Idea for new rule:

[Dave242]

we have discussed here in the past: the inherent random nature of bounces that tree trunks and branches can cause discs. For 2 discs thrown 100% identically, one of them can hit a tree and fall straight down into a nice spot in the fairway, while the other gets moved 3" to the right or left by a puff of wind and takes a kick 100' into the woods with no chance at recovery (and maybe even takes 2-3 strokes to recover).

First, it is just as random whether a disc that gets blown 3 feet and hits a tree or gets blown 3 feet and barely lands on the wrong side of a rope.

This is very wrong assertion and the error in your thinking is completely clear to anyone who has played in the woods versus in the open. Your math normally has me impressed....but I am flummoxed with your assertion here.

On top of that, I am talking about a tiny amount of variation caused by a puff of wind (3 inches) and you are talking about a significant variation of MUCH stronger gust of wind (3 feet). If that's what it takes to make your argument valid.....its not valid.

Even if your assertion that going OB as randomly due to wind effects (even when there is no wind) is correct (which it isn't), you still have not addressed the possibility of being deep in the shule producing a higher score than the simple 1-throw penalty added for OB.

Yes. There is a degree of uncertainty in where every throw will land, even on calm days. Players can take that into account when deciding whether to throw near enough danger to take a risk, or far enough away to be safe. I think most players can't help but try for that little extra edge, and take a risk to get it. So, on calm days, they'll be throwing closer to the edge (or tree or mando) than they would on gusty days, but they'll end up with about the same probability of punishment - or at least some probability.

And even if this is true (which it isn't when addressing well designed S&D holes), how can the random effect of wind (which you say is significant) and players' spray patterns on an open hole be of equal randomness to the equivalent conditions when the additional randomizer of bounces off of trees is added? Makes no sense at all.

But, this is all a sidetrack to the topic. Even if the random nature of punishment caused by trees is equivalent to S&D and OB being used, you have at least stated that random luck is not a problem for holes with well utilized S&D.

 

[Steve West]

I was only objecting to the assertion that trees are random and lines are not. Re-reading, I see you didn't actually go so far as to make this type of black-and-white distinction. (I missed the "much"). I agree trees are "more random" in a sense than a line on the ground.

I'm just saying they are both over there in the neighborhood of non-proportional effects. The difference is only in the larger potential size of punishment and unknown nature of the punishment from trees.

I don't see a difference in the probability of getting the punishment. Three inches can be enough to determine whether there is punishment or not for both types.

And I didn't actually address whether this implies that S&D zones are good or bad. So, to bring this back around to topic: I'm intrigued. We already have sharp-edged punishment (stance rules, in or out of the basket, tree trunks, OB lines and buncrs), we already have forced types of throws (putting), and so an S&D zone seems to be a logical extension. Any objections I would have are of a nature that they should be tested, not just opined on.

 

[Dave242]

So, to bring this back around to topic: I'm intrigued. We already have sharp-edged punishment (stance rules, in or out of the basket, tree trunks, OB lines and buncrs), we already have forced types of throws (putting), and so an S&D zone seems to be a logical extension. Any objections I would have are of a nature that they should be tested, not just opined on.

Good. I think we are on the same page. And, I agree that testing is a good next step after the opining has happened and an idea is determined to have at least some merit.

It seems the majority seem to disagree that S&D has merit, but as pointed out in grodney's thread discussing S&D for all throws no on a tee pad, history is a strong influencer of people's willingness to accept new ideas.
-----------
One thing occurred to me last night that will probably get laughed off the face of the internet is having fractional throw penalties. We in essence already do that with a warning for the first offence and then a 1 stroke penalty for the next offence. 1 throw for 2 violations equates to 1/2 penalty throw per violation. No? Of course it equates to 2/3 throws each for the next violation of the same type, and 3/4 for the next, etc.

So, what if you had a 0.4 throw zone with no stance restrictions replacing the S&D zone we are talking about here? At the end of the round, scores would be rounded up/down to the closest integer value.

Why 0.4 rather than 0.5? I think it would come in handy for tie breakers (for first place and for splitting money/payout amounts).

Probably a dumb idea....but if we are already manipulating the scorecard with penalty throws and doing so in a way that is indeed fractional, why not formalize fractional penalties? (Once smartphones start being used for scoring, the objection about the advanced mathematical calculations would go away).

 

[nolangherity]

 

[Dave242]

I'm not sure who that freaky looking girl is, but tell her that a version of it already is happening.

 

[sidewinder22]

no i dont like that idea, if people want to run up then they know the consequences.

On S&D zones.

 

[Dave242]

Except that you put in a comma and deleted some words to make it sound like he does not like the idea when he actually does. That is pretty disingenuous of you. :thmbdown:

He said (an unedited copy-paste):
no i dont like that idea if people want to run up then do it they know the consequences.

What he obviously means is that if people run up when S&D is in place, they know that they will be penalized. He does not like the idea that people will ignore the rule....but is saying that he will call it each and every time he sees a violation. Honorable guy, that McBeth!

grammar.....I tell you what!

 

[sidewinder22]

 

[ian1]

.

seems to me there are enough rules. Most course in Oregon severely punish you for throwing outside the fairway. Often times I'd rather it be OB and take the stroke than play from my lie. Perhaps the problem is tournaments selecting the wide open courses for play. When I look at the top rated courses on this site a see a lot of ball golf course with baskets. Perhaps we should recognize that these are different sports with different hazards. It seems like rounds at a lot of the top courses are really more distance throwing competitions.

 

[Dave242]

Not sure who that freaky looking guys is, but tell him he is on to me.

 

[sidewinder22]

I like this idea...

The roughs/traps of ball golf don't really affect footing much if at all, they are more to change the way the club grips the ball. I'd rather propose you having to throw with Vaseline on your disc in marked areas. That would be much more akin to ball golf rough.

 

[Dave242]

seems to me there are enough rules. Most course in Oregon severely punish you for throwing outside the fairway. Often times I'd rather it be OB and take the stroke than play from my lie. Perhaps the problem is tournaments selecting the wide open courses for play. When I look at the top rated courses on this site a see a lot of ball golf course with baskets. Perhaps we should recognize that these are different sports with different hazards. It seems like rounds at a lot of the top courses are really more distance throwing competitions.

Good post, although I do not get the part about top rated sites here being ball golf courses....or even open courses. Can you name the ones you have in mind? Most courses that are top-rated here are moderately to heavily wooded with good terrain.

Regarding S&D I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am advocating this as one more tool (certainly not a cure-all) that can be selectively used by designers to make the game incrementally more of a spectator spectacle:

But what about courses devoid of good rough? Coincidentally, those are the courses that can allow for a good size gallery and facilitate a compelling live broadcast.

You would agree I assume, that the courses in OR you are talking about would have a hard time accommodating a crowd of 1000-10,000 and capturing the flight of the disc live on camera.

 

[sgamerp]

I'm not sure who that freaky looking girl is, but tell her that a version of it already is happening.

Dude it's Rachel McAdms

 

[ian1]

yeah you are right Dave. Looking at the top courses again a lot of them are pretty well forested. I guess I am just bitter about Hornings falling out of the tip 10. A friend played in a tourney in Georgia though and she said it was just wide open... all about throwing for max distance.

 

[mjoyce]

There are many courses that I have played that are pretty tough, but still have one, two, maybe four holes that are really long and so open that bad throws are not punished. You think that these courses should just be skipped over???

Plus, almost all of the championship caliber courses are little to no fun for beginners because they are simply too challenging. Courses that implemented a rule in line with what I described above would be challenging for ALL skill levels while at the same time being enjoyable for ALL skill levels.

So play the shorter tees. That's what they're there for.

I haven't seen that many courses where what you're suggesting would be really necessary.

The Ponds at Lakewood comes to mind but part of the fun of that course is bombing drives as long as you can. And most baskets are gaurded so if you miss left or right on your drive or approach you pretty much have to lay up to put.

 

[Thumber]

Rules should not be created as a cure to poor design

 

[ScottyLove]

Rules should not be created as a cure to poor design

^^ THIS!!

 

[Dave242]

I totally agree with that too. The big caveat that I will point out yet again is creating a DG game that will be a captivating spectator sport. I personally do not crave DG hitting "the big time", but it will take something to make DG more interesting if it is to ever be played on venues that can accommodate a big crowd and facilitate great camera shots for live TV coverage.....and get lots of eyeballs watching it.

I hate artificial OB, I hate mandos, I hate gimmicks....but I can totally live with them if they serve a purpose that cannot be served any other way.