NEFA DISCussion

HaHaHa!!!

OK, maybe a few
But really, common sense should trump many rulings.

Chuck is da man for the rule knowledge along with Josh C. Tanks guys.

How about the rule where you can choose to re-throw from your previous spot, declaring your first disc lost, with a one stroke penalty.

Like, if you are taking a 20' putt, you miss and your disc rolls away 90' into hell. In bounds, but hell.
You can take a stroke penalty and take the 20' putt again.

So if the putt were for a deuce and ya missed, you can take the putt for the four from the same 20' spot you were trying to can the deuce from. Rather than go grind out whatever you will make from the pits of hell, where your disc rolled away to.

Someone I was playing with used this rule while we were playing a round together. At first I wanted to call him names. Then kinda wanted to slap him back into being a man. I did neither knowing he was playing by the rules.

That rule has gotta go.

Players who slither along and use that rule are simply................
















............playing by the rules I guess

I tossed a drive at Hyland on hole 13. Hit a tree right in front of the tee and shot straight down the hill into some prickers. I took the lost disc penalty and re-teed shooting 3.

The philosophical question regarding the Optional Rethrow rule is whether any throw landing inbounds should result in a net penalty worse than completely throwing OB off the course. In many cases, throwing OB off the course can result in a 1-throw plus distance penalty. So the question is, "Why should any throw landing somewhere on the course result in a throw count any worse than that?" If a player thinks they might get a throw count higher than a 2-shot penalty by trying to play from a lie, why shouldn't they have the option to accept the worst possible penalty one can get for going OB?

It's a weak rule.

The perfect example is the hole at Amesbury (4?)where it drops off straight downhill to the OB line. I miss a 15 footer (standard) and roll down the hill OB. Now instead of having an uphill 35 foot putt, I angleshoot the rule and reputt the 15 footer. This essentially negates the OB as it's much less likely to hit that 35 foot uphill putt than it is the 15 footer...

I take a lost disc 4, instead of the OB 5 the majority of the time. Weak sauce.

Ball golf has survived your perceived "weak sauce" rule for a few hundred years now. Golf of either type isn't supposed to be brutally punitive but fairly and consistently punitive. The Optional Rethrow rule follows the traditional lead from options available for OB. If anything, DG should be less punitive since a 1-throw penalty is a higher percentage of the average score for a whole round than BG. No one in either sport is required to take more than the equivalent of a 2-throw penalty no matter how bad their shot may be UNLESS they choose to do so (i.e. tin cupping).

Ball golf has also survived their "weak sauce" handicap system for a couple hundred years now too, but I guess you get to pick and choose what you think works for ball golf, but not disc golf.

Also, there's not nearly as much OB in ball golf as there is in disc golf. I've never played a golf course where a missed putt can roll into a street or parking lot. I've also never seen roped off OB areas or an OB rope 5ft behind the cup...

Disc golf is not the same as ball golf.

Todd Lapham wrote:It's a weak rule.

The perfect example is the hole at Amesbury (4?)where it drops off straight downhill to the OB line. I miss a 15 footer (standard) and roll down the hill OB. Now instead of having an uphill 35 foot putt, I angleshoot the rule and reputt the 15 footer. This essentially negates the OB as it's much less likely to hit that 35 foot uphill putt than it is the 15 footer...

I take a lost disc 4, instead of the OB 5 the majority of the time. Weak sauce.

What the hell is "angleshooting" the rule? There's nothing underhanded about playing by the rules. If you go OB, you (and any other player in the same situation) have THE CHOICE of where to play your shot from, last in-bounds or previous lie. Been that way for a long time. To choose one option over the other isn't weak, it's funk smart. Knowing the rules and using them to one's advantage is a skill in this game as important as a good forehand or a roller. And how the heck does choosing the previous lie over the last in-bounds spot negate the OB? You still take the penalty regardless. Whether your score is 4 or 5 on the hole is up to you, your choices and your quality of throws. The penalty still counts as just one stroke regardless of the rest.

As for the optional re-throw rule, I don't understand what the objection is. No matter what situation it is used in, the player is CHOOSING to add a stroke to their score that they don't have to take. The argument that's always made is they might save a stroke or two, so it must be wrong. Well, what if it isn't really saving anything? Isn't playing from the undesirable lie instead, making a single perfect shot from there and coming out of it with a lower score also a possibility?

Also, how often has anyone ever seen the optional re-throw (or its previous incarnations as the unplayable and unsafe lie rule) come up in play? Once, twice ever? I challenge anyone to utilize the optional re-throw with any frequency and see if their scores improve as a result of the "advantage". I'd bet anything they don't.

I know the people participating in this discussion know this, I'm stating it for those who aren't / don't.

At anytime during any round of ball golf or disc golf, the player and ONLY that player (the "majority" of other players or official or TD, etc., do not) has the "choice" to shoot again from their last lie while taking a 1-shot penalty. This is termed "stroke and distance" (S&D) and can be done whenever they wish*. Throw a perfectly good shot...you can claim whatever you like and take S&D and rethrow. Throw OB...again, S&D is an option. Miss a mando...again, S&D is an option.

*The only reservation I have saying this is in those cases where the TD stipulates a certain "miscue" happens and that player's next shot must be taken from a drop zone, etc.

I personally think this "must" is incorrect (for the TD to mandate) - and only should be an option - but I guess this is accepted. But in reality, the S&D is the foundation of penalties (other penalties CAN be less penal but none should be more so) and therefore one can 'assess' themselves "the worst" at any time THEY wish! If the TD DOES mandate such (again, IMO, wrongly), you can pretty much be sure it's for purposes of making it less penal / time saver / etc.

If we just could simplify dg rules (in this case, S&D would be the worse...and ALWAYS an option - determined ONLY by the player affected by it), things would be better.

Karl

Whoa, why the hostility?

True, angleshooting probably isn't the right word. Like I said in my example, it essentially takes away the OB (or horrible roll) as it's far more likely to hit a 15 foot putt than a 35 uphill.

This is right from the Summary of Rules changes:

The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

I'd bet that you don't see it used more because most people don't know the rule exists. Yes, it probably won't help your score the majority of the time, but there are definitely some scenarios where this rule can save strokes, and that seems ridiculous to me.

I realize it's the "funk rule," I'm just saying I think that "funk rule" is a weak rule.

I also think playing it where it was last in bounds is a weak rule. I'm in the camp of it should be rethrow from your last lie if you go OB. I thought not being able to clear debris from your footing was a weak rule too, seems others agreed as that got changed...

Josh Connell wrote:No matter what situation it is used in, the player is CHOOSING to add a stroke to their score that they don't have to take.

Not true. In my example you have to take a penalty stroke either way, OB or Rethrow. Using this rule you end up with a 15 foot putt again, rather than a 35 foot uphill putt. Yes, it doesn't automatically save you a stroke, but it swings the odds much more to your favor. This is what I have a problem with. It seems that when OB is involved taking the S&D isn't really much of a penalty as you're taking a stroke either way.

The rule book changes, mostly for the better. It seems to me that rules don't change just for the sake of change, it's because they are weak rules. I happen to think this is one of them.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you and/or Chuck about this, I don't like the rule. That's my opinion, simple as that.

Todd Lapham wrote:Whoa, why the hostility?

Not hostile, Todd, just incredulous. The sense I got from your post and the use of "angleshooting" gave me the impression that you were saying using the rules to ones advantage was cheating in some way. I guess I don't understand how using the rules to one's advantage can be a bad thing or "wrong".

Todd Lapham wrote:True, angleshooting probably isn't the right word. Like I said in my example, it essentially takes away the OB (or horrible roll) as it's far more likely to hit a 15 foot putt than a 35 uphill.

But it doesn't. The OB rule already allows you to choose your lie. If you go OB, you ALWAYS have the choice of last in-bounds or previous lie. Perhaps the hang up here is the example you used is a poor one to use to argue the Optional Rethrow rule because in your example, there is no optional rethrow involved. The shot is OB, and penalized as such, regardless of the choice of the next lie used.

Todd Lapham wrote:This is right from the Summary of Rules changes:

The "unplayable lie" rule has been reformulated into an "optional rethrow" rule. It is now clear that penalty strokes are not added if the rethrow option is taken, so that double jeopardy is avoided.

I'd bet that you don't see it used more because most people don't know the rule exists. Yes, it probably won't help your score the majority of the time, but there are definitely some scenarios where this rule can save strokes, and that seems ridiculous to me.

The rule, or some version of it, has existed forever, it's just had different names. I've known it was there for as long as I've been playing, but I've never used it. Always have taken the chance of playing out of a [bleep] lie and saving the stroke that I'd be sure to take if I took the penalty to move the lie. Most people not being aware of it doesn't make it a poor rule or a weak rule, just an underutilized rule. And I think it's underutilized because its application generally is for extreme and rare instances, anyway. Its design and intent IS to potentially save strokes (along with player's health and safety). I don't understand why that should be viewed as a bad thing. It's an option available to every player on every shot in every round.

If a player isn't utilizing the rule when it could benefit them, that's foolish on their part, IMO. Like I said, knowledge of the rules is a skill no different than being able to throw a forehand or a roller or a thumber. If you can throw a mean thumber, and it can save you a stroke on a particular hole, is it wrong to throw the thumber there? I wouldn't think so.

Todd Lapham wrote:

Josh Connell wrote:No matter what situation it is used in, the player is CHOOSING to add a stroke to their score that they don't have to take.

Not true. In my example you have to take a penalty stroke either way, OB or Rethrow. Using this rule you end up with a 15 foot putt again, rather than a 35 foot uphill putt. Yes, it doesn't automatically save you a stroke, but it swings the odds much more to your favor. This is what I have a problem with. It seems that when OB is involved taking the S&D isn't really much of a penalty as you're taking a stroke either way.

Again, in your example of hole 4 at Amesbury, you're not using the Optional Rethrow rule at all. The OB rule provides the option by itself. In pretty much every scenario in which someone is declaring an Optional Rethrow, they are taking a penalty and rethrowing rather than use a lie that would carry no penalty what so ever. If they're choosing to rethrow a tee shot, they're throwing three from the tee when they could be throwing two from where ever it is their disc landed. Doesn't really matter what the odds are of getting a two from that lie, the fact is there is still a chance, while there is zero possibility of carding a two if you use the Optional Rethrow. You are choosing to add a stroke to your score that you don't have to take.

Karl, Optional Rethrow rule can be invoked even when TD specifies a player MUST play from Drop Zone upon going OB. The more insidious TD requirement where Optional Rethrow can "save" the player is if the TD specifies a player MUST play from the last point IB to prevent the player from rethrowing from their previous lie which might be closer to the pin than where their disc banged and rolled farther away and OB.

Josh Connell wrote:Again, in your example of hole 4 at Amesbury, you're not using the Optional Rethrow rule at all. The OB rule provides the option by itself. In pretty much every scenario in which someone is declaring an Optional Rethrow, they are taking a penalty and rethrowing rather than use a lie that would carry no penalty what so ever.

You're right.

The OB part was the whole base of my argument and I completely overlooked the obvious fact that it's not the rethrow it's the OB rule itself that I'm talking about.

Karl, Optional Rethrow rule can be invoked even when TD specifies a player MUST play from Drop Zone upon going OB.

I said I had "reservations" about this, but if I don't have to have reservations - i.e., it's true that one can ALWAYS rethrow from previous lie with 1 shot penalty - then good, I don't have any reservations any more !

As I said, it would be nice to have SOME rules that are definitive (w/o tweaking possibilities) so we're "grounded" in some manner .

Karl

Karl Molitoris wrote:…so we're "grounded" in some manner .

Karl, always remember what the pDGA has so sagely taught us, "Disc golf: it's in the air."

Sugarbush good place for rethrows to save strokes

I believe if the logic to use an Optional Rethrow for a bad rollaway might occur say once a year for a player who plays a course regularly, there might be a design problem with the hole. It should really be rare when this would be a better option than throwing from the rollaway.

what are you declaring? Disc is lost when it isn't. Disc is unplayable when it isn't. You just want a mulligan for one stroke.
Call it what it is.

Hey Dave Jackson,
I know you're a former ball golf pro. Did you ever see this guy's debacle on the PGA tour?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/04/tin-cup-2-watch-kevin-na-melt-down-with-16-on-par-4-hole-texas-open/1
On his 1st shot he went into the woods, called it unplayable and re-teed. He put his 2nd drive (3rd shot) back into the woods. He could have called that unplayable and reteed again and ended up with a 7 or 8 on the hole. Instead he tried to play from the woods and got a 16 on the hole.

I know it's a different sport but the same rules apply.
Not saying the rule is good or bad, but it could have saved him about 8 shots if he woulda tucked his balls between his legs and used it again

I have been playing the game for a long time now. I have only used the rule twice. In both cases, I probably could have scrambled and got the same score as the re-throw. Instead of walking deep into the woods or stand in a pile of thorns, why shouldn't you have the option of adding stokes to your score to get a more favorable lie? I don't understand the other side of the argument, saying that it is underhanded or scummy or whatever you want to call it.

erik pleso wrote:what are you declaring? Disc is lost when it isn't. Disc is unplayable when it isn't. You just want a mulligan for one stroke.
Call it what it is.

What it also isn't is a mulligan. A mulligan is a rethrow in which you don't count the original. If it's a mulligan, it's a mulligan for two strokes.

So I'll just call it what it is, an optional rethrow.

In 20 years of playing I have never used the rule. I am sure I could have more than once, but I honestly never think to use it. I will keep it in mind now though.

I remeber a shot at Ringe, hole 1 where it would have helped. Miss a twenty footer and roll OB, putt again instead of taking the meter in bounds...

Titan Bariloni wrote:Sugarbush good place for rethrows to save strokes

Great call...I took a 7 on one of the easiest holes on the course thanks to an errant drive. Could've shaved 3 strokes and taken a 4 with this rule (if I executed the next tee shot of course) But still. Gotta use all your options at the right times. It is a game. Gotta know the rules.

It's nice seeing everyone chiming in.

I think Todd and I have a similar opinion about the rule. It's weak.

yeah..just saying "I would like to take my optional rethrow please" sounds kinda ying ling

wtfthat disc sux I am a phhhag and that guy 3 miles away distracted me..then storm off to find the piece of crap..is much more manly IMO

Then, marking your lie where a disc goes OB would also take "little sack." So I'm thinking you boys always rethrow from the original lie when you go OB since it's the "sackiest" choice? No last point IB or Drop zones for you?

Chuck, that's what a man like Dave Jackson would do. All the rest of us sackless disc golfers are well......sackless.

yep. and I throw from a standstill, cuz a run up is cheating


I understand I am completely wrong and the rules are the rules. Everyone plays by them, so it is what it is. Just having fun poking at the rules, thats all.

I throw from where the discs cross OB.
Sackless, yes. But it is what it is.

I am going to read the rule book, cover to cover. I bet it helps me understand the rules and in turn help my score as well. I know I'm wrong and the rules are there for everyone.

Thanks Chuck and Matt for the reality dose. I hear ya.

I finally read the rules cover to cover during a rainy Sunday last weekend.

Does anyone know why all of the rules start with the number 8?

Joe Gara wrote:I finally read the rules cover to cover during a rainy Sunday last weekend.

Does anyone know why all of the rules start with the number 8?

The rule book is section 8 of the competition manual.