2017 USDGC

[DiscJunkie]

Obviously, I can't speak for MTL, but for me, aesthetics and personal preference are a part of it.
While I deeply respect Harold, and he has a right to put that Drop Zone anywhere he pleases,
throwing through the lattice support seems gimmcky.
Although I heartily agree with MTL on avoiding a double penalty by having an excessively difficult Drop Zone,
for me, it's not all about the difficulty, it's the artificial gimmick of having to shoot through the lattice or through a tree or around a tree.
DG is tough enough for most of us without making us face that.
Not trying to convince anyone, just explain my deeply held opinion.

 

[JC17393]

Obviously, I can't speak for MTL, but for me, aesthetics and personal preference are a part of it.
While I deeply respect Harold, and he has a right to put that Drop Zone anywhere he pleases,
throwing through the lattice support seems gimmcky.
Although I heartily agree with MTL on avoiding a double penalty by having an excessively difficult Drop Zone,
for me, it's not all about the difficulty, it's the artificial gimmick of having to shoot through the lattice or through a tree or around a tree.
DG is tough enough for most of us without making us face that.
Not trying to convince anyone, just explain my deeply held opinion.

But this course isn't about "most of us". It's about challenging the best of the best. And, as evidenced by Tom, who watched every single throw made on the hole this year, the drop zone was not "excessively difficult". It just wasn't straight-forward and simple.

As for the aesthetic of the support, I don't think it's any more of a "gimmick" than the bamboo wall, the triple mando, the elevated baskets. In other words, it fits the aesthetic of the course just fine.

 

[biscoe]

I have 100% faith in the fact that Harold and co. thought out the drop zone thoroughly before using it and that it was an appropriate golf test for the players involved. It was however the first time i have ever looked at imagery from Winthrop and thought to myself "man, that's ugly."

 

[JTacoma03]

I hear y'all. Like I said - it wasn't my favorite adjustment to the course either. I thought it was unnecessarily close to the support structure, and it made for more awkward camera angles as well. I just can't see the "double penalty" argument as holding water, especially considering it's a pretty easy Par 4 we're talking about.

 

[Lazerface]

Drop zones are tricky. Can't be too hard or too easy.

 

[lyleoross]

Correct. The root of the issue is a poor throw from the player.

However the one thing a designer can't control is what the players will do or attempt to do. They can control what happens after the disc is released and stops, however.

And in this example, the staff decided that an OB Throw would force a player into this lie. It is my strong opinion that a drop zone after a penalty shouldn't be guarded as the penalty for a bad shot should either be a tough / tricky upshot or a penalty. Unfortunately, this design is both.

I have zero issues with someone throwing to this exact spot and having this lie - and that's the difference that people are ignoring.

Devils advocate question. Does it ever happen that a player throws ob and ends up with a guarded shot because of that throw? My view of Harold is that he uses artificial tools to create such situations. If you get there on most holes, its random in the sense that you couldnt see it coming. This situation changes that dynamic. You know whst the consequence for that errant throw is going to be. That changes the risk reward dynamic and should change a players approach/thinking pattern.

I suspect it doesn't, yet. But it will.

Disagreeing with that approach is something I understand, but part of the reason I like Harold' s work is that he thinks this way.

 

[_MTL_]

Devils advocate question. Does it ever happen that a player throws ob and ends up with a guarded shot because of that throw?

Fair question and the answer is of course. However this is the exact reason the OB on the LOP drop change is happening for next year; to avoid that scenario when possible.

 

[Harold Duvall]

Our primary goal with the drop zone on 9 was to provide a fair, but challenging, chance to save par. The drop zone is actually lenient in many situations considering the shape of the fairway. "Last in bounds" would have been much farther back near the tee for many types of OB drives.

The secondary goal was to create interest. Andrew and I thought that the look was cool and provided the players an opportunity to express their creativity, but we knew that many people would prefer something more natural. I can certainly understand this. Aesthetics are certainly part of the emotional engagement in disc golf. In this case, the choice was "interest" over "nature" but not at the expense of fairness.

~ Harold

 

[BionicRib]

Hey Harold. How do the new rule changes in the rulebook affect your approach to next years usdgc course design?

 

[Harold Duvall]

Hey Harold. How do the new rule changes in the rulebook affect your approach to next years usdgc course design?

Which rules were you thinking about?

It is nice to see Hazard as an official rule so that we do not have to ask for an exemption.

The Optional Relief will potentially help some of the players avoid rope entanglements after landing OB.

I think the biggest impact won't be in design but in rules enforcement. There are quite a few full-power fairway throws at Winthrop Gold, and these throws are being watched by an ever-increasing number of spectators in person and on-line. The larger audience brings increased scrutiny, which, combined with the elimination of the warning for stance violations, creates more importance on proper foot placement. My hope is that the competitors practice their technique in the off-season and fully internalize their "Duty to The Field."

~ Harold

 

[Harold Duvall]

I had a chance to consider the question a bit more. Treebeard would have been disappointed with my hasty response. I still believe the biggest impact of the 2018 rules will be in enforcement, but they may affect our approach to the USDGC course design too.

The new Optional Relief may impact the drop zone on 9. I will have to see where the line of play goes behind the drop zone pad we provided. There's a similar consideration for the tee pad of 17. I don't think there's an advantage to moving back off the pad, but I will have to check. All of these could be solved with OB behind the pads to prevent an illegal stance there, but I would hate to go that route.

The optional relief may also present a benefit to players near the shoreline. The area within a meter of the shoreline has some tricky footing, and the optional relief will allow players to obtain better footing in many cases.

806.02 D 5 (likened by others to golf's lateral hazard rule) provides the designer with a tool to maximize the distance benefit players receive from an OB throw. This would be counterproductive for the risk reward balance and emotional engagement on the the approach on hole 13, but it may present an opportunity to increase interest on Hole 5. The dock is a picturesque teeing area that greatly reduces the interaction with the traffic congestion that the old tee posed, but the added distance and the carry over the water has taken away the risk/reward eagle opportunity that the old tee offered. If the players could receive the full measure of distance on their OB tee shots, this may tip the risk/reward scale for the long throwers to attempt to play an aggressive anhyzer drive in an attempt for eagle.

If we opted for 806.02 D5 on hole 5, we would need to limit it to the drive. The rule would take away a lot of the risk gamble across the water if OB approaches could be marked on the shore near the target. Designer's also need to consider the impact their choices have on officials and spotters. The difficulty of determining the position of a disc in water may present undue stress on the spotters and controversy amongst the competitors. Not sure. We will have to do some testing before we adopt 806.02 D5.

~ Harold

 

[ScottyLove]

And the players simply need to call what they see. Philo had a stance violation every round on hole #1. He had his right foot off the pad in contact with the ground when he threw his forehand. I was watching assuming he'd lift it, but never did.

Sure, it's hard to call a guy out on the first pad, but it was plain to see and a clear violation.

 

[Nick Pacific]

I love the fact that this course is constantly manipulated and it seems to cause a stir among the players. I say get in their heads and work them. Throw them curveballs. Let the mentally tough and those who can roll with the changes rise to the top.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Harold, I do like that you have been using different basket locations, for different rounds, on some holes. I think this should be done more often for single course formats.

 

[Steve West]

...
Sure, it's hard to call a guy out on the first pad, but it was plain to see and a clear violation.

I've found that's the easiest time to make the call. It gets harder every time you let it slide.

 

[PoorPutter]

And the players simply need to call what they see. Philo had a stance violation every round on hole #1. He had his right foot off the pad in contact with the ground when he threw his forehand. I was watching assuming he'd lift it, but never did.

I reckon the majority of entrants at USDGC don't know that's a stance violation.

(Same with the mando being the "target" for determining line-of-play. Like on #7, for instance.)

But it's odd no officials at #1 called Philo. Are tournament officials not allowed to make calls?

 

[JC17393]

There's only video of Philo on the final round, and of course, it's framed in a way that you can't really see his feet well and then it cuts away to the catch camera showing the flight of the disc. What I could see on the video is his back (right) foot does kick up in the air after he releases. Whether he got the foot up before release or not is impossible to tell from the video.

I have a hard time believing players don't know that they can't have a foot on the ground off the pad at release, at least at that level. That said, it is a violation I've had to call on numerous players over the years, though mostly it has been amateurs who really didn't know better.

As for tournament officials, the sad truth is that they are actually discouraged from actively making calls (even though the rules clearly entitle them to do so). Their purpose is suppose to be as an aide in clarifying a call if necessary but otherwise leaving the decision-making and calling of violations to the group. So even if there were officials nearby who saw something, they may have bitten their tongue waiting for the group to say something about it.

 

[_MTL_]

As for tournament officials, the sad truth is that they are actually discouraged from actively making calls (even though the rules clearly entitle them to do so). Their purpose is suppose to be as an aide in clarifying a call if necessary but otherwise leaving the decision-making and calling of violations to the group. So even if there were officials nearby who saw something, they may have bitten their tongue waiting for the group to say something about it.

This is correct.

When we Marshal, we are asked not to actively make calls rather allow groups to make the calls. As a Marshal, I've absolutely seconded calls by players I agreed with when necessary, and when asked to make a call by a player. I've also stepped in four times at world championships and made calls a player was not making.

There was the infamous Dr. Rick Foot Fault incident, which is discussed here starting with post 585 (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104924&page=59), I've called a guy for a dress code violation when he was wearing an unbuttoned button up shirt, and two players for courtesy violations - once for slapping chains of a basket twice and the other on Nikko for dropping a very loud F bomb.

The reason officials are not asked to make minor calls, beyond we want to encourage players to make the calls themselves, is officials aren't with every group and it's unfair for a group to have an official scrutinizing one group but not the others within the event. You rarely see Marshals with groups for an entire round except in the case of finals where there are no other groups within that division competing.

 

[Steve West]

I reckon the majority of entrants at USDGC don't know that's a stance violation.

(Same with the mando being the "target" for determining line-of-play. Like on #7, for instance.)

But it's odd no officials at #1 called Philo. Are tournament officials not allowed to make calls?

All the players that missed mandos on the videos seemed to know.