Rules Changes for 2018

[Horsman]

you do realize the only conversion in the rules that they changed is to round 30cm, right? All of the others are unchanged.

ohh yea, but they added the 1 centimeter conversion and rounded it terribly. You should not be able to poke holes in rules, pretty simple.

 

[biscoe]

So much this. It's ridiculous that they made a rule change ten years ago but allow older courses to be "grandfathered" into enforcing the 2 meter penalty. Imagine if they did this with the new stance rule..."this course has been around since before 2018 so you're required to have a contact point directly behind the mini". Having any rule that's different from course to course is just dumb.

it has nothing to do with a course being older or newer... simply the choice of the TD. the reason it still exists in part is because the state of california uses it for pretty much everything and the head of the rules committee is from guess where. (latter part of that statement an assumption on my part)

 

[lyleoross]

Rules of Disc Golf 2018
Page 21
Appendix D - Conversions


Metric System English System
10 meters ..................... 32 feet 10 inches
3 meters ....................... 9 feet 10 inches
2 meters ....................... 6 feet 6 inches
1 meter......................... 3 feet 3 inches
30 centimeters ............ 1 foot
20 centimeters ............ 8 inches
1 centimeter ................ 1/2 inch


They are rounding the conversions and because of this they conflict themselves.

1 centimeter = 1/2 inch. So 30 centimeters would be 15 inches and 20 centimeters would be 10 inches. But they tell us that 30 centimeters = 12 inches and 20 centimeters = 8 inches. So which is it.

Also using this conversion the circle is now 41.6667 feet

You do math differently than I do. Yes they rounded. So did you and a whole lot more than they did. One centimeter is .3937 inches.

 

[lyleoross]

it has nothing to do with a course being older or newer... simply the choice of the TD. the reason it still exists in part is because the state of california uses it for pretty much everything and the head of the rules committee is from guess where. (latter part of that statement an assumption on my part)

You assume the head of the rules committee is from guess where? Aren't we all?

 

[lyleoross]

it has nothing to do with a course being older or newer... simply the choice of the TD. the reason it still exists in part is because the state of california uses it for pretty much everything and the head of the rules committee is from guess where. (latter part of that statement an assumption on my part)

If it's TD choice wouldn't that mean the TD gets to choose or is there some sub rule for CA that says, the 2M rule is TD choice, except in CA where it is to always be used cause the head of the rules committee is from, guess where?

 

[rhatton1]

So interesting one...
Player A throws from the tee and footfaults, he is called and it is seconded.
Player A's shot goes OB.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
What score does Player A write down?

3.

My initial reaction was 4. but it is of course 3, I was thinking back to the footfault being a rethrow and therefore a separate incident.

The good bit of this one little change? Whilst it immediately seems harsher ("what no warning first!") It's now nowhere near as punitive to call a footfault hopefully leading to more being called, tied in with a clearer idea of what constitutes the lie this should work better.

There were some other good rule changes that were either not voted through by the board or split decision from the board (eg back marking of disc rather than front) which is a shame. There are some condescending comments above about the changes but stick the two books together and it's clear there has been a huge amount of work put into this with each change clearly thought through.

There will also be Qand A's to clarify points.

Biggest and most controversial changes IMO are in the competition manual. #artificiallygrowthepropurse.....

 

[Geneva]

"There's a new OB option, available at the discretion of the TD: you play from the closest in-bounds point (similar to a lateral hazard in golf)."

I'm quite surprised nobody talked about that one. This seems to create a lot of opportunities for course designers.
I can imagine the situation of someone trying to make a push for the win and taking lots of risks for it (Simon, Paul, ...). He could attack some holes with tight OB and try to gain a stroke while the leader could lay-up.
This rule may give the chaser a chance to get a point on the leader without having the risks to lose one to him and drop in the leaderboard. This could make things really interesting in a tight finish (especially on golf courses).

If it is used correctly (which I reckon could be tough to determine), this could be a great rule change.

It can speed up the play too, no need to determine the crossing point and no artificial Stroke+Distance due to an OB line.

 

[rhatton1]

"There's a new OB option, available at the discretion of the TD: you play from the closest in-bounds point (similar to a lateral hazard in golf)."

I'm quite surprised nobody talked about that one. This seems to create a lot of opportunities for course designers.
I can imagine the situation of someone trying to make a push for the win and taking lots of risks for it (Simon, Paul, ...). He could attack some holes with tight OB and try to gain a stroke while the leader could lay-up.
This rule may give the chaser a chance to get a point on the leader without having the risks to lose one to him and drop in the leaderboard. This could make things really interesting in a tight finish (especially on golf courses).

If it is used correctly (which I reckon could be tough to determine), this could be a great rule change.

It can speed up the play too, no need to determine the crossing point and no artificial Stroke+Distance due to an OB line.

yup, it's good that it's been kept TD decision rather than general rule. It's nice to have the leeway of this for course design, especially the hazard rule, I'm going to see if its ok for me to use these for the next couple of events this year to try them out in a couple of one day events and see how they play.

 

[_MTL_]

"There's a new OB option, available at the discretion of the TD: you play from the closest in-bounds point (similar to a lateral hazard in golf)."

I'm quite surprised nobody talked about that one. This seems to create a lot of opportunities for course designers.
I can imagine the situation of someone trying to make a push for the win and taking lots of risks for it (Simon, Paul, ...). He could attack some holes with tight OB and try to gain a stroke while the leader could lay-up.
This rule may give the chaser a chance to get a point on the leader without having the risks to lose one to him and drop in the leaderboard. This could make things really interesting in a tight finish (especially on golf courses).

If it is used correctly (which I reckon could be tough to determine), this could be a great rule change.

It can speed up the play too, no need to determine the crossing point and no artificial Stroke+Distance due to an OB line.

Agree. There's tons of possibilities with this.

What I'll find interesting is if people start really perfecting certain distances. For example, in golf, players have what they call perfect numbers. A lot of times you will see someone take a drop further back to get a perfect number or to avoid an uncomfortable number. A very common example of this is 12, the famous par 3, at Augusta. Many players take their drop about 50 yards behind where they hit it OB.

I'll be curious if players start doing this in situations because they really like throwing their blank at X distance.

However, this won't come up too much, only in rare situations or when OB crosses a hole. Since OB is typically off line / off the fairway, it won't make sense in most situations. However, when OB crosses a hole or provides a funky lie, you absolutely will see it.

 

[krupicka]

The aspect about it that I'm not to fond of is this: When playing last place in bounds a player has to decide when risking OB, do they want to risk it early or late in flight? If the drop is closest place inbounds, that thought process no longer needs to occur. I'm glad it's an option that can be used. I'm just not sure it is an option that I would use.

 

[_MTL_]

The aspect about it that I'm not to fond of is this: When playing last place in bounds a player has to decide when risking OB, do they want to risk it early or late in flight? If the drop is closest place inbounds, that thought process no longer needs to occur. I'm glad it's an option that can be used. I'm just not sure it is an option that I would use.

Yeah, its gonna be rare.

I can only think of a few holes a year in the events I play this would even make sense to do - and then the exact spot or two where it could happen I'd have to go OB at.

However, like the optional re-throw rule, the one time it made sense to use it in 10 so years, I'm glad it was an option.

 

[DG_player]

So interesting one...
Player A throws from the tee and footfaults, he is called and it is seconded.
Player A's shot goes OB.
He makes his putt from his meters relief.
What score does Player A write down?

3.

My initial reaction was 4. but it is of course 3, I was thinking back to the footfault being a rethrow and therefore a separate incident.

I'm confused, wouldn't score be a 4, drive + putt + foot fault penalty + OB penalty? I don't follow how you arrive at 3.

 

[_MTL_]

I agree, that sounds like a 4.

 

[DG_player]

"There's a new OB option, available at the discretion of the TD: you play from the closest in-bounds point (similar to a lateral hazard in golf)."

Not sure it's really relevant, but this is NOT AT ALL SIMILAR to a lateral hazard in golf. A lateral hazard in golf works basically the same way as normal OB in disc golf, with the exception that instead of 1M you get 2 clubs lengths, and you are prohibited from dropping the ball any closer to the hole than the point it went out of bounds.

Aside from a drop zone, there are no provisions in golf to drop a ball nearer to the hole than where you went out.

 

[rhatton1]

I'm confused, wouldn't score be a 4, drive + putt + foot fault penalty + OB penalty? I don't follow how you arrive at 3.

Confirmed by RC member and to be in a q+a the cumulative penalties applies, this all counts as one shot so only one penalty can be scored (whichever is highest, in this instance both 1stroke)

 

[biscoe]

Confirmed by RC member and to be in a q+a the cumulative penalties applies, this all counts as one shot so only one penalty can be scored (whichever is highest, in this instance both 1stroke)

curiouser and curiouser...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Confirmed by RC member and to be in a q+a the cumulative penalties applies, this all counts as one shot so only one penalty can be scored (whichever is highest, in this instance both 1stroke)

You can just abandon the double penalty foot fault/ OB throw and play from previous lie/tee with only one shot penalty.

 

[_MTL_]

Interesting....

 

[biscoe]

You can just abandon the double penalty foot fault/ OB throw and play from previous lie/tee with only one shot penalty.

Yes, but that is not what we are questioning. We are questioning if the score on the footfaulted OB throw with made putt would indeed be only 3. If that is the case there would be no reason to go back to the tee throwing 3.

 

[DonCasper]

It says horizontally hanging.. What if its on the outside of the basket, on the nubs, hanging vertically.. Like AJ Risley's putt on hole 6 at USDGC.

I think it would still count based on the way the rules are written. That might not have been their intention, but it appears to be the way it is written.

807 A) A target is a device whose purpose is to clearly determine completion of a hole. A basket target is designed to catch discs and generally consists of a tray, chains, and a chain support mounted on a pole.

807 B) In order to complete a hole with a basket target, the thrower must release the disc, and it must enter the target above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support, and come to rest supported by the target.

Based on my interpretation, as long as your disc enters the basket correctly and ends up supported by the basket in any way, you have completed the hole.

I know they wanted to simplify the rules, but they are still ambiguous. For one thing, it doesn't say the disc has to come to rest supported entirely by the target. You could argue that a disc that is leaning against the pole is supported by the target.

The rules also don't cover what happens if the disc leaves the basket above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support. I assume this is to cover the nubs situation, but based on the way the rules are written, I think you could argue that you could complete a hole with a putt that blows through the chains and either ends up leaning against the pole or sitting on top of the basket.

I think ending up on top of the basket is something you'd only see when playing in gale force winds, but I could see a lot of splash outs leaning against the pole after a funky roll, and I'd be inclined to count them given this wording of this rule.