Should this be OB?

[drivinatwork]

The hole is 330', you can see the basket right in front of the tree. This is a new course and the only one in town, so mostly new players. The question is should we use the building as OB? At first we thought we would, with on top or in the building OB as well as on the concrete surrounding the building. For most players around here it sits right where most drives land. So, what are your thoughts on this, OB or not OB. Also it is an old building that does not get used.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[bholy08]

I would say yes OB. I have never yet landed on a building or concrete that was not OB. Most experienced players walking up on this hole would assume it to be out of bounds.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Unsafe design. Hole should be moved.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Just the building including on top, not the concrete. Looks like the bush could be a nice hazard on its own.

 

[rd.bittle]

My group would play it as OB. Most Noobs don't play OB rules, so, no big deal if you specify it as OB. I probably would.

 

[mudslinger]

Unsafe design. Hole should be moved.

100% agreed. Accident waiting to happen.

 

[jeverett]

Unsafe design. Hole should be moved.

I'd tend to agree with this. If you really don't want discs hitting the building (and players trying to climb on the roof to get them down), simply making the area OB is insufficient (i.e. it doesn't do anything).

*If* it's really completely fine for players to be all over that building, I'd personally agree with Chuck on the OB rules (i.e. just the top). The building itself serves as a nice obstruction to putting lines regardless.

 

[keltik]

Unsafe design. Hole should be moved.

this is the most correct answer.

 

[Cgkdisc]

If it's a locked, abandoned building then not a safety issue. If anyone is regularly going in and out of the building other than maybe a maintenance shed, then it's not really safe.

 

[drivinatwork]

Unsafe design. Hole should be moved.

I knew I would get some comments like this and I understand. It is an old abandoned bathroom that will one day be torn down, is what we were told. With the flow of the course this area had to be used, we had the basket in a different location, but the park director was scared it would get ran over because during softball games(that is a field to the right) people park anywhere and everywhere and this was the only location we could agree on. With the town not having any courses within 40 miles we took what they gave us.

 

[vonDrehle]

Just the building including on top, not the concrete. Looks like the bush could be a nice hazard on its own.

If I know disc golfers that bush has a rude awakening coming .

 

[mashnut]

The OP stated that it's an unused building. If that's the case, then I agree with Chuck. Call it OB if it lands on the roof, otherwise if you land behind the building you're probably taking a stroke anyway to get around/over it.

If it is ever used then it's a safety concern, especially since there's not an established disc golf scene to help newer players understand the etiquette.

 

[New013]

I'd play the concrete as OB. It's just what I'm used to playing because at most courses the concrete would be OB.

So what people keep landing there, learn not to land there.

 

[Kenny53691]

I'd play the concrete as OB. It's just what I'm used to playing because at most courses the concrete would be OB.

I agree with New013. Typically concrete is OB

 

[jeverett]

I agree with New013. Typically concrete is OB

Yes, but why? I've heard the 'concrete is OB' "rule" a lot, but what precisely is the function of it in terms of hole design?

In my opinion, large (i.e. wide) well-defined obstacles have the fairest effect on hole scores.. and this hole already has a very nice well-defined obstacle (the building) in the same area as the concrete. It doesn't need the extra randomness of the concrete being OB to fairly punish bad drives.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

I knew I would get some comments like this and I understand. It is an old abandoned bathroom that will one day be torn down, is what we were told.

In that case, yes to OB. Go with the edge of the surrounding sidewalk as the line so that it's well defined and then that heinous bush would be OB also.

Looks like the building is bricked with nice, flat stones. You may wanna be around when they tear it down. Those will make awesome stair/step stones in areas of the course that may need them.

 

[mashnut]

Yes, but why? I've heard the 'concrete is OB' "rule" a lot, but what precisely is the function of it in terms of hole design?

In my opinion, large (i.e. wide) well-defined obstacles have the fairest effect on hole scores.. and this hole already has a very nice well-defined obstacle (the building) in the same area as the concrete. It doesn't need the extra randomness of the concrete being OB to fairly punish bad drives.

Good point, you don't usually call the random little concrete pad under a picnic table or another tee pad OB. OB should be used to add interesting risk/reward decisions rather than random penalties.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'd go with concrete as O.B., as well. It makes a more interesting hole. Especially with the assumption that the concrete on the right is O.B. as well.

Concrete as O.B. will also give you more relief from the building, for better or worse.

 

[Kenny53691]

Yes, but why? I've heard the 'concrete is OB' "rule" a lot, but what precisely is the function of it in terms of hole design?

It seems like almost every course that I've played that had concrete, has considered it OB. So by a rule of thumb, and out of habit, I just always assume that concrete is given to OB unless the signs note exactly which concrete is/is not OB.

 

[New013]

I don't see how the concrete being OB makes it unfair, it's not like it's blind. Serious players should be able to navigate that gap or just throw over the building with relative ease on most occasions. Casual players probably don't play it OB anyway cuz they don't care about that stuff.