A Fun List of Odd Rule Uses

[sidewinder22]

How do you play if your disc goes OB and is lost?

 

[Dan Ensor]

How do you play if your disc goes OB and is lost?

Which one is it?

Seems like a solid argument for eliminating "last in-bounds" as an option for OB throws, something I've been an advocate for for years. Such a rule change would have a huge impact on course design, but IMO it would be for the better.

The end result would likely be less OB or at the very least, more strategically placed OB on most courses (and/or the increased use of drop zones as well). It would force better course design, IMO.

The other reason to eliminate "last in-bounds" is the same reason that "last seen" was eliminated as the default for a lost disc. It removes the guesswork out of the next lie. For every shot that goes OB, everyone is punished the same (DZ or re-throw). No one gains an advantage or gets "screwed" based on how their disc got to its position in the OB area. And no one has to feel like a jerk when they try to say someone's lie belongs somewhere less than desirable (because how many times have we encountered the "somewhere along here, pick a spot you like" OB ruling?).


Of course, it's a huge fundamental change that would affect (IMO, not negatively) too many existing courses/designs, so I have no expectation of it ever happening. But it's a cause that all the "artificial rope OB" hating folks should get behind, since it would significantly lessen people's desires to add such hazards.

There would be a significant change for the players, also. Especially top level players, would want to carry (at least) 2 identical discs for every shot near OB.

 

[JC17393]

There would be a significant change for the players, also. Especially top level players, would want to carry (at least) 2 identical discs for every shot near OB.

I'm not so sure it would be necessarily change disc/bag choices so much as shot selection choices. If there's a risk of going OB and having to re-throw, more players (especially top level players) are likely to not throw as aggressively and play the safer shot. Also, I would hope if the rule was changed, the way holes with OB were designed would change as well. For example, if there are OB areas that are in play from the tee (or for any throw of length), they should be accompanied by a drop zone that would lessen the need to re-throw the same shot again (but the option would obviously remain available). I also expect that some OB would be done away with all together as being "too punitive" without the last-in-bounds option (or a drop zone). I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either.

Just as an example of a seemingly common practice with the current rule that would have to change....a basket on a 250-300 foot hole is placed near an OB area (road, sidewalk, water, roped area, doesn't matter), but practically speaking the OB doesn't really change anyone's strategy. Those that could reach the basket will throw aggressively for the green and if the disc goes OB, they're fine with making a 20-30 foot putt from the OB line for a penalty-3...particularly if the safe lay-up tee shot is going to net them a 3 at best anyway. Those that can't reach it are laying up short, then making a shorter, easier throw to the green and avoiding the OB.

A better design, IMO, would be to add a drop zone 40-50+ feet from the basket so that going OB requires a lengthy putt/throw-in to save the 3. Now obviously a good designer can simply add the drop zone and require playing from it under existing rules, but IMO there are a lot of lazy designers (and busy overwrought TDs who can't micromanage to that level) who decide the job is done just to designate something OB and leave it at that.

Like I said, I doubt such a change has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening, but I think it would be a simple change that could streamline a lot of things in the rule book and in play. There's no more conflict of OB vs lost...the penalty and next throw for either is the same so there's no need to differentiate. There's no more guessing (and more specifically no arguing) about where the disc last crossed from in-bounds...truly helpful on throws around blind corners. Even a spotter's job is easier in that if there is an OB in play, their only task is to say "in" or "out".

 

[araytx]

I'm not so sure it would be necessarily change disc/bag choices so much as shot selection choices. If there's a risk of going OB and having to re-throw, more players (especially top level players) are likely to not throw as aggressively and play the safer shot. Also, I would hope if the rule was changed, the way holes with OB were designed would change as well. For example, if there are OB areas that are in play from the tee (or for any throw of length), they should be accompanied by a drop zone that would lessen the need to re-throw the same shot again (but the option would obviously remain available). I also expect that some OB would be done away with all together as being "too punitive" without the last-in-bounds option (or a drop zone). I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing either.

Just as an example of a seemingly common practice with the current rule that would have to change....a basket on a 250-300 foot hole is placed near an OB area (road, sidewalk, water, roped area, doesn't matter), but practically speaking the OB doesn't really change anyone's strategy. Those that could reach the basket will throw aggressively for the green and if the disc goes OB, they're fine with making a 20-30 foot putt from the OB line for a penalty-3...particularly if the safe lay-up tee shot is going to net them a 3 at best anyway. Those that can't reach it are laying up short, then making a shorter, easier throw to the green and avoiding the OB.

A better design, IMO, would be to add a drop zone 40-50+ feet from the basket so that going OB requires a lengthy putt/throw-in to save the 3. Now obviously a good designer can simply add the drop zone and require playing from it under existing rules, but IMO there are a lot of lazy designers (and busy overwrought TDs who can't micromanage to that level) who decide the job is done just to designate something OB and leave it at that.

Like I said, I doubt such a change has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening, but I think it would be a simple change that could streamline a lot of things in the rule book and in play. There's no more conflict of OB vs lost...the penalty and next throw for either is the same so there's no need to differentiate. There's no more guessing (and more specifically no arguing) about where the disc last crossed from in-bounds...truly helpful on throws around blind corners. Even a spotter's job is easier in that if there is an OB in play, their only task is to say "in" or "out".

While I agree with my man JC on this being the cleaner more simplified version, I believe a lot of the reason not to do it has to be about pace of play. I could see the number of delays and/or provisionals going way up if after an OB throw, you could only re-throw or go to the drop zone. Plus, there are places and designs currently in place where a drop zone is not very practical. Example: Look at that last hole of the final 9 at AM Worlds where Izak McDonald went OB off the tee. (He's 2nd to throw at 31:10. The OB is on the right and left, the ropes running basically along the line of the ski gondola poles, then curling around deep of the basket connecting to each other in the shape of what I call a surf board https://youtu.be/KH-u4054yR8?t=30m5s) Where would you put a drop zone on that hole and still be fair to all OB shots??? If there's a DZ with about a 40-50' putt, he's teeing off with little risk, because that 14-year-old had already canned a two putts at/beyond that distance in the final 9. OR what about any hole that runs parallel to an OB area that's 350' or longer. Some people may go out at 100', some at 200', some at 350', and some at 450'. Which one is the drop zone? Rethrow only is gonna mean either a whole bunch more spotters, a whole bunch more down and back delays, or a whole bunch more provisionals.

 

[araytx]

I'd like to hear more 'oddities' of the rules.... You know, teebox gossip.
p.s. Thanks, Chuck.

People will disagree with some, all, or none of these. Some people won't care at all. Others will look fondly upon them as a way knowledge of the rule provides an advantage.

OB Relief - If you are less than a meter from OB, you are given (perp.) relief up to one meter away, which you can instead use to move your disc some distance CLOSER to the OB to result in a more favorable lie.

2 Meter Penalty - Even when the two meter rule is in effect, you can land much higher up and still be safe.... provided the top of the basket (a legal playing surface) is less than two meters directly below your disc.

Disc Selection - If you want to use another disc, no rule prevents you from adding to your bag mid-round. You could find a disc, borrow a disc, or even have an Amazon drone deliver it to you during your round (assuming you did it without distracting other players and marked distinguishingly prior to throwing it).

The Crane Putt - This one, you gotta see to believe... 3:05 in THIS VIDEO.

The Optional Rethrow - At any time, for any reason, you can rethrow from the same spot with a 1 throw penalty. If your 10' putt rolled 150' down a huge hill and into a lake, this rule is for you.

Using the Terrain - If something (tree, fence, etc) is behind your lie and your weight doesn't make it move, you could legally use it to hang forwards over your lie and gain a very small distance.

Failing to Hole Out - If your disc is not touching the basket because it is resting on top of another disc, you are not yet holed out.

Double Mandos - While the 'missed line' for a single mando is perpendicular to the line of play to the basket, the rule for a double mando is very different: it connects the two double mando markers and extends to infinity. Theoretically, if the two markers were 'nearly' in line with the basket, you could have legally (i.e. not passed the imaginary line) parked your shot 10' from the pin and still have to backtrack to go through the markers before trying to hole out.

What other weird examples of seldom-used rule applications have other people found?

And by the way, on tampora's OP he correctly mentions the optional re-throw rule, then cites the OB rule as an example. Recall that for out-of-bounds, it's always been an option to throw from the previous lie. The example you gave was an option BEFORE the optional re-throw came into the rules.

 

[JC17393]

While I agree with my man JC on this being the cleaner more simplified version, I believe a lot of the reason not to do it has to be about pace of play. I could see the number of delays and/or provisionals going way up if after an OB throw, you could only re-throw or go to the drop zone. Plus, there are places and designs currently in place where a drop zone is not very practical. Example: Look at that last hole of the final 9 at AM Worlds where Izak McDonald went OB off the tee. (He's 2nd to throw at 31:10. The OB is on the right and left, the ropes running basically along the line of the ski gondola poles, then curling around deep of the basket connecting to each other in the shape of what I call a surf board https://youtu.be/KH-u4054yR8?t=30m5s) Where would you put a drop zone on that hole and still be fair to all OB shots??? If there's a DZ with about a 40-50' putt, he's teeing off with little risk, because that 14-year-old had already canned a two putts at/beyond that distance in the final 9. OR what about any hole that runs parallel to an OB area that's 350' or longer. Some people may go out at 100', some at 200', some at 350', and some at 450'. Which one is the drop zone? Rethrow only is gonna mean either a whole bunch more spotters, a whole bunch more down and back delays, or a whole bunch more provisionals.

That is a situation that is perhaps remedied by re-thinking and re-designing those OB areas on existing courses. Does the OB have to exist at all? Is the OB area there as a matter of safety (either to players or non-players) or is it simply put in place to add "challenge" to a hole?

With your parallel OB scenario, there is always the option of having multiple drop zones at varying distances along the fairway. You go to the last drop zone your disc passed (regardless of if it passed it while in-bounds or OB). Something like the graphic below. The player that threw Disc A would go to DZ2. The player that threw Disc B would go to DZ1. The player that threw Disc C would re-tee. The only determination would be is the location of the disc is past a drop zone. It wouldn't matter how it got there, so there'd be no advantage gained by a LHBH/RHFH hyzer vs a RHBH/LHFH hyzer to reach any of those locations. There'd also be no guesswork where a disc crossed a line 200-300-400 feet away from the players...a judgement that from that distance could be off by 50-100 feet or more.

To apply this to the Am Worlds example, just center the drop zones in the fairway, or if the fairway is wide enough, put one on either side of the fairway and if the player goes OB left, they use the left side DZ, and vice versa.


It's all really hypothetical since yes, the rule isn't going to change anytime soon. But I feel like it would be worth the potential headaches because the end result would be more uniform "punishment" for OB throws, more thoughtful OB usage in design and more strategic shot selection from players. I think the time element would be a wash in the end.

As for more spotters...I have ALWAYS advocated that players should be their own spotters during a tournament. If there's a spot where OB is in play and the penalty is re-throwing...send someone ahead to spot and save on the need for provisionals.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I find the entire existence and use of mini markers to be strange, and a bit silly. No longer mandated, of course, except when relocating the lie. It looks like we're pretending to be golfers, overlooking the fact that unlike golf balls on a green, our disc on the ground is hardly an obstacle to other discs being thrown. Why not dispense with the whole thing and throw from behind our disc as it lies---or replace it if we want to throw that disc again?

Or that the penalty for a lost disc is more severe than throwing O.B.? So much that you have people arguing that their disc must be O.B.---i.e.; thrown where it should not have been---instead of possibly inbounds, but obscured by leaves or underbrush.

Or that you can get relief from ants, but not poison ivy or thorns. (Yeah, I know the rationale for this, and reluctantly agree with it. But it's still odd).

David makes some excellent points.

 

[wolfmandragon]

In my experience, the casual relief rules are more often abused than under-utilized. And by abused, I mean applied or attempted to be applied to situations in which it shouldn't. Like taking relief from a bush or a tree or some other obstacle that is either not at all in one's stance or not qualified to be a casual obstacle.

If what I have seen on this forum in other posts are correct, then a dead branch is not considered for casual relief. Should I ever be in a tournament and see this enforced, I will do my best to see a punitive action taken against the TD. There is a reason that those in the forestry sector call those "Widow Makers". That makes me pipe steam.

 

[araytx]

I find the entire existence and use of mini markers to be strange, and a bit silly. No longer mandated, of course, except when relocating the lie. It looks like we're pretending to be golfers, overlooking the fact that unlike golf balls on a green, our disc on the ground is hardly an obstacle to other discs being thrown. Why not dispense with the whole thing and throw from behind our disc as it lies---or replace it if we want to throw that disc again?

Or that the penalty for a lost disc is more severe than throwing O.B.? So much that you have people arguing that their disc must be O.B.---i.e.; thrown where it should not have been---instead of possibly inbounds, but obscured by leaves or underbrush.

Or that you can get relief from ants, but not poison ivy or thorns. (Yeah, I know the rationale for this, and reluctantly agree with it. But it's still odd).

David makes some excellent points.

Mini markers are the result of unlike golf we don't "play it where it lies." We play it from a spot we can reach, slightly above and behind where it lies. In ball golf if you were stuck in a tree, you could climb up there and play it from right where it lay. Not us in dg -- so similarly the same things apply to relocations, discs above ground, near the OB, etc., necessitating a way to mark those spots.

 

[coupe]

I find the entire existence and use of mini markers to be strange, and a bit silly. No longer mandated, of course, except when relocating the lie. It looks like we're pretending to be golfers, overlooking the fact that unlike golf balls on a green, our disc on the ground is hardly an obstacle to other discs being thrown. Why not dispense with the whole thing and throw from behind our disc as it lies---or replace it if we want to throw that disc again?

Eliminating the mini would make it harder to spot if someone misses his mark, resulting in fewer foot fault calls.

.
.
.


Oh, wait … :doh:

 

[coupe]

From the Definitions section

All well and good for retees or throws from the teepad subsequent to teeing off, but you still have to conform to the stipulations of 802.01 when teeing off:

A. Play begins on each hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area. When the disc is released, the player must have at least one supporting point in contact with the surface of the teeing area, and all supporting points must be in contact only with the surface of the teeing area. Supporting point contact outside the teeing area is allowed if it comes before or after, and not at, the moment the disc is released.

B. Any supporting point contact outside the teeing area at the time of release constitutes a stance violation and shall be handled in accordance with sections 802.04 E and F.

 

[JC17393]

All well and good for retees or throws from the teepad subsequent to teeing off, but you still have to conform to the stipulations of 802.01 when teeing off:

Not if you're invoking optional relief and taking a penalty to throw from behind or beside (depending on where the target is to determine line of play) the tee pad, which is what I think Steve was getting at in bringing the topic up in the first place.

803.02
A. Optional Relief. A player may elect at any time to take optional relief. The lie may then be relocated to a new lie which is no closer to the target, and is on the line of play. One penalty throw shall be added to the player's score.

If the lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area (800.02 Definitions), it stands to reason that one can take optional relief from that lie. 803.02A doesn't say "may elect to take optional relief any time except for first throws on a hole", it says "may elect at any time to take optional relief".

Can't imagine a situation where a player would elect to penalize themselves to move off the designated teeing area, though. And even if they did, it's not as though anyone can really prevent it (or would feel the need to do so).

 

[grodney]

And by the way, on tampora's OP he correctly mentions the optional re-throw rule, then cites the OB rule as an example. Recall that for out-of-bounds, it's always been an option to throw from the previous lie. The example you gave was an option BEFORE the optional re-throw came into the rules.

Actually, his example was: "The Optional Rethrow - At any time, for any reason, you can rethrow from the same spot with a 1 throw penalty. If your 10' putt rolled 150' down a huge hill and into a lake, this rule is for you."

He didn't say it went OB -- he said it went into a lake. The lake isn't OB, unless specifically cited as OB by the director.

But I know what you mean.

(By the way, has it "always" been an option to throw from previous lie on OB? I thought it used to be "last spot in-bounds" only, and the "previous lie" option was added sometime in the last 25 years --- I could be totally wrong on this, though.)

 

[DavidSauls]

Eliminating the mini would make it harder to spot if someone misses his mark, resulting in fewer foot fault calls.

.
.
.


Oh, wait … :doh:

I would eliminate minis and specify that the lie is behind the disc on the ground. A full disc betrays footfaults more than a mini does. Although I once had a champion plastic mini that squeaked when I pivoted on it. Of course, it got banned from my bag for its loose tongue.

For relocations I would allow any disc to placed as a marker, and if you want to make a repeat throw with a disc (often a putter), allow any disc to replace it.

This is, of course, the least important potential rule change ever suggested. Which is why it fits a thread on "odd rules" perfectly. But if I ever get elected Rules Czar---a job that has not been offered, yet---expect your minis to become collector items.

 

[grodney]

What other weird examples of seldom-used rule applications have other people found?

1. Marking the lie and subsequent stance on wooded doglegs is done incorrectly a lot of the time. Before the dogleg, players tend to mark their lie (and take their stance) in line with the fairway, instead of in line with the basket. (Assume no mando anywhere on the hole.) Depending on the nature of the lie, marking in line with the basket (which feels like the "side" of the disc instead of "behind" the disc") can sometimes be advantageous --- in addition to being correct.

2. If your lie is very close to the basket, it's legal (if not physically practical) to straddle the basket itself -- with one foot behind your mini, and the other foot on the other side of the basket -- as long as that 2nd foot is farther away from the basket than your mini. (At least I think this is true -- it's been discussed here before, and I tend to not pay attention when it comes up.)

 

[brutalbrutus]

I would eliminate minis and specify that the lie is behind the disc on the ground. A full disc betrays footfaults more than a mini does. Although I once had a champion plastic mini that squeaked when I pivoted on it. Of course, it got banned from my bag for its loose tongue.

For relocations I would allow any disc to placed as a marker, and if you want to make a repeat throw with a disc (often a putter), allow any disc to replace it.

This is, of course, the least important potential rule change ever suggested. Which is why it fits a thread on "odd rules" perfectly. But if I ever get elected Rules Czar---a job that has not been offered, yet---expect your minis to become collector items.

What if I want to mark my disc, with a mini, before attempting a jump, because I don't want to step on/or land on a disc?

 

[krupicka]

Not if you're invoking optional relief and taking a penalty to throw from behind or beside (depending on where the target is to determine line of play) the tee pad, which is what I think Steve was getting at in bringing the topic up in the first place.



If the lie for the first throw on a hole is the teeing area (800.02 Definitions), it stands to reason that one can take optional relief from that lie. 803.02A doesn't say "may elect to take optional relief any time except for first throws on a hole", it says "may elect at any time to take optional relief".

Can't imagine a situation where a player would elect to penalize themselves to move off the designated teeing area, though. And even if they did, it's not as though anyone can really prevent it (or would feel the need to do so).

I can. There are more than a few tee boxes that are placed forward enough to block off a line. If you allowed teeing off behind the tee pad a new (much easier) line is opened.

 

[JC17393]

(By the way, has it "always" been an option to throw from previous lie on OB? I thought it used to be "last spot in-bounds" only, and the "previous lie" option was added sometime in the last 25 years --- I could be totally wrong on this, though.)

You're correct that it hasn't "always" been an option to re-throw from the previous lie for OB shots. That was added to the rule book for the 2002 revision (along with the drop zone option). Prior to that, it was only last-in-bounds. So it's been on the books for 13 years now, which for a whole lot of players is "always".

What's incredible to me is that the rule has been as it is now for those 13 years, and there are still players unaware of the fact that re-throwing or drop zones are even an option. And that's both old school players that remember the pre-2002 rules and newer players that were taught by those old school folks.

 

[JC17393]

I can. There are more than a few tee boxes that are placed forward enough to block off a line. If you allowed teeing off behind the tee pad a new (much easier) line is opened.

And is the easier line worth the penalty the player has to take? In other words is throwing from the tee going to take, say, 3 throws to get to the basket versus the penalty + one throw to the basket from the relocated lie?

If there's a hole where that can happen and it's viewed as a problem, there's an easy fix. Put a mando right next to the tee, in such a place that throws from the tee will never miss it and throws from a re-located lie through the unintended lie will miss it every time.

 

[krupicka]

I was reading what you were saying as causal relief, not optional relief. Yes, there is really no point to taking a penalty using optional relief from the tee pad.