2 meter rule question

I am looking for clarification on the 2 meter rule. The PDGA radio announcement for Oct. 11 had a segment titled: "the end of the 2 meter rule," but after listening it sounds to me like the following is true:

The 2 meter rule is still in effect but TD's can send a request to the Competition Director of the PDGA that the 2 meter rule be waived for any given tournament.

Absent special permission by the Competition Director, the 2 meter OB rule remains in effect for all PDGA play.

The Kentucky State Championships (doubles on Saturday; singles on Sunday) are being held next weekend at the pro-par 72 course at Idlewild near Cincinnati and the TD wanted me to find out what the situation is regarding this. (The course has a lot of tight fairways and dense foliage). Thanks for your help.

[ck34]

The 2 meter rule is still in effect but TD's can send a request to the Competition Director of the PDGA that the 2 meter rule be waived for any given tournament.

This is correct for the remainder of 2004.

Starting in 2005, the 2 meter rule will be optional and applied only where the course pro/TD wishes to apply it on specific tree(s), specific hole(s) or on the whole course.

[johnrock]

Is there somewhere I can print-out this information? Some of the hardcore older players who haven't kept up with all of the rules changes over the years are never going to believe this one, but I think if I post it on the map board at the course, it will help ease the shock

[ck34]

You will likely get something printed in your renewal packet and election ballot coming later this month to all current members.

[chappyfade]

You will be getting some information on this in your 2005 renewal packet.

Essentially, starting in 2005, the default rule will be that a lie over 2 meters will not be assessed a penalty throw. TDs may still choose to keep the 2m penalty if they wish, as they would choose their OBs and mandos and such.

Right now, the 2m penalty is still in effect. TDs that wish to be exempted from the rule for a 2004 tourney should email me at chappyfade@kc.rr.com

I have been granting exemptions for any TD that wants one, and I will continue to do so through the end of the year until the rule change occurs. I feel this is a good way to test the new rule for next year.

John Chapman
PDGA Competition Director

[neonnoodle]

John,

What has been the general impression of folks playing in events with the 2 meter rule not in effect?

Thanks,
Nick

[gnduke]

relaxed [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[chappyfade]

Nick,

So far the reaction has been very positive. It was very well received at USDGC and a tournament in Maine this weekend.

Chap

[daveoh]

Can someone please explain just how this new "non-rule" will be applied? In a tournament where the 2-meter rule is NOT applied, does this mean that you just mark your lie directly below your treed disc and proceed with no penalty? Even if it is 10, 15, 20 meters high? Or will it mean that any disc that is reachable (up to 10-15 ft) can be played without a penalty? Or is this all still to be determined or at the discretion of the TD?
Confused

[neonnoodle]

Dave,

Read our current rules.

By default the 2 meter rule will NOT be in effect at all PDGA events in 2005.

TDs wanting to still use it will have to announce at the players meeting where it is in effect (the whole course, this hole, a group of trees or just a single tree).

If it is not in effect, then you follow all of our rules short of taking a penalty throw for your disc being above 2 meters. Our rules describe EXACTLY how to handle it (i.e. mark your lie on the playing surface below and play on...).

There is nothing complicated about it other than you are accustomed to taking a penalty throw and now you don't.

Hope that helped.

Nick

[daveoh]

OK then-
What if everyone in the group saw it go into the top of a tree, but it can't be seen from below. Is this played as a lost disc? And what if the disc cant be retreived within a reasonable time, with the help of every one in the group- wouldn't that also fall into the lost disc category if you can't get it?
I don't think its as clear cut as you are saying, at least to average golfers like me, as opposed to rule zealots like you.
Sorry you think its a stupid question - I don't.
Thanks for your assistance.

[Sharky]

There is a discussion of all that somewhere out in DISCussion land. My opinion is that if the disc cannot be seen then you need to take a 1 stroke lost disc penalty and play it that way. If it can be seen and identified to the satisfaction of a majority of the group then no penalty. This will add another important element to consider, with the current 2 meter penalty either that or the lost disc penalty work out the same, not anymore.

[neonnoodle]

Not a stupid question Dave, just one where our rules already cover all that needs to be covered. Check'em out.

A lost disc is a lost disc, doesn't matter where it disappeared, it is lost. If you can't identify a disc then it is lost, if you can then, well, you can. Individuals and groups make judgment decisions all the time about rules.

It is not a valid reason to keep a dumb rule.

Regards,
Nick

[daveoh]

Thanks,
But I wasn't advocating keeping the 2M rule. Just looking for clarification. Group concensus is great and all, but don't you think there needs to be some kind of ruling on a un-retreivable, but visible disc?

For example - a disc goes into deep OB water about 10 feet from shore. Everyone can see it, but the thrower won't go swimming. There is no need for a lost disc ruling, because the player takes a penalty for going OB.

If, on the other hand, this was declared casual water by the TD, the player would have the option of swimming or taking a penalty for an unplayable lie, and throwing from the appropriate playable lie.

Now that the 2M rule will no longer be used, isn't the 100ft high treed disc kind of like the in-bounds but unplayable water shot? You can see it, but you can't retreive it. As I understand the ruling now, if I were in the group ruling on this, I would call that an unplayable lie, resulting in a penalty!

I am not just trying to be difficult - and I HAVE read the appropriate sections of the rule book. I just think this needs more discussion.

PS - thanks for the insight Nick - I appreciate your expertise, as I'm sure does the rest of our happy community

(Just trying to be difficult)
Dave

[rhett]

There is no unplayable lie rule in disc golf.

The unsafe lie rule allows the thrower to declare any lie unsafe without needing a reason. Only the thrower can invoke the unsafe lie rule, so you cannot "call it" on someone else.

[neonnoodle]

Group concensus is great and all, but don't you think there needs to be some kind of ruling on a un-retreivable, but visible disc?

No more than there was before the 2 meter became optional. But yes, in general, I agree that this could be tightened up a bit. Still, if it is right there and it is exactly where everyone saw it go and you can identify it, but can not retrieve it, then a judgment call is necessary, and our rules already "benefit of the doubt" goes to the thrower.

There is no grand gap in this that some unscrupulous lout is going to take advantage of us over. (Unlike stance violations and whacking down obstacles to throwing motion or flight path...)

[johnrock]

If you can see your disc 100ft. up in the tree, mark it with your mini directly below, take a legal stance, make your next throw, and move on! No penalties, no sweat, and 1 less disc to carry through that round!

[neonnoodle]

How many 10 story trees do you guys have? I didn't know you lived with the Ewoks...

[johnrock]

It's hard to tell how tall the trees around here actually are. This FREAKING wind has them all bent over so you can just grab your disc right out of the top And then with this snow today (8 inches plus), they are probably going to break in half

[Znash]

What if your disc is on the ground so you mark it make your throw and then forget to pick it up. Does this count a lost disc? You know where it is but you left it there so it may be a lost disc, but you don't take a lost disc penalty for it. So, why would you have to take a lost disc penalty for a disc left in a tree.

For example - a disc goes into deep OB water about 10 feet from shore. Everyone can see it, but the thrower won't go swimming. There is no need for a lost disc ruling, because the player takes a penalty for going OB.

Only if the water was designated as OB right. if the water was not designated at the beginning of the round or on the map as OB then there is no reason the disc golfer cannot wade in and throw from where his/her disc is at rest. If the disc is in water to deep to throw from, just mark the lie directly above it and throw while treading water.

This would not only bring a slew of interesting shots into the game, but leeches and watermoccasins as well.

[neonnoodle]

Only if the water was designated as OB right. if the water was not designated at the beginning of the round or on the map as OB then there is no reason the disc golfer cannot wade in and throw from where his/her disc is at rest. If the disc is in water to deep to throw from, just mark the lie directly above it and throw while treading water.

This would not only bring a slew of interesting shots into the game, but leeches and watermoccasins as well.

In order for the disc to be OB, it must be reasonably decided by the group or player that the disc came to rest in an OB area (for water OBs that means that the moment it stops moving of it's own power and starts moving by the motion of the water it is at rest and is OB). Scenarios could go on until the end of time, but it comes down to the judgment of the player (group, official or TD) as to whether the disc is OB AND also in identifying discs that are irretrievable. Which are not always the same thing: a disc that is seen to disappear into an deep OB water hazard IS OB regardless of whether or not it can be found or identified; when it is not “seen” is where “Lost Disc” comes into play. Either way our rules currently cover what action is appropriate.

Taken to the example of flying into a tree 100 feet up (?) and the same conclusion as seeing it fly into the surface of an OB water hazard IS NOT APPROPRIATE. If the disc can not be found in this case, regardless of whether it was seen to hit a tree or not, it can not be judged to have come to rest above 2 meters. It is a lost disc and must be played that way. If it is found in a tree 100 feet up (?) then it is played according to the rules that way. Now, if in the judgment of the player it is identifiable as his disc, but in the judgment of the group or an official it is not identifiable, the player can either accept their ruling and play it as a lost disc (where they all last saw it), and play a “Provisional Throw” from under the disc in question and let the TD decide later. Again, either way our rules currently cover what action is appropriate.

Please buy and read your rule book.

[terrilldisc]

Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under. Lets just see who can jack the longest shot. Lets just forget about the rest of the game.
Why not just go out and remove all the trees. Whats next .....

If you can see your disc 100ft. up in the tree, mark it with your mini directly below, take a legal stance, make your next throw, and move on! No penalties, no sweat, and 1 less disc to carry through that round!

You can get away with that once, but I'll stroke you the 2nd time for littering.

[james_mccaine]

The best way to have this questioned answered is to send Nick Kight a private message and ask him. Just kidding.

You may want to listen to the PDGA Radio broadcast where they interviewed Carlton Howard. He gave a good synopsis of the pros and cons and why the decision was made. I think the broadcast was the week before the USDGC or maybe two weeks.

[sandalman]

Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under.

a) that would force players to develop and use their SKILZ!,
b) that makes too much sense,
c) that wouldnt make nick happy.

so now you can forget about skils, just honk the hyzer up and over the trees and who cares if it gets caught up 25' directly over the basket.

welcome to the world of DRAT (discs resting above top)!

Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out?

the reason Carlton Howard said he changed his mind on this rule was first -- hitting a tree is usually a bad shot to begin with and penalty enough and second -- two discs thrown into the same tree are not likely to do the same thing and so a stroke or not comes down to random luck, unlike a lake or a street or mando where two discs thrown into the same area are likely to end up with the same result.

Resistance to change is natural but let's give this new rule a chance. There are still drawbacks of hitting and sticking up in a tree. That disc may be unavailable to you till after the round. Also you have to mark verticly below where you are so you may not get a great lie. Has anyone heard how the top pros on the NT felt about the new rule when it was auditioned this year at the USDGC?

[ck34]

And remember, it's still up to the TD/course pro to apply the 2-meter rule where it makes sense. Some courses may play no different next year from the way they do now if the course pro prefers. Imagine if we changed the rule such that water wasn't OB any more but it's only water that the TD calls OB. Oh wait! That IS our current rule (just like the revised 2-meter rule).

[sandalman]

the reason Carlton Howard said he changed his mind on this rule was first -- hitting a tree is usually a bad shot to begin with and penalty enough...

this part of the reasoning is so incredibly wrong i am surprised it held up during any discussion.

case a) a couple of trees frame the sides of a short fairway, and for the most part define the route to the pin. a disc that clears might yield a birdie, but only if thrown just about perfectly. a disc that hits and hangs in a tree will rarely if ever yield a birdie, but will also rarely if ever yield a bogie (in 2005). net result of hanging in tree : a more demanding upshot - not really any penalty at all.

case b) tree'd fairway, basket surrounded by trees, options at the tee are an open but demanding low line to basket, probably a three is well executed, or a high air shot over the trees designed to come down somewhere close to basket. this is one of the classic risk-reward scenarios in disc golf. do i keep the disc down, avoid disc eating trees, and rely on one brilliant drive or two well-executed low shots to get there, or do i throw caution to the wind and bust a big air shot, hoping that the trees let me drop and i get a birdie putt. removing the penalty potential from the airshot destroys the risk-reward balance of the hole.

granted, some shots that stick in trees are just plain bad luck. but so what? the goal is not to eliminate all luck is it? how do you eliminate good luck?

with all of the recent emphasis on hole design and accentuating risk-reward scenarios, it is amazing that the default ruling now eliminates one of the most frequently considered risk scenarios.

[neonnoodle]

Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under. Lets just see who can jack the longest shot. Lets just forget about the rest of the game.
Why not just go out and remove all the trees. Whats next .....

Annie,

You are being a little over alarmist here. None of what you said will change, other than the fact that the TD can decide not to give a penalty for it.

But if you think it will ruin what disc golf "IS", then by all means I suggest, for your own piece of mind, that you continue to stroke yourself for your discs that come to rest 2 meters above the playing surface. I'm sure noone will mind.