Out of bounds question

[Cgkdisc]

You mean something like using line of play relief from the disc's location? I could see that working for some situations, but not as universally as the previous lie or a drop zone.

I've talked with Steve about this option a few times. I'm now thinking that rather than adding this as another default player choice for OB or even casual areas, I think it may work better only as an option the TD is allowed to declare for a specific OB or casual area where the normal options are either not feasible or too punitive. The new Hazard option where a player plays from where they landed in an OB area is similar to this "play from the closest point IB" idea.

 

[Karl]

I'm not crazy about the 'play from the closest point IB' thing. Scenario: OB all the way down the right side of a 900' par-5 and a big tree situated 200' down the left center in the fairway. Most players try to throw under the canopy or a roller...realizing that if their huge hyzer doesn't come back, they're throwing 3 from 12' in front of the tee box. If "pfcpib", then big arms - at worst - will be throwing 3 from 450' out. If you want OB, then give it some teeth; if you want something a little less severe, call it something other than OB (lateral hazard, etc.).

 

[Cgkdisc]

No one wants to take even a single penalty throw. So concern about players getting some advantage playing from farther down the fairway including a penalty seems unwarranted. That bad shot will still spread scores. My objection to using that approach in this case would simply be the inelegance of the hole design where making that play was more desirable than playing the fairway, maybe because the terrain in the landing area was so nasty that you might lose your disc, play from a blocked lie, contact poison ivy or end up in prickers.

 

[Karl]

No one wants to take even a single penalty throw. So concern about players getting some advantage playing from farther down the fairway including a penalty seems unwarranted. That bad shot will still spread scores.

Not unwarranted at all...very relevant in fact. If there is that scenario in place, players would definitely 'go for it' moreso...and I believe OB is supposed to be a deterrent.
Ps: And 'scoring spread' is not the end all (even though YOU may think it is).

 

[krupicka]

There are a number of cases where we do want to discourage people from choosing to throw over OB (especially when it is over property that is owned by someone else), but players do anyway because they see the reward is greater than the risk. Imagine how much more they will do that if the cost of that risk is less. I'm with Karl here.

The other thing to keep in mind here is we are often dealing with the course/property available. We do not have the luxury of the budgets/authority to make sure every hole is as elegant in design to fit your (or our) ideal.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not unwarranted at all...very relevant in fact. If there is that scenario in place, players would definitely 'go for it' moreso...and I believe OB is supposed to be a deterrent.
Ps: And 'scoring spread' is not the end all (even though YOU may think it is).

I don't have a problem with players going for any appropriate route, especially when it risks a potential penalty of some sort. However, I object from a design, aesthetic and possible safety standpoint in this case when that preferred throw for some players goes over an OB fence that might define the edge of the course or completely outside the property. Allowing this new forward marking option selectively for TDs would really be little different from a current OB area located only near the desired landing area. No one thinks it's a problem if a player crushes 400, lands in the OB and marks down there with a 1-throw penalty. Essentially the same lie and score as the fence scenario. And BTW, we essentially have already let the horse out of the barn with the new hazard option that's been used at USDGC for a few years where the player plays from where they land in OB.

 

[JoakimBL]

We don't need that many different options. A lot of players are confused as it is with the current OB possibilities. And players accustomed to ball golf already find our use of the term OB confusing and/or not punitive enough. Just because the cat is out of the bag, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and catch it and put it in the bag again.

 

[JC17393]

There are a number of cases where we do want to discourage people from choosing to throw over OB (especially when it is over property that is owned by someone else), but players do anyway because they see the reward is greater than the risk. Imagine how much more they will do that if the cost of that risk is less. I'm with Karl here.

The other thing to keep in mind here is we are often dealing with the course/property available. We do not have the luxury of the budgets/authority to make sure every hole is as elegant in design to fit your (or our) ideal.

If the goal in making something OB is to discourage people from throwing over it (particularly if it's private property), then perhaps it should be combined with a mandatory to doubly ensure the property line isn't breached, or breached as often. That really goes for the way the rules are currently written and any potential alterations and changes of one's options.

As for our limitations, I disagree. I think we design with the current rules in mind. If some rules changed, how we design would change as well. Frankly, I think there's too much reliance on OB as a design element that is used to mask flaws or justify otherwise poor or boring design. Maybe we need to be more judicious about where we put our courses. If the property available won't yield a good design, maybe the course shouldn't be installed at all.

 

[coupe]

Frankly, I think there's too much reliance on OB as a design element that is used to mask flaws or justify otherwise poor or boring design. Maybe we need to be more judicious about where we put our courses. If the property available won't yield a good design, maybe the course shouldn't be installed at all.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I don't have a problem with players going for any appropriate route, especially when it risks a potential penalty of some sort. However, I object from a design, aesthetic and possible safety standpoint in this case when that preferred throw for some players goes over an OB fence that might define the edge of the course or completely outside the property. Allowing this new forward marking option selectively for TDs would really be little different from a current OB area located only near the desired landing area. No one thinks it's a problem if a player crushes 400, lands in the OB and marks down there with a 1-throw penalty. Essentially the same lie and score as the fence scenario. And BTW, we essentially have already let the horse out of the barn with the new hazard option that's been used at USDGC for a few years where the player plays from where they land in OB.

So are we talking about trespassing or good course design?

Most OB ive seen and played appears gimmicky. Unless of course outlining boundries of the entire plot of land or where your disc is basically lost upon landing in said area.