New "Free Optional Relief" clarification

[elmexdela]

I disgree.

You could land in water. Quick relief 10ft away but its still wooded.

If you walk 300ft back, clear of everything, and throw a hyzer bomb onto the green.

The difference seems a little silly to me.

Or am I not reading the rules right steve n chuck?

 

[krupicka]

What's the solution for those (if one is needed)?

Not sure a general solution is needed. A lot of it depends on the specifics of a hole. Are we talking an OB drop that is 250ft away from the pin or just 25? Is the OB part of a risk/reward scenario, not usually in play, or due to random kicks from trees, etc?

 

[JC17393]

What's the solution for those (if one is needed)?

I think the solution that would render this rule moot, at least as it pertains to OB, is better hole design in general. If one takes a lie 1 meter from where their disc last crossed an OB line and that lie is in such a terrible place that relief is warranted or desired, perhaps that OB line is in a poor place to begin with and should be changed. Or a drop zone should be used instead of allowing/requiring lies within a meter of the OB line.

Like the aforementioned creek/river bank that involves a steep or slick decline...instead of the water's edge being the line, putting the line at the top of the bank eliminates treacherous lies on the bank. Of if the edge of a creek or pond is lined with bushes or other foliage that hinder lies within a meter of the water's edge, install a drop zone that allows all players an unfettered place from which to throw their next shot.

I understand the intent and need for the rule given the state of many courses and the lack of forethought put into some designs. Just wish it wasn't needed and the standards for course/hole design and maintenance were higher instead.

 

[Steve West]

I disgree.

You could land in water. Quick relief 10ft away but its still wooded.

If you walk 300ft back, clear of everything, and throw a hyzer bomb onto the green.

The difference seems a little silly to me.

Or am I not reading the rules right steve n chuck?

I'm not sure I understand your question, or what you are disagreeing with.

However - if the water is OB - yes, there could be a situation where you went OB, the usual meter relief from where it was last in-bounds is in the woods, and you could decide to go back 300 feet out of the woods for your next lie.

 

[elmexdela]

I'm not sure I understand your question, or what you are disagreeing with.

However - if the water is OB - yes, there could be a situation where you went OB, the usual meter relief from where it was last in-bounds is in the woods, and you could decide to go back 300 feet out of the woods for your next lie.

you could have a 50 wooded tough shot, and maybe make it on the green.

or took took relief and throw a stupid 300 ft hyzerbomb and throw a tap in.

the rule is a cop out for big arms.

 

[Cgkdisc]

you could have a 50 wooded tough shot, and maybe make it on the green.

or took took relief and throw a stupid 300 ft hyzerbomb and throw a tap in.

the rule is a cop out for big arms.

It's a 2-shot penalty which is more than what's deserved for an offline shot. Also, that big arm player already threw it in the woods once so their accuracy is suspect on re-throw.

 

[elmexdela]

It's a 2-shot penalty which is more than what's deserved for an offline shot. Also, that big arm player already threw it in the woods once so their accuracy is suspect on re-throw.

I can think of some spots at BRP that would be infinetly easier with a hyzerbomb rather than the spot of OB.

I am under the impression that this isnt thought through.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I can think of some spots at BRP that would be infinetly easier with a hyzerbomb rather than the spot of OB.

I am under the impression that this isnt thought through.

This is the unfortunate punishment perspective creeping into some course designs. There's no need for any OB in the woods that an offline shot can get to unless it's the actual property boundary. The woods itself is the natural risk challenge in disc golf, just like sand traps and rough in ball golf. If a player decides they cannot execute the escape shot, why shouldn't they be able to return to the previous lie/tee only counting the original throw? That's already a 1-shot penalty since they're back on the tee again throwing their next shot. Why tack on additional punishment with a penalty IN the woods before having the option to re-throw from previous lie? Scoring separation in the game of golf has been designed to come from failing challenges, not from penalties.

 

[elmexdela]

This is the unfortunate punishment perspective creeping into some course designs. There's no need for any OB in the woods that an offline shot can get to unless it's the actual property boundary. The woods itself is the natural risk challenge in disc golf, just like sand traps and rough in ball golf. If a player decides they cannot execute the escape shot, why shouldn't they be able to return to the previous lie/tee only counting the original throw? That's already a 1-shot penalty since they're back on the tee again throwing their next shot. Why tack on additional punishment with a penalty IN the woods before having the option to re-throw from previous lie? Scoring separation in the game of golf has been designed to come from failing challenges, not from penalties.

Has anyone ever told you that you are rigid in your thought process?

 

[Steve West]

I can think of some spots at BRP that would be infinetly easier with a hyzerbomb rather than the spot of OB.

I am under the impression that this isnt thought through.

Even if this rule wasn't explicit, a player could very nearly make the case that they can do it anyway under

801.02 Enforcement
…
H. A throw or an action that is subject to penalty under more than one rule is played
under the rule that results in the most penalty throws; or, among rules that call
for an equal number of penalty throws, the rule that was first violated.

This rule is in (or at least near) the spirit of only getting a penalty throw from one rule for any throw.

Is anyone going to throw it OB on purpose to get to that hyzerbomb? If not, I don't think the rule will break the game.

Adding distance from the target doesn't just make you throw harder, it also widens the spray pattern of whatever throw you make. It would have to be a nearly impossible place to escape from before it would make sense to want to be farther from the target.

If going back for the hyzerbomb is such an advantage, why haven't players been doing it at the cost of a penalty throw already?

Also, as Chuck said, the fix is to take away the OB in those spots so no one gets free optional relief.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Has anyone ever told you that you are rigid in your thought process?

I'm one of the least rigid around trying to create new and fair challenges for players. Punishment elements show lack of design creativity and adhering to old school ideas, AND more importantly, are NOT fun for players, especially those that involve losing a disc.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I can think of some spots at BRP that would be infinetly easier with a hyzerbomb rather than the spot of OB.

I am under the impression that this isnt thought through.

USGA Rules of Golf:

Rule 26-1

b.
Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

This isn't a rule they just pulled out of thin air.

 

[elmexdela]

This isn't a rule they just pulled out of thin air.

What nerve was damaged with you today? Chill out brutal. Place your anger elsewhere.

 

[brutalbrutus]

So making a completely normal statement is now anger?...

 

[elmexdela]

So making a completely normal statement is now anger?...

Just pointing something out. Examine it if you want or discard it.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Just pointing something out. Examine it if you want or discard it.

It's not like I was chasing you into this thread just to argue, I would have pointed that out to whomever made that statement. This is a rule that has been used in ball golf for a long time. People have preferences on which club/disc and/or distance they would like for an approach shot. This rule gives all players the option to choose which distance they feel comfortable with.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Jordan Spieth's blowup at the Masters last year on no12 is a great example of this. He hits into the creek off the tee and instead of taking his drop near the creek, he decides to take it back to a full shot with a lob wedge instead of a making a chip shot. In that instance he is doing it so that he can get more spin on the ball and have a better chance to keep it near the hole. But, he shanks his shot into the creek. Then another into a bunker and winds up taking a quad-bogey. So, its not a given that even taking your preferred distance actually gives you an advantage.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Jordan Spieth's blowup at the Masters last year on no12 is a great example of this. He hits into the creek off the tee and instead of taking his drop near the creek, he decides to take it back to a full shot with a lob wedge instead of a making a chip shot. In that instance he is doing it so that he can get more spin on the ball and have a better chance to keep it near the hole. But, he shanks his shot into the creek. Then another into a bunker and winds up taking a quad-bogey. So, its not a given that even taking your preferred distance actually gives you an advantage.

Along this same line, players who miss the island green on Hole 17 at Sawgrass typically play from the tee again instead of moving forward to the drop zone... and a few miss a second time.

 

[_MTL_]

There's no need for any OB in the woods that an offline shot can get to unless it's the actual property boundary. The woods itself is the natural risk challenge in disc golf, just like sand traps and rough in ball golf. If a player decides they cannot execute the escape shot, why shouldn't they be able to return to the previous lie/tee only counting the original throw? That's already a 1-shot penalty since they're back on the tee again throwing their next shot. Why tack on additional punishment with a penalty IN the woods before having the option to re-throw from previous lie? Scoring separation in the game of golf has been designed to come from failing challenges, not from penalties.

This.

I agree 1000000000000000000% with this.

And in the situations of boundaries deep in the woods, a drop zone should be provided.

A bad shot should get a penalty OR have a bad lie. Not both. Sometimes both will happen and sometimes neither will happen - there's no way to blanket cover all shots.

As I say when people ask me about how to run a good tournament, "control the uncontrollables." You can't control where someone throws but you can control the ruling of the lie they have (to a certain extent).

 

[dysmike]

So making a completely normal statement is now anger?...

Only when someone disagrees with it :\