803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE
A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle.

Question...

How can the disc be above the playing surface, and out-of-bounds? It�s got to be one, or the other, right?

If I knew how to rephrase the rule, I would. Refer me to another thread that answers this. I am sure you have been over this before, but I am confused about it. I tried asking it in the disc hit by a car thread, but was not clear in what I was getting at.

(I really do understand what it means, but I don't think that is what it says).

Since "playing surface" is not defined anywhere, I would infer from this rule that the playing includes all inbounds and out-of-bounds areas of the course.

While it is true that you cannot play from OB according to the rules, this rule says that OB areas are in fact part of the playing surface. Case closed.

Rhett, I'm a little surprised at your answer.

B.If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.07 A.

You are going to have spell out what you think the problem is. Again, the disc is marked below on the playing surface. The penalty is assessed only if that part of the playing surface where the disc was marked is inbounds. ie, if the disc is maked on the playing surface below and that playing surface is OB, you do not get the "above 2 meter" penalty but instead get the OB penalty.

You�re right, Rhett. I guess I read your response a little too quickly. I thought you were implying that the both penalties would apply.

A disc can land out of bounds and be above the playing surface, but a disc above 2 meters and out of bounds can only be penalized for being out of bounds.

I should have known better, oh wise one. :)

I guess what I am saying is, if you cannot play from ob, than ob is not a playing surface. logistically, this rule does not make sense. I know that I am supposed to come up with a better way to say it, but I am not very good at that. This just keeps coming up, and every time I read it I can't get past it. Ob cannot be a playing surface.

Try looking at it this way:

OB has nothing to do with playing surface; If you are ob you are simply ob, it doesn't matter how high off the ground you are.

Or:

Playing surface does not have anything to do with ib or ob it is just the surface upon which one plays; if it is ob then it is ob, if it is ib then it is ib.

Make sense?

quote]Try looking at it this way:

OB has nothing to do with playing surface; If you are ob you are simply ob, it doesn't matter how high off the ground you are.

Or:

Playing surface does not have anything to do with ib or ob it is just the surface upon which one plays; if it is ob then it is ob, if it is ib then it is ib.

Make sense?

[/QUOTE]

I understand the content of the statement, I just feel that this particular part of the sentence, ("...If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area..."), is a contradiction, because a disc that is above ob cannot by definition be above a playing surface.

because a disc that is above ob cannot by definition be above a playing surface.


by what definition ?
There is no definition of playing surface.

I understand the content of the statement, I just feel that this particular part of the sentence, ("...If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area..."), is a contradiction, because a disc that is above ob cannot by definition be above a playing surface.



You are the only one saying that "playing surface" by definition must be ib. Our rules make no such definition. So the question is:

Do you want our rules to be changed so that "playing surface" MUST be considered "In Bounds"?

And my answer (and apparently our PDGA RCs) is: NO!

There is no need. As far as I know you are the only person to be confused by it. Our rules are rarely changed to appease one confused person.

Can you play from ob? (no). How can it be a playing surface?

dm4 I think we all get your point. Let's try not to beat it in any further. What change would you suggest that would resolve this apparent ambiguity? I think you take the term "playing surface" too literally rather than assume they meant the ground or some other surface closely related to the ground. I mean really do you argue about this when you're playing and your disc gets stuck in a tree somewhere OB? C'mon people we're arguing semantics here!

Question...

How can the disc be above the playing surface, and out-of-bounds? It�s got to be one, or the other, right?





Sorry but your wrong, it can be both. if a disc gets stuck in a bush anywhere from 1 inch to 6 feet up it is still IB, (above playing surface) but if that bush has been roped off by string to be OB then the disc is ABOVE PLAYING SURFACE AND OB.

I think that the point of this rule is to determine where the spot to throw from next will be. Which is behind object, on line with pole, move mark in bounds, or last spot seen in bounds.

Sound good, just my opinion.

Question...

How can the disc be above the playing surface, and out-of-bounds? It�s got to be one, or the other, right?





Sorry but your wrong, it can be both. if a disc gets stuck in a bush anywhere from 1 inch to 6 feet up it is still IB, (above playing surface) but if that bush has been roped off by string to be OB then the disc is ABOVE PLAYING SURFACE AND OB.

I think that the point of this rule is to determine where the spot to throw from next will be. Which is behind object, on line with pole, move mark in bounds, or last spot seen in bounds.

Sound good, just my opinion.



I am talking about a disc that is below two meters and in an out of bounds area. This disc cannot be above the playing surface. If it was it would be in bounds (that�s what a playing surface is, a surface you can play from). If the disc lands in a bush that has been roped off by string, if it is outside the roped off area, than it is not ob. If it is inside the area, it is ob, but it is not above the playing surface, is it? If it is inside the string, ob, how can that be a playing surface?

You're funny.

Can you find in the rules where "playing surface" is defined as being exclusively "In Bounds"?

I'll answer that for you since you seemingly refuse to read our rules: "Playing surface appears 16 times and not once is it defined as "In Bounds" so the answer is NO!

For your apparent fixation on the word "playing"; Can you answer the following:

Can it logically be said that even if your lie is out-of-bounds that you are still "playing" disc golf? Or do you stop "playing" once your disc is ob?

If you remain confused about this there is a link in the "Contact" link here at PDGA.com where you can send a question directly to the PDGA Rules Committee. Give them a shot, maybe they will be able to see what you are trying to get at.

You're funny.

Can you find in the rules where "playing surface" is defined as being exclusively "In Bounds"?





Out-of-bounds: An area designated by the director prior to the start of play from which a disc may not be played. The out-of-bounds line extends a plane vertically upward and downward. The out-of-bounds line is itself in-bounds.



Well, here it is. �..may not be played� is clear to me. So far Jake L has helped me understand a little better and therefore my original question is slightly different, but I still have not seen an answer to it.

How can the disc be above the playing surface (below two meters), and also be in an out-of-bounds area? If it is suspended in an out of bounds area, it is not above the playing surface, is it?

My �fixation� lies in the fact that my question has not been answered. If you do not wish to answer, or you don�t know, than you may choose to not post, but don�t try to insult me.

Does "may not be played" equal not "playing" disc golf?

The rule you sight is not related to "playing surface", it is related to you may not "play" a shot from Out of Bounds. Two completely separate things.

Don't we play our disc golf shots from the playing surface? If the answer is yes, than an area where a shot cannot be played must therefore not be a playing surface.

The fact that a disc can not be played within a certain area does not exclude that area from the playing surface. There is no definition of playing surface that declares all playing surfaces are legal to be played from. Hosever, there are several rules that explicitly describe areas of the playing surface to be unplayable.

How can the disc be above the playing surface (below two meters), and also be in an out-of-bounds area?




Because out-of-bounds is not a vertical measurement. Anything within an out out-of-bounds area whether on the surface or 100 feet up in the air IS out-of-bounds. And playing surface has NOTHING to do with in bounds or out (see previous posts).

The only reason "playing surface" is used at all in this rule is to define clearly that the disc must be completely within the out-of-bounds area and to verify that you must come straight down beneath the disc on the surface where (hopefully) the OB is marked and you can determine if it is in or out. You don't even have to consider the 2 meters part of it until it has been determined to be in.

So to answer your question directly: By coming to rest above the playing surface and within an out of bounds area.

It is that simple.


If it is suspended in an out of bounds area, it is not above the playing surface, is it?



Yes it is. "Playing surface" does not have any designation of in or out of bounds, both are part of the course, both are part of the play, you simply may not throw when in contact with the out-of-bounds area.

Again, OB IS part of the playing surface, you simply may not throw from within it. If it helps, try thinking of it as the OB Playing Surface.

As you can tell by now I have little aversion to playing word games; I didn't mean to insult you, I just was starting to find it difficult to tell if you were just playing around or not.

Finally, if you wish to get the final word on this then you should write to the PDGA Rules Committee.

Tell'em I sent ya! :)

PS: If you consider "Above 2 Meters" as OB I'll leave it in the worthy hands of Rhett to straighten you out about that.

Nick,

Why is your username green when everyone else's is blue :confused:

I want a green username, too!

:D

Don't we play our disc golf shots from the playing surface? If the answer is yes, than an area where a shot cannot be played must therefore not be a playing surface.



Can't you throw a disc over OB?

Its an UNplayable surface but still a playing surface.

Your wish is my command. :)

SWEET! Thanks, Nick.

:cool:

You know, when you play with anew disc golfer, and they ask you questions, you end up saying the same thing over and over, and then something clicks, or you say it in a different way and then they get it. Well, I get it. Thanks for taking the time to do so. I am doing my best to understand the rules and when something does not seem right, I am going to ask. And if I don�t get it, I am going to keep asking.

I was thinking �playing surface� meant �throwing surface� and then the light bulb came on. Sorry to take so much time. Like I said, I really do understand the rule, it was just the way that it was stated, and now it makes sense.

No problem. Carlton views me in much the same light as I was you for a time there. But there really are no stupid questions when you are trying to get it right.

You did have me going for a moment there though...

I agree with your sentiment, dm4_. Unfortuately "playing surface" is not defined and the "above the playing surface" rule indirectly defines the playing surface as covering OB ground also.

I wholeheartedly agree that calling an area that you are not to play from the "playing surface" is not semantically consistent. But there are bigger fish to fry in the rules so it doesn't really bug me. :)

But there are bigger fish to fry in the rules so it doesn't really bug me.



Such as?

But there are bigger fish to fry in the rules so it doesn't really bug me.



Such as?



Oh, great. Way to go, Rhett!

I agree with your sentiment, dm4_. Unfortuately "playing surface" is not defined and the "above the playing surface" rule indirectly defines the playing surface as covering OB ground also.

I wholeheartedly agree that calling an area that you are not to play from the "playing surface" is not semantically consistent. But there are bigger fish to fry in the rules so it doesn't really bug me. :)



Where were you when I needed you! (just kidding).

Really, in all fairness, I now think that the words �playing surface� mean just what they are. I think neonnoodle and some of the others are correct when saying that the game is played on all the ground, or area, surrounding each hole and course. When your disc flies over such out-of-bounds area (ground, water, trees, etc.), it does not stop �playing�, but in fact is in play (as Jake L pointed out); while it�s in the air, over the playing surface (in bounds, and out-of-bounds). Therefore, a disc can be suspended above the playing surface (below two meters) and in an out-of-bounds area.

Well thank God it seems we've reached a consensus. Can we close this thread now cause my head hurts.

Even though I am just as likely, if not more so, to enter into a discussion about rules, I really think that our current rules are quite well written and comprehensive.

Most rules issues are not due to loose wording within our rulebook, but loose or lack of understanding, compliance and enforcement of the rules we have.

How many competitions result in a player winning an event because the player did not play in compliance with the rules?

I don�t know for certain, but I suspect the number is pretty low.

But there are bigger fish to fry in the rules so it doesn't really bug me.



Such as?



Such as "how do you get anybody to call a rules violation during a tourney?"

I agree that that is the biggest challenge to the enforcement of our rules, but I don't think that there is really any way to "get" folks to call the rules that can be written into our rules.

"Rule 820.02 B. Thou shalt call the rules."

Won't work. There has to be a change in general approach to the game and a change in attitude towards fair play. Now those ARE complex issues: "How to get someone to do something they don't want to do?"

There's always the ball-golf approach: slow play gets the whole card stroked. It encourages you to hurry-up your slow-playing cardmate. What is everybody on the card got the foot-fault warning/stroke if an official has to make the call? That might get people to pay attention.

I'm so glad this rule is going away!

I'm with you Shawn, IMO, any way to remove luck (good or bad) from effecting competition is a good thing.

And let's face it, most of the time when your disc stays in a tree, its bad luck. Sure you threw it in the tree, but it is pure luck if it falls or not.

Let the subsequent lie be penalty enough.

This rule is going away? When did this happen? Is it effective immediately? Inquiring minds need to know. ;)

It's not going away, but will hopefully be applied appropriately. I've always been against the 2-meter rule but can see where it might be useful. The best example would be a basket location surrounded by trees on an otherwise fairly open hole. I would probably elect to keep it on this hole to prevent players from bombing away where the trees make an easy backstop. In the long run, I try to avoid this issue by placing the basket 30 feet or so past nearby trees so it's not a slam dunk. But we have existing designs out there where pins are right under ready tree backstops. There are also courses like Seneca where the designer prefers the more punitive aspects of the 2-meter rule and are likely to keep there for the whole course.

So the rule will be up to each indvidual TD?

I dont know the specifics, but on another thread I read the BOD is going to change this rule to be treated like any other OB. Which is that it must be designated by the TD during the players meeting. Dont quote me on that.

It will be a design choice by the designer and/or the TD just like how OB areas are determined. The default will be no 2-meter rule anywhere unless specified just like water areas are technically not OB unless specified. For example, a TD will have the option to say the 2-meter rule is in force everywhere, or is in force on holes 2, 5 & 13, or is in force only on the three trees by the basket on hole 10. Although the 2-meter rule isn't really an OB penalty, it will act like an optional aerial OB zone that can be specified where the TD feels it's merited.

This is my understanding of the intended rules update but you'll have to wait for the official wording. I believe the intent is for the rule updates to be in effect starting Jan 1. There are several tweaks proposed by the Rules Committee that were approved, several which are simple editing corrections. The 2-meter change is the most high profile change. I believe the plan is for the RC to focus on more fundamental rewrites during 2005 for potential use starting 2006.

So in the new rule book for Jan 05. If the TD does not metion anything about it in the program or players meetings then the rule is not in effect?

Alright,

I'll bite, how do you get the rules called?

I think this is killing us. Someone needs to come up with something innovative that will do it.

Over the last year I have agrued with Rhett numerous times on the foot fault rule. My tendancy in these situations is to make observations. So I've been looking at what happens and while my numbers are small, here is what I've seen. For foot faults (and most other rules infractions) pretty much what you see is that the further up the food chain you get the better you are at not breaking the rules (again my numbers are low). Based on a very few conversations, at least part of that is due to the fact that the more advanced the player, the more serious they are about their game and the more they recognize the impact of rules violations on their ability to win.

One thing to consider is pure communication. Most of the rules violators I talked to are completely unaware of the issue. They don't even consider the impact on their ability to win or on fairness. If we can communicate or convince a majority of players that if they don't call others for violations they will suffer because they will be called, that might work. However, it might engender some irritation. The best model is the one employed in Ultimate where players call their own fouls. Its a matter of honor that works well there. However, that means that every player has to communicate that message every time they play.

BTW Rhett, I am becoming convinced about the foot fault rule. I have always felt that it hurt the sport by making it difficult for new players to compete. Now I realize that it is part of learning the sport and maturing with it. Every super-pro I've watched, is impressive in their ability to get their foot placement correct. Oh I've seen some close calls, but that's what they were, close calls.

The 2-meter change is the most high profile change. I believe the plan is for the RC to focus on more fundamental rewrites during 2005 for potential use starting 2006.



I think allowing DROT will be the most high profile change!

I think allowing DROT will be the most high profile change!



You mean, we will have to accept the bad with the good. ;)

Allowing DROT ?

Where did that come from ?

BBS historians (or Nick himself), is allowing DROTs something that Nick passionately advocated? If so, I am worried. :p

Dealing with DROT was not even in the list of items reviewed for approval or to be tabled for 2005 discussions.

One that did get approved was the default drop zone location if it's not specified on a mando. It's the same wording that was adopted by WFDF. If you look at their rules, it's the only item different from PDGA Rules. Essentially, the default drop zone is one to two meters on the mando line extending from the 'good' side of the mando object.

There are also courses like Seneca where the designer prefers the more punitive aspects of the 2-meter rule and are likely to keep there for the whole course.



Designer here - not sure I understand what you mean by that CK. The nature of the obstacles on this piece of property are perhaps different (or maybe just denser) than many other courses. Getting stuck in a cedar for the most part is still predominantly the result of an errant shot. Are you suggesting that the 2m rule does not reflect this?

What exactly is being considered as regards changing this rule? I haven't seen anything specific.

What exactly is being considered as regards changing this rule? I haven't seen anything specific.



Read my post above

Chyah, James, disc catching devices catching discs is something to worry about.

My limited understanding of the new 2 meter rule is that it is now an option the TD or course designer can use here and there, similar to how OB is used. Just as everything is considered IB unless announced as OB by the TD, everything is outside the 2 meter rule unless announced by the TD as being that sort of area.

It will be interesting to see how and when it will be used now that it is an opt in rule. I suspect that if TDs are really concerned with protecting trees they will opt to mark the area beneath those trees as OB, that way whether they stick up over 2 meters or hit and fall to the ground the player is still penalized, but at least gets to move away from the base of the tree to the OB line.

Forget the lame "protect the trees" argument. That is not a good reason for the 2 meter rule.

A good reason for the 2 meter rule is that if you throw your disc and it gets stuck 20 to 30 feet above the ground where you have no chance of playing it where it where it lies, then that's a penalty worthy shot. :)

There are big-arm players around here that intentionally throw at the trees above the baskets in order to get the knock-down birdie if the trees are eucalyptus or some other relatively sparse branch tree.. These guys figure the risk/reward is worth it since it will be probably be a birdie but maybe a penalty-3. Expect those guys and more to now aim for the "stickier" trees, too, since there won't be a penalty.

I don't know. I think getting to the basket without hitting anything is better golf than nailing a big tree with a shot that was heading 100 feet past the pin.

That sounds like a course desgn issue. I don't think there should be trees that close to baskets, in order to allow for shots like that.

It's up to Snapper to determine where the 2-meter rule applies at Morley or wherever there's a concern about the easy 'whack a tree' birdie option. I think big fir trees not trimmed at the bottom will still be objects to avoid but now at least you won't necessarily get double penalized with the 2-meter penalty then an impossible lie underneath one.

A good reason for the 2 meter rule is that if you throw your disc and it gets stuck 20 to 30 feet above the ground where you have no chance of playing it where it where it lies, then that's a penalty worthy shot.



How often do you play it where it lies when it is 1 foot off the playing surface?

How often do you play it where it lies when it is 3 feet off the playing surface?

How often do you play it where it lies when it is 5 feet off the playing surface?

No how often do you play it where it lies when it is 6 feet 7 inches off the playing surface?

Your argument is flawed concerning this aspect as well.

There is no logic to this argument either. It would be like arguing that ball golfers should not use the ridge of a green to hit and bounce towards the hole...

Even if you made a rule that said if you land exactly on the top line of the ridge you get a penalty stroke, everyone would still aim to bounce off that ridge and towards the hole.

If you really want people to not shoot at that ridge (or tree) then make the area below it OB. Now watch how they avoid it...

How often do you play it where it lies when it is 1 foot off the playing surface?


Nick, do we really need to go over this exact same thing again???

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 1 foot off the ground in a shrubbery?

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 2.5 feet off the ground in a shrubbery?

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 25 feet off the ground in a tree?


At some point your disc is sitting on a blade of a grass, and at some other point it is out of play. What's a good defining line? Hmmm.....2 meters sounds pretty reasonable. You could say "if you can reach it, you can play it." But then Stork would have a huge advantage over Megan. So pick a number, any number, and let's go with that.

Somebody picked 2 meters. It seems like as good a height as any. If you think 1.8 meters is better, or 2.25, okay.

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 1 foot off the ground in a shrubbery?


Yes, I can.

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 2.5 feet off the ground in a shrubbery?


Yes, I can.

Can you retrieve your disc when it is 25 feet off the ground in a tree?


Yes, I can.

Nick, do we really need to go over this exact same thing again???


Yes, apparently, I do.

Howdy, hope you all don't mind me throwing in a little change of mind. Today, in our mini here in Fayetteville, Ar, i threw my comet high with a slight s'er to drop it into a pocket over two thirty foot tall junipers which sit atop a 2-meter ridge along side a creek (which we call ob), the basket about thirty feet on the other side. so my comet is a little nancy and comes back to land on a root 3/4 the way up the cliff, the disc is touching the cliff wall but might be over the water (right on the edge)....the question- would this be ob....it's not completely surrounded by water...but would the height be from the disc or the top of the cliff being that the disc is underneath the playing surface?. If you would like to see a picture it will be on our web page this week. fdgc.org

Kelly,

You should check out the PDGA "Rules" link and then the "Rules Q & A" Link under "Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)".

Similar to this year's clarification that "between the hole and the lie" supercedes, moving casual obstacles to run up, stance or throwing motion, the PDGA Rules Committee has prioritize the status of "playing surface IB/OB designations" over the vertical plane of the OB lines. This in essence adds up to our rules allowing In Bounds playing surfaces to exist (legally) above (or perhaps below even) Out of Bounds playing surfaces. The status of the disc, as IB or OB, is determined by the status of the playing surface immediately below the thrown disc.

So it sounds like your disc is properly ruled as IB.

Hope that was helpful,
Nick Kight

And let's face it, most of the time when your disc stays in a tree, its bad luck. Sure you threw it in the tree, but it is pure luck if it falls or not.

Let the subsequent lie be penalty enough.



This (and Nick's complaint that '2' meters is an abitrary number) are the most flawed of the arguments against the 2 meter rule.

A disc that is thrown into a tree and sticks is NOT bad luck. It is a bad shot. When a disc goes into a tree and drops, that is GOOD luck. There is a difference.

I would have preferred an amendment that says a disc stuck above 2 meters is ruled as OB, allowing the player to relocate the lie backwards on the LOP. You still get penalized, but not doubly so.

Here's a good example that Nick and Chuck are aware of. Warwick's hole 9, blue basket. The basket sits about 30 feet or so in front of an OB parking lot. About 15 feet on the other (front) side of the basket is a red maple tree. On most drives you are maybe 100-150 feet from the basket, with the tree blocking a straight shot. Your options are to curve around the tree, go over the tree (but not too long, as the ground slopes down toward the lot), or aim left or right and leave yourself a putt. If sticking in the tree is not a penalty, there is no reason not to just aim hard at the center of the tree and leave yourself a gimme 15 footer for 3.

I wouldn't call that hole poorly designed, in fact I think it's a great hole that will be weakened with the new rule. While Dan will hopefully declare OB at least on that one, why add the confusion?

The equivalent in BG of what you are saying Dan is that on the putting green there is a substantial ridge separating the upper from lower green and the hole is on the lower green; every BGer worth their weight is going to look to hit that ridge and curl back to the hole (every one). The 2 Meter Rule is equivalent to their ball landing on a line that perfectly follows the contour of the ridge and sticking on that line and only that line being OB.

Now if you really what people to stay away from that tree then mark on the ground beneath it as OB (in whole or part).

That or do as the new rule suggests and mark that specific tree as an �Arial OB�. Mark all the trees that a golfer might want to throw at to gain advantage as �Arial Obs�, I�ve fine with that. What I am not fine with is making every tree in a park �Arial Obs� because no player is going to intentionally aim at every tree in a park, and at least some amount of �dumb luck� will be removed from the game, a good thing wherever we can manage it.

I agree with Dan Howard on this issue.

If you don't hit the trees you won't stick.

You've obviously never played a round at Warwick, Tinicum, Tyler, Patapsco, Seneca, Nockamixon, Knob Hill, Paw Paw, or Hawk's Hollow. It is impossible NOT throw at trees off the tee and sticking in them or not is Pure Dumb Luck.

Disc golf without fairways? No, I don't play that. Sounds like a course design issue, not a rules issue.

Rhett, they are defined fairways. You know "Disc Golf" fairways. Not just throwing across open feilds with one tree in the center or off to one side. You've played them before, right?

You contradict yourself, Nick. First you say that you must throw at trees, then you say there are fairways. Which is it???

If there are fairways, throw it down the fairway already. If there is a nice backstop of trees by the basket or landing zone, then consider the risk/reward before you throw at the trees.

You've obviously never played a round at Warwick, Tinicum, Tyler, Patapsco, Seneca, Nockamixon, Knob Hill, Paw Paw, or Hawk's Hollow. It is impossible NOT throw at trees off the tee and sticking in them or not is Pure Dumb Luck.



The nature of obstacles on a course, and whether or not you throw at them is not a matter of luck - but of shot selection and course management. Getting stuck in a tree is almost never the result of a good shot. If your purpose is to eliminate luck from the game of DG - eliminate all weather, all foliage, and play in a vacuum. geez :confused:

You contradict yourself, Nick. First you say that you must throw at trees, then you say there are fairways. Which is it???



No contradiction at all Rhett. Have you ever noticed when you were out throwing circular objects around at parks that often, most of the time hopefully, the "fairways" were lined with "trees"?

Were those trees ever on line with the initial trajectory necessary to get that circular object next to the big ugly BBQ pit with chains?

I can only think of one course where that is not the norm on every single hole, Brandywine.

Besides, we have already covered and covered again, that it doesn't matter what the intent or the execution was in judging whether a shot was a "Good One" or not, only the result. So, a shot that is thrown "at" a tree, "hits" the tree, "tumbles" through the tree and lands in the basket is just as "Good" as a shot that flies straight into the basket, but it is no "Better" on in intent or execution than the one that stuck up above 2 meters as it tumbled throw the tree.


If there are fairways, throw it down the fairway already. If there is a nice backstop of trees by the basket or landing zone, then consider the risk/reward before you throw at the trees.



Challenge is Rhett, in most cases is to throw it �as close as possible� to some trees to get it to land �next to� the basket or preferred landing area. To play a round without throwing towards trees would be to play a round of �A Million Worm Burners�.

I believe that I am clearly right on this point, though possibly wrong about others.

LOL! I�d pay money to watch a round at Seneca where Craig didn�t throw at any trees what so ever. It would undoubtedly be a new course record; for worst score ever that is� :) ;)

You've obviously never played a round at Warwick, Tinicum, Tyler, Patapsco, Seneca, Nockamixon, Knob Hill, Paw Paw, or Hawk's Hollow. It is impossible NOT throw at trees off the tee and sticking in them or not is Pure Dumb Luck.



The nature of obstacles on a course, and whether or not you throw at them is not a matter of luck - but of shot selection and course management. Getting stuck in a tree is almost never the result of a good shot. If your purpose is to eliminate luck from the game of DG - eliminate all weather, all foliage, and play in a vacuum. geez :confused:



My goal is not to eliminate "luck" from the game of Disc Golf, it is to eliminate it as much as possible from the rules of Disc Golf.

A big difference, I'm sure you "won't" agree. :o:p :D;)

If you can't eliminate it from the game (i.e. there is a certain amount of luck inherent in the game itself) - how can you justify eliminating rules that address instances where luck may or may not be involved? Seems self contradictory to me. No matter - we'll just call 2m OB.

If you can't eliminate it from the game (i.e. there is a certain amount of luck inherent in the game itself) - how can you justify eliminating rules that address instances where luck may or may not be involved?



Because there is no "may not be involved" about it? It is pure dumb luck to stick 2.01 meters up in a tree as opposed to 1.99.


Seems self contradictory to me. No matter - we'll just call 2m OB.



Fine, luck is the main element on most holes at Seneca anyway, why not make it even more of a luck course...

Besides, there is little left to argue on behalf of removing the 2 Meter Rule from our rules. It is done, we won. I'm fine with it being just another option.

Fine, luck is the main element on most holes at Seneca anyway, why not make it even more of a luck course...



What a maroon Sorry your skills are so suspect that you feel you must resort to insulting my course instead of improving your game.

This whole idea is leading us to throwing nothing but tomahawks and thumbers on wooded greens with no repercussions. You get stuck? Perfect, easy putt. Several players I know already play these odds knowing that they'll probably come out good. Now that style is guaranteed to be the easiest.

Let's call it Plinko, except without the $0 slots.

Fine, luck is the main element on most holes at Seneca anyway, why not make it even more of a luck course...



What a maroon Sorry your skills are so suspect that you feel you must resort to insulting my course instead of improving your game.



What a Craiger. Sorry your course is so suspect that you feel you must resort to insulting my skills instead of improving your course. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Tony,

Marking areas above 2 meters as OB is still possible, it is now just like marking OB.

Question to those in the know about this in full detail: How do you mark areas where being above 2 meters is considered OB? With a string on the ground? Around the base of the tree would "now" seem to work considering the "new" nature of OB surfaces, and the stringe making the entire surface of the tree above the string OB.

Perhaps we don't really need the 2 meter designation at all!?! Just use OB. If you put a string around a tree at it's base, every lie completely within or on any surface of that tree above the string is OB. If you really want it to be say 1 meter or 2 meters, or even 4 meters you just but the string a little higher in the tree.

The option to make the entire course an above 2 meters OB is still there, right? But how does that work in consideration of the new "playing surface" based OB ruling? It would appear not to work...

No contradiction at all Rhett. Have you ever noticed when you were out throwing circular objects around at parks that often, most of the time hopefully, the "fairways" were lined with "trees"?

Were those trees ever on line with the initial trajectory necessary to get that circular object next to the big ugly BBQ pit with chains?



And people call me a Richard?

For the record, nick, I try to throw my round circular plastic thing on a line that will miss the trees. When I hack and send the disc into the trees, I'm always bummed because that is not what I wanted. Just like throwing it OB over the stakes. Sometimes my disc lands OB on an annie line and rolls back in safe. I laugh and appreciate my good luck. I don't try and eliminate all the OB rules because of a little good luck, though. :)


Besides, there is little left to argue on behalf of removing the 2 Meter Rule from our rules. It is done, we won. I'm fine with it being just another option.


Juts because the rule is being changed doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

No one has said the optional 2m rule would be penalized like OB. Where applied, the 2m rule would work as it does now. As far as using paint or string on the ground around trees to mark OB, it would work like the current OB rule if used instead of the 2m rule.

Sometimes the best and safest shot is to TRY and hit the tree next to the basket and drop down for a putt at it. I know its sounds crazy but i have had quite a few dueces from trying to hit trees near the basket and drop down for an easy duece putt. i also had a thumber that i threw at worlds stick up in a tree less then 10 feet from a basket.

Down with the 2 Meter rule.

Our Course Evaluation Committee used the 235 ft hole 2 at Big Creek as our example of a hole that rates only 3 on a 0-9 scale with 9 outstanding. One big reason is the small tree 10 feet in front of the basket that is an easy target for smack-n-drop birdies on an already easy hole. Hopefully new course designers will put baskets at least 30 feet beyond trees to avoid this easy play for players.

Chuck,

To clarify; A Director can mark OB and anything within that area not on a differently designated playing surface is OB.

How does a Director now mark Above 2 Meter OB areas? What are the options?

i.e. Can they mark on the ground with a string, making everything 2 meters above that specific area OB? Can they just put a string around the base of the tree and everythin in that tree whether 2 meters or not is OB? Can a Director just declare the entire course as a 2 meter OB area?

Thanks,
Nick

Hey Richard! "Some people"!?! :o:D:cool:

No one has said the optional 2m rule would be penalized like OB. Where applied, the 2m rule would work as it does now. As far as using paint or string on the ground around trees to mark OB, it would work like the current OB rule if used instead of the 2m rule.



So, if I am reading this right, the rule has not changed at all. You still will get hit with a stroke and no relief from the lie, it's just now up to TDs to decide whether it should be enforced or not?

So now we have resorted to playing disc golf as if we were shooting pool at a bar, basically playing 'House Rules'. Seems like a cop out to me.

2 meters is not being changed to an OB penalty. The 2m rule wording is not changing. Just where it applies must be designated. The options are:
1) The 2m rule applies everywhere on the course
2) The 2m rule applies on holes 4, 6, 9 and 17.
3) The 2m rule applies to the three trees by hole 9.
4) Any combination of 2) & 3)

No strings attached.

Anything with strings or paint for OB marking has nothing to do with the 2m rule.

So now we have resorted to playing disc golf as if we were shooting pool at a bar, basically playing 'House Rules'. Seems like a cop out to me.



Isn't it always that way? Paths are IB or OB. Small creeks are casual or OB. Either sides of fence lines can be IB or OB. Cement areas with BBQ grills or footings are IB or OB. Trees can be mandos or not. Across paths are sometimes OB and sometimes it's just a tournament rule.

So the rule has been made more arbitrary? "These trees, only on days that end in Y, on the odd holes, but not 11..."

Why? Change the penalty part of the 2m Rule to include the option to play the disc from the previous lie plus a penalty stroke and be done with it.

If the rule is worth keeping--and I think it is due to the high reward overhand shots that need a high risk factor for balance--then change it.

How the optional 2m rule will be handled may change during the larger rules rewrite being done during 2005, but not for this interim change effective starting 2005.

How the optional 2m rule will be handled may change during the larger rules rewrite being done during 2005, but not for this interim change effective starting 2005.



I hope that it is completely and permanently deleted from our rules. Anything it can do OB can do better, particularly with the new "playing surface" clarification about to come out in the next revision and already in the PDGA Rules Q & As, making it possible to make all surfaces of the tree OB by circling the bottom with a string. This would also put it in line with other OB revisions under discussion: Stroke and Distance and Drop Zones.

The 2 meter rule is like an old mule that can't do any more real work, but you keep it around because it's familiar...

Circling with string around the trunk of the tree, or around the widest cicumference area of the tree as best deterimined by looking up? Would you still be OB if you slid into this area when trying to go under the tree? Where would you mark the lie (i.e.) determine where you were last inbounds? How long will the string remain in place beyond just a tournament, or does a course pro now end up having to replace OB strings on a daily basis? What if someone trips over the string and breaks it during leagues, casual play or a tournament? Or a casual player finds it fun to remove or kick the strings whenever they walk by them?

How do you communicate where these OB areas are to casual players, and maintain the necessary OB markers on a 7 day per week basis?

So many questions and challenges when trying to maintain OB areas under trees, let alone OB areas in general. In fact, I'd make the point that this approach is not logistically possible. You may call 2M an old rule that does no real work, but I'd call the replacement you are recommending to be something that requires more work than any of us have time for.

Circling with string around the trunk of the tree, or around the widest cicumference area of the tree as best deterimined by looking up? Would you still be OB if you slid into this area when trying to go under the tree? Where would you mark the lie (i.e.) determine where you were last inbounds? How long will the string remain in place beyond just a tournament, or does a course pro now end up having to replace OB strings on a daily basis? What if someone trips over the string and breaks it during leagues, casual play or a tournament? Or a casual player finds it fun to remove or kick the strings whenever they walk by them?

How do you communicate where these OB areas are to casual players, and maintain the necessary OB markers on a 7 day per week basis?

So many questions and challenges when trying to maintain OB areas under trees, let alone OB areas in general. In fact, I'd make the point that this approach is not logistically possible. You may call 2M an old rule that does no real work, but I'd call the replacement you are recommending to be something that requires more work than any of us have time for.



Tim,

Not when you just chuck it all like the garbage it is.

But if you REALLY ARE INTERESTED in protecting certain trees or bushes then the OB option is millions of times more effective than the goofy 2 meter rule.

We will see exactly how difficult it is to mark trees as OB. I suspect it will involve a lot less work than marking vast areas so.

Regard,
Nick

PS: Do you really think casual golfers give a hoot about the 2 meters rule!?!

When I casual golf, I do. The people I casual golf with all do. So yes, I would say that a good percentage of casual golfers do know and follow the current 2 meter rule.

Don't we all casual golf at some time? I know I casual golf much more than tournament golf.

Maintaining a string OB marker is a pain, regardless of how many you have. Its just not a feasible option, in my opinion.

Don't we all casual golf at some time? I know I casual golf much more than tournament golf.



You're a lucky man Tim. But when I say casual I mean folks that have never played in an organized event.

How many OB lines do you maintain on your course Tim? At brandywine we don't have any and there is literally miles of OB.

A Director could just say that all trees within 10 meters of the target are OB but the ground beneath them is not. Or that where the root meets the playing surface is the OB line. Or if the Director wants the area beneath to be OB that the outer line of the canopy is the OB line with benefit of the doubt going to the thrower.

There is more than one way to skin an OB line...

A Director could just say that all trees within 10 meters of the target are OB but the ground beneath them is not. Or that where the root meets the playing surface is the OB line. Or if the Director wants the area beneath to be OB that the outer line of the canopy is the OB line with benefit of the doubt going to the thrower.

There is more than one way to skin an OB line...



Or the PDGA could say 'All discs suspended 2 meters or more above the playing surface shall be considered OB.' Give players some relief, stroke 'em, and move on. Solves the 'double penalty' argument, yet punishes a bad shot. End of story.

Too easy if you ask me.

A Director could just say that all trees within 10 meters of the target are OB but the ground beneath them is not. Or that where the root meets the playing surface is the OB line. Or if the Director wants the area beneath to be OB that the outer line of the canopy is the OB line with benefit of the doubt going to the thrower.

There is more than one way to skin an OB line...



Or the PDGA could say 'All discs suspended 2 meters or more above the playing surface shall be considered OB.' Give players some relief, stroke 'em, and move on. Solves the 'double penalty' argument, yet punishes a bad shot. End of story.

Too easy if you ask me.



As proposed earlier, it would be even easier just to dump this silly rule all together. OB does whatever it did and better...

So the rule has been made more arbitrary? "These trees, only on days that end in Y, on the odd holes, but not 11..."

Why? Change the penalty part of the 2m Rule to include the option to play the disc from the previous lie plus a penalty stroke and be done with it.

If the rule is worth keeping--and I think it is due to the high reward overhand shots that need a high risk factor for balance--then change it.



I agree with Tony and Dan on this.

While in a perfect world, TDs would consistently call "blocking trees" OB in this new situation, instead it will simply become arbitrary. One TD will call it, one won't. This could lead to a situation where a course's ratings will vary depending on the TD (admittedly not much but still).

I admit that all players have the option of throwing into guard trees to obtain an advantage but is the sport about skill or about luck? That is the big question.

I've always liked the Rules Committee's stance that if you feel it is unfair to be stroked for being in a tree, don't throw into the tree. Staying out of trees in just another measure of skill and this rule change potentially messes with that. Someone has suggested the idea of making all trees OB. I could live with that interpretation of the 2 meter rule. If that makes those who feel the rule as stated is unfair then why not try that?

Well Lyle,

Now at least we will see the "actual" repercussions, rather than the "projected" ones.

If the 2 meter is ever reinstated then I demand that 4 to 6 meters be made no penalty. So you would have 0 to 2 meters not stroke, 2 to 4 meters stroke, 4 to 6 no stroke, resulting in a disc golf layer cake of arbitrary strokes...

If we bring back the 2 meter rule then I suggest TDs introduce 30 centimeter OB bands on the surface that if you land on you get a stroke. Or that if you try to make a putt and stick in the chains and not drop into the basket that you have to mark your lie on the playing surface and put out into the bottom of the basket.


Regards,
Nick

I try to get out once per week, tournament or not. Given 52 weeks and 15 or so tournament outings, the majority of the outings are casual. I also am putting in a private course and get to throw a bit when I'm not working on it instead. So yes, thank you, I am very lucky. Perhaps if you are in Wisconsin some time, I can show you how lucky.

Our home course has OB declared as on or over the road (where the cement meets the grass) along many of the holes. This is pretty much a universal OB at the courses I play, making communication of such pretty easy. No string is required, no other OB exists.

I'm not sure how you would communicate this 'non-standard' OB (is the tree in or out?) at the many course I play in Wisconsin. I do not meet a TD or course pro before I throw. I arrive at 8:00 with some fellow golfers and have at it for a couple of rounds. OB is universal and understood. On or across roads or hiking paths, in any permanent water. Its casual, so close counts. No arguments over the bent blade of grass or other nonsense that comes up on this board. Oh, and up over two meters, bring it down. mark your lie, take your stroke. Always. No exceptions, no local rules to have to try and learn or guess at, no problems.

I personally like the 2 meter rule, and on that we'll have to respecfully disagree. We have holes where a low tunnel shot through maples or the like is the safe play, but you can take the chance and bomb over the top. A good case of risk vs. reward in my book. If you make it over, good job. If you don't and get stuck, take the penalty. I consider 2m the equivalent of the bg sand trap, with the stroke being our closest thing to having to use a pitching wedge from 200 feet out. I would have no problem though, with the idea of eliminating the double penalty by providing relief.

My private course has some of the fairways lined by pine trees. The trees are only about 20 to 25 feet tall, so you could just bomb over the top and not have to worry about the design of the fairway and where it narrows, turns, or where the landing zones are. Take away 2m, and its a thumber's paradise. No need to learn how to turn a disc right or left. Just throw straight at the pin over the top. What fun, I Imight as well just cut the fairways straight from tee to pin.

If I had a private course I would make every tree and beneath OB, leaving only swaths of fairway here and there on tight wooded holes. The destruction I have seen at courses with beautiful trees is enough to make me sick to my stomach. White Clay, Sedgley and Seneca being prime examples of courses where trees have become FUBARed.

I'm guessing you are referring to the 1.99 vs. 2.0 meters issue? is that correct? How do you feel about the case where two players make beautiful dirves, both which go OB at 10 feet and then hyzer back towards inbounds for 450 feet, player one's disc lands with it's edge 1mm inside the OB line and player two's disc lands lying 1 mm outside the OB line. This is pretty arbitrary and has a certain level of luck. Even worse, the OB line, along a pond, was painted and lies about 10 inches from the water's edge; what if the guy with the paint can had painted 1/4 inch closer to the pond?

Whether the rule is 2 meters, 1.9 meters, or 2.1 is irrelavant. All marking lines in this sport are arbitrary and defined by the course or rules. The point is that there should be some punishment for making an errant throw. Is the errant throw in and of itself sufficient puishment?

The point is that there should be some punishment for making an errant throw. Is the errant throw in and of itself sufficient puishment?


Prove to me that a disc that sticks 2 meters up in a tree is an errant throw when the same throw resulted in a birdie the last time.

The 2 meter penalty is not OB, and it sounds like it remains not OB. I would have no issue with it if it were defined OB Surface, but it is not, and I am not convinced in a sport like disc golf every lie above 2 meters needs to be penalized as being a bad shot when there is no more imparative to play a disc that is at rest 3 feet up or 5 feet up where it lies.

I would likely favor the 2 meter rule if we did have to play the lie of discs above the playing surface where they were, all of them. But that is not likely to happen, and I am not likely to support any form of the 2 meter rule, particularly as the OB Rule already gives directors more than enough leeway to deal with anything.

Well, the 2m rule is being waived for the USDGC, and already it has been shown why this isn't a good situation.

Yesterday in the qualifier, a guy in my group throws (accidentally) into some pine trees near the basket. The pines are the only obstacle in the area, and the grass is manicured all around.

Well, the pines are about 25 feet tall, and we couldn't locate his disc. So after 3 minutes, we give up. At this point, another guy in the group says "Well, we know it's in one of these pines, and since the 2m rule isn't in play, there's no penalty, right?".

Now, to some this seems a pretty weak argument. But to others, it's legitimate. What if all 4 players see it go into a tree and not come out, yet they can't see it in the tree? What if an official spotter sees it go in the tree and not come out? Is it lost (with penalty)? Or is it above 2m (no penalty)?

So at this point, it's obvious we need a clarification to the rule like such: "You must identify your disc above 2m before taking the free drop."

But that raises the next logical question: What if you can see "your" disc in the tree, but you can't 100% identify that it is yours? I think many would argue that if you can't see your unique marking on the disc, there's no way to be certain that it's yours. I mean, if you're not allowing a non-found disc (as described above) to be 2m, then how can you allow a non-100%-identified disc to be above 2m?

And before you say that it "never happens" that you see a disc that you think is yours but it's not: I had two different people tell me yesterday that they have seen "multiple times" where a disc above 2m thought to be one person's was indeed not.

Call me stupid, but I think the overall best solution is: Penalize 2m a stroke, and then allow the next shot from any where on the line of play behind the new mark directly beneath the suspended disc, or from the previous mark, thrower's choice.

Rodney,

Your logic and conclusion are flawed and here is why:

The exact same thing holds true if the 2 Meter Rule is in effect; you still need to positively identify the disc to declare it above 2 meters.

Besides, the example you cite has nothing to do with 2 meters, it has to do with a lost disc. For how to proceed read the rules concerning lost disc.

(This is also similar to the dilemma of identifying discs in water. I believe that positive identification should absolutely be required, and that stroke and distance should be the resulting penalty for all discs not able to be found or positively identified.)

Regards,
Nick

The problem is little different from when a disc is thrown in a marsh or other casual relief area say near a wasp hive. Sometimes there's no way to visually confirm the disc ownership from a distance or sometimes even see it. Without the 2m rule, players will now just get "casual relief" vertically downward. It sounds like this happened on #4 which is a hole where perhaps the TD should specify the 2m rule is only active for the ring of fir trees surrounding the basket.

The exact same thing holds true if the 2 Meter Rule is in effect; you still need to positively identify the disc to declare it above 2 meters.




No, it doesn't.

If the 2m rule is in play, it doesn't matter whether we find it or whether we identify it. Either way, the mark is the same, and they both have a penalty.

But now that we're not penalizing 2m, it raises the question.

The problem is little different from when a disc is thrown in a marsh or other casual relief area say near a wasp hive. Sometimes there's no way to visually confirm the disc ownership from a distance or sometimes even see it.



Oh, so you're allowing casual relief (from a marsh or a hive) without positive identification?

Interesting.

And since you said "or sometimes even see it", I presume you would have given the guy no penalty yesterday when we couldn't see/find his disc?

Interesting.

Like I said, it needs clarification, and it doesn't work.

Chuck,


Well, the pines are about 25 feet tall, and we couldn't locate his disc.



2 Meters is not an issue in this case.

Regards,
Nick

I'd like to see what would happen if an orange kite string were strung around the base of those trees and they declared Out of Bounds Surfaces. Any disc completely supported by them would be OB and a stroke incurred with the player allowed to mark their lie 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line at the base on the playing surface. This in my opinion is superior for any host of reasons to the 2 meter rule.

And before you say that it "never happens" that you see a disc that you think is yours but it's not: I had two different people tell me yesterday that they have seen "multiple times" where a disc above 2m thought to be one person's was indeed not.


I had it happen to me. Hit the trees going over the top at Morley #1 C-position. Saw a red candy disc up there. Dang it. Took the stroke and marked it, couldn't get it down. Went to the basket to putt and there was my disc sitting right next to the pin. Grrrr....

Same thing happened to me in a casual/tag match round at Seneca earlier this year. I shanked a shot into a cedar about 5 and a half feet up, just for formality I waited for my opponent to check the disc out. To my shock and surprise he suggested that he thought the disc was OB but I could take out my tape measure (which I do carry) and check it out if I wished. I was livid, and sure he was working me for no good reason, so I angrily told him he could measure it but he was being absurd. He walks up and looks at another red valk about 7 feet up in the same tree. Pretty funny, :Dand of course he beat me anyway, lefty owns me at Seneca :confused:

There is no issue if suspended discs are not penalized.

Basically, there is not suspended status for a disc if the 2m rule is not in effect. The disc is either found or lost. If found, then the disc is marked below the disc and played. No such thing as a non-penalty free drop. It is played the same way whether the disc is suspended by 3" or 100'.

The lack of ability to positively identify the disc is an issue, but the lost disc is a lost disc.

Also is the question of how many times you have seen a disc go into a tree and never see it come out, yet find it later well beyond the tree that it vanished into?

This clearly has nothing to do with the "old" :eek: :D :D2 meter rule.

It is a "lost disc" issue.

The need to have our rules require a positive ID on a disc is another question (also related to "lost disc" and not "2 meters"), and should probably be dealt with, though I don't have any ideas about it right now.

How about...if a disc is above 2m >>> no penalty stroke...but you can't throw 'that' disc for the remainder of 'that' round...assuming you retrieved 'that' disc. :D :o

Nick,
First off, I don't disagree with the 2M rule change as long as the TD still has the option to designate the rule, however I would have preferred it not be changed.
On the thresd "Obstacle to Stance and Flight Path" dated 09/21/04 #239832 you quoted the PDGA RC as saying "If you don't want to deal with that sort of situation, then next time don't throw into that sort of situation."
It seems to me this reasoning should also be used for the 2M rule or even the unsafe lie rule. I am sure no one intentionally threw their disc to put themselves in either one of those situations, however as noted earlier some people will intentionally throw to hit trees. It was just dumb luck or a terrible throw whichever way you want to look at it.
So maybe with this reasoning we should eliminate the penalty for an unsafe lie. Part of your reasoning for changing the 2M rule was "My goal is not to eliminate "luck" from the game of Disc Golf, it is to eliminate it as much as possible from the rules of Disc Golf.
With this same reasoning, shouldn't the penalty for an unsafe lie then be dropped? We are allowing a person whose disc is stuck in a tree to throw from a place other than his lie with no penalty, so why shouldn't a person in an unsafe lie situation be allowed to reposition his disc in accordance with Rule 803.05 without any penalty? How is one that much different than the other?
Maybe, I am missing something here. There has been so much going back and forth it has been a little hard to follow. I am sure someone will correct me if I am confused.

We are allowing a person whose disc is stuck in a tree to throw from a place other than his lie with no penalty, so why shouldn't a person in an unsafe lie situation be allowed to reposition his disc in accordance with Rule 803.05 without any penalty?



Jimbo,

As Bush would say, �I appreciate your question.� But unlike Bush I will actually give you an answer�

Let me first try to clarify your question and you let me know if I am misinterpreting it:

Under the new 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE rule a player is permitted to mark their lie on the playing surface and continue play without penalty stroke, so why under the 803.05 UNSAFE LIE rule is a player, who moves their lie on the playing surface to another location on the playing surface, given a penalty stroke?

Do I have this right?

If so, the answer is because the lie in disc golf is determined by the playing surface regardless of its elevation above it, so placing a marker on the playing surface below the disc at rest is not moving or relocating your lie, where as moving your lie horizontally beyond what is allowed in the rules does constitute relocation your lie.

I have always said, and continue to accept, that I would be open to making this standard apply to vertical considerations, but then trees(and everything else on a course) would have to be defined as playing surface(which I am also fine with, making them eligible to be marked as OB, and you wouldn�t need a string, just say the line is where the tree meets the dirt).

The consequence of this would be that players would have to play all discs above the playing surface the same way, regardless of whether they are above 2 meters or not. So if a disc were in a tree 5 feet up, the player would have to place their point of support on that location. And if a disc were in a stand of thick grass 300 feet from the basket 2 feet off the playing surface they would either have to hover one foot over that location or hole a finger or hand over that location at the point of release, neither of which would be comfortable.

Thankfully our rules have always allowed discs above the playing surface to be marked on the playing surface and play to continue. The difference is that now there is no penalty for being above a certain height (or it is an option).

And again, at the risk of being redundant, declaring the entire surface of the tree as OB works far better than does the 2 meter rule in many different ways already detailed. It would be interesting to see a Director declare all trees at their event OB and then see how people approach the challenge of avoiding coming to rest �ANYWHERE� supported by trees. Talk about adding risk/reward for aiming at tree backstops!

This is dependent on the PDGA Rules Committee providing a definition of �playing surface� that could be utilized by Directors for declaring tree and bush surfaces as OB.

Again, please let me know if I misinterpreted your question. I�m fairly certain that it was not the answer you were looking for, but there is nothing I can do about that.

Regards,
Nick

I will try and answer the way Mr Kerry would, however I won't change my mind or my stance and I will still support our troops.
Yes and yes.
To me you would still be moving the disc from where it came to rest even though it is not on the playing surface. Common sense would tell us we would not expect someone to have to throw from up in a tree or bush just as I would not expect someone to throw from an unsafe lie. Other than the fact the disc is not on the playing surface, it could be considered an unsafe lie. It seems we are giving an advantage to what could be considered an unsafe lie up in a tree to someone who has an unsafe lie and yet is still on the playing surdace.
I would be (not that my opinion is going to have any effect) more willing to accept anything stuck off the ground in a tree or bush (exception being laying on tall weeds or grass) as being OB. I would not like to see the whole area under a tree being designated as OB.
This may have already been covered by someone or discussion. If so, excuse me for bringing it up again. If a disc is not retrieveable, is it then considered a lost disc even though it can be seen and a penalty enforced? How much time is allowed to try and retrieve the disc? If it is not considered a lost disc, I assume it wouldn't fall under the three minute rule.

Jimbo,

If players had to play lies not on the playing surface, up in a tree or bush, where they are, to avoid penalty, then what do you do for ones 1 foot off the ground or 5 feet off the playing surface?

In this way, "lies" are similar to OB lines, in that they indicate the lie or status on the playing surface immediately below. The ONLY think that can interrupt this is another playing surface. So in order for a lie to be in a tree or bush we would first have to redefine "playing surface" as including "trees" and "bushes" (which in turn would lead to other rules implications, most of which I am ok with).

I do prefer the mark it on the playing surface immediately below and play on rule we currently have though for its simplicity and for its consideration of the physical traits of most disc golf courses being in deep woods.

I am for the positive identification of the disc in play, I do not think that it necessarily be retrieved. If it cannot be identified it should be considered lost and that rule applied.

Regards,
Nick

Jimbo,

If players had to play lies not on the playing surface, up in a tree or bush, where they are, to avoid penalty, then what do you do for ones 1 foot off the ground or 5 feet off the playing surface?

In this way, "lies" are similar to OB lines, in that they indicate the lie or status on the playing surface immediately below. The ONLY think that can interrupt this is another playing surface. So in order for a lie to be in a tree or bush we would first have to redefine "playing surface" as including "trees" and "bushes" (which in turn would lead to other rules implications, most of which I am ok with).

I do prefer the mark it on the playing surface immediately below and play on rule we currently have though for its simplicity and for its consideration of the physical traits of most disc golf courses being in deep woods.

I am for the positive identification of the disc in play, I do not think that it necessarily be retrieved. If it cannot be identified it should be considered lost and that rule applied.

Regards,
Nick


Again...another crackhead answer from Nickie :o

I have not kept up with this thread so please allow me to ask some questions that I am sure have been covered.

Is this rule on the way out? Is the USDGC stance on it the first step?

Personally, I think it is a stupid rule that relies mainly on luck and it should be done away with.

The proposal is for the 2m rule to stay the same but operate like the OB rule where the designer/TD has to specify where it is active. But the default would be that it doesn't exist on any course except where specified.

Makes sense. So, it is an attempt to take away all the bad luck involved but keep it in play for instance if there are very tall, think trees near a basket and it is easy to hit them and have a close putt?

So, it is an attempt to take away all the bad luck involved but keep it in play for instance if there are very tall, think trees near a basket and it is easy to hit them and have a close putt?



That's probably the primary example. There may be other situations but I can't think of any generic ones right now. The big issue that needs resolving, in general, is what constitutes confirming ownership of a disc that can only be seen from a distance, whether in a tree or in a casual relief area say near a wasp nest. If you can see a disc of the same color as yours but can't reach it, is that sufficient to not get a penalty?

I have not kept up with this thread so please allow me to ask some questions that I am sure have been covered.

Is this rule on the way out? Is the USDGC stance on it the first step?

Personally, I think it is a stupid rule that relies mainly on luck and it should be done away with.



Danny, you always were a superior thinker... ;)

I have not kept up with this thread so please allow me to ask some questions that I am sure have been covered.

Is this rule on the way out? Is the USDGC stance on it the first step?

Personally, I think it is a stupid rule that relies mainly on luck and it should be done away with.



Danny, you always were a superior thinker... ;)



Logical....yes, superior.........HA!

Chuck, what you're saying is if I have a one of a kind tye dyed disc that is easily identifiable and it gets stuck 20 feet up in a cedar tree, I will be able to just drop a mini below it and throw my next shot without incurring any penalty (unless previously mentioned by a TD), right?

Can everyone here really tell me that sounds right, or fair? Seriously?

I guess you could stroke me for littering if I don't get the disc down from the tree. Is that to be considered a viable 'punishment' for my bad shot?

Chuck, what you're saying is if I have a one of a kind tye dyed disc that is easily identifiable and it gets stuck 20 feet up in a cedar tree, I will be able to just drop a mini below it and throw my next shot without incurring any penalty (unless previously mentioned by a TD), right?




First of all, we'll assume you weren't intending for your disc to hit or land in the tree so you've already taken a distance penalty. And second, why should you get a penalty when my disc hit the same tree in almost the same spot and is sitting below yours already on the ground? It's a good thing you threw that tie dyed disc to help identify it but I sure wouldn't be throwing such a nice disc if you plan to hit trees or possibly lose it in one... :)

Chuck, what you're saying is if I have a one of a kind tye dyed disc that is easily identifiable and it gets stuck 20 feet up in a cedar tree, I will be able to just drop a mini below it and throw my next shot without incurring any penalty (unless previously mentioned by a TD), right?




First of all, we'll assume you weren't intending for your disc to hit or land in the tree so you've already taken a distance penalty. And second, why should you get a penalty when my disc hit the same tree in almost the same spot and is sitting below yours already on the ground? It's a good thing you threw that tie dyed disc to help identify it but I sure wouldn't be throwing such a nice disc if you plan to hit trees or possibly lose it in one... :)



Well, I normally throw tie dye because they are easier to find in the schule....

I still see no validity in the 'I hit the same spot but didn't stick argument'. How many times have you seen 2 shots hit a tree and one goes OB while the other kicks out into the fairway? Or one disc skips across an OB road but flips up on the curb while the other doesn't?

Allowing someone to play a disc stuck way up in a tree without any repercussions just sounds insane. It's even worse if they are allowed to leave it there.

Imagine this conversation:

"Hey, did you hear I got my valk stuck way up in the cedar on 16?"

"Yeah, what happened?"

"I hit the 30 foot putt for a birdie."

"Cool."

Clearly the change in the rule creates a problem, identified by Rodney, regardless of whether we call it a 2-meter rule problem or a lost disc problem.

Before when we were all staring up into that pine tree where we saw the red Beast go, if the player was saying it was his that was o.k. Whether it was lost or over 2 meters did not matter. He was taking a stroke and marking under the tree either way. We're all fine with a guy taking a stroke and crawling under a pine tree for his next throw.

Now it matters big. Now he's there saying, "Oh, I'm sure that's my Beast because of that notch on the rim there," and I'm either being a tick saying, "You can't see any f-ing notch on the rim from here; you can't even see if it is a Beast from here," or, more the likely, IT IS ANOTHER RULE VIOLATION THAT DOES NOT GET CALLED, because I agree with Rhett on the whole calling rules sucks issue.

If we cannot tell its his disc, we cannot tell whether it is his disc over two meters. But that does not make it a lost disc issue because every time he'll be standing there saying, "Oh, I'm sure that's my disc cuz..."

I know that guy. He's in my group every time.

Or what about, "Hey, cool. I landed on the bridge."

"Sorry dude. You can't play it from there. You have to throw from under the bridge with a penalty."

Both tree and bridge scenarios could have two discs landing essentially in the same 3D relationship to each other. In the tree case, you would give a penalty and the bridge, not? Now if we had a definition of a playing surface, maybe there's a difference...

As a designer, there will be places where I'll still probably want the 2m rule enforced, likely near baskets. But most of the time, hitting a tree is penalty enough whether a player sticks in it or not. And, if the player sticks in it, they run the risk of losing their disc. So, I'm not sure how 'lucky' players will be with no 2m rule. They'll still get stuck and still lose discs, especially in cedars.

It seems wrong to be able throw a disc into trees near a polehole, and have the disc either trickle through and fall down near the basket, but if stuck above 2m, be able to mark directly underneath the lie and putt from there without any penalty. There is a hole at Seneca Creek where a pin position lies underneath several large trees. Many players do thusly, and launch a high hyzer into the trees whereupon the disc will "plinko" and drop near the basket. Sometimes it will catch up, making for a penalty stroke and a circle 3 putt - that's the risk you run.

However, in my experience, the number of opportunities in disc golf where this situation occurs - when trees are used as a backstop or as an aid, is extremely rare.

Chuck,

You don't sound like you're talking about disc golf anymore.

Before when we were all staring up into that pine tree where we saw the red Beast go, if the player was saying it was his that was o.k. Whether it was lost or over 2 meters did not matter. He was taking a stroke and marking under the tree either way. We're all fine with a guy taking a stroke and crawling under a pine tree for his next throw.

Now it matters big. Now he's there saying, "Oh, I'm sure that's my Beast because of that notch on the rim there," and I'm either being a tick saying, "You can't see any f-ing notch on the rim from here; you can't even see if it is a Beast from here,"...



Interesting. So without the 2m rule, the burden falls to the lost disc rule to call a penalty or not.

Is the lost-disc rule being re-written to deal with this new case, so conflicts like Bruce mentioned can be avoided?

It seems wrong to be able throw a disc into trees near a polehole, and have the disc either trickle through and fall down near the basket, but if stuck above 2m, be able to mark directly underneath the lie and putt from there without any penalty.
However, in my experience, the number of opportunities in disc golf where this situation occurs - when trees are used as a backstop or as an aid, is extremely rare.



then you never played in tucson before the redesign of santa cruz riverpark,where at least now there are only 4 holes where throwing it into the trees helps you instead of all 18 holes :eek:

Is the lost-disc rule being re-written to deal with this new case, so conflicts like Bruce mentioned can be avoided?

How about "Lost disc is penalty enough?" and "Any time your disc lands somewhere where it would be difficult or inconvenient to throw from, you can just move it to the fairway." That will pretty much settle all our rules disputes after we change the stance rule to, "Once you've marked your disc, throw from that general area."

If you don't have rules, you won't have rules disputes.

Is the lost-disc rule being re-written to deal with this new case, so conflicts like Bruce mentioned can be avoided?

How about "Lost disc is penalty enough?" and "Any time your disc lands somewhere where it would be difficult or inconvenient to throw from, you can just move it to the fairway." That will pretty much settle all our rules disputes after we change the stance rule to, "Once you've marked your disc, throw from that general area."

If you don't have rules, you won't have rules disputes.



So Bruce, is it difficult or inconvenient to throw from 6'5" up in a tree? Well, is it?

The option that I am excited about is the one where once we define "playing surface", we could make the surface of all trees and bushes OB if we want, that way any disc completely supported by a tree or bush on such a designated course would be OB and the player get a stroke and 1 meter relief, throw and distance or drop zone.

OB kicks the tar out of the 2 meter in every way. It just does.

Is the lost-disc rule being re-written to deal with this new case, so conflicts like Bruce mentioned can be avoided?

How about "Lost disc is penalty enough?" and "Any time your disc lands somewhere where it would be difficult or inconvenient to throw from, you can just move it to the fairway."



So Bruce, is it difficult or inconvenient to throw from 6'5" up in a tree? Well, is it?

The option that I am excited about is the one where once we define "playing surface", we could make the surface of all trees and bushes OB if we want, that way any disc completely supported by a tree or bush on such a designated course would be OB and the player get a stroke and 1 meter relief, throw and distance or drop zone.

OB kicks the tar out of the 2 meter in every way. It just does.



I thought the problem here was that if you don't have the 2m rule, then if a disc is up a tree, it may or may not be considered lost. If the disc can't be retrieved but it somehow can be identified at a distance, it's not lost, so no penalty. If it cannot be identified, then it is lost, and a lost-disc penalty is applied. Arguments then ensue over whether or not an unretrievable disc can be identified at a distance to avoid the lost-disc penalty.

Is this the problem or not? Won't the lost-disc rule have to be amended to cover this situation if the 2m rule is abandoned?

Even with the 2m rule, the disc must be positively identified.

Even with the 2m rule, the disc must be positively identified.



Right. For a disc above 2m, if it's not positively identified, then the lost-disc rule is activated, and 2m rule doesn't apply. And if it is positively identified, then the 2m rule does apply. In both cases today, as the rules currently exist, there is a one-throw penalty, so there's no advantage to positive identification.

But without the 2m rule, there will be an advantage to positive identification. I think this was pointed out before on this thread. If the disc can be positively identified, there would no longer be a penalty. That's why arguments that weren't taking place before may now begin over identification of a disc at a distance, because without the 2m rule, there's an advantage to avoiding the lost-disc penalty.

I understand the rules committee normally likes to give the player the benefit of the doubt, so if the player says he can identify his disc when no one else on his card can be sure, is that enough to avoid the lost-disc penalty? Will that satisfy everyone on the card, or will they insist on applying the lost-disc penalty? If the idea is to make rulings clearer, the lost-disc rule may need to be more explicit to keep this type of argument from escalating.

Sounds like the start of really big unique marks that are easily recognized from a distance.

I understand the rules committee normally likes to give the player the benefit of the doubt, so if the player says he can identify his disc when no one else on his card can be sure, is that enough to avoid the lost-disc penalty? Will that satisfy everyone on the card, or will they insist on applying the lost-disc penalty?



If you step out of the clouds of idealism and look at what actually happens on the course during a tournament, you will quickly realize that a player will be able to point at a pine cone and claim that it is his/her disc, and no one on the card will argue because they don't want to be a dick.

If you step out of the clouds of idealism and look at what actually happens on the course during a tournament, you will quickly realize that a player will be able to point at a pine cone and claim that it is his/her disc, and no one on the card will argue because they don't want to be a dick.


Are you saying that even if rules were written clearly, they won't get called if they involve penalties?? What's a good example of a well-written, straightforward rule that requires little or no debate when broken but rarely gets called?

Stance: you must have at least one supporting point on the LOP and within 30 cm of your marker when you release the disc.

Pretty darn unambiguous.

Wow. Do a lot of people feel this way? If so, arguing about rules that no one follows sort of smacks of re-arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking.

Sounds like the start of really big unique marks that are easily recognized from a distance.

No, you want to use tiny marks that only you can see. That way Rhett and I can't argue with you. We'll just throw up our hands saying, "Well, it looks like a pine cone to me but if you say that's your disc way up there..."

Paul,

That is not a bad observation, but what is the alternative: Not to fix known inconsistancies and challenges within our rules until everyone starts knowing, playing by and calling our rules?

Nick

Sounds like the start of really big unique marks that are easily recognized from a distance.



Or the start of the need for players to retrieve their discs in order to positively ID them and avoid a lost disc ruling.

Changing a rule that you personally don't like with one that will never be called is not, IMO, progress.

That is not a bad observation, but what is the alternative: Not to fix known inconsistancies and challenges within our rules until everyone starts knowing, playing by and calling our rules?


No, I'd go in the other direction: clarify the lost-disc rule to say that if you can't retrieve the disc in an acceptable period of time (3 minutes?), then the lost-disc penalty applies, regardless of whether or not you identify the disc.

But if the rule is clarified in that manner and still not called because people hate to call penalties on others, that's still sort of a hollow victory.

Maybe that's why in ball golf people call penalties on themselves. Why don't we start promoting that?

Maybe that's why in ball golf people call penalties on themselves. Why don't we start promoting that?



Ugh. :(

No they don't. Go to your local muni and see what percentage of the players kick the ball to a better lie when their card-mates aren't looking.

Rhett,

So what would you suggest?

Nick

Maybe that's why in ball golf people call penalties on themselves. Why don't we start promoting that?



Ugh. :(

No they don't. Go to your local muni and see what percentage of the players kick the ball to a better lie when their card-mates aren't looking.



That will happen. Mulligans, stance violations, etc. All the mark of people playing too casually, or worse, dishonestly.

I think all you can do is promote an example that will in the long run minimize cheating. (Not eliminate it, of course -- can't eliminate human weakness from any sport.)

In ball golf tournament play, you see less cheating, almost none, because the world is watching. Until disc golf becomes that popular (or if it never does), I think we'll have to accept that cheating happens.

In the meantime, the PDGA can promote a better example. Writing clearer rules and pushing for self-enforcement of those rules might be two ways that the PDGA could do that.

In ball golf tournament play, you see less cheating, almost none, because the world is watching. Until disc golf becomes that popular (or if it never does), I think we'll have to accept that cheating happens.



You can do a search on this site and find probably 37 different times I have tried to address this misconception. Here's the short version: the PGA Tour is so much different than the PDGA tour that you cannot compare the two. A ball golf pro with a tour card can win so much money at next week's event that getting caught cheating at this week's event would be stupid beyond reason. Getting your PGA tour card pulled is not worth trying to cheat. Forget the morals and anything else involved and consider the dollars and sense.

Consider the disc golf pro, where one or two strokes might mean the difference between eating ramen or going big time for a luxurious dinner at Red Lobster. Or maybe it's the difference between having the entry fee for next week's event or not playing in it.

I'm sure there is plenty of cheating in the smaller ball golf tours where there aren't so many cameras or spectators. And not nearly as much money available next week.

So what would you suggest?



I suggest we put on hold, for now, new rules or revisions that will not be called and instead focus on coming up with a plan whereby calling a rules violation does not make you a dick or get you beat up.

I don't have any good ideas on how to get there, but that's where we need to get.

So what would you suggest?



I suggest we put on hold, for now, new rules or revisions that will not be called and instead focus on coming up with a plan whereby calling a rules violation does not make you a dick or get you beat up.

I don't have any good ideas on how to get there, but that's where we need to get.


Rhett,

For what it's worth I agree that a serious and coordinated campaign to build a culture of knowing, following and calling the rules among players, TDs and officials of the PDGA.

I would disagree with you that we should stop the process of enhancing and improving our rules until such a culture is in place. We need to stay focused on what is before us and do whatever we can whenever we can.

Do you have any ideas on how to change this culture and attitude towards our rules?

Nick

Is the lost-disc rule being re-written to deal with this new case, so conflicts like Bruce mentioned can be avoided?

How about "Lost disc is penalty enough?" and "Any time your disc lands somewhere where it would be difficult or inconvenient to throw from, you can just move it to the fairway." That will pretty much settle all our rules disputes after we change the stance rule to, "Once you've marked your disc, throw from that general area."

If you don't have rules, you won't have rules disputes.



So Bruce, is it difficult or inconvenient to throw from 6'5" up in a tree? Well, is it?

The option that I am excited about is the one where once we define "playing surface", we could make the surface of all trees and bushes OB if we want, that way any disc completely supported by a tree or bush on such a designated course would be OB and the player get a stroke and 1 meter relief, throw and distance or drop zone.

OB kicks the tar out of the 2 meter in every way. It just does.




So Bruce, is it difficult or inconvenient to throw from 6'5" up in a tree? Well, is it?



Well?

Yes. That is why I think the former 2-meter rule was intuitive and the new rule is stupid.

How intuitive is playing a lie 6�4� up in a tree Bruce, or did reality suddenly alter and the laws or physics change? Did it suddenly and magically become easy, convenient and intuitive to throw from 6�4� up in a tree?

I�d like to see how easy or convenient it would be for you to even throw from 3�4� up in a fragile bush Bruce? I know you are a clever guy, but I suspect levitation is not in your book of tricks�

Nick, have a cup of coffee and then re-read my post. It's early, I know.

Nick, have a cup of coffee and then re-read my post. It's early, I know.



Had the coffee, thanks. But can you give me a hint why the 2 meter rule is intuitive when you are just as inconvenienced and the shot just as difficult from 6� 4� or even 3�2� as it is from 6�6�?

I�m sure we would all like to learn that trick. It would come in very handy.

Yes, that is a mystery that will likely never be solved.

Mark it on the playing surface and play on. SSS.

A lost disc is a lost disc. Perhaps it was last seen going into the trees 30' up, and cannot be found on the ground, nor can it be seen when looking up into the trees. What happens next? A lie is marked on the ground below the disc presumed to be stuck in a tree.

The player is accessed two penalties. 1 for a lost disc, 1 for being over two meters up in a tree.

Some arguments make a correlation between the two penalties, but I fail to see the relationship.

NB: It's a fairly common ruling on a hole at Lake Cunningham. Its' a risk and reward thing. Throw straight over the tops of the pines (RHBH), fade to the basket for a duece. Or throw about 10 feet off the ground down hill, skip towards the basket for a possible 3. Over the top works if you've got the distance (no room to knife hyzer btw), otherwise it's better to take the low road.

The intuitive rule, that everyone of us played by before we were aware that there was a PDGA making up non-intuitive rules, is that you play it where it lies. If you are going to take relief, you take a throw penalty.

When a disc came to rest above the playing surface, but below my height, it seemed intuitive to play it where it came to rest with some part of my body there. In my earliest group of players, (Jon, myself, some of Jon's friends) we decided we needed a standard height so that the taller players would not have an unfair advantage, so we chose six feet. The two-meter rule evolved similarly among Stork's friends, the rule being related to Stork's height instead of my height.

The notion of free relief from any unplayable lie seems counter-intuitive to me. You threw it there. If you can't play it there, take a stroke and follow some convention for figuring out where to play it.

In our game you could not play it from the tree because you had to play from the ground. There was one guy in our group with supernatural tree climbing abilities [what was Monkey Mike's name?] and we were not going to let him have that advantage.

Bruce,

You present nothing new here. I think that it is actually "stupid" to say that you believe that "you should play it where it lies" and in the next sentence say, "accept if it is below 2 meters, then it is ok to change the lie". Not only are you being inconsistent you are being �counter-intuitive�.

Again, I ask you to consider playing your lie 6 feet off the playing surface in a wide small-branched bush if you want to be consistent and intuitive with �playing it where it lies�; otherwise you need to come to terms with our sports �reasonable� allowance for marking our lie on the playing surface below the disc at rest.

Lastly, the rule is completely redundant to our OB rule. If you would tell us exactly how the 2 meter rule is more effective, consistent, or intuitive, than making an entire tree surface OB? Explain to us how it is more effective in protecting that tree? Explain to us how it is fairer? Find even one reason why it is superior or even equal to our Out of Bounds rule?

Regards,
Nick

Andrew,

You are exactly correct. Bruce's example has nothing whatsoever to do with the dying 2 meter rule; it is solely related to identifying a disc and the lost disc rule.

In my experience, I have never had an issue arise during PDGA Rounds where a disc in a tree or in water could not be identified.

Water is a different situation in some ways though. Once a disc is seen to completely enter water, I have almost never seen one emerge again under it�s initial momentum; but when a disc enters a tree it often passes right through or drops out. They are far more easy to view in trees than deep water as well.

Any way you slice it, it has to do with identifying the disc not with it�s OB or Above the Playing Surface status.

Regards,
Nick

I think that it is actually "stupid" to say that you believe that "you should play it where it lies" and in the next sentence say, "accept if it is below 2 meters, then it is ok to change the lie".



I agree that that woud be stupid. It is also stupid to make up stupid arguments for whoever you are arguing with, refute the stupid argument you just made up, and not deal with what they just said.

I think that it is actually "stupid" to say that you believe that "you should play it where it lies" and in the next sentence say, "accept if it is below 2 meters, then it is ok to change the lie".



I agree that that would be stupid.




If you are going to take relief, you take a throw penalty.

� The notion of free relief from any unplayable lie seems counter-intuitive to me. You threw it there. If you can't play it there, take a stroke and follow some convention for figuring out where to play it.



Great! Then by this, you would agree that moving your lie from 6�4� to the playing surface would be just as much a violation of this logic and precept of �play it where it lies� as it is to move your lie from 6�6� to the playing surface.

But�


In our game you could not play it from the tree because you had to play from the ground.



Very true, that is why for �Discs Above the Playing Surface�, and regardless of how high they are above the playing surface, we mark the lie on the playing surface directly below where the disc came to rest.

There is nothing intuitive about penalizing one disc that is above the playing surface and not another; your own �my height�and not giving Stork an advantage� story proves that it is not.

OB surfaces are intuitive and 100% consistent for all players regardless of reach or height. The 2 meter rule is a weak rule, an unnecessary rule, and a rule that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

The player is accessed two penalties. 1 for a lost disc, 1 for being over two meters up in a tree.


Why the two penalties? If a disc is truly lost, you can't know where it is, let alone above 2m in a tree. For all you know, it passed through the tree unseen and isn't in a tree at all.

Seems you're over-penalizing here. If the disc is lost, that's the only penalty I think you should take. If it's not lost but up a tree, then you take the 2m penalty. At least, today you do that -- some people here are arguing for no 2m penalty in the future. (I'm not sure why.)

I agree that that woud be stupid. It is also stupid to make up stupid arguments for whoever you are arguing with, refute the stupid argument you just made up, and not deal with what they just said.


Even though I have had some disagreements with Bruce, I have to commend him heartily on stating Nick's "debating style" so succinctly. :)

Yes, back in the days of "primordial golf', before I new about the PDGA and actual rules, we played that if you could put your foot there you could play it there. If you had to knock it down it cost you a stroke. My favorite shot was the "disc hanging 4 feet off the ground" shot, where you took your ice-skater stance with your foot as high as you could get it and then tried to throw.

The current 2-meter rule is so much more elegant than that, that I too would call it "intuitive".

Bruce and Rhett,

Wouldn't it be convenient if your two early experiences had something to do with "intuition" and weren't, like the 2 meter rule, "contrived" and "inconsistent" with our other rules, let alone the game of golf.

Unfortunately, they are and will likely always be, unless we start playing lies 5 foot 6 inches up in a tree by standing up there or holding a finger in contact with that lie.

That would be stupid though, wouldn't it.

No, better to play it on the playing surface or call that tree's surface OB (in which case, and any case for that matter, we still) mark it on the main playing surface below.

You guys want to play it where it lies, but not play it where it lies, unfortunately those concepts are complete opposites.

One man's intuition is another man's contrivance.

I hope that helped move this to a resolution. ;)

One man's intuition is another man's contrivance.

I hope that helped move this to a resolution. ;)



James, I have no problem with making stuff up to solve a perceived problem, but when a better solution presents itself, the mere pre-existence of that original or initial contrivance does not make it intuitive or a better solution.

You don�t want folks playing lies up in trees and bushes, fantastic, then make them OB.

That or accept that in disc golf we play on the ground, mark your lie on the playing surface and play on.

No need for stone aged disc golf �intuition� to ever come up when you have clear simple rules available today.

No need for stone aged disc golf �intuition� to ever come up when you have clear simple rules available today.


Tell the truth, Nick. You just want to get rid of the 2 meter rule because you aren't skilled enough of a golfer to not hit trees with yout discs. And you'll say anything to try and get your way.

No need for stone aged disc golf �intuition� to ever come up when you have clear simple rules available today.


Tell the truth, Nick. You just want to get rid of the 2 meter rule because you aren't skilled enough of a golfer to not hit trees with yout discs. And you'll say anything to try and get your way.



Rhett, I'll admit to not having enough skill that when I do hit a tree I can't control whether it stays less than 2 meters up or not, if you'll admit to having enough skill that when you do hit a tree you can control whether it stays less than 2 meters up or not. Deal?

Very few disc golfers hit trees on purpose, particularly 1/4 or 1/2 way down a a fairway, 0% of disc golfers can control whether their disc will stick 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 meter up in a tree when they do hit them.

And I've never met a regular disc golfer who has yet to hit a tree, have you?

Rhett, I'll admit to not having enough skill that when I do hit a tree I can't control whether it stays less than 2 meters up or not, if you'll admit to having enough skill that when you do hit a tree you can control whether it stays less than 2 meters up or not. Deal?

Very few disc golfers hit trees on purpose, particularly 1/4 or 1/2 way down a a fairway, 0% of disc golfers can control whether their disc will stick 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 meter up in a tree when they do hit them.

And I've never met a regular disc golfer who has yet to hit a tree, have you?


What's your point, Nick? I've never met a regular disc golfer who has yet to not throw OB, either. And no one I know means to fall just outside an OB line or just inside one -- it's somewhat lucky, either way.

If anything, with the 2m rule, the luck is skewed in the player's direction, because gravity always pushes the disc down, so there's always an influence to get the disc below 2m, where with the OB line, no such natural influence exists to keep a disc in-bounds.

Is this really your only problem with the 2m rule, that people whose discs get caught in trees don't mean to get their discs caught in trees? You believe it's just pure luck if the disc stays above 2m? No skill is involved?

The fact is that it was bad throwing that hit the tree in the first place. After making such a throw, you are getting a gift most of the time when you hit a tree and your disc falls out. That is no reason to say the 2m rule is unfair if you don't get that gift 100% of the time. And you are only being penalized if you can't reach up and get the disc out of the tree to make the next throw. Taken from that point of view, the 2m rule could even be considered to be overly generous, as a disc stuck in a tree at any height could easily have been penalized by the rules. As it is, the 2m rule asks only for the disc to be within reaching distance.

I understand your point of view, Nick, but I don't see that you have identified a real problem in the rules. If the PDGA is going to eliminate the 2m rule based on this issue, then I think it will lead to more confusion, not less.

And I know, Nick, that in your experience no one has ever had a problem identifying a disc in the past, but that is the point: NO ONE HAS EVER CARED BEFORE. Because so far your experience has been with the 2m rule in place. When the penalty is the same for the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, why argue over a positive identification?

Once you eliminate the 2m rule and make positive identification a benefit, avoiding the lost-disc penalty, people WILL care and WILL try to say that you really can't identify your disc at a distance. So if you choose to fix what's not broken and eliminate the 2m rule, you will break the lost-disc rule and need to fix that, as well.

And I know, Nick, that in your experience no one has ever had a problem identifying a disc in the past, but that is the point: NO ONE HAS EVER CARED BEFORE. Because so far your experience has been with the 2m rule in place. When the penalty is the same for the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, why argue over a positive identification?

Once you eliminate the 2m rule and make positive identification a benefit, avoiding the lost-disc penalty, people WILL care and WILL try to say that you really can't identify your disc at a distance. So if you choose to fix what's not broken and eliminate the 2m rule, you will break the lost-disc rule and need to fix that, as well.



OK, here we go. I'm going to make an honest attempt to understand what you are saying.

2 meter rule in effect:
Scenario 1: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. They are unable to find it. It is declared lost; one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

Scenario 2: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that looks like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. One throw penalty and mark it on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest.

Scenario 3: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it isn't his disc. Lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

2 meter rule not in effect:
Scenario 1: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. They are unable to find it. It is declared lost; one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

Scenario 2: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that looks like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Mark it on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest.

Scenario 3: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it isn't his disc. Lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

Where is this difference in the rules? Besides the penalty for the being above the playing surface, what is different? I can�t find anything? Please explain what I am missing? That the player will be more likely to �lie�!?! Sorry, don�t buy it; if that is the concern then eliminating dumb rules is the least of our worries�

<font color="red"> OK, here we go. I'm going to make an honest attempt to understand what you are saying.

<font color="blue">Cool!

<font color="red"> 2 meter rule in effect:
Scenario 1: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. They are unable to find it. It is declared lost; one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

<font color="blue">Good.

<font color="red"> Scenario 2: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that looks like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. One throw penalty and mark it on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest.

<font color="blue">Yes.

<font color="red"> Scenario 3: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it isn't his disc. Lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

<font color="blue">Yes.

<font color="red"> Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

<font color="blue">You're forgetting the 2m rule. If the player is right, then he still has to accept a one-shot penalty, same as if the group is right. And the provisional shot would be thrown under what he thinks is his disc, while the group is going to say throw from somewhere under the tree, where the disc was last seen to go. Likely the same shot, so no need for a provisional throw. Therefore, no resulting difference between the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, no conflict, and no need to involve the TD.

<font color="red"> 2 meter rule not in effect:
Scenario 1: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. They are unable to find it. It is declared lost; one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

<font color="blue">Yes.

<font color="red"> Scenario 2: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that looks like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Mark it on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest.

<font color="blue">Right, no penalty now, because the disc isn't lost and the 2m rule has been vacated. People not aware of that will have to educated.

<font color="red"> Scenario 3: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it isn't his disc. Lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen.

<font color="blue">Right.

<font color="red"> Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

<font color="blue">In this scenario, now there is conflict. The result will determine if the player is given a one-shot penalty or not. The TD will have to make a ruling, if it gets that far. The player will try to persuade everyone in his group that the disc is truly his and may win out; failing that, I wonder how he's going to convince the TD. So this is a new opportunity for conflict in interpreting the rules, where before no one cared if you could identify a disc way up in a tree, because regardless, it was a one-shot penalty, throw from under the tree.

<font color="red"> Where is this difference in the rules?

<font color="blue">I hope you see it now. I've seen before where you argue that making a rule clearer, easier to interpret, is a good goal. I think it's still a good goal to have here.

My recommendation is: leave the 2m rule in place, because that's clear enough and avoids involving the TD to resolve a conflict. Failing that, fix the lost-disc rule so that your "scenario 4" doesn't require involvement from the TD (i.e., make it necessary for the player to retrieve the disc in front of the group to make it positively identified; otherwise, he must accept the lost-disc penalty, no question about it, no need to involve the TD).

</font>

Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

You're forgetting the 2m rule. If the player is right, then he still has to accept a one-shot penalty, same as if the group is right. And the provisional shot would be thrown under what he thinks is his disc, while the group is going to say throw from somewhere under the tree, where the disc was last seen to go. Likely the same shot, so no need for a provisional throw. Therefore, no resulting difference between the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, no conflict, and no need to involve the TD.



Paul,

You are in error. The provisional is necessary if the player disagrees with the group ruling, and the lie given can be quite different as well. The disc they find could be 100s of feet away from where they last saw it in flight. The disc still needs to be identified either way you slice it, that or accept the group decision.

The 2 meter rule may make the penalty the same, but the implications to play are not the same, nor is the need to identify the disc in question, nore is the need to play a provisional if the group says that is not your disc.

I understand what you are saying, but it is not correct, nor does it substantiate the need for the 2 meter rule.

And how would this solve the problem you think exists any better than designating the entire surface of the tree as OB?

Paul, on this particular hole there is a group of mature pine trees with a lot of clearance under the trees. One argument goes like this...

If you can't find it on the ground, it must be up in one of these trees. Many of the trees don't have branches below 2 meters, so it must also be above 2 meters. It's lost, and it's above 2 meters, two different penalties on one throw. Then the guy kicks his bag in frustration, another penalty. :)

At Worlds, the DMACC course, I wonder how many people landed far into the pond and only took 1 stroke penalty for being OB, ignoring the lost disc portion.

I don't agree with your point that 0% of disc golfers can control whether their disc will stick 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 meter up in a tree when they do hit them. Most good throwers can control this simply by choosing to throw a low shot down the tunnel (or slide under the barrier trees if the hole is more open) as opposed to trying to go up and over. Keep the shot low, and in most cases you won't be over two meters if the shot goes wide. And in the case of designing a hole that has the opportunity to take advantage of using trees as such, the rule serves as a design consideration that adds challenge to the course.

Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

You're forgetting the 2m rule. If the player is right, then he still has to accept a one-shot penalty, same as if the group is right. And the provisional shot would be thrown under what he thinks is his disc, while the group is going to say throw from somewhere under the tree, where the disc was last seen to go. Likely the same shot, so no need for a provisional throw. Therefore, no resulting difference between the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, no conflict, and no need to involve the TD.



Paul,

You are in error. The provisional is necessary if the player disagrees with the group ruling, and the lie given can be quite different as well. The disc they find could be 100s of feet away from where they last saw it in flight. The disc still needs to be identified either way you slice it, that or accept the group decision.



Actually, Nick, you're in bleeding error, because you just changed your own scenario. You said the disc vanishes into a tree. Now you're saying the disc could be found 100m away, affecting the lie? Try sticking to one scenario, especially if it's one you came up with yourself.


The 2 meter rule may make the penalty the same,



Thanks for admitting that.


but the implications to play are not the same, nor is the need to identify the disc in question, nore is the need to play a provisional if the group says that is not your disc.



Practically speaking, it does mean things are the same. No one's going to argue to stand somewhere else under a tree than the spot in question where the player thinks his disc is. There was a one-shot penalty, the guy can't get his disc back, that's enough. If the group is being real sticklers, maybe they'll have him stand under where the disc went in, rather than under disc the player thinks is his, but I don't see people going that far, and you've already admitted that in your experience, Nick, this scenario doesn't even happen -- people say that's his disc and move on. I say they do this because they don't see the advantage of doing otherwise. Any why is that? Because there is no advantage.


I understand what you are saying, but it is not correct, nor does it substantiate the need for the 2 meter rule.



You haven't refuted what I said, so it still stands.


And how would this solve the problem you think exists any better than designating the entire surface of the tree as OB?



If a disc comes to a rest on top of a tree stump in the middle of the fairway, why should that be OB? Nor is it OB if the disc comes to a rest leaning up against the stump of a full-grown tree. And then there are all small trees, short bushes, and little, woody plants to consider... look, I don't want to open that door and designate every twig on the ground OB or not.

The 2m rule avoids all that, and I like it fine. I understand that if I can't reach the disc while standing on the playing surface, that I threw a poor shot, and so I expect to be penalized. It all just makes too much sense, so I can see why it's evil and must be changed.

Tim,

That may be true on specific holes or a course with no trees, but most players will face at some point a hole or course that requires they throw into situations where they WILL hit a tree and WILL NOT be able to control whether it drops out of the tree or not. Almost every hole at Seneca for example.

Nick

Paul,

Without rehashing everything again, you are wrong, I did not say they found the disc 100 feet further down the fairway, I said they found a disc 100 feet further down the fairway, the player says it's his, the group says it's not. Player calls for a provisional, plays one 100 feet in front of where the disc was last seen and one where it was last seen.

I have seen your point from the beginning and it is not worth worrying about. If the player wants to claim a disc that is not recovered way up in a tree, then they need to recover it to avoid a lost disc penalty throw, otherwise play a provisional until later when the disc can be recovered and the TD make a ruling.

This represents no change from how it should be handled under current rules. If anything it enhances them by emphasizing the need to positively id all discs.

The same is not necessarily true of disc that vanish into deep water. The group can reasonably deduce from seening the disc enter the water that it is ob and follow the rules according to that.

And for you guys trying to double up on violations, give it a rest, the PDGA is quite clear about not applying rules in that way. If your disc is lost, 2 meters up and OB (the last two you can't really know unless you find it) you do not compound the penalty throws.

Some folks here need to read their rulebooks again. If you don't have one read the Rules Link above. It is a quick read.

Nick

Without rehashing everything again, you are wrong, I did not say they found the disc 100 feet further down the fairway, I said they found a disc 100 feet further down the fairway, the player says it's his, the group says it's not.


Well, that's not scenario 4, is it? What you're talking about is a new scenario, Nick, not what I responded to earlier.

You still haven't shown where I was wrong with scenario 4. (That is, without changing the scenario to something else.)

So please, Nick, stop saying I'm wrong about a new scenario that I have yet to even comment on. Okay?

But I will comment on it now:


...they found a disc 100 feet further down the fairway, the player says it's his, the group says it's not.


What? Even after finding the disc, the player and group can't agree whose it is? That sounds really strange. And off-topic. What does this have to do with the 2m rule, or the elimination of it?


Player calls for a provisional, plays one 100 feet in front of where the disc was last seen and one where it was last seen.


Again, what does this have to do with the 2m rule? 'Cause if they found the disc 100 feet further down the fairway, the disc is not up in a tree anymore, is it?


I have seen your point from the beginning...


Uh huh.


... and it is not worth worrying about.


Then if it's all the same to you, don't change the rules.


If the player wants to claim a disc that is not recovered way up in a tree, then they need to recover it to avoid a lost disc penalty throw, otherwise play a provisional until later when the disc can be recovered and the TD make a ruling.


Sounds like this verbiage is the fix the lost-disc rule needs to accommodate a missing 2m rule. Which is what I've been saying all along, and you, Nick, have been arguing against, although you say you understood me from the beginning.


This represents no change from how it should be handled under current rules. If anything it enhances them by emphasizing the need to positively id all discs.


Well, if you change the rule by emphasizing the need to positively id all discs, then, well, there is a change.


The same is not necessarily true of disc that vanish into deep water. The group can reasonably deduce from seening the disc enter the water that it is ob and follow the rules according to that.


What? Even if I understood the meaning and relevance of this ("the same is not necessarily true..."?), what's this have to with the 2m rule?


And for you guys trying to double up on violations, give it a rest, the PDGA is quite clear about not applying rules in that way. If your disc is lost, 2 meters up and OB (the last two you can't really know unless you find it) you do not compound the penalty throws.


I'm glad you and I agree on something!

2 meter rule in effect:
Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

2 meter rule not in effect:
Scenario 4: A player throws a shot that vanishes into a tree 40 feet up. The group goes up and tries to find the disc. The group sees a disc way up in the tree that doesn't look like the players disc and the player thinks it is his disc. Group rules lost disc: one throw penalty and mark it where it was last seen and the player may request a provisional shot and play it as if that was his disc and then identify the disc later allowing the TD to make the final ruling.

Where is this difference in the rules? Besides the penalty for the being above the playing surface, what is different? I can�t find anything? Please explain what I am missing? That the player will be more likely to �lie�!?! Sorry, don�t buy it; if that is the concern then eliminating dumb rules is the least of our worries�




And the provisional shot would be thrown under what he thinks is his disc, while the group is going to say throw from somewhere under the tree, where the disc was last seen to go. Likely the same shot, so no need for a provisional throw. Therefore, no resulting difference between the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule, no conflict, and no need to involve the TD.



You are wrong Paul. I have said it thrice and I will say it again, you are just wrong. The shot will not �Likely� be �the same shot� and there will be a �need for the a provisional throw� if the player, against the opinion of the group thinks that that is his disc up in the tree. The is a �resulting difference between the 2m rule and the lost-disc rule�, there is a �conflict� and the TD will need to get involved if after the round the group is still unable to positively id the disc, but the player still feels that it is his.

My added stipulation about the disc being 100 feet further down the fairway and not in the same location the disc vanished into the trees was simply to clarify that the lie from the lost disc and the provisional could be very significant.

Nowhere in my example did I say that the location of the provisional and the lost disc spot were the same. In fact, it would be extremely unlikely that they would be in the same location.

Paul,

What are you looking to get out of this discussion? I am looking to see if the removing the 2 meter rule affects whether or not a disc needs to be positively identified. And in my judgment there is no difference.

Now if your point is that there is now a greater imperative to positively identify a disc that is way up in a tree (note that there is no challenge with one 2 meters above the playing surface because it is easily retrievable as are ones at a any variety of heights above that) I would have to agree, somewhat. But in both cases the player and the group, not to mention officials and TDs "still" need to follow the rules. If the id of the disc is in question in either case, because it can not be retrieved in the 3 minutes allowed, then it must be declared lost by the group, and the player play on under that ruling. However (same as before), the player may declare a provisional, saying that that is his disc and also play the hole out under that scenario.

The idea that he would be less likely to declare a provisional under current rules, with the 2 meter penalty, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the 2 meter penalty is a valid and worthwhile rule, because it is separate from the discussion of whether people decide to follow our rules of play or not; not whether they take a stroke for being above 2 meters (which is the only difference in the scenarios described; one takes a stroke for 2 meters violation, the other does not, that�s it).

Again, if I am missing something please start fresh with your own scenario.

Regards,
Nick

Sure they can control it. In a situation where trees may come into play, keep it low. If the hyzer route takes you along pines, consider the safer anhyzer route that is lined by oaks. If your approach gives you the choice of going over or under the trees, take the 'under' choice. Consider the roller out of the shule as opposed to a tomahawk. Thow it out back into the fairway as opposed to throwing it high along the shule line trying to get distance out of your second shot after you yank the drive. And so on ....

Considering all of the options, I would think that in the majority of cases, there is an alternative to throwing into trees, especially high in the trees. Unless, of course, you have no incentive to do so.

Now, if your shot is errant and you end up in disc catching trees, take the penalty and move on. If you get lucky and the shot drops to a point were you can reach it, consider yourself lucky (almost as lucky as if the disc hit a branch and bounced back into the fairway) and play on.

Simple. Risk vs. reward, course management as part of the game. Eliminating 2M takes away from the course management challenges that makes the game what it is. Since we don't have one of the main tools of ball golf to do this (sand traps, as we don't have to throw our disc from an embedded lie while still trying to pop over a raised 'lip' using a short distance wedge if we would land in one), some sort of aerial trap helps provide the same challenges to force us to consider whether to pursue a more conservative, safe line for a shot as opposed to just bombing away.

WORD!

Since we don't have one of the main tools of ball golf to do this (sand traps, as we don't have to throw our disc from an embedded lie while still trying to pop over a raised 'lip' using a short distance wedge if we would land in one), some sort of aerial trap helps provide the same challenges to force us to consider whether to pursue a more conservative, safe line for a shot as opposed to just bombing away.




The very existence of trees in/along the fairways IS an aerial trap because they already affect both the distance and direction of your throws whether you strike them or not, whether you stick in one or not. No additional penalty is required for them to have a major affect on the scoring average of any hole of the same length with trees versus without them.

I think you would be surprised at how high off the ground so called low line drive throws really are. I would guess most people will estimate they are lower to the ground on average than reality. And, if low bullet drives are all that are safe to throw, we might as well solve the runup foot fault problem by eliminating runups and just stand and deliver.

IMO. If you cant reach the disc its OB, or out of play. Cant believe this rule is going away.

Sure they can control it.



They can try to influence it, but even Barry and Ken are not in complete control of their discs or they would shoot 18s every time.


In a situation where trees may come into play, keep it low. If the hyzer route takes you along pines, consider the safer anhyzer route that is lined by oaks. If your approach gives you the choice of going over or under the trees, take the 'under' choice. Consider the roller out of the shule as opposed to a tomahawk. Thow it out back into the fairway as opposed to throwing it high along the shule line trying to get distance out of your second shot after you yank the drive. And so on ....



All excellent examples of trying to influence the likelihood of where your disc goes, but that is different from having 100% control. And please consider this with an open mind: Do you ever find yourself moving your line closer to high trees because you �know� that is the only effective route to a good score on it? Is there a little risk/reward going on there too?


Considering all of the options, I would think that in the majority of cases, there is an alternative to throwing into trees, especially high in the trees. <font color="blue">Sure there is an option just not a competitive one. Technically I could play a course like Renny and never hit a tree, I doubt I could do it in less than 200 throws though!</font> Unless, of course, you have no incentive to do so.



What the Sam Hill are you talking about Tim? The main deterrent in wanting to avoid hitting trees is so that your disc can successfully get to the target, not to avoid a 2 meter penalty. C�mon! You can�t be serious, can you?


Now, if your shot is errant and you end up in disc catching trees, take the penalty and move on. <font color="blue"> You see Tim, that is just it, you do not take the penalty and play on if your disc tumbles lower than 2 meters above the playing surface. Same �errant shot, same lack of control in avoiding trees, same exact execution, only one guy gets a stroke while the other does not. That is crazy. </font> If you get lucky and the shot drops to a point were you can reach it, consider yourself lucky (almost as lucky as if the disc hit a branch and bounced back into the fairway) and play on. <font color="blue"> That horizontal movement is a different phenomenon than the pure haphazardness of tumbling down through a tree. I can deal with the direction the disc gets deflected with, it is just the amount that it tumbles that is ridiculous to try and regulate.</font>

Simple. Risk vs. reward, course management as part of the game. Eliminating 2M takes away from the course management challenges that makes the game what it is. <font color="blue"> You would be correct if the 2 meter rule was a significant deterrent. It is not, so tossing it would have similarly tiny influence on the degree of challenge a course presents.</font> Since we don't have one of the main tools of ball golf to do this (sand traps, as we don't have to throw our disc from an embedded lie while still trying to pop over a raised 'lip' using a short distance wedge if we would land in one), some sort of aerial trap helps provide the same challenges to force us to consider whether to pursue a more conservative, safe line for a shot as opposed to just bombing away. <font color="blue"> Interesting example you site; does landing in a sand trap entail taking a 1 throw penalty?



What you say about aerial traps remains regardless of whether a 2 meter rule is in effect of not.

Now, I have addressed your points, please address the following:

1) How does the 2 meter rule more effectively influence whether a player throws at or near trees (particularly �disc catching� ones) than would designating the entire tree surface as OB?

2) Not mentioned here, how does the 2 meter rule more effectively protect fragile trees than designating the entire tree surface and all area immediately below it as OB?

Clearly, anything 2 meters can do OB can do better and more logically.

IMO. If you cant reach the disc its OB, or out of play. Cant believe this rule is going away.



It has nothing to do with being able to reach it, if it did it would be a better rule, but still an arbitrary one, due to players of different heights having different advantages. That is not possible, so the rule is impossible.

Besides, as pointed out, we play our game on the playing surface, so mark your lie on it and play on. If you want to, as a course designer, make landing in a certain area entail a 1 throw penalty, THEN MAKE IT OB!

The 2 meter rule in my opinion is a LUCK based rule. You can stand and throw 10 drives into the same tree and maybe 1 or 2 out of the ten are going to stick. How is it fair to penalize the 1 or 2 people out of ten who stick in the tree when they hit it. Then it becomes even more luck related when if while your walking to your disc the wind blows it out of the tree and it comes back in bounds.

I am glad they are getting rid of this rule and dont see how anyone would be upset that it is going away. When you get stuck 2 meters above the playing surface it is plain and simple BAD LUCK.

Thanks you for killing the 2 meter rule or atleast giving the TD the option of using it or not. :D

In my opinion, its not quite like a trap as in many cases, getting caught doesn't greatly affect our next shot. Sure, hitting the tree stopped the progress of the first throw. But on the next throw, we are not restricted to using a very short distance shot selection (wedge) from a position where it is hard to get under the object (ball) and get it up enough to get any distance. Instead, we lean out (or maybe don't have to lean at all based on the lie) and throw with our driver or whatever disc we choose. The trap in ball golf not only stopped your progress, it also greatly affects your next shot.

Since we can't literally play it where it lies (i.e. we get releif in regards to how we position our bodies or how high off of the ground we hold the disc), I'm not aware of another way to provide the effect of this trap beyond the penalty. It is, in effect, a double penalty in ball golf.

Now in cases where the lie is a penalty in itself, perhaps relief would be the way to make sure the penalty isn't a triple penalty (stroke, first shot stopped, second shot greatly impeded).

Nick, you're spinning circles. I've already addressed about 100 posts ago that I think that the burden to mark and communicate OB on or under all tress would be next to impossible. I also mentioned that I have no desire to declare someone OB who is trying to slide under a tree and comes up a bit short.

In the case of a tree being close to a basket, or near the end of a flight path, getting caught (i.e not losing distance in any matter) is not a deterent from throwing in the trees if there is no penalty. In fact, in the case of trees behind or near the basket, you may be encouraging throwing into the tree by eliminating the penalty. That's where in Sam's hill I am coming from, sir.

Nick, you're spinning circles. I've already addressed about 100 posts ago that I think that the burden to mark and communicate OB on or under all tress would be next to impossible. I also mentioned that I have no desire to declare someone OB who is trying to slide under a tree and comes up a bit short.

In the case of a tree being close to a basket, or near the end of a flight path, getting caught (i.e not losing distance in any matter) is not a deterent from throwing in the trees if there is no penalty. In fact, in the case of trees behind or near the basket, you may be encouraging throwing into the tree by eliminating the penalty. That's where in Sam's hill I am coming from, sir.



No Tim, you are not getting it. The tree is an OB surface, just like any other OB, the line is where the tree meets the ground (like where water meets land or pavement grass), no string necessary, and under the tree is not OB.

Now you are "really" as you say, discouraging people from throwing into trees.

(Of course if that was really your concern, nothing would accomplish this as much as marking the area on the playing surface beneath the tree as OB.)

If a disc landing in a tree, suspended above the ground, is OB, where do you mark the lie? If your disc came into the tree from the top, that might be the last point IB. The disc might have passed thru a 10 ft section of the tree without touching it before sticking, so the last point IB would be in the airspace in the middle of the tree. If you allow the lie to be down on the ground, even if it's more than 1 meter below, you could run into trouble when the trees limbs go almost to the ground. Can the player move out to the side of the tree if the disc was suspended one foot off the ground because player couldn't take a full meter relief straight down from OB?

Chuck,

Is the air around the outside of the tree a "playing suface"?

The first continuous IB playing surface is the base of the tree, where the roots meet the dirt. Mark one meter from the base and play on. (With a throw penalty of course.)

Reread the Q & A about the bridge as well as the associated thread for a clearer picture.

That still doesn't answer the question with a disc suspended a foot above ground in a low limbed pine tree. You take a penalty and are still under the pine, even if you get a meter from the trunk?

Yes Chuck,

Unless the TD has not limited the OB options to just 1 meter relief; if they have not then the player could use Throw and Distance or go to a drop zone if one is provided. In your example of a particularly bushy tree, the TD would be well advised to not permit the "last place in bounds and 1 meter option, but use T&D or DZ to protect the lower branches from further intentional or unintentional damage.

The only trees on a course that I could imagine wanting to do this for would be trees either in extreme danger of being damaged by full force tee shots (within 50 to 100 feet of the tee) or ones where the player may intentionally try to hit them to gain an advantage (for those last ones I would mark the ground under them OB also... at least a little bit). Otherwise trees along the fairway simply present the challenge they present to impeding the progress of the disc and to runup, stance and throwing motion.

Nick

From PDGA Radio:

Week of October 11: It's the end of the Two Meter Rule! PDGA Rules Committee Chairman Carlton Howard explains when and how this controversial rule will change. (http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma)