keep the Ledgestone trophy (just after the 4:00 mark).

Now we have a reason to follow the Idlewild open.

Interesting to hear these four perspectives regarding cancellation of 4th round.

 

[Steve West]

I want to see what Nate brings out of his rules lab.

 

[Flick Maniac]

No matter what side of your disc you mark on (ot dont), its the same general area. The only real problem I see is with the run up, where you have to step PAST the mini/disc but not touch it at release, and have all your contact points also beyond the mini/disc.

Cant you just solve it by sticking a mando somewhere in the woods inside the corner? Something that is never really in play (and also makes hacking through not an option).

 

[Rastnav]

No matter what side of your disc you mark on (ot dont), its the same general area. The only real problem I see is with the run up, where you have to step PAST the mini/disc but not touch it at release, and have all your contact points also beyond the mini/disc.

Yeah, runups I would think are the biggest issue. Stepping past the mini likely to feel awkward, and trying to assess a foot fault on anything border line is probably even more unlikely to be called.

But it's even more of a challenge if your dominant hand means that your back foot is on the basket side of the mini. I didn't see any left handed players on coverage, but trying to properly complete a throw with a runup on some of the Northwoods Black par 5s must have been quite tricky for them. I think on hole #6, for example, a leftie is going to need to release the second shot with their back foot off the ground, stepping over and past the mini to hit the lie.

You even bring in the scenario where you could kick the mini away, but not have committed a stance violation.

 

[robdeforge]

Cant you just solve it by sticking a mando somewhere in the woods inside the corner? Something that is never really in play (and also makes hacking through not an option).

that was my initial reaction as well. best to try to make use of everything currently at our disposal before thinking about what would be a pretty major rule change. not sure you can "fix" the rule in the way sexton is suggesting without causing a lot of collateral damage

 

[autocrosscrx]

The Eagle example is a little confusing.

Either way, I still don't really see a problem with the rule of the lie. Adjusting your stance and run up to ensure you are legal is a core part of playing the game by the rules.

I think the problem isn't the rule, but the hole. Players don't seem to like it. Fans can't follow it. Maybe not do that again.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

We shouldn't resort to using mandos as a means of d
Redefining the LOP, or persuading players where to mark their lie and where they can take a legal stance.

If the legit LOP doesn't line up with the desired line because your lie and/or the hole shape, so be it.

Take your run up at whatever angle you want, and release the disc on whatever line you want... as long as you're behind the marker, on the legal LOP, and no closer to the basket.

If that particular combination of lie and LOP make it hard/impossible for you to throw the shot you want, it just becomes part of the challenge.

 

[ru4por]

Hmmmm....I spoke for nobody but myself. I attacked nobody.

There is no discussion, outside of a storm and the rules. Perhaps this is enthralling to some newer players, but the horse was more than beaten when I posted.

I don't really recall much input on the topic from you. Wish we had a name for posters who add nothing to a discussion, but want to attack and post about other posters.

Remind us again, what it is you wanted to add to the Ledgestone last round cancellation topic. Maybe me, or some of your "handful of posters" can provide some insight into your comments. I am willing to learn about the interwebz from you and be a better forum member. :thmbup:

Show me were I said anyone "attacked" someone? Why do you make up stuff?

It's an interesting thread to some of us, but you and a couple others seem bothered that anyone has the effrontery to discuss the issue.

Why do you and others keep mentioning "new players" or "newer posters" ? Is this site meant only for those of you who already know everything?

Don't you want disc golf to be inclusive?

The decision made at Ledgestone was the only reasonable option. I haven't seen anyone say/write otherwise. But the issue will still bear some discussion. As the pro tour matures and more money flows into the upper tier events, I imagine steps will be taken to deal with this sort of situation. But there will still be times when the weather or some other disaster will just blow up the best laid plans.

,,,,opcorn:

 

[Ryan P.]

The Eagle example is a little confusing.

Either way, I still don't really see a problem with the rule of the lie. Adjusting your stance and run up to ensure you are legal is a core part of playing the game by the rules.

I think the problem isn't the rule, but the hole. Players don't seem to like it. Fans can't follow it. Maybe not do that again.

Can you clarify what part is confusing?

 

[autocrosscrx]

Can you clarify what part is confusing?

Without committing more time to watch coverage, I don't know where the basket is located. So it is kind of hard for me to figure out what he is doing with his lie. Taking it out of context, it looks like he could shift a few inches to the left and make things easier.

 

[Ryan P.]

Without committing more time to watch coverage, I don't know where the basket is located. So it is kind of hard for me to figure out what he is doing with his lie. Taking it out of context, it looks like he could shift a few inches to the left and make things easier.

The basket is far off to the left (my guess is about 50 degrees left of his throw line), hence the potential issue.

I'm all for leaving the rule as it until there's a better option. But as it is, there are situations where it is unintuitive, and that's why I'm not totally satisfied by the current rule.