DGPT: 2021 Ledgestone Insurance Open Aug 5-8

[Ryan P.]

There is already a way to do that. Put a target at the landing area and break it into two holes.

Two holes which are 90 degrees to each other will have better scoring separation than one 90-degree-fairway hole.

When you say "better scoring separation," do you mean "a larger number mathematically," or something else that you've explained but I haven't read?

 

[dehaas]

IMO there is no real need for a different rule unless this design practice becomes more prevalent which hopefully it will not. Adding mandos just makes me dislike the shape of the hole even more. Some sort of line of play designator (just please don't use the word "mandatory" in the verbiage) along the fairway might not be a terrible option if you consider the problem to be significant enough to warrant change.

I agree with keeping "mando" out of the conversation.

And what I like about line of play as verbiage is that is unique to each player based on where their lie is. So basically pick the direction you're throwing and stay behind that perpendicular line.

People complain enough as it is about card members not enforcing rules. I think using line of play as opposed to the target makes it much easier to call foot faults if they occur.

 

[krupicka]

I agree with keeping "mando" out of the conversation.

And what I like about line of play as verbiage is that is unique to each player based on where their lie is. So basically pick the direction you're throwing and stay behind that perpendicular line.

People complain enough as it is about card members not enforcing rules. I think using line of play as opposed to the target makes it much easier to call foot faults if they occur.

What are you talking about? "Line of Play" is explicitly defined as "The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc."

It is not the line of where you hope you are throwing.

 

[ru4por]

What are you talking about? "Line of Play" is explicitly defined as "The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc."

It is not the line of where you hope you are throwing.

I am not sure where the confusion is. This is one of the first and primary concepts and rules every disc golfer should learn. It is employed on EVERY non tee shot. It should determine your lie and legality of step outs and straddle putts.

 

[dehaas]

What are you talking about? "Line of Play" is explicitly defined as "The line of play is the imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through and beyond the center of the marker disc."

It is not the line of where you hope you are throwing.

Sorry, poor choice of words. Was dreaming of a hypothetical land if the rule were to ever be reviewed and potentially changed.

As courses get longer and designers try to "Tiger Proof" them against the 1050 boys the potential for those weird stance situations grow. It's clear how it's presently written, you're correct and I was just lazy. I think the discussion about the rule comes from it just looking "weird" when a player could legally be playing in front of the disc they just threw when an arbitrary line of play connects their lie to the basket with a bunch of woods in the way. Same principle as if we measured hole distances based on straight line distance from tee to target, not the actual intended flight.

If we wanted to get nitty gritty about it how many obstructed shots are actually lined up properly? And by obstructed I mean shots where the target is not within view. With 1000+ footers becoming standard, are people running down the fairway to check the basket just to make sure they don't foot fault? More than likely just getting a reference point for aim, which isn't the same thing as a proper lie/stance.

My poor choice of words was implying that the definition of line of play could be revised, simply making it the players intended throwing direction. Using that definition you could still have "weird" stance scenarios…say we're playing a hole with a dogleg and I throw my shot straight and long and overshoot the dogleg. I'm in the woods and pitching back onto the fairway and am taking my shot at a distance further from the tee from where my disc actually landed. That's still "weird", but in my opinion at least "less weird looking".

That's the trick with writing rules, verbiage needs to be concise so it covers all instances effectively. I'm guessing the original intent came during a time when it was way more common to physically see what you were aiming at. As course design gets more complicated it's just going to become more tedious to enforce the current rule. The rule itself makes sense, just that the evolution of the game makes it more difficult to know if it's actually being followed.

I'm sure there are instances where changing the definition of line of play break down, but to me a straight line approach seems outdated given current course design trends. It definitely does add an element of increased difficulty, but the question I pose: is that element of increased difficulty lost if the lies aren't being played properly anyway?

Lol I know I'm being OCD nitpicky. My original post was meant more to generate active discussion and just didn't communicate it clearly. In reality most lies are pretty straight forward (no pun intended) and we're kind of splitting hairs at this point.

 

[ToddL]

I agree with keeping "mando" out of the conversation.

And what I like about line of play as verbiage is that is unique to each player based on where their lie is. So basically pick the direction you're throwing and stay behind that perpendicular line.

People complain enough as it is about card members not enforcing rules. I think using line of play as opposed to the target makes it much easier to call foot faults if they occur.

I think using the "flight line of play" would make it harder to call stance violations. You call a violation on a player, they can say "oh, my footing was fine, because I was aiming over there." There's unlimited wiggle room to talk your way out of a violation.

Using the target at least gives you a static location to aim at, even if you might have to take an educated guess as to where exactly it is through the woods sometimes.

 

[dehaas]

I think using the "flight line of play" would make it harder to call stance violations. You call a violation on a player, they can say "oh, my footing was fine, because I was aiming over there." There's unlimited wiggle room to talk your way out of a violation.

Using the target at least gives you a static location to aim at, even if you might have to take an educated guess as to where exactly it is through the woods sometimes.

I agree with you that it makes things more subjective, however how well it is being enforced right now?

Players aren't calling foot faults on jump putts and whatnot that are more obvious than stance violations on long holes where the basket might now be in view. Some of that is probably because they're focused on their own game and not somebody else's, some because they don't want to be "that guy", and some because I'm not gonna question you, so you don't quite understand action me.

All I'm saying is let a player line up in the direction they're trying to throw, don't cross that perpendicular line, which is way easier for a card to spot check out than busting out a protractor in the woods when somebody is simply trying to pitch out.

Yes, it probably introduces some gray, but if you see somebody lining up a shot it's pretty obvious where they're going…way less ambiguous than awkward footing lined up through the woods at a target and throwing in a different direction.

Meant to be an exercise in critical thinking. Not saying my description is the best, I'm sure there are faults to it, but that asks a fair investigation of the current rule and the evolution of course design. Worst case the current rule stays put and in 5 years nobody watching dg footage on ESPN (Eagle's Crossing will have launched us into the big time by then) will know any better***

 

[biscoe]

I agree with you that it makes things more subjective, however how well it is being enforced right now?

Players aren't calling foot faults on jump putts and whatnot that are more obvious than stance violations on long holes where the basket might now be in view. Some of that is probably because they're focused on their own game and not somebody else's, some because they don't want to be "that guy", and some because I'm not gonna question you, so you don't quite understand action me.

All I'm saying is let a player line up in the direction they're trying to throw, don't cross that perpendicular line, which is way easier for a card to spot check out than busting out a protractor in the woods when somebody is simply trying to pitch out.

Yes, it probably introduces some gray, but if you see somebody lining up a shot it's pretty obvious where they're going…way less ambiguous than awkward footing lined up through the woods at a target and throwing in a different direction.

Meant to be an exercise in critical thinking. Not saying my description is the best, I'm sure there are faults to it, but that asks a fair investigation of the current rule and the evolution of course design. Worst case the current rule stays put and in 5 years nobody watching dg footage on ESPN (Eagle's Crossing will have launched us into the big time by then) will know any better***

I don't think taking a stance based on "where they are going" is a good idea- way too grey. What I was suggesting was something along the lines of a pole that serves to indicate line of play until it is passed yet with no requirement to pass to one side or another. I still don't really believe it to be necessary but since we are talking hypotheticals...

 

[Steve West]

StanceCast laser defined lie area
https://www.innovadiscs.com/minni/

 

[BogeyNoMore]

StanceCast laser defined lie area
https://www.innovadiscs.com/minni/

It's April already?!