Buncr Talk

[araytx]

I'm coming around a little. However, if there was a forced LOP area, it would need to be designated as such by the TD. So, it presumably would always have a safe lie all around it. Because TDs are perfect and can foresee everything.


(A very little, I guess.)


On the other hand, I don't see anything precious about LOP itself. If I threw a disc over a spot, why should I not get that spot for cases when the disc keeps on going to another spot where I can't play from?


Other types of relief besides LOP make more sense in other contexts. Like lateral relief from a stream running down the fairway. However, last point on the playing surface is the only one that can work in all situations.


LOP casual relief can result in unrelievable cases the TD couldn't have foreseen. A puddle by a fence, for example.


If I were to start fresh, I would use the last point on the playing surface as the mark for all situations where the player may move the lie. In some areas there would be a penalty. Others not. From some areas the player could choose to move the lie, others not.

Steve, I am going to give you an example from real life where "forced" or "required" relief, free of penalty comes into play. Since you guys's conversation is suddenly confusing me, I am going to let you guys decide which position I am on.

Over the years the Veteran's Park Open (the one in Arlington, TX, where I do the rules sheets & caddy books) has many places where the city has added some benches for park walkers, and each one has a specific "mini-memorial" to different military vets. We obviously do not want players in those areas, and a three of them are on one of the signature holes -- but not in a place where we'd add additional OB. We've found it easier to just designate one "free relief drop zone" for each area, if you end up in the mini-memorial or int he paved area with the benches, etc. The DZ's might be better, worse, indifferent, changing, etc the direction your disc was headed, but to us it is just simpler -- and allows us to continue to honor the meaning of the park.

There you go.

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are two important disc golf factors for using DZ and LOP as the primary for relocating your lie without penalty. First, LPI (last point IB) is many times hard to determine whereas DZ and LOP are clear. Second, disc golf is about shaping your flight around vertical obstacles. DZ positioning can provide vertical obstacle challenges for the next throw (see diagram) and LOP continues to approximate the visual obstacle pattern in front of your location as you move back. (more analogous to play it where it lies)

Suggesting a new name for buncr, hopefully more acceptable: SETBACK (or STEPBACK). In the attached diagram, if the TD added Drop Zones A & B, the player landing in either Setback would go to its DZ. If TD did not provide either DZ, then LOP relief back to the edge of the Setback would be taken. Ah, but in the case of the left Setback up against the OB line, the red&white disc landed where moving back on the LOP ends up in OB.

Suggesting a new backup option for these situations that I don't think has been used in the rules. The player would mark back inbounds at the DDZ, (Default Drop Zone), defined as the farthest point from the target along the Setback boundary that's inbounds. This priority sequence of marking options also works well for casual relief: DZ, LOP, DDZ to solve the "no place to mark your lie on LOP while retaining the idea of moving back from the basket without penalty.

Designers can use these two versions of the Setback to solve two problems we see on open courses. The fairway Setback like the one on the left in the diagram, up against OB or more likely with no OB, uses a drop zone to place the player in a position where they have to throw a more challenging route around at least one vertical obstacle and probably from a longer distance than an open throw from their position in the Setback. Note that in this example, Drop Zone A could also be used when going OB off the tee.

The greenside Setback would typically be on one side of the pin, maybe kidney shaped, with the idea that the player will have to make a longer putt with LOP relief to retain the angle they earned with their upshot to the pin. Drop zone would typically not be needed or used. This type of Setback would emulate the slope on a ball golf green that the golfer tries to avoid so their ball does not roll away from the pin, making their putt much tougher.

 

[Steve West]

Steve, I am going to give you an example from real life where "forced" or "required" relief, free of penalty comes into play. Since you guys's conversation is suddenly confusing me, I am going to let you guys decide which position I am on.

Over the years the Veteran's Park Open (the one in Arlington, TX, where I do the rules sheets & caddy books) has many places where the city has added some benches for park walkers, and each one has a specific "mini-memorial" to different military vets. We obviously do not want players in those areas, and a three of them are on one of the signature holes -- but not in a place where we'd add additional OB. We've found it easier to just designate one "free relief drop zone" for each area, if you end up in the mini-memorial or int he paved area with the benches, etc. The DZ's might be better, worse, indifferent, changing, etc the direction your disc was headed, but to us it is just simpler -- and allows us to continue to honor the meaning of the park.

There you go.

That falls under the current rule for Relief Area (no-penalty OB).

 

[Steve West]

... to retain the angle they earned with their upshot to the pin. ...

I've never heard anyone use that phrase.

Did they actually earn that angle if they threw into an area they can't play from?

How is any of your example different enough from the current rule to make a change worthwhile? Mark where the different lies would be and there is hardly a fraction of a throw's worth of difference.

What is the origin of LOP? Why is that more true to "play it as it lies" than "play it where it was last good"?

'Go back to where you were at some point' seems more natural than 'Pick it up and move directly away from the target'.

Or at least not enough less natural to warrant a secondary set of instructions on what to do next when there is nowhere along the imaginary line.

 

[teemkey]

In honor of Douglas Adams, call it a SEP.

 

[Rastnav]

Here is an example of a way it could be used. (that I think is more true to @Cgkdisc 's original intention?)

Hole #3 at the 2019 USDGC had a hazard area that was just behind the pin on the right hand side. If it were a mandatory line of play relief area and you hit into that bunker you'd have a more difficult putt, but still have a chance to save your score.

As a hazard, it just discourages aggressive upshots or putts. As mandatory line of play relief, it would allow more aggression as long as you feel you can hit that much longer putt.

So it's a different tool in the course designer toolkit that allows for different player incentives.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What is the origin of LOP? Why is that more true to "play it as it lies" than "play it where it was last good"?

'Go back to where you were at some point' seems more natural than 'Pick it up and move directly away from the target'.

In disc golf, when not putting, you throw generally toward the basket or to a position where you think you'll have the best position for making your next shot. Presumably you're planning to have a good visual position for your next shot or putt towards the basket. With a mediocre or weak throw, your visual may be worse. Vertical obstacles along with wind speed/direction, elevation and distance are the mix of challenges we face on each throw.

Being "penalized" for landing in a defined area, with the first possibility being forced to relocate to a more challenging lie (DZ) without penalty, makes sense should the TD prefer that requirement because a well placed DZ location can increase any one or more of the challenges listed above without directly adding a penalty stroke to a player's score. Second, without DZ, moving back on the LOP retains close to the same visual scene in terms of obstacle positions and wind as the disc's initial landing position in the Setback, making it feel to the player like they are playing their lie with the same challenges in front of them but at a longer distance. The DDZ is simply the backup relocation alternative that retains the concept of moving back, still without penalty, when the TD did not realize they needed a drop zone because LOP relief for some or all lies in the Setback would end up in an unplayable/OB area.

From a historical rules standpoint, free casual relief used to be allowed up to 5 meters sideways to the edge of the casual relief area but no closer to the basket. However, it was changed to moving back on the line of play up to 5 meters for the very reason that moving sideways might make the pattern of vertical obstacles in front of you less challenging and easier to play.

Now if you're getting a stroke penalty, no need to compound it by tacking on a distance penalty right off the bat. For OB, relocating to the nearest point inbounds could be changed to the default option, assuming the player retrieved, or the group can see the players's disc and no DZ was provided. If that IB position is blocked for some reason such as foliage, the player can then choose to move back on the line of play, or along the OB line sideways or diagonally farther from the pin to a suitable lie if necessary. Of course, previous lie is always the backup option. The player has already taken a penalty and should be allowed to move to a suitable lie including adding more distance at their choice.

 

[cheesethin]

Here is an example of a way it could be used. (that I think is more true to @Cgkdisc 's original intention?)

Hole #3 at the 2019 USDGC had a hazard area that was just behind the pin on the right hand side. If it were a mandatory line of play relief area and you hit into that bunker you'd have a more difficult putt, but still have a chance to save your score.

As a hazard, it just discourages aggressive upshots or putts. As mandatory line of play relief, it would allow more aggression as long as you feel you can hit that much longer putt.

So it's a different tool in the course designer toolkit that allows for different player incentives.

To my mind, this use case is the worth of forced LOP relief.

From a design perspective, the potential value of Forced LOP Relief Areas, is it allows a form of penalty other than a stroke penalty. It gives a distance penalty - which by its nature is more variable and graded(?).

I like Rastnav's example above over a Hazard Area. But saying all of this, my thoughts are largely theoretical/intellectual in basis - I haven't played enough on courses with these features.

 

[cheesethin]

.. Why is that {LOP} more true to "play it as it lies" than "play it where it was last good"?

I would say it is not important whether either is more true to, or more representative of, play it as it lies. They are just slightly different ways to move the lie. And result in potentially different 'punishments' or challenges for the player in terms of distance, angle etc - and therefore each has their own value as a design element.

 

[cheesethin]

If I were to start fresh, I would use the last point on the playing surface as the mark for all situations where the player may move the lie. In some areas there would be a penalty. Others not. From some areas the player could choose to move the lie, others not.

That's an interesting thought. Which rules would that change/impact? Is it just the casual water/area rule? That would solve the problem of casual water next to OB with no available relief along LOP.

 

[Steve West]

I would say it is not important whether either is more true to, or more representative of, play it as it lies. They are just slightly different ways to move the lie. And result in potentially different 'punishments' or challenges for the player in terms of distance, angle etc - and therefore each has their own value as a design element.

My point is that "it is not important" and "just slightly different". So why bother with a rule that can sometimes break? Especially when DZ is available to some of the design things LOP would.

That's an interesting thought. Which rules would that change/impact? Is it just the casual water/area rule? That would solve the problem of casual water next to OB with no available relief along LOP.

I think just casual water/area.

(Unfortunately, it would still allow that most unholy of abominations - the Hazard. But, I can live with that sin being on the TD's heads.)

 

[Cgkdisc]

Of the various lie relocation options, Last Point Inbounds may be less reliable and potentially less fair since it relies on the player and group making a depth perception judgment while the disc is moving. Watching for missing a mando may even be easier. But LPI can be useful when better relocation options can't be used, i.e., when the disc cannot be seen or its position cannot be determined (lost).

 

[Rastnav]

I would say it is not important whether either is more true to, or more representative of, play it as it lies. They are just slightly different ways to move the lie. And result in potentially different 'punishments' or challenges for the player in terms of distance, angle etc - and therefore each has their own value as a design element.

The difference between "mandatory drop area, no penalty" and "mandatory LOP to outside "relief" area" is that you can potentially design the location of a pin, or the shape of the MLOP area to cause variable penalty based on where you miss.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a necessary design element, but it's certainly a different design element. If you have a fat/deep part of the MLOP in line with a potential eagle chance, and a thin/shallow part of the MLOP in line with the best upshot landing spot, you can make eagle runs more risk/reward and putts from the landing zone less risky.

Does that work out in practice? I don't know, but I think what I laid out is the theoretical justification.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The two Setback/Buncr concepts being discussed have already been used successfully in multiple locations in Majors - the 2007 Pro Worlds, Players Cup and USDGC. The RC just didn't get them codified when the 2011 rules update was developed. Krupicka knows they were specifically designed for the stockade hole at Squaw Creek to add challenge around the green.