The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire... Discuss among yourselves...

Seriously I was having a discussion about courses today and had an idea and wanted to see what the prevailing wind on it was and if anyone had used it and how it worked out.

The thought is a sandtrap near the green on a whole, the difference is that landing in this trap does not incure an ob stroke. You are forced to take relief behind the trap (away from the hole), but do not incure an ob stroke.

The idea is that the trap is big enough to be an obstacle not only on the drive/approach but also if landed in to the putt as well.

As an example I'll use two holes, #3 at Ephram White in Bowling Green, KY. It's slightly downhill 246 or so (might be a little longer), with small sandtraps (actual sand) on three sides. If these were say 20' deep (front to back) if you land in them you come back straight behind to the near edge of the trap (away from the hole), now you have a putt for 2 but it's a 30+' rather than a 15' for (3). A good putter won't take a stroke but a poor one will. If there's a blow by he's putting back at the trap again which adds pressure. Blowing by again into the trap means he has the same 30' from the long side of the trap again.

My next example is hole #17 at Winthrop Gold (USDGC). Not to blaspheme the island green here (which I love) but it's a hole most everyone knows even if they haven't played it (12) here btw. So I'm using it as an example.

The defined green is approx 35' around the basket, ob lake behind, now a 30' deep sand trap in front. Come in short and you've got a 65' putt from the front of the trap toward the ob water behind the basket. Come in long and and you're ob. If someone really needs the stroke they can take a run at the 65' and still make a 2 but risk going ob on the second shot if they blow by.

I've always had issue that in Disc Golf we generally only have 1 way to make an existing course harder and that's with OB. OB guarentees a punishment, it's up to your skill as a player to minimize that punishment. To break out the well worn analogy of ball golf. Punishments in ball golf are varied, sometimes they are strokes (OB, stroke+distance, etc) sometimes they are in a more difficult shot. In the latter case a highly skilled player (or lucky) can still salvage a good score with a great shot. The penalty depends on the skill of the player. It's difficult in DG to make a shot harder b/c there are few factors that affect the shot in comparison to ball golf. Stance... yes but that's pretty much it and that's easier to overcome. Couple that with the variety of shots you can throw in DG (overhands, rollers, sidearms, etc) and stance can be pretty easily eliminated.
In ball golf if you end up in the sand there chances are good that you will be punished but you can still make a great shot and save it, if you are really good perhaps even still take your birdie.

I know there would be some logistics to overcome, how do you define such an area, obviously having an actual sand pit would be the best but some courses can't do that. Plus some course may want to use a trap to make the course harder for tournament play but not affect it for everyday use. There is also the issue of how the relief is taken. Is it a rules issue to declare that you must play outside the trap on line with the basket the furthest point inbounds from the basket. Even if there is an inbounds spot closer to the basket?

Thoughts? comments? Is anyone out there using something like this on any of their courses?

It's been discussed before and you're allowed to do it. Go for it.

While it is not a sand trap, but another park in Bowling Green offers punishment for the next throw while offering no penalty shot.

#13 at Lovers Lane. It is basically an uphill hole at 425ft. The slope greatly increases the last ~150ft to the basket. At this same spot ~300ft down the fairway on the right there is a large bed of rocks used as erosion protection from street drainage.

If the player turns their shot over too much they end up in these rocks. The next 150ft steep uphill shot is extremely difficult, and players throwing out of the rocks cannot get a very solid stance, mainly with zero run up. Usually most people must throw an overhand shot from a stand still position. In the three tournaments I have played there, 4 tournament rounds, and 2 practice rounds, at least one person from every group I have played with has thrown into the hazard and I have yet to see someone salvage par from that lie.

I think this is a great way to create non-OB hazards on a disc golf course.

Another natural element that could be utilized is thick, abundant foilage.

Take a fairly open fairway, and plant a thick growing plant such as bamboo, or in an area near woods you can use privet. These types of plants are natural looking and create a thick punishable obstacle while not forcing the player to take a penalty shot.

Doesn't RADL already use this? I don't remember the hole at Buckhorn (and I'm too lazy to look it up), but the one that has the basket on the dam of that algae infested pond. Don't you guys rope off the incline of the dam and force a long putt uphill to the basket with all the algae right behind it if you happen to land in that "sand trap"?

Another natural element that could be utilized is thick, abundant foilage. Take a fairly open fairway, and plant a thick growing plant such as bamboo, or in an area near woods you can use privet. These types of plants are natural looking and create a thick punishable obstacle while not forcing the player to take a penalty shot.



Another idea along the same lines of what you mention would be to erect a chainlink fence in the area a fairway bunker would penalize errant drives. You could plant a nice viney plant that would grow up into the chainlink and create a hedge to make it look more appealing and natural.

A 4' high fence would prevent normal throwing motion for a fairway drive or a putt. A 10' high fence would force some sort of overhand shot.

Doesn't RADL already use this? I don't remember the hole at Buckhorn (and I'm too lazy to look it up), but the one that has the basket on the dam of that algae infested pond. Don't you guys rope off the incline of the dam and force a long putt uphill to the basket with all the algae right behind it if you happen to land in that "sand trap"?



yes, we do. That's partly what gave me the idea, but that is done to avoid erosion on the hill with people walking/standing etc on it, not explicitly to make the hole more difficult. Also there is the question of going from lie->hole->trap, there is an inbound spot between the hole and the trap that would be the last place inbounds, If I read Chucks comment correctly it's kosher to declare that your lie must always be on the far side of the trap from the basket rather than the LPI.

In reference to ParkNTwoPutt's post, I stayed will away from those rocks this weekend for that very reason (easy 3). One thing I forgot to mention was ideas for temporary sand traps. Flags/string are ok, but it's easy to skip/roll through. Hay bales are great but arn't always a good temp solution (kills the grass, requires alot of work to get them in place).

These proposed sandtraps are essentially casual relief areas where you're not allowed to play from your lie. You take LOP relief or the other option is to mark a drop zone where someone has to throw from if they land in the marked area (see Special Conditions rule). Let's say your hole is relatively wide open with few trees. Mark an area maybe 60 feet by 60 feet on the left side near the landing area on a par 4 hole. Mark the drop zone 8-12 feet behind one of the few trees to force the player to throw a curved shot around the tree for their approach. There's no penalty for landing in the marked area other than making a tougher shot around the tree.

The course Pro in Amarillo is considering another idea along these lines. There would be areas marked off along certain points of some of the more wide open areas of the course. If you land in one of these areas, you dont have to re-mark your lie to another location nor are you penalized any throws. Instead, you must make your next throw with 2 supporting points on the playing surface instead of one. So, theres not a lot of punishment involved, but its enough to still get into your head and make you throw a more thought out, more controlled shot on an otherwise wide open area.

That option would require approval for PDGA play whereas the others discussed above do not.

How so? Nothing in the Rules prevents anyone from using more than 1 supporting point when making a throw. Anyone that stradle putts uses 2 supporting points every time they putt.

Is it because they would be 'required' to use more than 1 supporting point instead of 'having the choice' to use more than 1 supporting point?

Granted, if it were me I would probably talk to the Competition Director anyway...just to make sure.

I can't see it making that much difference, it'd be like trying to call a very close jump putt. Not saying it wouldn't work, just that it would seem to be a tough call.

I like the idea of sandtraps, the challenge is your average disc golf course doesn't have that level of maintanence to keep the sand fluffy enough to make the run up that much tougher.

I'm working on a number of hazard type options for mid-fairway and around the greens mostly having to do with footing.

If you try any out please share your findings.

Hutchinson, Kansas has a sandtrap. From what I understand, if your lie is in the sand (yes it is sand, but with weeds, not well defined), then you throw your next shot upside down (the disc, not the player). The trap is about 15' away. I'm sure approval would be needed.

Thanks for mentioning that, Jerry. I've thought about several kinds of "traps" over the years, and this idea seems to keep coming back to the front. The idea is if you land in these ares, your next shot will have an extra mental challenge involved. You must establish two ground contacts that may not leave the playing surface until your thrown disc hits something (basket, tree, ground, etc...). As has been mentioned before (I think in the "slam-dunk" thread), the other players in the group will naturally all be extra vigiliant on the placement and timing since it's a new and different experience. It wouldn't be difficult at all to call since it would basicaly be a stance violation. You get one free mistake in a round, then it's a stroke every time after that.

I just finished watching the tape of today's action at the Masters. How many sand traps are on that course? All of them are easy to avoid, but you can bet those players consider them on most of their shots.

It's just an added challenge that course designers should incorporate into Disc Golf.

We went thru a variety of sandtrap options with the course designers group. Any option that required a restricted throw appeared to be rejected by most as appropriate for our game. However, sandtraps that "naturally" forced someone to take a different stance or no run-up like a rock bed, or required moving the lie back on the LOP or to a drop zone, were supported as legit options that could be more widely used.

For some reason, forcibly restricting stance or throw types seems to be unpopular because it appears to violate the nature of the game. However, if the player is faced with a hazard where a certain type of stance or throw might be better than others, that's OK as long as the player can choose.

We went thru a variety of sandtrap options with the course designers group. Any option that required a restricted throw appeared to be rejected by most as appropriate for our game. However, sandtraps that "naturally" forced someone to take a different stance or no run-up like a rock bed, or required moving the lie back on the LOP or to a drop zone, were supported as legit options that could be more widely used.

For some reason, forcibly restricting stance or throw types seems to be unpopular because it appears to violate the nature of the game. However, if the player is faced with a hazard where a certain type of stance or throw might be better than others, that's OK as long as the player can choose.



I am in near total agreement with this. The art of creating a decent trap has to come from the actual physical challenge of it; things like challenging (but not dangerous) footing and restricted flight paths would be two areas that come to mind that would be fair game.

I like the ideas of:
Pot bunkers, where the only flight path is on a steep incline up.
Elevated mounds, where run up is difficult and support points are not level and you might have to choose a flight path on a steep incline down.
Surface covering, where footing is on a varying degree of firmness, or supporting points are force into slight to extreme or awkward positions related to distance and elevation.
I also am interest in hazards that cut off the higher routes and force low trajectory shots.

The point is to avoid Monopoly Chance Card stipulations; such as the must have two supporting points on the ground (nearly impossible to enforce and just sort of weird ("well, two of my toes were on the ground...")) and stick with creative ways to "force" new and interesting challenges through environmental conditions.

So, how did the present day rules regarding Sand Traps in ball golf come to be? I'm pretty sure more than one player said, "What do you mean I can't ground my club in this sand before I hit my ball?". If you don't want to develop a shot to get out of the trap, take extra caution to avoid them. I believe if there were some kind of standard trap (such as sand traps in BG), most serious players would strive to learn a shot to handle those situations.

I'm not sure why you think requiring two supporting points would be difficult to call. Some players throw that way naturally. I've seen several players who use the 2-finger sidearm throw that always plant both feet. For them, these traps wouldn't create too much difficulty. Same as top players in BG who put in the time to get good at sand shots. They plan their shots to avoid the traps, but they don't panic if they happen to land in them.

I like the idea of adding large rocks or boulders to create foot placement issues. On private courses, that could work well. On a course like the one I play mainly, that would be difficult for the Park maintenance crews to provide adequate upkeep.

There is a need for some kind of trap in Disc Golf. Not all courses have abundant trees and other natural features to provide challenges to the players. Many average or even good courses could become very good tests of Disc Golf ability with the addition of some kind of trap.

Here's a "sandtrap" I'm considering for Highbridge. We have a basket on the side of a mound that looks a lot like this diagram. It's pretty close to the proper scale relative to the player shown.

http://publish.hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/mt.%20pain%20relief.jpg

The way it would work is discs that land in positions 1 & 2 would get free casual relief on the line of play to the edge of the mound where the white line is shown. Disc 1 moves all the way to the back of the mound so the idea would be to avoid landing too far above the basket.

The small ring shown that's maybe 2 feet from the basket rim is a safe zone. All discs like disc 3 that are inside or touching the ring get to be marked there for drop ins. In fact, I would ask the Competition Director for discs landing there to actually be considered 'drop ins' and not even putted.

I'm thinking that this hazard would be almost identical to a ball golf green with a relatively steep slope on one side of a hole. You know that your ball will roll away outside gimme range if you don't get close enough when coming in from that side.

Does this seem like a fair hazard? Should the safe ring be a little bigger? The slope near the basket in reality is about half what it appears in this diagram.

It might work John. Have you tested it out?

I'd hope that any options would be listed within our rules and not just left up to the dastardly minds of course designers... ;)

No run ups, try out the two points of contact at time of release, a specific and well used and known shot types (no between the legs or behind the back stuff, just straight up throws like backhand, flick, baseball, thumber (not sure about things like rollers)). It's worth testing out.

I'm not sure about your idea for the casual relief Chuck, seems a little strange. But I can see why you'd want to keep folks off of the mound. Give it a try. Seems like it would be within our current rules to do it as you suggest. I'd just give casual relief for any disc not holed out, even #3. It'll likely be a drop in anyway if the scale you used is close.

I'd just give casual relief for any disc not holed out, even #3. It'll likely be a drop in anyway if the scale you used is close.



The problem is the disc could very easily hit chains and fall out just behind the basket and the player would have to go to the other side of the mound. Even a simple layup putt under the basket where the player is trying to play safe could end up with a casual relief lie behind the mound. That seems too fluky and unfair. So I would want a disc that hits basket or chains and fell just behind the basket within 3 feet or so to not be forced to take relief.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Players should always have to hole out though. I've played too many ball golf rounds when the greens are closed and without putting out it doesn't really feel like you've played a golf round.

This is a cool option even without the mound if you think about it. Kudos!

I could see doing it on flat ground if that's all you have. But I think the mound adds an element that makes it seem less contrived, especially since the footing isn't particularly great on some places of the mound. You can also easily see what you need to do and where to throw easier than lines on the ground that aren't visible from very far away.

Very interesting. I especially like the idea of "pot bunkers". In this case, you wouldn't even need to force players to take casual relief as the footing and the incline would provide natural challenge.

The mound sounds neat too. Question is.. say a player lands 3 feet behind the basket. How far back would it be to the white line defining the casual obstacle area? Would the comeback put have to fly over the mound blindly? If so, and the putt is more than 25-30 feet, the 2 foot radius is way too small. Perhaps you could make the safe zone eliptical with more room behind the basket?

Using drop zones instead of line of play is another dimension to the idea of hazards. It seems kind of artificial. The main thing, I think, is having well defined hazards. Yellow rope or paint is no good compared to a rock, sand, ledge, mound, water, circle of rocks, or other natural yet defined obstacles. If you can see exactly where the hazards are (and where the drop zone is if there is one), then the hazards aren't such a bad idea.

I've played bunker with mandatories, including Hutchinson, KS. Harvey Barger actually canned a UD shot from a dry manmade pond serving as a bunker for $200 in a KDGA end-of-season skins competition. While throw and stance bunkers are fun, I don't think I'd use them in PDGA play. Too much up to interpretation. Players don't like to (and won't) call others on minor infractions such as stance violations. Just look at the lost disc situation before the rule change. Do you think players actually played from there disc where it was last seen (one hundred feet into the woods)? I think the fixed shot/stance scenario can also be unfair in execution. Bigger players have much less problem throwing from 2 support points. I can throw a long way, but from a stand still, I have virtually no distance regardless of technique. Less restrictions is better.

We definitely need more to think about around the green. This is a great way to make holes more difficult without making them longer.

I like the idea of putting a basket in a circle of trees with only one or two big gaps in. These trees wouldn't be thick with leaves at the bottom. Rather they would force you straddle if you were just outside "the circle". If a player was farther back and not in a position to aim for the biggest gap(s), they would have to aim at a small gap in between the tree trunks.

The funnest greens I've ever played on had baskets on or around rock formations. Horshoe Canyon Ranch near Jasper, Arkansas. That course rocks! You wouldn't believe the interesting situations you can create with some huge bolders. Driving or putting at a basket on top of a huge rock is a challenge that is more than most players are used to thinking about. Anyone played any courses with huge rocks on or near the greens? I'd like to play more of these extreme style courses.

OK, I'm coming around a bit on this suggestion. A couple thoughts:
1) It is clear that these "no penalty stroke" hazards can be created under "any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round". I do feel that if these types of hazards become widespread they will merit their own separate designation under the rules. I would like to see true OB designated as stroke and distance and "lateral" hazards as stroke and point of entry. These "no penalty stroke" hazards would be a third category.

2) I think it's important that each type of hazard be clearly and uniquely marked. I don't necessarily think that the hazard marking be universal, just that it is clear on any particular course what type of hazard lies ahead.

3) Although I think that the USDGC will prove to have been the greatest impact on the history of disc golf course design, I still think the temporary nature of WG is a drawback. I think we should use whatever we can to avoid the evolution of separate "tournament rules" from "recreational rules". i.e. define hazards with sidewalks, rock walls, haybales, etc. instead of painted lines and yellow rope.

4) In regards to Chuck's 2 foot "safe circle", I do think that's a bit too small. I think that all disc golf baskets should have at least a 5 ft. radius of safe, flat landing ground immediately around the basket. When I say flat, I do not necessarily mean level, though. The ground could be sloped, just free of uneaveness that would flip a disc that lands flat on the surface up and turn it into a roll-away.

After looking at the situation a little more, I'm leaning toward making the safe zone an arch that goes up from the flat ground around the back of the basket and back down. When I said 2 feet, it was two feet beyond the rim of the basket not the pipe. However, I could see the paint for the arch going 3 feet from the rim around the top and sides of the basket. Remember that the disc doesn't have to land in the safe zone, just touch the line.

Yes, if the player lands above the basket outside the safe line, the mark would be on the back side of the mound with a blind putt. However, for a player to land there, they would have blown their upshot or chosen a riskier upshot. The putt is relatively easy from below the basket on the flat and any drives that actually reach the mound will mostly be where the player shown is putting from. Even if the player's drive ends up above the basket and has to move behind the mound, it will still be a relatively easy 3 from there.

Here are the scoring stats for White level players on this hole from the Mid-Nats. The hole is effectively 270 accounting for elevation: No 2s, 57%-3s, 35%-4s and 8%-5s. Seems surprising even for White level (900 rating avg). This sandtrap will probably be more of a novelty for testing purposes rather than something that materially affects scoring on this particular hole. If the hole was easier to reach, then it might be a way to "save" a hole that had a scoring average under 2.5.

I don't know if I"m off current topic...I just jumped in, but I"m big enough, I do that often.

I like the idea of sandtraps. I like the Bowling Green course, "White's" that had the ob. Really enjoyed it, actually. It made a relatively easy shot, more difficult and a risk/reward decision. If there were no penalty, I'd run at it everytime!!! Otherwise, I'll think about the other variables in the shot.
If we're talking sandtraps not being out of bounds, then you should be penalized with a limited run-up or your playing partners hitting you with foam tubes while you throw or something like that. Otherwise, if there's no stroke danger, or danger at all, what's the point of putting one in? Let's get adventurous people.
On Fly18 courses, the sand is ob and the greens. We'd all be putting in traps if there were more courses like that to set a standard.
I think little additions like yellow rope and sand would give designers the flexibility to make a so-so course (because of it's natural elements) and make it into a fun, challenging course due to its modifications.

Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but at least part of the reason for the mound design with the casual relief was to keep folks from walking on (thereby eroding) the mound, right?

Well, what if you kept your two circles as in the original design, and have the outer one be the casual relief on the line of play, and the inner one move to a drop zone at the base of the mound about 5 feet from the target? That way the only foot traffic will be to retrieve a disc.

I am seriously thinking of using this idea at my home course at Kennett for hole #14 (mound already included).

The main challenge I see for every day use is that we will have to expect average players to know the rules of disc golf... Then again, it could be a useful teaching tool...

To actually reduce traffic, you make touching or being inside the inner ring a gimmee. This will work fine for daily play to reduce traffic on the mound. Players do this a lot anyway. Some people seem to object to allowing gimmees in tournament play so you could still make players make those putts. But tourney play is a small percentage of the time people would have to mark and drop in.

Don't think I like the Gimmie during tournament play. Heck, I have even missed 4ft putts, well only once.

We convienently have a "sandtrap" at our new course. Right in front of the pin there is an object which we refer to as "the bowl". The fairway and the pin is located on a series of boulders. The bowl is where the boulders are not, and there is privet growing in it. The fairway curves around the bowl. You can land just infront of the bowl or fly over it, the privet is not high enough to affect play from the fairway level. However if you are in there, you basically have to throw a hailmary overhand shot to get back to the fairway and hope you don't bounce bad off the boulders again. Some people have taken multiple shots to get out of the bowl.

After looking at the situation a little more, I'm leaning toward making the safe zone an arch that goes up from the flat ground around the back of the basket and back down. When I said 2 feet, it was two feet beyond the rim of the basket not the pipe. However, I could see the paint for the arch going 3 feet from the rim around the top and sides of the basket. Remember that the disc doesn't have to land in the safe zone, just touch the line.

Yes, if the player lands above the basket outside the safe line, the mark would be on the back side of the mound with a blind putt. However, for a player to land there, they would have blown their upshot or chosen a riskier upshot. The putt is relatively easy from below the basket on the flat and any drives that actually reach the mound will mostly be where the player shown is putting from. Even if the player's drive ends up above the basket and has to move behind the mound, it will still be a relatively easy 3 from there.

Here are the scoring stats for White level players on this hole from the Mid-Nats. The hole is effectively 270 accounting for elevation: No 2s, 57%-3s, 35%-4s and 8%-5s. Seems surprising even for White level (900 rating avg). This sandtrap will probably be more of a novelty for testing purposes rather than something that materially affects scoring on this particular hole. If the hole was easier to reach, then it might be a way to "save" a hole that had a scoring average under 2.5.



Woodland Green #9 (or was it #11)?

The idea is intriguing, though I don't see a problem with it, I'm not a fan of the automatic drop in, it promotes bad habits when you can get an automatic dropin on one hole but not on another, players might start to assume that inside 3' is a free dropin.

Have a sign saying "Putt From Drop Zone" during tournaments and "Gimme" the rest of the time.

I'm leaning towards just making the hole mound a well marked and communicated casual relief area and either it's in or you take relief striaght back. Yes, this could be potentially very rough on a player who keeps missing from the long side and has their disc drop and stick on that side, but dems da breaks.

I am going to set it up this next week at Kennett and let folks have at it.

Woodland Green #9

Yep

I have no problem with still requiring players to putt when touching the inner circle. However, in the long run, I think we should consider discs with any part of them inside the basket cylinder projected downward to automatically be "in" on the next throw.

Nick, I want no credit for the concept if you're making players who flop out of the basket go back over the mound. That's your deal. It's one thing in ball golf when a player hits the putt a little too hard and the ball runs down the slope near the pin. However, in DG we're required to throw above the ground and not along the ground. So, we need a fair drop out area behind the basket unlike BG. Hey, if someone flies by the basket without hitting metal, they takes their lumps. But hitting metal and still getting worked simply by where the disc ends up at the base of the basket seems overly punitive.

However, in the long run, I think we should consider discs with any part of them inside the basket cylinder projected downward to automatically be "in" on the next throw.



No Gimmies! There should be no gimmie shots or mulligans in regulation competitive play.

This would serious hinder the competitiveness of the game. While rare, there are many many golfers who have hit their putter on the basket and it dropped out of their hands on short putts, or just dropped it in general. I imagine ball golfers have missed 3-4 inch putts in regulation, normally they don't miss those, and are usually gimmies in casual rounds. But championships can be won or lost on these putts.

The disc must come to rest on it's own in the catching device. No Gimmies.

Fairway Bunkers would actually be a feasible concept for courses because a run up and getting any real power from one is pretty much impossible given the sand being very soft and slipping out when one tries to run on it, I think this would be apretty cool idea, but who knows.

Woodland Green #9

Yep

I have no problem with still requiring players to putt when touching the inner circle. However, in the long run, I think we should consider discs with any part of them inside the basket cylinder projected downward to automatically be "in" on the next throw.

Nick, I want no credit for the concept if you're making players who flop out of the basket go back over the mound. That's your deal. It's one thing in ball golf when a player hits the putt a little too hard and the ball runs down the slope near the pin. However, in DG we're required to throw above the ground and not along the ground. So, we need a fair drop out area behind the basket unlike BG. Hey, if someone flies by the basket without hitting metal, they takes their lumps. But hitting metal and still getting worked simply by where the disc ends up at the base of the basket seems overly punitive.



Understood, just as I would want no part of any "Gimme" language entering a PDGA event. This would never be permitted by the PDGA Rules Committee, though you might be able to get X Tier status for it.

I'm planning to make the angle beneath the basket so extreme that there is relatively no chance of a disc staying there, most discs will roll or slide off. Now if they fly all the way to the far side of the mound, oh well, then they are going to have about a 4 to 5 meter putt. Dems da breaks.

But no gimme's.

I have no mixed feelings about stealing the good parts of other folks ideas and running with them. None at all. And this was a pretty darn good idea Chuck.

Besides if it turns out the way you say I can always convert to your idea, right? (Still no gimmes though...)

Well, if you really have a "slide" around the basket then OK. But if it's that steep or slippery, a gimmee makes even more sense if players can't stand there?

If it's so steep or slick that a stance can't be taken, that's not a good hole placement! Plain and simple, based on discussions in other fora. But, why a gimme then? Any other place, if it's an unplayable lie...No gimme's, I agree, even though I'd probably benefit a LOT!

Chuck, a 'gimme' never makes sense in competitive disc golf.

Yeah I am not a huge fan of gimmies. Heck if there were gimmies Barry may have won the USDGC this year. :o

There's nothing sacred about putting out. Making the equivalent type of gimmee putts in ball golf (2" tappers) goes much faster than in DG and they can't leave a putt over or under the target like we can. Different sports, different parameters. In horseshoes, a leaner was almost a ringer and it earns one less point. A gimmee in DG would cost one more throw than holing out. Same concept.

There's nothing sacred about putting out. Making the equivalent type of gimmee putts in ball golf (2" tappers) goes much faster than in DG and they can't leave a putt over or under the target like we can. Different sports, different parameters. In horseshoes, a leaner was almost a ringer and it earns one less point. A gimmee in DG would cost one more throw than holing out. Same concept.



You still have to hole out those 2"ers in ball golf (talking about tournament play)

I don't see the save in time, the extra 2s it takes for me to drop my doink in the basket isn't really going to slow the group behind me down...

What about the failure to hole out rule? Then there becomes room to argue that a player didn't fail to hole out b/c they were in gimme range (course then there's a discussion of reporting the correct score, etc). Seems to me that it just opens up another interpretation rule.

I also disagree that there's nothing sacred about holing out, personally even when I play casual I don't do gimmies and even drop in my 2"er (but I'm weird like that). I find it too easy to forget about that extra stroke when you didn't actually put it in the basket.

I checked the ball golf rule and if the ball is pinched between the flag and edge of the hole, the player can wiggle the stick to let it drop in. Again, a golf ball can't end up above or below the target like disc golf so it's not the same. There's no reason we can't have a different rule that allows gimmees for something that doesn't happen in BG just because it's some tradition.

As an aside, ball golf allows 10 seconds for a ball on the edge of the hole to fall in. After that point, the ball is considered at rest. If the ball subsequently falls in after the 10 seconds and before the player taps it in, the player is considered to have originally holed out and gets a 1-stroke penalty (essentially the same score as if it had sat on the lip and didn't fall in requiring player to tap it in. It's not really a penalty).

Ball golf doesn't seem to have a problem providing a time period for when a ball is deemed 'at rest.' Not sure why can't have similar rule or why the RC deemed it impractical.

Chuck,
It seems that you like to give many ideas consideration that others wouldn't. I think that's great, many times great ideas are overlooked.

I would have to disagree, however, with the contention that there is "nothing sacred about putting out". There is only one way to complete a hole in stroke play and that's by playing from behind the lie and releasing the disc into the basket. I witnessed a 1020+ player miss a 3 ft. putt and lose the tournament by 1 stroke.

Also, it seems that by bringing up a golf situation that doesn't have a direct parallel in disc golf (in disc golf the player runs up to the basket to retrieve the disc before it falls out) that you're playing a bit of a shell game.

I see no reason why a disc under or on top of the basket isn't like a ball suspended over the cup when the flag is leaning to pinch it. Those shots are actually "in" in BG. Ours under/over the basket would also be "in" but counting another shot. A 3 ft shot is not the same as marks under the basket. I'm not necessarily saying those should be gimmees.

A disc that is sitting on top of the basket and leaning over the edge would correspond with the ball that is leaning over the edge of the cup.

A golf ball that is wedged against the pin in the hole is not necessarily in the hole. A player or caddie may wiggle or remove the pin and IF the ball falls into the hole then it counts as being in the hole. If the ball pops out of the hole after the flag is moved then it does not count as being in the hole.

I guarantee that if discs under the basket were to be considered gimmees there would never be a tournament where second place would say, "The winner had six gimmee strokes during that round and I'm sure he would have missed at least one of those and I should have at least gotten to a playoff!!!"
It does seem to violate the spirit of the game, though.

I'd argue that any situation that tempts a TD to consider gimmees means that the basket isn't in a great location. If someone has to rock-climb up to get to the basket then we've left the realm of disc golf and entered extreme disc golf.

Imagine that our original basket was designed supported with three legs welded to a metal ring along the ground. Scoring was to add one shot to your current throw count if you land in the basket or chains, and count two shots if you land on top of the chain support or completely inside the metal ring on the ground.

Let's say this was the way the game was scored for many years. Along comes a former ball golfer and says, "You know, we should be marking and putting out those shots above and below the basket." I think you can see coming from the opposite direction that the "radical" idea to putt those shots would flop.

So, if you can accept that my hypothetical evolution for our sport is reasonable, maybe it's possible to look at this situation not thru an historical lens but just on the merits of different rule options as a game designer with a fresh look. Maybe the problem with the 'gimme' concept is it's name, kind of like you're getting something free or cheating. Perhaps if it was called the "Plus 1" rule, it might get more traction?

Chuck,
You've done a great job contributing to the debate to help "par" mean something in disc golf. You've done a ton to help the color coded system of tees where they actually apply to a certain universal skill level instead of designer whim. You recognize that many of our current disc golf "greens" don't produce golf-like stroke distributions, and you've proposed new types of hazards to help address this issue.

I'm struggling to understand the inner conflict that forces you to disparage those hopelessly brainwashed by the ball-golf rubric and to bravely seek out rule changes that have no purpose other than differentiating the game from it's older cousin.

Your "plus 1" rule has given me a better idea: multiple baskets, each with different plus/minus factors. For instance, a 420 ft. par 3 could also have a 550 ft. "minus 1" position. If a player was 70 ft. short of the first basket, and didn't think they'd make a 2, they could elect to go for the second basket for a 3-1=2. Of course the hole would have much more trouble approaching the second basket and the player would have to calculate their odds accordingly.

Chuck, you don't have to be ashamed to admit:
Golf is Good :eek:
Try it a few times with me,
Golf is Good :p
Golf is Good :)
Golf is Good :D
Now, doesn't that feel better?

Now, it's OK to put your smaller baskets, wee-man sized baskets, and "plus 1 circles" back in the toybox and come outside and play some Golf!!! I for one won't tease you about them and promise to give you every putt inside 15 ft.? 10 ft.? 5 ft.?, well let's just say if you can hit your head on the basket, then it's good.

I don't suggest "plus 1" for lies outside the target cylinder which is all ball golf has, just those inside the target cylinder which is unique to disc golf. It's very simple and would be unique to our sport. If anything, marking lies under the basket will look foolish on video to a wider public, just like it would be for ball golfers to mark their lies an inch or two from the cup (which we rarely if ever see).

I think there should be a plain language standard that all proposed rules changes should meet. Something like, the odds overwhelmingly favor that the proposed rule change will result in a significant improvement in the game.

I'm arguing that the proposed change would be to the detriment of the spirit of the game. You're arguing that as a convenience and to avoid looking silly on TV the change would improve the game.

Honestly, I could see a jury being divided on the first element. I cannot see a jury concluding, however, that the proposed change would "significantly" improve the game.

Of course, I just won at the game where I created the rules. My main point basically is, we should be very critical of all proposed rule changes and, if in doubt, leave the rules alone. We can always revisit proposed rules changes again in the future.

Having said all that, I do think that doing away with the 10 meter rule, replacing the 10 meter rule with TD defined "greens", creating new types of hazards without penalty strokes, are all worthy of debate, but please no gimmees, unless you add the option to purchase unlimited charity mulligans as well.

In comparison, I would say that this proposed "plus 1" rule is a better change than the lost disc rule change that actually happened. Anyone want to trade?

only if it includes the unlimited charity mulligans . . .

Serious question: for the proposed casual relief mound, I do think that the casual obstacle as "specifically designated by the director" can be used for that purpose, but the drop zone for special conditions could also be used. Do you think that these types of hazards merit a separate classification in the rules spelling out their purpose and procedures?

Thinking about practicality and aesthetics, I'd be in favor of defining them with rock boundaries and utilizing two painted rocks as the "drop zone" which players would play from without incurring penalty strokes.

Another possible use of such a "hazard" could be where the drop zone from the defined area was actually closer to the basket. It could come into play on a multi-shot hole with a choice of routes from the tee. A player could gamble by trying to hit the "teleporter" which would advance them to a spot with a much easier shot than the alternative route. Of course, if they miss the "teleporter" they would be worse off than the alternative route.

Do you think that these types of hazards merit a separate classification in the rules spelling out their purpose and procedures?


I think the casual relief mound is already legal (forget the gimme idea) but I don't think anyone has done it.



It could come into play on a multi-shot hole with a choice of routes from the tee. A player could gamble by trying to hit the "teleporter" which would advance them to a spot with a much easier shot than the alternative route.



Houck has a hole with two routes at the NDGC. If you can throw 450 twice accurately, you can get an eagle three. If you throw 300 feet a little less accurately three times you get a 4 or 5. So, with your teleporter idea, a short accurate thrower (Professor Plum) could risk it (with a disc) and advance (in the Conservatory) if he lands in the area? Although I like the somewhat reverse idea of accuracy versus power for a riskreward design, I think the more conservative folks would chafe at someone getting forward advancement without exerting force or actually throwing to it.

even without the teleporter idea, i'd love to design a par 5 which would require a very tight, risky 250 ft. tee shot to have a chance to reach the green in two with a 350 ft. second shot and would have an alternate route that requires three shots to reach the green. i also like the concept on a par 4. i like holes that afford big arms the chance to take a big risk for a big reward, but i also like similar opportunities for tight/technical shots.

In comparison, I would say that this proposed "plus 1" rule is a better change than the lost disc rule change that actually happened. Anyone want to trade?



I predict that the teleporter idea would be the death of this proposal.

Beam me up Scottie! :D

I would post the pictures I just took of one of the holes on our new course which has a "sandtrap" suitable for disc golf.

Limits shot type and footing.

But I have to publish it to the web first. :(

Another natural element that could be utilized is thick, abundant foilage.

Take a fairly open fairway, and plant a thick growing plant such as bamboo, or in an area near woods you can use privet. These types of plants are natural looking and create a thick punishable obstacle while not forcing the player to take a penalty shot.



I agree that natural foliage can be used to create some gnarly hazards, but bamboo can be a very bad choice. Some species spread quickly and become very difficult to control. It's not a plant to stick in the ground and let it grow without consulting an expert. It can be controlled but it requires planning and, usually, ongoing effort.

Another possible use of such a "hazard" could be where the drop zone from the defined area was actually closer to the basket. It could come into play on a multi-shot hole with a choice of routes from the tee. A player could gamble by trying to hit the "teleporter" which would advance them to a spot with a much easier shot than the alternative route. Of course, if they miss the "teleporter" they would be worse off than the alternative route.



reminds me of the Putt-Putt holes where you have 3 holes to choose from. The close one drops you on the second level far away from the hole, the second one has a good chance of going straight in for the ace and the third gives you a easy par.

Please excuse if this has been said, all I read was the first post of the thread.

My two cents - sandtraps are a ball golf thing. The only course I have ever played that had a true comparable version of rough or a sand trap to disc golf was Big Creek in Iowa. If you missed the fairways, you were in stuff up to your throat.

The ball in golf is sometimes covered or half covered in situations like rough or sand - in disc golf we can be in these horrible weeds that still have no affect on our throw. This is why courses need more trees and bushes, to fully punish a bad shot.

Sand or whatever isn't going to work unless you have it on a par 4 or 5 where a bad teeshot would land it and therefore would affect your run up of your second shot.

Sand or whatever isn't going to work unless you have it on a par 4 or 5 where a bad teeshot would land it and therefore would affect your run up of your second shot.



That's one type we're talking about where the runup would be impacted enough by loose sand or a scattered rock bed or hedge or a sunken area with a mound in front of it to be a penalty without an actual penalty shot being awarded on a par 4 or 5.

Sand or whatever isn't going to work unless you have it on a par 4 or 5 where a bad teeshot would land it and therefore would affect your run up of your second shot.



That's one type we're talking about where the runup would be impacted enough by loose sand or a scattered rock bed or hedge or a sunken area with a mound in front of it to be a penalty without an actual penalty shot being awarded on a par 4 or 5.



did we just agree? :eek: :confused: :D

Looks like it. I suspect there might be a lot more areas where that's the case that just don't come up on here.

but I do like sand as aspossed to rocks, simply b/c the disc won't be affected if it landed in sand

and sand can subdue power without being an ankle-buster

The tough part about sand is that it is really difficult to maintain. It gets filled with debris and soon is as solid as dirt. Gravel might work better for disc golf; the nice round marble sized kind.

I like the idea of larger rocks that may not be moved where run up is simply impossible for this sort of hazard also. Is it dangerous to run up in that sort of hazard? Yes, but then again so is jumping off a bridge. Solution, don't run up (or jump off a bridge).

Ok, this is a little crazy but it's late and I like stirring the pot.

What about an area of 2 circles. The outer area is the 'trap' (could be ob, could not), the inner area is the drop zone for the trap. This inner area is only say 3-4' in area. Would this be enough to effect a runup/followthrough? Perhaps the drop zone is raised (or bordered) by large rocks so you can't runup from the trap to the DZ.

Crazy?

Ugh. I like the concept of Sandtraps, but I don't like the idea of "artificial" stance rules within a trap. They don't bother me within the 10m circle, but they bother me within a trap. I don't know why it's different, it just is; deal with it.

I do like traps that have some physical impedence where the player can't play the preferred shot. A fairway trap might be as simple as a stand of trees & bushes where the fairway is carved out around/near it. A trap near the green needs to be much more punishing. There are plenty out there, pretty much the entire rough at DelaVeaga (and to a lesser degree Water Works, KC), definetly the area near the creek (which is further punishment if you really screw up) at Tom Bass Wilmont. Palmetto bushes in Melbourne, FL (and to a lesser extent Barnett, and Gainsville).

Hell, pretty much any densely wooded course has traps if you're off the fairway. If the course is well designed, there's no need for 'artifical' traps which would limit throwing techniqes by rule.

i couldnt agree with you more jim
on the course that i'm working on i plan on having a defined fairway with a group of 2 to 4 ft bushes as traps sitting in the fairway in strategic locations. especially on the longer holes this will really hurt your second shot not being able to get a run up and all. as for an artificial stance this is no good the lie shoud determine your stance. cant have a bunch of people standing in the sand completely unimpeded but standing like their about to hike a football just to penalize themselves for landing in the sand trap or painted circle or whatever. that would just look stupid.

I like the idea of larger rocks that may not be moved where run up is simply impossible for this sort of hazard also. Is it dangerous to run up in that sort of hazard? Yes, but then again so is jumping off a bridge. Solution, don't run up (or jump off a bridge).

[/QUOTE]

people will move the rocks i can assure you of that

I like the idea of larger rocks that may not be moved where run up is simply impossible for this sort of hazard also. Is it dangerous to run up in that sort of hazard? Yes, but then again so is jumping off a bridge. Solution, don't run up (or jump off a bridge).



people will move the rocks i can assure you of that

[/QUOTE]

Let me rephrase: Replace "rocks" with ice berg "boulders".

I thought the teleporter idea was interesting. You would have to be careful how you used it, but it might be possible to make a fun hole that is fair. Seems like this would be already considered legal.

I don't see any need to eliminate the need for holing out. The penalty now is DSQ. 50 mile an hour winds can make even a 2 footer tough. If you think it looks silly to mark a lie under the basket, don't mark it. You can throw your next shot without marking the lie.

Chili in Rochester NY had bunkers made of woodchips...it was cool

Chili in Rochester NY had bunkers made of woodchips...it was cool



those weren't bunkers....they were HILLS made of mulch,and the entire "green" was mulch....it was one of thier several interesting holes!!

One day I would like to design a hole where bushes are placed very close to the pin and could be cut in a way so that you could not just putt straight at the basket. I also would like to see more holes like #4 in Rock Hill with different maybe more of a variance in height.

I have played on ball golf courses with sandtraps.

Some disc golf courses are on ball golf courses with actual sandtraps and greens , which are both OB.

I don't know how many people got to look at TS this year but Neal Dambra has invented the first portable "sand trap" Essentially, it is a low netted structure (approx 2 feet high and 4 feet deep. Think of a short lacross net only wider, not square but round, and a lot deeper. Neal sets these up in the fairway such that the mouth is facing the Tee. If you drive into one you have to step into the basket for your upshot or putt. A very wicked device that he is going to market in the near future.

Why not instead of sand you use gravel traps it would be hard to get good footing as well as stop rollers and worm burners its better than sand as it does not get muddy.

I believe that for our event coming up next weekend, we will be using OB areas instead of "Hazards". These OB areas will be disguised as TEMPORARY PONDS and FLOWER BEDS. None of the areas will be large, with the FLOWER BEDS being smaller areas than the PONDS. The PONDS will be just painted lines (and small survey flags) on the grass, whereas the FLOWER BEDS will have low fence rails surrounded by a paint line. Landing in any of these areas will be handled with regular OB rules.

'

I think you shoud keep the course the way you have it i played down there alot. My thought dont add things unless you are going to get it. I will be there this year to play open this year after a 8 hr trip to get there. Cause i think when people start putting that on there course they are going to fear people that are going to be there . I guess it will work in your advantage when you have to add stuff like that to the course. It is a good way to get a stoke on your opposeing field.


The game was boring until they added the wind!!!

Saturday we will see you are the big dogs.

The FLOWER BEDS worked like I hoped they would. The TEMP. PONDS did OK.

The PONDS were in areas where a lot of players normally land so they had to take that into account from the Tee. I didn't see anyone in the PONDS, but I heard about it.

The FLOWER BEDS were in areas that were supposed to stop (or hinder) rollers. I saw it work a few times and heard about others.

So, I guess there are ways to add difficulty without ruining the look of the course with a lot of artificial stuff that looks like it doesn't belong there. I still think it can be done without adding OB strokes. I'll get back with more info.

I'm not a big fan of hindering rollers on their main route. If the hazards are off to the sides where a "bad" roller might go, then OK. That makes it similar to ball golf with fairway bunkers on the sides of the fairways, not in them. In addition, if the roller buster is located past the point where the designer has intended to be a landing area on a legit par 4 or 5 hole, then that can work. For example, if the landing area is intended to be from 325-375 on a hole, placing the roller barrier at 375-390 would level the field for those who can only throw a 325 airshot but roll 400 with those who can air it at least 375 and roll 475.

Or, if there are alternate routes to the basket that might not favor a roller, the player has to choose either to go around or place their roller so that it misses the FLOWER BED. It's all about making the best choice for your skill.

Or, I guess everyone that plays in areas that aren't fortunate enough to have thousands of trees, miles of lake shoreline, or rolling terrain should just accept the fact that their courses are bland and not even try to add some spice. Negativity seems to be your calling card unless your ideas are applied.

What negativity? I suggested not placing roller stoppers in the main fairway line, just like I would suggest not placing trees in the main fairway line. Hazards should primarily be where bad shots are going, not where the designer intends players to throw, or providing additional risk where players might try to throw farther than the intended landing zone. These aren't my ideas but the accumulated expertise from ball golf and our experienced designers. Randomly placed hazards just penalize random bad luck and don't reward skill. I don't know where you did or did not place your hazards. Just commenting for others that might consider copying your efforts on suggested ways to place them well.

Well, your first sentence implies that you knew where the FLOWER BEDS were placed, and that you don't like that. That's negativity. For your expanded information, the FLOWER BEDS (2 of them, on 2 different Holes) were placed in locations that allowed plenty of room to either throw an air shot over them or go completely around them, or to throw a roller around either side of them. Neither FLOWER BED was large or obtrusive. As I said earlier, the Player had to choose which route afforded him/her the best opportunity to score well on the Hole. I may not be a part of your course design group, but I have been designing courses around here for many, many years. I have gotten a lot of positive feedback on many of my designs, and I am trying to come up with solutions that work for my area and what I have to work with.

Like I said, I didn't know where you were putting them but wanted to make sure that others got the idea that there were better places than others. What happens is that certain ideas like island greens get out there without the full details on how to do them and what happened. Then, some aren't done properly by others who may not understand how to do them well. Most of the time, I'm speaking as the head of course development for the PDGA or the course designers group and not myself on course design issues unless I specifically state a personal opinion.

I appreciate your efforts to try new things to improve the challenge on courses with much less foliage and sometimes elevation than other areas. I'm glad you are wiling to post comments on what you found.

Thank you, and I will continue to try new things that I/we come up with. I'm not the "My way is the only way!" type, but I will defend myself (and my ideas) when I believe they have merit. I have been involved with designing courses since 1984, and have mostly learned it all by myself (since there haven't been many "Master Designers" beating a trail to my area to design courses). I've been around to many other areas and courses trying to learn what makes a good course, and trying to avoid mistakes others have made. Trial and error have been the basis for my expertise, and judging from comments by players who have tried my designs, I'm on the right track. Fortunately for me, the area where I live provides me with some really nice parcels of land (Park areas with hills, trees, lakes, and creeks) to hone my skills on.

I played the Discrazy Shootout this past weekend and I have to say I think the additional "Ponds" and "Flower Beds" were well placed and provided a nice challenge without being unduly punitive(sp). Fortunately I never found myself OB in one of these (although I was OB in many other areas). They did however require a more thoughtful shot selection. I would honestly like to see more OB closer to the pin so as to add more excitement to the putting game (of which I have next to none.. yet.)

Thanks, Joshua. They were a fun experiment that turned out to be a good thing. Not too over-bearing, but certainly made the player consider them. Even though our course is quite challenging (especially from the Blue Tees), several of us want to take it up a notch. With help from our Parks Dept., I believe we can set up the type of course that players will enjoy competing on. Once people get past the stigma that all holes are PAR 3, whether they are 200 ft. or 1000 ft., and players start to realize that there are ways to set up a course to make it play more difficult, some of these ideas will become more mainstream.

We're sure glad you could make it to the Shootout, and we hope you get to make many more trips North to enjoy our efforts.

I played Texas States. I was lucky enough to stay out of Neil's net traps!! They are DEFINITELY different.......Not sure how much I care for them, as they don't have a natural earthy feel.

Snow Farm course between Houston and Austin has a really cool hole with quite a few old downed trees that sit around the basket making you have to make a great drive or upshot to get close enough to the basket to avoid trick putts. It makes for a GREAT hole and feels more natural and earthy.

Does anyone have pictures from TS Doubles this year that might show the hole I referred to?

In Hutchinson, KS the course has sandtraps and the rule is you must throw a UD shot out of them, makes for a more difficult putt without incurring the OB strokes.

In Hutchinson, KS the course has sandtraps and the rule is you must throw a UD shot out of them, makes for a more difficult putt without incurring the OB strokes.


What is a UD shot?

Upside Down

In Hutchinson, KS the course has sandtraps and the rule is you must throw a UD shot out of them, makes for a more difficult putt without incurring the OB strokes.


Every time I get into one of those hazards I play my "switch lies with another player" RIPT card!