Appropriate use of Drop Zones

[Billipo]

I tend to use a drop zone when shots are either ...

1.) difficult to determine where disc last was in bounds or
2.) where significant advantage or disadvantage can be obtained in determining last IB spot.

I designed a course some time ago where I hadn't put in a drop zone on a particular hole but I was thinking on doing so. The disc can go OB on drives but drives are easy to see so for drive OB can be played with standard OB rules. Subsiquent shots can be thrown OB beyond the target these are typically blind and a favorable mark creates an easy drop in. I'm suggesting a drop zone at an approximate 20 ft putting distance for OB on these subsequent shots.

My question: What are the downsides of a drop zone versus using standard OB rules?

 

[Cranky]

It's more predictable. You can practice the drop zone, when ob is different every time.

 

[DavidSauls]

Our course uses several drop zones, in different situations.

Among the downsides are that you need PDGA approval for tournaments, if the drop zone is to be required.

A bigger downside is that, like other hole design features, it's easy to get the drop zone wrong. You can make it too easy (which 20' would likely be) or too difficulty (so it results in layups) -- either of which makes it boring. We made those mistakes a few times before getting them right.

 

[biscoe]

In a vacuum I don't really see a problem with having what is basically a tap in after you take your OB penalty. Depends on other characteristics of the hole and what your goal for it is though.

 

[Billipo]

My main concern is towards fairness. In the instances, when point of OB is not clear different players can interpret the spot differently to their advantage or opponents disadvantage.

Points made are well taken. I also realize in desire to win, players can get quite creative working around design intent.

 

[DavidSauls]

One caution about "island holes" with small island greens, but low-percentage drop zones: They tend to produce donut-hole scoring spreads, with lots of 2s & 4s, but few 3s. That can mean a disproportionate effect on results.

The solutions are either a larger green (so lots of IB shots still result in 3s), or a drop zone short enough that a sufficient number are made for 3s.

 

[Billipo]

I feel stupid. Either something changed when I wasn't paying attention or I was just plain unaware that use of a drop zone was a two stroke penalty. Seems a bit punishing and takes this inquiry (thread) off the table.

I guess it helps to know the rules.

 

[biscoe]

I feel stupid. Either something changed when I wasn't paying attention or I was just plain unaware that use of a drop zone was a two stroke penalty. Seems a bit punishing and takes this inquiry (thread) off the table.

I guess it helps to know the rules.

Hunh? Where are you getting that? There is no inherent penalty to "use a drop zone"- penalty would be dependent on the circumstance under which it is used. Pretty sure the only way a 2 stroke penalty could be applied to use of drop zone would be if it were used improperly and became a misplay of the hole.

 

[coupe]

It's only 2 strokes if a player proceeds directly to the drop zone without throwing from the teepad or a previous line. Otherwise, it's 1 stroke.

 

[coupe]

806.2.G:

If a drop zone has been provided for an out-of-bounds area, the Director may allow players to proceed directly to that drop zone at the cost of two penalty throws.

 

[Billipo]

It's only 2 strokes if a player proceeds directly to the drop zone without throwing from the teepad or a previous line. Otherwise, it's 1 stroke.

I talked to Big Dog yesterday. You are correct. I was misled by another and this confusion was reinforced by me misreading/misinterpreting 806.2 G. "Fake News!"

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

In a vacuum I don't really see a problem with having what is basically a tap in after you take your OB penalty. Depends on other characteristics of the hole and what your goal for it is though.

I put a drop zone with a 30ft putt on a short par three that had OB approximately 5 ft from the basket. When one TD decided to not use the drop zone at a tournament, several players threw directly at the basket intending to go OB so that they could take their gimme putt for par and move on. This approach seemed too much of a reward for the OB for me. On the other hand, the birdie was still there for the taking so it really wasn't that much of an issue.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

I talked to Big Dog yesterday. You are correct. I was misled by another and this confusion was reinforced by me misreading/misinterpreting 806.2 G. "Fake News!"

It's not a two stroke penalty. It is the original throw + a one stroke penalty. A player going straight to drop zone is conceding the original throw, that they skipped, was OB.

 

[kumerow]

I put a drop zone with a 30ft putt on a short par three that had OB approximately 5 ft from the basket. When one TD decided to not use the drop zone at a tournament, several players threw directly at the basket intending to go OB so that they could take their gimme putt for par and move on. This approach seemed too much of a reward for the OB for me. On the other hand, the birdie was still there for the taking so it really wasn't that much of an issue.

When OB is too close to the basket, I feel like making it a hazard is a better option if applicable. You play from where you land, but still take a penalty stroke. That would negate the strategic benefit of having it be OB. I usually only see this on ball golf courses, but it could be used in normal disc golf courses too.

 

[TiltedFlipCurves]

When OB is too close to the basket, I feel like making it a hazard is a better option if applicable. You play from where you land, but still take a penalty stroke. That would negate the strategic benefit of having it be OB. I usually only see this on ball golf courses, but it could be used in normal disc golf courses too.

That can be taken too far. I played a course modified with island hazards like 15 foot radius on several holes. So instead of getting 3 by hitting 1st available, recovering to circle's edge, and saving par you get 5.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I believe a better format for a "penalty area" near and behind the target is making it a Relief Area (806.04) where the player must go to a drop zone set around 11-14 meters from the basket. They have a chance to birdie by making a tough putt. This format tests skill over penalty padding.

1. If they drive near the basket without landing in the Relief Area, they get an easy putt for bird.
2. If they over-drive the target, they likely miss their putt from the DZ (but have a birdie chance using C2 putting skill) and get par.
3. If they drive 11 meters or more short of the basket,
   1. they can putt for birdie, miss and stay inbounds close for par or
   2. over-putt into the Relief Area, putting from DZ to save par but likely take a bogey.

This design structure has no need for a direct penalty stroke and provides scoring separation based on lack of skill execution. Every throw involves a skills test which is an important element of good design. The only issue currently is the PDGA ironically disallows designing this format without a waiver, i.e., for TD to require player to go to DZ.

 

[txmxer]

The "2 stroke penalty" is as coupe said. It comes in to play occasionally on a water carry that the player knows/believes will end up wet, so skip the list disc and go to DZ.

 

[BillFleming]

The "2 stroke penalty" is as coupe said. It comes in to play occasionally on a water carry that the player knows/believes will end up wet, so skip the list disc and go to DZ.

Yes, but only if it has been allowed by the TD. We had someone want to do this during the Memorial a year ago and they were told it wasn't allowed, they had to throw the tee shot. They got smart and did a short 'putt' into the edge of the water so they could easily get the disc back and then went to the drop zone.

My opinion? (Not that it is being asked), I think it should be allowed regardless. Basically, have it as an option....if a player doesn't want to lose a disc (in water) and the option for going to a drop zone if the disc is in the water exists, then the player should be allowed to say "I can't throw across the water, so I'm going to take two strokes and proceed to the drop zone".

 

[Billipo]

..if a player doesn't want to lose a disc (in water) and the option for going to a drop zone if the disc is in the water exists, then the player should be allowed to say "I can't throw across the water, so I'm going to take two strokes and proceed to the drop zone".

Original post was to insure fairness in tournament play in cases where topography/situation make it difficult with certainty to properly mark a blind or difficult to determine last IB spot. Avoiding giving a player an in inadvertent particularly favorable or unfavorable spot. Without going into detail, easy to do in my example. Heat of competition often clouds some players sense of judgement, which is not fair to entire field.

For Mr. Fleming water carry quoted example, my opinion on casual play, it is on the course designer to design reasonable water carry or alternative avoidance routes for all skill levels. For tournament play TD should utilize proper tees for skill so not to create "unfair" water carry situations by division.

That being said, no one likes to loose a disc, if you are afraid of a water carry then throw a trash disc, creatively take penalties to save discs, what Bill said, play to win, or stay home (discs safe there).

Any ways, I have opted in initial post example to keep as is, no drop zone. I could see how adding the drop zone could create complication, encourage creative tactics. Leaving as is, players can focus on trying not to go OB.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes, but only if it has been allowed by the TD. We had someone want to do this during the Memorial a year ago and they were told it wasn't allowed, they had to throw the tee shot. They got smart and did a short 'putt' into the edge of the water so they could easily get the disc back and then went to the drop zone.

My opinion? (Not that it is being asked), I think it should be allowed regardless. Basically, have it as an option....if a player doesn't want to lose a disc (in water) and the option for going to a drop zone if the disc is in the water exists, then the player should be allowed to say "I can't throw across the water, so I'm going to take two strokes and proceed to the drop zone".

The problem with a blanket solution is that it won't be a best solution in all circumstances. Where there's a long water carry that begins near the tee, I'm in favor of the direct-to-the-drop-zone option.

But in cases where the OB with a drop zone exists further up the fairway, it might be advantageous to go straight to the drop zone, over the even-worse trouble a bad tee shot can get you in. In that case, the choice shouldn't be thrower's.

I favor giving the TD/designer the option to allow it, and hoping they use good judgment.