DGPT: 2021 Ledgestone Insurance Open Aug 5-8

[Ryan P.]

I should also state that, while I don't think it's a great hole, it doesn't make sense for the PDGA/DGPT to say "don't design holes with severe doglegs because they make it harder for us to write rules and can sometimes be bad holes." It makes much more sense to say "let's accommodate for those holes with good rules and hope that designers figure out how to make them better."

Autocrosscrx, if I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting you, please let me know.

 

[GoobyPls]

Love to jump in and add a few facts to this mix of facts and opinions, but I'm still on a 4-disc-plus course bagging trek with JK #100 on my way back home from Master Worlds. Today's menu, Echo Valley (8900') and Caesar Ford (10K') in SW Ohio.

How did you like them? I'm a local to both and am curious as to experienced outsiders' opinions.

 

[autocrosscrx]

I should also state that, while I don't think it's a great hole, it doesn't make sense for the PDGA/DGPT to say "don't design holes with severe doglegs because they make it harder for us to write rules and can sometimes be bad holes." It makes much more sense to say "let's accommodate for those holes with good rules and hope that designers figure out how to make them better."

Autocrosscrx, if I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting you, please let me know.

Not really. I'm fine with the status quo. Truthfully, I don't really understand the difference between your example and when I go to my local park and my disc skips up against a cluster of trees and I have to get creative with my stance to pitch out.

 

[ThrowBot]

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.

I don't think "resorting to" using mandos is the correct way to frame it. The mando is just a tool that could be used to address the design issue that's been raised.

IF the designer is concerned that the LOP doesn't make intuitive sense with the shape of the fairway, there's already a rule in the book that can help change that. We don't need to re-write anything. Just use the current rules.

(The designer might also see some benefit in the mando preventing attempts to cut the corner. This could prevent safety issues if it stops players from throwing blind bombs over the top. Or more importantly: it could prevent the designer's feelings from getting hurt by players "breaking" the hole. Here, of course, "breaking the hole" means finding fun and inventive strategies that were outside of the designer's original conception.)

Or, if the designer doesn't want to use a mando in that way, they can leave it as is and know that some players will have janky run-ups/unintuitive stances. But that's a design decision in itself. You don't get to throw up your hands and blame the existing LOP definition, when there are other rules and design techniques that could have helped the hole make sense.

Really, none of these solutions are ideal. A better course of action would be a moment of introspection on the part of the designer. What's the root cause of this problem? Why am I facing a choice between excess mandos and players jumping over their minis during the run-up? Does the hole shape need to be THAT convoluted?

 

[Ryan P.]

Not really. I'm fine with the status quo. Truthfully, I don't really understand the difference between your example and when I go to my local park and my disc skips up against a cluster of trees and I have to get creative with my stance to pitch out.

I've attached a crude drawing. Eagle's lie (red circle) is on the right of the fairway (green lines). He's throwing down the fairway (direction of purple arrow), but since the basket is off to his left (black circle), he must keep both feet behind the red line. Normally (as in your example) he could stretch out of the woods into the fairway (for straight holes with no dogleg), but in this case he can only barely do that, and if he wants to, he must do it at a very odd angle because the basket is way off to the left.

 

[Ryan P.]

I don't think "resorting to" using mandos is the correct way to frame it. The mando is just a tool that could be used to address the design issue that's been raised.

IF the designer is concerned that the LOP doesn't make intuitive sense with the shape of the fairway, there's already a rule in the book that can help change that. We don't need to re-write anything, just use the current rules.

(The designer might also see some benefit in the mando preventing attempts to cut the corner. This could prevent safety issues if it stops players from throwing blind bombs over the top. Or more importantly: it could prevent the designer's feelings from getting hurt by players "breaking" the hole. Here, of course, "breaking the hole" means finding fun and inventive strategies that were outside of the designer's original conception.)

Or, if the designer doesn't want to use a mando in that way, they can leave it as is and know that some players will have janky, unintuitive run-ups/stances. But that's a design decision in itself. You don't get to throw up your hands and blame the existing LOP definition, when there are other rules as design techniques that could have helped the hole make sense.

Really, none of these solutions are ideal. A better course of action would be a moment of introspection on the part of the designer. What's the root cause of this problem? Why am I facing a choice between excess mandos and players jumping over their minis during the run-up? Does the hole shape need to be THAT convoluted?

I like the idea of using mandos as a short-term fix, and I'm not the biggest fan of this hole. Also, the current rules are written really well for almost every single situation.

I think these are good points you've brought up. However, I don't think that pushing designers away from this type of hole is the best idea. You implied that it's good to allow players to be creative in their shots. In the same way, I think it's good to allow designers ways to be creative in their hole design and not encourage them to avoid this hole shape.

I think redoing the rule would be better. Perhaps something like "here's a spot at the turn which is considered the line of play until players cross a certain point of the fairway, denoted by the line made between X and Y trees. If a player wants to play differently, they can declare to the rest of their card that they want to play toward the basket, and their throw must evidence clearly that before and after release." There's probably a better way to word it though (there always is).

With that said, I do think that a hole shaped like a J or U (one with a more than 90 degree turn) is incredibly hard to get right as a designer.

 

[ToddL]

An example of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/XUWCYwL.jpg

A more extreme version of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/mzRHJmr.jpg

Backed up against some trees on the far side of the fairway:
https://i.imgur.com/evOJRIQ.jpg

 

[Ryan P.]

An example of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/XUWCYwL.jpg

A more extreme version of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/mzRHJmr.jpg

Backed up against some trees on the far side of the fairway:
https://i.imgur.com/evOJRIQ.jpg

Thanks Todd. The player in the first two pics had terrible tee shots.

 

[Rastnav]

Not really. I'm fine with the status quo. Truthfully, I don't really understand the difference between your example and when I go to my local park and my disc skips up against a cluster of trees and I have to get creative with my stance to pitch out.

I think the crux of the issue is that you can land in the center of the fairway in a designed landing spot and have the kind of lie that is being discussed. That's not really comparable to being forced to pitch out because you made a bad tee shot. If you throw a shot deep enough in the rough that you have to pitch out away from the basket, that's on you. If the hole is designed so you have to throw away from the basket, the lie rules start to break down.

That's why LOP is already redefined on holes with mandos. Because the designed LOP is not straight to the basket.

The real question here, to me, is a course designer tool kit question. If you end up short of the corner, a mando prevents the higher risk, higher reward play of trying to cut off the corner. A designer may want to be able to create a tough corner to reach that rewards the longer shot, but still allows shorter shots options. That's hat was created for NW Black.

If a designer applied for an exemption, would it be possible to define a "mando" that required you go either to the left or the right of it? That would largely solve the LOP question, while still allowing the full freedom of shot selection. Although, given how LOP resolves with respects to mando lines that could be even more confusing to apply, even if the end result was better.

A "mando" that only affected LOP, applying no penalty if it was "missed", would likely be even better.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

'tis a lively debate.
opcorn:

 

[autocrosscrx]

I think the crux of the issue is that you can land in the center of the fairway in a designed landing spot and have the kind of lie that is being discussed. That's not really comparable to being forced to pitch out because you made a bad tee shot. If you throw a shot deep enough in the rough that you have to pitch out away from the basket, that's on you. If the hole is designed so you have to throw away from the basket, the lie rules start to break down.

That's why LOP is already redefined on holes with mandos. Because the designed LOP is not straight to the basket.

The real question here, to me, is a course designer tool kit question. If you end up short of the corner, a mando prevents the higher risk, higher reward play of trying to cut off the corner. A designer may want to be able to create a tough corner to reach that rewards the longer shot, but still allows shorter shots options. That's hat was created for NW Black.

If a designer applied for an exemption, would it be possible to define a "mando" that required you go either to the left or the right of it? That would largely solve the LOP question, while still allowing the full freedom of shot selection. Although, given how LOP resolves with respects to mando lines that could be even more confusing to apply, even if the end result was better.

A "mando" that only affected LOP, applying no penalty if it was "missed", would likely be even better.

That isn't the case in the Eagle example.

He was up on a tree. Otherwise, he could do whatever he wanted as far as run up.

 

[ru4por]

An example of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/XUWCYwL.jpg

A more extreme version of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/mzRHJmr.jpg

Backed up against some trees on the far side of the fairway:
https://i.imgur.com/evOJRIQ.jpg

I think these situation happen all the time. It is part of the creativity of disc golf. You have to determine LOP (well defined in the rules) and get a foot on your "piece of paper". The challenge is to maintain a legal stance and find a forehand, backhand or trick shot that gets you closest to your intended landing spot. Inconvenient? Yep. Difficult at times? Yep. Tests unique skills in your game? Yep. Fun and challenging? I say yep.

 

[Ryan P.]

I think the crux of the issue is that you can land in the center of the fairway in a designed landing spot and have the kind of lie that is being discussed. That's not really comparable to being forced to pitch out because you made a bad tee shot. If you throw a shot deep enough in the rough that you have to pitch out away from the basket, that's on you. If the hole is designed so you have to throw away from the basket, the lie rules start to break down.

That's why LOP is already redefined on holes with mandos. Because the designed LOP is not straight to the basket.

The real question here, to me, is a course designer tool kit question. If you end up short of the corner, a mando prevents the higher risk, higher reward play of trying to cut off the corner. A designer may want to be able to create a tough corner to reach that rewards the longer shot, but still allows shorter shots options. That's hat was created for NW Black.

If a designer applied for an exemption, would it be possible to define a "mando" that required you go either to the left or the right of it? That would largely solve the LOP question, while still allowing the full freedom of shot selection. Although, given how LOP resolves with respects to mando lines that could be even more confusing to apply, even if the end result was better.

A "mando" that only affected LOP, applying no penalty if it was "missed", would likely be even better.

That's a good point about the center of the fairway being more important. I still think it's unintuitive for someone who is in the rough. If you go into the left side rough by a couple feet, your back foot for the throw could be on your "piece of paper", while your front foot is out in the fairway, closer to where you are throwing. This is a silly loophole.

The "mando" idea is kind of what I'm going for, but I don't think we should use the same term for something different. Maybe "LOP marker" kind of has a ring to it?

 

[autocrosscrx]

That's a good point about the center of the fairway being more important. I still think it's unintuitive for someone who is in the rough. If you go into the left side rough by a couple feet, your back foot for the throw could be on your "piece of paper", while your front foot is out in the fairway, closer to where you are throwing. This is a silly loophole.

The "mando" idea is kind of what I'm going for, but I don't think we should use the same term for something different. Maybe "LOP marker" kind of has a ring to it?

I guess I just play a LOT of those shots. Like you start out in the open and then throw into the mouth of the woods. If you miss the mouth to the right, the "routine" shot is a chip shot forehand away from the basket and use the stability of the disc to enter the mouth and have a short putt to save par. If you put your lead foot at your lie and line up this shot, your back foot is closer to the basket. So you set up with your back foot at your lie and your front foot ahead of your lie (in relation to your throw). I play several holes with a common miss like this, so I'm probably doing this once every few rounds.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

An example of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/XUWCYwL.jpg

A more extreme version of a U-shaped hole:
https://i.imgur.com/mzRHJmr.jpg

Backed up against some trees on the far side of the fairway:
https://i.imgur.com/evOJRIQ.jpg

^This. Thanks for the illustrations Todd.

Apply the rules as they are. No need for mandos, unless (as Throwbot suggested) you're specifically trying to take specific routes out of play.

But establishing a mando at the apex (or anywhere else for that matter), just to change where the legal stance would be... just feels wrong, IMO. Seems heavy handed and unnecessary.

 

[Ryan P.]

^This. Thanks for the illustrations Todd.

Apply the rules as they are. No need for mandos, unless (as Throwbot suggested) you're specifically trying to take specific routes out of play.

But establishing a mando at the apex (or anywhere else for that matter), just to change where the legal stance would be... just feels wrong, IMO. Seems heavy handed and unnecessary.

Interesting. I think not changing it feels wrong, and neither way seems heavy handed. Good to know.

 

[BryanC]

^This. Thanks for the illustrations Todd.

Apply the rules as they are. No need for mandos, unless (as Throwbot suggested) you're specifically trying to take specific routes out of play.

But establishing a mando at the apex (or anywhere else for that matter), just to change where the legal stance would be... just feels wrong, IMO. Seems heavy handed and unnecessary.

I totally agree with this. No need to change the rules. Designer can put in a mando if they want one as part of the hole design. Todd's illustrations are great!

 

[Ryan P.]

I guess I just play a LOT of those shots. Like you start out in the open and then throw into the mouth of the woods. If you miss the mouth to the right, the "routine" shot is a chip shot forehand away from the basket and use the stability of the disc to enter the mouth and have a short putt to save par. If you put your lead foot at your lie and line up this shot, your back foot is closer to the basket. So you set up with your back foot at your lie and your front foot ahead of your lie (in relation to your throw). I play several holes with a common miss like this, so I'm probably doing this once every few rounds.

I agree that it's common. I think shots like you described are less important, although they aren't ideal/intuitive. But I think a more important issue is for holes that, by nature, if you're in the fairway, require an odd stance (like hole 6 or todd's examples).

With that said, I've sufficiently explained my thoughts enough and I'll stop beating the horse.

 

[Steve West]

[...]Perhaps something like "here's a spot at the turn which is considered the line of play until players cross a certain point of the fairway[..]

There is already a way to do that. Put a target at the landing area and break it into two holes.

Two holes which are 90 degrees to each other will have better scoring separation than one 90-degree-fairway hole.

 

[biscoe]

IMO there is no real need for a different rule unless this design practice becomes more prevalent which hopefully it will not. Adding mandos just makes me dislike the shape of the hole even more. Some sort of line of play designator (just please don't use the word "mandatory" in the verbiage) along the fairway might not be a terrible option if you consider the problem to be significant enough to warrant change.