Help Finding Discs in Tournaments

[Cgkdisc]

Your definition of "simplified" and mine appear to differ.

Can't find disc in 3 minutes, mark in the fairway no closer with one shot penalty. (You may remember when you could mark no closer on the fairway with a 2-shot penalty, 1990 rule?)

Player is already taking a penalty and has lost a disc for the round. So, the group shouldn't be concerned about much precision on how far back the mark is made in the same way there's not too much argument about marking last point IB when going OB. The tee or previous lie can always be the mark if the disc was yanked so far offline that group can't make a determination or player prefers it under abandoned throw rule. As a designer, if tee shot has a good chance for lost discs (big downhill) you would be wise to declare a short tee as DZ or mark DZ (same recommendation under current rule).

 

[biscoe]

If you can't find the disc how do you define "no closer"?

I have seen players bully other players into favorably defining where a shot went OB, this seems to invite more of that behavior.

How is this superior to rethrow from previous lie without penalty? (If "saves time walking back" is the only answer then I don't think you have much of a point)

 

[Cgkdisc]

If you can't find the disc how do you define "no closer"?

I have seen players bully other players into favorably defining where a shot went OB, this seems to invite more of that behavior.

How is this superior to rethrow from previous lie without penalty? (If "saves time walking back" is the only answer then I don't think you have much of a point)

Oh, I'm in favor of rethrow without penalty if that rule changes. I was comparing with the current rule of rethrow with penalty. Even if the rule changes to allow rethrow without penalty, I would prefer that the player has to choose rethrow (not as a provisional) while at the tee/previous lie before moving forward to find their disc. If they don't rethrow and lose their disc, they play forward with penalty as proposed to save time.

 

[biscoe]

Oh, I'm in favor of rethrow without penalty if that rule changes. I was comparing with the current rule of rethrow with penalty. Even if the rule changes to allow rethrow without penalty, I would prefer that the player has to choose rethrow (not as a provisional) while at the tee/previous lie before moving forward to find their disc. If they don't rethrow and lose their disc, they play forward with penalty as proposed to save time.

Seems ripe for abuse and counter to the philosophy of "play it where it lies if possible." Any wildly errant shot could be "potentially lost." It would essentially recreate the optional rethrow without an attached penalty. How important is saving a couple of minutes time? IMO not very.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Seems ripe for abuse and counter to the philosophy of "play it where it lies if possible." Any wildly errant shot could be "potentially lost." It would essentially recreate the optional rethrow without an attached penalty. How important is saving a couple of minutes time? IMO not very.

We have never "played it where it lies" like ball golf and cannot do so. We need to make our own sensible rules, related but not always equivalent.

 

[biscoe]

We have never "played it where it lies" like ball golf and cannot do so. We need to make our own sensible rules, related but not always equivalent.

Given the inherent differences in equipment and method of propulsion we have in general attempted to honor the concept- imo it is fundamental to the game of golf in its various forms. Obviously the implementation needs to differ from one form of golf to the next.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Given the inherent differences in equipment and method of propulsion we have in general attempted to honor the concept- imo it is fundamental to the game of golf in its various forms. Obviously the implementation needs to differ from one form of golf to the next.

Old school thinking to mimic ball golf in many areas has mentally constrained disc golf (including use of "golf" in the name) from evolving into its own "better" form of sequentially advancing a projectile (disc) towards a target. Golf rules can be a primary guide but not the only one to draw from.

 

[biscoe]

Old school thinking to mimic ball golf in many areas has mentally constrained disc golf (including use of "golf" in the name) from evolving into its own "better" form of sequentially advancing a projectile (disc) towards a target.

Depends on your perspective I suppose. IMO it has given us a framework upon which we can build and many (not all) of the concepts are directly applicable.

Golf rules can be a primary guide but not the only one to draw from.

Of course- I don't recall proposing that we blindly mimic golf. I do believe that the fundamental concepts are useful both in course design and in game theory.

 

[Ryan P.]

why not have the ability to play a provisional from the tee in that scenario?

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

why not have the ability to play a provisional from the tee in that scenario?

Possibility of then having two discs to look for?

 

[Cgkdisc]

why not have the ability to play a provisional from the tee in that scenario?

You can do so under current rules to save time. If disc is lost then you use the provisional. If disc is found then you have to play the disc. If you don't want to play the disc, you have to take relief with penalty from where it landed. Or, you can abandon the throw and go back to the tee throwing your third shot. (You cannot use the provisional throw in this case.)

 

[Dcinmd]

How many times has the catch cam assisted in disc location?

It most likely falls under the same disadvantages of spectators following the upper cards.

 

[Steve West]

...It would essentially recreate the optional rethrow without an attached penalty. ...

Would that be good or bad? (Throwing two after losing the tee throw, instead of throwing three.)

 

[biscoe]

Would that be good or bad? (Throwing two after losing the tee throw, instead of throwing three.)

I think throwing 2 after the disc is legitimately lost would be an improvement. I think allowing the player to opt to throw 2 without the disc being legitimately lost is no bueno. I admittedly haven't given a lot of thought as to how to reconcile it with existing rules.

 

[stevefolfer]

I prefer the rule the way it is now, rethrow from previous lie with a penalty. But for the sake of discussion, how about a lost disc drop zone? Half way up the fairway or wherever the TD sees fit. Par 4s, maybe 2 drop zones, one for lost disc off the tee and another for other shots.

 

[Karl]

IMO it comes down to 'what are we trying to do?" If we're trying to make the game 'more fun', "soften" the lost disc penalty all you want. If we're trying to provide a challenge to players - both physical AND mental - then perhaps S&D is fine. but too much toward one of these is going to be detrimental to the other. And, to make things even more harried, if we're trying to 'simplify the wording' (ensuring that it covers all cases) it may not jibe well with either of the other two.

Ps: And don't start throwing around the word 'fair'. Using the word "fair" anywhere in a rules discussion is rife with ambiguity. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ps: And don't start throwing around the word 'fair'. Using the word "fair" anywhere in a rules discussion is rife with ambiguity. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

"Fair" is in relation to the intended goals, as you indicate, but is also in relation to penalties for other infractions.

 

[Karl]

"Fair" is in relation to the intended goals, as you indicate, but is also in relation to penalties for other infractions.

Then use 'commensurate' or 'proportionate'.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Then use 'commensurate' or 'proportionate'.

Fair comment but triggering you is more fun.

 

[biscoe]

IMO it comes down to 'what are we trying to do?" If we're trying to make the game 'more fun', "soften" the lost disc penalty all you want. If we're trying to provide a challenge to players - both physical AND mental - then perhaps S&D is fine. but too much toward one of these is going to be detrimental to the other. And, to make things even more harried, if we're trying to 'simplify the wording' (ensuring that it covers all cases) it may not jibe well with either of the other two.

Ps: And don't start throwing around the word 'fair'. Using the word "fair" anywhere in a rules discussion is rife with ambiguity. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

IMO stroke and distance for lost disc without stroke and distance for OB (or anything else) is disproportionate.