MicahMoonWinters
Apr 09 2010, 01:54 AM
From what I understand, a player may re-tee (with a stroke penalty) if they so decide, regardless of the circumstance. Does that rule apply for a putt? If I am putting for three and the disc goes O.B., fifty feet away, can I re-putt for five?

Moon

davidsauls
Apr 09 2010, 08:24 AM
And even if it doesn't go O.B., if you declare it an unplayable lie.

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 10:41 AM
Yes. But there's one situation where a player can't just call a re-throw without looking where the disc lands and that's when the 2 meter rule is in play on that hole (unlikely on a missed putt however). If the disc ends up above 2 meters, then the player would get the 2m penalty and have to play it on the ground there. If they wanted to rethrow, they then get an unplayable penalty also.

JerryChesterson
Apr 09 2010, 12:41 PM
From what I understand, a player may re-tee (with a stroke penalty) if they so decide, regardless of the circumstance. Does that rule apply for a putt? If I am putting for three and the disc goes O.B., fifty feet away, can I re-putt for five?

Moon

Anytime you throw OB you have the option of either taking the disc where it was last in bounds or from the original lie, both with a 1 stroke penalty.

veganray
Apr 09 2010, 12:44 PM
Anytime you throw OB you have the option of either taking the disc where it was last in bounds or from the original lie, both with a 1 stroke penalty.
Unless, of course, there is a designated drop zone for the OB situation.

cgkdisc
Apr 09 2010, 12:56 PM
Unless, of course, there is a designated drop zone for the OB situation.
AND the TD restricts the next throw from OB shots to be played from that drop zone.

exczar
Apr 09 2010, 02:51 PM
AND the TD restricts the next throw from OB shots to be played from that drop zone.

I kinda think that's what he meant by "designated drop zone".

MicahMoonWinters
Apr 09 2010, 07:20 PM
If the disc rolls 60 feet away, can I re-putt with the stroke penalty?

DShelton
Apr 09 2010, 08:09 PM
If the disc rolls 60 feet away, can I re-putt with the stroke penalty?

By calling an unplayable lie, yes. But if you use that tactic too often, you will make a whole lot of enemies. If used too often it could also be seen as professional misconduct by cheating or willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play as per the Competition Manual 3.3 section B during a tournament.

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 02:04 AM
But if you use that tactic too often, you will make a whole lot of enemies. If used too often it could also be seen as professional misconduct by cheating or willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play as per the Competition Manual 3.3 section B during a tournament.
A player following the rules is not at risk of professional misconduct. It's simply smart use of the rules. If the player uses it too often, they have bigger problems with putting or being unlucky with rollaways.

johnbiscoe
Apr 10 2010, 03:06 PM
If the disc rolls 60 feet away, can I re-putt with the stroke penalty?

why would you want to? your previous shot (which rolled) still counts, you're taking a penalty stroke too. so if you had parked the hole to begin with and doinked the putt you'd be looking at a 4 at best by using unplayable lie rule whereas by not using it you'd still have a chance of tossing in the 60 footer for 3.

gippy
Apr 10 2010, 03:38 PM
I think the unplayable lie rule needs to be revised. Calling unplayable simply casue you don't like the lie just dosen't seem right. It should have to be a danger to the player. Or really unplayable. Just to be able to say that is unplayable dosen't sit well with me. Say a players is buried in some thick little pines, Player can throw up and over or threw but feels it may take 2-3 or more to get out, Is it fair for him to call unplayable and get a drop? I think not seems it could result in an unfair advatange even if they take that stroke penalty. JMO on this rule

cgkdisc
Apr 10 2010, 03:53 PM
Ball golf has survived with the same unplayable rule for a few hundred years. The rule is not broken. I'm amazed at how punitive some players seem to want to be. No shot is so bad that it should ever be penalized more than adding a one throw penalty plus losing distance like our lost disc penalty or some OB penalties. The unplayable lie option makes sure no shot is ever penalized worse than a one throw penalty and distance UNLESS the player wishes to try and hack out of a situation that could produce a potentially worse score.

DShelton
Apr 11 2010, 09:53 PM
Ball golf has survived with the same unplayable rule for a few hundred years. The rule is not broken. I'm amazed at how punitive some players seem to want to be. No shot is so bad that it should ever be penalized more than adding a one throw penalty plus losing distance like our lost disc penalty or some OB penalties. The unplayable lie option makes sure no shot is ever penalized worse than a one throw penalty and distance UNLESS the player wishes to try and hack out of a situation that could produce a potentially worse score.

Under USGA rules, it is assumed that you will only take an unplayable if you can not take a swing at the ball. In disc golf, it seems people assume the opposite and that you should take it right in the middle of the fairway if you want to.

As far as being punitive, the rules say whomever finishes the course in the fewest stokes wins. If you miss your putt and it goes far enough away to cost you 3 more strokes, then so be it. Why call an unplayable, and take only 2 strokes ? Seems just wrong to me. With your reasoning, we should just put in the rules the no hole will be scored more than +2 over the par for that hole. That should solve all the problems.

I think we need to assume like ball golf and take the stance that if you CAN'T make a throw from the position, THEN you should call an unplayable.

cgkdisc
Apr 11 2010, 10:56 PM
Players in ball golf may take an unplayable on the green in the same circumstances we have in disc golf. A ball golfer putts off the green down a hill into the rocks. They can take an unplayable penalty and replay from the green.

From Rule 28 USGA: The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course (http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#Course), except when the ball is in a water hazard (http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14253#WaterHazard). The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable.

Most of the time, there aren't galleries watching player's shots in golf. They don't take unplayables very often since many times, they won't even find their ball and use the lost disc penalty (which is the same penalty as unplayable) and reshoot.

What is the worst shot a player can make off the tee in disc golf? That would be throwing OB off the property. That shot is "so bad" it's not even on the course. If the TD requires the player to rethrow from the previous lie for this OB (like they would in ball golf), then it will cost the player one throw plus the distance thrown. Let's call it the equivalent of two shots. There is no other throw a player can make (other than mailiciously throwing a drive at another person) that should be penalized more than an OB off the property. That's one of the reasons the unplayable lie penalty has been in ball golf all these years. Those who made the disc golf rules either felt the same way or decided that the ball golf rule made sense and adopted it.

DShelton
Apr 12 2010, 07:37 PM
Players in ball golf may take an unplayable on the green in the same circumstances we have in disc golf. A ball golfer putts off the green down a hill into the rocks. They can take an unplayable penalty and replay from the green.

True, but in almost every discussion I've seen about the BALL golf's rule, they say if you can't make the swing then you call an unplayable. In many discussions about the rule in DISC golf, we constantly hear people say you can use the rule any time, just to save a stroke or three, which is the opposite of ball golf's thoughts.

What I'm trying to say is that we should get away from the idea that the rule is there to save strokes and instead should be used for what the name implies, a lie that is next to impossible to throw from.

cgkdisc
Apr 12 2010, 07:58 PM
Disc golfers do everything possible to try and play shots they shouldn't just to avoid penalties or argue their way out of close calls on OB lines. Taking any penalty is painful for disc golfers let alone one where it's the equivalent of two shots like an unplayable or lost disc.

Players shouldn't be expected to get bloody with ripped clothes because they can't take an unplayable. Who is to judge whether a player can play a shot? We are all different sizes, shapes, ages and abilities.

Ernie Els almost took an unplayable just off the green at the Masters yesterday until the crowd told him his ball hadn't rolled off the green into the hazard. If the unplayable option is taken away from players then rethrowing from the original lie on the OB penalty needs to be removed also since that is the same thing. That's what Ernie was doing since he thought he rolled in the hazard.

JerryChesterson
Apr 13 2010, 10:16 AM
If the disc rolls 60 feet away, can I re-putt with the stroke penalty?

Only if it goes OB. If it is in play and playable you'd have to take it from 60 feet.

md21954
Apr 13 2010, 10:23 AM
the end all argument to this discussion is that the ONLY fair way to decide if a lie is playable is to leave the decision to the sole discretion of the player. opening the playability of a lie to debate is a whole new can of worms.

i see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a stroke penalty to replay a shot in any circumstance. some folks seem to be forgetting about the stroke penalty to rethrow. claiming that using this rule is abuse is laughable.

cgkdisc
Apr 13 2010, 10:41 AM
Only if it goes OB. If it is in play and playable you'd have to take it from 60 feet.
No. He can take the unplayable penalty and rethrow if it's not OB. But that lie 60 feet away had better be really nasty to waste a one throw penalty and want to rethrow. Now if it rolled 100 feet away into a steep bushy ravine like some spots at Delaveaga, it could be worthwhile.

pterodactyl
Apr 13 2010, 10:57 AM
No. He can take the unplayable penalty and rethrow if it's not OB. But that lie 60 feet away had better be really nasty to waste a one throw penalty and want to rethrow. Now if it rolled 100 feet away into a steep bushy ravine like some spots at Delaveaga, it could be worthwhile.

Been there, done that. I'd say it saved me a stroke even with the penalty.

JerryChesterson
Apr 13 2010, 10:59 AM
No. He can take the unplayable penalty and rethrow if it's not OB. But that lie 60 feet away had better be really nasty to waste a one throw penalty and want to rethrow. Now if it rolled 100 feet away into a steep bushy ravine like some spots at Delaveaga, it could be worthwhile.

Not if I'm the TD. Just as the player is the "sole judge" asd to weather the lie is unplayable, the TD is the sole judge of weather or not a player is "willfully attempting to circumvent the rules of play." If a player is sitting in the fairway, clearly on a playable lie, and calls it an unplayable, as TD I'd deem that a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play. Using the unplayable lie on a clearly playable lie, in my opinion, is a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

cgkdisc
Apr 13 2010, 11:08 AM
Sorry "Jerry" but restricting that player's option under the unplayable rule would be subject to TD sanctions if reported to the PDGA by the player. The unplayable rule is clearly written as the player's option just like it is to use a mini marker or leave their disc on the ground as their marker. If the player gets the advantage by being a little farther back from a tree by using their disc instead of a mini marker, is that willful attempt to circumvent the rule? The player is willingly taking a one throw penalty to rethrow if they use the unplayable.

august
Apr 13 2010, 11:44 AM
Not if I'm the TD. Just as the player is the "sole judge" asd to weather the lie is unplayable, the TD is the sole judge of weather or not a player is "willfully attempting to circumvent the rules of play." If a player is sitting in the fairway, clearly on a playable lie, and calls it an unplayable, as TD I'd deem that a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play. Using the unplayable lie on a clearly playable lie, in my opinion, is a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

With all due respect Jerry, you would be 100% wrong. If the player is the sole judge on playability, and applies the rule correctly, then no willful circumvention has been attempted.

Clearly this statement is evidence supporting a rule book that is clear and concise in its meaning. The rules need to be uniformly applied throughout the sport. You can't have special conditions for unplayable lie when you play a sanctioned tourney in Texas that are different than the rest of the country.

And anyone can judge the weather. That's not an exclusive TD or player activity.

JerryChesterson
Apr 13 2010, 12:04 PM
With all due respect Jerry, you would be 100% wrong. If the player is the sole judge on playability, and applies the rule correctly, then no willful circumvention has been attempted.

Clearly this statement is evidence supporting a rule book that is clear and concise in its meaning. The rules need to be uniformly applied throughout the sport. You can't have special conditions for unplayable lie when you play a sanctioned tourney in Texas that are different than the rest of the country.

And anyone can judge the weather. That's not an exclusive TD or player activity.

I guess you are right but doesn't the spirit of the spirit of the rule account for anything? I doubt the rule was written with this scenerio in mind.

tkieffer
Apr 13 2010, 12:07 PM
Not if I'm the TD. Just as the player is the "sole judge" asd to weather the lie is unplayable, the TD is the sole judge of weather or not a player is "willfully attempting to circumvent the rules of play." If a player is sitting in the fairway, clearly on a playable lie, and calls it an unplayable, as TD I'd deem that a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play. Using the unplayable lie on a clearly playable lie, in my opinion, is a willfull attempt to circumvent the rules of play.

As replied to above plus this really isn't an issue. If a person's putt rolls 75 feet away in the middle of the fairway, everyone will try and save the throw by attempting the new lie as opposed to taking the penalty. Almost no one will take the option of throwing from the previous lie the 25 foot par they just missed (putting for 5) vs. trying to save the 4 from 75 feet. The penalty itself deters the rule abuse you perceive.

august
Apr 13 2010, 12:14 PM
I guess you are right but doesn't the spirit of the spirit of the rule account for anything? I doubt the rule was written with this scenerio in mind.

I agree, but I think it is simply the price paid for having a rule that is fair to all in all situations. Changing it would likely result in less all-around fairness than if you made "unplayable lie" a group decision or TD decision.

cgkdisc
Apr 13 2010, 12:14 PM
You're getting hung up on the word "unplayable" when the reality is, even for ball golf, that it's an option where the player does not wish to play a shot and is willing to be penalized for that choice. Note: "willing to be penalized." It's not a free choice. The number of times a player would seemingly abuse the rule is small compared to the number of times it would be used when a lie was really unsafe, steep, thorny, nasty and essentially "unplayable."

We don't have the relatively nicely groomed rough areas like most ball golf courses and we're going to have more courses where the rough is really rough and slopes are really steep. I suspect in the early years of ball golf when their unplayable rule developed, they didn't have courses groomed anywhere near the level they have them now even on public courses so the unplayable was likely used more than it is today.

pterodactyl
Apr 13 2010, 01:39 PM
The only reason I could imagine that a player would take an unplayable lie in the fairway is if there is a prize for finishing last (DFL).

ishkatbible
Apr 13 2010, 02:48 PM
maybe it's time to change the "unplayable lie" situation to more of a "hazardous, or safety concerned lie"

cgkdisc
Apr 13 2010, 03:24 PM
Doesn't matter what you call it. Either the player gets to make the call or the group gets to make the call. The group making the call would be inconsistent and unfair for these types of situations. So the player gets the call to penalize themself and rethrow. It was called Unsafe Lie in an earlier rulebook but then there are more reasons than just safety why a lie can't be played.

DShelton
Apr 13 2010, 08:48 PM
Players shouldn't be expected to get bloody with ripped clothes because they can't take an unplayable. Who is to judge whether a player can play a shot? We are all different sizes, shapes, ages and abilities.

This is exactly what the rule is for. I just think it would be best for us to discuss the rule by instructing people that this is the time to use it, not to save a stroke or two because of a badly missed putt or a tee shot that hits a tree 10 feet in front of the tee pad.

cgkdisc
Apr 13 2010, 09:07 PM
'Tis not for you to judge. Just like you don't tell players what disc to throw.

exczar
Apr 14 2010, 12:17 PM
'Tis not for you to judge. Just like you don't tell players what disc to throw.

Correct, just like telling Certified Officials whether they are authorized or not. :rolleyes:

UncleBob
Apr 15 2010, 12:50 PM
I think that if you declare an unplayable lie and the fact is clearly not unplayable then you are circumventing the rules and should be dealt with accordingly

august
Apr 15 2010, 01:40 PM
I think that if you declare an unplayable lie and the fact is clearly not unplayable then you are circumventing the rules and should be dealt with accordingly

A fact cannot be declared playable or unplayable. Only a lie. And if you apply the rules as directed in the book, no circumvention has taken place.

And whom do you propose to be the declarant of whether a lie is playable or unplayable? It's subjective and can be playable to one person and unplayable to another for various reasons. How would you work all that out in a fair and unbiased manner?

davei
Apr 15 2010, 02:02 PM
unplayable, ob, and lost disc, receive the same penalty if the subsequent shot is played from the lie from which the shot was thrown. All are penalized; essentially two strokes.

This way, you don't have to know the disposition of your throw in case of throwing it off a cliff or down a mountain. You don't have to know whether it is ob, lost, or up a tree. You just eat two strokes and throw again.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 02:08 PM
Except when the 2 meter rule is in effect on the hole. Then, you need to check to make sure the disc is not up a tree if it can be found at all. If it is above 2m and inbounds, then you already have a penalty there plus another one if you go back to replay from the original lie.

davei
Apr 15 2010, 02:23 PM
Except when the 2 meter rule is in effect on the hole. Then, you need to check to make sure the disc is not up a tree if it can be found at all. If it is above 2m and inbounds, then you already have a penalty there plus another one if you go back to replay from the original lie.

I disagree Chuck. A player may declare any lie to be unplayable and throw from the previous lie with two strokes. It doesn't say except for when it is in a tree.

ishkatbible
Apr 15 2010, 02:26 PM
Except when the 2 meter rule is in effect on the hole. Then, you need to check to make sure the disc is not up a tree if it can be found at all. If it is above 2m and inbounds, then you already have a penalty there plus another one if you go back to replay from the original lie.

so throw in a tree AND declare it unplayable... 2 meters is a penalty PLUS penalty for unplayable lie? two penalty strokes (one for each)?

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 02:40 PM
I disagree Chuck. A player may declare any lie to be unplayable and throw from the previous lie with two strokes. It doesn't say except for when it is in a tree.
There's the problem. You don't have a lie if you throw in a tree until you find it and mark it and get a 1-throw penalty. Then you can declare that lie below the tree unplayable to get another 1-throw penalty. Of course, if it's lost then even if it was hidden in a tree above 2 meters, you wouldn't get the 2m penalty. It's unclear whether a player can declare their disc lost without looking, especially if the group demands to take 3 minutes to look for you.

I'm certain about the 2 meter penalty having to be applied before a player can take an unplayable since this was discussed among the marshals and RC back around 2007 when possible rulings for ski hill courses were being discussed where the 2 meter rule was originally planned to be in effect. They decided not to use the 2m penalty so players would be able to declare shots as either lost or unplayable (little difference) from the tee so they wouldn't have to trudge back up the hill after looking.

davei
Apr 15 2010, 02:42 PM
Maybe the rule should have been written clearer or called something else like two stroke do over. However, it should make no difference where the disc went or what happened to the disc, you can still go back to the previous lie, eat two strokes, and throw again.

This includes OB, (up a tree or not), missed mandatory, roll aways that don't go ob, fly aways, shots that go behind you, or whatever. All the same.

If you choose to play the lie, then you get the penalty for the lie. If you don't choose the lie, you get the stroke for the throw, and a penalty for not choosing the throw.

veganray
Apr 15 2010, 02:42 PM
I disagree Chuck. A player may declare any lie to be unplayable and throw from the previous lie with two strokes. It doesn't say except for when it is in a tree.
In my opinion, if a disc is not on the playing surface, there is no "lie". Once the disc returns to the playing surface, the lie is established. If the disc was <2m up, or if 2m rule is not in effect, the lie is created without penalty & the player can decide what to do (throw or take unplayable stroke & distance) from there. However, if 2m is in effect & disc comes to rest >=2m up, there is no lie until the disc is returned to the playing surface, which in this case comes with a stroke penalty. After taking that penalty to return the disc to the playing surface, thus establishing a lie, the player can decide what to do (throw or take unplayable stroke & distance) from there.

EDIT: too slow

krupicka
Apr 15 2010, 02:45 PM
IMO The 2m rule should simply be rewritten as a mandatory unplayable lie. It simplifies things greatly.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 02:47 PM
I agree. That way, players could get up to 5m relief back from directly below their disc and not get the double penalty by having no throw from under a tree with branches to the ground. Although I would only ever use the 2m penalty very selectively anyway.

davei
Apr 15 2010, 03:07 PM
I disagree with all three of you. First, if a lie was required, what would you do for a lost disc, a disc in the water, ob, or a missed mando.

All are relocated. No difference. You don't play any of those where the disc actually ends up.

Why not play all the same?

How is an OB stroke different from a 2M stroke?

All illogical.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 03:17 PM
Just passing along the interpretation of the rules as I have been told. One of the options for your lie after an OB penalty is to play from the original lie as written in the rules which matches the unplaybale option. This rethrow isn't an option for the lie resulting from a 2m penalty other than what Krupicka suggested it should be. If the OB rule REQUIRED you to take your lie at the last point IB and you weren't allowed to rethrow from the original lie, you would have the same problem as you have with the 2m rule now. You would first have to establish a lie that would then be further penalized if you wished to take an unplayable and return to rethrow. Likewise, if we had the older lost disc rule where you had to play from the last point seen inbounds, you would first have to establish that lie and then decide to take another penalty for unplayable to return to the tee.

davei
Apr 15 2010, 04:17 PM
Just passing along the interpretation of the rules as I have been told. One of the options for your lie after an OB penalty is to play from the original lie as written in the rules which matches the unplaybale option. This rethrow isn't an option for the lie resulting from a 2m penalty other than what Krupicka suggested it should be. If the OB rule REQUIRED you to take your lie at the last point IB and you weren't allowed to rethrow from the original lie, you would have the same problem as you have with the 2m rule now. You would first have to establish a lie that would then be further penalized if you wished to take an unplayable and return to rethrow. Likewise, if we had the older lost disc rule where you had to play from the last point seen inbounds, you would first have to establish that lie and then decide to take another penalty for unplayable to return to the tee.

I don't understand your insistence for establishing a new lie first. That is what screws things up. You should not have to leave your original lie, that is one of the things that make it good. You don't have to walk down a mountain to find your lost disc, or find if it's in a tree or water or whatever. you just throw again. Real easy, no complications, or spurious interpretations. Once you establish a new lie, it complicates things.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 04:43 PM
I agree that it would make sense to have the "worst case" throw and distance reshoot option for all of our penalty scenarios like they do in ball golf. But that's not where we're at at this point from what I understand. Looking at our definitions, a "lie" is a place on the playing surface where a player takes their stance. There is no lie yet: (1) for a disc above the ground whether 2m or not, (2) a disc in an OB area, nor (3) a lost disc. However, in the case of (2) and (3) the rules for both scenarios allow the penalty option with a rethrow so the fact there is no lie doesn't matter since those options allow the new lie to be established at the same place it would be if an unplayable were called. But until we have a rethrow plus penalty as an option for a 2m infraction, the lie has to be established first before the player may take an unplayable. The Unplayable Lie rule has the word "lie" in it after all and is defined as "a lie where the player decides it's impractical or unsafe to play from there."

veganray
Apr 15 2010, 05:06 PM
It is important to establish a lie before doing anything else.

Imagine a hole 340 feet long dead straight with OB water running from the 300-foot to 320-foot zone. TD mandates that OB drives are to be played from a drop zone 20 feet in front of the tee. Player throws 301 feet into H2O, OB, not lost. Using your logic, Dave, he could then declare an unplayable lie & move back up to 5m on the LOP to play (instead of to the drop zone), effectively circumventing the TD's design for the hole.

The way to correctly look at it is that as soon as the player's disc comes to rest in the OB zone, a new lie is magically created at the drop zone (per the TD's instruction) with the cost of one additional stroke. If the player then doesn't like the lie (on the drop zone), he can then declare an unplayable & take any of the enumerated options for relief & penalty, including rethrowing from the previous lie with another one stroke penalty.

Same with 2m, if the rule is in effect. When a player's disc comes to rest >= 2m above the playing surface, a new a new lie is magically created directly under the suspended disc with the cost of one additional stroke. If the player then doesn't like the lie, he can then declare an unplayable & take any of the enumerated options for relief & penalty, including rethrowing from the previous lie with another one stroke penalty.

Another of the myriad scenarios illustrating how the 2m rule is overly punitive as written. It should either be completely abolished or rewritten to provide for some measure of free relief from the resultant "magically created" lie.

Hoser
Apr 15 2010, 07:30 PM
Here’s a kink in this thread, that will bend your mind:

I assert that this is true: The sole purpose of sport penalties is to guide you to develop skill to avoid doing certain acts.

For example, disc golf’s OB penalty guides you to develop skill not to land OB. The bad-stance penalties guide you to develop skill not to throw from anywhere but a correct stance at your lie.

If “develop skill to avoid doing something” is a penalty’s sole purpose . . .

. . . then it is senseless – it’s even vicious – to penalize an act that you can’t possibly develop skill to avoid doing.

How does this affect disc golf?

There is no skill you can develop to avoid landing your disc above ground.

(Please don’t say, “Well, don’t throw more than 2M high” or “Don’t throw near trees.” That kind of disc golf wouldn’t be worth playing.)

Therefore it makes no sense – ever – to penalize landing a disc above ground. That penalty accomplishes nothing except to demoralize you.

I’ve been playing disc golf nearly 40 years. I’ve heard countless arguments for and against the 2M penalty. Every argument has missed this essential point: the 2M penalty ALWAYS FAILS to accomplish its one goal: to guide you to develop skill not to land your disc above ground.

The 2M penalty – one of disc golf’s oldest – was a bad idea the very first time it was used. It has been bad every time since. And it will be bad every future time any TD uses it. That penalty should never have been part of this sport.

At the 1991 Worlds on Saturday afternoon, I watched 1987 champ John Ahart, three strokes out of the Open lead, throw a roller that hit a tree trunk. The disc rolled up the bark and stuck in vines one inch above 2M. An official measured it three times, shaking his head. The absurd penalty bummed John so bad, he went in the tank and fell out of contention. What a waste.

ishkatbible
Apr 15 2010, 08:08 PM
as for the 2m rule being a bad rule altogether...

i've seen players, in tournaments where the 2m rule is not in effect, aim for the trees directly above the basket thinking the disc will hit, stop, then fall almost straight down. worst case scenario, disc gets stuck and they get to mark the disc next to the basket anyways.

i'm for the 2m rule, mostly for this situation. i'd rather see a player SKILLFULLY throw out wide and skip to the basket into their comfort putting zone, as opposed to someone SKILLFULLY parking their disc in a tree, hoping it won't skip or roll away.

DShelton
Apr 15 2010, 08:37 PM
Oh my. All I wanted was a good debate on the unplayable lie rule and when to take it.

(BTW I do agree with you Chuck. I just feel it is good explore and hopefully better understand all sides of an issue)

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 09:58 PM
The tree(s) by the basket is a design problem that shouldn't rely on the 2m rule to fix it. Actually, the way I've done it on occasion is state that any disc suspended above the ground at any height in one or two trees identified near the basket is required to take casual relief, with no penalty, to a marked drop zone about 30 feet from the basket. That way the player doesn't get a 2m penalty but also doesn't get the easy drop-in, but might still save a shot by making the putt.

Hoser
Apr 15 2010, 10:14 PM
Chuck, that's a good, creative solution to players deliberately throwing into trees that are near baskets. It's better than penalizing a stroke.

Unfortunately it still doesn't distinguish between the motives of players who hung up above ground near the pin v. players who fired into the same tree and fell to the ground for an easy putt. I don't know how to handle that, except to look for ways to design pin placements where deliberate tree shots aren't likely to hang up near the basket.

Also, when you remove a player to the 30' drop zone for hanging above ground near the basket, would you distinguish between a disc that hangs up above 2M, v. a disc that hangs up below 2M? There are many worms in this can. But keep thinking, please.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2010, 10:25 PM
The trees had been trimmed so they only had limbs above 2m in the (firs)t place (hemlocks). If the disc penetrated the bark and stuck in the trunk, he would deserve the penalty to putt from 30' anyway.

august
Apr 16 2010, 08:35 AM
I would only ever use the 2m penalty very selectively anyway.

I like using it never. Players are quite challenged with applying the rules correctly as it is, and this one just mucks it up more. Look at how many golfers still refer to it as an OB penalty! I have always felt that the 2M rule was an arbitrary penalty and was glad to see it relegated to an option.

cgkdisc
Apr 16 2010, 09:25 AM
When I say "very selectively" it currently means one hole so far out of more than 1500 designed... :)

august
Apr 16 2010, 10:24 AM
When I say "very selectively" it currently means one hole so far out of more than 1500 designed... :)

I see, but there are a lot of holes in that statement! :)

discette
Apr 16 2010, 10:36 AM
There's the problem. You don't have a lie if you throw in a tree until you find it and mark it and get a 1-throw penalty. Then you can declare that lie below the tree unplayable to get another 1-throw penalty.

I'm certain about the 2 meter penalty having to be applied before a player can take an unplayable since this was discussed among the marshals and RC back around 2007

Common example why this interpretation is silly. Let's say you are playing the Master's Cup NT event at Delaviega (where 2 meter rule is in effect). Now imagine your disc goes "over the edge". For those that have never played Delaviega, there are at least 9 holes where throws can and DO go over the edge. These are extremely steep drop offs into extremely deep canyons. This is possible on 10 foot putts as well as drives. It could easily take a half hour of hiking just to get DOWN to the disc (if you could even find the disc). It could actually be impossible to even reach your disc. Plus, apparently you need to take another player with you in order to witness whether your disc is suspended above 2 meters.


Why should we force a player (and a witness) to put themselves in harm's way to determine the status of the disc? Why would we then give the player a double penalty if they just so happen to be in a tree? As long as the player is taking the option of throwing from the previous lie, the two meter status of the disc should not matter. The player is already being penalized for stroke and distance. Why would we want to potentially add ANOTHER penalty stroke because the disc landed up in a tree after traveling 200 feet vertically down a steep canyon? Not to mention we are potential putting the player (and a witness) in harm's way just to determine the status of the disc.


Perhaps the Unplayable lie rule should be re-written to remove the option of playing up to five meters back on line of play. This makes the only relief for unplayable lie throwing from the previous lie. In addition, the option of replaying from the previous lie could be added to the 2 meter rule. Then if your disc is lost, OB, up 2 meters or unplayable you could throw from your previous lie without having to determine the status of the originally thrown disc. These two relatively minor changes could save time and simplify rules interpretation.

cgkdisc
Apr 16 2010, 10:57 AM
Might be better to just adopt what ball golf has had successfully for all these years where you essentially have the same options for your new lie after several types of penalties. Then you don't have speed of play problems since in many cases, 5m relief on LOP is sufficient for the player to continue from an unplayable lie. Same with Lost disc. If 2m penalty changed to allowing either 5m relief on LOP or rethrow, then the Unplayable wouldn't need to be changed and the canyon problem at Dela and other ski hill type courses could be handled cleanly.

So we would have these options for lies in these situations and the TD would be able to restrict the options where desired as they can now:
OB - Last point IB, Drop Zone or rethrow
Lost - Last point seen (?), Drop Zone or rethrow
2m - within 5m on LOP or rethrow
Mando - Drop Zone or rethrow
Unplayable - within 5m on LOP or rethrow

Regardless of the situation then, the player could call an unplayable and not have to look for the disc.

To complete the parallels, here would be the casual relief and buncr options with no penalty:

Casual relief/buncr - within 5m on LOP, extended relief on LOP (TD), drop zone or rethrow

krupicka
Apr 16 2010, 11:26 AM
Might be better to just adopt what ball golf has had successfully for all these years where you essentially have the same options for your new lie after several types of penalties. Then you don't have speed of play problems since in many cases, 5m relief on LOP is sufficient for the player to continue from an unplayable lie. Same with Lost disc. If 2m penalty changed to allowing either 5m relief on LOP or rethrow, then the Unplayable wouldn't need to be changed and the canyon problem at Dela and other ski hill type courses could be handled cleanly.

So we would have these options for lies in these situations and the TD would be able to restrict the options where desired as they can now:
OB - Last point IB, Drop Zone or rethrow
Lost - Last point seen (?), Drop Zone or rethrow
2m - within 5m on LOP or rethrow
Mando - Drop Zone or rethrow
Unplayable - within 5m on LOP or rethrow

Regardless of the situation then, the player could call an unplayable and not have to look for the disc.

To complete the parallels, here would be the casual relief and buncr options with no penalty:

Casual relief/buncr - within 5m on LOP, extended relief on LOP (TD), drop zone or rethrow

That would make a lot of sense. The only thing left would be to list them in precedence order for cases where the options are limitted:
Mando - Drop Zone or rethrow
OB - Last point IB, Drop Zone or rethrow
Casual relief/buncr - within 5m on LOP, extended relief on LOP (TD), drop zone or rethrow
2m - within 5m on LOP or rethrow
Unplayable - within 5m on LOP or rethrow
Lost - Last point seen (?), Drop Zone or rethrow

ishkatbible
Apr 16 2010, 12:31 PM
Casual relief/buncr - within 5m on LOP, extended relief on LOP (TD), drop zone or rethrow


the casual relief within 5m of the LOP is still a stroke right?

krupicka
Apr 16 2010, 12:38 PM
the casual relief within 5m of the LOP is still a stroke right?

There is no score penalty for casual relief. All others in the list above have one added to the score.

dcmarcus
Apr 19 2010, 12:53 PM
I thought Hosfeld was the '87 world champ? Can't believe nobody else picked up on that...

JerryChesterson
Apr 19 2010, 04:59 PM
the casual relief within 5m of the LOP is still a stroke right?
NOPE.

C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players’ equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. Obstacles may not be moved if any part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Casual obstacles between the lie and the hole: A player may move obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.05 B.
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must fi rst attempt to 803.03–803.04 Page 12 803.04–803.05 Page 13 remove the obstacle unless a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and
the hole. If it is impractical to move the obstacle, or if a portion of the obstacle is also between the lie and the hole, the player’s lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole, is on the line of play, and is not more than fi ve meters from the original lie, as agreed
to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unplayable lie and proceed in accordance with 803.06.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run-up: The player may move the obstacle provided no part of the obstacle is between the lie and the hole. No other relief is provided.

FunkyBobbyJ
Apr 21 2010, 01:59 PM
What if the tree is down and you are in the branches attached to the tree? It would seem that the rules would mean a live tree. What if the tree is 2" diameter (branch-like) that has fallen over? Can I take casual relief from these?

DoubleD
Apr 22 2010, 09:12 PM
Interested in this rule.

C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players’ equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

Seems rather subjective.

reallybadputter
May 10 2010, 10:47 PM
Do I have to really "first attempt to remove the obstacle" if it is "harmful insects or animals?"

Sure I can try and shoo the copperhead away from my lie or toss a chicken to the alligator next to my shot... but the a fire ant hill? I guess my attempt could consist of yelling "GO AWAY DURN ANTS!!!" would that be acceptable?

dtmoore1971
May 12 2010, 09:05 AM
Common example why this interpretation is silly. Let's say you are playing the Master's Cup NT event at Delaviega (where 2 meter rule is in effect). Now imagine your disc goes "over the edge". For those that have never played Delaviega, there are at least 9 holes where throws can and DO go over the edge. These are extremely steep drop offs into extremely deep canyons. This is possible on 10 foot putts as well as drives. It could easily take a half hour of hiking just to get DOWN to the disc (if you could even find the disc). It could actually be impossible to even reach your disc. Plus, apparently you need to take another player with you in order to witness whether your disc is suspended above 2 meters.


Why should we force a player (and a witness) to put themselves in harm's way to determine the status of the disc? Why would we then give the player a double penalty if they just so happen to be in a tree? As long as the player is taking the option of throwing from the previous lie, the two meter status of the disc should not matter. The player is already being penalized for stroke and distance. Why would we want to potentially add ANOTHER penalty stroke because the disc landed up in a tree after traveling 200 feet vertically down a steep canyon? Not to mention we are potential putting the player (and a witness) in harm's way just to determine the status of the disc.


Perhaps the Unplayable lie rule should be re-written to remove the option of playing up to five meters back on line of play. This makes the only relief for unplayable lie throwing from the previous lie. In addition, the option of replaying from the previous lie could be added to the 2 meter rule. Then if your disc is lost, OB, up 2 meters or unplayable you could throw from your previous lie without having to determine the status of the originally thrown disc. These two relatively minor changes could save time and simplify rules interpretation.

Hmmm ... haven't played DeLa yet, but aren't all those canyon thingies OB? Once you are OB, it doesn't matter if your shot is in water or a tree, there is no further penalty ... you just play the shot as OB ans be done with it, right? With the 2m rule this is especially clear, since you cannot establish a new "lie" in an OB area.

Interesting thread!

dtmoore1971
May 12 2010, 09:11 AM
Interested in this rule.

C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players’ equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round.

Seems rather subjective.

Well, the rest of the rule makes it clear that the casual obstacle must impede the player's stance or throwing motion in order for the casual relief option to apply. Seems like one of those cases where it was a good decision to write the rule as generally as possible and rely on common sense and judgment of players and TD's, rather than trying to cover every imaginable situation.