Let's hear what you think....

Best Rule - benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower - I think it makes tougher calls easier to make and gives some kind of consistency from group to group on how to make a tough call.

Worst Rule - Ratings decide what division you play.....don't need to go into detail about this one

Ratings decide what division you play.....



Example of a rule that's not a rule. Ratings only determine what divisions you (baggers) can't play.

Ratings decide what division you play.....



Example of a rule that's not a rule. Ratings only determine what divisions you (baggers) can't play.




ok....worst rule....ratings determine what divisions you can't play.

I'm flexible

Now it sounds like you are promoting sandbagging... :)

Funny how things like this go.

1. Best rule not implemented yet - players get placed in divisions according to their ranking.

2. Worst rule � The foot fault rule on second throws. This is tough, I chose this rule because:
a) It never gets called
b) It is often abused

Best - rule that allows people to clean up putts without waiting (after asking and recieving permission for the Zeolots.)

Worst - two strokes from playing from another's lie. This is almost always done by mistake and is not intentional cheating. Just give em a practice throw and move on.

Worst rule#2 - the rules that allow only one scorecard per group. IMO, there should be at least two scorecards and they should always be kept by different people.

Worst - two strokes from playing from another's lie. This is almost always done by mistake and is not intentional cheating. Just give em a practice throw and move on.




I've never thought of that, but that makes a lot since.

If I throw from a spot where there is no disc, I only get a one shot penalty, but if there is a disc there, I get two....that doesn't make any since.

This is why I started this thread....to get some thinking and constructive criticism......good start to it so far.

best rule: 801.01 (D)

worst rule: the new one in 2006 that turns the 2MR off by default.

worst rule#2: stroke AND distance. you sadists you!


Worst rule#2 - the rules that allow only one scorecard per group. IMO, there should be at least two scorecards and they should always be kept by different people.

on my card, there always are! :D

I think the greater penalty is to force players to positively identify the disc they are about to throw from. It might not be a big deal to the player that throws from the wrong lie, but to the player that is looking for that disc later (after it has been picked up and put in another players bag), it is a very big deal. It is a penalty that should never happen because are required by the rules to identify your disc before you throw.

i threw from the wrong disc once. i was on Waco Olde #16, and the other guy was Waco Olde #18. we both threw those powder blue XLs, and i pulled mine a bit left where the fairways kinda share the field. when i got to mine (really his) i thought, geez, i was sure i threw further than this! but i maked it and threw it on down towards the basket. well, i meant to throw it towards the basket. it went into the deeps woods. it took both cards the full time to find that puppy... but thank god we did. the two strokes was bad enuf, but losing the other guy's disc would have been unforgiveable!

Best: Courtesy (best on the course & best in your regular life)
Worst: No relief on 2m violation. 2m rule is good, no relief from the subsequent (often lousy) lie is rotten!

Best: I agree with the benefit of the doubt.
Worst: Falling putt.

Since your closest supporting point must be in contact with the ground at the point of release, there is no point in trying to otherwise wipe out the running slam dunk.

Yao Ming already has a big advantage over Webster in that his reach makes his release point closer to the basket. So there already is an unfair advantage based on the player's height built into putting. And, you don't exactly get more accurate in an unfair way if you lose your balance while putting. So, what exactly is the falling putt rule aimed at fixing/equalizing??

Best : A throw that goes OB can be thrown from OB placement or last placement w/ stroke.
Worst : Counting back 4 holes to figure out who tees first, just throw already.

Worst : Counting back 4 holes to figure out who tees first, just throw already.

No way; that's an aid to keeping score. ;)

What, no collared shirt diatribes?
How quickly they all forget/move on.

Ken

...there must be tie-dyed collared shirts available, now. :D

I do have one !!!!! From Equinox Disc Golf !!!!

An aid to keeping score? If we all pared or birdied the last 3 holes just throw.

In the same order as before, that's the point.

If it's NOT the same order, you know there was 'movement' between players on the card: Either a tie was broken, or somebody's lead got bigger or smaller. So, if you and somebody who were tied change [relative] places on the tee, it's a FACT that you are no longer tied. It's not possible otherwise; it's a logical conclusion. That's but one viable example.

...when the order changes, it always means something. There's no debate about it; it BECOMES a memory aid; I'm just not sure I can explain WHY, if you don't like #'s...I enjoy basic arithmetic, so I have the aptitude.

Best: Keep lie on OB shots.
Worst: DROTS!!

worst rule: the new one in 2006 that turns the 2MR off by default.




Come to Cali "Sandalman" We will RISE UP and go on "Strike" before we give up the 2MR :eek:
;)

glad to hear it! most of texas feels the same way. even maceman reformed his reformist ways, and is now back on board with keeping it!

unfortunately for me, i fel victim to the wrath of the 2MR in his A2Z Doubles event during the round of alternate :) but i still support the rule!

Best: All the ones that will be added next year.
Worst: All the ones they replace, modify or correct next year.

My pet peeve rule is our stance rules. A large portion of our book is dedicated to it when it should come down to a simple, "Play it from where it lies." Not play it from the playing surface beneath where it lies, or above where it lies, or play it this way when you are here, but this way when you are there and don't forget to play it a completely different way when you are way over there. All so needlessly complicated and confused.

"Have a point of support in contact exactly where the disc came to rest upon release." should cover every possible situation. If you cannot or don't then get a penalty stroke.

If we bring our "Lie" into the equation, then that changes everything. Why can't lie be the 'exact' location the disc came to rest?

If a player can stay in contact with where the disc came to rest upon release, no foul. If they can't, stroke'm.

All that would be needed to stop bush and tree climbing is that the player must have a supporting point also on the 'playing surface' (a term that will be elegantly defined in the next update).

I know this rule will never change because we have grown too accustomed to its awkwardness and zaniness. But it would greatly reduce the verbiage and confusion surrounding stance and lie IMO.

I have a collared shirt but I tore the sleeves offn it

Best: All the ones that will be added next year.
Worst: All the ones they replace, modify or correct next year.

My pet peeve rule is our stance rules. A large portion of our book is dedicated to it when it should come down to a simple, "Play it from where it lies." Not play it from the playing surface beneath where it lies, or above where it lies, or play it this way when you are here, but this way when you are there and don't forget to play it a completely different way when you are way over there. All so needlessly complicated and confused.

"Have a point of support in contact exactly where the disc came to rest upon release." should cover every possible situation. If you cannot or don't then get a penalty stroke.

If we bring our "Lie" into the equation, then that changes everything. Why can't lie be the 'exact' location the disc came to rest?

If a player can stay in contact with where the disc came to rest upon release, no foul. If they can't, stroke'm.

All that would be needed to stop bush and tree climbing is that the player must have a supporting point also on the 'playing surface' (a term that will be elegantly defined in the next update).

I know this rule will never change because we have grown too accustomed to its awkwardness and zaniness. But it would greatly reduce the verbiage and confusion surrounding stance and lie IMO.



Can we vote on this now?

Don't be such a pessimist Nick, this is such a simple yet elegant approach that it will eventually be accepted... please! :D

Worst: no standardized scoring method is required for filling out the scorecard, resulting in different regions writing very different things on scorecards at PDGA tourneys.

Reading the rules, scoring seems pretty clear and seems like it should be standardized. Write your "score" and total your "score." Yes, I am assuming that "score" is the total of throws plus penalty throws, but that isn't a gigantic leap of faith.

The Commisioner of the PDGA recently posted that if the TD says to use dashes for pars, then that is what "writing the score" means.

If the TD says writing the score means a dash for par, shouldn't the event be an X-Tier or have a waiver for not following the score keeping rules ? :cool:

Well, OK, I totally agree with you. If something as basic as scoring is not standardized, that is pretty lame and should be addressed pronto.

I'd like to see all currently illegal Jump Putts made legal or at the least make illegal jump putts from outside the circle legal. I think it could really add some more excitement to the game.

I have a problem with jump putting simply b/c most ppl do it illegally.

Most ppl release the disc after thier foot has left the ground. But since most ppl don't realize this, it's hard to get a second on a foot fault.

Exactly, so why not just make it legal? I mean there are 2 good things to making it legal, 1- it eliminates doubt in whether the foot left the ground before release(which without slowmo replay is nearly impossible to tell)because it won't matter and 2- it adds an excitment factor into the sport.

Won't work Scott. Let's suppose there's an "athlete" taking broad jumps of 10 feet from his(her) original lie of 31 feet. Wouln't that be a tremendous advantage? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

worst: wedgies which wedge from the outside in count

best: 2006 rule that turns the 2 meter rule off by default.

discs suspended 1.99 and 2.01 meters above the playing surface will finally be treated the same, and discs stuck 40 feet up will be out of service for at least a round.

Best: All the ones that will be added next year.
Worst: All the ones they replace, modify or correct next year.

My pet peeve rule is our stance rules. A large portion of our book is dedicated to it when it should come down to a simple, "Play it from where it lies." Not play it from the playing surface beneath where it lies, or above where it lies, or play it this way when you are here, but this way when you are there and don't forget to play it a completely different way when you are way over there. All so needlessly complicated and confused.

"Have a point of support in contact exactly where the disc came to rest upon release." should cover every possible situation. If you cannot or don't then get a penalty stroke.

If we bring our "Lie" into the equation, then that changes everything. Why can't lie be the 'exact' location the disc came to rest?

If a player can stay in contact with where the disc came to rest upon release, no foul. If they can't, stroke'm.

All that would be needed to stop bush and tree climbing is that the player must have a supporting point also on the 'playing surface' (a term that will be elegantly defined in the next update).

I know this rule will never change because we have grown too accustomed to its awkwardness and zaniness. But it would greatly reduce the verbiage and confusion surrounding stance and lie IMO.



Can we vote on this now?

Don't be such a pessimist Nick, this is such a simple yet elegant approach that it will eventually be accepted... please! :D



You ever see those folks with the really weird and elaborate pre throw warm ups? They are the folks that populate our RC.

LOL! :) :o:)

Won't work Scott. Let's suppose there's an "athlete" taking broad jumps of 10 feet from his(her) original lie of 31 feet. Wouln't that be a tremendous advantage?





That is exactly what I was talking about when I said it would add some more excitement to the sport. Forget about the broad jump, how about the athlete that is great at the long jump who could figure a way to run and jump 15 or so feet then release the disc before he hit the ground and make the putt. :eek:

Not sure i see anything wrong with an "athlete" having an advantage :confused:

The way I figure it is that the Jump Putt is now part of the game, no real way to determine with 100% certainty that someone does it legally without slowmo video, so why not just legalize it across the board.

The way I figure it is that the Jump Putt is now part of the game, no real way to determine with 100% certainty that someone does it legally without slowmo video, so why not just legalize it across the board.

No real way to determine with 100% certainty whether someone using a fairway run-up actually places a supporting point w/in 30 cem behind the lie, on the LOP w/o slo-mo, either, so why not just eliminate that requirement and let her/him throw from wherever s/he darn well pleases?

If we're not talking about a putt with a run-up, then one could be fairly certain the shot at least started from the lie.

worst: wedgies which wedge from the outside in count

best: 2006 rule that turns the 2 meter rule off by default.

discs suspended 1.99 and 2.01 meters above the playing surface will finally be treated the same, and discs stuck 40 feet up will be out of service for at least a round.




one of the worst: wedgies which wedge from the outside in count

absolutely worst: 2006 rule that turns the 2 meter rule off by default.

a disc suspended 15 meters above the playing surface above the pin will be treated the same as a disc rested next to the pin.

discs resting on the ground 9.998 meters from the pin must be putted and balance demonstrated. discs resting 10.002 meters from the pin may be putted in a way that allows the player to fall forward as much as he desires.

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE!!!

I've done my share of ranting. :o:DI can tell you this though: There's going to be quite a few "out-of-bound" trees on our course next Open!

heck, just reinstate the 2MR. most of TX and from what i hear most/all of Cali is keeping it. what PA thinks is not relevant :)

I've done my share of ranting. :o:DI can tell you this though: There's going to be quite a few "out-of-bound" trees on our course next Open!

*ahem* There are going to be trees marked OB. There is going to be a stipulation where trees are marked OB. Pardon. :o

No real way to determine with 100% certainty whether someone using a fairway run-up actually places a supporting point w/in 30 cem behind the lie, on the LOP w/o slo-mo, either, so why not just eliminate that requirement and let her/him throw from wherever s/he darn well pleases?




If you can't see that then you need to start paying more attention or go see an eye doctor. Watch someones feet and you can see whether they hit their mark, seriously not hard to see.

Now go try to see whether a jump putt someone is doing is legal, besides a very obvious jump then throw, the human eye cant see the foot and the disc release fast enough to determine that the disc was released after the foot left the ground.

Worst: Allowing jump putts at anytime.

Best: Disc Homologation

Worst: Allowing jump putts at anytime.

Best: Disc Homologation



If you have an arm , why do you need to jump putt ?

Been playing for 30 + years. Never needed a jump putt !!!!!

Anything outside 120 + is an upshot anyway. Jump Putt !!!!!!

C'mon.......................... :p

from what i hear most/all of Cali is keeping it.



Not all of California is keeping the rule. The two meter rule was not in effect for the Golden State Classic and it will not be in effect for the So Cal Championships.

from what i hear most/all of Cali is keeping it.



Not all of California is keeping the rule. The two meter rule was not in effect for the Golden State Classic and it will not be in effect for the So Cal Championships.


That's because you and Tim don't have any sense. :)

absolutely worst: 2006 rule that turns the 2 meter rule off by default.

a disc suspended 15 meters above the playing surface above the pin will be treated the same as a disc rested next to the pin.



Only if the TD, not the rule book, say they are to be. The TD can make that tree OB or have the 2MR in effect for just that one tree or for the whole course.

Course design should never have been included in our rule book. In 2006 it won't be.

Outrage? LOL! You really are funny sometimes Pat.

I have a problem with jump putting simply b/c most ppl do it illegally.

Most ppl release the disc after thier foot has left the ground. But since most ppl don't realize this, it's hard to get a second on a foot fault.



I used to think the same thing and so I went and looked. At least at the pro level I believe you are wrong. I reviewed, frame by frame, all the jump putts from 2003 Worlds, 2003 USDGC, and 2004 Worlds. I saw only one person jump putting illegally, that Pro consistently stepped past his marker on his jump putts but did not lift his lead foot off the ground, what most people expect to happen.

I looked at putts by players including Barry, Juliana, Des, Rico, Cam, and many others and none of them was illegal.

As to what happens at a lower level, I've only got a little footage and very little experience looking at this but I wouldn't assume it happens until you actually get a good look at it happening. A lot of what look to be illegal jump putts aren't. The eye just isn't fast enough to make a clear distinction. Because of this I have argued that they need to be eliminated. Simply put, even if most are legal, we can't tell they are.

Won't work Scott. Let's suppose there's an "athlete" taking broad jumps of 10 feet from his(her) original lie of 31 feet. Wouln't that be a tremendous advantage?





That is exactly what I was talking about when I said it would add some more excitement to the sport. Forget about the broad jump, how about the athlete that is great at the long jump who could figure a way to run and jump 15 or so feet then release the disc before he hit the ground and make the putt. :eek:

Not sure i see anything wrong with an "athlete" having an advantage :confused:

The way I figure it is that the Jump Putt is now part of the game, no real way to determine with 100% certainty that someone does it legally without slowmo video, so why not just legalize it across the board.



Just to belabor the point. All athletes have advantages and disadvantages. This isn't the reason we should keep or eliminate the jump-putt. The fact is that even if we make it legal it isn't going to make the sport "better." What it will do is make it like basketball with huge leaping jumps and slams. Disc sports already have a leaping jumping version (two of them) DDC and Ultimate. If players are bored with DG they should try one of these.

The nature of disc golf is power combined with accuracy. Either one will do a lot for your game but both are necessary to excel. The open running unconstrained jump-putt takes away the accuracy portion of putting. It goes from being a beautifully delievered three pointer to a bust your rear out of my way Shaq slammer.

The question of whether we should keep the combination of accuracy and strength that defined disc golf up to this point is a good one. I think for many this is what makes the sport so beautiful and challenging. Combining those two skills is tough. In the end, the combination of those two skills is often what sets the elite athletes apart. I for one would hate to see that lost for the notion that a slam dunk putt is "cool."

The way I figure it is that the Jump Putt is now part of the game, no real way to determine with 100% certainty that someone does it legally without slowmo video, so why not just legalize it across the board.



If you can't determine that it is legal with out a slow mo camera, then it shouldn't be allowed.
IMO

The nature of disc golf is power combined with accuracy. Either one will do a lot for your game but both are necessary to excel. The open running unconstrained jump-putt takes away the accuracy portion of putting. It goes from being a beautifully delievered three pointer to a bust your rear out of my way Shaq slammer.





Nah gotta disagree with it takes out accuracy. I have been playing 9 yrs or so and I have hit 2 jump putts both were from around 80 -100 feet. I have tried many many times and have no sucess with it, really cause there is so much going on with the body. I have had better luck with an old school nose up floater putt from the same distance. I think it takes alot of skill to be consistent with a jump putt and if people are good at them they should be allowed to use em.


As far as judging if it leaves the hand before the feet go past the mini marker, it is the same as viewing a throw to first base and seeing if the foot touched the bag before the ball was caught or not. You can't tell me the eye can't see it cause I believe you can.

The way I figure it is that the Jump Putt is now part of the game, no real way to determine with 100% certainty that someone does it legally without slowmo video, so why not just legalize it across the board.



If you can't determine that it is legal with out a slow mo camera, then it shouldn't be allowed.
IMO



You mean "If you can't easily judge (cause that is what this is really about) that it is legal, then it shouldn't be allowed."

Which in the realm of sport is a ridiculous position. I mean, think of all the great things that would be removed from any variety of sports. (i.e. sideline catches, strikes/balls, three point shots, etc...)

The question of whether we should keep the combination of accuracy and strength that defined disc golf up to this point is a good one. I think for many this is what makes the sport so beautiful and challenging. Combining those two skills is tough. In the end, the combination of those two skills is often what sets the elite athletes apart. I for one would hate to see that lost for the notion that a slam dunk putt is "cool."




Have you EVER tried to run up and jump threw the air and actually MAKE a putt from anything outside of 15 ft??? Its WAY harder to do then make a stand still 20-25 footer. Plus a quote unquote LEGAL jump putt is going to be alot more effective from 40-100 ft which is where almost EVERYONE uses it. From 40 ft the run and leap and try to make a putt defeats the entire purpose of a jump putt and Im willin to wager a considerable ammount of money that my "legal" jump putt is going to be more effective from 40-100 then ANYONES running long jump putt and if you doubt me go out and try your "Legal" jump putt 100 times then try this sprinting and leaping putt 100 times(outside of 40ft). I can almost GUARANTEE that the "legal" jump putt is going to be way more effective then the sprinting leap putt. The only time the sprinting leap putt would be effectice is from about 10-15 ft from which almost everyone who is good can make 90% of the time ANYWAY so the slam dunk guys are just going to look like morons and be using WAY more energy then needed to make a simple putt. I say if people want to run up and try and slam dunk their putts ( before their feet hit the ground )then be my guest but im telling you right now your not going to see too many GOOD or SKILLED players attempting to execute this type of putt because its just not logical and its not effective at all.

Trust me ive been bored and tried it. Its ALOT harder then just doing a "legal" jump putt.

i dunno pimp, there's an awful lot of good players who use the jump putt. i believe it is because with the jump putt the body is propelled directly at the basket. this in turn makes it easier to project the arm/hand directly towards the basket. which in turn makes it more likely that the disc itself is gonna go directly towards the target.

Yeah Pimp, i have tried that also and it simply just doesnt work....lol Also doesnt work all that well to actually jump and then release from a stand still.

I think it comes down to that poeple who dont jump putt or cant, see jump putting as teeetering on the line of cheating. Those that can and do, see that it is a very good shot to have if you use it properly.

Like I have said before the jump putt is going nowhere, it is staying with the sport, i have no doubt in that. Almost all the top players in the world use the jump putt (or putt jump however you wish to say it) and more and more people everyday are converting to it. It has become a part of my game (or lack thereof) for over 2 years now and i would be swole to say the least if that shot was taken away from me at this point.

Outside the circle we need to just eliminate all doubt and allow a jump before release as long as the player leaves the ground from the proper spot.

As far as judging if it leaves the hand before the feet go past the mini marker, it is the same as viewing a throw to first base and seeing if the foot touched the bag before the ball was caught or not. You can't tell me the eye can't see it cause I believe you can.



I'm pretty sure the umpire uses a combination of sight and sound to determine that one.

i dunno pimp, there's an awful lot of good players who use the jump putt. i believe it is because with the jump putt the body is propelled directly at the basket. this in turn makes it easier to project the arm/hand directly towards the basket. which in turn makes it more likely that the disc itself is gonna go directly towards the target.



Im saying a person with a good jump will dominate and out putt a person who is trying to run and leap from their mini and then putt while in the air.

Are you saying you think someone who is running and leaping and trying to putt while in the air is going to outputt Barry and Kenny and Cam and Rico when they are all "legally" jump putting??? Because if you are then I completely dissagree and would be will to put money on it and do a field test with pictures and video to support my theory.

no i wasnt saying that. after your explanation, i think we are agreeing that a legit jump putt is a valuable tool

My bad,

I should have pointed out that I was replying to the post that suggested that we not just keep our current form of jump-putt, but that we make it all legal (that is flying leaps towards baskets). His post read as if he supported leaping putts where you slam the disc home because it was more "exciting." In fact, in my post I clearly compared them to a Shaq slam dunk because that is what they would be for some players. Please explain to me how slamming a disc into the basket after taking a running leap at it requires accuracy?

I fully agree that all putts, including the current form of jump-putt require accuracy. I also agree that, IMO, the machinations that most players go through kills their accuracy on these shots. I personally don't care if jump-putts get used or not except for the observation that you can't tell if the jump is legal.

The comparison of jump-putts to plays at first base is classic. When was the last time that you saw a close call at first base that didn't get someone's shorts in a wad? To use that as an argument that we can determine close calls like those in jump-putts is definitly... off base. :D

Please explain to me how slamming a disc into the basket after taking a running leap at it requires accuracy?



Have you ever even tried this type of shot in your life??? Its even harder to execute then a "legal" jump putt. Its next to impossible to make a running leap and putt the disc in the basket from anything outside of 15 ft and 15 footers are easy enough as it is so why would you putt in all that extra effort to run and jump when you can just simple stand there and easily drain a 15 ft putt???

If you dont believe me then go out to your local course and give it a try for yourself and then you will see what im talking about.

no i wasnt saying that. after your explanation, i think we are agreeing that a legit jump putt is a valuable tool



That is correct. It is a GREAT tool and people who want to get rid of it are the people who dont know how to use one :eek:

Secondly I was saying that let these guys run and leap and try and putt in the air if they want to. Ill be laughing my ACE off at them when im canning 60 ft ( what is now a )"legal" jump putt and they are looking like morons running and jumping and not even comeing close from anywhere but 15 ft and in :D

On a related note, does it take more athletiscm/skill to hit a 80 footer without moving closer to the basket than it does to hit it with a jump putt?

It takes skill to make an 80 footer no matter how you do it. Jump Putt or not if you can an 80 footer your the MAN!!! but i would say its easier to hit a 80 foot putt if you use a jump putt then it is if you just stand there. Jump Putt equals less effort from the arm which in turn raises your accuracy in my opinion but an 80 footer is an 80 footer no matter how you choose to make it.

Not that it matters because there is never anything but numbers on the scorecard. No pictures or video just numbers :D

I'd agree. My point was to challenge Scott's initial reason for allowing jump putts everywhere: namely that it would showcase athleticism in the sport. I maintain that if it is more difficult to hit an 80 footer without jump putting, then a rule which outlaws jump putts altogether would showcase more athleticism.

Hard has nothing to do with it Pimp. But, ask the RC why they made this shot illegal. Go read about The Stork. He didn't even have to jump, he simply leaned forward and as he fell into the basket slammed the disc in. So in answer to your question, yes, I do think it is easier. I admit that at some point it becomes more difficult. That is, if you are leaping in from 15 feet you can take a slightly difficult shot and make it a slam dunk. If you are leaping in from 50 feet where you have to combine accuracy and timing you have a different situation. However, I'm not willing to say "Oh, we should allow this because from 50 feet it is hard," given that it makes the 15 to 20 footer a slam dunk.

Hard has nothing to do with it Pimp. But, ask the RC why they made this shot illegal. Go read about The Stork. He didn't even have to jump, he simply leaned forward and as he fell into the basket slammed the disc in. So in answer to your question, yes, I do think it is easier. I admit that at some point it becomes more difficult. That is, if you are leaping in from 15 feet you can take a slightly difficult shot and make it a slam dunk.



If the Stork was falling and leaving his feet on the ground the slam dunking the disc then "technically he wasnt breaking any rules because his disc was "at rest in the basket before his feet left the ground. More power to him. Secondly. Since when was a 15 footer a semi difficult shot. Id have to say I make 90% of my 15 footers and in my book if your doing something 90% of the time then its not very difficult. I myself think its much easier and effective to just putt from 15 ft because there is no need for that running and jumping, in turn when you get to a distance where a run and leap WOULD help or give an advantage it is darn near impossible to execute so what does it really matter???



If you are leaping in from 50 feet where you have to combine accuracy and timing you have a different situation. However, I'm not willing to say "Oh, we should allow this because from 50 feet it is hard," given that it makes the 15 to 20 footer a slam dunk.




Who do you know that can run and jump from 15-20 ft and still have their feet in the air when they get to the basket??? I personally dont know ANYONE who could do this and you would have to still be in the air to SLAM dunk the putt or it would become illegal. So in all actuality I would say the only putts you could SLAM dunk would be from about 10-15ft and I still think 15 ft is being generous but who knows maybe people can jump further where you live then they can in MI ( we are the fatest state in the country so it would suprise me if your state could outjump mine :eek:)

But in all reality the only people who would even attempt such a rediculous shot are people who dont have any skill in the first place so its not like them being able to do his is going to make them any better is it???

It would be funny to see a Pro Ball Golfer .....Jump Putt !!!!!!!!
It would be funny to see a Pro Baseball Player.........Jump Bat at the Plate !!!!!

The only Jump Serve is reserved for Tennis !!!!!!!

The only Jump Serve is reserved for Tennis !!!!!!!



I play tennis and you Hit the ball on that serve before your feet leave the ground. It add power and momentum just like a Jump Putt in disc golf. The JUMP is part of the follow threw in both tennis and disc golf. It is not part of the serve or part of the putt.

A bunt in baseball is a jump hit. It might even be 'jumpier' if you don't have to be actually touching the lie [batters box], but only contained by it; I don't know small ball that well. But it's just AS jumpy. :o

Volleyball has a jump serve.

Volleyball has a jump serve.



You are correct. (they even jump before they serve as well :eek:) And those bikinis that the women wear make the Jump serve O SO BEAUTIFUL :D:D:D

from what i hear most/all of Cali is keeping it.



Not all of California is keeping the rule. The two meter rule was not in effect for the Golden State Classic and it will not be in effect for the So Cal Championships.


That's because you and Tim don't have any sense. :)



:mad:Figures..... but doesnt suprise me..... :p

Will the 2 meter rule be in effect for AM worlds?

The only Jump Serve is reserved for Tennis !!!!!!!



I play tennis and you Hit the ball on that serve before your feet leave the ground. It add power and momentum just like a Jump Putt in disc golf. The JUMP is part of the follow threw in both tennis and disc golf. It is not part of the serve or part of the putt.



Well.............the thing is , I have seen guys Jump Putt, inside 30 feet !!! No one calls them on it !!!!

Also , when the Jump Putt is done inside 30 feet , is that not a falling putt ? Guys go past the original lie on a Jump Putt.

Does not show balance. Allows one to Cheat the rules.
Not very creative.

Shows a sign of weakness , it you asked me.
Might work if I was dead tired and needed a crutch !!!!!

Is there a Jump Putt rule , PDGA members can vote on ?
Getting tired of this , ya know.

Lyle i never said anything about people slam dunking a disc, you came up with that out of thin air.

I was mainly talking about outside the circle,you know, out side of 10 meters.

I stand by what i said about it bringing some more excitement to the sport, because if someone can figure a way to consistantly make putts from 31 feet+ by taking a running leap and then releasing before they hit the ground, I think that would be freakin amazing.

Like i said before legalize the jump putt outside the circle and eliminate all doubt from the legality of the shot and if someone can figure a way to use a running leap putt to there advantage, more power to them. My main concern is to take away doubt from a legal standpoint. The jump putt is here to stay so embrace it instead of trying to work against it

Asked : Will the 2 meter rule be in effect for AM worlds?

I would check with the TD. If the 2 meter rule is in effect , it needs to be on the official entry form in advance.

I hope it is...I like the penalty for throwing a bad shot.

Asked : Will the 2 meter rule be in effect for AM worlds?

I would check with the TD. If the 2 meter rule is in effect , it needs to be on the official entry form in advance.

actually, it IS in effect unless the TD says it isnt. therefore, it does not need to be on the entry form. its just like any other normal rule. but, if it is NOT going to be in effect, THAT should be so stated on the form. especially so i can get my registration money back.

Thanks for clarification. That's what I meant to say.
If there is NO 2 meter rule , it needs to be stated on the entry form. Otherwise same law.

actually, [the 2 meter rule] IS in effect unless the TD says it isnt. therefore, it does not need to be on the entry form. its just like any other normal rule. but, if it is NOT going to be in effect, THAT should be so stated on the form. especially so i can get my registration money back.



People do the work to run a tournament as big as Worlds and all you can say is they had better invoke the rules the way you see fit? Live a little. Playing without the 2 meter rule changes the game about 0.00000001 percent

2 meter or not 2 meter..............doesn't really matter much.

2 meter rule has been in effect since I started playing and really has not changed.

It is hard enough to have all the details ready , when running a big event.
There is always someone who didn't ask or didn't attend the players meeting or not paying attention at the players meeting !!!! Dohhhhhhhh...............He said what ?

:eek: Each Tournament I play in , has the TD outlining the course and any changes.

2 meter or not 2 meter..............doesn't really matter much.



Sure it does...Say Robbie J or Nickie K beats you by one stroke, but they had been stuck in a tree 200ft. above the basket.


Good call Rob and Nick, a bad throw shouldn't count against you. :)

2 meter or not 2 meter..............doesn't really matter much.



Sure it does...Say Robbie J or Nickie K beats you by one stroke, but they had been stuck in a tree 200ft. above the basket.

Good call Rob and Nick, a bad throw shouldn't count against you. :)



LOL if we ever play a round together -- i want you to feel free as a bird to throw shots at trees 200 feet above the pin all you like. if you can think you can use the no 2 meter penalty to your advantage -- go for it. Given the odds of random deflections rather than sticks when you hit a tree -- I like my chances if you think you can hit trees 200 feet high to gain an edge :D

btw, it's Robby J not 'Robbie J' :D

Actually Robbie you should see my thumber I can throw thumbers well over 100' high, so If I were to get stuck 100' or even 200' over the basket-I would have the advantage, and I would use it against you and Nickie too.

As a matter of fact, I'm fairly confident if we were to play a round together I could easily beat you by 2-3 strokes, and on the last hole I would set my disc 2.1 meters high, mark my lie, and beat you when I should have taken a penalty-Just because the rules say so. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

actually, the lack of a 2MR has changed the route i take on my drives about one out of 18. so the percentage is closer to 5%.

I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie. :p

Ooooh! And listen up everyone; Pat won't play in events that don't have the 2MR in effect. I'm sure that will put a real hole in the turnouts at Texas tournaments... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think we have a pair of genuine geniuses in the house here. LOL! :D

Pat, not attending a tourney because of no 2M rule is overreacting. I think the 2M rule is whey ghey, but it doesn't detract from my enjoyment when TDs use it. You should rethink your position or suggest places/holes to the TD where the rule makes alot of sense.

james, i know. that part was kinda like message board distance claims. i call it message board rhetoric / message board hyperbole :D

Good, on the hyperbole note, I can throw thumbers 150 feet high. Please place some sticky redwoods next to the pin. :p

Dirty D is that picture of yours from the lake tahoe bijou course?

I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie. :p

Ooooh! And listen up everyone; Pat won't play in events that don't have the 2MR in effect. I'm sure that will put a real hole in the turnouts at Texas tournaments... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think we have a pair of genuine geniuses in the house here. LOL! :D



Still bucking for that "Bob West Award" I see :p

I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie. :p

Ooooh! And listen up everyone; Pat won't play in events that don't have the 2MR in effect. I'm sure that will put a real hole in the turnouts at Texas tournaments... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think we have a pair of genuine geniuses in the house here. LOL! :D



Still bucking for that "Bob West Award" I see :p



What Bob West award? I'm just havin' a little fun on the message board.

By the way, do I know you?

And can you defend Vin and Pat's statements?

I think that would be a double "No"... :p

thanks for the nicki-quote. it allows me to reaffirm that good ol snickers is still the pud he always was. :D


I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie.



hey doofas - he said 100', not 20 stories. 20 stories would be at least 220, and maybe closer to 300.

just one more distortion and misrepresentation from the Axis of Bully. oh well, what'd'ya expect

thanks for the nicki-quote. it allows me to reaffirm that good ol snickers is still the pud he always was. :D


I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie.



hey doofas - he said 100', not 20 stories. 20 stories would be at least 220, and maybe closer to 300.

just one more distortion and misrepresentation from the Axis of Bully. oh well, what'd'ya expect



Tit'for'Tat Pat must have Vin on ignore too or he would be able to see the 2 or 3 places he said 200 feet up in a tree.

I'll also pay him $50 to throw a disc on the roof of a 10 story building from 300 feet away...

Where do you live that there are 10 to 20 story trees by the way? Yosemite? :)

thanks for the nicki-quote. it allows me to reaffirm that good ol snickers is still the pud he always was. :D


I'll give you $100 if you can throw a disc up onto the roof of a 20-story building from an average disc golf hole distance of say 300 feet, Vinnie.



hey doofas - he said 100', not 20 stories. 20 stories would be at least 220, and maybe closer to 300.

just one more distortion and misrepresentation from the Axis of Bully. oh well, what'd'ya expect



I'm surprised your words have been allowed to remain on the board this long. Usually the Axis of Bully just deletes anything that doesn't conform to his line of thinking, or makes him look bad.

Still bucking for that "Bob West Award" I see :p



What Bob West award? I'm just havin' a little fun on the message board.

By the way, do I know you?

And can you defend Vin and Pat's statements?

I think that would be a double "No"... :p

[/QUOTE]

Figures that you dont even know what "AWARD" your up for.

OR why your nominator asked that no one uses your "CyberSelf" against you :p

Go ahead ATTACK ME, I dare you /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I still have not seen ONE good reason WHY the 2MR should be changed.

AND "Nicky says so" doesnt cut it............ I hear your a nice guy, but your "CyberSelf" is a [I'm a potty-mouth!].

NorCal WILL NEVER drop the 2MR, you'll just have to "throw us out" of the "Union"......SoCal can do what they want, We STILL have their water.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OR why your nominator asked that no one uses your "CyberSelf" against you :p

OUCH! thats gotta hurt! :o


NorCal WILL NEVER drop the 2MR, you'll just have to "throw us out" of the "Union"......SoCal can do what they want, We STILL have their water.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

texas and NorCal... united til death! who'd'a thunk it!

texas and NorCal... united til death!



Speak for yourself. One day, you will see the light and exclaim "what a cheesy rule, who thought that up anyway." :D

ok, ok ... NorTex and NorCal United!

just remember , we have your air pollution!

oh wait, thats not as good as water... :eek:

Yea , NorCal has the SoCal water bucket.

Everything West , goes East...............

NorCal has some Excellent courses though !!!!!!
Beautiful Country !!!!!! Cool people too !!!!! :cool:

Not even all of NorTex :cool:

Have not played all the courses in Texas.

Which ones are recomended ?

Have not played all the courses in Texas.

Which ones are recomended ?


Veteran's in Arlington and Z-Boaz in Fort Worth.

North , South , East or West Texas ?

Those are both in DFW or North Texas, and they are very, very, very debatable choices.

Which would you prefer James?

ce

I would like to see all OB shots rethrown from original lie. You won't see many Berkeley pars that way. Now that's a penalty.

Note: 10m = 32'10" for the people on this thread that keep quoting 30 feet.

Best rule: being able to use a towel or rubber padding when doing kneeling throws. My pal, Mario Robles, had a mini tourney where he gave disc-sized rubber pads to all that attended. They fit in your bag just like a disc. Great idea, Mario! Too bad I wasn't there.

I still have not seen ONE good reason WHY the 2MR should be changed.



Here you go:

First off, to someone who is not a disc golfer, the two meter rule is not intuitive. They will think of it like an obstacle. (Sand trap) Playing out of a sand trap is a skill as is throwing out from underneath a tree. (On your knee, sidearm, or a two finger roller �) So I have to tell a beginner �oh by the way if you hit a tree and get stuck not only do you have to play under the tree you also have to take a penalty stroke. Oh wait there�s more you have to be above 6�6� inches to take a stroke.� I was trying to explain this rule to some 80,000 + traditional golfers at the PGA show last year. Over and over again they would say �that doesn�t make sense�.

Second the rule is random. Why is my disc at 2.01 meters an additional stroke when yours in the same tree at 1.99 meters is not? We both threw the same shot and hit the same tree (unintentionally) 20� up yet yours trickled a little lower. This seems to make a lot of sense???

Third are you all of a sudden going to change the way you play a hole??? Let�s look at I-5 in Santa Cruz. How many people throw there 2nd shot over the top on that hole? Whether you throw the hyzer, anhyzer, or thumber over the top getting stuck in a tree doesn�t all of a sudden make that a bad shot. It is just random luck as to whether or not you have to take a stroke. In the last year and a half I have been keeping track of my shot choice based on the two meter rule. I can honestly say I have not changed how I was going to throw a shot because this rule was or was not in effect.

Our sport is based on discs flying in the air. Trees are obstacles not basket blockers. If players are throwing at trees to intentionally hit them and fall next to the basket then there might be something wrong with the course design?

What if we look at this rule the other way? I am a beginner and have very little control over were my disc is going, please tell me a good reason why I have to be penalized twice for getting stuck in a tree that I was not intentionally throwing at. Once for having to throw from an obstructed lie under the tree and once for being stuck over two meters.

It is not used in Sweden and they don�t seem to have any issues with it. When we played over there I never saw one person throw intentionally at a tree in hopes of bouncing off and landing next to the basket???

Can you give me a good reason to keep the rule???

that last post has so many holes in it that it doesnt even merit a response.

that last post has so many holes in it that it doesnt even merit a response.



I only want a response to the last question. Why should the rule stay?

ummmmmm...... I cant think of one.

DARN!!!!!!!!!!! Niether can I :eek:

its easy (everything over 2M is a stroke)

its consistant (EVERYTHING over 2M is a stroke)

its consistant (if you cant play it where it lies, then its a stroke)

its easy (EVERYTHING over 2M is a stroke... no yellow rope, no specific trees, etc)

its worldwide (you want everything like it is in Sweden? pay their gas prices and their income tax, then get back to us!)

it's easy (everything regardless of height is not a stroke.)

its consistant (everything regardless of height is not a stroke)

its consistant (if you can't play it where it lies is already a rule 803.05)

its easy (EVERYTHING regardless of height is not a stroke... no yellow rope, no specific trees, etc)

You don't have to drive in Sweden they have mass transit.

sweden ranked #2 in the world in infant mortality rate.......US is # 1 right..........try 25th.....but back to the subject......

Can you give me a good reason to keep the rule???



Wow, I musta hit a note to get the "Ultimate Lurker" SS to speak out :D

Hi SS....& JS too.. Stafford misses you guys :)

O.K. - I have one reason and one reason only........

<font color="blue"> TRADITION </font>

Our founding fathers made the general rules of this sport.
Those are the rules that have molded and shaped what we have today. Sure there have been some changes, BUT those mostly clarified existing rules, not drop them entirely. :p
I dont know why 2 meters was chosen exactly...maybe Stork knows, Im sure Ed did, may he rest in peace, but we are not going to hear from him anytime soon.
To change it to "make it easier on beginners" doesnt fly.

Every sport has a rule book. Those that play learn the rules. They dont join the org. then lobby to change them /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

now lets try it with NO 2MR:

it's stupid (everything is treated the same regardless of height.)

its consistantly absurd (everything 40' up is treated the same as everything on the ground)

its insane and inconsistant (if you can't play it where it lies it should be a stroke according to rule 803.05)

its idiotic (EVERYTHING regardless of height is treated as an exception or not at all... miles (kilometers) of yellow rope, rules for specific trees, etc)

you dont need revenge in the US. we have the death penalty!

My thoughts on the 2M rule.....

If you throw a bad shot and hit a tree, you should be penalized. Your penalty is that you lost the extra distance your disc could have traveled had it missed the tree. I don't understand why you should recieve a 2 stroke penalty b/c it got stuck in a tree.

It really is frustrating to see someone throw the same shot as you and they get stuck below the 2 M mark and you get stuck above it. Although we both just threw the bad shot, I am laying 2, he is laying 1. Elimanating the 2M rule eliminates some bad luck in the game.

I also don't understand where this 2M number came from. I heard a TD this year say "We are playing the 2M rule....I just don't see how anyone can say a disc stuck in a tree is playable." While I agree with his statement, a disc that is stuck in a tree below 2M is considered playable. It's very inconsitent.

Trees act as obstacles, I compare them to sand traps, only vertical. When a golfer gets a sand trap, he loses distance ( the ball stops), he most hit the ball differently (usually under the ball more and harder) and he ussually has to make a great shot to save par. The same three things are similar in disc golf, except for the stroke. Golf realizes that making the golfer hit out of the sand trap is penalty enough not to make them OB.

Wow I'm going back to lurking now. I can't deal with tradition as a reason for keeping the rule? We better bring back the steel pole that was used as a target when Stork was playing in the WFDF to be traditional.

Pat Brenner incomprehensible (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=incomprehensible)

all true. but it ignores the possibility of trees as backstops. there really are such cases. think of a shortish hole that has an open sharp hyzer for a rightie, but the front, left and back are protected by forest. the left either needs a difficult annie or a bomb hyzer into the canopy. the bomb hyzer, without the 2MR, is a much higher percentage shot!

like i said, you are completely correct in your assessments - but they do not take all possibilities into consideration.

the bomb hyzer, without the 2MR, is a much higher percentage shot!



Then the hole is of bad design or needs a mando.

you also have to realize you are speaking spanish to me basically.

Having played in TX, I was amazed at how you guys all throw over the tops of things. In NC, our courses are so wooded, we have low ceelings and that simply is not an option.

I can only think of 1 or 2 holes in the state that I throw a big screaming hyzer away from the fairway

Wow I'm going back to lurking now. I can't deal with tradition as a reason for keeping the rule? We better bring back the steel pole that was used as a target when Stork was playing in the WFDF to be traditional.



Ned Smethers told me that originally the rule was 3 meters - not 2. He said he never could figure out why they changed it and he'd prefer that over no 2 meter rule which he in turn prefers over the 2 meter rule.

3 meters would at least make some sense.

but imo, MTL and the RC have it right -- hitting a tree is a bad shot. It takes skill to use one as an aid -- more skill than it takes to park a hole by missing a tree altogether.

The elimination of the 2 meter rule gives our rules better consistency and emphasizes skill over random bad luck. The Rules Committee brought a lot more experience and thoughtfulness to this issue than Patty and Davey. (i've sunk to their level now) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

When was the last time a USDGC was decided by the 2 meter rule (or the waiver of the 2 meter rule a la 2004)?

point taken, MTL. REGIONAL difference should be accounted for, and removing the 2MR has far more effect on texas and states with similar topographic and flora features than on lots of other locations. at least you recognize this! most of the others involved in the discussion do not! :(

rob, why are you so far up the RC's whatever? have a thought of your own for petes sake.

first off, to someone who is not a disc golfer, the two meter rule is not intuitive. They will think of it like an obstacle. (Sand trap) Playing out of a sand trap is a skill as is throwing out from underneath a tree. (On your knee, sidearm, or a two finger roller �) So I have to tell a beginner �oh by the way if you hit a tree and get stuck not only do you have to play under the tree you also have to take a penalty stroke. Oh wait there�s more you have to be above 6�6� inches to take a stroke.� I was trying to explain this rule to some 80,000 + traditional golfers at the PGA show last year. Over and over again they would say �that doesn�t make sense�.

Let me get this straight: ball golf has non-intuitive (some would say "idiotic") rules like these (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/rick_reilly/news/2003/07/22/reilly0728/index.html), and ball golfers complain about the 2m rule not making sense? Hilarious.


Second the rule is random. Why is my disc at 2.01 meters an additional stroke when yours in the same tree at 1.99 meters is not? We both threw the same shot and hit the same tree (unintentionally) 20� up yet yours trickled a little lower. This seems to make a lot of sense???

Why is a player permitted to follow through past the marker disc after the disc is released if his/her lie is 10.01m from the target but another player not permitted to follow through past the marker disc if his/her lie is 9.99m from the target? Why is a player whose disc comes to rest 0.5 cm outside an OB line penalized a stroke, but a player whose disc comes to rest with only 0.5 cm inside the OB line not? Why are mini marker discs restricted to no less than 7 cm and no more than 15 cm in diameter and no more than 3 cm in height? Why is 30 sec. the limit for an excessive time violation, rather than 15 or 45 or 33 1/3? Why is a disc that weighs 8.3 g/cm outside diameter legal, but one that weighs 8.35 g/cm OD not? (Is it any less dangerous/hazardous to get hit with a 200g Phenix than it would to get hit by a 200g Omega SS? Is getting hit by a Champion Firebird that weighs 8.3g/cm of outside diameter materially safer than being hit by one that weighs 8.4g/cm--the total weight difference being 2.1g, roughly the weight of two sheets of 20Lb paper or two #1 paperclips)? Are any of those rules any less arbitrary or any more sensible?

The point is that ALL the standards on which the Rules are based are, to one degree or another, arbitrary: the issue is whether they are logically or illogically arbitrary.

IMO, the 2m standard is logically arbitrary, in that 2m represents the height from which a typical adult may reasonbly be expected to retrieve a disc at rest above the playing surface in a timely manner without undue physical exertion (climbing, jumping, throwing things, etc.) and without the aid of an artificial device (poles, sticks, projectiles, etc.), and provides no significant height or reach advantage or disadvantage to taller players [i]vis-�-vis[/] shorter players.

all true. but it ignores the possibility of trees as backstops. there really are such cases. think of a shortish hole that has an open sharp hyzer for a rightie, but the front, left and back are protected by forest. the left either needs a difficult annie or a bomb hyzer into the canopy. the bomb hyzer, without the 2MR, is a much higher percentage shot!



If there is an open sharp hyzer for a right dont you think hes going to take it whether there is a 2 Meter rule or not??? I mean if its OPEN then might as well take the risk of sticking 2 meters because heck that will prolly only happen 1 out of 100 times so its a higher percentage shot then the tight fairway is even WITH the 2 Meter rule in effect. Either way if there is a SPIKE HYZER on a hole or a tight fairway shot on the hole. If the only consequence for the SPIKE is it may get stuck above to meters then im takin the SPIKE. Unless of course its over the top of some DISGUSTING shule that could result in multiple strokes if the shot was not executed to perfection.

I still have yet to hear a valid answer for why we should keep the 2 meter rule.

[Pat:] I still have not seen ONE good reason WHY the 2MR should be changed.



[Shawn:] Here you go:

First off, to someone who is not a disc golfer, the two meter rule is not intuitive. They will think of it like an obstacle. (Sand trap) Playing out of a sand trap is a skill as is throwing out from underneath a tree. (On your knee, sidearm, or a two finger roller �) So I have to tell a beginner �oh by the way if you hit a tree and get stuck not only do you have to play under the tree you also have to take a penalty stroke. Oh wait there�s more you have to be above 6�6� inches to take a stroke.� I was trying to explain this rule to some 80,000 + traditional golfers at the PGA show last year. Over and over again they would say �that doesn�t make sense�.

Second the rule is random. Why is my disc at 2.01 meters an additional stroke when yours in the same tree at 1.99 meters is not? We both threw the same shot and hit the same tree (unintentionally) 20� up yet yours trickled a little lower. This seems to make a lot of sense???

Third are you all of a sudden going to change the way you play a hole??? Let�s look at I-5 in Santa Cruz. How many people throw there 2nd shot over the top on that hole? Whether you throw the hyzer, anhyzer, or thumber over the top getting stuck in a tree doesn�t all of a sudden make that a bad shot. It is just random luck as to whether or not you have to take a stroke. In the last year and a half I have been keeping track of my shot choice based on the two meter rule. I can honestly say I have not changed how I was going to throw a shot because this rule was or was not in effect.

Our sport is based on discs flying in the air. Trees are obstacles not basket blockers. If players are throwing at trees to intentionally hit them and fall next to the basket then there might be something wrong with the course design?

What if we look at this rule the other way? I am a beginner and have very little control over were my disc is going, please tell me a good reason why I have to be penalized twice for getting stuck in a tree that I was not intentionally throwing at. Once for having to throw from an obstructed lie under the tree and once for being stuck over two meters.

It is not used in Sweden and they don�t seem to have any issues with it. When we played over there I never saw one person throw intentionally at a tree in hopes of bouncing off and landing next to the basket???

Can you give me a good reason to keep the rule???



Shawn, I have tried for some time to reason with Pat on this and he prefers to call the RC the Fules Committee because of his strong attachment to the 2 meter rule. I've tried to convince him the sky won't fall next year and a bad golfer will not gain any advantage over a good one due to the elimination of the 2 meter rule. For example, you will still likely be able to school Pat and i even if you allow us to play without the 2 meter rule and retain it for yourself.

Pat is dead set against the 2 meter rule elimination. For a while he was willing to admit the 2 meter rule only makes sense when you're within 10 meters of the pin, but since the RC has not budged despite Pat's best efforts it seems he is just digging his heels in and refuses to listen to anyone who tries to reason with him on this.

The formation of a "resist change" posse was probably inevitable, especially given that half of the disc golf community likes the 2 meter rule and half despises it. As you point out however, if one does the math what is best for the sport becomes clear. I suppose that's why the RC recommeded the elimination of the 2 meter rule despite the resistance they knew they'd encounter. In a few years people will probably wonder why anyone ever supported retention of the rule.

TD's will always be free to make certain trees OB if a hole's design depends upon it.

rob, why are you so far up the RC's whatever? have a thought of your own for petes sake.



LOL. I disagree with you so it means my head is up the RC's arse? If that is the type of math you do, no wonder you don't understand the elimination of the 2 meter rule!

The rule is arbitrary, throw a nice shot it parks, throw a similiar shot on a tight hole, nics a mini branch goes nose up, sticks belly flop style 7feet 2 inches in the air. This happens more than anything else I see (not my disc....) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think elimination of the 2 meter rule is one of the worst things to come out of the PDGA ever.

I am, however, completely chatted-out over this issue. Discussion with anti-2MR crowd is not possible, as they don't actually discuss the issue. Probably 2000 of my total posts were talking to brick walls about this topic.

Keep the 2 meter rule, it makes sense that when your disc gets stuck 25 feet up in a tree that you get a penalty. It also makes sense that when your disc is 1 foot above the ground in a shrubbery that you would not receive a penalty. Therefore there must exist a point of demarcation where it is either a penalty or not. 2 meters is just as good as any other height for that point.

But really, is sticking your disc 25 feet up in a tree worthy of a penalty? IMHO, it sure it.

That is all. I will post no more on this topic.

I think elimination of the 2 meter rule is one of the worst things to come out of the PDGA ever.

<font color="blue"> and i think it rids us of an unnecessary rule and grants TD's the decision-making power as to what plays best on their particular courses. </font>

I am, however, completely chatted-out over this issue. Discussion with anti-2MR crowd is not possible, as they don't actually discuss the issue. Probably 2000 of my total posts were talking to brick walls about this topic.

<font color="blue"> probably half of my 1000 posts are on this subject too ... </font>

Keep the 2 meter rule, it makes sense that when your disc gets stuck 25 feet up in a tree that you get a penalty. It also makes sense that when your disc is 1 foot above the ground in a shrubbery that you would not receive a penalty. Therefore there must exist a point of demarcation where it is either a penalty or not. 2 meters is just as good as any other height for that point.

But really, is sticking your disc 25 feet up in a tree worthy of a penalty? IMHO, it sure is.

<font color="blue"> there is a penalty -- your disc got stopped by the tree and is now stuck 25 feet high </font>

That is all. I will post no more on this topic.



<font color="blue"> i plan to go cold turkey on this topic too. thanks for not resorting to name-calling Rhett </font>

But really, is sticking your disc 25 feet up in a tree worthy of a penalty? IMHO, it sure it.



Not unless throwing your disc 25' up into a tree is worthy of a penalty.

You should be penalized on intent and execution. Throwing near OB territory where your disc has the opportunity to end up OB is a decision you make before you throw. Throwing down a tree lined fairway with your disc never getting more than 15' off the ground hitting a tree and sticking above 2M is not a bad shot worthy of a penalty in addition to the distance lost.

90% of the shots I have thrown that have gotten stuck above 2M have been fairly low shots through tree lined fairways. Very few of the overhead shots I throw have ever gotten stuck above 2M. If you want to penalize bad shot choices, then go right ahead, but don't let the lucky ones get away.

I haven't spent time thinking this through, but why is the rule that whoever does best on the previous hole goes first on the next one? I think it would be better to get to go last (minus the stigma it carries under the present protocol). The person who is out goes first. Carry that over to the tee-off. Then the person with the lead gets to see what others have done before driving. Comments?

I like it fine emulating Bolf's example, at least here. "No"; in other words, don't change that one.

In a sudden death playoff, you would need to create a 4-some so the players in 4th and then 3rd would tee off before the two who were tied. :)

Worst rule in disc golf is collared shirts. They look preppie.

I am, however, completely chatted-out over this issue.


You mean �lectured out� don�t you?


Discussion with anti-2MR crowd is not possible, as they don't actually discuss the issue.


Following your immediately preceding cop out on discussion, the irony is as thick as LA smog.


Probably 2000 of my total posts were talking to brick walls about this topic.


Coming from the ultimate DISCussion board �brick wall�, Rhett, that is one of the funniest things in months said here.


Keep the 2 meter rule, it makes sense that when your disc gets stuck 25 feet up in a tree that you get a penalty.


To Pat and you perhaps, but not to me or the PDGA Rules Committee. I think that should, on it�s own, be enough to settle this. LOL!


It also makes sense that when your disc is 1 foot above the ground in a shrubbery that you would not receive a penalty.


Easily spouted, but why? If you are not playing the shot with some point in contact with where the disc came to rest then you are not playing it from it�s lie, whether 1.99 meters or 2.01 meters above the playing surface.

If you �REALLY� want to discuss and not just continue ranting and being a titanium wall, then answer why not change the rule so that you must have contact with the exact place the disc came to rest upon release?


Therefore there must exist a point of demarcation where it is either a penalty or not. 2 meters is just as good as any other height for that point.


Thank you for at least admitting that the 2MRs hold on reality is as tenuous as the rest of us think. It is a weak rule. Always has been and always will be.


But really, is sticking your disc 25 feet up in a tree worthy of a penalty? IMHO, it sure it.


Then make it OB. Simple.


That is all. I will post no more on this topic.


Surprise! The great discusser won�t discuss�
;)

PS: Shawn, don't let Tit'for'Pat run you off. He's just angry at the world because he is incapable of any original thoughts...

rob, you are the one who most consistantly and constantly brings up the RC. for some reason you believe their decisions, even those with a razor thin margin, are sacrosanct. i have not called the RC the Fules Committee since the retirement of my christmas avatar. going on six months. at least i'm not hiding behind someone else for my opinions. you have not tried to reason with me at all. your argument pretty much consists of "the RC voted".

rob, ...you have not tried to reason with me at all.



:oDefibulators around the PDGA have just exhausted their charges...

I haven't.

I would love to discuss it, but there is really no point.

I disagree with your basic premise, and you can't accept mine.

You say that a disc stuck 40' up in a tree is a bad shot, I say that 70% of the shots that could have stuck 40' up in a tree don't and most end up on the ground. So a disc stuck at 40' is basically the same as a disc on the ground, one just got unlucky.

You say you want to punish bad shots, but 2m has nothing to do with the shot. It doesn't matter if the shot was over the obstacles, a line drive, or even a roller if it ends up over 2m, it gets punished.

I know that I haven't changed the way I approach a drive based on the 2m rule not being in effect. The odds were basically in your favor for dropping out of the trees.

You say that a disc stuck 40' up in a tree is a bad shot, I say that 70% of the shots that could have stuck 40' up in a tree don't and most end up on the ground.

and that about sums up the two camps. one side is talking about the discs that DO get caught. the other is talking about hte ones that DONT.

Here is another reason why the 2 meter rule is ludacris and unfair. I have seen drives thrown that skip RIGHT next to the basket and end up in a tree 6 ft off the ground because they SKIPPED that high. Are you saying a shot that skipped next to the basket was a BAD SHOT??? Also I have seen rollers which were never even intended to be 2 meters off the ground hit and roll up trees and get stuck. Was that a bad shot??? Maybe but more then likely it was an UNLUCKY shot that just happend to hit a random root that you couldnt see from the tee and then shoot straight up into the tree and stick. How is that fair???

Plus i agree with Sinclair because I used to be a pretty decent ball golfer a few years back before I caught the disc golf bug ( 7 handicap ) So I know a TON of ball golfers and we always exchange stories with eachother and go threw our rounds together. I do this most often with my dad ( a scratch golfer ) who is on the amateur ball golf circuit right now. We also discuss rules and all sorts of things. One time I was explaining a round to my dad and I say " I threw a drive about 5 ft off my line and got stuck in a tree so I had to take a stroke penalty" He looks at me and says "What the *****!!! for??? so I go on to explain our 2 Meter rule to him and the whole time im explaining it hes just looking at me like im the most ignorant and unintelligent person on the planet. He say that the most rediculous thing he has EVER heard in his entire life. He said you already threw a bad shot and hit a freakin tree which is penalty enough and which is why the tree is there, why the ***** would you have to take ANOTHER penalty on top of that and then ANOTHER penalty by having to throw out of the tree you hit??? I say "Ive been asking myself the same question ever since I was told the rule"

Its the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Almost ALL shots are thrown more then 6 feet 3 inches off the ground so why make a rule that could pontentialy punish almost every shot ever thrown??? They dont have a penalty like that in ball golf. Sure they have sand traps but its penalty enough when you get stuck in one. IE You cant ground your club. Your lie prolly sucks, you cant hit very far out of one unless you make a GREAT shot. Oh wait that sounds like what happens when we have to throw out of a tree. But hey why dont we throw a penalty stroke in there on top of that just for good measure. I mean he is already penalized by throwing a bad shot and having a bad lie. Lets kick him while hes down there.

I have a feeling all the people who want to KEEP this rule are the old guys that when the rule is gone WONT be able to throw the spike hyzer over everything and they are just jealous that they wont be able to use that route and other people will. I have yet to hear one person with a big arm complain about the removal of the 2 meter rule. Also the tradition state ment is the worst I have ever hear especially since its not the same rule that was made up to begin with. 3 meters would make more scence ONLY because at 3 meters 90% of disc golfers arent going to be ablet to reach their disc when its that high in the air. Still the whole concept behind the rule would be flawed and inconsistent even if the height was changed to 3 4 or 5 meters.

Im still waiting for someone to replay with a legitimate reason why we should get rid of the 2 Meter rule other then IM SCARED OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAN THROW FAR AND USE THE SPIKE HYZER. That is not a legitimate reason. The spike hyzer is a great weapon to have and if you dont posses it dont be mad because other people do. Thats like tellin Schweby that he cant throw thumbers anymore because other people cant throw them like he does. Thats rediculous.

So until someone can present and explain a sensible and logical reason to keep the 2 Meter rule I will continue to say that removing the 2 Meter rule is the BEST thing that the PDGA has done in years.

and that about sums up the two camps. one side is talking about the discs that DO get caught. the other is talking about hte ones that DONT.




And I would say that 95% of shots DONT stick and 5% do so why not go with the majority and just say ANY disc that hits a tree and sticks is going to be treated like the other 95% that hit the same tree and dont stick. Now THAT is logical.

Pat are you saying that the 95 out of a hundred shots that hit that tree 45 ft up and drop to 6 ft are GOOD shots and the 5 that hit and stick are BAD shots???

I have a feeling all the people who want to KEEP this rule are the old guys that when the rule is gone WONT be able to throw the spike hyzer over everything and they are just jealous that they wont be able to use that route and other people will. I have yet to hear one person with a big arm complain about the removal of the 2 meter rule.

yo pimp, its the bigger arms that WANT the change, so they CAN bomb in with the spike hysers! i now use the spike hyzer more often... because i can, and because there is no longer any risk! i oppose the change because a spike hyzer is far less difficult than an annie down a tight throat... therefore this rules change rewards lesser skills.

as far as the spike at the base of the pole, well, yes, it was a pretty good shot that turned out not so good after all. if the skips lands you 50' from the basket cuz it skipped to close to the pole, then sorry dude but it wasnt that great a shot. golf rewards you for where you end up, not where you first touch ground.

Pat are you saying that the 95 out of a hundred shots that hit that tree 45 ft up and drop to 6 ft are GOOD shots and the 5 that hit and stick are BAD shots???

steve, not exactly what i'm saying, no.

if the thrower intended to hit 45' up, and hoped he dropped, then those were good shots that were typically lucky. if he intended to fly in at 10' but ganked the shot, resulting in a 45' tower, then it was a crappy shot that got incredibly lucky.

the ones that stick are either good shots that got the short end of the risk/reward stick, or bad shots that luck caught up with.

as far as the spike at the base of the pole, well, yes, it was a pretty good shot that turned out not so good after all. if the skips lands you 50' from the basket cuz it skipped to close to the pole, then sorry dude but it wasnt that great a shot. golf rewards you for where you end up, not where you first touch ground.



So your saying a drive that lands 50 ft from the basket is a BAD drive??? What your saying is that golf reward PERFECT shots but golf is not a game of PEFECT shots is a game of GOOD MISSES and managing your misses.

Would it be fair in ball golf if you hit it in a sandtrap that you would have to take a stroke penalty and then play the shot from the sandtrap anyway???

Here is another reason why the 2 meter rule is ludacris and unfair. I have seen drives thrown that skip RIGHT next to the basket and end up in a tree 6 ft off the ground because they SKIPPED that high. Are you saying a shot that skipped next to the basket was a BAD SHOT??? Also I have seen rollers which were never even intended to be 2 meters off the ground hit and roll up trees and get stuck. Was that a bad shot??? Maybe but more then likely it was an UNLUCKY shot that just happend to hit a random root that you couldnt see from the tee and then shoot straight up into the tree and stick. How is that fair???

Plus i agree with Sinclair because I used to be a pretty decent ball golfer a few years back before I caught the disc golf bug ( 7 handicap ) So I know a TON of ball golfers and we always exchange stories with eachother and go threw our rounds together. I do this most often with my dad ( a scratch golfer ) who is on the amateur ball golf circuit right now. We also discuss rules and all sorts of things. One time I was explaining a round to my dad and I say " I threw a drive about 5 ft off my line and got stuck in a tree so I had to take a stroke penalty" He looks at me and says "What the *****!!! for??? so I go on to explain our 2 Meter rule to him and the whole time im explaining it hes just looking at me like im the most ignorant and unintelligent person on the planet. He say that the most rediculous thing he has EVER heard in his entire life. He said you already threw a bad shot and hit a freakin tree which is penalty enough and which is why the tree is there, why the ***** would you have to take ANOTHER penalty on top of that and then ANOTHER penalty by having to throw out of the tree you hit??? I say "Ive been asking myself the same question ever since I was told the rule"

Its the most rediculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Almost ALL shots are thrown more then 6 feet 3 inches off the ground so why make a rule that could pontentialy punish almost every shot ever thrown??? They dont have a penalty like that in ball golf. Sure they have sand traps but its penalty enough when you get stuck in one. IE You cant ground your club. Your lie prolly sucks, you cant hit very far out of one unless you make a GREAT shot. Oh wait that sounds like what happens when we have to throw out of a tree. But hey why dont we throw a penalty stroke in there on top of that just for good measure. I mean he is already penalized by throwing a bad shot and having a bad lie. Lets kick him while hes down there.

I have a feeling all the people who want to KEEP this rule are the old guys that when the rule is gone WONT be able to throw the spike hyzer over everything and they are just jealous that they wont be able to use that route and other people will. I have yet to hear one person with a big arm complain about the removal of the 2 meter rule. Also the tradition state ment is the worst I have ever hear especially since its not the same rule that was made up to begin with. 3 meters would make more scence ONLY because at 3 meters 90% of disc golfers arent going to be ablet to reach their disc when its that high in the air. Still the whole concept behind the rule would be flawed and inconsistent even if the height was changed to 3 4 or 5 meters.

Im still waiting for someone to replay with a legitimate reason why we should get rid of the 2 Meter rule other then IM SCARED OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAN THROW FAR AND USE THE SPIKE HYZER. That is not a legitimate reason. The spike hyzer is a great weapon to have and if you dont posses it dont be mad because other people do. Thats like tellin Schweby that he cant throw thumbers anymore because other people cant throw them like he does. Thats rediculous.

So until someone can present and explain a sensible and logical reason to keep the 2 Meter rule I will continue to say that removing the 2 Meter rule is the BEST thing that the PDGA has done in years.



YES...a shot that SKIPS up into as tree IS A BAD SHOT. You made the throw that caused the disc to skip into the tree, right.....

In Ball Golf if your "OFF LINE" and go OB you get Stroke AND Distance. :p
The 2 sports cant be compaired in this manner. Ball Gof courses and DiscGolf Courses are designed with completely different objectives. I dont know ANY Ball Golf courses where trees are used as obstacles. Lining fairways, defining doglegs, sure. But they are typically NOT IN THE LINE OF PLAY as with Disc Golf.
There are a zillion rules in Ball Golf. None of them have to do with luck. What does a Ball Golfer do if his ball gets stuck in a tree?? Bad luck that the "little ball" doesnt come down ,eh!!

I guess he/she shouldnt of hit it there, right. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Go ahead change the rule........We(NorCal) WILL NOT change with you.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

determining whether landing 50' from the basket is BAD or GOOD or PERFECT is relative. if you had intended to skip 50' to the right and park the shot, and the hole is 250', then yes it was DOWNRIGHT crappy. (my first ACE was exactly that. a CRAPPY skip shot that got LUCKY when the BASKET got IN the WAY.)

as far as whats fair in BALL golf, i think the PGA has a disucssion BOARD on THEIR site. :D

steve, not exactly what i'm saying, no.

if the thrower intended to hit 45' up, and hoped he dropped, then those were good shots that were typically lucky. if he intended to fly in at 10' but ganked the shot, resulting in a 45' tower, then it was a crappy shot that got incredibly lucky.

the ones that stick are either good shots that got the short end of the risk/reward stick, or bad shots that luck caught up with.



So really your saying that your theory and the rule are FLAWED. How are you going to know whether or not someone meant to hit the tree and drop or if they just threw a bad shot??? Unless you say hey did you mean to do that??? So in all reality the rule lacks consistancy which is why it should be removed.

So your saying that if I throw a shot and intentionaly hit the tree and fall thats a GOOD shot but if a bad player shanks a shot and get stuck then its a BAD shot but if he doesnt get stuck then its a GOOD shot. Doesnt make much scence to me :confused:

Plus you said something about LUCK. Why would we want are rules to have LUCK involved in them??? Luck leads to inconsistency and inconsistency leads to contraversy and chaos and upset players which we definatley dont want. So why not just get rid of the LUCKY stuff we can get rid of??? Why punish the 5 UNLUCKY shots that got stuck when the 95 other shots get no penalty put were essentially the same shot???

Are you saying your scared that BAD players are going to throw BAD shots and not get a penalty. If someone threw a BAD shot and it hit a tree 45 ft in the air the chances of him beating you are SLIM to NONE in the first place so who cares if 5 out of his 100 bad shots get penalized or not because we pretty much know that 95 of them are going to end up parked so why not just give him the other 5???

shots that hit trees...

the LUCKY ones fall to the ground

the other ones are not UNLUCKY. they got what they deserved.

the 2MR does not REWARD luck. it does HOWEVER exact A penalty for LOSING the risk/reward game.

YES...a shot that SKIPS up into as tree IS A BAD SHOT. You made the throw that caused the disc to skip into the tree, right..... <font color="orange"> I dont know about you but I cant control how far a disc skips and how far it doesnt because the skip is never consistant :eek: </font>

In Ball Golf if your "OFF LINE" and go OB you get Stroke AND Distance.
The 2 sports cant be compaired in this manner. Ball Gof courses and DiscGolf Courses are designed with completely different objectives. I dont know ANY Ball Golf courses where trees are used as obstacles. Lining fairways, defining doglegs, sure. But they are typically NOT IN THE LINE OF PLAY as with Disc Golf. <font color="orange"> You must not have played much ball golf then. Secondly they have SANDTRAPS that are in the line of play which do what our TREES do. Slow your ball down and stop it from going as far as you wanted. Then oh yeah I almost forgot, they give you a crappy where you have to hit an AMAZING shot to get back on track for your par. Holy CRAP!!! I think they CAN be compared :eek: </font>
There are a zillion rules in Ball Golf. None of them have to do with luck. What does a Ball Golfer do if his ball gets stuck in a tree?? Bad luck that the "little ball" doesnt come down ,eh!! <font color="orange"> Actually if a ball golfers ball gets stuck in a tree and hes can see it and get to it he can climb the tree and play is from there. I have seen it done and KNOW for a fact thats the rule so dont try and argue that. </font>

I guess he/she shouldnt of hit it there, right. <font color="orange"> Irrelivant because he or she is ALLOWED to play it from there without penalty. Of they can CHOOSE to take a penalty and get RELIEF from the tree for a better lie. </font>

Go ahead change the rule........We(NorCal) WILL NOT change with you.. <font color="orange"> Im afraid in the future your not going to have any choice because I have a feeling they are going to do away with the rule entirely </font>

shots that hit trees...

the LUCKY ones fall to the ground <font color="orange"> I dont consider a disc hitting to the tree and falling to the ground luck because the MAJORITY of the discs that hit trees fall to the ground. The would be like if the lottery paid out everyone who guessed wrong and didnt pay the person that guessed right. Thats not considered luck.

Winning the lottery the way it is played now is LUCK because your chances are like 1 in a BILLION or something rediculous. </font>

the other ones are not UNLUCKY. they got what they deserved. <font color="orange"> They are most certainly unlucky because they are WAY out of the norm. If they got what they deserved then why not just make hitting trees a stroke penalty no matter what happens after they hit. I mean thats atleast more consistant then just punishing SOME shots that hit trees. It may not be fair or even a SANE thought but it would atleast be consistant </font>

the 2MR does not REWARD luck. it does HOWEVER exact A penalty for LOSING the risk/reward game. <font color="orange"> Your correct it doesnt REWARD luck but it sure as heck punishes BAD LUCK!!! Your not LUCKY if you hit a tree and fall out. Your the majority. But if you hit a tree and stick now thats UNLUCKY. So why penalize the minority??? How does that make scence??? </font>

All through this, I keep wondering what sorts of arguments would be posed by Pat, Rhett, Nick, Millz, and everyone else if there had never been a 2 meter rule and all of a sudden, the RC was proposing such. Would "tradition" be thrown as the trump card, in that case? Would we be hearing the same arguments about "luck" and "bad shots" and "good shots" and all the rest, just posed in the opposite manner?

Would people like Pat and Rhett reveal that they had been playing all along with some sort of "2 meter rule" because they thought we should have one, no matter what the official rules said? Would those like Nick, that are for the current change to no 2 meter rule, vociferously object, claiming that those who wanted such a rule were fools and against the tradition of the game? Would Magilla be threatening to buck the organization and have a whole area refuse to abide by the new rule?

Or would everyone say, "Cool. A new rule to learn and deal with. Let's figure out how to make our game work with this new rule." And then go out and play this game we love and have a good time.

Just my thoughts.

Does anyone remember the origin of the rule and if there was a time without the rule ?

i dont know the answer, but i for one would not be playing the tradition card. i'm not now, never did. tradition, in and of itself, is usually a weak reason.

for the record (since the record has been misquoted several times recently), i believe that certain arguments against the 2MR have a lot of credibility. the double-penalty imposed by low-lying branches, for example. the fairway 2MR double-penalty is another. (although then we have the new stroke PLUS distance stuff... so we're adding double penalties back in, but thats another thread or ten)

likewise, there are very compelling arguments for the 2MR, the most obvious is what happens close to the pin.

my complete insistance that the 2MR be kept as the default is not directed at the RC and is not the result of the RC decision. if i were to "officially" discuss the issue with the RC, i would advocate for removing the 2MR, or at least making it off by default, for cases outside the 10M circle. my insistance on this board that the 2MR be completely retained is because the anti-2MR zealots (and thats what they are on this board) will/can not consider that anything except complete abolishment of the 2MR is ok. they still do not recognize that the "fairness" of the 2MR varies with the situation, and that the best solution is not a one-size-fits-all solution. but, such is life on the message board.

All through this, I keep wondering what sorts of arguments would be posed by Pat, Rhett, Nick, Millz, and everyone else if there had never been a 2 meter rule and all of a sudden, the RC was proposing such. Would "tradition" be thrown as the trump card, in that case? Would we be hearing the same arguments about "luck" and "bad shots" and "good shots" and all the rest, just posed in the opposite manner?



I would be saying exactly what I am saying now. Why would we add a rule that will not be consistant and is enforced only when someone gets UNLUCKY.

Just to state it loud and clear. I think its a great idea to get rid of the 2 meter rule. It eliminates atleast one of the inconsistancies that we have in our rules. Plus it eliminates penalties strokes being assesed for UNLUCKY shots.

I'm one of those zealots, and supported the idea of a drop zone for above 2m inside the 10m circle. I agree that fairway shots above 2m are not the same as putting circle above 2m, but still do not believe that either deserve a penalty stroke.

Given only 2 options (all or none) I would choose none because the course designer/pro or TD can add things specific to the course later. It would seem rather odd to have vast areas of the course be declared "no 2m rule" areas.

my insistance on this board that the 2MR be completely retained is because the anti-2MR zealots (and thats what they are on this board) will/can not consider that anything except complete abolishment of the 2MR is ok. they still do not recognize that the "fairness" of the 2MR varies with the situation, and that the best solution is not a one-size-fits-all solution. but, such is life on the message board.




The reason is because your insistance on keeping it only applies to the minority of those that are thrown into trees. If the majority of shots that hit trees stuck then I would completely agree with you but that just simply not the case. The majority of shots that enter the circumfrence or a tree or that hit trees fall to the ground. I would say atleast 95% of shots that hit trees end up on the ground and the other 5 percent stick in the trees and then half of that 5 percent end up sticking above 2 Meters so punishing that UNLUCKY 2.5 percent doesnt make any scence at all. Like I said Ive been playing tournamenst for almost 2 years not and Ive played about 50 tournaments and only had a handful of 2 meter penalties so in the grand scheme up things the only thing the 2 Meter rule is doing is giving a false scence of security to bad designers and people who cant throw spike hyzers.

Pat are you saying that the 95 out of a hundred shots that hit that tree 45 ft up and drop to 6 ft are GOOD shots and the 5 that hit and stick are BAD shots???



Steve, evidently Pat can't (won't) do the math. I've suggested I would bow out of this discussion, but let me try one more time to get Pat to listen. My home course is Idlewild. On hole 5, I always take the high risk/reward over-the-top route. I've been deflected way off course doing so. I've ended up falling back down into the OB stream. I've never been stuck up 2 meters or higher in a tree (we're talking thousands of shots). The high probability risk is the way trees knock you down and off course, the very low probability risk is getting stuck up in a tree. It certainly is a double penalty if you do.

these pictures are old -- the course is more groomed now and new pictures will soon be available -- but here is the tee shot:
Idlewild hole 5 tee shot (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild5.jpg)

(there's a landing area down at the beginning of the trees and then an upslope dogleg 120 degrees to the right to the second landing area (total length: 510 feet uphill):
Idlewild hole 5 second landing area (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild5a.jpg)

Again, I always go over-the-top and have yet to stick in a tree, but Pat seems to think 75 to 95 out of 100 shots into trees stick. Here's his second post on this subject last November:


[sandalman:] HAVE YOU ANTI-2METER FOLKS EVER FOUND YOURSELF THINKING:

"well, i could take a low straight shot and hit that 5meter gap 150 feet in front of me, or i could bust a hyzer (thumber, whatever) over top and hope like hades i dont get stuck in the trees"

if you have had such a thought, then you can appreciate the 2-meter rule. if you havent, then may i repsectfully suggest you go find a REAL, challenging disc golf course.

either way, congratulations - YOU JUST TOOK ALL OF THE RISK AND 75% OF THE SKILL OUT OF SUCH HOLES!

the DEFAULT rules condition should be with the 2-meter rule in effect. the EXCEPTION should be no 2-meter rule, on a course/hole/area/tree basis. you all got it backwards.



see: 2 meter rule question (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=257783&amp;page=1&amp;view=collap sed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1)

rob, you should know cold turkey almost never works :)

poor baby if you go OB in the stream after hitting hte tree early. gosh, now you are SHORT, OFF COURSE, and PENALTY STROKE. a TRIPLE penalty! omigod! call the RC quick!!! that just is NOT FAIR!

how do you get that i think 75-95 of 100 stick in trees from that particular quote???

poor baby if you go OB in the stream after hitting hte tree early. gosh, now you are SHORT, OFF COURSE, and PENALTY STROKE. a TRIPLE penalty! omigod! call the RC quick!!! that just is NOT FAIR!



Actually this isnt the same situation because a MAJORITY of the shots that dont make it on this hole are either going to end up OB in the stream or in complete shule from what I understand so if the MAJORITY of the shots go OB if not thrown well then thats fair and its not BAD LUCK its just the norm. The 2 Meter rule punishes only shots that are UNLUCKY. Thats a fact. Pure and simple the 2 Meter rule is only used when someone is UNLUCKY because the MAJORITY of discs that are thrown into trees just plain and simple dont stick. Why penalize the minority. It makes no scence.

OB and Water Make scence because a MAJORITY of the discs that hit the ground OB or in the WATER stay OB or in the water and you are LUCKY if you kick back or skip back inbounds. Those were BAD shots that you get punished for because a MAJORITY of the shots thrown in these areas will remain there. Thats just not the case with the 2 Meter rule. The Majority of discs thrown into a tree over 2 meters end up falling to the ground and a UNLUCKY few stay up in the tree and are essentialy assed a double penalty becaue they have to take a stroke and then throw from a crappy lie. Now THAT is just not fair, logical OR consistant.

Worst rule = 2MR
best rule = 801.01

All through this, I keep wondering what sorts of arguments would be posed by Pat, Rhett, Nick, Millz, and everyone else if there had never been a 2 meter rule and all of a sudden, the RC was proposing such. Would "tradition" be thrown as the trump card, in that case? Would we be hearing the same arguments about "luck" and "bad shots" and "good shots" and all the rest, just posed in the opposite manner?

Would people like Pat and Rhett reveal that they had been playing all along with some sort of "2 meter rule" because they thought we should have one, no matter what the official rules said? Would those like Nick, that are for the current change to no 2 meter rule, vociferously object, claiming that those who wanted such a rule were fools and against the tradition of the game? Would Magilla be threatening to buck the organization and have a whole area refuse to abide by the new rule?

Or would everyone say, "Cool. A new rule to learn and deal with. Let's figure out how to make our game work with this new rule." And then go out and play this game we love and have a good time.

Just my thoughts.



Excellent question. What then about the basic concept of "play it where it lies?" Would that have never come up? I think the reality is, given that basic concept, some version of the 2 meter rule would have been considered. I also believe that eventually we will come back to it. If we accept play it as it lies as one of the base rules of the sport, then you need to address any action that moves the disc from where it lies.

To draw this point further, and after some thought, it seems that the most basic rule of disc golf is play it where it lies. Anything that moves away from that has to examined carefully. That is why the remove the 2M crowd eventually had to revise their position to treat discs over 2M as if they are out of bounds. What it is coming down to is two camps, one who wants to treat 2M throws as being OB and one that wants to distinguish throws over 2M as a unique case. Regardless, the situation is obvious, the player is required to change the lie of the disc. My hope is that we will eventually realize that the best option is play it as it lies. If you can get one foot behind the disc with one foot on terra firma you are good to go. Otherwise you get 5 meters of relief and a stroke. This makes for one rule. Doesn't matter if you are in the shule, unsafe, etc., you change your lie, you have 5 meters and a stroke. You have only one exception... OB.

That such a minor rule as the 2MR seems to dominate this discussion, on best and worst rules, is a testiment to what a great job our rules committee has done.

When it is gone, what will be left?

"5 Stance Rules"? Defining terms like "at rest", "playing surface" or "lie"? Maybe tightening up our courtesy rules so anyone being a shnook gets what is coming to them "officially"?

PS: I am fine with Course Designers and Tournament Directors deciding when a 2 meter like rule or Aerial OB areas be used around our greens (or anywhere they feel they need them, even their entire course if they want). I am not fine with our rule books telling Tournament Directors and Course Designers that they "MUST" have them (everywhere on all holes around the entire world).

i dont know the answer, but i for one would not be playing the tradition card. i'm not now, never did. tradition, in and of itself, is usually a weak reason.

for the record (since the record has been misquoted several times recently), i believe that certain arguments against the 2MR have a lot of credibility. the double-penalty imposed by low-lying branches, for example. the fairway 2MR double-penalty is another. (although then we have the new stroke PLUS distance stuff... so we're adding double penalties back in, but thats another thread or ten)

likewise, there are very compelling arguments for the 2MR, the most obvious is what happens close to the pin.

my complete insistance that the 2MR be kept as the default is not directed at the RC and is not the result of the RC decision. if i were to "officially" discuss the issue with the RC, i would advocate for removing the 2MR, or at least making it off by default, for cases outside the 10M circle. my insistance on this board that the 2MR be completely retained is because the anti-2MR zealots (and thats what they are on this board) will/can not consider that anything except complete abolishment of the 2MR is ok. they still do not recognize that the "fairness" of the 2MR varies with the situation, and that the best solution is not a one-size-fits-all solution. but, such is life on the message board.



The use of "Tradition" as a reason of keeping the rule is as justified as ANY legitamate reason given for changing the rule. :p

Can you see past your nose or is it too far lodge in pats ACE to see that this is a silly and inconsistant rule only penalizing a very minute minority of shots that are ever thrown. Why not just make it easy and consistant and get rid of the rule all together???

All through this, I keep wondering what sorts of arguments would be posed by Pat, Rhett, Nick, Millz, and everyone else if there had never been a 2 meter rule and all of a sudden, the RC was proposing such. Would "tradition" be thrown as the trump card, in that case? Would we be hearing the same arguments about "luck" and "bad shots" and "good shots" and all the rest, just posed in the opposite manner?



I would be saying exactly what I am saying now. Why would we add a rule that will not be consistant and is enforced only when someone gets UNLUCKY.

Just to state it loud and clear. I think its a great idea to get rid of the 2 meter rule. It eliminates atleast one of the inconsistancies that we have in our rules. Plus it eliminates penalties strokes being assesed for UNLUCKY shots.



A Shot that hits a tree is a BAD SHOT...If it falls out then your "Lucky" if you dont want "luck" to be a factor, then DONT THROW IN THE TREE /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

PERIOD

Lyle, I think that if there was no 2m rule, and the definition of the lie for a suspended disc was on the playing surface directly below the disc, there would have been no concern that we weren't playing it where it lies.

We don't play it where it lies now anyway, we play it close to where it stopped.

Discs suspended over 2m have never been treated as OB. An OB disc has more options on how it is played.

as far as the spike at the base of the pole, well, yes, it was a pretty good shot that turned out not so good after all. if the skips lands you 50' from the basket cuz it skipped to close to the pole, then sorry dude but it wasnt that great a shot. golf rewards you for where you end up, not where you first touch ground.



So your saying a drive that lands 50 ft from the basket is a BAD drive??? What your saying is that golf reward PERFECT shots but golf is not a game of PEFECT shots is a game of GOOD MISSES and managing your misses.

Would it be fair in ball golf if you hit it in a sandtrap that you would have to take a stroke penalty and then play the shot from the sandtrap anyway???



Those that make "Perfect Shots" WIN. Those that dont get stuck in Trees :D

A Shot that hits a tree is a BAD SHOT...If it falls out then your "Lucky" if you dont want "luck" to be a factor, then DONT THROW IN THE TREE

PERIOD



If you consider it luck when it happens 95 out of a 100 times then I guess your right but in my mind thats not lucky its NORMAL!!!

Its UNLUCKY if you get stuck but its not LUCKY if you fall to the ground. I would say luck only applies when you have a 50 50 chance or less for the outcome to be favorable but in this situation you are just UNLUCKY to have stuck. Why would you penalize someone basked on the 5% chance that they may stick in a tree???


Those that make "Perfect Shots" WIN. Those that dont get stuck in Trees



No one makes perfect shots because if they did the best round in the world would be an 18 and not a 41 :eek:

Golf is a game of managing your misses and playing at targets. NOT THROWING PERFECT shots.

Is a good shot one that monkey paw's at a 30 degree angle off line and 30 feet up, smashes through 10 feet of folliage, smacks off the tree and then 200 feet into the basket for an ace?

What makes a good or bad shot good or bad?
1) The intention and strategy?
2) The execution of the actual throw up to it leaving your hand?
3) The effect natural forces have on it, whether consistant or not (i.e. gravity vs wind/rain)?
4) How it bounces or skips off of course objects?
5) Where it comes to rest?

If it is a mixture of any of these then your definition of a "GOOD SHOT NOT STICKING IN TREES" is in complete error. Why? Because then you would be contending that the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of shots that hits the tree in the exact same way after being thought out and thrown the exact same way but do not stick in the tree ARE IN FACT "GOOD SHOTS".

Which they clearly are not in any way other than result. (Which is still likely not to be so "GOOD".)

Hence the "non"-sense that only bad shots stick in trees...

Lyle, I think that if there was no 2m rule, and the definition of the lie for a suspended disc was on the playing surface directly below the disc, there would have been no concern that we weren't playing it where it lies.

We don't play it where it lies now anyway, we play it close to where it stopped.

Discs suspended over 2m have never been treated as OB. An OB disc has more options on how it is played.



This is a great observation/point, but you can't argue that to get the lie to the ground you are moving it. Also, I've never bought the we aren't playing it where it lies argument. We essentially accomplish that by using the second most controversial rule, the "your foot has to be LOP and 30 cm behind your marker rule." That should be our "definition" of play it where it lies and I am comfortable with that. The idea that play it where it lies means a point on terra firma above or below the disc is a slippery slope IMO. Sooooooo, when the disc is in the tree, to fit a my definition of play it where it lies, you've got to either place your foot behind the disc in the tree or move the disc. As soon as you move the disc you've violated the play it where it lies rule. Now, I understand there are some exceptions made, like the rule of verticality etc. but again, I think the simplest solution is always, play it where it lies by my definition, you can't move the disc period and I would include if there was a cliff and you could stand on it and still be 30 cm from the vertical line. In all cases you have to be 30 cm behind the disc, if it is over a cliff and you can't get your foot there because of the cliff, yep, you move your disc and take your stroke.

Before someone says it, no climbing trees, that is a dangerous lie period and you should always take your stroke. if you can do the splits and get your foot up there with one foot on terra firma, good for you (I hope your card mates get a pic :D).

Lyle, it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too.

If the disc comes to rest above the playing surface...
You mark it on the playing surface immediately below it...

Whether you then move your disc from 2 feet above the playing surface or 200 feet above the playing surface has no relevancy to where your lie is under current or proposed rules.

Well, except for my proposal that the "lie" rule be changed to mean the exact place and surface upon which your thrown disc comes to rest, or in the case of a tee pad the defined tee pad area. Any stance rule would include the necessity of having some part of the thrower in contact with "that" lie upon release of the disc. It would also include that the player must be last (drives, approaches and jump putts) supported by the playing surface; thus making bush, building or tree climbing a rules violation.

Damaging the course, including tree and bush branches while attempting to make a throw when your lie is inside one would remain a violation. If a player doesn't think they can execute the shot without breaking a branch or the part of the object, then they would do well to take an unsafe lie.

Short of this, we currently, and even after the end of the 2MR, will continue to mark our lie on the playing surface and play on, regardless of how high off the playing surface the disc has come to rest. If a specific TD or Course Designer wants to enforce a restriction on how high above the playing surface a disc may come to rest without penalty, fine, they may do so, in whole or part.

All the bases are covered, except for those who want to force their way, as the ONLY way. To them I say, "tough"! :o;)

Is a good shot one that monkey paw's at a 30 degree angle off line and 30 feet up, smashes through 10 feet of folliage, smacks off the tree and then 200 feet into the basket for an ace?

What makes a good or bad shot good or bad?
1) The intention and strategy?
2) The execution of the actual throw up to it leaving your hand?
3) The effect natural forces have on it, whether consistant or not (i.e. gravity vs wind/rain)?
4) How it bounces or skips off of course objects?
5) Where it comes to rest?

If it is a mixture of any of these then your definition of a "GOOD SHOT NOT STICKING IN TREES" is in complete error. Why? Because then you would be contending that the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of shots that hits the tree in the exact same way after being thought out and thrown the exact same way but do not stick in the tree ARE IN FACT "GOOD SHOTS".

Which they clearly are not in any way other than result. (Which is still likely not to be so "GOOD".)

Hence the "non"-sense that only bad shots stick in trees...



See Mike.
See Mike Run.
Bye Mike. :D :DLOL!

Hence the "non"-sense that only bad shots stick in trees...



See Mike.
See Mike Run.
Bye Mike. :D :DLOL!



No, only BAD shots HIT trees, which gives them the opportunity to get stuck :p

Where would I be running too, Nicky. :confused:

Not from you or anyone else for that matter.
Never have never will, just ask a few "insurgents" ;)

You have the same problem as a few FORMER volunteers of this organization. Give a "Boy" a little power and he'll surely think he's "THE MAN"

POWER to the PEOPLE......thats the player's if you havnt figured it out.

Major changes to the rules should be approved by the Players not a rules committee that sure seems to be afraid to let that happen. :confused:

The 2 meter rule that the rules committee wants would allow a player to move his disc 40 feet closer to the basket from where it came to rest without a penalty, if he threw a top shelf shot that stuck on the top shelf, 40 feet above the basket.

40 feet. No penalty. Too bizarre.

I see this shot or hear about this shot or see the disc that was thrown that way almost every tournament round at Ludington on that hole that is guarded by the wall of pines and there is that pine tree about ten feet left of the basket.

40 feet closer. No penalty. Way too bizarre.

i know i'm just a fule who picked up his first disc golf frisbee at age 40, eight years ago.. but magilla and bruce represent a whole lot of experience, sense and insight. not that the RC doesnt, but it sure seems that a very minor change in the mackup of the RC would have yielded a very different result. rob and nick have been quick to point out my lack of credibility. so what do they say to bruce and magilla???

Nick calls me a liar every time I mention this but the 2-meter penalty is so intuitive that we were playing by this rule in the 70s long before we heard of the PDGA. Of course we had the benefit of watching Billy Piest fall out of the maple tree in the 60s! :D "Guys, how far do you think I can throw from up - oof - ump - THUD!"

Hence the "non"-sense that only bad shots stick in trees...



See Mike.
See Mike Run.
Bye Mike. :D :DLOL!



No, only BAD shots HIT trees, which gives them the opportunity to get stuck :p
<font color="blue"> So a tee shot negotiates a 350 tight wooded �S� faiway, hits a tree 60 feet from the pin, in the middle of the fairway and skids right under the pin is a �BAD� shot?

Does the 2MR really penalize bad shots? If it did wouldn�t it penalize more than 0.000000000000001% of bad shots?

Clearly it penalizes extremely unlikely results rather than �BAD� shots? This in complete and total contrast to Out of Bounds.</font>

Where would I be running too, Nicky. :confused:
<font color="blue"> Oooh! Name calling. Now there�s a great argument for keeping the 2MR. Sometimes I think it is the only substantial one 2MR supporters have. It seems to be the one they use 99% of the time.</font>

Not from you or anyone else for that matter.
Never have never will, just ask a few "insurgents" ;)
<font color="blue"> Wha? </font>

You have the same problem as a few FORMER volunteers of this organization. Give a "Boy" a little power and he'll surely think he's "THE MAN"
<font color="blue"> LOL! Now that is funny. Just what kind of �Power� do you think I have? Minister of Defense or something? With my finger on the button? LOL! You have some wild and crazy ideas Mike.

It never ceases to amaze me when volunteers don�t seem to get the nature of volunteering. It�s pretty dang simple: You do what you can, that�s it. If some folks don�t like it they are welcome to step up and do it differently. Until that time complain away� </font>

POWER to the PEOPLE......thats the player's if you havnt figured it out.
<font color="blue"> Um, Mike, who the sam hill do you think does ALL of the volunteer work for the PDGA? Clue: the PEOPLE. </font>

Major changes to the rules should be approved by the Players not a rules committee that sure seems to be afraid to let that happen. :confused:


<font color="blue"> I can�t wait to see the first half-sized windmills popping up on courses everywhere�

This is all very fascinating Mike, but how does any of it make the point that only bad shots stick in trees or that the 2MR is a good rule and should be kept? Don�t think I don�t realize when a person has run out of reason and logic in defending their position; personal assaults are like a flair gun screaming for rescue�</font>

The 2 meter rule that the rules committee wants would allow a player to move his disc 40 feet closer to the basket from where it came to rest without a penalty, if he threw a top shelf shot that stuck on the top shelf, 40 feet above the basket.

40 feet. No penalty. Too bizarre.

I see this shot or hear about this shot or see the disc that was thrown that way almost every tournament round at Ludington on that hole that is guarded by the wall of pines and there is that pine tree about ten feet left of the basket.

40 feet closer. No penalty. Way too bizarre.



Jon, is Bruce off his meds again? ;)

WARNING: Bruce is running a specially formatted event this summer, where no matter where he finishes he and his family members are automatically declared the victors of their respective divisions. This will not be announced prior to the event. If anyone complains they take DFL in their division.

It's true, I swear! :D

i know i'm just a fule who picked up his first disc golf frisbee at age 40, eight years ago.. but magilla and bruce represent a whole lot of experience, sense and insight. not that the RC doesnt, but it sure seems that a very minor change in the mackup of the RC would have yielded a very different result. rob and nick have been quick to point out my lack of credibility. so what do they say to bruce and magilla???



I have never questioned your credibility as concerns your experience, nor of Mike or Bruce. What I question is the credibility of your logic and reasoning; something for which some folks seem to be incapable of separating.

I have a differing opinion concerning whether folks that have never before heard of the 2MR would consider it �common sense� or a �natural extension� of our rules of play. I can�t dispute Bruce�s stated experience; HE EXPERIENCED IT, RIGHT! I can say that I recall the first time I heard it and thinking it made no sense. (We mark our lie on the playing surface, so what is the dillio with making a certain distance from the playing surface a penalty stroke but others not?!? Just mark it and play on, right?)

What this comes down to is this:
I believe that course designers and tournament directors should have complete control over the restricted and non-restricted areas of their courses.
You, Mike and Bruce believe that the PDGA Rulebook should control a HUGE portion of that with the mandatory inclusion of the 2MR.

It is a question of:

1) Who is in the best position to know when areas on a course need to be restricted? Tournament Directors and Course Designers or the PDGA Rulebook.
2) Who is in the best position to know where it would be unfair to enforce a 2MR penalty on a specific hole or course? Tournament Directors and Course Designers or the PDGA Rulebook.
3) Who is in the best position to know when a tree or obstacle on a specific green needs an aerial hazard? Tournament Directors and Course Designers or the PDGA Rulebook.

If in your, Mike�s and Bruce�s judgment the 2MR needs to be enforced on your courses and you are the Tournament Director or Course Designer, then go for it! Even if the rule is completely removed, you will still be able to declare every non-playing surface 2M above the playing surface as Out of Bounds.

What you will not be able to do, and what you should not be able to do, is to force your judgment, regardless of the individual situations on each individual hole and course, on the heads of every other Tournament Director or Course Designer; who are in a far far superior position to know what is right for their course as far as restricting certain areas to protect and add challenge to their courses.

That is in essence what I argue on behalf of. If you disagree, tell us why?

<font color="blue"> So a tee shot negotiates a 350 tight wooded �S� faiway, hits a tree 60 feet from the pin, in the middle of the fairway and skids right under the pin is a �BAD� shot? <font color="red">So your telling me that the hole was designed to hit that tree?? I guess you got "lucky" and ended up under the basket /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Oh wait....LUCK isnt allowed to be a factor...I guess you have to take your lie back at the tree you hit :p


Where would I be running too, Nicky. :confused:
<font color="blue"> Oooh! Name calling. Now there�s a great argument for keeping the 2MR. Sometimes I think it is the only substantial one 2MR supporters have. It seems to be the one they use 99% of the time.</font>

<font color="red">Huh, Im quite sure your mother called you "Nicky" as a boy...wouldnt say that is "name calling" ;)

POWER to the PEOPLE......thats the player's if you havnt figured it out.
<font color="blue"> Um, Mike, who the sam hill do you think does ALL of the volunteer work for the PDGA? Clue: the PEOPLE. </font>

Major changes to the rules should be approved by the Players not a rules committee that sure seems to be afraid to let that happen. :confused: <font color="red">What no answer to this one?? Probably because it actually makes sense.
<font color="blue"> I can�t wait to see the first half-sized windmills popping up on courses everywhere� <font color="red"> No that would have be the "Rochester World's".. :)




Logic???? Is that what you call the continued attacks on ANYONE who disagrees with what YOU say???
You have been a "sore" on this board ever since you first signed on.
:(

So your telling me that the hole was designed to hit that tree?? I guess you got "lucky" and ended up under the basket Oh wait....LUCK isnt allowed to be a factor...I guess you have to take your lie back at the tree you hit



Luck should not be involved in asseseing and giving out penalty strokes especially when it deals with only a minute number of shots. How many times have you seen people hit trees??? Thousands??? Tens of Thousands??? Hundreds of Thousands??? How many discs have you seen stick up in a tree. Maybe 100 and thats freakin stretching it to the max. I know I have hit atleast 1000 trees and only ever had discs stick in about 10 times. SO 99 percent of the time I hit a tree my discs falls to the ground and 1 percent of the time it sticks. Where is the logic in penalizing only 1% of shots that hit trees. Thats VERY VERY inconsistant and makes absolutely no sence what so ever.

If in your, Mike�s and Bruce�s judgment the 2MR needs to be enforced on your courses and you are the Tournament Director or Course Designer, then go for it! Even if the rule is completely removed, you will still be able to declare every non-playing surface 2M above the playing surface as Out of Bounds.

That is in essence what I argue on behalf of. If you disagree, tell us why?





<font color="blue"> If the clause to allow individual tournaments to have control over the ruling then I dont have an issue with it. It was my understanding that the rule was being DROPPED entirely and that only THIS YEAR could a TD choose to either enforce it or not :p </font>

It was my understanding that the rule was being DROPPED entirely and that only THIS YEAR could a TD choose to either enforce it or not



I believe this year the 2 Meter rule is in effect by default unless a TD chooses otherwise. Next year the 2 Meter rule will NOT be in effect unless a TD chooses otherwise.

That was my understanding as well. The 2m rule was being moved to a different section of the rulebook (glossary maybe) and would only be in effect if the TD chose to use it. Much like OB and mandatories are now, neither one exists on the course until the TD declares them.

It was my understanding that the rule was being DROPPED entirely and that only THIS YEAR could a TD choose to either enforce it or not



I believe this year the 2 Meter rule is in effect by default unless a TD chooses otherwise. Next year the 2 Meter rule will NOT be in effect unless a TD chooses otherwise.



I knew that this year there was an "Option" to have it or not.

Never had I heard that next year it would also be a "option" of the TD. Only that it would be "dropped entirely" :p

See, Nicky, if you would explain yourself, rather than attack ANYONE who disagrees with you, we could all live in peace.............

Can you show me where exactly I have "ATTACKED" you or anyone else here? I have had fun with the arguments you pose. Any characterizations are intended in good fun.

I would have explained to you the situation concerning the rules and rules changes I assumed that you were in the know though, considering how vociferously you came to it's defense. I guess it�d be wiser to assume otherwise.

This is just a discussion point Mike. Don�t take it so seriously. I have no more power in the decision making process than you. Probably less since you are a State Coordinator. Don�t let that POWER go to your head though, you�re just another dude�

(A more informed dude, now.)

Luck should not be involved in assessing and giving out penalty strokes especially when it deals with only a minute number of shots. How many times have you seen people hit trees??? Thousands??? Tens of Thousands??? Hundreds of Thousands??? How many discs have you seen stick up in a tree. Maybe 100 and thats freakin stretching it to the max. I know I have hit at least 1000 trees and only ever had discs stick in about 10 times. SO 99 percent of the time I hit a tree my discs falls to the ground and 1 percent of the time it sticks. Where is the logic in penalizing only 1% of shots that hit trees. Thats VERY VERY inconsistent and makes absolutely no sence what so ever.



Steve, evidently the pro-2 meter camp hasn't or can't do the math, so you may as well be talking Chinese to them ... Maybe they've never thrown into a tree out of fear of the 2 meter penalty and don't realize 90% of shots that hit don't stick. Instead they are basing their support of the rule on how a tree plays *in theory*

How else can one explain their fluke example of a disc stuck in a tree 200 feet above the pin? The exception proves the rule /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

See Mike.
See Mike Run.
Bye Mike. :D :DLOL!



Not from you or anyone else for that matter.
Never have never will, just ask a few "insurgents" ;)
<font color="blue"> Wha? </font>


[/QUOTE]

Panama (Noriega), Columbia (Drug Intradiction), Korea (DMZ), Lybia (we were gonna get Gaddafi's arse), etc, etc, etc.
;)

Clearly different species have different coefficients of stickiness. Some trees on some holes add a risk reward element if the 2-meter rule is in effect, like the twin cedars [or are they yews?] on that Hudson Mills Monster hole, or anywhere you have thick honeysuckle patches. Most species of fruit trees are sticky and it is tempting to take top shelf routes over fruit trees.

I think taking away the two meter rule is like the designated hitter rule. It eliminates an element of strategy. It dumbs down the game a little.

Imagine how dumb the designated hitter rule would be if it was the home team's call whether to have it or not, or whether it would only be in effect for certain innings!

Clearly different species have different coefficients of stickiness. Some trees on some holes add a risk reward element if the 2-meter rule is in effect, like the twin cedars [or are they yews?] on that Hudson Mills Monster hole, or anywhere you have thick honeysuckle patches. Most species of fruit trees are sticky and it is tempting to take top shelf routes over fruit trees.

I think taking away the two meter rule is like the designated hitter rule. It eliminates an element of strategy. It dumbs down the game a little.

Imagine how dumb the designated hitter rule would be if it was the home team's call whether to have it or not, or whether it would only be in effect for certain innings!



Are you staring in the new Fantastic 4 movie Bruce?

Playing the part of "Mr. Fantastic"?

Because that is a gigantic stretch of logic to say that all courses and holes everywhere need the 2MR (particularly when they themselves are inherently different course to course, even hole to hole, anyway.).

talking Chinese to them

save the racist comments, *******. my wife is chinese.

Are you staring in the new Fantastic 4 movie Bruce?

Playing the part of "Mr. Fantastic"?

No. I only think I am because i'm off my meds again.

40 feet closer. No penalty. Still too weird.

Is this only weird to people who are off their meds?

Are you staring in the new Fantastic 4 movie Bruce?

Playing the part of "Mr. Fantastic"?

No. I only think I am because i'm off my meds again.

40 feet closer. No penalty. Still too weird.

Is this only weird to people who are off their meds?



Bruce, where is your lie, according to current PDGA Rulebook rules when a disc is stuck in a tree 40 feet up directly above the basket.

You plan on answering that? Meds or not?

Hint: The answer has absolutely nothing to do with the 2MR. All discs above the playing surface are treated the exact same way as far as where to mark their lies (that is unless they are over OB, which the 2MR most definitely is not, otherwise this discussion would not exist).

Do you propose that we completely redefine our rule concerning what a �Lie� is and how to mark it?

I'm not necessarily against such an idea, but it would involve something totally different than just letting our laziest rule continue on unchecked.

Logic???? Is that what you call the continued attacks on ANYONE who disagrees with what YOU say???
You have been a "sore" on this board ever since you first signed on.
:(



When you live your whole life in denial like Nick has, it indeed becomes 'logic' in his mind.

talking Chinese to them

save the racist comments, *******. my wife is chinese.



And thus Pat demonstrates yet again that when he is out of any reasonable or logical point upon which to discuss, which is every time seemingly, he resorts to faking insult and commences with the rabid name-calling.

There is plenty of racism in the world Pat, enough for us all, don�t cry wolf when there is none or you are just as bad as the racists yourself for the disservice done to improving race relations.

Besides race is a pure human construct.

Denial. Isn't that your mailing address Jeff?

Now move along and make friends somewhere else...

save the racist comments, *******. my wife is chinese.



Calm down there old guy. He was just saying it was like speaking a foreign language and Chinese just happened to come to mind. He could have said Japanese or Spanish or French. He was talking about language not RACE. Plus even if he wasnt it wasnt a racist comment :D

NOW GIVE ME YOUR 1st Run Z BUZZZs :mad:

but he wouldnt say japanese cuz that would bug nick. and he knows i live in texas so spanish is like a second language. and he knows i'm republican so i hate the french anyways :D

next time i'll try not to forget the smiley face :D

ps - Thou Shalt not covet thy neighbor's Buzzz!

Denial. Isn't that your mailing address Jeff?




Ah, the quintessential Nick "No I'm not, that's what you are!" response.

The entire disc golf community will be a happier place when you someday move from denial to acceptance.

Denial. Isn't that your mailing address Jeff?




Ah, the quintessential Nick "No I'm not, that's what you are!" response.

The entire disc golf community will be a happier place when you someday move from denial to acceptance.



Take the last 4 words off of that Jeff and you'll have a winner!

The entire disc golf community will be a happier place when you someday move from denial to acceptance.




How far undergrouoooo...errrrr South is this Acceptance place you speak of Lung?? :D

ps - Thou Shalt not covet thy neighbor's Buzzz!



Nor his Sparkle Z Tsunami's /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Nick, there are plenty of rules that allow you to move your mark a little ways away from where your disc landed, such as landing i.b. next to o.b., or landing on the front side of a large solid obstacle, or marking the largest part of a fractured disc. Usually when we are moving our mark forty feet from where we actually landed we take a penalty. Usually when we are moving our mark more than a meter closer to the basket from where we actually landed we take a penalty.

At least in my world, but in my world I'm a super hero with a secret identity. Your more mundane world might be different.

Clearly different species have different coefficients of stickiness. Some trees on some holes add a risk reward element if the 2-meter rule is in effect, like the twin cedars [or are they yews?] on that Hudson Mills Monster hole, or anywhere you have thick honeysuckle patches. Most species of fruit trees are sticky and it is tempting to take top shelf routes over fruit trees.

<font color="blue"> obviously. but in general shots into a tree have a greater probability of not sticking than sticking. the 2 meter rule is general -- not species specific. </font>

I think taking away the two meter rule is like the designated hitter rule. It eliminates an element of strategy. It dumbs down the game a little.



<font color="blue"> i think just the opposite is true. the 2 meter rule is a disincentive to consider many strategies. how many holes will you personally play differently when the 2 meter rule is not in effect?

the problem with the 2 meter rule is it is not very reliable (repeatable). 10 shots towards OB tend to all end up OB. Of 10 shots into the average tree at a height greater than 2 meters, maybe 1 sticks. further, trees are unpredictable given the multiple deflecting angles their branches create so it is almost a crap shoot as to where you'll end up if you hit one. they are hazard enough without the unnecessary 2 meter rule.

btw, please stop replying to my posts so i can go cold turkey on this topic /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font>

talking Chinese to them

save the racist comments, *******. my wife is chinese.



<font color="blue"> that's a perfect example of you hearing a meaning other than what was said. I admire the Chinese a great deal, and as far as i am concerned, Taoism is about as good as religion gets.

how many regulars on this discussion board would understand what i was saying if this message was in Chinese? that was my point.

btw, you owe me the apology Pat, for your false accusation that I was being racist. now step up to the plate </font>

Best rule: I'm going to go with the fact that it does not have to be the person whose disc has yet to be located who requests that the entire group search for a disc to start the timer on a lost disc.
Worst rule: It's not exactly a bad rule, but in my opinion the wording of the reference to special conditions under the casual relief rule is probably indirectly responsible for the number of players who believe they are entitled to casual relief where the disc entered the casual relief area. I suspect that what happens is that a special condition of that nature is declared, it is referred to as casual relief because the special condition is mentioned under that rule, and well-intentioned but incompletely informed inexperienced golfers get the wrong impression.

Edit: sorry for the on-topic reply.

Nick, there are plenty of rules that allow you to move your mark a little ways away from where your disc landed, such as landing i.b. next to o.b., or landing on the front side of a large solid obstacle, or marking the largest part of a fractured disc. Usually when we are moving our mark forty feet from where we actually landed we take a penalty. Usually when we are moving our mark more than a meter closer to the basket from where we actually landed we take a penalty.

At least in my world, but in my world I'm a super hero with a secret identity. Your more mundane world might be different.



So you are saying that you "are" moving your lie when you mark it on the playing surface beneath the your disc at rest above the playing surface, right?

Bruce, that would be incorrect. It is also unrelated to the other examples you presented, where the lie (under our current rules) is actually relocated.

Marking your lie on the playing surface is not "relocating" your lie under current disc golf rules. It just isn't.

Jeff and Dan, what a couple! Comforting to have enemies like them, means I must be doing something right... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

but he wouldnt say japanese cuz that would bug nick.



Not bug, just make no sense considering I speak it (a little). I wouldn't consider it racist though.

I'm guessing now that you were joking, but as usual it was a lame as one... ;)

I'm not talking about rules; I'm talking about reality. My disc landed there. I mark it here. When there and here are not the same place, usually I take a penalty.

Forget about rules and definitions for a moment and just think about what you are doing. The disc is way over there, a long ways from the basket, where you could never make the putt if we were to let you try. You want to mark it way over here, next to the basket, for a drop in deuce, no penalty.

That is just strange.

Two players throw their drive. Both discs land thirty feet from the basket with thick foliage between the disc and the basket. Under your rule one player has a drop in deuce and the other has to thumb out of the schule to save par.

I'm not talking about rules



I realize that.

So it comes down to your opinion. My opinion differs. So where does that get us?

Let me know when you are ready to discuss rules. I am interested in discussing making the "actual" place where the disc comes to rest our rules defined "lie". I think there are some merits to this idea.

This too will, however, result in the end of the 2MR...

dont hold your breath waiting. actrually, hold your fingers... that would be okay :) that comment would get ya fired frm where i work.

btw, you quit this thread cold turkey, remember?

dont hold your breath waiting. actrually, hold your fingers... that would be okay :) that comment would get ya fired frm where i work.

btw, you quit this thread cold turkey, remember?



you're a master baiter. i shouldn't waste the keystrokes :p

There is such a thing as good opinions and crazy opinions. I write opinions every day. If they aren't good opinions, I get fired.

The opinion that you should be allowed to move your disc out of thick foliage 30 feet closer to the basket without a penalty is objectively bizarre.

I'm paid a decent livable wage to put my own personal opinion aside and just think objectively. Here we go:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

30 feet. No penalty. Yes. Totally bizarre.

That one is free. The next one will cost you.

you're a master baiter... :p

i guess that makes you the sucker :) and, for that matter, the swallower! :D

(as in hook line and sinker) < for the hall monitor

I move my disc between 200 and 450 feet closer to the basket all the time during tournament play without penalty. And there is nothing crazy or strange about it.

(Not that it matters to you, but all that completely and 100% within the rules of play we currently play under.)

Moving your disc = not strange
Moving your lie = strange

Let me know when you want to bring rules into the discussion...

Does the term "Stealing Money" ever come up at work Bruce. :D;)

best old rule: if player X's disc is suspended 1 foot high in a tree, and player Y's disc is suspended 1.9 meters up -- we play them both the same: mark the disc vertically below where it's stuck and play on.

worst rule : if player A's disc hits a tree at a height of 2.1 meters and sticks it's a stroke, while if player B's disc hits the same tree 10 meters up and trickles down and gets stuck at a height of 1.9 meters -- it's mark it below where it rests and play on without penalty.

best new rule coming in 2006: the elimination of the 2 meter penalty as the default scenario

ok... i've been reading this madness for a while and I have 1 question. Since they will be abolishing the 2m rule. What happens when I throw my disc 20 feet up a tree and can't get it down? (lets play pretend and say the tree is one of those pines where you have no clue where in the tree it is or if its even in the tree or 50 feet out in the woods never to be found).

Maybe they should have a 2-3 minute rule where you have to get your disc by that time... if not... its OB. Height doesn't matter that way and time does (like if a disc is lost in the woods).

I agree with most that the 1.9 vs the 2.0 disc shouldn't matter. What makes sense is this... if i can't reach it then I should have to OB the plastic. If you can get then you are ok. Nothing gets me more than being able to reach out... grab a disc and have to call it OB.

There's already the 3 minute search for a lost disc and it's not necessary to have possession, just identification from a distance that's acceptable to the group. If it's not found then your new lie will be wherever the adjustment (if any) to the lost disc rule specifies.

ok... thats all fine and dandy but my question was simply... "What happens when I throw my disc 20 feet up a tree and can't get it down?"

"What happens when I throw my disc 20 feet up a tree and can't get it down?"




The short answer is you've physically lost it for now. If you can see it and convince your group that's your disc, it's not "lost." You mark below it and there's no penalty unless the 2m rule is in effect.

(I think that might also be the long answer, too :))

ok... thats all fine and dandy but my question was simply... "What happens when I throw my disc 20 feet up a tree and can't get it down?"




Mark beneath it and play on.

If you're in a tournament at the time, odds are if you start clinbing, or throwing sticks at it, you will be a distraction to players on neighboring holes.

You'll need to go on with your round without that disc, hopefully retrieve it after.

Penalty stroke or other wise :cool:

I have mixed feelings about the rule, and drot. The other day I had a shot that was stuck in a tree branch that was kind if hanging down on the top of the basket. I was stuck in a tree & drot. Suddenly, drot made more sense? :o
So did getting that leaining brach cleaned up :D

DROT should not only not be counted in but there should be a stroke penalty. There. I said it. :p

DROT should not only not be counted in but there should be a stroke penalty. There. I said it. :p



No, what should happen is the designer and manufacturer should have to return a portion of the price paid for the faulty product which "caught a disc" meeting it's stated goal as a "disc catching device" but in a way that is not considered "holed out".

There is a dysfunction between goal, rule and reality when there need be none. If the target catches the disc then the hole is completed. If it doesn't then it is not. If a target catches a disc it shouldn't then that is clearly the designer and manufacturers fault, not the throwers.

Never really thought of it like that but good call. (until you think about the fact that a goal/score in just about any sport has its exceptions. You can catch a ball in the end zone and not score a touch down (if your feet don't land in or if you don't have control over the ball).

I think if you are going to revisit the design then the top should have disc flingers that first catch the disc on top, then fling it off @ 100mph as a penalty.

All basketball hoops (or maybe backboards) are subject to recall when the ball wedges and sticks between the hoop and backboard. :)

true, but this is the 21st century. time to add a wedgie prevention modification. same is true for DROT's. Why haven't they tweaked the hoop to get rid of the sticks? at least in hoops it's a jump ball -- not a lost point :p

All basketball hoops (or maybe backboards) are subject to recall when the ball wedges and sticks between the hoop and backboard. :)



I like that.

Rule should state : A disc , flying into the target , MUST go over the top rim of the basket. NO Exceptions.....ie , not through the top chain assembly or through the side of the basket. PERIOD.

If counted , a two stroke penalty will occur for each instance.
One for a misplayed shot and one for the original shot taken.

That should resolve any cheating !!!!!!

I always though , going through the side of the basket , was cheating the rules anyway !!!!! :eek:

As far as going in through the Top of the Chain Assembly.

Absolutely not , unless the basket is specifically designed to do so.........Like the Dr. Fred's basket. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

what if you cant tell whether it went through the side or top? For instance you arrive at the basket and it is wedged halfway in.It is possible it went through the top and almost went out through the other side?we should insist on better basket design.Im sick of going through the chains and out the other side.

exactly. thats why the current language is as good as it gets. manufacturers must make their baskets so that edhies are impossible.

and who cares about DROTs. no way they should count. no way.

what if you cant tell whether it went through the side or top? For instance you arrive at the basket and it is wedged halfway in.It is possible it went through the top and almost went out through the other side?we should insist on better basket design.Im sick of going through the chains and out the other side.



There you go. You said it. Each Manufacturer should take all this data in account ,when creating a Disc Golf Basket , for use in Professional Tournaments.

A Professional Basket , NEEDS to be consistant through out.

Not some 2 feet off the gound and others 5 + feet.
Uniformity , first and foremost.

In a Prosessional Tounament , ALL the Baskets , NO matter who makes them , should be identical. PERIOD.

ALL the SAME HEIGHT !!!!!

All the same design........ie NOT half this kind and half that kind !!!!!

Should be the same with Tee pads as well !!!!!!

Uniformity.........also helps when Videos and pictures are taken. The TD will not be made fun of for HODGE PODGE !!!!!

If Baskets are to be put on a Slope , Side of a hill or even hanging from a low tree.

FOLKS.............they need to be LEVEL !!!!!!

Aren't you tired of playing on crooked baskets ?

And as far as the " In through the Top " or " Jamming it through the Side". Have a spotter from your group. A Spotter can usually tell what happened.

A Perfectly Designed Basket , would prevent ANY type of vagueness or indescrepencies on a shot.

It still is hard to tell sometimes , when a disc on KNIFE Angle , rocketing at the basket hits cleanly , chains first.

If I see it go in...........IT"S GOOD !!!!!!!!! :D

ALL the SAME HEIGHT !!!!!



Not sure this is a good thing or doable as a standard without changing almost all of our championship courses (Winthrop Gold #11 for example). The basket spec as manufactured provides 6 inches of leeway for starters. There is no standard for installation height.

When you consider the different elevations players putt from on typical terrain anyway, the elevation of the basket isn't as important as having the target area being consistent, since that's what the player is aiming for.

Players are different heights, straddle putt, putt from their knees or turbo putt. They have to gage the net elevation difference from their release to the basket target area. As long as they can see it, there's little advantage to establish some uniform height. Actually, I prefer more diversity of basket heights just like holes are different lengths. Our national course designers group is leaning that way, too.

The roots of our sport had targets of a vastly richer variety than today. While I'm not in favor of directional targets, I'm OK with designing for some directions of approach being better than others. Our PDGA baskets already are not directionally uniform. With 12 outside chains on a MachIII, the chain pattern you look at changes thru a 30 degree arc then repeats around the full 360.

There is actually.

From the ground to the bottom of the basket rim is 27".
Provided the basket is square on the bottom. Some are rounded for depth.

32" from the ground to the top of the rim of the basket. Doesn't matter the manufacturer. This is what I'm saying.

That may leave a variable depth between 5-7 inches, depending on the actual depth of the basket itself.

Each manufacturer has created its own basket depth.

The dimensions from the top of the basket rim to the top of the upper chain rack , does have the 6" variable.

Chain links for the basket are # 2 size link and there are 20 links per strand.

Links can be formed at the bottom of the configuration with either links themselves or with wire rings.

There is no limit to the amount of strands a basket can have.

A typical single chain system has between 12 -18 strands of links.

A double chain system can have between 18 -24 strands of links.

A Triple chain system can have between 24 -36 + depending on the exact configuration.

I know this for a fact. :)

So..........with that being said...............

Would you play in a Major Sanctioned Tournament with Equipment not Standard ?

A regulation tournament , SHOULD have regulation equipment.

Take for example these Sports :

Baseball - Balls are all the same , Bases are all the same.

Basketball - The Rim heights are all the same. The Freethrow area and three point areas are all the same.

Football - Balls are all the same. Fields are all the same. Goal posts are all the same and SAME height !!!!!!

Soccer - GOAL posts are all the same. Fields are regulation , WORLD wide !!!!!!!

Tennis - Balls are regulation . Nets are regulation . Courts are regulation.

Swimming - Lap pools are regulation. Swimming Lanes are regulation.

Shall I continue....................................

I have played more than 30 years in tournaments of one kind or another.

Our Sport needs to have some basic standards for Baskets in Professional Standard / Sanctioned Tournaments.

Same with Tee areas / Tee pads. !!!!!!

Otherwise , we stay in the backyard for another 20 years. :(

If we are going to do it..........DO IT RIGHT !!!!!!!!! :D

I'm saying the height from the ground to the top of the basket rim does not need to be standardized, shouldn't be standardized and steps are being taken to actually vary this height more than you've seen by some designers (Renny #2 long, Winthrop Gold #11 as noted). The vertical target cylinder from top of the basket to the bottom of the chain support should be standardized. That zone is the only place the player can complete the hole (except for wedgies).

We do not have the same playing field scenario as most other sports. Baseball doesn't have a standard shape for the outfield home run distance for example. Ball and disc golf does not have an official set of hole designs where every course must have a 275 ft righty hyzer at a 15 degree turn then a straight 450 ft wooded hole, etc. If that is the same size from all manufacturers, it makes no difference what height it's at as long as a way is available to retrieve your disc.

BLA ..................that's just a bunch of lazyness.

Basket height is important to regulation and uniformity to our Sport.

True , you can putt a basket on a hill , top of a House , back of a truck , suspended from a tree.

There is a standard that should be followed though.

I have played in a tournament , where some of the baskets were 15'' from the ground and others were 7" above normal height.

Is this what we want to do for television.........play minature golf ?

Basket height regulation is ridiculous. There is absolutly nothing wrong with a basket being set in the ground low or high. Doing this simulates uphill and downhill putting, something that disc golfers must know how to do. As long as there is a standard for the distance between the top of the cage and the bottom of the chain support there is no issue here.

You say laziness by course designers/installers, and i say laziness by you to not want to have to learn how to putt from different angles. If a basket is too low for you then get on your knees, if you cant putt from your knees then learn how to. If it is too high then learn to putt high, pretty simple.

That was a riduclous post scott,

Our discs must comply with regulations why whould anyone think that the targets should be any different.

The thought of putting a wide open 20 footer from one's knee (per your solution to a low basket) is absurd.

I's just an expansion on the concept that the land surrounding our baskets is often not flat so a basket height regulation is only of use if you are standing beside the basket.

The dimensions that matter are those of the target area of the catching device.

The dimensions that matter are those of the target area of the catching device.



That is your opinion, and the PDGA has another opinion; according to quick disc on the previous page there are specific regualtions guiding the height of a basket. Many courses out there have some baskets that do not conform with these standards.

My point is an expansion on the concept that standardized targets will give all competitors a fair and equal chance. It has nothing to do with having a basket on a hill.

There is actually.

From the ground to the bottom of the basket rim is 27".
Provided the basket is square on the bottom. Some are rounded for depth.

32" from the ground to the top of the rim of the basket. Doesn't matter the manufacturer. This is what I'm saying.




Just to clarify: Are you saying that there is an official standard for height in the PDGA rules, or are you saying that there is a standard that you personally abide by? I am just curious.

If there is a standard, where is the measurement taken from on the ground? RIght next to the basket? It seems like the variation in the height of the ground would effect a putt more from, say, around the 20-30 feet away range as opposed to 6" from the cage.

The only spec regarding height is the 76-89 cm height (30-35 in) of the top basket rim above the ground "as manufactured." It specifies the height must be measured at four points equidistant from the pipe. However, it does not specify how far from the pipe these four points must be and what qualifies as "the ground." There are currently no height standards for baskets as actually installed for PDGA sanctioning.

The only spec regarding height is the 76-89 cm height (30-35 in) of the top basket rim above the ground "as manufactured." It specifies the height must be measured at four points equidistant from the pipe. However, it does not specify how far from the pipe these four points must be and what qualifies as "the ground." There are currently no height standards for baskets as actually installed for PDGA sanctioning.



The words "as manufactured" or "as actually installed" do not appear in the PDGA Technical Standards for Disc Catching Devices.

Here is the section (minus the parts about fees and testing) as currently published:


(II) DISC-CATCHING TARGETS

(A) General Configuration

All disc-catching targets shall be composed of a basket and may have a deflection or entrapment apparatus above the basket.

B) Basket

The basket shall have a circular rim of no greater than 67 cm in diameter as measured on the outside edge of the rim, with a minimal basket depth of 15 cm. The basket rim shall have an average height of between 76 and 89 cm above the ground. Over slope, height compliance is determined by averaging the distance to the ground directly below the top edge of the rim at four equidistant points around the basket. Baskets may be placed at a lower height on courses designed primarily for junior play.

(C) Deflection or Entrapment Apparatus

(1) A disc-catching device may incorporate some sort of deflection device in its design. This apparatus may be flexible or solid.
(2) The maximum width of a deflection apparatus shall be 71 cm.

(D) Other Acceptable Targets

PDGA reserves the right to declare reasonable and prudent standards for certification of object and other target formats as it deems appropriate.



So, the only requirement is for a basket of minimum 15 cm depth, no more than 67 cm in diameter, with the rim having an average height of 76-89 cm above the ground. No chains required.

As to Winthrop #11, the built up pedestal has a sufficient enough surface area on top that the basket rim sits at a measurement of 76-89 cm. Tough putt, but entirely within specs.

Ok. That makes a bit of sense. Gracias.

The only spec regarding height is the 76-89 cm height (30-35 in) of the top basket rim above the ground "as manufactured." It specifies the height must be measured at four points equidistant from the pipe. However, it does not specify how far from the pipe these four points must be and what qualifies as "the ground." There are currently no height standards for baskets as actually installed for PDGA sanctioning.



The words "as manufactured" or "as actually installed" do not appear in the PDGA Technical Standards for Disc Catching Devices.

Here is the section (minus the parts about fees and testing) as currently published:


(II) DISC-CATCHING TARGETS

(A) General Configuration

All disc-catching targets shall be composed of a basket and may have a deflection or entrapment apparatus above the basket.

B) Basket

The basket shall have a circular rim of no greater than 67 cm in diameter as measured on the outside edge of the rim, with a minimal basket depth of 15 cm. The basket rim shall have an average height of between 76 and 89 cm above the ground. Over slope, height compliance is determined by averaging the distance to the ground directly below the top edge of the rim at four equidistant points around the basket. Baskets may be placed at a lower height on courses designed primarily for junior play.

(C) Deflection or Entrapment Apparatus

(1) A disc-catching device may incorporate some sort of deflection device in its design. This apparatus may be flexible or solid.
(2) The maximum width of a deflection apparatus shall be 71 cm.

(D) Other Acceptable Targets

PDGA reserves the right to declare reasonable and prudent standards for certification of object and other target formats as it deems appropriate.



So, the only requirement is for a basket of minimum 15 cm depth, no more than 67 cm in diameter, with the rim having an average height of 76-89 cm above the ground. No chains required.

As to Winthrop #11, the built up pedestal has a sufficient enough surface area on top that the basket rim sits at a measurement of 76-89 cm. Tough putt, but entirely within specs.



Thanks John for the investigative work on this.

I'm just looking for some Standards.

The rim having an average height of 76-89 cm above the ground. It was designed for playing catch. Waist Height for an average person. A Catching Device.

I'm not interested in playing Junior Golf on my knees all the time. :D

What about having your own Golf Cart for any Tournament play ? I could carry water, food and the golf bags for the foursome ? :eek: