LOL.

Fair and honest...

and whats so funny about it? the first two questions are completely fair.

the results so far indicate that people understand that the 2MR is not a terrible rule by any stretch, but that it could be improved... and that the majority of respondants desire consistancy when it comes to rules.

the third question points out the single biggest problem with eliminating the 2MR - and perhaps not surprisingly the vast majority of respondants understand this also.

keeping it at a high level like this can provide some perspective that has been missing in the discussions lately as minutiae took over

I guess my initial thought concerning the second question was that it suggests that the scheduled alternative to the 2MR is not consistent. (I have a tendency to succumb to trigger-finger posting :D)

And while it may not be AS consistent as the 2MR, it is every bit as consistent as the remainder of our OB rules. Just seemed a little bit of an unfair wording. I would have answered that I'm on the side of consistency, but it seems like you would have used that answer as a reason not to remove the 2MR, which I am for (removing, that is). So I just didn't complete the survey.

well, i guess i can see how you got that out of hte second question - but i meant it to address whether the rule, in whatever form it takes, should be The Rule - applied the same in every event, or an optional "rule" that can be used or not depending on the desires of the TD - kinda like what we have in 2005 with the TD optional 2MR. ie - whatever rule we come up with should we force you use it, or provide an easy way of allowing you to not use it.

gosh, 2 voters say that a 40' suspension and a pole squatter are the same.

i guess nichole and robj finally voted!!! :D

Just out of curiousity,,,,,if your disc is suspended 40' in a tree,,,how can you say that it is the same as being at the base of the pole? If that tree wasn't there then your disc would have kept going right? Am I missing something?

How about a disc that hit the tree 40' above the basket and fell to the base of the pole is the same as a disc that hit the tree 40' above the basket and stuck ?

gary, no matter what its where you end up that counts. i'm unclear about the thrust of your question.

nat, without the 2MR a disc 40' IS the same as one sitting by the pole. beautiful, isnt it! and it'll look great on ESPN! :D

While it pains me to do so, I must admit that Pat's poll is on the mark and cuts through all the unwarranted BS that goes along with most 2MR discussions.

Almost everyone wants to see it stay, the question is as is or with tweaking (as is holding a slight current lead)

Most everyone wants to see consistency in its application.

Most everyone understands that a disc stuck in a tree is...


...A BAD SHOT!

How about a disc that hit the tree 40' above the basket and fell to the base of the pole is the same as a disc that hit the tree 40' above the basket and stuck ?



How about where the "lie" is by rule? Or does that not matter? We're just worried about "feels right" or "to the naked eye" logic?

The answer according to our rules is that the lie is identical. It is the place on the playing surface beneath the disc. If you don't like the way we mark and play our lie in disc golf you have greater problems to tackle than the 2MR debacle...

<font color="red"> [Making an example by editing out an indirect reference to profanity.] </font>

Just out of curiousity,,,,,if your disc is suspended 40' in a tree,,,how can you say that it is the same as being at the base of the pole? If that tree wasn't there then your disc would have kept going right? Am I missing something?


Nope, I think you've got it. That's the problem many people have with eliminating the 2MR entirely.

The great thing about this poll is there is no need to call the original poster an [*****], his post speaks for itself!



That sure sounds to me like a courtesy warning would be warranted for the tone and language used. Who moderates the moderator?

geez, he really wrote that?

thats the kind of stuff that gets people kicked off the board!

well, when the facts are against them, people resort to name-calling to cover themselves i guess.

The great thing about this poll is there is no need to call the original poster an [*****], his post speaks for itself!



That sure sounds to me like a courtesy warning would be warranted for the tone and language used. Who moderates the moderator?



Not that I'm in the habit of defending Lil' Nicki, but he may very well have said Pat was an [*****], which seems to be getting bleeped now. If so, its hard to argue that [*****] isn't applicable to both of those two...


...and me, from time to time. :)

My message board mentor, another one of those who enjoyed the 2MR masturbation, uh, I mean discussion, the Great Wimpy would be unable to live in a message board world where he couldn't call people an [*****].

Check thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=[*****) for synonyms for the newly bleeped word "[*****]."

Wow...it bleeped the word in the link...nifty. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks TB.

Let's see how many of these fly. ;)

[*****], blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, kook, meathead, mental defective, [*****], nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, pinhead, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit, yo-yo

[*****] [*****] [*****] [*****] [*****]

I guess that sucks.

Hey blockhead, which two words bleeped?

if we were gonna ***** all insults, would we hafta include "atwood"?

thats funny pizza, whatever you wrote - buts it great to know it "sucks"!!! :D:D:D

now can we please get back to shredding the insanity of removing the 2MR?

muncho gracias!

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor

its pretty simple, nat. removing the 2MR would make a shot that sticks 40' up directly above the basket and a shot that is elegantly placed below the pan absolutely identical on the scorecard.

i oppose this folly.

i do however agree that certain types of trees are so thick at the base that the one stroke penalty and a lie directly under the disc is really a two stroke penalty.

therefore i support a rule change that would provide for up to 5M relief on the Line Of Play (LOP) when the 2MR happens.

your shot stunk - see, its up there in the tree.
you will be penalized.
you may take relief from the tree if you wish.
now get on with it and throw! :D

Post deleted by monitor

but then he would change the geometry system so that it was nowrefered to as rightside up and forward!

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor

Post deleted by monitor
<font color="blue"> Dear DISCussion Board Users,

Since I was asked to help find and keep Mike Crump from posting to the PDGA website, and he and Natalie were the same person, I have deleted their posts and the ones I posted to draw them out. Sorry for the confusion, if any, this caused you. Since I undertook moderation duties on this thread, I also deleted my on personal posts and will not post again to this thread.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight
PDGA Assistant Webmaster</font>

Fair and balenced like Fox News.
Try this poll. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=333318&amp;page=0&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=&amp;vc=#Post333318)

Thanks Nick, you are good for something. :D

Now I'm really confused. O.K., I assumed that Anon was Grunion who is really Mike. I also assumed that Natalie was MiniCrusher who is (well I don't know). Now I'm being told that they are the same and they are all Mike. Pretty soon someone is going to tell me that they are all the Angry Clown and when that happens my head will explode. Talk about needing a life. On the other hand, this would make a really bad X-files episode...

i'm not rteally sure whats going on because the First Rule of Ignore is NEVER take someone off of ignore after you put them on... so i have no clue what nick is talking about.

BUT PLease can we just talk aboutthe 2MR here from now on?

many thanks in advance

Pat, your 3rd question is a clear answer to the 2MR question.

I for one will keep the rule in place until it is totally removed from the rules book. But if it removed, then I will live with it. Not that big of a deal.

But on the other hand, it has been fun watching Mike try to get banned and keep posting. (BTW, he has posted sense your post above nick)

[*****] [*****] [*****] [*****] [*****]

I guess that sucks.



Ahh, I remember the days when the word suck(s) was bleeped (and that was completely my fault at the time). That's pretty [*****]ing funny. The circle of censorship is ammusing.

Fair and Honest LOL. Sounds like the smoke and mirrors used by FOX "News"

i do however agree that certain types of trees are so thick at the base that the one stroke penalty and a lie directly under the disc is really a two stroke penalty.



That is the situation here in Temple with the bodarks that we have on the course. Not only are they thick but everyone of them has thorns that are like one inch needles on every branch. It is like a two stroke penalty but I support the 2m rule cause shots in the trees are bad shots.

Censorship SUCKS!
Is this NOT America?
Or is this board Canadian...A?
I want to read what this [*****] had to say :D
Hey if you delete all of Hysell's posts, will his post count go to 0 /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

is a disc that is 1.9 meters above the ground one stroke worse than a disc that is 2 meters above the ground? why 6 meters? why not 5 or 7?

it's a silly rule and makes our sport look even more silly to those that don't get it. get rid of it.

what he said!! :D:D:D

that argument makes a good sound bite because it contains a kernal of truth. but so does the one that says a disc 40' above the pin is not as good as under the basket. you cannot use one without using the other.

further, sports are filled with seemingly arbitrary measurements. most have some understandable reasoning behind them even though most are "unfair". 10' high baskets could be deemed unfair because they reward taller players. try exaplining to a 5'2" man why he should not be given his shot at multi-million dollar nba contract. the reasoning behind 2M as a vertical measurement of a good shot makes a lot of snese - IF you agree that AT SOME POINT above the surface a shot becomes "bad".

is a disc that is 1.9 meters above the ground one stroke worse than a disc that is 2 meters above the ground? why 6 meters? why not 5 or 7?

it's a silly rule and makes our sport look even more silly to those that don't get it. get rid of it.



Exactly. OB leads to a penalty stroke and consistent relief. Let's put the 2 meter rule to rest and use OB where appropriate.

The 2 meter rule is so bad people have to defend it by citing discs suspended 40 feet above the pin. Getting your disc to stay stuck 40 feet above the pin with an unobstructed resulting lie takes a lot more skill than parking the disc under the basket does.

that argument makes a good sound bite because it contains a kernal of truth. but so does the one that says a disc 40' above the pin is not as good as under the basket. you cannot use one without using the other.


the big difference is that my scenario is realistic and your's is hardly imaginable.

i've explained the 2 meter rule to many a newbie and feel like a doofus doing it. the conversation always leads to the question "why two meters?" and i undoubtedly respond, "uhhhhhhhhh, i dunno-- no reason i guess".

our sport is noted for being open and inviting to joe public to come and throw discs in a golf fashion in a park. should we, or should we not make the rules conducive to linda lid-thrower and her new-to-the-sport counterparts? i believe that is a no-brainer.

well you finally got something right. removing the 2MR completely IS a no-brainer!

wow, it still looks like an overwhelming majority want to either keep the rule or tweek it. they also desire consistancy with how rules are applied.

who'd'a thunk it!

you know...ball golfers have the option of climbing the tree and hitting the ball from where it is stuck. I say if you can climb the tree, and place a foot in the spot that the disc is stuck then play it as it lies. IF YOU CANNOT place a support point where the disc came to rest then take a drop and a stroke. This means pretty much anything stuck much over waist high will cost you a stroke. Pretty simple right???

you know...ball golfers have the option of climbing the tree and hitting the ball from where it is stuck. I say if you can climb the tree, and place a foot in the spot that the disc is stuck then play it as it lies. IF YOU CANNOT place a support point where the disc came to rest then take a drop and a stroke. This means pretty much anything stuck much over waist high will cost you a stroke. Pretty simple right???



I can put a support point a bit over 2 meters without climbing anything. My hand easily reaches over 2 meters and can be used as a support point...just like you can use your hand or your knee as a support point behind the mini. Left hand at the support point, right hand throws. The definition of playing surface might have to be changed however since you have to have a support point on the playing surface.

you know...ball golfers have the option of climbing the tree and hitting the ball from where it is stuck. I say if you can climb the tree, and place a foot in the spot that the disc is stuck then play it as it lies. IF YOU CANNOT place a support point where the disc came to rest then take a drop and a stroke. This means pretty much anything stuck much over waist high will cost you a stroke. Pretty simple right???

As soon as one [*****] falls out of the tree and breaks an important body part the course gets pulled. That's why we don't let you [not necessarily you in particular, but maybe you too] climb the tree. And that is why we need a two-meter rule. This might be obvious only to myself and Pythagorus, but when your disc is higher than twice the height of the basket rim and you mark straight down, you are moving your mark closer to the hole than where it was in the tree. Since we are letting you move closer to the hole than where your disc landed, you should take a stroke.

but when your disc is higher than twice the height of the basket rim and you mark straight down, you are moving your mark closer to the hole than where it was in the tree. Since we are letting you move closer to the hole than where your disc landed, you should take a stroke.

wow!!! absolutely unimpeachable argument for the existance of the 2MR.


what took you so long??? :D

anti-2MR folks - did you read and understand this???

after reading this one sentence explanation it seems impossible to support ANY change to the existing 2MR!

but when your disc is higher than twice the height of the basket rim and you mark straight down, you are moving your mark closer to the hole than where it was in the tree. Since we are letting you move closer to the hole than where your disc landed, you should take a stroke.

wow!!! absolutely unimpeachable argument for the existance of the 2MR.


what took you so long??? :D

anti-2MR folks - did you read and understand this???

after reading this one sentence explanation it seems impossible to support ANY change to the existing 2MR!


This should be interesting.

yep. very.

wow!!! absolutely unimpeachable argument for the existance of the 2MR..



unimpeachable? maybe you're taking yourself a little too seriously... ?

consistent with this 'unimpeachable' argument you are fond of, explain why a disc 1.9 meters up shouldn't likewise be stroked?

803.07B
based on results of an action, not intent

but when your disc is higher than twice the height of the basket rim and you mark straight down, you are moving your mark closer to the hole than where it was in the tree. Since we are letting you move closer to the hole than where your disc landed, you should take a stroke.

wow!!! absolutely unimpeachable argument for the existance of the 2MR.


what took you so long??? :D

anti-2MR folks - did you read and understand this???

after reading this one sentence explanation it seems impossible to support ANY change to the existing 2MR!



Let me start with my standard disclaimer for these threads: "I am neither for nor against the 2MR, I'm one of the great unwashed who doesn't care much either way. I just like an argument about physics or maths."

That said, lets have a maths argument.
Your premises:
1) The basket rim is 1m above the ground
2) The basket rim is the target

Debunking premise 1)
See the following link: PDGA basket approval (http://www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/TechStandTargetCert.pdf)
The height of the basket rim must be between 76 and 89cm from the ground. Using your argument, we should have a 152-178cm rule, not a 2m Rule.
Now assume that you are not on flat land, in fact, you are standing exactly 2m below the basket rim (or 124-111cm below the base of the basket). Now I am taking a distance penalty by marking my lie on the ground. Should I now be given a stroke back as compensation? ;)

Debunking premise 2)
Do I even need to? It seems too obvious that the target exists for a space above the rim, usually 30-40cm I'd guess.
89+40 = 129cm to the top of the target, hence we should have a 258cm rule...
However, checking the above link again, there is actually no specified maximum basket height above the rim, so theoretically the target could extend an infinite distance upwards. Thus we have a height limit of infinity, or put another way, no 2MR.

[bow] I thank you :D

because youre actually moving such a shot FARTHER from the basket.

rounds numbers are easier tro deal with. measuring for 152 cm would be wierd

rounds numbers are easier tro deal with. measuring for 152 cm would be wierd



Thus ignoring my "target goes up, possibly to infinity" argument :p

Regardless, as it has already been established that "bad shots hit trees", and the mean "pythagorian distance to target = distance to lie" is much closer to 1.5m than 2m, surely you should be pushing for a change to a 1.5m rule, that's a round number too...

the infinite height thingie is just jousting with words, didnt think it really needed a response. so me such a basket, and then we'll discuss it.

so, the 2MR is now just deciding whether to keep it at 2M or change it to 1.5M? OK with me. i'll grant you your entire argument #1 if that is the case! no problem with that at all.

can baskets have a rim, depth and height? sounds to me like someone installed your basket upside down.
just foolin' around, I take it to mean the target not the basket when talking about height.
This could raise the possibility of DRIT2MAPS
Disc Resting In Target 2 Meters Above Playing Surface :D

the infinite height thingie is just jousting with words, didnt think it really needed a response. so me such a basket, and then we'll discuss it.

so, the 2MR is now just deciding whether to keep it at 2M or change it to 1.5M? OK with me. i'll grant you your entire argument #1 if that is the case! no problem with that at all.



Except of course, in argument #2 I pointed out that it should be at least 2.5m, as the target exists above the rim of the basket, so maybe you need to change it to 2.5m to ensure fairness.

The infinite height thing is not jousting with words. The fact is there is no specified maximum height for the top of a basket (at least that I can find). Just because a 6', 10' or 30' tall basket hasn't been produced doesn't mean that you shouldn't take it in to account in the rules. If it's legal, you need to account for it.

Lets face it, the point of this post was to point out that the "getting closer to the target by marking your lie, hence get a stroke" argument is spurious, hadn't been thought through, and is in no way an argument for the 2MR.
Or do you think that you should get a stroke for taking your 1m relief from an OB line closer to the basket (when you weren't OB, just within 1m)?

The lack of a max height for a target I believe harkens back to object targets. It wasn't unusual for players to accept hitting an object target anywhere on it, except sometimes sliding into it wasn't considered good. So, the 2m penalty wouldn't have existed at least on trees that were designated targets.

Or do you think that you should get a stroke for taking your 1m relief from an OB line closer to the basket (when you weren't OB, just within 1m)?

actually, i disagree with the one meter relief from the OB line rule. it should be about the length of a disc instead. the theory was that a player must be given room to take a proper stance. but a straddle stance can be acheived in a very small space. other places the rules only allow for a "legal" stance, not a "preferred" stance. the 1M relief rule is gross. its also one i use to my advantage whenever possible :)

rounds numbers are easier tro deal with. measuring for 152 cm would be wierd



Thus ignoring my "target goes up, possibly to infinity" argument :p


We mostly play on baskets made by Innova or DGA in this country, neither one of which has designed a target that goes up to infinity. The rare few object courses that still exist don't have too many targets that tall either. I think your math argument proves little more than that you, like Fore on that other thread, should share.

i just looked at the spec. the measurement you mention is for the rim. since discs can easily be caught above the rim (in the chains) you would need to add a little bit to the rim height. 11-25 cm seems pretty reasonable, so add that to the rim height, and presto walla - the 2MR.

I think your math argument proves little more than that you, like Fore on that other thread, should share.



If you just insulted me, I'm afraid I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.
It's typical of both sides in this argument that they're overly defensive and unwilling to actually discuss the issues.

Here's the only actually HONEST poll for you:

I agree/disagree* with the 2MR (*delete as applicable), do you agree with me?

a) Yes, you and I are both enlightened individuals who fully understand the complexities involved

b) No, I'm a [email protected] who is incapable of grasping any point you're making.

A point for consideration...

I'm not going to go through the process of writing it, but an argument could probably be made that IF the penalty for being above two meters were based on moving closer to the target (ignoring questions of altitude in whether this is actually the case), then the position of the disc relative to the GROUND has been rendered of lesser importance, and therefore it should be acceptable to use a trigonometric calculation to determine where to mark on the line of play and the same distance from the basket as the disc, and play from there.

Then we could have a ridiculous argument about whether making the measurements for this calculation would be included in a reasonable time to approach and mark the lie or whether it would come out of your 30 seconds...

your conclusion does not necessaily follow your premise.

good try :)

Is that my conclusion that an argument could be made, my conclusion that the argument is valid (which I actually specifically meant to state I was not drawing), or my conclusion that we could have a silly argument about the thirty second rule in relation to the argument I claimed could be made? :D

Doesn't matter too much, though, I was half asleep when I wrote that.

your conclusion that "therefore it should be acceptable to use a trigonometric calculation to determine where to mark on the line of play and the same distance from the basket as the disc, and play from there" :D

the reason for this is that lines do not exist in 3D space. you'll find that somewhere in the intestines of the threads :D

two times today the suspension of the 2MR allowed big hyzers that got caught in cedars to play on penalty free. we were in match play, and both free passes created pushes.

the 2MR has a legitimate place in the game!

make it optional if you wish/must, but it does not serve the best interests of the sport to completely eliminate the 2MR.

This might have been said before but: We could have a compromise position and say that the 2M rule only applies in the 10 meter putting circle. This is where the lie tends to be moved toward the target instead of mostly laterally on the fairway. Fairway trees are double penalties, and 10 meter trees are not. The canopy could be included as part of the penalty area so that the call is easy. In other words, if the trunk is in the 10 meter circle, the whole tree is ob. To make it even harsher around the basket, there could be a drop zone plus a penalty.

To completely leave the option up to the TD doesn't work for me. Players need to make certain assumptions about the rules of play. If a TD decides to call any random tree OB, each player would have to know ahead of time which trees are or are not OB. If instead, the 10 meter trees would be assumed OB, and the only other trees that could be optional OB trees would be those with canopies extending over the 10 meter circle that have trunks outside the circle. Further, those "extra" OB trees would have to be marked. Players would then only have to assume that sticking in trees in or next to the green are extra hazardous.

exactly. thats the problem with designating trees as OB. additionally, what if the TD calls cetain trees OB, but its limbs touch another tree that did not receive the OB designation? trouble ahead!

this is why the 2MR works so well. it is clear, concise, and incredibbly easy to describe, understand and apply.

This is also where "no 2m rule" works so well. It is clear, concise, and incredibbly easy to describe, understand and apply. :D

This is also where "no 2m rule" works so well. It is clear, concise, and incredibbly easy to describe, understand and apply. :D



well said! :D

I want my opponents to be encouraged to throw into trees all they want. Hitting a tree is a crap shoot. The more people try using a tree to their advantage with elimination of the 2 meter rule, the more they'll be discouraged from hitting trees above a height of 2 meters in the first place --especially after they have to finish a competitive round with one of their go-to discs stuck high up in a tree.

Have to aggree with RobJ here.


:cool:

I happen to disagree with RobJ here. I don't want to encourage anyone, be it opponent, friend, aquaintance, or otherwise, to throw into trees. They are one of the few effective obstacles that we have, and IMO, promoting any level of increased damage to them is detrimental to the overall health and beauty of the course.

They [trees] are one of the few effective obstacles that we have.



This alone reinforces the 2M rule.


Promoting any level of increased damage to them is detrimental to the overall health and beauty of the course.



Good call, Kiefer!

Quote:
They [trees] are one of the few effective obstacles that we have.



This alone reinforces the 2M rule.





If a tree is an obstacle - I want to stay away from it - doesn't matter if there is a 2m rule or not.

If a lie close to the tree is the prefered shot and my ability allows me to take that shot - I'll take it.

So, I am wondering if getting rid of the 2m rule would result in more discs getting stuck in trees above 2 meters because people are trying to take more risky shots.

yes, oneace, it will. it already has encouraged people to change their route.

regarding robj's dissenting points,

a) smart players carry backups of their go-to discs
b) when throwing into a canopy, especially using a hyzer bomb, the resulting lie is almost always close to underneath the point of initial contact with the trees.

I happen to disagree with RobJ here. I don't want to encourage anyone, be it opponent, friend, aquaintance, or otherwise, to throw into trees. They are one of the few effective obstacles that we have, and IMO, promoting any level of increased damage to them is detrimental to the overall health and beauty of the course.



For the most part damage caused by discs is slight and often only encourages more growth. But, if you really want to protect trees, the 2 meter rule is ineffective since it applies to a very small percentage of throws which strike trees. If you truly care about trees you will prefer to make them OB as opposed to having a 2 meter rule. Some holes do present little challenge due to their design except for trees -- making the whole area underneathe such trees OB protects them from the ground up: penalizing the shots which strike trees and drop straight down and adding to the challenge presented by the hole.

But, if you really want to protect trees, the 2 meter rule is ineffective since it applies to a very small percentage of throws which strike trees.


The 2MR discourages the thrower from throwing recklessly into trees. It doesn't matter if the disc sticks in the tree or not -- the threat of a penalty is enough to make a thrower think twice.

If you truly care about trees you will prefer to make them OB as opposed to having a 2 meter rule.


You just disagreed the 2MR protects trees because only a few discs stick above 2 meters, but you think OB will somehow do a better job than 2MR in protecting trees? How? The discs aren't going to stick in trees to a greater degree just because the OB rule replaces the 2MR. So how is it that you think the OB rule is more protective?

Simple -- Because the discs that drop down and rest below the tree canopy will be OB. Since far more discs that hit trees drop out then stick, throwing into a tree no longer is statisticly a pretty safe venture when the tree is OB. (Of course only trees very near pins would need such a declaration)

so a shot that traverses a tight narrow fairway, lands 10' from the basket and slides another 10' to come to rest under a tree that is declared OB is a crappy shot worthy of a penalty???

well, i guess if your logic allows you to thing a shot stuck 40' up is as good as one skillfully placed on the ground, then you can believe that also.

you crack me up.