I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Just like the 2 meater rule this wouldn't be OB either...


Semantics...Shmemantics. Excuse me...If it is announced that there would be a penalty for landing on your "string", then fine...But don't go whining to change the rule because you get stuck in trees too often



I'm not sure, but I can't remember taking a 2 mitre rule penalty in over 20 PDGAs played last year <font color="red">That's a great feat...now that the rule is changed you'll never take a penalty stroke, and your streak will last forever </font> . I do remember a few other unlucky souls getting them though, and I didn't think one time, "Man! What a horrible shot! <font color="red">Wow...You are an idiot then </font> " One I remember was on hole 7 at Seneca and a top player threw the preferred flight path, a hyzer over <font color="red">Keyword OVER </font> cedars and vanished in a cedar 380 feet, 40 feet from the pin. <font color="red">Nice try...Bad shot </font> This is Craig Gangloff's prefered flight path, in case your second guessing me <font color="red">I don't need to second guess you, you a blatantly wrong </font> . If you miss <font color="red">Keyword MISS </font> the 3 guardian trees you are parked <font color="red">Because you successfully negotiated the obstacles </font> . That shot is something I haven't even had the arm to attempt since 1990 <font color="red">Well now you can just throw at the trees and say they are good shots </font> . It is a pure power sweetness <font color="red">If you have the arm </font> . But all you guys are saying it was a "bad shot" because it didn't drop out of the tree <font color="red">No a good shot would have made it OVER the cedars or MISSED the cedars </font> , or even just below 2 meters, making it what? A "good shot"?

Logic is not on your side <font color="red">It is not on your side either, what is on your side is inane ramblings of a senile schizofrenic with a multiple personality disorder(mommy_and_daddy) </font> and I strongly suspect that after this year, when we get to find out first hand, reality won't be either.

Don't be mad. Be thankful. It's a smallish thing, but getting it right is still a good thing.



And I'm out-



As well you should be ("out") since you make no sense at all. The difference in this case, according to your own criteria, between a good shot and a bad one is not whether one misses the tree completely, but whether one that hits it drops within the tree to less than 2 meters, making it a good one, while one that drops to above 2 meters makes it a bad one.

That friends is "bad" logic.

Neither result likely intended to hit the tree, since going in the basket is the likely intended result of most disc golf throws; so whether the shot is good or bad according to the 2 meter rule is essentially down to whether the disc randomly drops to below 2 meters or not.

Remove the 2 meter rule and you remove the randomness of the drop, while not changing the nature of the "playing the actual lie in any way what so ever" (mark it on the ground and play on 2 meter rule or not).

Yes, I can hear it coming from a mile away: "But now people will aim to hit trees!" I'll believe it when I see it. And even if they did, a "good" course designer should find a way to take that option (if it really is preferred) away by marking the tree as OB or for this coming year even designating the 2 meter rule in effect for it (though all that does is put the wheel of fortune back into play in that folks will still hope they hit it, but that by luck drop below 2 meters).

Identifying a lost disc is not directly related to the 2 meter rule. For that we already have a rule, it�s called �Lost Disc�.

No, OB is superior in every dimension of this rules situation and meets the needs of course designers and players to protect and preserve the course as well as "Fair Play" far better and more consistently than the 2 meter rule ever could.

And projection name-calling changes none of that.

I think I'll just go along with whatever Jon wants, unless he and Brett disagree, in which case I'll try to fashion a tie-breaking compromise, unless one of them has already stuffed the ballot box with five votes.


I think I'll vote to not use the 2 meter rule. It has always seemed like a spin of the roulette wheel to me. But then Bruce might crack out his "but its no more a spin of the roulette wheel than throwing down a drive and bouncing off 18 tree trunks on your way to the basket!" And then maybe I'll be convinced and go with the 2 meter rule. I don't know right now...check the flyer for the 2005 IOS and it'll probably say which way I'm going. ;)

When entrusted with the responsibility to vote on a rule for everyone everyPDGAwhere, my reaction was to vote for no change unless there is some demonstrated need to change the rule, especially since only a couple of years ago the membership voted to retain the rule. But now that that is past, I seem to hit more freaky sticky trees than anyone I know, so now it is time for self-interest to take over!

Brett, there's no point in voting unless you got 3 votes!



Bruce,

Your inclination to "Do Nothing" has been the hallmark of many a BOD. I for one am distinctly glad that it is not the inclination of this BOD. Please get with the program.

That nearly 50% have voted to change the rule through the years is very significant when you take folks natural inclination to "fight change of any sort" due to a lack of confidence to deal with change on their part. I suspect no one will really have any legitimate or worthwhile reason to become disoriented or throw themselves on the rocks below due to "Not having to take a one throw penalty for coming to rest 2 meters above the yet to be clearly defined playing surface".

Will you?

And don't give me that it is the principle of the thing, or some legal sophistry, this is about results. About getting it done. About moving us forward as best we can. Endless deliberations is the motes-operandi of decay and decline.

At some point you just need to

I dont understand why everyone is so uptight about this. For me, its simple. Dont throw in the trees! Ive been playing for almost 20 years now and can think of 6 shots over all that time that have 'stuck' in the trees.

Changing a rule that adds another level of complexity to the game may not benefit the game as a whole so much as it benefits individual players.

If you choose to take a path to the basket that involves trees then be ready to pay the consequences 'if' your disc gets hung up in them. Either get better and get up and over/ around the trees, or prepare to potentially be penalized.

Simple!

prepare to potentially be penalized



Isn't it enough of a penalty to throw from a (most of the time) bad lie when you are stuck in a tree? Do you have to add another stroke?
Getting stuck in a tree, because the disc didn't come down shouldn't result in a 2-stroke swing, which is frequently the case. Most of the time you wind up in a bad spot anyway, and you'll lose a stroke.

Changing a rule that adds another level of complexity to the game may not benefit the game as a whole so much as it benefits individual players.




It's hard for me to see this rule as more complex. It's way easier to explain to a newbie than why a disc at 7 feet is a stroke and one at 5 feet is cool.

I personally don't see what individual players this rule will help. People who aim at trees will still suck. People who don't aim at trees but often find them will still be taking more strokes than those that can hit treeless lines.

For the life of me, I can't think of one hole I will now change my strategy on. Not one and people are on here acting like it's the end of the game as we know it.

20 years and only 6 shots in the trees? wow, either dweller is one heck of a fine disc player or there just aren't as many trees, especially cedars, in his area.

they have a saying out here at Seneca, ' See a cedar, throw a roller'

while you don't have to throw a roller, i have seen MANY MANY top guys get caught in the cedars, even on putts!

i kind of lean towards taking away any rule that requires you to measure things out on the course. i just had to reply to someone who only had 6 shots in 20 years get caught in a tree. hats off to you dweller!!! ;)

For the life of me, I can't think of one hole I will now change my strategy on. Not one and people are on here acting like it's the end of the game as we know it.



Yeah for real.

Sandalman has even cited hole 1 and hole 3 at Veteran's. Let me tell you, this rule change does not change those holes. Throwing over the top on the second shot is a last resort on both those holes. Just go throw them a few times. You'll soon see that taking a stab at the canopy is not NEARLY as effective as just throwing at the pin.

Having said that, though, I'm the opposite of James. I argued for years that the 2m penalty should go away. But over the years I've just had a hard time excusing the one truly good argument, specifically, you can't retrieve your disc, so you should take a penalty. And given that reason, 2m is as good a line as any.

All this other talk is just poppycock. It really just boils down to you threw somewhere that you can't retrieve your disc. Is that worthy of a penalty or not? The line is very fine, and I can easily fall to either side of it without losing any sleep. It happens very infrequently, and the number of instances where anybody could TRULY and CONSISTENTLY take advantage of it being gone would be miniscule. And yes I've played on hundreds of coruses with thousands of trees.

The REAL solution, in my mind, is the following --
--- stuck over 2m would be a penalty stroke with next throw from previous spot or from anywhere on line of play from spot directly beneath the disc.
--- lost disc is penalty and throw from previous spot
--- as always, you have 3 minutes to find/identify your disc. if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your disc is stuck, then you take lost disc and go back to your previous spot.
--- OB would also be a stroke throw from last spot or on line of play from last in-bounds point

The only question I haven't sorted out is whether it's best to use "line of play" or "line of flight" when spelling out the options for the next throw.

These changes are so simple and would get rid of so many stupid situations. sadly tha is probably what dooms them from being implemented. :confused: :p

I actually tried to think of the last time I had in fact gotten stuck in a tree. The last one I can remember was at Madeline Bertrand in Niles, MI, early 90's. Its not that hard to 'not' get stuck in trees. Just dont throw at them. Or at least know what you can or can not do in regard to getting over/under/around them. I cut my teeth playing the 2 meter rule and have taught myself to avoid the trees at all costs. Not hard to do. :p

come play the soiree this spring at seneca and see if you can avoid getting stuck in at least one. i'm willing to bet 1/2-3/4 of the field took at least one. i'd love to know for sure.

my main problem with the 2m rule is that it is a rule that forces you to measure. i think being stuck under a tree is penalty enough if you can retrieve your disc in under 3 minutes. if not it is a lost disc.

Without the 2m rule, I think we should consider adding a rule that prevents people from climbing trees to retrieve discs within the 3 minutes during tournament play. Reaching, using a stick or extension pole, or tossing something like rocks or bottles are OK. Otherwise, I think we've opened up both safety and tree damage problems. Climbing would be OK after rounds.

Sandalman has even cited hole 1 and hole 3 at Veteran's. Let me tell you, this rule change does not change those holes. Throwing over the top on the second shot is a last resort on both those holes. Just go throw them a few times. You'll soon see that taking a stab at the canopy is not NEARLY as effective as just throwing at the pin.


since your profile does not indicate where you live, i'll assume it is somewhere close to the Vet and you have decent knowledge of these two holes. (which although used as examples, are not the best examples at the Vet).

hole 1: drives ends up on the right side of fairway and short (bad drive!) the hole into 1's dwelling is mighty low and small from that location. a likely 4. however a hyzer crash is more likely to be within putting range, i only to be within a 30' radius of the pin. the window for hitting that range is quite large indeed. this applies equally to LHBH and RHFH shots.

hole 3: as a LH player, a respectable drive for me is 50-70 feet short of the pin, 60-80 feet out into the fairway. from there i face a couple of 1-2 meter openings to the pin that i must hit with a well crafted slow turnover. a nice challenging shot. but now i can drop in from above. i have not made the drop in my regular second shot on hole 3, but it is a strong possibility.

i HAVE however made the lefty hyzer my drive of choice on hole 9 and increased my birdie percentage to >50%, a significant improvement over what i was getting with that lefty annie.

Chuck, if they can't climb trees can we hit them with a courtesy violation for littering if they leave the disc there? I'd certainly think so.

I would think the penalty for arboreal abuse would be even stiffer than littering /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Without the 2m rule, I think we should consider adding a rule that prevents people from climbing trees to retrieve discs within the 3 minutes during tournament play. Reaching, using a stick or extension pole, or tossing something like rocks or bottles are OK. Otherwise, I think we've opened up both safety and tree damage problems. Climbing would be OK after rounds.



Hmmmmmm............ ;)

Not on topic, but how about running an event just for the challenge where you get a throw penalty for every throw that touches any part of a tree enroute? A tree could be defined as anything at least 1" in diameter (group call). It would be interesting to see the kind of shots and conservative strategies players might try.

For those unfamiliar with tree re'tree'val, tossing plastic water bottles half full of water is common, relatively safe and effective practice.

Sandalman, you make a persuasive argument. From a lefty perspective, I see the crash shot would be more tempting on those two holes, but I still don't see doing it.


i HAVE however made the lefty hyzer my drive of choice on hole 9 and increased my birdie percentage to >50%, a significant improvement over what i was getting with that lefty annie.



But now for the REAL question. Now that you've made the switch, how many times have you been stuck above 2m throwing the lefty hyzer? Unless your answer is "a lot", then you should have been throwing that way all along!!

And as such, the elimination of this rule hasn't really changed the hole! Ba-da-bing!

However if you get stuck 90% of the time on the lefty hyzer and now take a drop-in 2 each time you do, then poo poo on me. :p

Thank you for the new rule! Thank you, thank you, thank you, PDGA. I think the new rule (2 meter optional) is a brilliant compromise.

The 2 meter rule was the dumbest rule in disc golf and my personal nemesis. Okay I deserved it but I am still thankful to see it go. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Back when the PDGA Board and the PDGA Rules Committee were debating the 1997 changes to the rules, the Rules Committee wisely recommended the elimination of the 2 meter rule. Blair Paulsen and I lead the charge to retain the rule. The rule survived by one vote.

I was really torn what to do with the rule. I spoke to many, many players for their opinions. Finally I was most persuaded by David Greenwell's position that the 2 meter rule penalizes bad shots. Merely because every bad shot is not penalized (many fall out of the trees, only a few stick) did not invalidate the rule. By the way. I have no idea if Dave still holds this position.

The change in course designs has changed my opinion on the issue. It used to be that courses were shorter and easier. Now they are longer, tighter and tougher. It used to be that throwing over the top was a risky option. Now on some long holes it is the only real option.

When a disc hits a tree luck controls whether the disc sticks or not. The arbitrary nature of the result (stuck/not stuck) uneccesarily interjects luck into the result. Sure luck will always play a part in golf. It should be the goal of our rules and course designs to minimize luck to the maximum extent possible (maybe one day we will actually have baskets which catch reliably but that is a different topic).

The argument that luck will eventually balance out fails. First, how can you explain Al Schack's woodsmanship? Second, the timing of the luck will not balance out. Perhaps one out of every 50 shots in the tree will stick. But the one that sticks at a critical time in a critical tournament round will not balance out in that tournament.

Before voting on the 2 meter rule, it seldom was an issue to me in tournament play (meaning I seldom got stroked). Since voting to retain it, the rule has punished me with remarkable consistency. Yes, I was wrong and boy have I paid for it. On the final hole of one tournament, tied for the lead, I took a 2 meter penalty on a roller! The darn thing rolled up one tree and stuck in another. One the final hole of another tourney, playing (for me) a superb round, i solidly hit the center of a large tree trunk near the ground . The disc magically ricocheted straight up and stuck! I have never seen this happen before or since. Heck, I have taken multiple 2 meter penalties at the USDGC! The surprize is that several were not on hole #4 ( the site of the only velcro trees on the course).

Just because the rule pummeled me was no reason to change it. Because it interjected luck into the game was the perfect reason to do so. I am thankful that my personal vodoo doll has been retired.

Mark Ellis

Isn't it enough of a penalty to throw from a (most of the time) bad lie when you are stuck in a tree? Do you have to add another stroke?


How do you consider throwing from under a tree a penalty when you threw the disc there in the first place? I think people should be penalized for throwing bad shots, otherwise, what's the point of throwing a good shot?

But now for the REAL question. Now that you've made the switch, how many times have you been stuck above 2m throwing the lefty hyzer? Unless your answer is "a lot", then you should have been throwing that way all along!!

And as such, the elimination of this rule hasn't really changed the hole! Ba-da-bing!

However if you get stuck 90% of the time on the lefty hyzer and now take a drop-in 2 each time you do, then poo poo on me. :p

actually its a seasonal thing on hole 9. i have not yet been stuck (last 8 rounds) but there's not much foliage to slow things down. i have tried this shot in fun rounds in the summer, and been caught often enough to make the risk not worth it. since i dont have an actual percentage for ya, i'll refrain from the ba-da-boom :D

Adding a rule that affects tournament play only? Its these types of points that leads me to conclude that the BOD has lost touch.

A rule that only affects tournaments? How do you translate this for all of the casual rounds played? The majority of DG played on our courses is casual, not tournmament. Do you try and proect your trees by telling casuals that they can't retrieve their disc until after their round? What have you accomplished by this besides annoying the players? It is obvious that this rule cannot and will not be followed. If you want to keep your disc, you'd better get your butt up the tree and get it or some other casual player will before you get back. Or throw things over the next 15 minutes until the disc (or the branch it is in) finally comes down. Simple.

Have the 'TD' declare whether 2m is in effect or not? There is no TD for the majority of DG played on our courses. How do you convey these types of rules or conditions for 95% of all DG rounds played? Post signs? We can't get most people to read our bulletin board, unless its to decide the most clever way to deface it. Mark OB with strings? Please, like our volunteer staff has the man hours to try and keep these 'boundaries' intact regardless of weather, casual DG traffic, or unhappy casuals who get hate the OB and find it consoling to kick the strings until they break.

Sorry, but IMO, these rule changes and the like are all based on the narrow scope of DG tournaments and decided upon by the boys club that seems to be involved in dictating its will as opposed to listening to membership. There is no thought or consideration concerning the majority of all DG played, the casual round. Perhaps its time for the PDGA to no longer represent casual DG. Steady Ed was right, RDGA may be needed, and he wouldn't have considered nonsense that makes the game less challenging such as no 2M, DROTs counting and the like. I think the current 'regime' has lost touch of where we came from. Too bad.......

Well, I'm glad Mark is for this change. Hopefully he'll endorse the remainder of what we have done to his rules. If Moses had signed on to the deal, we could have had better Commandments and lobster would be kosher today!

Some of the new rules have not been expressed with the level of clarity and precision that a lizard lawyer could generate if he were still involved in the process. I'm hoping we can fix a couple of them before they go to print.

actually its a seasonal thing on hole 9. i have not yet been stuck (last 8 rounds) but there's not much foliage to slow things down. i have tried this shot in fun rounds in the summer, and been caught often enough to make the risk not worth it. since i dont have an actual percentage for ya, i'll refrain from the ba-da-boom :D



Well, be sure you do the math when the foliage grows back in.

Do you ever make 2 going the anhyzer route? Ever make 4? Do you suppose your average score is over 3 or under 3? If you have more 4s than 2s, it is over 3. Thinking of that hole and imagining trying to throw it as a lefty, I'd venture that you rarely make 2.

Now that you're going lefty hyzer, will you <font color="red">get stuck and miss the putt</font> MORE OFTEN than you will <font color="red">make 2 without getting stuck</font>? If NOT, then you should have been throwing that route all along! Ba-da-blip. :) :cool::D

he wouldn't have considered nonsense that makes the game less challenging such as no 2M, DROTs counting and the like.



If Ed had his way, overhead shots would not be legal either which is partly related to the reason DROTs don't count and the 2m penalty was created. Right or wrong, Ed believed discs were made to only fly horizontally and I'm not sure he was happy with rollers either. So if you believe, like many, that thumbers and rollers are part of the skill set players should aspire to, then removing the 2m and DROT 'penalties' are part of that.

PDGA rules are for tournament play. Hopefully, casual players will follow them but who's going to police or care? To imply that casual players have much bearing on the rules is not being realistic. The fewer the rules, the more likely casual players will follow them, more by accident than by plan. So, no 2m rule will likely bring more casual rounds into compliance with the rules than before. And who cares whether casual players count DROTs as good or not except the players in their group? I've seen players throw from busy streets with no penalty and when I told some casuals that a path was OB which affected one player, a fight almost broke out between them whether to call the penalty. Rules are primarily for tournament play and we just hope casual players will follow them.

NO ONE IS GAINING ANY ADVANTAGE HERE.

ALL these lines you speak of if they really are there are NOW OPEN TO EVERYONE. Maybe you CANT throw a spike hyzer to reach these lines. THATS TOO BAD. Learn a huge spike hyzer. This rule is not that big of a deal. It doesnt really happen all that much to matter and it was a RANDOM LUCK rule. Some people get stuck others dont. Pure and simple. RANDOM LUCK. Like i said this year i only took 5 strokes from the 2 meter rule out or 5070 tournament throws that i had this year and i played all over the country.

Theres nothing to debate really. THE RULE IS CHANGED :D

Many of the casual rounds are played by people who also shoot tournaments and know the rules. The people I play with, many of whom don't play tournaments, understand the 2M rule and follow it. Most casual groups on our course, of which often consists of a player who shoots leagues or tournaments, understand and follow the rules. As long as the rules are consistent, it isn't that much of a problem conveying them and educating the regulars that you consistently see out on the course. Newbies, yes. Regulars, no, and most of them seek help if there is a question or dispute within the group (many a wedgie, DROT and the like type discussions).

But when you have rules that state 'if the TD declares' or 'in areas as designated', all bets are off. I travel to mutliple courses throughout the year, including Highbridge, for casual golf. How are you going to convey consistently to me what the existing course policy is on 2M? How will the person who doesn't shoot tournaments or read this BBS get a consistent message concerning this 'optional' rule? It just doesn't work, and implying that it doesn't matter because all casual rounds are thrown my the 'rules ignorant' doesn''t cut it. The true ignorance is reflected in the wording of the current proposed rule change.

IMO, the 2M optional rule with its current wording is just a disguise to eliminate it while trying to appeal to the many who feel this is folly. Time to call it what it is as the disguse is thin and not fooling anyone.

Yes, I can hear it coming from a mile away: "But now people will aim to hit trees!" <font color="blue">I'll believe it when I see it.</font> And even if they did, a "good" course designer should find a way to take that option (if it really is preferred) away by marking the tree as OB or for this coming year even designating the 2 meter rule in effect for it...


And therein lies the problem. Nick refuses to acknowledge reality. Nick refuses to believe the stories of people who have never lied to him. There are already holes at Morley Field where the big arms consider the risk of sticking versus the reward of bouncing off to the base of the pin before they throw their shot at the trees behind the basket or not. Yes it is absolutely true.

Nick doesn't believe it. But that doesn't mean [*****].

Yes, I can hear it coming from a mile away: "But now people will aim to hit trees!" <font color="blue">I'll believe it when I see it.</font> And even if they did, a "good" course designer should find a way to take that option (if it really is preferred) away by marking the tree as OB or for this coming year even designating the 2 meter rule in effect for it...


And therein lies the problem. Nick refuses to acknowledge reality. Nick refuses to believe the stories of people who have never lied to him. There are already holes at Morley Field where the big arms consider the risk of sticking versus the reward of bouncing off to the base of the pin before they throw their shot at the trees behind the basket or not. Yes it is absolutely true.

Nick doesn't believe it. But that doesn't mean [*****].



I agree...Nick doesn't make sense :o

If it's consistency you want, then the optional 2-meter rule is consistent with the OB rule, it only exists where it's marked or identified. The other option for consistency would be to retain the 2-meter rule, or even better, make every tree OB, and make every body of water and asphalt OB. I doubt most would want to do that, especially when many water boundaries are unclear such as marshes and seasonally changing creek boundaries. Then you have the problem putting string everywhere.

So, for consistency for casual play, optional 2-meter is better.

For consistency, optional is better? Quite a paradox, Chuck. Please tell me you forgot the smiley at the end of this message or something.

Yes, I can hear it coming from a mile away: "But now people will aim to hit trees!" I'll believe it when I see it. And even if they did, a "good" course designer should find a way to take that option (if it really is preferred) away by marking the tree as OB or for this coming year even designating the 2 meter rule in effect for it...


And therein lies the problem. Nick refuses to acknowledge reality. Nick refuses to believe the stories of people who have never lied to him. There are already holes at Morley Field where the big arms consider the risk of sticking versus the reward of bouncing off to the base of the pin before they throw their shot at the trees behind the basket or not. Yes it is absolutely true.

Nick doesn't believe it. But that doesn't mean [*****].




If you can aim for a tree hit it and bounce down for a duece putt then be my guest. Thats a good shot in my opinion. Im going to hit that tree and bounce down next to the pin. I myself have done it and actually never gotten stuck when attempting to do so. I have on the other hand gotten stuck on BS throws that just got caught up. So are ACE runs a bad thing now too. If you aim for the basket you are running the risk of blowing it way by but if you get lucky you got a HOLE IN ONE. Is that bad??? Because if not thats just like me saying hey im going to throw this spike hyzer over the trees and if i get lucky and get threw ill putt for 2 but if not ill be putting for 3 (that was when the 2 meter rule was in affect ) now i can throw the same lines i did before and still be putting for 2 :D

I also love how you say THE BIG ARMS. That leads me to believe its not really the rule you dont like its the fact that YOU yourself cannot take advantage of the new rule and other people (IE BIG ARMS) can and will.

That seems to be what everyone is up in arms about. Now that there is not going to be a 2 meter rule unless the TD says so the people who can THROW FAR and reach the huge spike lines and the thumber lines are going to do so with less risk then before. Seems to me like you guys are mad because you cant throw the HUGE SPIKES and THUMBERS and that rule gave you an advantage because if someone who could tried to they could get a penalty for it ( IF THEY WERE UNLUCKY). Now the playing field is leveled a little bit and you guys are upset about it. You never had to worry about those lines or the 2 meter rule because you couldnt throw them. Now that there is no 2 meter rule you it sounds like you are upset that people like me are going to just throw OVER stuff now.

Thats just my opinion. I could be wrong ;)

Tim, it is no different from the road, pond, river, lake, inside the pavillion, the neighbor's yard or any other course specific o.b. rule you apply at the courses you play. There currently is no PDGA rule making Yorkhouse Road or the Des Plaines river out of bounds. Those are out of bounds on those courses because whoever is running league said they were out of bounds and that is just the way you and your friends have agreed to play it for non-league play. If you are playing for tags or for money you are going to want to settle the issue on the first tee. Otherwise the rule is plenty clear that there is no penalty.

For the unconnected masses who have no idea what the rules are, this is no different from most of our rules, or the rules of any other sport. I don't need to know all 14 ways to commit a balk to play softball at a picnic. I don't need to know the backfield motion rules to play a little touch football. The guy who knows all 14 ways to commit a balk because he pitched in the minors does not need to know the new 2-meter rule or the new lost disc rule to play disc golf casually with friends. Losing your disc is penalty enough, isn't it?

I also love how you say THE BIG ARMS. That leads me to believe its not really the rule you dont like its the fact that YOU yourself cannot take advantage of the new rule and other people (IE BIG ARMS) can and will.

That seems to be what everyone is up in arms about. Now that there is not going to be a 2 meter rule unless the TD says so the people who can THROW FAR and reach the huge spike lines and the thumber lines are going to do so with less risk then before. Seems to me like you guys are mad because you cant throw the HUGE SPIKES and THUMBERS and that rule gave you an advantage because if someone who could tried to they could get a penalty for it ( IF THEY WERE UNLUCKY). Now the playing field is leveled a little bit and you guys are upset about it. You never had to worry about those lines or the 2 meter rule because you couldnt throw them. Now that there is no 2 meter rule you it sounds like you are upset that people like me are going to just throw OVER stuff now.

Thats just my opinion. I could be wrong ;)



I don't know if you were replying to me, but implying or saying that I don't have a big arm or a thumber shot is a joke...I can throw a thumber accurately up to 350' and backhand as far if not further than you :oCheck the profile :o

PS. I think that getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot (stuck in tree) is a bad idea :mad:

I wasnt talking about you i was talking about alot of other people on this board who are complaining.

Throwing into a tree and getting stuck result in a penalty without the extra stroke. The 2 meter rule in essence made it a 2 stroke penalty when you got caught in a tree. 1 stroke for being 2 meters up and another stroke to get out of the inside of the tree because the trees that catch discs the most are PINE TYPE trees and thne you have to CLIMB INSIDE and throw out of the tree. Stupid rule.

Im ALL FOR making certain trees OB but the 2 meter rule was just STUPID :D

As strange as it seems, most of my over 2M shots were not bad shots that got stuck in a tree, but good lines that ticked something and went awry or just a hair high on a low line drive that hit a branch. Most of the spikes and thumbers over the top managed to find their way to the ground. It was in trying to navigate the low routes that most of the 2M problems happened to me.

What I mean is that by having the rule in place and trying to use shots that would avoid bringing the rule into play I was penalized more than when I ignored the rule and played through the tops of the trees.

The time frame was in my post, and is consistant with everything you just posted. When you were reading my post perhaps you misread USWDGC?



Uh, yeah. And not knowing when the "Augusta" meeting was. And not having memorized the dates of the USWDGC.

Cool, we're in agreement.

There are plenty of wide open fairway holes for the big-arm spike-hyzer specialist to excel on. But that's juts one shot. Golf is about more than mastering juts one shot. Or at least it should be.

Were you in Iowa? Big Creek was an example of a tough course screwed up by a one-shot philosophy. People who could throw the thumber made huge moves on that one course in my division by throwing one shot over and over and over again. I'm not trying to knock the thumber, but if you can throw the same shot over and over and over again it's not a great thing. Same for the big hyzer.

All throwing skills should be required in order to do well. Open fairways call for the big hyzer line. Open basket areas with protecting walls of stuff call for the thumber. Canopied fairways and baskets call for the roller. Oh wait, scratch that. No need for turnovers or rollers anymore. Just chuck it into the canopy above the basket with no risk.

There is a PDGA rule concerning where you have to have your lead foot in relation to the lie. There is a PDGA rule concerning having all supporting points on the tee. There is a rule (now, I guess, was) concerning the lie being above 2M. All of these rules are consistently applied on all courses. And don't bring up the 'but its not consistent because in Sweden ....' point.

Interpreting the optional OB rule, and then implying that since it isn�t consistent neither does 2M have to be, is flawed logic. These two rules in their current state are no more correlated than the falling putt rule and 2M. At least not until a bad rewording goes into effect that results in local customs, biases and personalities getting involved in the interpretation. By this logic, are we going to make falling putts 'TD optional'?

Given that every pro and TD I know and you probably know shoots casual rounds, isn't it oversimplifaication to generalize that anyone shooting a casual round does not know the rules? Unless, of course, they all become 'optional'.

Throwing into a tree and getting stuck result in a penalty without the extra stroke. The 2 meter rule in essence made it a 2 stroke penalty when you got caught in a tree. 1 stroke for being 2 meters up and another stroke to get out of the inside of the tree because the trees that catch discs the most are PINE TYPE trees and thne you have to CLIMB INSIDE and throw out of the tree. Stupid rule.

Stupid Post! :eek: you are being very narrowminded by considering only the fauna where you live. in my part of the world, pine trees cannot grow. we have a lot of post and live oaks, and mesquites. many of our trees do not even have branches below 6-10 feet! while i am sure you are correct for your part of the world, you are blatantly incorrect about much of the rest.

There are plenty of wide open fairway holes for the big-arm spike-hyzer specialist to excel on. But that's juts one shot. Golf is about more than mastering juts one shot. Or at least it should be.

Were you in Iowa? Big Creek was an example of a tough course screwed up by a one-shot philosophy. People who could throw the thumber made huge moves on that one course in my division by throwing one shot over and over and over again. I'm not trying to knock the thumber, but if you can throw the same shot over and over and over again it's not a great thing. Same for the big hyzer.

All throwing skills should be required in order to do well. Open fairways call for the big hyzer line. Open basket areas with protecting walls of stuff call for the thumber. Canopied fairways and baskets call for the roller. Oh wait, scratch that. No need for turnovers or rollers anymore. Just chuck it into the canopy above the basket with no risk.



Rhett, whether you know it or not you are supporting my position that course design needs to be improved to present proper and balanced challenges. Propping up poorly designed courses with the 2 meter rule is not a solution worth considering, folks are still gonna throw those dang rollers under all of the trees or spike hyzers over the trees, and not because of the 2 meter rule, but because that is the best way to have a shot at competing.

If you as a TD or course designer don't want people throwing spike hyzers or rollers on 80% of your holes then change your design!

Don't rely on an arbitrary rule to bail you out...

Stupid Post! you are being very narrowminded by considering only the fauna where you live. in my part of the world, pine trees cannot grow. we have a lot of post and live oaks, and mesquites. many of our trees do not even have branches below 6-10 feet! while i am sure you are correct for your part of the world, you are blatantly incorrect about much of the rest.



Do those types of trees catch alot of discs???

Adding a rule that affects tournament play only? Its these types of points that leads me to conclude that the BOD has lost touch.

A rule that only affects tournaments? How do you translate this for all of the casual rounds played?



I can name many rules that only affect Tournament play:

Just off the top of my head:
3-minute lost disc
No alchohol (or other illegal substances). Actually, any DQ rule
Score keeping
marking with a mini.

Others that are debatable:
Courtesy
Foot faults
Holing out when it's a drop-in

Were you in Iowa? Big Creek was an example of a tough course screwed up by a one-shot philosophy. People who could throw the thumber made huge moves on that one course in my division by throwing one shot over and over and over again. I'm not trying to knock the thumber, but if you can throw the same shot over and over and over again it's not a great thing. Same for the big hyzer.




Yes i was in IOWA and i DO throw THUMBERS but i only recall throwing 2 at Big Creek one of which i would have been PARKED if it wasnt for to little TWIGS that caught me 8 ft off the ground resulting in a circle three rather then the 2 i should have got but i was UNLUCKY. I shot 5 over at Big Creek and i threw 2 Thumbers. I know a kid who throws 400 ft thumbers with good accuracy and i kick his [*****] at big creek along with pretty much ALL of the ADVANCED DIVISION so i hate to break it to you but people who can throw good thumbers didnt make huge moves at Big Creek in the advanced division :o

Well i think a good golfer needs to have ALL the shots too but if a course calls for ALL thumbers and you can throw a good thumber then good for you bad for the designer. If a course calls for all HUGE spike hyzers and you can throw HUGE spike hyzers then good for you bad for the designer. Those are design problems not 2 meter rule problems.

Better design and use of trees as OB will help solve this problem not the 2 meter rule :D

Nick,

In a perfect world, we would be able to undertake multi-million dollar terra-forming excavations to create ideal golf courses. Like the ball golfers are able to do.

I'm talking about the real world.

Rhett, whether you know it or not you are supporting my position that course design needs to be improved to present proper and balanced challenges. Propping up poorly designed courses with the 2 meter rule is not a solution worth considering, folks are still gonna throw those dang rollers under all of the trees or spike hyzers over the trees, and not because of the 2 meter rule, but because that is the best way to have a shot at competing.

If you as a TD or course designer don't want people throwing spike hyzers or rollers on 80% of your holes then change your design!

Don't rely on an arbitrary rule to bail you out...




I hate to say this cuz he almost kicked me off the board but i think i agree with Nick :eek:

Well i think a good golfer needs to have ALL the shots too but if a course calls for ALL thumbers and you can throw a good thumber then good for you bad for the designer. If a course calls for all HUGE spike hyzers and you can throw HUGE spike hyzers then good for you bad for the designer. Those are design problems not 2 meter rule problems.



No, those are perfectly decently designed courses that are suddenly made into "design problems" by dumping the 2 meter rule.

I'll accept that there are holes like you describe, even though I have never witnessed one. However, the rule allows the TD to use the 2 meter rule on those holes, so what's the problem?

The answer is a 3 sided box with a roof on it, with only 1 clear path to the basket. That would make for "better design" huh?

/sarcasm off

No, those are perfectly decently designed courses that are suddenly made into "design problems" by dumping the 2 meter rule.



This is going to be funny :D


Were you in Iowa? Big Creek was an example of a tough course screwed up by a one-shot philosophy. People who could throw the thumber made huge moves on that one course in my division by throwing one shot over and over and over again. I'm not trying to knock the thumber, but if you can throw the same shot over and over and over again it's not a great thing. Same for the big hyzer.




You just say that people who could throw thumbers at Big Creek made HUGE MOVES . If im not mistaken the 2 meter rule WAS IN AFFECT AT WORLDS so these people made moves (in your opinion) WITH the 2 meter rule in affect but now they have an advantage because its not in affect :confused: I dont understand. Would you make up your mind :o

PS. I think that getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot (stuck in tree) is a bad idea



Then make all bad shots have a penalty beyond the already bad result...

1 stroke for hitting a tree, 2 for sticking in it, 1 for landing beneath it. If you land behind an obstacle and have no direct path to the target then you should be penalized and additional stroke.

If you don't make a putt inside 20 feet, you should take another stroke.

That really is some ...... arsed thinking...

Then make all bad shots have a penalty beyond the already bad result...

1 stroke for hitting a tree, 2 for sticking in it, 1 for landing beneath it. If you land behind an obstacle and have no direct path to the target then you should be penalized and additional stroke.

If you don't make a putt inside 20 feet, you should take another stroke.

That really is some ...... arsed thinking...



Ok its OFFICIAL. Even though he threatened to kick me off the board i agree with Nick :eek:

Do those types of trees catch alot of discs???

"alot" is probably a relative term, but yes, they do catch discs. in the summer the foliage slows the disc down and catches them. in the winter, the disc penetrates to the tough little twigs off of the major branches and to the nooks and crannies, and those are good traps also. although i do not have decade long studies with empirical data comparing the snatch action of the various genus and/or species, my own experience as player and observer indicates that the snatch co-efficient is high enough to discourage a deliberate bombardment from above.

Well i think a good golfer needs to have ALL the shots too but if a course calls for ALL thumbers and you can throw a good thumber then good for you bad for the designer. If a course calls for all HUGE spike hyzers and you can throw HUGE spike hyzers then good for you bad for the designer. Those are design problems not 2 meter rule problems.



No, those are perfectly decently designed courses that are suddenly made into "design problems" by dumping the 2 meter rule.



Actually, they have been design problems regardless of whether or not the 2 meter rule is in effect or not.

Besides:
A) OB functions better in every instance than does the 2 meter rule.
B) The 2 meter rule is still an option in 2005.

My region has pretty diverse terrain and in no situation can I think of a hole or course that is so dependent on the 2 meter rule that it would become a joke without it. Even Seneca!

PS. I think that getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot (stuck in tree) is a bad idea



Then make all bad shots have a penalty beyond the already bad result...

1 stroke for hitting a tree, 2 for sticking in it, 1 for landing beneath it. If you land behind an obstacle and have no direct path to the target then you should be penalized and additional stroke.

If you don't make a putt inside 20 feet, you should take another stroke.

That really is some ...... arsed thinking...



Your "slippery slope" argument is inane thinking

You just say that people who could throw thumbers at Big Creek made HUGE MOVES . If im not mistaken the 2 meter rule WAS IN AFFECT AT WORLDS so these people made moves (in your opinion) WITH the 2 meter rule in affect but now they have an advantage because its not in affect :confused: I dont understand. Would you make up your mind :o



Except that BC didn't have any trees by the baskets. So nobody took any 2-meter penalties unless they made the extremely horrible tactical decision of throwing a thumber on the *ONE* hole that had a sticky tree by it.

I'm not saying that the lack of a 2 meter rule will make any difference at BC. I'm saying it will make a difference at other courses that have foliage around the basket. Courses where you have to weigh the risk versus reward before bombing the trees.

Today, sometimes it makes sense to risk the penalty and sometimes it's not worth the risk. On Jan 1, there is no more risk.

If you as a TD or course designer don't want people throwing spike hyzers or rollers on 80% of your holes then change your design!

this is the epitomy of the arrogance that lies at the root of the whole controversy !

shut your eyes (since your ears and mind are already closed) and imagine these three conditions:

a) the regional biology tops out at 40-50' foot trees at max and averages 20-30'

b) the economic system places 99% of the courses on public parks

c) the parks department determines has a major say in where holes are placed, meaning we cannot place every tee under a thick canopy,etc.

now, pretend you are a course designer. (key word: pretend)

can you hear a little voice say "well, lets put this pin under those trees over there - we'll use this path here as the fairway, nice tight little fade! and the 2m rule will keep people from hyzer bombing the hel1 out of the hole."

THE 2M RULE IS a VALID DESIGN TOOL, and in some areas, ONE OF THE FEW AVAILABLE!!!

for the billionth time, make the suspension of the rule the option! this solution will be met with 1000% acceptance from all camps... and anyone who cannot admit this IS a controversial issue with merit on both sides either has a hidden agenda or is delusional, or both.

PS. I think that getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot (stuck in tree) is a bad idea



Then make all bad shots have a penalty beyond the already bad result...

1 stroke for hitting a tree, 2 for sticking in it, 1 for landing beneath it. If you land behind an obstacle and have no direct path to the target then you should be penalized and additional stroke.

If you don't make a putt inside 20 feet, you should take another stroke.

That really is some ...... arsed thinking...



Your "slippery slope" argument is inane thinking



No more inane than the rule that begs this discussion.

Just for fun it would be interesting to see if "any" of you 2 meter advocates would be so adamantly arguing in favor of this rule if it simply �had never existed� and was now being proposed?

We've discussed placing netting up into trees over a basket area to prevent the bomb shots. If you're suspended in the net or above, you're OB. That's kind of like a 'velcro' tree with just about 100% penalty likelihood.

Just for fun it would be interesting to see if "any" of you 2 meter advocates would be so adamantly arguing in favor of this rule if it simply �had never existed� and was now being proposed?


I would.

You can't call that OB under our current rules.

PS. I think that getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot (stuck in tree) is a bad idea



Then make all bad shots have a penalty beyond the already bad result...

1 stroke for hitting a tree, 2 for sticking in it, 1 for landing beneath it. If you land behind an obstacle and have no direct path to the target then you should be penalized and additional stroke.

If you don't make a putt inside 20 feet, you should take another stroke.

That really is some ...... arsed thinking...



Your "slippery slope" argument is inane thinking



No more inane than the rule that begs this discussion.

Just for fun it would be interesting to see if "any" of you 2 meter advocates would be so adamantly arguing in favor of this rule if it simply �had never existed� and was now being proposed?



If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around
does it make a sound? :o

Name one course where it will make a significant competitive difference Rhett? I doubt you have anything approaching Seneca out there and even that course would likely play just as tough without the 2 meter rule. C'mon name one.

And it will only "end" as you put it where TDs "decide" (correctly in my opinion) to end it. Will it be in effect for the 3 palm trees at your course Rhett? ;)

Alot would be if you throw into these threes you are more likely to get caught then you are to spit out. IE EVERGREEN TYPE TREES. The only time i have EVER worried about the 2 meter rule is when EVERGREEN TYPE TREES come into play. All other i consider to be not really any risk at all and throw over them ALL THE TIME. Pine trees even with the 2 meter rule being gone i will not mess with because of the fact that even though there is no penalty for getting stuck in them if you do you will more then likely BE SCREWED and have no shot OUT of the EVERGREEN. Thats what i was refering to when i pick my routes. If there is NOTHING but the 2 meter rule to worry about i throw the overhead or spike every time if its available:D

You can't call that OB under our current rules.



I do believe I can based on the new interpretation that allows trees themselves to be called OB.

You can't call that OB under our current rules.



I do believe I can based on the new interpretation that allows trees themselves to be called OB.



To elaborate:


Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)
Question: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. The TD has not said anything about playing from the bridge. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land? Does it matter if the bridge is more than two meters above the ground below?
Response: The answers to these questions revolve around the definition of OB. In the glossary section of the rules, it states that the OB line "extends a vertical plane upward and downward". Where does that plane end? The rules do not address that directly. There seem to be two reasonable choices:

A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.

Although the term "playing surface" is not defined in the rules, it is used frequently and it is unlikely to be a source of confusion. Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it. Otherwise, a number of non-intuitive rulings result:


In the bridge example, the part of the bridge that is above the OB creek would be OB. A perfectly playable lie on the bridge could be OB, a foot away from a lie that is IB, when there is no direct reason for it to be OB. Players will have difficulty extrapolating where the OB part of the bridge is, especially if the OB line below is uneven (if it follows the creek's edge). Even if the TD uses paint or string to mark OB on the bridge, those lines will see a lot of foot traffic and may not last.
At least one course has an OB culvert that runs under and opens into a fairway. If the vertical plane of the OB line extends indefinitely, then there is a strip of OB on the fairway over the culvert.
If an OB creek undercuts a bank, then the top of the bank is OB even if it is obviously playable. Someone would have to determine how far the creek undercuts the bank to figure out just where the OB line on the bank is.
There is an overpass with a street high above a section of the course. The street, of course, is OB. If the plane extends downward, then a street-wide chunk of the course below is also OB.
If you interpret the vertical plane to end when it reaches another playing surface. you get much more intuitive rulings in the above scenarios. The bridge is IB, the fairway above the culvert is IB, the bank that overhangs the creek is IB, and the ground below the steet overpass is IB. All of the playing surfaces above are easily distinguished from those above or below which contain OB.

Conclusion: You play a disc on a bridge as you would play it anywhere else on the course. Assuming the bridge is not OB, you mark your lie on the bridge and proceed with the hole. If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would. Of course, the TD or course designer is free to make any or all of the bridge OB, in addition to the creek below.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard




This net above the basket for which Chuck describes could in fact be designated an OB Playing Surface while the ground beneath was IB. Same for the contiguous surface of the tree or any discernable object on the course.

This is perhaps the single "Greatest" development for course design since SSA!

I do believe I can based on the new interpretation that allows trees themselves to be called OB.

i want the trees themselves to call themselves OB (or not) :)

We've discussed placing netting up into trees over a basket area to prevent the bomb shots. If you're suspended in the net or above, you're OB. That's kind of like a 'velcro' tree with just about 100% penalty likelihood.

now i know you're joking

for the billionth time, make the suspension of the rule the option! this solution will be met with 1000% acceptance from all camps... and anyone who cannot admit this IS a controversial issue with merit on both sides either has a hidden agenda or is delusional, or both.




This is STUPID. There is no difference whether it is suspended and has to be declared or whether its there and has to be suspended. If you are the TD of a tournament and you dont know the rules then you shouldnt be TDing an event anyway. SORRY the way it is now is the SAME as if it were there and could be dismissed.

And Nick is right OB is better then the 2 meter rule in EVERY situation i can think of. Name a situation where the 2 meter rule would deter someone MORE then OB.

OB is better :D

calling a tree "OB" is ludicrious. to do so renders invalid the whole argument that getting caught in a tree is luck and therefore should not be penalized. add to that the arguments that will ensue about what is a tree and what isnt, and its not even a slippery slope. its a precipice and you've already gone over it. some people (most ranchers) think mesquite trees are weeds. many californians believe the same about eucalyptus. is a 8 foot shrub a tree? hmmm. why should being stuck on a low limb 1' up your pine tree be OB but stuck on a shrub 2' up be ok? i hate the approach that the rules nazis (and there never was a better description) have taken with this change, but making trees "OB" is even worse.

if a tree is OB, where is the last inbounds position? there isnt one! only rollers would count!

I agree with the subject title, I believe if you get stuck in a tree over 2 meters you should be automatically banned from the PDGA for no less than 1 year, with no petitioning!! Simple as that :)

Ugh!

calling a tree "OB" is ludicrious. to do so renders invalid the whole argument that getting caught in a tree is luck and therefore should not be penalized. <font color="red"> HOW SO??? Could you explain this or are you just blowing smoke??? </font> add to that the arguments that will ensue about what is a tree and what isnt, and its not even a slippery slope. its a precipice and you've already gone over it. some people (most ranchers) think mesquite trees are weeds. many californians believe the same about eucalyptus. is a 8 foot shrub a tree? hmmm. why should being stuck on a low limb 1' up your pine tree be OB but stuck on a shrub 2' up be ok? i hate the approach that the rules nazis (and there never was a better description) have taken with this change, but making trees "OB" is even worse.

If a tree is OB, where is the last inbounds position? there isnt one! only rollers would count! <font color="red"> First off we arent saying ALL TREES are OB we are saying you could designate certain trees or shrubs or just areas of the ground for that matter to be O.B. if it is needed for good course design. It would be like USDGC. You would just surround whatever you wanted to be O.B. in yellow rope and if you were within the yellow rope you would be O.B. and you would take your drop just like you would on ANY OTHER O.B. 1 meter in from where it was last seen or believed to be I.B. :eek: Wow that was really hard wasnt it guys. :D</font>







Trees shrubs bushes pieces of ground being OB is better then having a 2 meter rule which is COMPLETELY LUCK. If you make something O.B. then people will for sure try to avoid it. If a tree is O.B. and i am for sure getting a penalty if i hit it and stick in the tree or fall to rest below it then im not going to aim for it or try and crash threw it. I will find a smarter and better line to take so the O.B. doesnt come into play. With the 2 meter rule i would just throw at that tree and know that MOST of the time i will fall out and be FINE. Unless its a EVERGREEN then i avoid it like i would avoid O.B. trees.

2 Meters is STUPID :mad:..............O.B.is better :p

The point about the new understanding about OB/IB playing surfaces is that in order to be one or the other the only important fact in deciding status of IB/OB is which one are they in complete contact with.

Where is the OB line in the case of a fully 3 dimentional contiguous playing surface? It is where that surface meets the IB surface. In the case of a tree this would be where the trunk or roots intersect and penetrate the IB playing surface. Take one meter relief perpendicular from the OB, mark your lie, play on and add one penalty stroke to your score for that hole.

With the removal of the 2 meter rule there is no more need for the imaginary vertical plane extending up and down to determine IB/OB status; all that is required to be known is if a playing surface is In Bounds or Out of Bounds. Simple, concise and NOTHING (certainly not the 2 meter rule) could do more to protect all of our course obstacles.

Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB mark a meter away from it enters the soil, take a stroke and play on."

I'd rather see it used only in crucial hot spots, but being in favor of protecting our courses, would not complain if it were to cover the entire course. There would be no reason or excuse for breaking even the tiniest of branches on a bush or tree, and if you did, perhaps finally folks would start calling these "clear" breaches of our highest rules (to start doing their duty to protect our courses).

If you as a TD or course designer don't want people throwing spike hyzers or rollers on 80% of your holes then change your design!


I am sure you have unlimited power with your parks department and can freely position your course around at will, but the rest of us ordinary humans have to work with competing organizations and space available. If it were that easy to change holes, teepads, and pin positions this would not be an issue.


Don't rely on an arbitrary rule to bail you out...



Arbitrary??? All rules are arbitrary. Someone decided one day... "Hey! This would make the game a little more CHALLENGING and add more RISK..." and the suggestion eventually becomes a rule until enough underskilled players cry loud enough.

Yet another scenario where the new rules will have a bearing on the analysis...

Those of you who are really excited about the 2-meter change really need to start pacing yourselves for the whole package or you aren't going to make it through 2005. :D

Personally I don't have a problem with the two meter rule. I think as golfers we should be encouraged to avoid trees as obstacles in the fairway. Aiming for the tree closest to the pin should be a risky strategy. However with no penalty for sticking halfway up the tree and getting a free drop seems to reward this strategy.
While I think the two meter rule should be preserved in general I support the TD's power to waive this rule at the beginning of PDGA events at his discretion. At some courses this would have a profound effect while it would prove to be benign at others.

Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB mark a meter away from it enters the soil, take a stroke and play on."

I'd rather see it used only in crucial hot spots, but being in favor of protecting our courses, would not complain if it were to cover the entire course. There would be no reason or excuse for breaking even the tiniest of branches on a bush or tree, and if you did, perhaps finally folks would start calling these "clear" breaches of our highest rules (to start doing their duty to protect our courses).



I say hot spots is the way to go. A big circle of yellow rope around the widest part of the tree and if you are in the circle on the ground OR stuck up in the branches you are O.B. you take your meter from the yellow rope and a penalty stroke and play on. USDGC took a WIDE OPEN course used some ARTIFICIAL O.B. and obstacles and turned it into one of the most challenging courses if not THE MOST challenging IN THE WORLD. Why cant we do this at all tournaments with EASY COURSES???????????

I say forget the 2 meter rule and start using aftificial O.B. instead. It makes more scene and is clear cut where the 2 meter rule is ALL LUCK BASED.

USDGC took a WIDE OPEN course used some ARTIFICIAL O.B. and obstacles and turned it into one of the most challenging courses if not THE MOST challenging IN THE WORLD. Why cant we do this at all tournaments with EASY COURSES???????????

We did this with Fairfield for IOS #3 this year, creating risk-reward scenarios where there were none before and requiring players to play with a little skill rather than just chucking a drive into the swamp, searching for it, and chucking again. We even made a big island on a short hole where hitting the island was easy enough but the basket was placed on a little peninsula off the end of the island so that running the birdie drive was a gutsy play.

It was fair. The yellow rope was 90% visible from the tees, and on the hole where portions were hard to see we flagged the corners. We drew diagrams and explained the special o.b. to everyone as they paid their entry fee in small groups of four or five at a time. It was on four or five nearby holes so if they wanted to go practice just those holes there was time.

Some of the locals were "whine, whine, whine." I think Brett and I enjoyed both the playing of the course that way and working the players who could not adapt.

Just putting out 2000 feet of rope is a lot of work though. At the end of the day you're thinking, "How much did I pay for the rope? Guess I gotta go pick it up then!"

If you've never spent a weekend in Chicago but have always meant to, we'll probably have one tournament a month, April through October. The Kenosha course is a top notch course and the Fairfield course is where we do the yellow rope.

If you as a TD or course designer don't want people throwing spike hyzers or rollers on 80% of your holes then change your design!


I am sure you have unlimited power with your parks department and can freely position your course around at will, but the rest of us ordinary humans have to work with competing organizations and space available. If it were that easy to change holes, teepads, and pin positions this would not be an issue.


Don't rely on an arbitrary rule to bail you out...



Arbitrary??? All rules are arbitrary. Someone decided one day... "Hey! This would make the game a little more CHALLENGING and add more RISK..." and the suggestion eventually becomes a rule until enough underskilled players cry loud enough.



"Course Challenge" is the domain of course designers working within the limitations of the land, region and their own skill as designers.

"Fair Play" is the domain of the PDGA Rules Committee.

This IS as it should be.

If your course is all rollers, baseball overhand shots or spike hyzers don't blame the PDGA Rules Committee, they had nothing to do with it, nor should they. And they should not be in the business of unnaturally or arbitrarily adding challenge where none is inherent in the main tenets of fair play, protecting our courses, our players and our sport.

"Course Challenge" is the domain of course designers working within the limitations of the land, region and their own skill as designers.



I would add "existing rules" to that list of limitations. At the same time, I would agree with Chuck and Nick that the option of a 2m rule still allows course designers to use discs stuck in a tree as course challenges. Chuck is correct in pointing out that by default, "nothing" is OB. The CD (or TD) has to explicitly state that roads, lakes and picnic areas are OB. Essentially the same thing can be applied to lies above 2m. As a 2m advocate (and a TD), I'm happy with the option of keeping lies above 2m as deserving a penalty.


"Fair Play" is the domain of the PDGA Rules Committee.



I would say the RC has more domain than just that.

I still would like to know how you are going to explain to the guys from ESPN that come to film the first ever nationally televised disc golf tournament that it's perfectly fine to get a disc stuck 18' up in a cedar tree, and that not only is there no penalty stroke involved, but you don't even have to retrieve it! However, if you get your disc caught up in the fishing net that they strung over the basket on hole 16 it's going to cost you an extra stroke. And back on 12, when you hit that real purty greek olive tree and landed on the root? That's gonna be a stroke too, because you ended up inside the yellow circle that we spray painted around it.

But the one 18' up in that cedar? Don't worry about it, you can get it later.

You think they call it a stoner sport now? Ha! Just wait!!

The same way you explain why Tiger could have a half dozen people move a boulder out of his way because it was deemed to be "sitting on the surface" and not embedded.

I guess when ESPN is there, we'll have to declare those cedars o.b. then. Are they covering stoner sports generally now then or is it still only snow and skate boarding? Cuz if they are coming I want to get in some product placement! (http://discontinuum.org/forums/index.php?s=e33f510066951fdac6138ed670ad60ea&amp;showt opic=1519) Be sure to scroll all the way through that thread if you are a sports fan. I can do your team's logo too.

I still would like to know how you are going to explain to the guys from ESPN that come to film the first ever nationally televised disc golf tournament that it's perfectly fine to get a disc stuck 18' up in a cedar tree, and that not only is there no penalty stroke involved, but you don't even have to retrieve it! <font color="red"> Thats funny because if a PGA golfer gets his ball stuck 30 ft up in a tree he can CLIMB the tree and HIT IT OUT or he can LEAVE IT THERE take an unsafe lie with a penalty and play from a drop. Thats funny i think they might understand </font> However, if you get your disc caught up in the fishing net that they strung over the basket on hole 16 it's going to cost you an extra stroke. And back on 12, when you hit that real purty greek olive tree and landed on the root? That's gonna be a stroke too, because you ended up inside the yellow circle that we spray painted around it. <font color="red"> ](sarcasm/on) OUT OF BOUNDS.....HMMMMMMMMMMM your right i dont think ESPN or anyone else will know what that is. NO ONE has EVER heard of out of bounds before and TAKING A PENALTY FOR DOING IT. JEEEEZ now thats just down right STUPID(sarcasm/off)
</font>
But the one 18' up in that cedar? Don't worry about it, you can get it later. <font color="red">Or you can get it NOW!!!!!!!!! This is just stupid in itself. This is why you carry A BAG FULL OF DISCS so you dont have to chase after ones that get stuck </font>

You think they call it a stoner sport now? Ha! Just wait!! <font color="red"> Just wait for what ALL THE POT HEADS TO STOP SMOKING AT TOURNAMENTS AND ON THE LOCAL COURSES. They call it a STONER SPORT because ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO PLAY IT SMOKE POT. Not because of our rules. Im SURE the people who say its a STONER SPORT just read the rule book and were like **** these guys must be stoners look at their rules. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Im sure they went to a park saw some POT HEADS throwing some frisbees and smoking a JOINT and THEN said hey that must be a STONER SPORT </font>




Yellow Rope and artificial OB is WAY BETTER then the stupid ALL LUCK 2 meter rule

I guess when ESPN is there, we'll have to declare those cedars o.b. then. Are they covering stoner sports generally now then or is it still only snow and skate boarding?



Dont you mean Basketball and Baseball and Hockey and Football???? Those are ALL STONER SPORTS or wait are they not stoner sports because they make alot of money??? No pro players EVER get caught smoking dope or dealing drugs :eek:

Every sport is a STONER SPORT they just dont show it as much as our players do. Which is a sad sad thing for our sport :mad:

I think if everyone wants to get rid of the 2 meter rule we should follow the PGA rules. You must climb the tree and throw from where you disc is. If you can't, or decide that's too dangerous, then take your lie under neath the tree with a 1 stroke penalty. That sounds fair doesn't it?? It's your fault for throwing in the tree, so throw from the shot!! When I throw in a brush pile, I have that option, either throw from the lie or move it out with a penalty stroke. Its the same concept!

Actually, I like that "climb the tree" rule best. I think it's better than having everything over 2 meters OB. It's fair for everyone, if you don't like where your disc came to rest, take a penalty stroke and move it. If you can some how get your foot within 30 cm behind the disc up in a tree, you deserve not to have a penalty!

Chris- Your "climb the tree" rule is perfect from my perspective.

Pimp- Yes, all sports have pot smokers who participate. A very sizable portion of our population are "potheads," and they are in every demographic, from athlete to ceo.

Bruce, can I order a butterfly disc like that one on the discontinuum thread? That thing is beautiful and I could score some serious points with my wife. PM me with details.
thanx.

I think if everyone wants to get rid of the 2 meter rule we should follow the PGA rules. You must climb the tree and throw from where you disc is. If you can't, or decide that's too dangerous, then take your lie under neath the tree with a 1 stroke penalty. That sounds fair doesn't it?? It's your fault for throwing in the tree, so throw from the shot!! When I throw in a brush pile, I have that option, either throw from the lie or move it out with a penalty stroke. Its the same concept!



I'd be fine with the climb the tree option too, if you were also required to climb small bushes and trees when your disc is below 2 meters too. Chris might be light enough for a small bush to hold his weight but I'd quickly reduce every tree and bush to debris... ;)

No, disc golf decided to protect trees and bushes, probably due to the fact that they are much greater factors in DG than in BG where a tree of bush in the "middle" of a fairway would be strongly frowned upon.

We also "DO NOT" strike the ball where it lies, we pick it up move it around, clean it, and throw it in an infinite variety of ways AND from a nearly infinite number of release points and trajectories.

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.

Of course, this needs to be updated so that there is a differentiation between a playing surface from which play may be played upon, and one which may be designated as IB casual obstacle or OB (neither surface may be played from). Additionally the trees and bushes are protected by the existing rule:

804.05 DISQUALIFICATION & SUSPENSION
A. A player may be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
(2) Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.

In a sport where protecting trees and bushes is clearly more important in preserving the challenge of our courses and of fair play we have it nearly right and will soon have it completely right. Climbing bushes or trees will likely, and for good reason, never become an option allowed by our PDGA Rules of Play.

Dan, I don't follow this logic at all. It is just as easy for a commentator to say that only a stoner would create a rule where a disc at 2.1 m is a stroke and 1.9 is not.

I'm also not sure why it bothers folks that the disc can't be retrieved. The disc is in the tree, everyone saw it get stuck, they can't get it down. So what. What's the big deal.

As I see it.

The reason I think the 2M rule was put into place is; If you can't reach your disc suspended in a tree, its a penalty stroke.

Why 2M? Its an average of the height of players. A 5 feet tall player can not reach as high as a 6 feet, 6 inch player.

My personal theory. There is a "throwing bubble" that extends in 3D around every player about to throw a disc. A shot may be released at any point in the "throwing bubble" From 1 inch off the ground, throwing from a prone position, to throwing a overhand shot where the release point is 6 feet + off the ground.

If a player may release a shot from any of these postions, than a disc at rest within the "throwing bubble" is OK for normal play without penalty.

With the new rule, every shot, regardless of ending position, is played from the playing surface. (spare me defining playing surface) If every shots starting origin is the playing surface, then that is where the shot should be thrown from. But since we play a game that allows us to pick our disc up off the playing surface and release it 5 feet above the playing surface, why would you rule a disc suspended at the height of 5 feet to be played from the ground. Furthermore, if a disc is unreachable to the average player, 7+ feet off the ground, and it is not feasible to release a disc from that height, it should be a penalty.

I think if everyone wants to get rid of the 2 meter rule we should follow the PGA rules. You must climb the tree and throw from where you disc is. If you can't, or decide that's too dangerous, then take your lie under neath the tree with a 1 stroke penalty. That sounds fair doesn't it?? It's your fault for throwing in the tree, so throw from the shot!! When I throw in a brush pile, I have that option, either throw from the lie or move it out with a penalty stroke. Its the same concept!

i think there is merit to this approach, and it is entirely consistant (since that is one of the buzzwords these days)

As I see it.

The reason I think the 2M rule was put into place is; If you can't reach your disc suspended in a tree, its a penalty stroke.

Why 2M? Its an average of the height of players. A 5 feet tall player can not reach as high as a 6 feet, 6 inch player.

My personal theory. There is a "throwing bubble" that extends in 3D around every player about to throw a disc. A shot may be released at any point in the "throwing bubble" From 1 inch off the ground, throwing from a prone position, to throwing a overhand shot where the release point is 6 feet + off the ground.

If a player may release a shot from any of these postions, than a disc at rest within the "throwing bubble" is OK for normal play without penalty.

With the new rule, every shot, regardless of ending position, is played from the playing surface. (spare me defining playing surface) If every shots starting origin is the playing surface, then that is where the shot should be thrown from. But since we play a game that allows us to pick our disc up off the playing surface and release it 5 feet above the playing surface, why would you rule a disc suspended at the height of 5 feet to be played from the ground. Furthermore, if a disc is unreachable to the average player, 7+ feet off the ground, and it is not feasible to release a disc from that height, it should be a penalty.



This really is not bad logic Jake. The one aspect that needs to be clarified is where is your lie marked regardless of whether the disc is within your throwing bubble or not? The second of course is the inconsistent nature of the "throwing bubble" from player to player. I have great reservations about making rules that penalize folks for having advantagious physical attributes (it would be like making a rule in Bball that since players under 5 foot can't dunk, dunking is illegal).

Your point is not bad thinking, but the deciding factors for me remain the random nature of the penalty and the superfluous nature of the rule (when OB is superior in every possible way). Throw in restriction on course design freedoms and it just is a loser.

It all boils down to one thing:
The PDGA doesn't, after eliminating the two meter rule, call ANYTHING out of bounds. Instead, OB is decided by the course designer and/or TD (and maybe input from the Parks Dept.). I believe I see a point being made here. If sidewalks, creek beds (wet or dry), lakes, roads, etc. are up to the TD, then it only makes sense that trees, be it two meters up or anything within two meters of, be 100 percent up to the designers and TDs.

The PDGA is not banishing the rule, they are just not dictating it!

The PDGA is not banishing the rule, they are just not dictating it!

so we need the PDGA to tell us that its all up to us anyway. WTF!?!

This is correct. I like that "within" rule idea too. Within 1 meter of a tree or bush is OB. I mean we measure 1 meter for other reasons why not do it to protect our trees and bushes. You could declare this for all trees and bushes or a few select ones. If it's very close, benefit to the the thrower cause they are already likely significantly enough away from the plant not to harm it with run up or stance.

That is not half bad Kendall...

"Dude, that's a bush."
"No. It's a weed. It doesn't deserve protecting."
"But it looks good, so we should protect it."
"No. It's invasive..."
And so on. Sound like fun?

I think we should make everything OB! Lets draw little circles on the fairway where our discs can land, if they don't land in them, re throw!! Also if you putt and hit the basket but doesn't stay in, it's 2 penalty shots! :)

Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB mark a meter away from it enters the soil, take a stroke and play on."

I'm thinking to again, the example of an evergreen tree. Say a player sticks 1m up on the perimeter of a big, thick evergreen tree. Under these circumstances he would take a stroke, move into the tree and mark his lie 1m from the trunk perpendicular (on either side?) to the line to the pin.

This would be like a 3 stroke penalty. Throwing to the center of the tree would be difficult to do, but ANY disc suspended in the tree (including below 2m) would be marked next the trunk. The player would be lucky to throw clear of the tree from his marked position. That really would be like a 3 stroke penalty. That seems to be what most want to eliminate by getting rid of the 2m rule. Seems inconsistant.

On another note...
Requiring stroke and distance (previous lie) for lost discs is like a 2 stroke penalty. Compare that to no penalty for discs above 2m. We need to be very clear about how we are going to determine wether the disc is lost or not. When there are 2 strokes on the line and its a group decision and the player isn't allowed (or can't) climb the tree to get his disc... Seems like there are going to be some problems here.

If the disc is unretrievable (out of reach), a penalty should be incurred.

Wow! 2 responses :eek: Mustahitanervwidaten :D

It was misinterpreted a little. All I was saying is that the rules don't call anything else OB so why not be consistent and let nothing be OB until the TD writes it on the program. Just like sidewalks or sidewalks and beyond. Allowing the TD to throw in the complexity of an additional OB or two (like having to land inside the haybails) is fine. Just as long as there are no rules to say what you CAN'T call OB, things are even for everyone.
Have you ever played Monoply where you get money for landing on Free Parking? That's not in the rules, but players decide before playing that that's how it goes. Maybe one day it will be in the rule book as a variation.

But whatever you TDs out there do, PLEASE don't EVER make landing on top of the chain support OB. That would kill my whole game :D

Oh, by the way, an irretreivable disc is LOST.

calling a tree OB is simply silly, for reasons outlined previously. whats a tree? is a bush a tree? a shrub? they dont want the 2m rule, but do want to call disc caught 6 cm "up" in a pampas grass OB??? they want to put freakin nets above the baskets? get real, people! the net thing may be an interesting thing to discuss over a case of beer or a healthy supply of god's greenest, or as a gimick for certain events, but come on, if this is what passes for innovation the PDGA is in deep trouble.

I got an idea! let's all protest the rule. For or against it doesn't matter /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif We can stage a sit-in at the next tournament (between rounds of course). But it would have to be BYOB :D(or whatever :eek:)

On another note...
Requiring stroke and distance (previous lie) for lost discs is like a 2 stroke penalty. Compare that to no penalty for discs above 2m. We need to be very clear about how we are going to determine wether the disc is lost or not. When there are 2 strokes on the line and its a group decision and the player isn't allowed (or can't) climb the tree to get his disc... Seems like there are going to be some problems here.






My point with this post is that under the new 2m rule and new lost disc rule the question is no longer going to be whether or not this disc is above 2m (1 stroke penalty), but whether or not a player can convince his group that the disc in this tree is indeed his (2 stroke penalty). This question is much more debateable and could cause trouble. If everyone gives the player the benefit of the doubt I suppose things will be alright, but how can this be written into the rules?

<font size=5>Word!</font>

I second that

Im going to start holding tournaments and I will make EVERYTHING OB! including the basket.

Thread name change as the 2 meter rule is not banned, it will be TD optional, with the default being no penalty if the Td does not announce otherwise. Personally Im against the new rule, as Gordon Holton argued to me the other day for 45 minutes, removing this rule is essentially taking a 3 dimensional game and making it 2 dimensional. If Im 50 ft in a tree (vertical) why am I in-bounds, when if Im 50 ft on the wrong side of an OB line (horizontal) Im not?



And here is the definitive answer Brian:

It is not OB because 2 meters above a yet to be defined (and even if it were defined) playing surface is NOT OB. It is not an Out of Bounds violation.

If our rules could be worked so that TDs could designate all or certain trees (or anything else they want) as Out of Bounds then the 2 meter rule would be completely unnecessary.

Oh, that's right, we ARE reworking the rules so that trees can be designated OB. I suspect the option to use the 2 meter rule in 2005 is just a cracker thrown to those who do not understand what the new rules will really do or how they will really work.

Again, the 2 meter rule has NOTHING to do with OB, never has and never will. OB is OB. Clear concise, very easy to use and understand. Next time you are out on a course try approaching the course as if every tree and bush is OB. Using the new interpretation of surfaces not vertical OB plains; i.e. in contact solely with an OB surface is OB, IB is IB. I think you will see what I mean. The OB line is the seam where the IB and OB surfaces meet; i.e. the tree trunk entering the earth.

The biggest plus for the trees is that now it doesn't matter if you drop to below 2 meters, if you drop below 2 meters and still are completely supported by the tree you are OB, take a throw penalty, get a meter relief from the OB line and play on. Certainly it can not be argued that this would do "less" to protect trees, or that it would not "promote" more consistent and fair play. It clearly would.

Rhett I'm sure would agree with me but for the minor issue of it would mean "agreeing with Nick Kight". ;)

If Im 50 ft in a tree (vertical) why am I in-bounds, when if Im 50 ft on the wrong side of an OB line (horizontal) Im not?



Did I miss something ? In one case you are 50' from the basket in the other you are across the OB boundary (by 1" or 100' it's the same thing). Where's the relevance? What line are you across because you are being held up vertically?

what was the original name of the thread?

Im going to start holding tournaments and I will make EVERYTHING OB! including the basket.



Finally, a tourney I can win!!!! :D

The biggest plus for the trees is that now it doesn't matter if you drop to below 2 meters, if you drop below 2 meters and still are completely supported by the tree you are OB, take a throw penalty, get a meter relief from the OB line and play on. Certainly it can not be argued that this would do "less" to protect trees, or that it would not "promote" more consistent and fair play. It clearly would.



That's great Nick. Now you'll have people whining that there's too much luck involved because some discs will roll away from the tree trunk and others won't. What about a maple tree with a large above-ground root system, are the roots ob too? I could be 5 feet away from the trunk of one of those and still completely supported by the 'tree'.

At least 2 meters is easy to define and measure.


And here is the definitive answer Brian:




Umm....no, it wasn't. But thanks for trying.

BDH, good point on the 2d/3d aspect!

Dan,

You make no verifiable statements and then say, "Nick, you are wrong. Brian you are right."

What about the roots of an OB designated tree? Yes if the disc is resting on them and not touching anything IB then the disc is OB. Simple, absolute, no measurements necessary.

Is a stroke for landing anywhere in an OB area less fair or concise than landing 2 meters above an undefined(or defined for that matter) playing surface? Is there any less reason to whine?

And since when did OB become a 2d phenomenon? It is not, and it should be made clear that it is not, more so than the PDGA RC Q & A already covers. And I think it will be. Brian's point that 2 meters is somehow related logically to OB is incorrect. It is not. Nothing could be more definitive. All I am proposing is that something similar in behavior, but absolute and consistant, replace it as a design tool and obstacle, namely OB.

If you are going to dispute something then at least bring something to the table besides "I'm right you are wrong".

Listening to Gordie for 45 minutes would be even more challenging than taking 45 minutes to read my series of posts. The 3D/2D argument is flawed since making the 2-meter rule optional doesn�t somehow reduce the 3D aspect of the game which has to do with the flight of the disc, not where the stance is taken to throw it. Marking the lie for all disc locations is always done on a 2D topological surface. As Nick has pointed out many times, we don�t actually take a stance from where a disc lands even when it�s suspended 2 inches above the playing surface (still to be defined). The stance is taken on the playing surface (except when bogus verticality rules are cited by Ellis to play from the bridge instead of the creek bed).

I�ve come up with another angle to address this 2-meter issue. Let�s say there�s a tree that has the probability to snag a disc above 2 meters as often as a basket doesn�t catch a putt that �should have� stayed in. Maybe that�s 1 in 100; maybe 1 in 200? It wouldn�t surprise me that most types of deciduous trees fall in this range similar to basket catching reliability. In both of these instances under current rules, the unlucky player ends up with one more throw on their score than the other 99 players. However, if it were possible, wouldn�t you like to have a basket that actually caught all of the putts that �should be� caught? Maybe the perfect basket isn�t possible but we can fix the other problem by removing the 2-meter penalty to makes it 100% that no player gets a penalty and they�re all treated the same.

In the case of cedar or other velcro trees, if they really caught close to 100% of shots thrown that touch them, a case could be made for a penalty for being stuck in one. But even the nastiest disc catching trees probably don�t reach 30% of touches being caught. Even if you only counted throws that �should have been� caught, like our basket example above, I suspect you wouldn�t get over 70% caught above 2 meters.

Anytime a disc touches part of a tree in flight, the throw is impacted in some way. Even though the results of where each disc lands is inconsistent, the fact that all shots touching a tree are affected, in a way that was less than what the player intended with the throw, is consistent. No additional penalty is required beyond the one for losing the disc.

Again, the 2 meter rule has NOTHING to do with OB, never has and never will.



Never say never, Nick

I�ve come up with another angle to address this 2-meter issue. Let�s say there�s a tree that has the probability to snag a disc above 2 meters as often as a basket doesn�t catch a putt that �should have� stayed in. Maybe that�s 1 in 100; maybe 1 in 200? It wouldn�t surprise me that most types of deciduous trees fall in this range similar to basket catching reliability. In both of these instances under current rules, the unlucky player ends up with one more throw on their score than the other 99 players. However, if it were possible, wouldn�t you like to have a basket that actually caught all of the putts that �should be� caught? Maybe the perfect basket isn�t possible but we can fix the other problem by removing the 2-meter penalty to makes it 100% that no player gets a penalty and they�re all treated the same.

this misses the entire argument for the 2m rule! (which shouldnt surprise anyone, since you are adament about killing it off). in 2004 i could decide whether to take a risk and hope i would not get stuck in a tree guarding the basket. if i chose to take the risk i could throw a technically easier shot. i might get a birdie, or i might get a bogey. in 2005 the risk is gone. i'm prolly gonna get a birdie regardless of whether i drop to the ground next to basket or get stuck 50' above it. but the player who takes a more challenging, but tree-free, route has the same percentages for outcome in 2005 as in 2004.

if you are not adamant about killing off the rule entirely, then please denounce Nick's stated desire to do so by accomplishing the proposed (read: pre-ordained) change.

and one more time: no one at all would give any of this a second thought IF the default was the 2m rule is in force, to be rescinded at the TD's discretion.

this misses the entire argument for the 2m rule!


Not true. The original intent of the 2 meter rule was to penalize the result of the shot, not the choice of route. From my discussions with those involved, the thinking wasn't that deep.


(which shouldnt surprise anyone, since you are adamant about killing it off).


Not true. I will consider using the 2-meter rule where it might make sense even though TDs might negate its use for their event on a course I designed with that in mind. My argument against the 2-meter rule is that no objects effectively and fairly perform well enough in most cases to justify an additional penalty beyond changing the flight path and landing spot of every disc that touches them. Making specific trees OB may do a better job if how that is done can be clarified.

Again, the 2 meter rule has NOTHING to do with OB, never has and never will.



Never say never, Nick



Jim, if it ever did it would cease being a 2 meter rule and become an area defined by the OB rule.

This is classic PDGA Mess Bored hysteria.

The 2 Meater Rule is still very much alive. A TD may still have it in effect for their event and covering their entire course.

Even those here that don�t like the 2 meter rule at all have as much as admitted that there is use for an aerial hazard (what I term as Obs). Rather than bickering over the continued existence of a dying and ill-functioning rule that sticks out from other rules like a sore thumb, we should concentrate on using the perfectly functioning rules we already have in a way that could possibly serve the same function, but in a superior fashion.

I believe that the PDGA Rules Q & A defining stacked playing surfaces of differing IB/OB status as possible, along with the existing OB rule, minus the phantom vertical plane OB line, will provide something that could accomplish something we could all be looking for. So long as that �something� is not just �to be right to spite those who want something slightly different than you do��

Let the babble begin�

Thread name change as the 2 meter rule is not banned, it will be TD optional, with the default being no penalty if the Td does not announce otherwise. Personally Im against the new rule, as Gordon Holton argued to me the other day for 45 minutes, removing this rule is essentially taking a 3 dimensional game and making it 2 dimensional. If Im 50 ft in a tree (vertical) why am I in-bounds, when if Im 50 ft on the wrong side of an OB line (horizontal) Im not?



Thank you...thank you...thankyou :D Finally, someone that wnats to keep the game in OUR dimension instead of a comic book :D

Thread name change as the 2 meter rule is not banned, it will be TD optional, with the default being no penalty if the Td does not announce otherwise. Personally Im against the new rule, as Gordon Holton argued to me the other day for 45 minutes, removing this rule is essentially taking a 3 dimensional game and making it 2 dimensional. If Im 50 ft in a tree (vertical) why am I in-bounds, when if Im 50 ft on the wrong side of an OB line (horizontal) Im not?



Thank you...thank you...thankyou :D Finally, someone that wnats to keep the game in OUR dimension instead of a comic book :D



Yes, very good deduction, by making the 2 meter rule optional the universe will very well likely drop into another dimension. It is not only crucial to the continued survival of organized competitive disc golf, but the very continuation of our entire UNIVERSE depends on it.

Brilliant!

I still stand by my (sort of) mind change about the two meter RULE. It absolutely should not be a rule any more than water is an OB rule.

TAKE THE POWER AND RUN!!!!!! Rebel against the suits!We have control of our own destinies!
(OK. Sorry. My 70s hippie moment is over. But, "Peace" any way :p)

Cool! I didn't know you were worried about that too!!! You heard it world, I am not alone :p

kendall, i am confused (i know i know, whats new :) ) one post you agree with someone who does not like the new rule (and wants the 2m rule to remain unchanges, then the next post you seem to want to kill it off completely. which is it?

You make no verifiable statements and then say, "Nick, you are wrong. Brian you are right."

What about the roots of an OB designated tree? Yes if the disc is resting on them and not touching anything IB then the disc is OB. Simple, absolute, no measurements necessary.



C'mon Nick, you really think that will be simpler in the real world? Player A says the root is halfway in the ground, therefore it's not OB. Player B says one tiny little piece of the disc is touching the dirt next to the root. Player C says it's leaning on the tree but touching a dirty part of the trunk that may or may not be part of the ground.

Or you can have Player D pull out a metric tape measure and answer the existing 2 meter rule question precisely.

Your argument against the existing 2m rule is based on the 'well sometimes they stick and sometimes they don't, there is too much luck involved, it's a bad rule' theory. But what you propose for having the entire tree surface OB is even more prone to 'dumb luck' or 'bad luck'.

And you still haven't answered the question about a disc stuck 25 feet up in the cedar tree on hole 16 at Warwick and how that would look to an interested bystander of the sport.

"You really get to leave the disc way the hell up there and throw without some kind of penalty?"

Nick said...


Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB mark a meter away from it enters the soil, take a stroke and play on."


I said...
I'm thinking to again, the example of an evergreen tree. Say a player sticks 1m up on the perimeter of a big, thick evergreen tree. Under these circumstances he would take a stroke, move into the tree and mark his lie 1m from the trunk perpendicular (on either side?) to the line to the pin.

This would be like a 3 stroke penalty. Throwing to the center of the tree would be difficult to do, but ANY disc suspended in the tree (including below 2m) would be marked next the trunk. The player would be lucky to throw clear of the tree from his marked position. That really would be like a 3 stroke penalty. That seems to be what most want to eliminate by getting rid of the 2m rule. Seems inconsistant.





I haven't heard a reply to this yet, for those who support aerial OB. How do you justify this, when it defeats your purpose for eliminating the 2m rule? And just what is inconsistant about the 2m rule? I've played in tournaments where the penalty was enforced if the tallest guy in the group couldn't reach it. That might not seem specific at all, but it makes more sense than the OB.

Neither or both. I believe any TD that wants to keep the challenge as it has been will call 2 meters OB in the players meeting when outlining all of the other OB zones. All it takes is a one liner, three words and an acronym, and the guts to put up with a little grumbling. But, he/she doesn't HAVE to do so. A TD could just as easily say that less than a foot of water, as determined by the judgement of the card, is not OB if you play it from where it is. The only difference is which of your buddies you want to PO. "If you don't bring beer, 2 meters will be OB!!" :p
I know that didn't answer your question so I will try again. I like the two meter rule and hope TDs call it in the players meeting, but I don't think it is something that needs dictated in the official rules. It might effect what and how you throw, but it doesn't effect how the game is played. Example: The rule against the falling put states the conditions surrounding the throw, not what you throw or where it lands. The rule has no effect whatsoever on people that straddle, turbo, forehand, or pancake the shot. And whether or not it goes in is irrelevent. The only rule that existed concerning where a disc lands, other than finishing a hole, was the 2 meter rule. Every other rule concerning the lie of a disc is up to the TD. Elimination of the official 2 meter rule just serves to make this consistent across the board.

TDs have always, as far as I know, said a disc surrounded by water is OB. Why is that? Tradition? I have been to tournaments where the TD has stated that over the edge of a DRY creek is OB because it normally has water in it. I have no reason to think they will not, at least most of the time call 2 meters OB. Maybe even just for the sake of tradition. Whatever the TD decides to do...

What do you think? If I keep this up for four years maybe it could be "Kerry/Steel" in '08 :D

Over 2m is not OB.

C'mon Nick, you really think that will be simpler in the real world? Player A says the root is halfway in the ground, therefore it's not OB. Player B says one tiny little piece of the disc is touching the dirt next to the root. Player C says it's leaning on the tree but touching a dirty part of the trunk that may or may not be part of the ground.

Or you can have Player D pull out a metric tape measure and answer the existing 2 meter rule question precisely.



The disc is either touching an IB surface or is not. Similar to water declared OB with a rock in it, completely surrounded by flowing water, a tree declared OB with a gap in its root with soil in it would also be OB if completely surrounded by tree.

It is absolutely simpler and more straightforward. Whether or not something is touching OB or no, where a physical line exists and in very close proximity to the disc is far easier to judge than some imaginary line off a point directly below on the surface, through branches and leaves straight up to a point 2 meters from the actual reference point. And like any other OB if the status is disputed the player has the same recourse within our rules all other OB situations entail.

OB is inarguably superior as pertains to judging the status of the disc in relation to its status as concerns the rules.


And you still haven't answered the question about a disc stuck 25 feet up in the cedar tree on hole 16 at Warwick and how that would look to an interested bystander of the sport.

"You really get to leave the disc way the hell up there and throw without some kind of penalty?"



Here is another definitive answer: �Yes.�

So long as it can be identified to the satisfaction of the player and his group members then play on. If not, take a provisional. If later it is found to not be your disc, apply rule for playing from the incorrect lie (again promoting the use of a provisional).

This is a very little difference if any different than under our current rule.

To the bystander it looks identical.

what do i think? well, i agree it should be the TD's choice. because apparently there are regions where it makes sense to not use the rule. i believe that the default should be 2m in place, with the option of suspending it. thats the only difference between what i believe and the wording.

i believe that if you believe no TD will forget to announce the 2m rule even though he/she wants it you will be proven wrong. you'll know it happened due to the confusion and chaos :)

i believe there will be grumbling if the TD uses the 2m rule. i believe there will be grumbling if he doesnt!

"It might effect what and how you throw, but it doesn't effect how the game is played." that's a mighty fine line you draw in that statement and i believe i like it and agree!

and finally, i believe that, yes, your wife would make a GREAT choice for veep :)

I think it makes far more sense to have the penalty be optional, for the default rule to be no penalty, and for TD's to have discretion. If a TD does not mention 2 meters, the rule is not in effect. If you feel the TD should explicitly state what is or isn't in effect with regard to 2 meters -- raise your hand and ask for the benefit of everyone present.

A simpler rule book is a better one and that is probably why the Rules Committee went in the direction of no penalty unless otherwise stated. Usually I don't care about ball golf -- but how do they handle this rule?

My feeling on the rule is this. I have only been stuck in a non-cedar tree once and that was in tournament play and the tree was on a fairway edge about 125 feet from the basket. Hitting the tree and having the incredibly bad luck to stay up (grapevine) was penalty enough yet I was stroked. Go throw 5 discs into a tree (not a cedar tree which under the old rule can be used as a brake anyways from 2m and below) and see how many stick. Chances are none will, or maybe one. Why we should randomly hand out penalty strokes is beyond me. Don't want tree climbing? We could rule that if a disc is above 2 meters, and can't be retrieved within 30 seconds, then mark it and play on. A TD could also declare a rule like "any disc stuck 1 meter or above in a tree or shrub within 10 meters of a basket shall receive a penalty stroke"

Nick said...


Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB mark a meter away from it enters the soil, take a stroke and play on."


I said...
I'm thinking to again, the example of an evergreen tree. Say a player sticks 1m up on the perimeter of a big, thick evergreen tree. Under these circumstances he would take a stroke, move into the tree and mark his lie 1m from the trunk perpendicular (on either side?) to the line to the pin.

This would be like a 3 stroke penalty. Throwing to the center of the tree would be difficult to do, but ANY disc suspended in the tree (including below 2m) would be marked next the trunk. The player would be lucky to throw clear of the tree from his marked position. That really would be like a 3 stroke penalty. That seems to be what most want to eliminate by getting rid of the 2m rule. Seems inconsistant.





I haven't heard a reply to this yet, for those who support aerial OB. How do you justify this, when it defeats your purpose for eliminating the 2m rule? And just what is inconsistent about the 2m rule? I've played in tournaments where the penalty was enforced if the tallest guy in the group couldn't reach it. That might not seem specific at all, but it makes more sense than the OB.



I�m assuming that you are defining my �main purpose� for removal of the 2 meter rule as being to �protect trees and any other object deemed worthy of protection�. Then you ask what is inconsistent about the 2 meter rule. Then there is the premise of the original post.

First, the main purpose, or motivation, for the removal of the 2 meter rule, speaking only for myself, is that it is superfluous when we already have a superior OB rule. Removing it increases the level of fair play during competition by not being overly punitive and by providing greater consistency within our rules (1 rule rather than 2, not to mention the more consistent nature of the OB rule to begin with). The random nature of a disc staying in a tree or dropping out is one level of randomness, add to that a measurement like whether or not it drops below 2 meters and you have increased the degree of randomness many times over. I think this answers the �inconsistent� question.

Another motivation for its removal is that the OB rule will do a better job of protect trees and any object deemed worthy of protection by the TD or course pro. If the updated rules add greater definition and clarity to the OB/IB status delineations as well as to what is a playing surface, or even under current understanding (though clarification would be preferable), if, as is described in the original posted question a disc is 1 meter in and up in a thick tree here are the following options:

Under current rules minus the 2 meter rule:

Answer: Same as before but no penalty throw is assessed.

Under proposed rules clarifications of: A) Playing surfaces above or below other playing surfaces may be designated with differing IB/OB statuses. B) All discs landing OB must be played from their previous lie or a drop zone (if provided). The tree is declared and OB area and surface:

Answer: The player plays their next throw from their previous lie or a drop zone if provided and an OB penalty throw is accessed.
Neither option is any worse than the current 2 meter rule, and the second is clearly superior in consistency (within itself and between itself and other rules as well as to fair play) and in it�s ability to protect trees and dissuade folks from throwing �at them� in the first place.

The best thing about the (discussed) new rules clarifications is that any object other than air itself (which generally speaking cannot support a disc at rest) can be declared OB by the TD or course pro: water, stacks of sticks, a table, grills, cars, playground equipment, etc. without having to mark them. Anything not declared is IB. The other cool thing is that they can also declare them Casual OB, where all of the same relief options are available but no penalty throw is assessed.

In Bounds or Out of Bounds, no other distinction is needed or advised.

One last point concerning why the 2 meter rule will be optional this year for TDs. It is as simple a matter as this:

Do we make entire courses hazards by default and then have TDs have to announce every playable area and surface?

Hale No! That would be, say it with me, Stu...

I started a poll (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=272650&page=0&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) about the two meter rule in respects to how far a player can throw and how the rule will affect them.

Yes, polls and referendums have been going on since the dawn of disc golf concerning this rule. All the most recent ones come out statistically a dead heat (within +/- 3 percentage points).

What is significant, besides the overwhelming logic of doing away with it, is that when you factor in peoples natural tendency to cling to what is familiar, the change has fair greater support than does status quo where most people, rather than give it meaningful thought just side with what they feel comfortable with and know from past experience.

If it remains optional for 3 or 4 years I strongly suspect that it will be 75% to 25% in favor of dropping the rule all together just from folks becoming familiar with not having it during competitive play.

At the USDGC this year, the new no 2 meter rule was in effect. How many times did Climo and Schultz use it to their advantage? My guess is it didn't change the way they played the course. I wonder what a poll of the top 25 rated disc golfers would say about the new rule? I'm betting they like it, because they want disc golf to depend on skill, not luck.

At the USDGC this year, the new no 2 meter rule was in effect. How many times did Climo and Schultz use it to their advantage? My guess is it didn't change the way they played the course. I wonder what a poll of the top 25 rated disc golfers would say about the new rule? I'm betting they like it, because they want disc golf to depend on skill, not luck.



Hm. So, you think that those with the most skill are unaffected by the rule change? Wouldn't that argue that the original 2m rule forced people to play more skillfully to avoid it?

And why exactly do you think people unaffected by the rule change would be so adamantly in favor of its change?

I'm calling a 2m rule on your logic.

Yes, polls and referendums have been going on since the dawn of disc golf concerning this rule. All the most recent ones come out statistically a dead heat (within +/- 3 percentage points).



BZZZZT!!! The correct answer would have been that the most recent one is running 3-1 in favor of retaining the penalty at the 2005 IOS with approximately 25 votes in, not counting null votes for silly answers.

Here is a summary of why I think the 2 meter rule isn't preferable:

1. Getting stuck in a tree is a very random process. Throw 10 discs into a tree and see how many stick.

2. Hitting a tree is generally going to be penalty enough. If you think the new rule will enable people to use cedar trees as brakes -- they already can -- just throw it into the tree below 2 meters.

3. On holes with trees closer than 35 feet, a TD (and tee sign) can either declare those trees OB or can set up a mulch area beneathe the tree to define OB -- which doesn't just penalize the unlucky discs that stay up but also penalizes the lucky ones that fall straight down. (normally if you hit a tree it deflects you away from where you want to be anyways)

I would like all those people who think this new rule changes the game to go play a round trying to get stuck in trees for an advantage and report back here on the results.

At the USDGC this year, the new no 2 meter rule was in effect. How many times did Climo and Schultz use it to their advantage? My guess is it didn't change the way they played the course. I wonder what a poll of the top 25 rated disc golfers would say about the new rule? I'm betting they like it, because they want disc golf to depend on skill, not luck.



USDGC is a terrible example. Can you figure out why?

If I opposed the elimination of the 2 meter rule I probably could, just as you could argue well against the rule if you favored its elimination :D

Even though you favor the elimination of the rule you should easily be able to see why USDGC is an 'orrible example to use.

So why do you think the TD for the USDGC requested permission to waive the 2 meter rule there this year?

Here is a summary of why I think the 2 meter rule isn't preferable:

1. Getting stuck in a tree is a very random process. Throw 10 discs into a tree and see how many stick.



Lots of things are "random". You won't get the exact same wind speed and direction for every throw you make, or from your throw to the next person's throw. You won't get the exact same flight characteristics out of a disc from throw to throw, especially after the disc hits an obstacle hard. Some discs will roll far away from the target after hitting the chains, just because the disc lands a certain way on sloped ground, while others will fall flat and make for an easy putt. There's no such thing as eliminating randomness, and if you think you've done it by eliminating the 2m rule, you're fooling yourself. You've just replaced randomness of one type with another.


2. Hitting a tree is generally going to be penalty enough. If you think the new rule will enable people to use cedar trees as brakes -- they already can -- just throw it into the tree below 2 meters.



Hm, doing so takes a certain level of skill. Sorry, but I thought your position was that the rule didn't push a player to play skillfully. Random logic! Random logic!


3. On holes with trees closer than 35 feet, a TD (and tee sign) can either declare those trees OB or can set up a mulch area beneathe the tree to define OB -- which doesn't just penalize the unlucky discs that stay up but also penalizes the lucky ones that fall straight down. (normally if you hit a tree it deflects you away from where you want to be anyways



Uh huh. Let's take a simple, straightforward rule like the 2m rule and replace it with one where EVERY tree on a course needs to be defined as OB or IB by the TD, and those trees must be mapped, etc. I've got an idea. Let's keep the 2m rule, and not go overboard with OB definitions.


I would like all those people who think this new rule changes the game to go play a round trying to get stuck in trees for an advantage and report back here on the results.



I'd like the ones who are trying to change rules to support their reasons for change, rather than have them make indiscriminate changes for illogical reasons and then ask others "What difference does it make?"

There is no right or wrong answer here . . . . except for the fact that the 2 meter rule is right and taking it away is wrong :)

There is nothing in this world that is random. Everything happens for a reason. If you get stuck in a tree, you certainly deserve your penalty stroke. It is due to either carelessness, bad calculations, or just poor execution. If you hit a tree and don't stick, it is again just the proper result of your shot. If you weren't intending or even considering hitting the tree, then you made a poor execution, and should consider yourself "lucky".

I for one am glad this rule is gone. It was a stupid rule to begin with, and just plain bad luck if you did stick in a tree.

Right you are and sure there are random things we can't control like wind variances from moment to moment but the rules shouldn't increase the chances that luck will determine the outcome. The 2 meter rule was too dependent upon bad luck. Certain trees near pins should probably be designated as OB instead.

Or we could re-write the rule to say: if you are suspended more than 30cm above the ground in a tre or shrub that is within 10 meters of the target you shall mark the disc vertically below the suspended disc and resume play after taking one penalty stroke.

1. Getting stuck in a tree is a very random process. Throw 10 discs into a tree and see how many stick.



Depends on the tree. Some trees 1/10, other trees 9/10 will stick.


2. Hitting a tree is generally going to be penalty enough.



Bzzzt. Depends on the location of said trees. This weekend in San Diego, I got stuck over 2m twice. Both within 50' of the pin. I think both of them actually left my lie closer to the basket than they would have been otherwise. One of them, my lie totally screwed me (the tree/bush/shrub I got stuck in blocked my line to the basket), and yes, that was penalty enough. In the other, getting stuck in the tree actually kept me close to the basket. If I hadn't hit the tree my throw would have tailed off and ended up 75' away. Instead I had a 30' put for 3 (no, I missed the putt).


3. On holes with trees closer than 35 feet, a TD (and tee sign) can either declare those trees OB or can set up a mulch area beneathe the tree to define OB -- which doesn't just penalize the unlucky discs that stay up but also penalizes the lucky ones that fall straight down.



And it also penalizes some shots that never hit the tree, but happen to land under it. Stupid. That's like putting random circles of OB in the middle of the fairway. No, correct that. That is putting random circles of OB in the middle of the fairway.

3. On holes with trees closer than 35 feet, a TD (and tee sign) can either declare those trees OB or can set up a mulch area beneathe the tree to define OB -- which doesn't just penalize the unlucky discs that stay up but also penalizes the lucky ones that fall straight down.



And it also penalizes some shots that never hit the tree, but happen to land under it. Stupid. That's like putting random circles of OB in the middle of the fairway. No, correct that. That is putting random circles of OB in the middle of the fairway.



Actually Jim, you do not need to mark OB on the ground beneath, IF the tree itself can be declared an OB surface above an IB surface. This is taking a 2D rule and making it 3D, which should make Guru happy.

Under that understanding the entire tree can be OB but the area below it is not. This is the most elegant solution in my opinion. The TD could just announce that all trees within 50 feet of the pin are OB, or just certain ones.

This is the most elegant solution in my opinion. The TD could just announce that all trees within 50 feet of the pin are OB, or just certain ones.




Oh yeah, that's really 'elegant'.

TD: "The juniper to the left of 16 is ob. The blue spruce near the basket on 12 is ob. No, not the 34' tall one, the 32' tall one. The hemlock to the left of the pin on 5 is ob, but the one that is short and left isn't."

Player: "Umm...what's a juniper?"

A truly elegant way to put it would be:

"TDs have the option of waiving the 2 meter rule during play, at their discretion."

I was happy to hear that Dan Doyle has no plans for removing the 2 meter rule at any Warwick tournaments next year. What do you think Nick, is that because of (in your words) 'poor course design'?

You sound a little angry Dan, everything ok?

TDs already are required to provide detailed information about all hazards on their courses at PDGA events (and it's generally a good idea at other events as well). It is the case with all OB situations, whether casual or not.

Marking OB trees, when they are just individual specific trees and not "within an area" or " for an "entire hole or course" wouldn't be difficult.

DDcan run his events any way he wants within our rules of play. I'm looking to cut back on a bunch of events next year anyway, but having the 2 meter rule in effect is not a big deal for me (considering I don't think I took one in 2004 at over 20 PDGAs), but I will be weighing all factors.

Tie a yellow ribbon 'round the OB tree... J/K! ...or not? :o:D

Here is my biggest problem with taking the 2 meter rule away. How do you determine if the disc is lost, or just stuck in a tree where "only one" person can see it? The only tournament where this rule has been applied was USDGC, and during that tournament a person in my group got stuck up in a cedar tree towards the top. We all looked ( including several spotters ) and could not find the disc. Therefore this should be a lost disc penalty, however, not giving up he decided to climb the cedar tree. He got about half way up and decided that it was a bad idea. Just before he climbed down he said he saw his disc way up at the top of the tree but couldn't reach it and didn't even want to attempt to retrieve it. He then climbed down and marked his lie under the tree and threw his next shot. Personally I think he just lied about seeing his disc just so he wouldn't take a penatly stroke, but what are we to do??? He could have very well seen his disc, there is no way to prove it. Now if this happened in the only tournament to NOT have a 2 meter rule ( especially one with very few trees to get stuck in) how many times will this situation come up in the future? What do you do if you are stuck 60' up in a tree and the thrower can see his disc but can't point it out to everyone else. Is this a penalty stroke or is it a safe shot?!?

Interesting scenario. Perhaps (for further clarification) 2 players would be needed to ID the said disc...?

Interesting scenario. Perhaps (for further clarification) 2 players would be needed to ID the said disc...?


But that also is not fair. Why should a player be penalized because he is good at spotting discs and everyone else seems to be blind. If he legitimately sees the disc, then under the rule he shouldn't be penalized. However, there is no way to prove he can see it! I think this will cause more confusion and "unfairness" than having the 2 meter rule. If your disc is under 2 meters there is no doubt you and your group will locate the disc, if you see your disc in a tree 40' up and the rest of the group doesn't, it won't matter since you would have to take a stroke penalty anyway.

Interesting scenario. Perhaps (for further clarification) 2 players would be needed to ID the said disc...?

A
But that also is not fair. Why should a player be penalized because he is good at spotting discs and everyone else seems to be blind. If he legitimately sees the disc, then under the rule he shouldn't be penalized. However, there is no way to prove he can see it! I think this will cause more confusion and "unfairness" than having the 2 meter rule. If your disc is under 2 meters there is no doubt you and your group will locate the disc, if you see your disc in a tree 40' up and the rest of the group doesn't, it won't matter since you would have to take a stroke penalty anyway.



The identification and recovery of a lost disc is under rule:

803.10 LOST DISC
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit.

B. A player whose disc is declared lost, shall receive one penalty throw. The approximate lie for the player's next shot shall be marked in-bounds nearest the spot where the disc was last seen, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official.

C. If it is discovered, prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player's disc that was declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have the penalty throw for the lost disc subtracted from his or her score.

D. A marker disc that is lost shall be replaced in its approximate lie as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official with no penalty.

The new 2 meter rule has no effect on this. If as your example shows, Chris, the disc is identified by the player, but no one else in the group can find it or verify that it is that throwers, the options are 100% the same whether the 2 meter rule is in effect or not.

A) Take a provisional and mark the lie on the ground directly below the disc in question. If 2 meter rule is in effect add stroke, if not don�t.
B) Throw from the spot the group agrees they lost see your disc with a lost disc throw added to your score.
C) Afterward, the TD can decide which was the proper call (same as always). He could go out there (or send someone) to see if the disc can be retrieved and identified, if it can�t then the score from the lost disc stroke is kept, if it can then the score from the disc above the playing surface is used.

Simple as pie if you know the rules.

If you can see the disc in the tree then it's not lost.
You know exactly where it is, but can't reach it. A disc is only lost if you can't find it.

The 2m rule is similar to the forward progress in football, the running back reaches the first down marker than is tackled 5 yards back, he reached the mark and earns the first down.

If it weren't for the tree :) then the disc would have gone it's full flight. Instead, you throw from furthest point the disc reached, which is where the tree caught the disk.

How is that simple? Those rules don't say anything on "how to verify a lost disc" If the player says he sees his disc in the tree but no one else can see the disc to verify it, then is it a stroke for a lost disc or a free drop?? If it's a free drop then what's stopping people from "always" saying they see their disc in a tree, even if they don't. If two or more people have to see the disc to verify it, then you get penalized if you are the only one you can "actually" see the disc in the tree.

If it lands in a tree and you can't find it, then you can say it's lost, spend 3 mins to look for it and move on if not. If you can't find it, it's lost. If no one can find it's lost. If you can't reach it due to height then it's not lost.

A disc can appear to land in a tree but actually travel through or bounce out and roll in a completely different direction. How many people would actually lose discs on purpose? Discs cost money.
To lose a disc and get a stroke sucks.

If it lands in a tree and you can't find it, then you can say it's lost, spend 3 mins to look for it and move on if not. If you can't find it, it's lost. If no one can find it's lost. If you can't reach it due to height then it's not lost.



? I don't think you are understanding the question I'm asking.

I would say that you should play the hole and mark it as provisional, have a marshall or official after the round see if they can see the disc in the tree and go from there.

How to verify a lost disc? Common sense, if no one can find it, it's lost, how hard is that to understand. It's really very simple. That's why other people have to verify.

Its not so simple when the disc is 40' up in a tree hiding behind leaves. The thrower can say he see's it, when actually he can't. How can you prove he can see it? In the past it wouldn't matter since either way it would be a penalty ( lost disc or 2 meter rule )

likewise, the cardmates can say they dont see it when (maybe) they can.

further, the thrower can say his unique identifying mark is visible and clear to him but again the cardmates can declare the opposite. i think this second scenario is quite likely - especially with so many throwers of z plastic marking are using a small mark on the inside of the rim. i know that when my disc "cannot be found" and was last seen trying hard to stay sub-orbital my eyesight is sure gonna be remarkably eagle-like! :D

Its not so simple when the disc is 40' up in a tree hiding behind leaves. The thrower can say he see's it, when actually he can't. How can you prove he can see it? In the past it wouldn't matter since either way it would be a penalty ( lost disc or 2 meter rule )



Chris, this is incorrect. It does not default to a 2 meter rule infraction/lost disc (which would be played differently anyway). If the thrower says he sees it in the tree, but no one else in his group can, then it is not a 2 meter rule infraction even if the 2 meter rule is in effect (unless later verified to be his/her disc). If the player insists he/she sees it, then they have the right to play it under the rule of "Disc Above the Playing Surface" as a provisional (whether the 2 meter part of the rule is in effect or not). They will then have to play the hole as a lost disc from the place the group says they last saw the disc.

If a non-playing official or TD is around, they can make the call right then and there. If not they can make it following the completion of the round.

This process is unchanged by the removal of the 2 meter rule from the above the playing surface rule.

Now if you are saying that the player is BSing to try and save a stroke:
A) I find that very unlikely
B) If the TD in checking it out finds that to be the case the player risks greater penalty than 2 meter or lost disc, they risk disquallification.

Try it out the next time it arises. You might have to use your imagination though considering how infrequently such a situation ever arises.

Your concern has nothing to do with the 2 meter rule, it has to do with either lost disc or disqualification for lying. In any case a provisional and TD ruling solves it every time.

I admit that I'm not up on the "disc above the playing surface" rule. There has been talk of moving to a 2 stroke penalty from the previous lie for lost discs in 2005. I that this in combination with the no 2m rule will cause disagreements as to whether or not a disc is lost. Nick, are you saying that if there is a dispute, take a provisional and bring an official to do some disc hunting after the round?

Yea, it's much easier said than done, just wait till you have it happen in your group. What are you going to do? Argue that he probably doesn't see his disc in the cedar tree? Have a TD come and try to climb the tree for you? I'm not about to climb up in that thing to prove him wrong, I'll just take his word. This has already happened to me ( I'm almost certain he didn't see his disc ) but I didn't care, he was already a few strokes behind me. Now if it was a smaller tournament and we were tied for first . . . .
I just think the rule change was unnecessary, I can't really do anything to change it so I'm just gonna sit on here and argue about it.

Unless I've missed it, I don't see anything in the rules that states that two others must verify the identity of a lost disc. (Where is this in the rules? Does it only apply to discs that are declared lost and being sought after?)

Shouldn't the onus be on the challengers to show that it is not the players disc rather than the other way around?

If the player was wrong and somebody finds his real disc, then it's two strokes for playing from someone elses lie.

Yea, it's much easier said than done, just wait till you have it happen in your group. What are you going to do?



(2 meter rule in effect) If a guy in my group says that he can see his disc 50 feet up in a tree, but no one else in our group can see it, I will suggest he take a provisional and play one shot from where he says he sees his disc above the playing surface and another from where the group last saw the disc in flight for a lost disc.

(2 meter rule not in effect) If a guy in my group says that he can see his disc 50 feet up in a tree, but no one else in our group can see it, I will suggest he take a provisional and play one shot from where he says he sees his disc above the playing surface and another from where the group last saw the disc in flight for a lost disc.


Argue that he probably doesn't see his disc in the cedar tree?



No, that would be inappropriate. The rules provide clear instructions for what is to be done and calling the guy a liar is not part of them.


Have a TD come and try to climb the tree for you?



The TD will have to sort it out to the �best of his/her abilities�. If that entails climbing a tree, so be it, but there are other ways, and regardless of the method, what the TD rules is it.


I'm not about to climb up in that thing to prove him wrong, I'll just take his word.



Then what is all of this talk about!?! Take him at his word and let him play under the rule �Above the Playing Surface�. End of discussion.



This has already happened to me ( I'm almost certain he didn't see his disc ) but I didn't care, he was already a few strokes behind me. Now if it was a smaller tournament and we were tied for first . . . .



This sounds like you need to work on your rule calling consistency, not that our rules need to be changed to let you off the hook when a call is needed. Seriously, you should call the rules regardless of where someone is in relation to you in a competition because undoubtedly his/her abuse of the rules will affect those who are tied or behind him. Calling rules is not supposed to �only benefit� the person making the call; it is to ensure fairness for all competitors and to protect our sport from those who out of ignorance or lack of ethics would do injury to it.


I just think the rule change was unnecessary, I can't really do anything to change it so I'm just gonna sit on here and argue about it.



Fine, but try to come up with something that has basis in reality to discuss. This is a non-issue.

I still don't see why so many people are for a rule change that makes the game easier?? It you want to save a stroke off your game, don't throw into the trees in the first place , or play from the short tees. I like how people say it's "unlucky" to stick in a tree. Why is it unlucky?? You should be lucky when you throw at a tree and DON'T get stuck. I've never came across a basket that was above 2 meters in a tree . . .

I still don't see why so many people are for a rule change that makes the game easier?? It you want to save a stroke off your game, don't throw into the trees in the first place , or play from the short tees. I like how people say it's "unlucky" to stick in a tree. Why is it unlucky?? You should be lucky when you throw at a tree and DON'T get stuck. I've never came across a basket that was above 2 meters in a tree . . .



And away we go on another pointless tangent! WEEEEE!

Nick, do you find it even the slightest bit hypocritical that isn't a pointless tangent when you use the 'removal of the luck factor' as reason to dump the rule? I know that I do.

The issue of unidentifiable discs will certainly need to be addressed under the new 'non rule'. It wasn't a factor before when it was a stroke either way (lost or above 2 meters). I think the issue of guys leaving discs stuck in trees all over the course will need to be addressed as well. I am preparing my 'you have been warned for littering' speech as I type this.

I've never came across a basket that was above 2 meters in a tree . . .


I did...and promptly got a circle 2... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I've never came across a basket that was above 2 meters in a tree . . .


I did...and promptly got a circle 2... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



For example...
Circle 2? (http://www.obmegazine.com/images/2004/ob%5Fcoverpics/pages/hanging_tree.htm)

Nick, do you find it even the slightest bit hypocritical that isn't a pointless tangent when you use the 'removal of the luck factor' as reason to dump the rule? I know that I do.

The issue of unidentifiable discs will certainly need to be addressed under the new 'non rule'. It wasn't a factor before when it was a stroke either way (lost or above 2 meters). I think the issue of guys leaving discs stuck in trees all over the course will need to be addressed as well. I am preparing my 'you have been warned for littering' speech as I type this.



Your idea would be worth discussing if a disc known to be above 2 meters was lost, or a lost disc was known to be above 2 meters, unfortunately they are mutually exclusive. If you "know" the disc is above 2 meters then by definition it is not "lost". And if a disc is "lost" then there is no possible way of "knowing" it is above 2 meters.

The situation of a player saying they see their disc up in a tree while no one else in their group can has nothing to do with the 2 meter rule. It concerns lost disc and a provisional throw. If later the disc is found to be his, and the 2 meter rule is in effect, then the penalty will be assessed. If it is not his, then the score from the lost disc provisional will be used.

This is identical whether the 2 meter rule is in effect or not.

And don't think I tire or saying this over and over again.

Discs left on the course during PDGA rounds are not considered littering. Good luck getting anyone on the PDGA BOD or Rules Committee listening to that load of manure

D'OH! :eek: :cool:

It's no longer on the course, more's the pity. Great fun midget-baiting.
5'8'' guy: Can you get my disc out please?
Me: No :D

Discs left on the course during PDGA rounds are not considered littering. Good luck getting anyone on the PDGA BOD or Rules Committee listening to that load of manure



Good luck getting them to listen to anything the membership has to say, for that matter (i.e. the poll results that do NOT favor removal of the existing 2m rule by any significant majority).

So I will reiterate once again the lack of common sense in a game in which the rules allow you to just randomly throw discs 20, 30, 40 feet up in trees and leave them there with no penalty whatsoever. Step outside your cardboard box for a second and TRY to think of it in that respect.

"But a lost disc is penalty enough" - then why bother stroking for a disc lost in the pond.

"But it's just random luck whether or not a disc sticks in a tree" - no, it's not. Don't throw it there if you don't want it to stick (I paraphrased that one from the RC themselves in the Q&A)

"A course that uses the potential for a 2 meter penalty in it's design is a badly designed course" - too ignorant a statement to even bother replying to again. You can attempt to deny saying that but we both know better.

"Top pros don't like the rule" - here's a shocker for ya, top pros don't like ANY rule that might cost them strokes because strokes = money.

"OB is better" - yes it is, and the smartest solution would be to treat 2m up as OB, as has been recommended many times before. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

"But if we used OB then we'd be declaring entire courses OB above 2 meters" - wait, so you mean entire courses haven't been a 'penalty area' above 2 meters already?

The only legitimate gripe against the existing 2m rule is the 'double penalty' factor of losing a stroke and then having a crappy lie afterward. Treat it as OB and you will lose the stroke and get relief. Solves the problem in a nice and simple manner. You want to let TDs waive the rule at their request? I guess that can be allowed if need be. But the rule should be there by default, not the other way around.

Dan,

What point have you just made that has not already been discussed?

If a TD or Course Pro is so inlove with the 2 meter rule, even once it is completely removed from our rules of play (and not even an option as it will be in 2005) by using the OB rule they will be able to accomplish something almost the same but that functions more effectively in every situation. The difference is that they will be incharge of where it is and is not used (like all other OB situations). They, not our rule book.

You know something, Nick, maybe you have a point. Let the course pro/TD make the decision. In fact, we should leave a lot more of the rules in the trash and let the TDs decide.

Live in a state where math scores are below the national average? Lets waive the scorecard error penalty! Let the TDs decide if the players in their tourney have good enough math skills to warrant a couple of penalty strokes for an incorrectly added card. After all, it's only a matter of luck when a card is totalled wrong, isn't it? I mean, geez, 57 guys can add up their cards and get the right numbers, but sometimes that 58th guy forgets to carry a 2. Just bad luck if they get it wrong, and we should do everything we can to remove luck from the game, shouldn't we?

How about making the falling putt rule optional as well. I mean, 10 meters is such an arbitrary number, isn't it? Let's leave it up to the TDs if they want to use it, because sometimes you just lose your balance and step forward, but other times you don't. Pure luck, if you ask me. I know I've seen it where 10 guys make the same putt in a row without foot faulting, but the 11th guy, well, he just gets unlucky and .....

The rules are centralized and standardized for many things that should remain consistent from course to course and state to state. Certain ones should stay that way.

The fact that Carlton Howard stated himself that the membership is equally divided over the rule is reason enough to leave it as it is. I listened to his arguments on PDGA radio again last night and none of them hold water when compared to other, similar rules.

The notion that 2 discs hit a tree in the same way and one sticks but the other does not is silly if you have any reasonable knowledge of physics. If the 2 hit the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same speed and EXACT same angle and were the EXACT same weight with the EXACT same environmental conditions they would do the EXACT same thing. Just because they appear to have hit the same way from the tee means nothing.

On the contrary, a disc that does not hit a tree will not stick there.

Here's the thing. Now that the rule is gone by default, it's not going to really make any difference.

That's what all the 2m lovers apparently don't get. It's really not going to change anything.

Play some tournaments without it. Play some casual rounds without it. Get back to us. You'll be surprised.

I GUARANTEE all this crying will be for naught. Overhands, spike hyzers, aiming at trees.... bah. Won't happen. Won't matter.

The single biggest problem with not having a 2m rule is identification of disc. Other than that, it's all so much drama.

The fact that Carlton Howard stated himself that the membership is equally divided over the rule is reason enough to leave it as it is.



Maybe if it was a presidential race <cough choke gag cough>, but for a long standing contentious rule question, half our membership wanting it removed is very significant, when folks general tendency to fear change of any kind is factored in.

Besides, no one ever said that our rules ought to be set according to popular opinion. Occasionally good ol' common sense wins out and this is such a case...

The fact that Carlton Howard stated himself that the membership is equally divided over the rule is reason enough to leave it as it is.



Maybe if it was a presidential race <cough choke gag cough>, but for a long standing contentious rule question, half our membership wanting it removed is very significant, when folks general tendency to fear change of any kind is factored in.

Besides, no one ever said that our rules ought to be set according to popular opinion. Occasionally good ol' common sense wins out and this is such a case...



That is not only hideous logic, but could even be considered an insult to half of the PDGA membership. Way to represent, Nick!!

dont be too harsh on Nicki, Dan... its a pretty GOOD day when he insults only half the membership :D:eek: :p

The fact that Carlton Howard stated himself that the membership is equally divided over the rule is reason enough to leave it as it is.



Maybe if it was a presidential race <cough choke gag cough>, but for a long standing contentious rule question, half our membership wanting it removed is very significant, when folks general tendency to fear change of any kind is factored in.

Besides, no one ever said that our rules ought to be set according to popular opinion. Occasionally good ol' common sense wins out and this is such a case...



That is not only hideous logic, but could even be considered an insult to half of the PDGA membership. Way to represent, Nick!!



If you choose to read it that way I suppose, but that is not the way it was intended. I suppose merely taking a position on this, and other, issues can be interpreted as an insult. But take my word for it, I only jive folks on this message board, insults are against the rules...

He does have a point though. The fact that half of the people advocate change means that fully half of the people want to institute a rule that doesn't currently exist.

The fact that half of the people don't want to change the rule isn't doesn't mean that all of those would advocate instituting the rule if it didn't currently exist.

There is a number of those that voted to keep the rule simply because it is already there, not because they strongly support or oppose either position.

I admit that I am one of those that doesn't like the rule, wouldn't fight to abolish it, and probably voted to keep it.

Gary, using that thought process we could probably remove a good portion of the rule book. I'd bet that half the membership would vote to remove the falling putt rule, and maybe even more would like to be able to move objects in front of their lie.

I still have yet to hear a convincing, legitimate argument for removing the rule. The ones that Carlton used don't hold water when put to the 'common sense' test that Nick seems to hold so dear to his heart.

The only good reason I have heard either way (because I have never really understood why it was needed in the first place) is to make all the "area" rules consistent within the rule book.

There are equally valid reasons to get rid of the rule and to keep it so it comes down to a question of how other similar things are handled in the rules. All of them are not penalized unless the the TD states that penalties apply. Nothing is OB, nothing is out of play until the TD says so.

Unless there is some very compelling reason that this rule should be applied universally at all times, then it should be treated the same as the road beside the teebox, the parking lot just past the pin, the pond on hole 4, and the playground on the left of the fairway. Nothing is a penalized area unless the TD/club says it is.

I think that on courses/holes where the 2M rule is desired to be in effect, it should be stated on the tee signs (just as OB is now) and the course kiosk.

That is not only hideous logic, but could even be considered an insult to half of the PDGA membership. Way to represent, Nick!!



Seriously Dan, look around yourself at a tournament sometime. Heck, glance at the majority of threads on this very board. Do you really want the majority of the membership deciding ANYTHING?!??

You, my friend, are the exception. Part of a small minority that can actually formulate a reasonable thought. Insulting? Perhaps. True? Indeed.

And one of the fewer still that can express those thoughts in a complete and coherent sentence.

And one of the fewer still that can express those thoughts in a complete and coherent sentence.



gnduke that agree thought. there disks r 2 better then you're's duuuuuuuuude!

Seriously Dan, look around yourself at a tournament sometime. Heck, glance at the majority of threads on this very board. Do you really want the majority of the membership deciding ANYTHING?!??




I think you could post this on the 'Presidential Election' thread as well. :D :D

You know something, Nick, maybe you have a point. Let the course pro/TD make the decision. In fact, we should leave a lot more of the rules in the trash and let the TDs decide.

Live in a state where math scores are below the national average? Lets waive the scorecard error penalty! Let the TDs decide if the players in their tourney have good enough math skills to warrant a couple of penalty strokes for an incorrectly added card. After all, it's only a matter of luck when a card is totalled wrong, isn't it? I mean, geez, 57 guys can add up their cards and get the right numbers, but sometimes that 58th guy forgets to carry a 2. Just bad luck if they get it wrong, and we should do everything we can to remove luck from the game, shouldn't we? <font color="red"> Thats called utter stupidity not luck. </font>

How about making the falling putt rule optional as well. I mean, 10 meters is such an arbitrary number, isn't it? Let's leave it up to the TDs if they want to use it, because sometimes you just lose your balance and step forward, but other times you don't. Pure luck, if you ask me. I know I've seen it where 10 guys make the same putt in a row without foot faulting, but the 11th guy, well, he just gets unlucky and ..... <font color="red"> Thats human error and bad form. Again NOT luck </font>

The rules are centralized and standardized for many things that should remain consistent from course to course and state to state. Certain ones should stay that way. <font color="red"> True but this one is stupid and has alot to do with LUCK. Plus OB is a much better alternative. </font>

The fact that Carlton Howard stated himself that the membership is equally divided over the rule is reason enough to leave it as it is. I listened to his arguments on PDGA radio again last night and none of them hold water when compared to other, similar rules.

The notion that 2 discs hit a tree in the same way and one sticks but the other does not is silly if you have any reasonable knowledge of physics. If the 2 hit the EXACT same spot at the EXACT same speed and EXACT same angle and were the EXACT same weight with the EXACT same environmental conditions they would do the EXACT same thing. Just because they appear to have hit the same way from the tee means nothing. <font color="red"> Thats next to impossible so i dont even know why you brought it up. </font>

On the contrary, a disc that does not hit a tree will not stick there. <font color="red"> Very true but if you hit a tree and get stuck its still UNLUCKY. If your falls out you were LUCKY not to hit a spot where it would stick. If its sticks you were UNLUCKY cuz you hit the spot where it would stick. Thats where the luck comes in. Not hitting the EXACT EXACT blah blah blah whatever you said before. Its unlucky when you can hit a tree in one spot and stick then hit the same tree in a different spot and not stick. Thats random luck. </font>




Get used to not having a 2 meter rule and start using OB where it is needed. Yellow rope and stakes works much better then the 2 meter rule. :D

from now on, the card will decide if an ace was the result of an intensely skillful shot or one of a fairly crappy shot that got so lucky it hit dead center pole and stuck. majority rules. if n majority can be reached, then tiebreaker goes to non-luck- meaning the ace will not count. a rethrow will be required, but no penalty assessed. this is consistant with the no-unluck-penalty-for-crappy-shots policy of the Potluck Disc Golf Association.

Some posters claim the arguments against the 2-meter rule have been refuted but no one has tackled my post regarding the comparison between �good� putts missing and the same probability of a tree suspending a disc.

Here�s another angle not discussed. Hoeniger posted about his discussion with Holton about the sport being a 3D game. If you believe that to be true then that would imply that all types of throws and routes to the basket should be treated equally in terms of the rules. To disagree with this premise would imply some level of prejudice against rollers or overhead shots, for example. Steady Ed held this prejudice which lead to the basket being designed to discourage throws coming in from the top and lead to the DROT �problem.� The 2-meter penalty may also have evolved from this prejudice.

As a course designer, I look at all possible routes and consider all types of throws. I try to create and encourage some routes, and discourage or prevent others, which is the nature of design. Throws are made at all heights and SHOULD BE allowed to be thrown at all heights without the rules handling consequences in a different way.

There�s no aerial penalty situation for throws thrown below 2 meters. If you can throw all of your shots so they never rise above 2 meters, you�ll never get a penalty like the above 2-meter penalty with the rare scenario of a roller up a tree (which perhaps is the most unfair result of the 2-meter penalty). However, you can get a 2-meter penalty when you throw shots where part of the flight is over 2 meters. I believe this was unintended throw discrimination in the rules. All air routes should be treated equally for the rules to be fair to all types of throws.

In the case of defined OB areas, they are fair because throws of all heights can end up OB. A mando does not discriminate and penalizes throws of all heights. No matter how narrow I leave a pinball alley fairway, I cannot induce a player to receive a (non-OB) penalty for a poor throw if the flight is below 2 meters. However, it doesn�t make any difference how well a hole is designed for allowing or rejecting various flight paths to the pin that require a throw over 2 meters high. The player is subject to a potential random penalty, beyond the results of the deflection, that is out of the hands of the designer. Why should aerial deflections above a certain height have the potential to be punished more than aerial deflections below that certain height? They are both technically �bad� shots if they hit something.

Bottom line is that those believing in the blanket 2-meter rule can't escape the conclusion they have a throw prejudice.

I think you got that backwards. All basket spits on drives, long approaches or putts outside 10 meters will be counted as in. It is merely a matter of luck whether these shots stay or bounce out anyway, and the player should not be punished for bad luck. :D

If you spit from inside 10 meters, it must be a bad putt, no luck relief. :D

What really is the problem with this decision?

This puts the 2M rule in the same position as all of the OB and special areas that receive casual relief or drop zones.

The TD already has the responsibility of announcing the OB and special conditions on every course, what additional work is involved in stating the 2M status at the same time?

Somebody will ask the question at the players meeting even if the TD forgets to mention it. If it is that important to you as a player, make sure that you are the player that asks the question.

I would ask that you quit bickering about it, but that is the main enjoyment of the board so continue bickering, but make sure that the question is always asked at every player's meeting.

Suppose we were to decide that suspended over 2 meters is o.b., instead of penalized as being suspended over two meters. Our o.b. rule does not allow lateral relief from where you come to rest; it allows lateral relief from where you first went o.b. If the TD declares over two meters is o.b. on all trees on hole 7, and hole 7 basically is in the woods, and you throw a 300 foot overhand shot that finishes o.b. next to the basket, where were you last in bounds, somewhere near the front edge of the tee?

If the TD declares over two meters is o.b. on all trees on hole 7, and hole 7 basically is in the woods, and you throw a 300 foot overhand shot that finishes o.b. next to the basket, where were you last in bounds, somewhere near the front edge of the tee?




That's why selectively using OB in place of the 2-meter rule still needs some work. The best current solution short of additional rule writing is to specify a drop zone and only use the OB tree option on a small group of identifiable trees near the basket.

Suppose we were to decide that suspended over 2 meters is o.b., instead of penalized as being suspended over two meters. Our o.b. rule does not allow lateral relief from where you come to rest; it allows lateral relief from where you first went o.b. If the TD declares over two meters is o.b. on all trees on hole 7, and hole 7 basically is in the woods, and you throw a 300 foot overhand shot that finishes o.b. next to the basket, where were you last in bounds, somewhere near the front edge of the tee?



Its easy. You dont designate 2 meters and ABOVE out of bounds. You cirle the widest part of the tree in yellow rope and the OB line starts at the ground and goes up to the sky. Anything inside that OB line on the ground or 30 ft up in a tree is OB. You take your relief 1 meter from the edge of the cirle where your disc entered the OB and you continue on with a 1 stroke penalty.

Its as easy as that.

chuck, a good putt cannot and does not miss.

"The 2-meter penalty may also have evolved from this prejudice."
MAY ? not a very good or compelling basis on which to base a conclusion. (that logic is what got us into iraq!)


"I try to create and encourage some routes, and discourage or prevent others, which is the nature of design. Throws are made at all heights and SHOULD BE allowed to be thrown at all heights without the rules handling consequences in a different way."
no matter how tasty and sweet a route you provide, if i can bomb the top the lack of a 2m penalty encourages me to bombs away.

"All air routes should be treated equally for the rules to be fair to all types of throws."
if you really believe that, then please explain why a shot suspended 50' above the basket and 15' to the left is just as good a result as one laying on the ground 15' to the left!

one reason some challenges presented in some posts do not get answered is that vaccuos logic cannot be answered, and some of us are smart enough to not fall into the trap of trying :)

Chuck, I thought your 'good putts' post only served to reinforce the notion that it's not luck that causes a disc to fall from a tree. It's the same physics argument I posted above (the one that Mills didn't understand). If all factors are the same, you will get the same result. There is no such thing as 'luck' as it's being used here, since there are rarely any 'identical' shots.


Throws are made at all heights and SHOULD BE allowed to be thrown at all heights without the rules handling consequences in a different way.



Can't a high shot thrown properly miss a tree as easily as a low shot? You said yourself that sometimes even rollers will climb up a tree and stick (I've seen that myself). Miss the tree and the roller won't climb it. If what you are proposing is course design that makes throwing high into the trees the preferred shot then I'd only have to ask why? Especially when Carlton himself said protecting trees was one of the RC's concerns. The removal of the rule has the potential to only hurt more trees.


The player is subject to a potential random penalty, beyond the results of the deflection, that is out of the hands of the designer. Why should aerial deflections above a certain height have the potential to be punished more than aerial deflections below that certain height? They are both technically �bad� shots if they hit something.




True, they are both bad shots, but one is worse than the other. No different than the shot that completely misses the fairway of a pinball hole but kicks back toward the middle. Bad shot, decent result. The similar shot that doesn't kick back into the middle is a bad shot with a worser ( :D ) result. Both results are completely out of the hands of the designer, since you would have to assume the designer didn't want someone rewarded for missing the fairway, or they wouldn't have made it a tight fairway in the first place.

I would think course designers would prefer the extra risk/reward options that the 2m penalty imposes.

I don't know about the shot preference, I tend to throw most of mine in an equally poor manner. :D Since I have a pretty accurate thumber I will probably benefit. I'll still throw a roller in woods holes when possible, not for fear of the 2m penalty, but because a roller has a smaller forward diameter and is less likely to hit a tree than an air shot.

"only use the OB tree option on a small group of identifiable trees near the basket."

a quick glance around an overwhelming number of courses will reveal the impossibility of this approach.

chuck, a good putt cannot and does not miss.



Yes it does. I've never 'missed' a dead on putt that hit the post on a post target. Not true for basket targets. Identical putts from the release standpoint can have different results because of factors not in control of the person putting: wind and temporal chain position. A person putting on a windmill hole at Putt-Putt can time the movement to get thru. Timing the movement of the branches for the 'best position' to get thru is not possible even if we had an iron mike throwing device that could make 'identical' throws.

Its easy. You dont designate 2 meters and ABOVE out of bounds. You cirle the widest part of the tree in yellow rope and the OB line starts at the ground and goes up to the sky. Anything inside that OB line on the ground or 30 ft up in a tree is OB. You take your relief 1 meter from the edge of the cirle where your disc entered the OB and you continue on with a 1 stroke penalty



And we can call holes like this "Swiss cheese" holes, for the holes in the fairway and the holes in the logic of such design. This is a lot different than the USDGC's fairway rope.

Chuck, how can you say 'identical' when there's no way to prove that? Just because it 'feels' the same? Can you guarantee the speed was the same? Degree of rotation? Precise nose angle? All of these factors (and more) contribute to whether the putt stays in the chains or not. If anything, wind and chain position mean even less (since I'd assume that your 'identical' putt that spit out hit the same spot in the chains as the one that stayed in).

Suppose we were to decide that suspended over 2 meters is o.b., instead of penalized as being suspended over two meters. Our o.b. rule does not allow lateral relief from where you come to rest; it allows lateral relief from where you first went o.b. If the TD declares over two meters is o.b. on all trees on hole 7, and hole 7 basically is in the woods, and you throw a 300 foot overhand shot that finishes o.b. next to the basket, where were you last in bounds, somewhere near the front edge of the tee?



Above 2 meters does not easily translate to Out of Bounds, if at all. Aerial OB s still need an OB line, a delineation between an OB surface and an IB surface. Otherwise the last place the disc might have been IB is was it passed the elevation of 2 meters directly above the thrower in an overhand shot scenario.

OB is perfect for the simple fact that it does not judge intent, execution, or luck, it only delineates result. If a disc comes to rest in an OB area then it is OB, if not it is not. Period.

The 2 meter rule is not an OB area, nor, by definition, can it be. Only OB can define OB. If you don�t believe me then try wording the 2 meter rule so that it meets all requirements of our OB rule.

If you find that you are able to then you have proven that the 2 meter rule is superfluous.

Its easy. You dont designate 2 meters and ABOVE out of bounds. You cirle the widest part of the tree in yellow rope and the OB line starts at the ground and goes up to the sky.



Right, because all shots that hit the tree will stay within the circle, and no shots that don't hit the tree will stay within the circle. Perfect.

OB is perfect for the simple fact that it does not judge intent, execution, or luck, it only delineates result. If a disc comes to rest in an OB area then it is OB, if not it is not. Period.




As opposed to 'If it's over 2m then it is penalized, if it's not then it's not.?

The 2m rule does not judge anything any differently than the OB rule. OB is delineated by yellow rope, or a water line (which is a helluva lot worse than 2m), 2m is judged by height above the playing surface. What's so hard about that? Where is there a judgement regarding luck, intent, or execution?

If you want to believe that luck has anything to do with the result, that is completely up to you. But the result is just as quantifiably measured as OB. Maybe even more so (as in the case of 'surrounded by water' and issues that arise from it).

ok, I"m sure this was covered way earlier in this thread and I'm just to darn lazy to look for it. What happens with the throw that gets stuck 50' in a tree? What is the ruling there? Does the person mark directly under the disc and throw with no penalty other that not having his/her favorite driver anymore? This seems a little silly.

exactly.

With making the 2m rule optional, we still need the rest of the rule for lie above the playings surface. A shot 50' up in the tree will be the same as a shot 3' up in a bush is right now. Mark directly below it, and play with no penalty.

If what you are proposing is course design that makes throwing high into the trees the preferred shot then I'd only have to ask why?



It doesn't have to be the preferred shot, just a shot option where the flight and/or route is treated the same in the rules as other throws. There are any number of throws below 2 meters that may not run the risk of a fluky ADDED penalty (outside of OB) that throws made above 2-meters have at risk, for no design reason than to add a random additional penalty.

If a course allows a thumber specialist to dominate, too bad. They will regardless of the 2-meter penalty. Schweb for example. It's just a relatively poor course beyond the rec level. Sorry if that obsoletes having decent courses in the Iraqi desert but then we don't have a lot of dune buggy action here in Minnesota, so terrain has its tradeoffs.

If the intent is to make overhead shots more challenging or protect trees, the 2-meter penalty is a sorry excuse for doing so. Planting several trees on one fairway can have a statistically larger difference in the scoring average of a course (and more fair) than having the 2-meter rule everywhere.

Every 30 feet adds 0.1 to the SSA of a course which is more 'challenge' for everyone equally than having the 2-meter penalty everywhere even at a course like Warwick. That's like one in ten pros taking a single 2-meter penalty per round. So, just move a basket back 30 feet on a course you played in 2004 with the 2-meter penalty and the course will be tougher. You might need to add 100 feet at Seneca :)

So, just move a basket back 30 feet

god bless your parks & rec dept!!!

Sorry if that obsoletes having decent courses in the Iraqi desert but then we don't have a lot of dune buggy action here in Minnesota, so terrain has its tradeoffs

so everyone in the desert is equated to the iraqis? nice. perhaps no 2m rule is good for MN, but it sure aint good for texas.

Baskets have been sent to Iraq so there are temp (I assume) course(s) there.

If any place has the option to add 30 feet, it would be Texas. How many courses have alternate pins? It doesn't even have to be a permanent placement since the 2-meter rule really only affects organized play. The league director or TD can throw up a portable 30 feet longer and your course will be tougher than having the 2-meter penalty this year and it uniformly affects everyone.

Could "lost disc" apply if you can "locate" it but not retrieve it in 3 minutes (such as 50ft. up in a tree)?

The league director or TD can throw up a portable 30 feet longer and your course will be tougher than having the 2-meter penalty this year and it uniformly affects everyone.


:confused: :o:

What is not uniform about the 2 meter rule?

What is not uniform about the 2 meter rule?




Must not have been paying attention. Shots thrown below 2 meters do not risk the additional fluky penalty but still are affected by OB, mandos and shot scattering from hitting obstacles. Throw type and route discrimination.

What is not uniform about the 2 meter rule?




Must not have been paying attention. Shots thrown below 2 meters do not risk the additional fluky penalty but still are affected by OB, mandos and shot scattering from hitting obstacles. Throw type and route discrimination.



Must not be understanding his question. The 2m rule is indeed uniformly applied to all discs stuck above 2 meters. Of course it doesn't apply to discs below 2 meters, or for discs that are underwater, or for that matter to weather patterns in Outer Mongolia. I think, Chuck, you're confusing the word "uniform" with "universal".

So 2 meter rule supporters would have no problem supporting TDs being permitted to make the height anything they want then right? How about one meter? 3 meters? 10 meters?

How many discs have you seen land in OB, come to a stop, and then start tumbling towards IB on a flat surface?

OB and this rule are not the same, the minute they are the other ceases to exist. I prefer the OB rule.

You haven't been paying attention, Nick. The supporters of the 2m rule don't want TDs to determine anything with regard to it. At least, this one doesn't.

If you want to take care of the only legitimate issue I see with the 2m rule, that being the 'double penalty' of taking a stroke and not getting relief, then amend the rule to allow relief. I'd even go so far as to allow up to 5m relief as we do with things like casual water and woodpiles. But the stroke needs to stay there. A shot that is stuck way up in a tree should be penalized, not rewarded.

Now, if they are going to allow the TDs to declare shots stuck in trees as OB, then theoretically they would be able to declare any height they want. How's that for consistency?

Now, if they are going to allow the TDs to declare shots stuck in trees as OB, then theoretically they would be able to declare any height they want. How's that for consistency?



"Consistency" of what? We are talking around each other when we use that word or the word "random". You are using it to describe a set vertical measurement from playing surface. I am using it to describe the rules relationship to other rules within our rulebook.

Because, Dan, giving TDs complete freedom to declare areas and surfaces as being either OB or IB is just as �consistent� (in your use of the word) as is setting one height at which a disc is declared in violation of a superfluous rule.

The consistency of which I speak is having 1 rule to handle all hazards (the Out of Bounds Rule) rather than 2 or more based on different philosophies of disc golf and disc golf rules.

Nick, the consistency I am referring to is with regard to the same rule set for whatever course I happen to be playing on any specific day.

I don't have a problem with what would appear to be a lack of consistency with regard to other rules in the book. I don't see a need for the 2m rule to have to 'match' the OB rule. Different situation, different rule. Yes, they are similar, but not the same.

Think of it this way, you can step past your marker anywhere on the course, except within 10 meters of the basket. You must mark your lie with a mini, except for instances where you'd prefer to leave your previously thrown disc and use that.

A lot of our rules are 'inconsistent' in that regard. But they are the same from course to course, tourney to tourney.

By that, the TD shouldn't be able to declare some walking paths IB and some OB. Creek is OB here, creek and beyond is OB there. In this tournament all concrete is OB, but normally only the road beside the park is OB.

Gary, I don't disagree with you there, but adding the 'this tree over 2m is a penalty', but that one is not, and 'that tree over 1.5 meters is a penalty' but 'this one is only a penalty on the left side near the snack bar' scenarios make it even worse. A blanket 'all shots suspended more than 2m above the playing surface' rule is more consistent and fair, imo.

or how about "this tree is OB is you get stuck in it while playing hole 8, but its OK when you're playing hole 10" ! :confused:

Being that we obviously cannot agree, perhaps the solution the PDGA BOD came to is the best possible one. It will satisfy the players and course designers more interested in finding out the �reality� of the situation, more than arguing the theories from different sides of the great philosophical divide.

The new 2 meter rule is an opt in rather than an opt out rule for two main reasons:
1) It insures that it will be an issue that will get appropriate attention and not just a war of words and philosophies.
2) It puts the 2 meter rule (like it or not) in the context of all other course hazards within our rules of play.
These are good things for folks willing to take an unencumbered look at this long contentious rule in the clear crisp light of competitive play.

The only thing of significance that will be missed, by some, is the penalty throw assessed for coming to rest 2 meters above the playing surface and though I certainly would be happy to oblige Dan, Craig, Rhett and others here with their desired an additional penalty throw, I do not feel the same way about obliging Chuck, Gary or Steve with any. :D

In my experience, 22 years of play and 20 PDGAs in 2004, I see the likely impact as very minimal on the competitive outcome of events. What is, in my opinion, certain to happen though, is the level or amount of institutionalized �luck� within our rules significantly reduced (where the 2 meter rule is not used).

The best part is that we will all know, regardless of sides or philosophy, just whether or not the 2 meter rule is an important part of our sport and rules or whether it is superfluous.

I have to agree that making the rule opt in will force the issue to be thought about and addressed by both players and TDs. It should get a lot of discussion over the coming year.

I suspect that there will be less discussion throughout the year than there has been on this message board, and what little discussion does occur will lack the passion of the posters here.

Most people I mention it to have no strong opinion. They just slightly lean one way or the other. Surprisingly, I haven't heard anyone say "cool, now I will aim at trees." :p

While I don't conciously aim at trees, my unconcious must, based on results. Therefore this rule is cool. :cool:

By the way, I never said throwing even at Jester was a great score, but I know "people" that think it is. :D

For years it was simple.2meters up ob. now you have tom, dick and harry, calling certain trees ob on the same course. Whats next. Hey i can see my disc in the water so its not ob. Remember if you have problems on certain courses with trees being ob just kiss some ___
and make sure the new rule is applied... What a Joke

For years it was simple.2meters up ob. now you have tom, dick and harry, calling certain trees ob on the same course. Whats next. Hey i can see my disc in the water so its not ob. Remember if you have problems on certain courses with trees being ob just kiss some ___
and make sure the new rule is applied... What a Joke



throw 20 discs into the same tree and watch how haphazardly and infrequently a 2 meter penalty would apply. then re-assess your position on what the experienced Rules Committee decided was best. thanks in advance

throw 20 discs into the same tree and watch...

... the LUCKY ones fall to the groundc. the ones that get what they deserve STICK.

the 2005 ruling is the correct one for now - 2meter is active unless rescinded at players meeting.

the movement to encourage TDs to declare a drop-zone for 2M sticks within 10m of the pin has some strong proponents.

I sense some hostility

Why the 2 meter rule needs to be removed (a summary):

1) Because rule 803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS is superior in every way to it. The entire tree surface can be OB but the area below it is not. This is the most elegant solution. The TD could just announce that all trees within a certain distance of the pin are OB, or just certain ones (and use a drop zone if they want).
2) Because although �luck� is a part of our game it does not need to be a part of our rules (certainly not where we can easily remove it).
3) Because it removes too much control over course design from TDs and Course Designers.
4) Because it is an abortion within our rules. No other hazard is universal.
5) Because it does a less effective job of protecting trees than other designer hazards. Announced OB trees and bushes, whether at the players meeting, event program, on the tee sign are far more likely to communicate to users of the course that these are �specifically� protected areas. Unlike the 2 meter rule which users may or may not be aware of.
6) Because it�s remove allows �some� relief from an already bad situation.

Non-issues:
1) Lost Disc/ Unidentifiable Disc - A disc known to be above 2 meters is known to be lost, or a lost disc is known to be above 2 meters is neither.
2) Removing All Luck From Our Rules Not Possible � So what then, we shouldn�t remove the ones that can easily be removed? Preposterous.
3) 2 Meters �IS OB� � It simply is not, if it were then it would cease to be the 2 meter rule and become the out of bounds rule.
4) Removing the rule makes the game easier � Inconclusive at best. Removing a penalty stroke for something that certainly does not fall within the �Cheating� spectrum of our rules would in my opinion make the final results of the event actually �MORE� accurate rather than less so.

Review:
1) OB is Better
2) Our rules more clear
3) Protects our courses better
4) Increases Design Freedom
5) Competitions more accurate

Happy New Years!

Just can't leave well enough alone ay Nick?

Why the 2m rule is fine the way it is OR why the 2m rule is largely acceptable in it's current form (a summary)




1) Because rule 803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS is superior in every way to it. The entire tree surface can be OB but the area below it is not. This is the most elegant solution. The TD could just announce that all trees within a certain distance of the pin are OB, or just certain ones (and use a drop zone if they want).



Very elegant - how does the TD make sure that everybody knows which trees are within 10-30 or 50 feet from any particular pin? Sounds like more work for the TD - and that with every new TD - the "OB" trees can change. So much for consistency.



2) Because although �luck� is a part of our game it does not need to be a part of our rules (certainly not where we can easily remove it).



Gee what a shame - a game that involves both luck and skill. Your approach to this notion of "eliminating luck" from the activity is just so impractical, and is laden with "denial". All of this argument about luck discounts the very nature of a HUGE percentage of shots thrown on a golf course. Luck takes a myriad number of forms and has thousands of potential manifestations. The reality of a disc hitting a tree is much more easily attached to an errant shot - i.e. a lapse in skill, than to luck. I have to agree with a recent post above - the lucky ones are the ones that fall OUT of the tree.

3) Because it removes too much control over course design from TDs and Course Designers.



I didn't know you were a course designer Nick. But on the contrary - it provides an essential design element that would be lost otherwise. That element is one of risk/reward - which I'm sure even you would agree Nick - is a desirable element in any design. We have so few obstacles available to us as course designers - removing the 2m penalty removes the most significant element of risk inherent in our most prolific type of obstacle. When you eliminate the risk in taking certain routes - you reduce the effectiveness of trying to "define" a fairway. If anybody can throw any type of shot at any time without fear of penalty - how is that helping the designer "control" how the course is played?


4) Because it is an abortion within our rules. No other hazard is universal.


What a remarkably offensive and biased comment. I'll skip the first part and go to the substantive part. Having a universal hazard should not be considered anything other than applied consistency. What other sorts of hazards are available for designers to use Nick? Can you name one that isn't artificial?


5) Because it does a less effective job of protecting trees than other designer hazards. Announced OB trees and bushes, whether at the players meeting, event program, on the tee sign are far more likely to communicate to users of the course that these are �specifically� protected areas. Unlike the 2 meter rule which users may or may not be aware of.



Again - more work for the TD. This time - more work for the players too. Having to communicate the specifics of course design (other than the basic OB's and standard "local" rules) is excessive. Protecting trees from damage is more about placement of tees and pins, and educating the general DG population about respecting foliage than any component of the 2m rule.


6) Because it�s removal allows �some� relief from an already bad situation.



This is the only place where I see the 2m rule as possibly needing some modification. Because I agree with the notion of eliminating a "double" penalty. If you're going to be penalized - you ought to have an opportunity to have an unencumbered throw afterwards. But while saying this - you must then advocate that any OB be placed in such a way as to provide for an unencumbered throw within a meter of any OB line (this has potentially huge ramifications - no more creeks and lakes using the water as OB - wouldn't want someone to have a difficult stance AND a penalty now would we?). We can provide appropriate "relief" without eliminating the rule.



Review:
1) Good shots don't hit trees
2) Designers need more types of obstacles to use in course design - not less
3) Luck is an inherent part of the game. Striving to eliminate finite parts of it is "preposterous".
4) Universal hazards are good things
5) The 2m rule is for a special condition. It is very similar to OB. It acknowledges that not all lies above ground are deserving of a penalty. Special conditions need special rules - we have many in our current rule book.

Nick - your advocacy for the elimination of this rule is based on a very finite mode of thinking. You ignore or discount more significant and important ramifications. Ultimately - the strongest parts of your arguments are the insulting terms you use for the rule and its very existence.

Happy New Years!

[/QUOTE]

Just can't leave well enough alone ay Nick?




Chyah! Unlike you... :D

Very elegant - how does the TD make sure that everybody knows which trees are within 10-30 or 50 feet from any particular pin?



String? Cut in the turf? I don't know, how do you mark your hazards at Seneca Craiger? Or your 2 meters for that matter.

The same way he let's them know about every other hazard on the course: Players Meeting and Event Program (Tee Signs are not bad either). Besides is he/she going to have to follow everyone around to measure if the disc is above 2 meters in 2005? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Besides I don't advise that practice of using "height" as a standard for OB anyway. Obviously.

I didn't know you were a course designer Nick.



Sure, back nine of Brandywine and Fujino Town Park. I am well versed in Course Design.

The risk/reward factor of the 2 meter rule can hardly even be factored into course design due to the rare and random nature of its occurance. OB is far superior in the way it behaves.

4) Because it is an abortion within our rules. No other hazard is universal.

What a remarkably offensive and biased comment. I'll skip the first part and go to the substantive part. Having a universal hazard should not be considered anything other than applied consistency. What other sorts of hazards are available for designers to use Nick? Can you name one that isn't artificial?



Spell checker error: abortion>abberation (sp.aberration). And you still didn't make a single valid point. Is there any other hazard that is universal across all courses? Is it consistent? Sure, but that is not the point of contention, your stubborness is consistent too, doesn't make it any more right, or make it have something to do with this discussion.

3) Luck is an inherent part of the game. Striving to eliminate finite parts of it is "preposterous".



Does anyone, even Dan Howard, understand the meaning of this statement? LOL! Well, Criag, thanks for the chuckle going into the new year. Nice to know some things never change...

2005 Rules Topic: <font color="blue"> Elimination of Infinite Parts of Luck </font> :D ;)

Just can't leave well enough alone ay Nick?




Chyah! Unlike you... :D



Let's see - the absurdity of your chyah!
POst count for Nick on THIS THREAD ALONE before craig posted anything 80
Craig's posts 1 (plus the inevitable task of making Nick look silly for the next few days)
Nick's subsequent posts +5

85 to 1 nick - who can't leave what alone?

[QUOTE]
Very elegant - how does the TD make sure that everybody knows which trees are within 10-30 or 50 feet from any particular pin?




String? Cut in the turf? I don't know, how do you mark your hazards at Seneca Craiger? Or your 2 meters for that matter.



All extra work - glad to see you understand the nature of course work Nick. Let's just say someone goes to all the trouble of doing these things. Who's going to maintain them? Mow around them? 2 meters at Seneca is with a painted 2x2 (you've seen them) 2m and above is painted red - so it'll tell you w/little effort whether or not a penalty applies. It'll also help you get your disc out of the tree. We have received many compliments on how simple and effective this tool is from all over the country - and surprise that nobody else uses them.

Once again you totally missed the point Nick. If the rule is such that a TD either HAS to define individual areas, or tries to make a pseudo blanket statement on which particular trees are OB - it applies an additional burden on the organizer, the TD, the host club, and the players to know, understand, and follow the rules (for that day - on that course). Your claim that this version of the rule is simple and elegant ignores the reality that will have to be dealt with, promotes inconsistency in application of the rule, and provides plentiful opportunities for multiple interpretations of what might be deserving of a penalty.

[QUOTE]
4) Because it is an abortion within our rules. No other hazard is universal.

What a remarkably offensive and biased comment. I'll skip the first part and go to the substantive part. Having a universal hazard should not be considered anything other than applied consistency. What other sorts of hazards are available for designers to use Nick? Can you name one that isn't artificial?




Spell checker error: abortion>abberation (sp.aberration). And you still didn't make a single valid point. Is there any other hazard that is universal across all courses? Is it consistent? Sure, but that is not the point of contention, your stubborness is consistent too, doesn't make it any more right, or make it have something to do with this discussion.



Is there any other condition that approaches the unique nature of a lie above ground? Herein lies the essence of the rule Nick - special condition = special rule. Boy that's complicated. No valid points? Gee Nick - have you missed the point again - so much so that everything is deemed invalid?

Let me spell it out for you so you can fathom this mr course designer with no trees (what are there maybe a dozen trees that come into play on Bwines back 9?) Trees are one of the only "standard" course design obstacles there are (this is why the 2m rule is "consistent" across all courses.) Virtually every course uses trees as their main obstacle type (yes of course there are those that are devoid of trees - they are everyone's favorite courses :p) If by necessity - trees are what we use to define our fairways, obscure and dictate flight paths, and protect the access to the targets we are shooting for - how is it that reducing their capacity to punish errant throws is a benefit to the course designer? And again you missed the direct question that is pertinent to this conversation - what other sorts of natural obstacles are readily available for course design Nick? Can you name one that isn't artificial?

3) Luck is an inherent part of the game. Striving to eliminate finite parts of it is "preposterous".



Does anyone, even Dan Howard, understand the meaning of this statement? LOL! Well, Criag, thanks for the chuckle going into the new year. Nice to know some things never change...

2005 Rules Topic: <font color="blue"> Elimination of Infinite Parts of Luck </font> :D ;)



I know comprehension is difficult for you Nick - it's because your opinion is the only one that has any substance or meaning. Let me help you - just remember - I'm trying to do something FOR YOU, not something TO YOU.

You claim that the 2m rule is a punishment for a completely random, unlucky occurance. I say that virtually every shot includes some factor of luck. You can fathom this I know. Luck, good or bad, takes an infinite number of forms, from the way a disc rolls when it hits the ground, to the way it skips off of rocks, twigs, branches, streets, curbs, etc. Dew can be a factor in what happens to a disc, virtually anything can. All of these things are largely beyond our control. Some of them can yield you a penalty - depends on where the disc comes to rest. This is EXACTLY what the 2 meter penalty does, and the point at which it ends up - just like all the rest - is what dictates whether or not a penalty is applied. Your argument - extended to it's natural end, would have us eliminate any and all penalty associated with "bad luck" - which most people I'm sure would agree - is not a reasonable approach to writing and establishing rules of play. So there it is Nick - do you get it - luck in our game has infinte possibilities - your crusade to eliminate a finite portion to use your words "is not valid".

if luck was not universally accepted as an inherent element of every sport, footballs would be round.

the lucky shot is the one that falls!

3) Luck is an inherent part of the game. Striving to eliminate finite parts of it is "preposterous".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Does anyone, even Dan Howard, understand the meaning of this statement? LOL! Well, Criag, thanks for the chuckle going into the new year. Nice to know some things never change...

2005 Rules Topic: Elimination of Infinite Parts of Luck





Here is one place that I disagree with Craiger on. The notion that luck even exists is highly debatable. What you are looking at when you see a disc hit a tree and fall right after another hits the same tree and sticks is NOT luck. They are 2 completely different shots. They hit at different speeds, in different spots, and on different angles of attack, therefore, they reacted differently.

If you want to call it luck, then you are more than welcome to do so (in which case the shot that fell is the lucky one of course). But that's not what it is. It's the laws of physics at work, plain and simple.

FWIW, I don't even truly believe in luck when I play poker, and if there was ever a game that had an argument for the existence of luck it's poker. Where DG is all about physics, poker is (at it's basics) about math and statistical probability (with a decent amount of psychology thrown in).

What is the point of using "the lucky shot is the one that falls" as an argument in favor of keeping the rule? I totally agree with that statement and I think the rule should be killed for basically the same reason.

Sorry Dan - I was merely using words that had been used before - not necessarily espousing their accuracy.

How about - there are infinite physical possibilities beyond our control that are inherent to the activity of throwing a disc. The point is the same.

It's density...uh, I mean destiny! :)

2m or not please!!