What rules would you add (not really, but you might wish for)

[curmudgeonDwindle]

Since you made the comparison to ball golf.

Ball golf limits it to 14 clubs.
You can carry as many balls as you want (but by the rules they have to be the same).
So while each ball has to have the same flight, different clubs can be used for different distances/flights (example: you can have two different drivers...one with a 9 degree loft and one with a 12 degree loft). You can change your grip and change the flight of the ball (similar to changing the angle of your hand and putting the disc on hyzer or anhyzer).

So, in ball golf...with fourteen clubs, you can have way more different options.

In disc golf, one reason to carry multiple discs is in case one is lost (that's why ball golfers carry extra balls). Since ball golf is played on open fairways and disc golf isn't, you really need different discs for different throws - one disc might be good for forehands, but not thumbers.

I personally don't see a reason to limit discs. The player just needs to be quick making their disc selection.

Once we start limiting discs as a rule....what is the next rule? Starter packs only?

Disagree for 3 reasons.

1. Maintaining your quiver is to be considered a skill test.
2. Limiting options is also to be considered a skill test.
3. Selection of the proper quiver for a given event is also a skill test.

So by combining these three ideas, we have compounded the skill required (read: emphasized) for a successful meet without changing the basic nature of it.

Part of the reason for limiting clubs in Golf is that you can pick 'em, but you can't pick 'em all.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

I won't quote rules, but it seems strange the person would get DQ'd for leaving early, I've been in a few sanctioned tournaments where the person left early (usually for an injury) and just got a DNF for the round. In a recent tournament, a player DNF'd the first round and then played the next one with no issue - they just had a high score for the first round.

I believe in Golf the reason for an early departure's DQ relates to 'not finishing the course correctly', which means one forfeits the right to 'try again'. Disc golf fears alienating players, so there's a stronger emphasis on participation and inclusion...

 

[ILUVSMGS18]

Assuming this is for 'official tournament play'...

1. Ban jump-putting. Jump-putting demands that your card-mates enforce the rules.

2. Expand the smallest green to a 15 meter circle and allow 'course administrators' to create even larger greens of different shapes/configurations within a limit of a 25 meter circle.

3. Limit bag sizes either by number of discs or total weight of discs.

4. Reduce the maximum weight of 'legal' discs.

5. Ban caddies, either human or otherwise, except in the rare cases of disabled access - or if one man has a caddy, then every man must have a caddy.

6. All discs within 5' of the basket are considered 'gimmies' (+1 stroke & pick it up, move to the next hole). 'Circle Zero'

7. Ban all artificial 'aides' such as range finders, and the like.

I could go on but it's been a long day.

1. Fine with me. My normal putting stroke works well with slight modifications out to 80ish', longer if I'm really on.

2. Good idea, as long as courses are good about labeling the green on the tee, if nothing is labelled assume basic 15m green.

3 and 4. Good ideas on paper, never going to work in practice.

5. Some people just don't want a caddy, and that's fine. Others like a caddy and that's fine too. Trying to eliminate personal preferences is never a good idea in something that doesn't directly affect play.

6. Should be 2m, but otherwise I agree with you.

7. While I don't personally use one (I'm broke and would forget I had it), it would be nice to have for those tricky approaches and water carries, especially on courses where you may not be able to get in practice with that situation during you practice rounds. One thing I've learned is that unless I've personally verified the measurement of a hole, I don't believe it. I've got a good eye for distance, but not everyone does. This levels the playing field IMO, especially for second shots on longer holes.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

1. Fine with me. My normal putting stroke works well with slight modifications out to 80ish', longer if I'm really on.

2. Good idea, as long as courses are good about labeling the green on the tee, if nothing is labelled assume basic 15m green.

3 and 4. Good ideas on paper, never going to work in practice.

Nothing said on this thread will be put into practice, certainly not in my lifetime. We are bull****ting-brainstorming.

5. Some people just don't want a caddy, and that's fine. Others like a caddy and that's fine too. Trying to eliminate personal preferences is never a good idea in something that doesn't directly affect play.

My rationale is that a player should rely more upon his own resources, especially regarding 'advice'. There are distinct advantages to having a caddy, more so if the caddy is reliable and experienced and unless everyone has that advantage it is an unfair one. Having a caddy most certainly directly affects play.

6. Should be 2m, but otherwise I agree with you.

Too far - you've not played in high wind situations enough. My distance is measured from the center of the pole (or central basket support - can't forget those hanging baskets...).

7. While I don't personally use one (I'm broke and would forget I had it), it would be nice to have for those tricky approaches and water carries, especially on courses where you may not be able to get in practice with that situation during you practice rounds. One thing I've learned is that unless I've personally verified the measurement of a hole, I don't believe it. I've got a good eye for distance, but not everyone does. This levels the playing field IMO, especially for second shots on longer holes.

see #5 - a player should rely on his own normal resources.

What's interesting to me is how 'personal' this thread gets...I guess we all tend to think about our own games first and foremost...

 

[biscoe]

Score capping, initially at par+4. The rules have already assigned the worst score a player can get on a hole because being late on a hole or missing it is par+4. Why not just make par+4 the max score you can get on a hole? Speed up play and not be able to sandbag your rating. Ball golf has a max score allowed for handicap purposes at Net Double Bogey which is par+2+any handicap strokes you're allowed on that hole. They now allow the Maximum Score format as a legitimate alternate form of play but not yet used for elite level play.

Par is tightly codified in golf, not so much in dg. For rules based on par to increase beyond what we have now there would need to be strict adherence to some well defined definition of the term.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Assuming this is for 'official tournament play'...

1. Ban jump-putting. Jump-putting demands that your card-mates enforce the rules.

2. Expand the smallest green to a 15 meter circle and allow 'course administrators' to create even larger greens of different shapes/configurations within a limit of a 25 meter circle.

3. Limit bag sizes either by number of discs or total weight of discs.

4. Reduce the maximum weight of 'legal' discs.

5. Ban caddies, either human or otherwise, except in the rare cases of disabled access - or if one man has a caddy, then every man must have a caddy.

6. All discs within 5' of the basket are considered 'gimmies' (+1 stroke & pick it up, move to the next hole). 'Circle Zero'

7. Ban all artificial 'aides' such as range finders, and the like.

I could go on but it's been a long day.

1. You'll have to define the difference between a putt and a throw. Good luck.

2. I don't understand the point of this one.

3. I don't think this will have any effect whatsoever. People like McBeth will still be throwing similarly rated rounds. Seems like a rule for the sake of having the rule.

4. Sooooo what do you do with the millions of discs already out in the wild? Grandfather them in? Disc manufacturers are going to love this one...

5. Don't really care either way on this one...

6. No. Just no. Either you hole out or you don't. This would change nothing and have no effect. Another rule for the sake of having the rule.

7. Don't really care about this one either. I could go either way.

 

[biscoe]

If you miss your tee time (pick a time -- 3min?) you're dq'd.

Matches the DQ rule for leaving early unless this rule has been changed. The par +4 is dumb.

If not -- then make it par +4 if you leave early also. I realize late happens and leaving early happens . . .. but at least make it the same.

My usual rant -- I realize that I'm alone being bugged by this -- just saying.

Any missed hole should be the end of your event imo, as should an incorrect scorecard. Would require a seismic change in the culture of our game however.

 

[biscoe]

Selecting the right disc is a skill.

as is judging distance

 

[Steve West]

Par is tightly codified in golf, not so much in dg. For rules based on par to increase beyond what we have now there would need to be strict adherence to some well defined definition of the term.

If we were talking about something like Stableford scoring, you'd have a point.

For any current or potential "par plus 4" rules, it's close enough already. The plus 4 gives a lot of room for slop. Almost all holes have a par within one parlecule of any standard we could come up with. And, 99% of those pars that would depart from the standard are higher than they should be.

So, yes, a minority of the time a player would get a score more like par plus 5. That's OK because the alternative was DQ, so they can't complain.

Very rarely a player would get something that feels like par plus 3. But, that's still enough to significantly punish a competitive player.

 

[curmudgeonDwindle]

1. You'll have to define the difference between a putt and a throw. Good luck.

the difference between a 'putt' and a 'throw' is already defined - a shot a specific distance from the target (basket). currently, a putt is any shot 10 meters or less from the target. any putt's delivery has specific restrictions. my issue with jump-putts is that the thrower himself cannot rightly determine whether or not the shot was correctly delivered. this forces his card-mates to 'decide for him'. this is an obvious 'gamesmanship' hole in the current rules.

2. I don't understand the point of this one.

expanding the size of greens, and thus permissible delivery methods, and also allowing 'course administrators' more creative leeway. maybe a way to increase the putting game's complexity, interest and thus gaming satisfaction. were I mr. west, i might say something like, 'we might try this. it could increase scoring separation.' were i mr. kennedy, i might say something like, 'we might try this. it might help older courses regain some legitimacy at a small cost.'

3. I don't think this will have any effect whatsoever. People like McBeth will still be throwing similarly rated rounds. Seems like a rule for the sake of having the rule.

maybe not, but check out other entries in the thread for more arguments for/against. we are speaking of all the competitive fields in 'official tournaments'...not merely our heroes...as well as decision making before and during the rounds...


4. Sooooo what do you do with the millions of discs already out in the wild? Grandfather them in? Disc manufacturers are going to love this one...

overweight discs are disallowed for competitive play. period. you are correct, one of the issues with changes like this one is the leverage disc manufacturers have in the sport overall, not to mention people's general resistance to change - good, bad or somewhere in between. in the short term, i would think disc manufacturers might love it because of the potential profit, however this may be countered by the 'alienation' factor resulting from such a decision. in the long term, people would just adjust. newer players would express surprise at earlier generations' liberality.

5. Don't really care either way on this one...

6. No. Just no. Either you hole out or you don't. This would change nothing and have no effect. Another rule for the sake of having the rule.

A valid point of contention, but all putts within arm length, assuming 'circle zero' is measured from the basket's support are already merely a formality. This would help speed play in a minor way; slow play is a common complaint in 'official tournaments' Lord knows i've done my share of grousing about it...i've played both roles actually...

7. Don't really care about this one either. I could go either way.

Take note: this thread isn't to be taken too seriously, or better, i take it as an opportunity to brainstorm/b*llsh*t about this topic...these ideas are predicated on the general premise that more skill should be required in disc golf, certainly for professionals and that a player, certainly a professional, should depend more upon his own resources/skills.

 

[araytx]

So you would be OK if the 2m rule was always in effect, but only for the trees the TD specifies?

I would.

Restrict OHs to scramble shots only. For me, if I have to throw an OH, I'm either off the fairway in jail, or the hole has no good line to the basket other than that.

Also ratings cap some age divisions (MA40 for example).

Both of these are directly related to a local guy plaiying MA40 instead of MA1 and placing 1 back of a sponsered pro who played MPO on the same layout.

Nope. He's 40. and an amateur. Give him a break.

 

[DiscFifty]

Also ratings cap some age divisions (MA40 for example).

Both of these are directly related to a local guy plaiying MA40 instead of MA1 and placing 1 back of a sponsered pro who played MPO on the same layout.

Here in the DFW area we have 40, 50, 55+ ams who are rated 940,950+. It just looks silly for them to be competing in local c-tiers against guys 50-90+ points BELOW their rating. The ones that don't register until the division is close to being full (of much less rated players), well.....winning plastic appears to be fantastic.

I had one 940+ rated am old dude guy that I've played with several times in the past ask me why I'm playing intermediate now days and not in the age protected divisions. I said "probably the same reason you aren't playing advanced". lol..

 

[DiscFifty]

Also ratings cap some age divisions (MA40 for example).

Both of these are directly related to a local guy plaiying MA40 instead of MA1 and placing 1 back of a sponsered pro who played MPO on the same layout.

Here in the DFW area we have 40, 50, 55+ ams who are rated 940,950+. It just looks silly for them to be competing in local c-tiers against guys 50-90+ points BELOW their rating. The ones that don't register until the division is close to being full (of much less rated players), well.....winning plastic appears to be fantastic.

I had one 940+ rated am old dude guy that I've played with several times in the past ask me why I'm playing intermediate now days and not in the age protected divisions. I said "probably the same reason you aren't playing advanced". lol..

Quoted for attention...

This is not a dig at you btw, you're one of the few that will typically move up or play pro when available. :clap:

 

[araytx]

Here in the DFW area we have 40, 50, 55+ ams who are rated 940,950+. It just looks silly for them to be competing in local c-tiers against guys 50-90+ points BELOW their rating. The ones that don't register until the division is close to being full (of much less rated players), well.....winning plastic appears to be fantastic.

I had one 940+ rated am old dude guy that I've played with several times in the past ask me why I'm playing intermediate now days and not in the age protected divisions. I said "probably the same reason you aren't playing advanced". lol..



This is not a dig at you btw, you're one of the few that will typically move up or play pro when available. :clap:

Thanks. I've even played up sometimes with no return possible other than a trophy -- which I did get once! yay!

 

[_MTL_]

Here in the DFW area we have 40, 50, 55+ ams who are rated 940,950+. It just looks silly for them to be competing in local c-tiers against guys 50-90+ points BELOW their rating. The ones that don't register until the division is close to being full (of much less rated players), well.....winning plastic appears to be fantastic.

I 100% support never forcing a player to play a pro division.

However, I strongly believe that amateur age protected divisions should have rating caps in B and C tiers.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Here in the DFW area we have 40, 50, 55+ ams who are rated 940,950+. It just looks silly for them to be competing in local c-tiers against guys 50-90+ points BELOW their rating. The ones that don't register until the division is close to being full (of much less rated players), well.....winning plastic appears to be fantastic.

I had one 940+ rated am old dude guy that I've played with several times in the past ask me why I'm playing intermediate now days and not in the age protected divisions. I said "probably the same reason you aren't playing advanced". lol..

Age protected players not playing pro age protected divisions, with high enough ratings to contend, isn't as much of an issue as the reason why lower rated age protected players complain about those players when they have the opportunity to contend in the appropriate MA2, MA3, MA4 division and don't enter there. The underlying social factor is few men over age 40 seem to enjoy playing with men under age 40 even if their skill levels are similar.

 

[DiscFifty]

Age protected players not playing pro age protected divisions, with high enough ratings to contend, isn't as much of an issue as the reason why lower rated age protected players complain about those players when they have the opportunity to contend in the appropriate MA2, MA3, MA4 division and don't enter there. The underlying social factor is few men over age 40 seem to enjoy playing with men under age 40 even if their skill levels are similar.

I used to buy into this same line of thinking until I realized the level of commitment to the game it takes for anyone to become advanced rated, especially at age 40+. No reason for them not to be competing against other advanced rated players, regardless of age.

 

[Discraft Dad]

Personally I think they should limit the number of disc you can carry to say 7 (arbitrary but maybe even less). If you can't make most shots you need with that amount then you should have to improve your technique

I agree that there should be a limit but 7 seems kind of low. I would say no more than 12.

 

[Casey 1988]

I agree that there should be a limit but 7 seems kind of low. I would say no more than 12.

I say no more then 20 discs, it is NOT TRADITIONAL GOLF where the ball is not a club unlike like Disc golf where the Disc is thrown.

 

[Casey 1988]

I 100% support never forcing a player to play a pro division.

However, I strongly believe that amateur age protected divisions should have rating caps in B and C tiers.

I do not think the 40 Age protected divisions should have rating cap maybe one to play the age group down but that they need to have intermediate and advanced for the age protected divisions with the ones under the max age group having a beginner/rec combo as well. The youth under 18 age divisions should have a rating cap for the age group, that is the lower end of the non age division groups if they could fall under the Rec-Am 1 divisions as one of the max ratings for a youth age divisions.