It is my understanding that they recently changed the 2 meter rule. If your disc gets caught in a tree, you no longer are penalized a stroke to get it down because it already snagged your disc. Anyways, my question lies in that if you are supposed to play it from a spot directly below the lie; what happens if your disc gets stuck directly above the basket? Is it a hole in one? or do you have to tap out cuz you're supposed to take a spot directly below on the ground

its a hole in one. nice shot!

1. The 2 meter rule wording hasn't changed and won't for next year. This year, the TD can choose to not use the rule on a specific tree, specific hole(s) or the whole course. Next year the TD has to choose to use it on a specific tree, specific hole(s) or the whole course.

2. Penalties are 'throws' not 'strokes.'

3. Lies are marked on the ground so you have to putt out.

its a hole in one. nice shot!



I hear the rule has been amended to cover this special case.

If you can't mark the disc directly below, exactly where the basket is, and yet the disc must be marked on the ground directly below the lie, this means you must mark the disc on the other side of the planet, somewhere in China, and play from there. It's called the 10-million throw penalty provision.

Gonna be controversial, I predict, but it should never happen for well-designed holes.

brilliant, i say, brilliant! :D

i suffer from hallucinations. i was stuck more than 2M up TWICE last tourney. but as nick and robj tell us, it is mathematically for a disc to do that. hmmmm....

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!!!

AGAIN, at a sanctioned event this weekend i had TWO, thats dos, 2, liange, zwei, 2MR sticks in a SINGLE round.

my god, according to Nick and Robj the odds of that are about the same as surviving the detonation of an nuclear bomb 2M from where you are standing!

the first one was when i took a chance a chance on a shortcut and hit the treetops. didnt make it all the way down. got stuck at about 8-9M. but hey, risk/reward, ya know what i mean?

the second was on a shot that was on a very nice line - just a tad too low. a few feet up and i was parked. but i was too low, and got caught - EXACTLY 202.5cm up! lesser men would have whined and moaned about the tree stopping was penalty enough, but those of us who like to play golf and not some pansyasz "lets-all-feel-good" "sport" know that its all about skill - and my skill level was not up to where it needed to be at that moment.

interesting, on the third round my tee shot on a very narrow long fairway i faded left (lefty thrower) into edge of the trees, just barely. we found the disc caught in the tree, but this time it was 197cm up! the same lesser men would say "hey wheres the fairness in penalizing on shot but not the other when they were only 5.5 cm difference?" well, again, its a question of skill. a more skilled player would not have faded into the trees and it would not have need to get lucky enough to stay below 2M. it was a bad shot that got lucky. as are most all shots that hits trees but drop.

the argument that 2MR situations exist so rarely that the rule must go are entirely debunked at this point.

the anti-2MR zealots are running out even their non-viable justifications for this change!

reinstate the 2MR as the default standard!

Your little rant demotstrates both sides very well.

There was no skill (or lack thereof) on your part that controlled the above/below 2M point of the 2 throws that stuck near the 2M level. There was skill involved in whether the shots got into the trees in the first place, but none involved in whether they stuck above or below 2M.

The only skill involved is avoiding the obstacles, not in where the disc sticks in those obstacles. I have seen rollers end up above 2M, and many over the top, crashing through the canopy shots end up on the ground.

To some degree, it's based on shot selection and execution, but it is still largely luck whether a disc sticks above 2M or not.

actually, it demonstrates the pro-2M side, not the other.

the one shot was risk/reward. risk won, and i got stuck so i paid the price.

in the other cases skill, or lack thereof, was certainly involved.

nothing was random, nothing was the result of kharma, or whatever. one was i took a chance and lost the gamble. the others were i didnt make the shot i was attempting.

and lets not forget that the pro-move-the-lie-to-wherever-it-suits-you camp argues repeatedly that the odds of getting stuck are like 1:10000000000000000000000000000000

well, this weekend the odds were 1:36, as they were at waterloo two weekends ago. the difference is substantial enough to make one wonder if the i-cant-make-a-shot-therefore-i-want-a-better-spot-than-i-deserve folks might be exageratting in order to sway opinion, or to justify their own untenuous postion.

Plano, Arlington and Houston clearly have different water supplies... LOL! :D

The blind arguing with the blind.

The only way to avoid being over 2M with skill is to avoid hitting any over 2M. That includes hitting anything that could deflect a shot above 2M when anything over 2M is around.

Now if you want me to believe that you can play the Vet (with more than a putter off the tees) and never have a disc go through a tree where 2M could come into play, you'll have to show me a level of precision I've never seen on a course.

You are going to hit trees on a course like the Vet whether you intend to or not. On many holes out there, if you are playing to win, it is unavoidable. Since most of the trees out there are similar in makeup, which discs fall and which ones stay are a matter of luck, not skill.

You did not aim for a spot just below 2M to stick in a tree, and even if you had, it is luck that the disc didn't deflect upwards a few inches and go above 2M.

I don't really care whether you use the 2M rule or not, but you'll never convince me that it is anything other than luck that determines whether the disc sticks or doesn't in most trees. There are of course some trees where the disc will stick 95% of the time, and trees where the disc will pass through 95% of the time, but even in those trees, the discs that defy the odds don't do so because of some special skill of the thrower.

there is ONE hole, number 5, where hitting a tree is more likely than not. and that is far more true for left handed throwers. there is no reason - other than a poor throw - to hit a tree on any other hole.

There is no direct route on hole 4, everything must go over the trees.

Anything that is going to get close to the basket on 6 and 7 long must fly over and come down amongst trees.

Hole 10 long plays above and amongst trees if you are looking for a birdie putt of less than 60'.

Hole 11 plays underneath the trees with enough speed to deflect up into them if you hit anything, but you must hit something (bad shot) to endanger your shot.

Because of the drop on 16 long and 17 short, shots are often above 2M when they reach the trees around the baskets, but it is not required that you be above 2M for a birdie opportunity.

Hole 18 short because of the severe upslope puts shots over the trees to reach the basket, but the landing area is large enough that skill should keep you away from them.

Don't shatter the myth Gary. :D

I don't think I've ever seen anyone not get above 2M on #5 also.

Pat had already conceded #5.

I don't really care one way or the other about the rule, but on most heavily wooded courses where the terrain does not permit rollers, most drives risk being stuck above 2M. It is not really a question of skill, but of shot and distance requirements.

On these courses, it is not predominately bad shot vs good shot, but bad luck vs good luck. There are holes (hole 1) where it is just a risk reward equation where bombing through the trees near the basket is one of many options to get to the basket. In this case the penalty makes sense.

On holes like hole 10, where the trees are closer to the tee than the basket and you are required to throw through the trunks, the penalty makes less sense.

On holes like 5 where you are standing on the tee box above all of the trees in the fairway, it also makes little sense.

It is not really a question of skill, but of shot and distance requirements.

<font color="purple"> please dont make me statethe obvious! :D</font>

There are holes (hole 1) where it is just a risk reward equation where bombing through the trees near the basket is one of many options to get to the basket.

<font color="purple">only if you were dumb or bad enough to play to far right. throw it center, then throw it straight to the pin.</font>

On holes like hole 10, where the trees are closer to the tee than the basket and you are required to throw through the trunks

<font color="purple">thats simply an inaccurate description of the hole. go aroundthe trees, not through them</font>

On holes like 5 where you are standing on the tee box above all of the trees in the fairway

<font color="purple">the trees that come into play on 5 are close to the basket. if you hit one in halfway down the fairway of a 300 foot hole that drops 18 feet in elevation, well, you deserve a penalty stroke!</font>

11: wide open path (actually two) to the basket.

16: throwit less than 3 feet above the crest, and with the proper speed, and the trees are simply NOT in play.

18 short: ok i'll give ya that one. righties are gonna hafta go over some trees.

I think the back and forth arguing for and against the logical use of the 2M rule shows that there are courses where it makes sense and courses where it might not make sense. Having the rule be optional like water OB is probably the answer. However, one could make an argument that a hole in which you must play tree pinball might not be good design. Since I've never seen a course where the only routes are to throw thru tree branches that are over 2M, I will hold my thoughts on the issue.

On hole 10 you are standing in the middle of a grove of trees, you can't throw around them, you have to throw between them. If you manage to keep the throw below 2M and nit hit anything you are golden. The problem is that it is not a risk/reward decision to bring the trees into play. No one is aiming at the trees on that hole, they just sometimes manage to hit them anyway.

I agreed with your position on hole 1. Weren't you paying attention ?

Hole 5 is throwing at a treeline from above and 300' away. Anything but short is in the trees. Again, not a perfect shot, and maybe the trees around the basket do make sense, as you said, no one is aiming at the trees in the fairway. Isn't a bad shot punishment enough ?

It comes into play on courses with good elevation changes between the tee and basket.

On flat park land with a few scattered trees, You can make decisions to throw near the trees at height. On many holes on courses with lots of trees and elevation changes, you have no choice but to throw above or amongst the trees. And like I said earlier, I've seen rollers and low flat hyzers end up above 2M.

I don't particularly like the double penalty of being in the middle of some nasty shule AND having a stroke penalty because you were over 2M. However, I like even worse the shot that was 50 feet over the basket but got really lucky by getting stuck in a tree limb that was over hanging the basket and would get marked right under the basket for a drop in without a penalty.

A TD should probably continue to have the right to decide that on hole #4 there will be no 2M rule or on hole #4 there will be a 2M rule or either application to the whole course if that is what is applicable.

That makes the most sense to me as well.

In places where it should play into the risk/reward decision for a hole (where players would actually be aiming at it on purpose) then it makes sense to have it. Where the only way to get there is by accident, it makes less sense.

If the rule is to be used to prevent players from aiming at trees, why put it into effect in areas where no one is aiming?

I'm both sure and happy that the 2006 rules update will accomplish what you guys are discussing. The 2 meter rule will become just another tool that the course pro can, hopefully, properly use to add reasonable challenge.

As you know I don't see any use for it and would prefer OB be used for the same purpose and to greater effect on protecting certain trees and bushes.

Ever notice how a nice green parameter obstacle, whether low branches or bushes always end up FUBUR? And totally changing the dynamic of the hole? This even though the 2MR has always been in effect?

I am sure that if those trees and bushes, as well as the area directly below them were made OB that they would have a much longer and happier existance, and the challenge of the hole be much more protected.

At any rate, I am happy with the movement away from it as a default hazard and towards a course pro design decision.

I would go read the million page "2m rule thread" but don't have the time.....:)

Soooo. Are they(PDGA) doing away with the 2m rule?

In my opinion it's a great rule &amp; should stay. If your disc gets stuck in a tree/bush above 2m, you should be stroked.
Now.......without the rule, say you do get stuck 40' up, can't get your disc........should that now be ruled as a "lost disc" &amp; still stroked? Or are they doing away with that rule too...?

Let's just elimate the rule book altogether.


edit: If it matters, I've only been playing since May, and have seen at least 15 shots either I or someone has thrown that have stuck in trees...... we don't penalize anyone other than making jokes at the person who threw it. :D

Like I have said before many times...

I don't mind the 2m rule.

I just wish anything about 2m would be treated as an unsafe lie and thus would allow you to move the disc(1 stroke for 5 meters....2 strokes for more than 5)

edit: If it matters, I've only been playing since May, and have seen at least 15 shots either I or someone has thrown that have stuck in trees...... we don't penalize anyone other than making jokes at the person who threw it.



Because they lack skill or because they were unlucky?

Probably a little of both :)
Does it matter though?
If a pro throws one in a tree &amp; sticks, it must be unlucky?
If I, an amateur (well, I wouldnt even call myself an amateur yet) , throw a disc in a tree it's lack of skill? lol.

I don't know where everyone else plays, but all 3 of my local courses are infested with disc eating trees. A disc stuck higher than 2m is very common and I believe when it happens the player deserves a penalty.
Otherwise players may start throwing more of the "risky" type shots that they wouldn't take if there was a penalty involved.


If you'd like to answer my other questions I'd appreciate it.
1: Are they indeed getting rid of the 2m rule?
2: What if a disc does get stuck 40' up. If the player cannot retrieve the disc, does it count as a "lost disc" &amp; the player penalized?
2a: If "No" then "Why Not?"

I can see I'll need to spend the winter reading up on the "Rule Book" before I start playing events next year. I do believe in rules &amp; fair play, but I want to be darn sure everyone else is following the same rules I am.

As I last heard, the 2M rule is going to be treated the same as the OB area and special condition designations. It is up to the TD to decide if and where the 2M rule is in effect. This is in line with special conditions and OB areas.

So it will be up to the TD if the 2M rule is in effect for the whole course, certain holes, certain parts of certains holes, particular trees, or not at all.

The TD can also decide if they wish to declare the areas below certain trees as OB or special condition areas.

2: What if a disc does get stuck 40' up. If the player cannot retrieve the disc, does it count as a "lost disc" & the player penalized?
2a: If "No" then "Why Not?"



Because "retrieving a disc" is not necessary within our rules of play to "identify a disc". Never has been, never likely will be. Why? Because it is not necessary. Our eyes and deductive powers are enough to id a disc.

If later it is found not to be the players disc, then there are rules for that as well.

If you don't own a rule book, buy one, if not check out the link above "Rules", it is an interesting read.