www.DiscGolfersR.Us

The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf

Recently, a couple of locals have been saying that a player may take a re-tee of the box if they don't like the drive (usually right after they shank a drive badly). On occasion it has been alleged that it does not even cost the player a stroke! What's up with that? Now I admit that my Rule book is a year or two old, but I could not find any info on the PDGA website confirming this alleged rule change. Anybody got any information regarding this subject, or are these guys talking out of their butts?

Tags: changes, rules

Views: 676

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You should see the course I play on Chuck(LOL)! You can check it out here, actually:

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=3717&mode=rev

Applying this rule can/does/has shaved multiple points off of player's score do to topographical & terrain challenges.

Please believe me when I say that I deeply appreciate your help and authority on this matter (after all, it is you I was hoping to hear from) but, IMO this rule is a boondoggle and should be repealed (or made "Optional" like the 2 meter rule). I just don't see how it contributes positively to the game we all love so much.

I not completely knocking the Optional Re-Throw rule...It does have some decent merit. At least from how I can wrap my pea brain around it. It does consolidate a "what to do option" all in once place for many scenrios. I do think the rules committee should address the... "Just because loophole"

 

As far as stance violations go....No way should a player be able to call a foot fault on his or her self.  Mostly the reason for such a self imposed call is to get a free shot.....hey, i get a mulligan!! I mean really, now I believe in honesty and all that...but really how many are going to call a foot fault on themselves on a putt that just went in and there was a stance violation in the process and the knew it.

With all due repsect, I would say the rule prevents the game on that terrain from being too punitive and/or lucky for competitive rounds, but not necessarily for fun recreational rounds. From a pure game science risk/reward standpoint, I don't believe any throw should warrant any more than the equivalent of a 2-shot penalty unless the player wishes to risk a higher penalty by trying to extract themselves from a tough situation where taking the 2-shot penalty is likely a better percentage play. It's about balance in risk/reward elements in game design.

Point taken!

Both rules need to be looked at and clarified to minimize the opportunity for cheating/taking advantage of the rules - IMO

Yeah Chuck..I'll also add....You always have the best handle on the interpretations of the rules.

And I see your point on what your saying...but I don't necessarily agree....completely. To me, the pure game risk/reward is...Play it where it lies....not in the case of a stipulated OB and personal injury risks.   If it's relatively feasible to play from there....get to that lie,  of course and again....without risking life, limb or traversing the equivalent of Montana to get there. The player should be required to play it...they threw it there and probably are going to retrieve the errant throw before they move on to the next hole anyways. 

We never play it where it lies unlike ball golf so that concept doesn't totally hold up (unless you play our game by kicking your disc along the ground which is allowed). Imagine if we created a new penalty situation where if you threw here it was a 5-shot penalty. Most people would feel that was stupid and too much penalty. Okay, how about 4 shots? Nope, still too much. Okay maybe 3? No, still seems out of line, sort of like a proposal that field goals be worth 5 points in football. Seems like that's too many points for the effort. I think most feel the competitive balance is about right with two field goals being almost equal to a TD.

In the same way, a 2-shot penalty works out to be about the max that makes sense in either golf game relative to the other elements in the game. And ball golf has been at that level for quite bit longer than we have. There are typically more total shots in a ball golf round than in disc golf so a 2-shot penalty is even a bit more punitive in our sport as a percentage of your total score.

I was playing in the Worlds at the CSUMB course and on one of the 'over the baseball diamond' holes, directly into the teeth of a 25+ mph wind, threw it right into a tree with NO playable lie under or behind (15ft). I took a re-throw with a disc more suited for the wind. Of course I missed my birdie putt and took a 5, but my ego was feeling much better. I love the re-throw rule.

 

In the same round somebody tried to call a foot fault on another player just to give him a free second shot, but we all agreed it would be against the spirit of the game. So there is an example of both rules in question that came up in the same round at the most important tourney of the year.

I made my point...My ADHD is kicking in now..time for others to weigh in..or not.

 

All I can say to finalize my input on this thread...is we make references to ball golf a lot...in some cases they work...in others, however, they don't. Because...other than the lowest score wins and some similar rules & terms...they are quite a bit different.

Billy Crump did a video demonstrating rule 803.06 on one of the ClashDVDseries videos on YouTube. I wish I could remember which tourney it was, I think it was from the USDGC. He demonstrated a drive into the shule, followed by his thought process on different line to get out of the sticks. Based on his percieved lines it was going to take him 3 to 4 shots to get up and in from where he was at, all because of a shanked drive.

 

He chose to re-tee, with his second drive finishing in the circle and putted out for a bogey. The penalty of shanking into the monkey cage was worse than throwing into a lake. It would have put him at best, a double bogey, and possibly a trip. Re-teeing seemed fair based on the insanity surrounding his first drive, and it worked well for him, but it was still a bogey.

 

I think the rule 803.06 is effective and just. Rule 803.04 on the other hand is so people subjective, that it would bare more thought on my part to form an opinion.

 

 

Sunday at the "Two Days in May" footage is what your talking about Dook. 803.06 Optional Re-throw. Billy Crump's Rule interpretation is at 29:46 into the video.

If it turns out the original shot is lost or unplayable, then they incur a penalty stroke. I was answering based on the original scenario. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Blog Posts

State of Disc Golf: Disc Golf Growth

Posted by Alan Barker on January 29, 2014 at 2:26pm

What are your favorite Disc Plastics?

Posted by Alan Barker on November 4, 2013 at 1:38pm

2 Tips For Guys To Entice A Girls

Posted by Frederick Cranford on September 11, 2013 at 5:42am

Disc Golf Answerman Episode 6

Posted by CoolDaddySlickBreeze on August 13, 2013 at 4:40pm

Prodigy Fairway Drivers

Posted by Alan Barker on July 8, 2013 at 5:30pm

Badge

Loading…
 

© 2014   Created by Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

SF00401968