The Case For and Against Stand-And-Deliver

[Halcón]

No. In reality, we'd ignore the new rule, since people are largely ignoring the existing one.

There's more truth to this than I care to admit.

 

[Brodysseus]

I wouldn't deprive yourself of such. There's a whole lot more competitive golf that wouldn't have to abide by it than would if it was.

True. Let me correct myself:

I would never play another competitive disc golf round, where this particular rule was enforced, ever again.

 

[Brodysseus]

No, it's more because the PDGA sucks and funsuck rulebook nazis predominate the tourney scene.

Truth.

 

[DavidSauls]

No, it's more because the PDGA sucks and funsuck rulebook nazis predominate the tourney scene.

Strangely, an ever-increasing number of people play PDGA events and seem to have fun, at least enough to keep coming back. As they do in other sports that play by rules. People are hard to figure sometimes.

 

[jeverett]

Strangely, an ever-increasing number of people play PDGA events and seem to have fun, at least enough to keep coming back. As they do in other sports that play by rules. People are hard to figure sometimes.

I'm curious, though, if it's just certain 'types' of people. Switching over to game design (and video games) again, there's actually been some really good research on what specific game activities motivate specific individuals to 'play'.

To throw out a quick definition, when we 'play' [anything], we "agree to voluntarily limit ourselves, for some benefit". By extension, a 'game' then is "play that we can (have the possibility to) lose".

So if we're 'playing' disc golf, and thus agreeing to limit ourselves, we do it with an expectation of some benefit. These particular 'benefits' have been suggested to fall into four general categories. We 'agree' to 'play' in order to..

1. Achieve - There's a huge volume of research on the (chemical) cognitive feedback humans get from achieving what they set out to achieve (i.e. goal-directed behavior). Quite literally, success 'feels' good. So often when we agree to 'play', we do it to see what we are capable of, and to set (and reach) goals.

2. Explore - Because (hopefully) the 'rules' that we're agreeing to follow allow us to "think, act, and value" in unique (to the activity) and shared (across all activity participants) ways, often we agree to 'play' because in doing so we are able to intellectually explore the nuances of the unique 'game' environment we've created for ourselves.

3. Socialize - Often when we agree to 'play', we do it because it gives us a shared experience; it gives us something to talk about, a way to relate to other activity participants, and to guide the social interaction (e.g. makes it less stressful).

4. Compete - Often when we agree to 'play', we do it to provide a 'fair' environment in which to evaluate ourselves (against the objectives of the activity, and the performance of other activity participants).

Everyone has at least a little of all of these (i.e. they're all 'motivating'), but the research suggests that each individual is more motivated by some than others. So my guess, then, is that individuals who would suggest tourneys are dominated by "funsuck rulebook nazis" probably aren't especially motivated by competition anyway (e.g. they're probably not engaging in other kinds of 'play' competitively either).

Edit: if anyone wants references/citations for the above wall-o-text, I'd be happy to provide them.

 

[Dave242]

Possibly the most interesting post I have read on dgcr.

 

[Halcón]

Jeverett, you should make a thread about that post. I am definitely in the "achieve" group.

 

[jeverett]

Jeverett, you should make a thread about that post. I am definitely in the "achieve" group.

Hi Dave242 and BigSky,

I've been meaning to.. I have a few posts (mostly on course design) around here where I delve into (mostly video) game design theory, but I haven't actually created a thread on the topic before. Sometimes I just get blank looks when I spout off game design theory though, so it's hard to know how it will be received.

Where I was going with the topic, though, and kind of trailed off, was the possibility that the PDGA maybe could work on their approach toward motivating (and enticing) Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers (i.e. 'players' that maybe aren't as motivated by competition anyway).

 

[Halcón]

It's very interesting jeverett. What's that saying? There are two kinds of people in this world...those who categorize people into two groups, and those who don't.

I think the thread would be well received. I'd like to find out how other members see themselves.

 

[scarpfish]

Where I was going with the topic, though, and kind of trailed off, was the possibility that the PDGA maybe could work on their approach toward motivating (and enticing) Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers (i.e. 'players' that maybe aren't as motivated by competition anyway).

Ehh, as someone who's likely in the "Explorer" category, I'd just as soon the PDGA stick to what they do best.

 

[The Hammer]

I guarantee you would see a jump in ratings for top pros if this ever became a reality. This change would be an easy adjustments for most of the open division, but would likely have a bigger impact on the AM fields. At least in the short term, anyway.

 

[Dave242]

I've been meaning to.. I have a few posts (mostly on course design) around here where I delve into (mostly video) game design theory, but I haven't actually created a thread on the topic before. Sometimes I just get blank looks when I spout off game design theory though, so it's hard to know how it will be received.

Where I was going with the topic, though, and kind of trailed off, was the possibility that the PDGA maybe could work on their approach toward motivating (and enticing) Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers (i.e. 'players' that maybe aren't as motivated by competition anyway).

I'd be more of a reader/listener as I know very little about gaming. But, I think the theory and philosophy is right up my alley. Do it...

Theory/philosophy/design is not an area of huge interest here.... I'm used to the blank stares.

 

[harr0140]

S&D sets the game back because it encourages par 3's to be designed. No one wants to have a 300 to 400 foot shot after a great drive with they can't run up. This also, in my mind, increases the chances of injuries.

And I've said this a million times...

If the only reason people think S&D is a good idea because it will limit foot faults, that is the worst reason ever!! You know what causes players traveling in basketball? Not dribbling. Guess we should eliminate dribbling!

CALL THE FOOT FAULT.

I agree . . . I just don't think we will overcome the stigma of calling penalties. In golf a penalty is easy to see by everyone including the player (usually), but in disc golf it is not easy to see by the person committing the penalty because they are moving quickly and following through plus we need seconds to ensure noone is getting a raw deal.

I have seen some video footage where there looks like intent to commit an infraction before though and I wonder if some of that isn't to gain a competitive advantage (albeit unfair and against the rules). I personally am sure I have committed infractions unknowingly but I always make sure I try to plant in the right spot. Other people make sure they plant where they feel they can get away with the infraction.

Honestly I still can't believe people think they can put their foot completely on the side of the disc . . . I always say straight line between your foot (or supporting point) and the pole . . . no questions about it.

 

[sidewinder22]

I guarantee you would see a jump in ratings for top pros if this ever became a reality. This change would be an easy adjustments for most of the open division, but would likely have a bigger impact on the AM fields. At least in the short term, anyway.

Thats kind of what I was alluding to earlier. Bye bye torque monkeys that can throw 400' with run and maybe 200' from standing. The am divisions would about disappear, and probably the donators in open. I don't think that would be growing the sport, but fracturing it.

 

[tampora]

Living in North Dakota, I play in knee-deep snow just as often as I get to play on grass. During these snowy times, I have to S&D on nearly every shot, unless we move a teebox to a plowed path. My back usually aches after the S&D rounds, but not when I get to use an x-step in the summer. Worst of all is the feeling of not getting to use all the tricks in my bag.

I enjoy doing run-ups. Around here, many of the courses seem to have teepads build for 4-foot tall oompa-loompas (uncomfortably short). In these places, the fairway is the only real chance I get to have a full run-up. I'd hate to be forced to do all my run-ups on the standard teepad size.

It also seems very rare that the back of the short teepad is even and flush with the ground behind it, forcing you to have to 'climb stairs' during your x-step if you want a full run-up on a drive.

I agree that any split-second determination will be a cause for dispute. This includes jump/walking-putts. Thus, we should consider changes to the rules which minimize the room for error and maximizes the amount of time a legal-determination can be made. S&D is a solution along these lines. However, it has to be done in a way that minimally changes the game for people; otherwise, you're not really playing the same game anymore. The proposed change would be drastic to many players.

My idea was a rule that said:
While the disc is in contact with the thrower, all supporting points must be behind the disc (but not necessarily on the line of play). At all times the disc is in motion and not in contact with the thrower, at least one supporting point must be in contact with the line of play within 30cm behind the disc/marker.

 

[Halcón]

Thats kind of what I was alluding to earlier. Bye bye torque monkeys that can throw 400' with run and maybe 200' from standing. The am divisions would about disappear, and probably the donators in open. I don't think that would be growing the sport, but fracturing it.

I think you're underestimating the ability of players to adapt. The effects, even short term, would be minimal.

 

[sidewinder22]

I think you're underestimating the ability of players to adapt. The effects, even short term, would be minimal.

It ain't got nothing to do with ability.

 

[Halcón]

It ain't got nothing to do with ability.

Then what, willingness?

 

[sidewinder22]

Then what, willingness?

Yep.

 

[Halcón]

Yep.

I may be way off, I truly don't believe it would be that big of a deal. We'll never find out though, because S&D is not the answer.