PDGA OB

[Discwrangler]

I could see, and was confirmed, guys just laughed when they went ob. It was a joke. Missed the green on hole 10? Not twice! Circle birdie on a par 4. Fn silly.

The buncr made ob about half a penalty. Probably about time to quit calling it ob.

 

[_MTL_]

I could see, and was confirmed, guys just laughed when they went ob. It was a joke. Missed the green on hole 10? Not twice! Circle birdie on a par 4. Fn silly.

The buncr made ob about half a penalty. Probably about time to quit calling it ob.

Agreed!

The issue wasn't the fact that someone missed 10's green twice and then made a 4 after getting on in their third try, the issue is that the person that executed the shot the first time and got a 2 only picked up 2 strokes on that person.

That's not risk reward. Of course 1040 guys are gonna go for that shot with these rules.

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's too bad people are using the unusual hole 10 to pick on the buncr rule. That's a par 3 for the top guys. How many actually went to the left on the "official par 4" fairway? Why is that a bad thing for a hole to have scoring spread where you can pick up 2 shots on a player? That's a good hole design.

 

[_MTL_]

I liked the buncr rule on holes like 13 and 17, but not on easier holes or holes with real OB (like the road and lake on 5). It's not needed on those.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm in favor of all types of OB formats on a course based on hole designs and to provide variety. My argument is simply that the buncr version used at USDGC has its place in the mix and can sometimes be more punitive than regular OB (hole 8 tee shot for example). Normal OB does not work as well as the USDGC buncr rule when the OB line runs parallel to fairways because it's more difficult even with spotters to see where a player curves out, including hole 5. My personal design preference on holes with a long parallel OB line is to use the standard OB rule with a required drop zone.

 

[the_lung]

Stroke and distance and everyone cries bloody murder.

Distance only (re-throw from previous lie with no penalty throw) and everyone whines that it's too easy.

There's no pleasing folks. And of course, it's all "The PDGA's" fault.

 

[Script]

personally, i'm a big fan of throw and distance on that course. It sets up well for it and adds a hole heck of a lot more tension and drama.

there are a lot of holes where the buncr rule make for easier decisions.... for example... all the holes! There was no thought process for these guys on whether they go for it or not. Ricky a couple times was rewarded by putts that went OB.

 

[mj20300]

it wasnt a very interesting wsy to play! It felt more like you were playing practice rounds. Bring back penalty strokes

 

[Cgkdisc]

Consider that when a hole is designed, the designer lays out the route(s) to play it successfully. That's even more clear when the safe routes are delineated using rope and other OB to shape them on Winthrop. If you don't execute a route, you throw it until you stay in bounds. That is the essence of the game and why the extreme buncr rule might feel like practice. It's the most structured form of the game to throw until you move thru the course in the ways the designer intended. It's similar to a gutter ball on your first throw in bowling, you get the do over to seek a spare. Or consider the Labyrinth game where the ball falls thru the hole until you execute that route in the maze.

 

[mj20300]

it felt like practice because you just re-throw from the same spot like someone would do when they mess up in a practice round. You know the hold on guys i need one more shot to figure this one out routine

 

[Cgkdisc]

And my question is (for this particular game format): "Why should you be able to progress until you have executed an appropriate throw inbounds?"

 

[_MTL_]

I don't think people really are questioning the re-throw aspect of the rules, rather the non-penalty stroke on top of it.

Stroke and distance the last two year was too crazy and this year was too simple.

A hybird of the rules is really what is best, imo. Holes like 10 and 12 needs stroke and distance to make them tougher. Holes like 13 and 17 don't need it b/c they are hard enough.

 

[DiscJunkie]

If I may weigh in with a personal observation to go along with all the expert analysis on this thread:
This was one of the most fun USDGC's to watch...ever.
Friday, I was standing between the last two groups on #8.
As the 2nd card left the basket, I stood on the edge of the wood chips at #8's basket to watch the first card tee off.
Will threw first and threw it all the way to our feet. We were stunned that he made it that far.
Nikko threw two good, but unlucky, rollers that didn't make it through a small OB "pocket" area. Then he threw an airshot that made it past where the rollers died.

All those things would not have happened with a normal OB rule.
They wouldn't have risked it.
Whether or not the rule was a good thing can be debated by everyone, but for a couple spectators, it was "just right".

 

[Cgkdisc]

T&D should never be used in the field of play as a risk/reward design element. Too punitive relative to other offline throws. As in ball golf, it should only be involved when players throw off the course property and hopefully there are few property lines near fairways.

If we had a game where there were two levels of poor throws similar to rough and heavy rough in ball golf, T&D might make sense as the second tier of bad shot. For example, imagine double lined fairways on both sides where if you landed in between the lines on either side, you got an OB penalty but still threw from that lie. If you threw beyond both lines, it would be T&D where you rethrew plus got a penalty.

This design structure would provide stepped risk/reward that matched the badness of a throw where there was a 1-shot penalty zone then a 2-shot penalty zone with just 1 shot increase when crossing the next border. The problem with T&D as part of our current course risk/reward structures is a slightly offline shot goes from being good to 2 shots worse being only an inch farther off line. That 2-shot step is not justified and is too much for smooth scoring separation.

The evolution of hole 17 at Winthrop over the years has illustrated this point. In the earlier versions using T&D penalties from the tee (even with a drop zone after 2 misses), it produced a scoring distribution with lots of 2s and 4s (and 6s and 8s and a 17 or two) and hardly any 3s on what was supposed to be a par 3 hole. Even on ball golf island holes, they have more 3s than 2s or 4s and they never require Stroke & Distance penalties. There's always an optional drop zone.

The more recent versions of hole 17 with the optional lay up area used frequently when T&D was the rule or the buncr rule used for a few years produces more 3s than any other score and the scoring distribution has become more normal.

 

[grodney]

Or maybe DG needs to deviate from BG and have stroke-and-distance everywhere, to make it a legit game.

 

[_MTL_]

Or maybe DG needs to deviate from BG and have stroke-and-distance everywhere, to make it a legit game.

Only way to make disc golf harder with making things dumb is simply make the baskets smaller.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Or make the putter diameter bigger (Pros must use Super Class for putting).

 

[_MTL_]

Or make the putter diameter bigger (Pros must use Super Class for putting).

IMHO, anything that changes what is thrown or how it's thrown (aka Stand and Deliver and crap like that) is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE idea.

The only thing fair is simply reduce the size of the target. That way no one is forced to chance the way they play.

 

[gdub58]

T&D should never be used in the field of play as a risk/reward design element. Too punitive relative to other offline throws. As in ball golf, it should only be involved when players throw off the course property and hopefully there are few property lines near fairways.

If we had a game where there were two levels of poor throws similar to rough and heavy rough in ball golf, T&D might make sense as the second tier of bad shot. For example, imagine double lined fairways on both sides where if you landed in between the lines on either side, you got an OB penalty but still threw from that lie. If you threw beyond both lines, it would be T&D where you rethrew plus got a penalty.

This design structure would provide stepped risk/reward that matched the badness of a throw where there was a 1-shot penalty zone then a 2-shot penalty zone with just 1 shot increase when crossing the next border. The problem with T&D as part of our current course risk/reward structures is a slightly offline shot goes from being good to 2 shots worse being only an inch farther off line. That 2-shot step is not justified and is too much for smooth scoring separation.

.

I don't completely agree with your ball golf comparison. While a fair amount of OB is "off course property", it is generally placed to take one side of the hole out of play - it carries the harshest penalty (same as a lost ball) because the course designer is telling you to err on the opposite side, and on the toughest holes there is something (bunkers, lateral hazard) on that opposite side. I've seen OB on a dogleg hole where there is another fairway in the OB area to discourage players from trying to cut the dogleg and hit someone in the other fairway.

I think the buncr rule should be used to create something analagous to very heavy rough or a sand bunker in ball golf, and as such should be enforced differently as you have suggested - you play from the buncr area, but you add a shot rather than throwing your original shot again without penalty.

There should be a mix of penalties, but I don't think a graduated system as you propose is ideal. Have some T&D penalties - it's like a mando in the sense that the T&D OB areas are there to greatly discourage certain shot shapes or mistakes on one side of the rough. This would be comparable to OB areas in ball golf.

Some roped-off areas should have drop zones, which is a lesser penalty than full T&D but is still worse than a buncr area, which would carry a penalty throw but you throw it from where it lies.

Three levels of penalty, each useful in certain circumstances. Having mostly/only one level is a bit lazy IMO.

 

[grodney]

simply make the baskets smaller.

Well, it's not simple on a widespread scale, but I've been advocating it for years.