the lucky shot is the one that falls!



wrong answer. if you are right 95% of shots into trees are lucky and 5% are not.

as for cedar (aka: velcro) trees -- just use them by throwing into them at a height of 2 meters or below if you want to see how counterproductive the 2 meter rule really is (although you may get an obstructed lie).

making an OB area beneathe trees you wish to protect is far more sensible than the 2 meter rule -- isn't it?

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



Well, your post count is growing, even though your pertinent point count is not.

After the 2 meter rule is removed, you do not need to designate those areas as OB with ropes or strings. For all I care leave them as they are. The resulting difference in competitive score will be little changed. I only suggest it for highly trafficed areas. Besides, I have already provided a solution for the trees at Seneca, make all of them OB. A contiguous OB surface.

Hit a tree and stick, OB, fall out IB. How could this be considered less effective than the 2 meter rule at accomplishing all goals of our rules of play?

They can't and you know it.

wrong answer. if you are right 95% of shots into trees are lucky and 5% are not.

yep, zakly!

the lucky shot is the one that falls!



wrong answer. if you are right 95% of shots into trees are lucky and 5% are not.


Lucky doesn't mean rarely. It means fortunate.

For example, "I was lucky the tornado missed my house." You say that even though most houses are missed by a tornado.

Why would you want to create a rule that in consequence and effect only applies 5% of the time? The 95% of shots into trees that don't stick are not fortunate. 80% are deflected off course or result in a lie in which the tree obstructs the next shot at the basket. so 15% of shots into trees are fortunate. A good disc golfer using his or her head will not take a line that gets rewarded only 15% of the time. Under the new, improved rulebook, a good course pro / designer will designate anomalous trees as OB or will adjust their pin placement accordingly.

I can't decide if it's funny or sad how many self-appointed experts are disrespecting our Rules Committee given the experience, expertise and years of consideration they bring to the table.

It's amazing this debate is stll going on. The more I hear arguements about eliminating the 2m rule the more ridiculous the whole debate seems.
Golf is all about playing your shot "as it lies". Is there some sort of debate about this too?

We can get penalty free relief in very rare instances. The two instances I can think of off my head are:
1. When your lie is in bounds but <1m from OB. This is minimal relief as you get up to 1m relief and only makes sense as all supporting points must be in bounds at the point of release.
2.You get relief from temporary obstacles which are not permanent parts of the course.

Trees are not temporary obstacles. They are an integral part of the course.
Up until recently they generally weren't considered OB.
You can't play a disc as it lies if you can't even reach it. If a player lodges his disc 30feet up in a tree why does he deserve 30 feet of vertical relief without penalty?
The use of good luck vs. bad luck and double penalization as an arguement for eliminating the 2m rule is not a very compelling one to me. I'm with Craig about people trying to eliminate luck (aka good/bad fortune) in this game. I suppose the next arguement would be whether or not we should get penalty free relief from OB parking lots since some land in OB and skip back in bounds while others don't get a skip and remain OB.

I suppose the next arguement would be whether or not we should get penalty free relief from OB parking lots since some land in OB and skip back in bounds while others don't get a skip and remain OB.



Not at all. If an area below a tree is designed to be OB, then a shot that skips out of the OB area and away from the tree is analogous to the parking lot scenario. A shot that is suspended 1.97 meters above the OB perimeter is then every bit as OB as one 2.000001 meters. I have heard of legendary shots in which top pros have used OB water surfaces to skip off of and land IB. Throwing into a tree canopy is a bit less predictable, but if you are really good I suppose you could use a trunk as a makeshift backboard.

We can get penalty free relief in very rare instances. The two instances I can think of off my head are:
1. When your lie is in bounds but <1m from OB. This is minimal relief as you get up to 1m relief and only makes sense as all supporting points must be in bounds at the point of release.
2.You get relief from temporary obstacles which are not permanent parts of the course.




Don't forget:
3) When a disc is less than 2 meters above the playing surface (reaching the disc has nothing what so ever to do with any of this, nor does playing it where it lies).
4) Casual OB, relief with no penalty.

Double penalization is just another reason, it is not the primary one Steve. The main one for me is that it simply is not needed at all. It is superfluous. OB can do the same thing and better and we don't need to add 3 confusing paragraphs to our rules.

TDs and course designers should decide hazards on their courses. NOT RULES. This is the only rule that does that. Craig is wrong that this is a "special condition" designated by the TD, otherwise they would "have to" designate it for it to be in effect, not designate that it is "not in effect".

We'll see exactly how this does or does not affect competition, and not just babble, this year when TDs waive the 2 meter rule. I don't anyone will even notice it is gone...

We'll see exactly how this does or does not affect competition, and not just babble, this year when TDs waive the 2 meter rule. I don't [think] anyone will even notice it is gone...



along those lines, we played the traditional New Year's Day tournament in the Cincinnati area at Winton Woods yesterday, and the 2 meter rule was waived. As far as I know, noone ended up suspended above 2 meters. In addition to it's adding unnecessary paragraphs to the rulebook, another problem is that it comes into effect so haphazardly, that to add a penalty stroke to such a shot seems to disproportionately skew the results for what is generally already a poor lie...

Nick,

I refuse to wade through 51 pages of this discussion, but I'm guessing that your position is that the 2m rule is vague, and should simply be replaced by calling discs in trees OB? If so I would have to agree with the simplicity that presents. Would you still keep the 2m mark as the OB height, or would it simply be any height up in a tree? Other than at Seneca where marked 2m poles abound the height argument alone can be a huge hassle.

A shot that is suspended 1.97 meters above the OB perimeter is then every bit as OB as one 2.000001 meters.



C'mon Rob, you don't really believe this do you????

Do you apply this same logic to OB rulings? One disc is one inch outside the OB stringline while another disc breaks the OB plane by a half inch so you just rule them both OB?

This type of logic( that two lies are very similar so it's unfair to stroke one and not the other) seems to be used by many here on this board as well as other dg mess boards.

Frankly this view strikes me as childish. It kind of reminds me of a lot of arguements I and others used growing up. Like :" I shouldn't receive a detention I was only 30 seconds late for class." "I should get dessert since I finished nearly all my peas."

So you golfers who are one rating point higher than a ratings break do you protest at rating based events to compete in the lower division? You get to jump putt from 10.2m but a jump putt from 9.5 meters is a falling putt. In golf as well as life there are boundaries, specific standards and cutoff points.Whether it's the 2m rule or a sales quota to qualify for a bonus commission at one's job, people need to respect and accept the cutoff point and stop whining "it's not fair I was soooo close".

You're misreading my point in a way that makes it all too easy to dismiss. I have no difficulty distinguishing between 1.9 and 2.1 meters. It just seems to me that a suspended disc should either be penalized or not and some arbitrary height should not be introduced. 1 meter would make far more sense since a wheel-chair user or young player could reach the disc, but it would be just as messy (awkward) in terms of our rulebook. It makes far more sense, as Nick has argued, to do away with the 2 meter rule and apply OB for trees close enough to pins that designers want to penalize throwers hitting these trees.

Have you listened to the PDGA radio segment in which Carlton Howard explains the Rules Committee's decision to do away with the rule?

http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma

I believe there must be an objective height cutoff point. I don't want to have to define "suspended" twenty times a round. "Suspended" could be interpreted as being able to see space between the disc and the ground like " oops you're suspended on that stick 2 inches above the ground."

One meter would be a bad cutoff point as the top of most baskets are a meter high. I know of a few hanging baskets that the center of the chains is over 1 meter. In that case you get an ace and it's a circle two or a deuce is actually a circle three. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I fail to understand the arguement that this rule is complicated and needs paragraphs to explain. How about something like "any disc suspended 2 meters or more above the line of play is assessed a 1 stroke penalty and played directly beneath the suspended lie." Does it need any more explanation than that?

The Rules Committee decided it makes more sense and will be better for our sport to do away with the penalty stroke for a disc suspended above 2 meters. A suspended disc will be marked on the playing surface vertically below wherever it is suspended. If a course designer or TD wants certain trees to lead to a penalty all they have to do is circle off an OB area. That way the 1 out of 20 discs that stick in a tree will be no more OB than the 19 that hit the tree and fall out.

Don't you think the Rules Committee weighed the matter carefully before making their decision?

We can get penalty free relief in very rare instances. The two instances I can think of off my head are:
1. When your lie is in bounds but <1m from OB. This is minimal relief as you get up to 1m relief and only makes sense as all supporting points must be in bounds at the point of release.
2.You get relief from temporary obstacles which are not permanent parts of the course.




Don't forget:

4) Casual OB, relief with no penalty.





another non-rules nick kight wanna-be rule

there is NO SUCH THING as casual ob

casual relief rules from objects on the course but NOT casual ob....
unless that's a new rule that is coming in 2006 and you just wanted to get a leg up on everyone(smiley would have been here but nick doesn't like them either since the msdgc thread depressed him)

keith

I think that if you can reach it you should be able to play it. If you can't reach it, it is an unplayable lie (which the rules are fairly clear on) and should be penalized. In ball golf, if you can hit your ball out of a tree (even at 3 meters) you play on without penalty. But you can choose to take a stroke and you get a drop (no closer to the hole) for a clearer shot. When the 2M rule really hurts (like being penalized double) is when you are above 2M and you must mark your lie behind the tree or shrubbery. I'll take the penalty if I have to......but I should get a drop.

Hawk,


Would you still keep the 2m mark as the OB height, or would it simply be any height up in a tree?



OB needs a line. A TD could, I suppose use 2 meters above the playing surface, but why, when there is a perfectly good seam between the tree and the ground, or if a tree is �that� important to protect, then mark off all the ground beneath it so that all �bad shots� that hit it are penalized (and relief given), not just the few that have the bad fortune to stick in it?



A shot that is suspended 1.97 meters above the OB perimeter is then every bit as OB as one 2.000001 meters.



C'mon Rob, you don't really believe this do you????

Do you apply this same logic to OB rulings? One disc is one inch outside the OB stringline while another disc breaks the OB plane by a half inch so you just rule them both OB?

This type of logic( that two lies are very similar so it's unfair to stroke one and not the other) seems to be used by many here on this board as well as other dg mess boards.

Frankly this view strikes me as childish. It kind of reminds me of a lot of arguements I and others used growing up. Like :" I shouldn't receive a detention I was only 30 seconds late for class." "I should get dessert since I finished nearly all my peas."



Steve,

You would be correct IF the 2 meters rule were an OB rule IT IS NOT.

You yourself, as have many others, tried to substantiate the rule using the �reach test� the �unplayable test� but those rules only hold �true� if we, in disc golf, actually do play our lie from where it rests. And it is a 100% verifiable stone cold fact that we do not.


I think that if you can reach it you should be able to play it. If you can't reach it, it is an unplayable lie (which the rules are fairly clear on) and should be penalized. In ball golf, if you can hit your ball out of a tree (even at 3 meters) you play on without penalty. But you can choose to take a stroke and you get a drop (no closer to the hole) for a clearer shot. When the 2M rule really hurts (like being penalized double) is when you are above 2M and you must mark your lie behind the tree or shrubbery. I'll take the penalty if I have to......but I should get a drop.



We do not use a club to propel our discs from �where they lay�. In truth, we do not get a fat lot of relief because we can pick up the disc from its lie and stretch out in any fashion possible to create a new line to the target (in a way this is already an incredible amount of �relief�).
The guiding rule in all of this within Disc Golf is that whenever a disc is above the playing surface, which is just as discernable, if not more so, than whether the disc is 2 meters above the playing surface, WE MARK IT ON THE PLAYING SURFACE IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE LIE. Nothing could be more easily communicated, adhered to or called as a rule.

In light of the fact that certain folks here can not seem to wrap their minds around this, I will put it another way; If you are attached at the hip to the 2 meter rule and you are a TD then there is nothing to stop you from using the OB equivalent at your event. But seriously, what gives you the right to force all other TDs (or Course Designers) to conform to �your use� of the OB hazard? That is what the 2 meter rule is in essence. It is like saying that all macadam within the course MUST BE OB, or all discs touching yellow flowers are OB. Who exactly do you propose knows better about what should and should not be OB on their course?

It is sheer arrogance.

We can get penalty free relief in very rare instances. The two instances I can think of off my head are:
1. When your lie is in bounds but <1m from OB. This is minimal relief as you get up to 1m relief and only makes sense as all supporting points must be in bounds at the point of release.
2.You get relief from temporary obstacles which are not permanent parts of the course.




Don't forget:

4) Casual OB, relief with no penalty.





another non-rules nick kight wanna-be rule

there is NO SUCH THING as casual ob

casual relief rules from objects on the course but NOT casual ob....
unless that's a new rule that is coming in 2006 and you just wanted to get a leg up on everyone(smiley would have been here but nick doesn't like them either since the msdgc thread depressed him)

keith



�Casual OB� is not a term used within our rules, you are correct. It is however a concept and phrase used to understand a certain situation within our game.

Read (if possible) and weep:

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

People popularly name these <u>area(s) specifically designated by the director</u> as �Casual OB�.[/b]

By the way, Keith, or anyone, if you have a problem with my mild chiding, shoot me an email or PM and I will cease to kid you. Life is hard enough, I don�t want to add to that, I will however continue to make my views known. There are several users who can attest to my ability to stop teasing them once requested.

When the 2M rule really hurts (like being penalized double) is when you are above 2M and you must mark your lie behind the tree or shrubbery. I'll take the penalty if I have to......but I should get a drop.


I agree with that. I think the unsafe lie rule should be applied, where you get one stroke penalty but also up to 5 meters relief, no closer to the hole, from the lie beneath the disc.

Lucky doesn't mean rarely. It means fortunate.

For example, "I was lucky the tornado missed my house." You say that even though most houses are missed by a tornado.


...I can't decide if it's funny or sad how many self-appointed experts are disrespecting our Rules Committee given the experience, expertise and years of consideration they bring to the table.


Um, I only said that lucky means fortunate. Where in that simple comment do you get that the RC has been disrespected?

I'm really having trouble with this tornado analogy? :confused: :confused:

Does the tornado represent the two meter rule in that it punishes innocent things at random?

Do the houses represent bad shots that should have never been placed there in the first place?

Are tornadoes God's wise strategy for punishing fools who make the mistake of living above ground in tornado country?

I'm really having trouble with this tornado analogy? :confused: :confused:

Does the tornado represent the two meter rule in that it punishes innocent things at random?

Do the houses represent bad shots that should have never been placed there in the first place?

Are tornadoes God's wise strategy for punishing fools who make the mistake of living above ground in tornado country?


Again, just talking about the definition of the word "lucky". It doesn't mean rarely. It means fortunate. The example of the tornado even came from the dictionary. So I'm not making an analogy. That's all I'm saying.

Similarly I am not apologizing for presenting irrefutable and clear arguments for why the rule is superfluous and must be removed while no single argument has been presented for it�s continued use other than it has always been a rule.

OB, Casual Obstacles and Special Conditions covers everything and more.

Similarly I am not apologizing for presenting irrefutable and clear arguments for why the rule is superfluous and must be removed while no single argument has been presented for it�s continued use other than it has always been a rule.

OB, Casual Obstacles and Special Conditions covers everything and more.

then why dont you focus your energies on supporting a 10m/green area around the basket where a shot resting above 2m (not a good shot) will receive no penalty, but will be marked at a dropzone 10m from the basket?

you guys keep arguing the inane. instead we should be discussing how to remedy the irrefutable travesty forced upon us by allowing a shot 50' above the basket to be called a "drop-in".

please dfont make me bust out my avatar again!

Does the tornado represent the two meter rule in that it punishes innocent things at random?


Not exactly

Are tornadoes God's wise strategy for punishing fools who make the mistake of living above ground in tornado country?


Yeah, kinda like God's strategy of punishing people who insist on throwing into trees. It's not guaranteed that you will be penalized, but as long as you don't hit a tree, it's guaranted that you won't.

Similarly I am not apologizing for presenting irrefutable and clear arguments for why the rule is superfluous and must be removed while no single argument has been presented for it�s continued use other than it has always been a rule.

OB, Casual Obstacles and Special Conditions covers everything and more.

then why dont you focus your energies on supporting a 10m/green area around the basket where a shot resting above 2m (not a good shot) will receive no penalty, but will be marked at a dropzone 10m from the basket?

you guys keep arguing the inane. instead we should be discussing how to remedy the irrefutable travesty forced upon us by allowing a shot 50' above the basket to be called a "drop-in".

please dfont make me bust out my avatar again!



I'll leave that up to individual TDs to decide. It is already possible under 2005 rules.

I'll leave that up to individual TDs to decide. It is already possible under 2005 rules.

not quite sure if thats true or not. suspending the 2m rule is possible, but what special permissions, exemptions, whatevers would be needed to create an OB area that is measured vertically, and to create the dropzone? i really dont know the answser.

further, there is a fair amount of misinformation about the 2m rule for 2005. at a tournament yesterday it was announced that the 2m rule was gone. it was not stated that it was the TD's decision, but rather just that it was gone. TD's have not gotten the proper message, prolly due to the premature gloating that went on on this thread about the rule's demise.

regardless, a great amount of work will need to be done to help TDs understand both the pluses and minuses of not using the rule. as soon as it was announced that it was gone, ya know what was heard? well, it was NOT " great - no more bullcrap penalties when i get stuck in a tree halfway down the fairway." nosirree. what was heard - by at least three players (not in the same group) i heard myself was "what? for real? you mean now i can bomb one in over the top and it dont matter if i get stuck or not??? cool!!!"

in other words, players took about a half a second to realize that the rescinsion of the 2m rule turns the risk reward of bombing the pin on its ear, and encourages them to throw at the trees rather than attempting a more demanding golf shot.

we MUST encourage TDs to remedy this by using a dropzone within 10m. it will NOT happen without a real effort. the Rules Committee, the people responsible for the change, must proactively communicate to the TD the potential for trouble aroundthe pin, and suggest/encourage ways to mitigate this specific piece of trouble they have created.

I hear your take on this and appreciate part of it.

This challenge is not as major as it appears you believe it. And it is not the making of the current PDGA Rules Committee. Thirdly, without the 2 meter rule, TDs and Course Designers will now learn new, and what I predict will be better ways to discourage approaching the green from certain directions (not always just above).

I suppose in hindsight it was premature, but all indications were that the rule changes would be instituted in 2005. The 2 meter rule is optional, that, for me, is new.

Within the Casual Obstacle rule there is provision for TDs to designate �areas� as casual obstacles (30 feet radius circle around the pins 2 meters above the playing surface) with defined relief (drop zone if you will). This use of the rule of course involves no penalty stroke.

The other option currently available is to make the tree's contiguous surface itself OB and play it according to the OB rule (specifically the one with surfaces of differing OB/IB status above or below the other- see rules Q & A). If a disc comes to rest completely supported by the tree then it is OB. Take relief 1 meter from the contiguous OB line (where the IB surface meets the OB surface- root and soil in this case).

These are my interpretations and if you intend to use them you should check with the PDGA Rules Committee. I believe that they are correct however.

The key for me, Pat, is that we do not rid ourselves of one presumptuous rule just to fill our rulebook with another. If your take on this is correct, it should become quickly apparent and a solution (or even 2 or 3 hopefully) found. All of which, again, I am quite certain will be superior to the old 2 meter rule.

I can't decide if it's funny or sad how many self-appointed experts are disrespecting our Rules Committee given the experience, expertise and years of consideration they bring to the table.



Um, I only said that lucky means fortunate. Where in that simple comment do you get that the RC has been disrespected?



My comment is addressing those who have derisively called it the Fools committee and who have suggested that the RC decision to recommend eliminating the 2 meter rule was a dumb idea that couldn't have involved thoughtful consideration. Probably the same loud minority who lobbied (complained) to the BoD and got them to vote it down as the default 2005 condition. Fortunately, the Competition Director voted in favor of the RC recommendation -- and dissented against a proposition to make the 2 meter rule the default scenario in 2005, but unfortunately he was the loan vote...

We can get penalty free relief in very rare instances. The two instances I can think of off my head are:
1. When your lie is in bounds but <1m from OB. This is minimal relief as you get up to 1m relief and only makes sense as all supporting points must be in bounds at the point of release.
2.You get relief from temporary obstacles which are not permanent parts of the course.




Don't forget:

4) Casual OB, relief with no penalty.





another non-rules nick kight wanna-be rule

there is NO SUCH THING as casual ob

casual relief rules from objects on the course but NOT casual ob....
unless that's a new rule that is coming in 2006 and you just wanted to get a leg up on everyone(smiley would have been here but nick doesn't like them either since the msdgc thread depressed him)

keith



�Casual OB� is not a term used within our rules, you are correct. It is however a concept and phrase used to understand a certain situation within our game.

Read (if possible) and weep:

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

People popularly name these <u>area(s) specifically designated by the director</u> as �Casual OB�.[/b]

By the way, Keith, or anyone, if you have a problem with my mild chiding, shoot me an email or PM and I will cease to kid you. Life is hard enough, I don�t want to add to that, I will however continue to make my views known. There are several users who can attest to my ability to stop teasing them once requested.



you are KIDDING right???
your mild chiding.... a problem???
i love pointing out yours and others "errors"
in saying things that AREN'T true but they wish were true...or ripping them for not READING posts and then coming back with some bullschit that had NOTHING to do with what was said....

i can joke with the best of them....and the only time i'll get pizzed off is when people LIE or talk about stuff that they THINK they read that i said and when push comes to shove and they don't want the "REAL" story to get out they kind of clam up or disappear(reese's crap within the last couple of years or the pdga summit i attended come to mind off the top of my head)

hey i'm wrong sometimes also but i don't spend my life on rules threads making stuff up because i "WISH" it were so...and in the last month you have done that twice and i've called you on it both times....i'm sorry but in the 9 years i've been playing disc golf and the countless events i've played(pdga and non pdga)i have NEVER heard ANY TD say "casual ob"............EVER!
that's about 70 different td's in those years...NOT ONE...(even in the madc events i played in)


so pardon me for picking on your BOGUS statement....

if you want me to stop....
sorry....i'm not as nice as you are :D

smiley inserted for you to do with what you wish

your pal,
keith

****, I am in a quandary. I like Keith's style, but I like Nick's take on this rule. Guess I'll just see how this unfolds :D

Anyone interested in a pool predicting how many posts it will take before Nick and Keith agree to disagree about which one of them had won the argument from the get-go? :D

1


i haven't put my true thoughts down on this subject anywhere.....
i have just pointed out nick's "errors"

i like some of the different proposed things that have been mentioned on this thread from the beginning when nick thought he was going to win(and rubbed everyone's nose it by the way) thru all the 10 meter ideas and to what eventually has happened....
which is NOTHING this year....
bwahhhhh,haaaaaaaa,haaaaa

sorry nick...did i type that out loud? :eek:

keith

You yourself, as have many others, tried to substantiate the rule using the “reach test” the “unplayable test” but those rules only hold “true” if we, in disc golf, actually do play our lie from where it rests. And it is a 100% verifiable stone cold fact that we do not.

We do not use a club to propel our discs from “where they lay”. In truth, we do not get a fat lot of relief because we can pick up the disc from its lie and stretch out in any fashion possible to create a new line to the target (in a way this is already an incredible amount of “relief”).
The guiding rule in all of this within Disc Golf is that whenever a disc is above the playing surface, which is just as discernable, if not more so, than whether the disc is 2 meters above the playing surface, WE MARK IT ON THE PLAYING SURFACE
It is sheer arrogance.



While disc golf doesn't follow the exact same rules as ball golf the basic concepts are the same. Can we atleast agree with this statement?



Yes, in a sense we get relief from every lie since we don't release(propel) our discs from our lie on the ground. I am approximatly
1.9 meters tall and in most cases I release a disc about waist high around 1 meter off the ground. If I'm behind an obstacle I'll stretch as far as I comfortably can to one side. Since my stride is about 1 meter you could say I'm exercising my 1 meter of relief. So, yes Nick I agree we don't play our shots exactly the way they lie, however we generally play them within close (usually within 1 meter) proximity of where they lie.

My biggest problem with the eliminating of the 2 meter rule is it departs from the concept that you be able to play your lie as it lies or if you want to split hairs in close proximity to where it lies. If you are unable to play a lie within close proximity( which in most cases is about a meter) of the actual lie you should be penalized. To allow a free drop from 50 ft up in a tree seems to be a huge departure from the concept of golf that you have to play from your given lie or if you can't you get a stroke.

I view the change not as a simplification of the rules (it's a pretty clear objective rule with little or no room for varied interpretation), but a gross departure from the concept of golf. I'm concerned with the integrity of the game and the professional image our sport will have in the future. If I'm home watching a major disc golf tournament on TV for the first time and a player has his drive stuck in a tree 50 feet up on the putting green I might be confused why the gallery is cheering and applauding what appears to me as an errant shot.

What is the ball golf rule for a ball being stuck way up high in a tree?????

I'm sure it's happened.

1) climb the tree and play it as it lies
2) take an "unplayable lie" penalty of 1 stroke and
a) take two meters relief directly under the ball, not closer to the hole.
b) go back from the spot directly opposite the hole any distance or
c) replay the last shot (stroke and distance)

obviously many will disagree, but i strongly feel that taking away the 2 meter rule was a mistake. trees are hazards, if you don't want to get stuck in one, don't throw it there.

I'm concerned with the integrity of the game and the professional image our sport will have in the future. If I'm home watching a major disc golf tournament on TV for the first time and a player has his drive stuck in a tree 50 feet up on the putting green I might be confused why the gallery is cheering and applauding what appears to me as an errant shot.



Are you implying the Rules Committee hasn't thought this thing through? The 1 in a hundred shots that hit 50 feet above the pin *and* stick scenario is a false issue. Even the shots that do stick rather than deflect when hitting a tree will generally leave a poor lie with branches and or trunk in the way. Second, any TD worth his salt will either use an alternate pin location where such shots won't be rewarded, or s/he will designate the area underneathe the tree as OB so that being suspended will by definition also be OB. That way the shot that sticks at 1.9 meters won't be rewarded either.

I am sure the Rules Committee realized anyone who gets 'rewarded' with a 50 foot off course shot is going to end up near DFL anyways.

hey i'm wrong sometimes also but i don't spend my life on rules threads making stuff up because i "WISH" it were so...and in the last month you have done that twice and i've called you on it both times



Keith, you are just messing with words here. The option to drop the 2 meter rule in 2005 without PDGA approval is NEW. And Casual areas can be created by TDs and Course Designers where no penalty throw is provided but relief is.

And as you've said, you haven't really made any points what so ever other than pointing out minutia that doesn't matter a lick anyway. I know I'm not surprised...

Steve,

"The integrity of the game"? Are you serious?

From now until this date next year, I want you to report back here how many times you "get", or "would have gotten" a 2 meter penalty (for events where it is waived). Tell us how when it was waived just how the "integrity" of the game was destroyed.

I just don�t go for the �reach� argument. It is a near complete fabrication for a completely contrived rule.

If, I say �IF� we are going to start playing our discs where they lie (an agreed impossibility as far as doing it where it really lies) but let�s just say for the sake of argument that we are really going to try our very best to adhere to the spirit of the golf lie concept. Well, if we are not going to propel it from it�s exact position it came to rest or on the tee pad, then we need another exact position. Let�s use the lie as already defined in our rules, ok? All of the trouble with this seems to arise from the concept of �Playing Surface� as something separate and distinct from �all surfaces upon which disc golf is played�. What is a �playing surface�? Can you define it? If you do is it defined within our rules? What makes a tree surface not a playing surface, certainly you can stand on most of them, right? Bridges are raised playing surfaces, and our rules provide for their surface to be IB while beneath is OB.

Won�t those tv viewers of yours be just as confused when June Bug reaches as high as he can to get a disc and gets no penalty while Schweberger does the same and takes a penalty throw? Even though reach is a factor for ball golf and playing their lie (even in a tree).

If you want to go the �reach� way, then let�s go! If you can reach it then it is within your lie, if not it isn�t.

But we can�t can we? Because it would look bad and we don�t want people climbing trees or disadvantaging vertically challenged folks.

So what do we do? Well, what we did is settle on a compromise rule that has never quite met absolute approval and ends up making our sport look silly in itself, penalizes taller players, and for what? And for why?

Why? Seriously, why? Can�t these same challenges all be solved by making trees OB?

Then it doesn�t matter how tall you are, or what your reach is. It doesn�t matter if you are 3 feet or 50 feet up in the tree. OB is a definition �EVERYONE� can get their mind around. It is absolute. It is something those TV viewers will even get.

The 2 meter rule is not (among others).

The option to drop the 2 meter rule in 2005 without PDGA approval is NEW.


Nick, that ringing in your ears is reality calling. Pick up the phone, will ya?

The option you speak of was approved by the Board of Directors, hence you have PDGA approval. I have no idea how you can possibly continue to go on with the absolute fiction that this is all happening without PDGA approval.

The option to drop the 2 meter rule in 2005 without PDGA approval is NEW.


Nick, that ringing in your ears is reality calling. Pick up the phone, will ya?

The option you speak of was approved by the Board of Directors, hence you have PDGA approval. I have no idea how you can possibly continue to go on with the absolute fiction that this is all happening without PDGA approval.



Paul, you are selectively misreading what Nick is saying. The PDGA just made a NEW rule whereby TD's can waive the 2-meter penalty without special permission from the PDGA (Competition Director).

The Rules Committee recommended that the 2 meter rule NOT being in effect should be the default scenario, but the PDGA BoD in a 5 to 1 vote voted INSTEAD to make the 2 meter penalty the default condition and to enable TD's to waive the 2 meter rule without the need for any PDGA approval (that is new). Somehow the Board decided they had greater expertise on Rules than does the PDGA Rules Committee which spent years thinking this through. The Rules Committee even had announced the change in a PDGA radio segment --

see: October 11, 2004
PDGA Radio News (Windows Media Player) http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma
PDGA Radio News (Real Audio) http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-04.ram
Week of October 11: It's the end of the Two Meter Rule! PDGA Rules Committee Chairman Carlton Howard explains when and how this controversial rule will change.

It is worth noting that the one Board member who voted in a way that supported the Rules Committee recommendation was the Competition Director himself! The other 5 members voted instead to make the 2 meter rule the default for 2005 and delay the elimination of the rule (as the default scenario) until 2006 when a new rule book can be printed. (Which leads me to wonder why the Board felt TD's can clearly announce the waiver of the rule for their tourneys but that making such a waiver the default scenario would be a problem).

I've played 3 tournaments since the PDGA radio segment announcing the end of the 2 meter rule, and at each of these tournaments the 2 meter rule was waived. All were at wooded courses and to my knowledge noone even ended up suspended above 2 meters. Additionally, most locals are under the impression that the 2 meter rule is now officially gone unless resurrected by a TD specificly for their tournament. Imo, the BoD vote has made the situation worse, not better.

Play a round in which you try to gain an advantage by getting suspended above 2 meters. In the rare event you get stuck, fgure out how you'll get your beloved driver unstuck from 50 feet in 3 minutes so that you'll have it for the rest of your round.

A rule that penalizes one in 20 shots to the same place is not helpful. If you try to get stuck in a tree to gain an advantage you'll find more often than not you end up with a far worse lie (due to deflections or getting stuck) than you would have if your disc took a less foliated path to the pin.

I've played 3 tournaments since the PDGA radio segment announcing the end of the 2 meter rule, and at each of these tournaments the 2 meter rule was waived.

That's hilarious!

I sure hope they were all since Jan 1st, since the new 'rule' didn't take effect until then. :D

To be fair, didn't the comp. director grant all requests to waive the rule, if a TD asked. I thought I heard that there were a number of tourneys where the rule was waived, prior to Jan 1, 2004. Excuse me. I mean 2005.

Paul, you are selectively misreading what Nick is saying. The PDGA just made a NEW rule whereby TD's can waive the 2-meter penalty without special permission from the PDGA (Competition Director).


No, I am ACTUALLY reading what everyone is saying. And taking people at their word that they have written what they meant to say. And then responding to that. Try it some time.

What the PDGA did was use the OLD rule 804.01 to allow the 2-meter rule to be waived. That rule requires approval from the Competition Director to waive the 2m rule as a special condition. The OLD process of following that rule was to apply for permission from the Competition Director. The NEW process now is that you already have permission from the Competition Director, ipso facto, so you don't have to apply for permission anymore.

So there's no rule change, just a process change allowing the OLD rules to stay in place. In that way, the BoD was able to hold off publishing a NEW rule book until they're satisfied with the language in the NEW rules.

I'm amazed at how much trouble people are having understanding the difference between a rule change and a process change. Here's a clue: the process for applying for permission for the Competition Director ISN'T IN THE RULES. The rules DON'T say HOW to get permission. They just state that permission is required.

By the number of times I've had to explain this, I'm beginning to think that the people who want a rule change don't even know what a rule is.

are you implying the Rules Committee hasn't thought this thing through?

YES, i firmly believe that the rule committee did NOT sufficiently consider being stuck in a tree 50' up over the pin, otherwise they would have recognized that such a result should not be treated the same as another shot the touched nary a tree but sat 1' from the pin.


The 1 in a hundred shots that hit 50 feet above the pin *and* stick scenario is a false issue. Even the shots that do stick rather than deflect when hitting a tree will generally leave a poor lie with branches and or trunk in the way.

blatantly incorrect. it may be correct sometimes in some places with certain types of trees. but that does not make your blanket statement correct



Second, any TD worth his salt will either use an alternate pin location where such shots won't be rewarded, or s/he will designate the area underneathe the tree as OB so that being suspended will by definition also be OB. That way the shot that sticks at 1.9 meters won't be rewarded either.

alternate pin location? you gotta be joking. maybe itsa regional thing, but the beuaty of many texas courses it the challenge of navigating the trees close to the baskets. as has been stated quite eloquently here alreay, trees ARE design features.


I am sure the Rules Committee realized anyone who gets 'rewarded' with a 50 foot off course shot is going to end up near DFL anyways.

wrong on a couple fronts. lots of us go OB in trees and dont finish anywhere near DFL. further, 50' "off course" is not an accurate assessment, because i might have been bombing in onto the pin. my shot could have been right on course but gotten stuck in the canopy. i do not believe my stuck shot should be rewarded with a dropin.

the penalties for ballgolf seem rather severe, perhaps even more so than our EXISTING 2m rule:


1) climb the tree and play it as it lies
2) take an "unplayable lie" penalty of 1 stroke and
a) take two meters relief directly under the ball, not closer to the hole.
b) go back from the spot directly opposite the hole any distance or
c) replay the last shot (stroke and distance)


and thats for an occurance more rare than in disc golf!

are you implying the Rules Committee hasn't thought this thing through?

YES, i firmly believe that the rule committee did NOT sufficiently consider being stuck in a tree 50' up over the pin, otherwise they would have recognized that such a result should not be treated the same as another shot the touched nary a tree but sat 1' from the pin.



How about one that slammed into that same tree 50 feet up and landed 1' from the pin? The only difference is the result; NOT the intent; NOT the execution of the throw; and not due to the existence or non-existence of any rule.

Now, Pat, you as a TD being highly aware and sensitive to such a situation could fashion many ways of penalizing such results. It does not mean that all other TDs need agree with your assessment does it? That would be a little arrogant and presumptuous on your part, wouldn't it? To force your idea of what is an appropriate hazard on other TDs who completely disagree with you?

Kind of like the 2 meter rule...

yea, the concern that a bad shot is treated the same as a good shot is understandable, but where is the similar concern regarding the practical effect of the 2m rule? Namely, the inequity created by treating some tree-hitting shots better than others.

2 meter rule will be in effect at patapco open and rockburn challenge. i know alot of people don't like the rule, but a shot that lands in a tree is a bad shot. period. the point is to avoid the trees.

you don't have to take a penalty if you climb the tree and throw with your foot behind your disc. ;)

I know.

If you hit a tree, you must rethrow the shot without penalty, but you are not allowed to retrieve the thrown disc prior to the re-throw.

Repeat until you acheive a clean shot.

If you run out of discs, you must withdraw from the competition.

p.s. you must let the TD know you are plying from a "tree lie' so i can watch! :D

That at least is entirely fair. There is no random blessing of one lousy shot over the other lousy shot.

How about one that slammed into that same tree 50 feet up and landed 1' from the pin? The only difference is the result; NOT the intent; NOT the execution of the throw; and not due to the existence or non-existence of any rule.

golf is not about intent, its about results. but execution DOES have a lot to do with results, there is no argument there (except with you).


Now, Pat, you as a TD being highly aware and sensitive to such a situation could fashion many ways of penalizing such results. It does not mean that all other TDs need agree with your assessment does it? That would be a little arrogant and presumptuous on your part, wouldn't it? To force your idea of what is an appropriate hazard on other TDs who completely disagree with you?


we agree on this no problem. and i 100% agree that fairway sticks should just take the, with or without relief i dont care which, and play on with no penalty. i am not proposing we REQUIRE TDs to establish a 10m zone where the 2m rule remains in effect - i just wish that those who wish to eliminate the 2m rule COMPLETELY (and you are one of those folks) would spend even 30% of the energy they spent on killing off the rule on educating TDs about how to mitigate the problems that arise by removing the 2m rule from close-in to the pin.

i can tell you that so far 100% of the tournaments i have played in or heard of since blanket permission was granted to suspend the rule have had the TD stating "the PDGA has removed teh 2m rule this year" ! and this is NOT true. an outreach effort is required. it is the actions of anti-2m folks that caused this non-rule-removal to gain traction as the law of the land, so it would be nice to see the same folks working close to as hard to remedy the fallacies they have propagated.

i suppose i must restate that i do ot even want to stroke the player who is suspended above 2m within 10m of the pin. i just want to require them to make a real putt, not reap the ill-gotten rewards of a less-than-stellar/skillful shot

How about one that slammed into that same tree 50 feet up and landed 1' from the pin? The only difference is the result; NOT the intent; NOT the execution of the throw; and not due to the existence or non-existence of any rule.


The intent? Gee, I intend to make a hole-in-one on every throw. Should I be awarded a hole-in-one each time based on my intent?

The execution? Are you saying a flawlessly executed shot should ever go pell-mell into the trees?

Yes, results matter, even if some bad throws get good bounces. Because of that, you want to reward other bad throws -- those that don't get good bounces but instead get stuck in trees -- by not penalizing them? What kind of logic is that?

i just wish that those who wish to eliminate the 2m rule COMPLETELY (and you are one of those folks) would spend even 30% of the energy they spent on killing off the rule on educating TDs about how to mitigate the problems that arise by removing the 2m rule from close-in to the pin.



Pat, I would say that I have. I offer the newer understanding of our OB rule as an easy alternative, but the fact of the matter is that I don�t think it will cause any problems, certainly not major ones. More than that, the only way to know the �exact� necessity of an optional alternative or even the 2 meter rule itself is to see what it is like without it, something very few of us know much about.


i can tell you that so far 100% of the tournaments i have played in or heard of since blanket permission was granted to suspend the rule have had the TD stating "the PDGA has removed teh 2m rule this year" ! and this is NOT true.



Now Pat, don�t get me wrong, I AM NOT CALLING YOU A LIAR, but how is that possible when that has only been possible for 5 days now? In addition, I can think of many more important rules that are misunderstood than this one. I mean what is the down side of not having the 2 meter rule not enforced. 0 to 4 people don�t have 1 penalty throw added to one of their rounds scores? I�ll take that over 120 foot faults on even 10 golfers in 2 rounds�


an outreach effort is required. it is the actions of anti-2m folks that caused this non-rule-removal to gain traction as the law of the land, so it would be nice to see the same folks working close to as hard to remedy the fallacies they have propagated.



I don�t think DISCussion here has done nearly as much to promote the removal of the 2 meter rule as has the illogical, overly punitive and clearly unfair experience of getting a 2 meter penalty, particularly a persons first one. Not all of them stick 5 stories up in a tree Pat�

Secondly, though I wish you were correct, that TDs are going around spreading my gospel, I know with disappointing certitude that even top TDs have no idea what is going on here, or that any rules changes are even pending. Heck, they still haven�t figured out the �Speed of Rudeness� rule yet (that�s a joke, or at least I wish it was).

What fallacy are you alluding to? That the PDGA Rules Committee recommended that the 2 meter rule be optional in 2005? That the PDGA Board of Directors communicated that they intended to approve this and many other rules changes? Or the ones Keith is so proud of himself for pointing out: That the opt out of the 2 meter rule is not a new rule, that it is simply new; or that Casual OB doesn�t exist in our rules but Casual Areas do? Fallacies?

I would reserve that word for the insecure backwards thinking fear driven illogical arguments that have been used for decades to prop up a completely superfluous rule.

So long as that rule is in effect, we will never be afforded the opportunity to know what are the best ways to deal with discs way up in trees.

2 meter rule will be in effect at patapco open and rockburn challenge. i know alot of people don't like the rule, but a shot that lands in a tree is a bad shot. period. the point is to avoid the trees.

you don't have to take a penalty if you climb the tree and throw with your foot behind your disc. ;)



By your logic Rich we should penalize folks for just hitting trees then. Aren't they bad shots after all?

And what about missed putts? Let's take on another penalty throw... bad shot right?

And a supporting point need not be a foot...

p.s. you must let the TD know you are plying from a "tree lie' so i can watch! :D



That's cool, so long as you have to do the same with a disc 1.99 meters up in the air. Better start taking some yoga classes...

Steve,

"The integrity of the game"? Are you serious?

From now until this date next year, I want you to report back here how many times you "get", or "would have gotten" a 2 meter penalty (for events where it is waived). Tell us how when it was waived just how the "integrity" of the game was destroyed.

I just don’t go for the “reach” argument. It is a near complete fabrication for a completely contrived rule.

If, I say “IF” we are going to start playing our discs where they lie (an agreed impossibility as far as doing it where it really lies) but let’s just say for the sake of argument that we are really going to try our very best to adhere to the spirit of the golf lie concept. Well, if we are not going to propel it from it’s exact position it came to rest or on the tee pad, then we need another exact position. Let’s use the lie as already defined in our rules, ok? All of the trouble with this seems to arise from the concept of “Playing Surface” as something separate and distinct from “all surfaces upon which disc golf is played”. What is a “playing surface”? Can you define it? If you do is it defined within our rules? What makes a tree surface not a playing surface, certainly you can stand on most of them, right? Bridges are raised playing surfaces, and our rules provide for their surface to be IB while beneath is OB.

Won’t those tv viewers of yours be just as confused when June Bug reaches as high as he can to get a disc and gets no penalty while Schweberger does the same and takes a penalty throw? Even though reach is a factor for ball golf and playing their lie (even in a tree).

If you want to go the “reach” way, then let’s go! If you can reach it then it is within your lie, if not it isn’t.

But we can’t can we? Because it would look bad and we don’t want people climbing trees or disadvantaging vertically challenged folks.

So what do we do? Well, what we did is settle on a compromise rule that has never quite met absolute approval and ends up making our sport look silly in itself, penalizes taller players, and for what? And for why?

Why? Seriously, why? Can’t these same challenges all be solved by making trees OB?

Then it doesn’t matter how tall you are, or what your reach is. It doesn’t matter if you are 3 feet or 50 feet up in the tree. OB is a definition “EVERYONE” can get their mind around. It is absolute. It is something those TV viewers will even get.

The 2 meter rule is not (among others).



While I don't wish to evoke fightin' words I have to admit I can now empathize with Craig when he talks about you putting words in his mouth as it appears from this post you have put words in mine.

I never said or implied that some sort of "reach rule" should replace the two meter rule( others may have but I did not).

I did admit that we typically play (release) our shots from approx a meter from where they come to rest. (waist high~ 1m from ground, waist high ~1m below a 2m lie, straddle~1m) I'm not suggesting a new rule I'm just trying to find common ground with you and making the observation that in many cases we "play" our shots within about a meter from where they lie be it vertical or horizontal or a combo of horizontal and vertical. Taking a 3, 4 or 5m penalty-free relief just seems wrong to me.

Yes some sort of reach rule would be ridiculous, ambiguous and unprofessional. However, 2 meters is a cut and dry measurement, not ambiguous, not open to interpretation and in my 17 years of competition I've never experienced, witnessed or even heard of any such dispute whether or not a lie was in violation of the 2m rule.

You mentioned if we aren't playing/propelling our disc from its exact position at rest we need to establish a new exact position. Are you kidding me? The current rules clearly explain(this is a paraphrase as I'm too lazy to quote word for word) using a marker disc on the line of play marked at the front edge of your disc and playing your shot with one supporting point directly behind the marked lie with no other supporting point closer to the hole. The two meter rule also specifies placing the marker disc directly below your suspended disc.So what's the talk about a new standard must be set?

Now to your point about being in favor of puting a circle around key trees near the pin to make the entire tree OB: how would you like it if you laced a tunnel shot down the middle of the fairway it hyzered around the bend ends up on the green and you're stoked thinking you have a birdie putt and you get to your lie only to find you're under a tree on the ground and will be putting for a circle three?
No one I know likes being penalized for making what appears to be a good shot only to find out they've been a victim of artificial OB.

I have yet to hear a compelling arguement why we must do away with the 2m rule. I've heard the double penalization theory. It's complicated and up to interpretation theory. It takes up too much room in the rule book theory. It penalizes someone for being unlucky theory. The grassy knoll theory. Which ones am I missing? Are they're any reasons you can honestly give with a straight face?

By your logic Rich we should penalize folks for just hitting trees then. Aren't they bad shots after all?

And what about missed putts? Let's take on another penalty throw... bad shot right?


So NOW you're arguing that there shouldn't be any penalty for ANY bad shots because ALL bad shots aren't penalized? Are you saying that even discs that are OB shouldn't be penalized because that would be unfair, too?

For crying out loud... your arguments make less and less sense.

I've played 3 tournaments since the PDGA radio segment announcing the end of the 2 meter rule, and at each of these tournaments the 2 meter rule was waived.

That's hilarious!



yes it is, but it only underscores how haphazardly the 2 meter rule comes into effect. Schweb shared with me that he had a roller end up above 2 meters once and got stroked. Meanwhile most poor shots that hit trees above 2 meters don't stick. I challenge anyone who wants to keep the rule to play a few rounds trying to benefit from no 2 meter rule being in effect and report back their findings

I've played 3 tournaments since the PDGA radio segment announcing the end of the 2 meter rule, and at each of these tournaments the 2 meter rule was waived.




I sure hope they were all since Jan 1st, since the new 'rule' didn't take effect until then. :D



One was at the highly wooded Idlewild course and was TD'ed by Disc Golf Hall of Fame nominee Fred Salaz who received waiver permission from the Competition Director (he favors the elimination of the rule, by the way).

Another was in November and was hosted by Disc Golf Hall of Famer David Greenwell. It was a new course in Loiuisville that Dave and other locals had just installed. It was not a sanctioned tourney. When asked at the players meeting whether the 2 meter rule would be in effect, Dave thought a second and then replied that since no 2 meter rule was the future we would start playing that way that day.

The third was a local Cincinnati traditional New Year's Day tourney and the 2 meter rule was not in effect because everyone running it thought that was the default rule now that it is 2005. (Not many seem to have heard about the flip-flop scenario caused by the Board of Directors...

Is this a new version of an old theory or new theory all together?

Let me get this straight. Most poor shots that hit above two meters don't stick (and therefore aren't penalized) therefore we shouldn't penalize the few poor shots that do?
Okay many poor shots are lucky(fortunate) and fall out of trees. So therefore we should manually knock down the few unlucky shots that don't fall on their own "just to be fair".

By the way Rob, decisions/rulings made aren't automaticly the best decision based solely on who (rules committee) made them.

My home course is Idlewild. It is one of the most foliated and tightest courses you'll ever find. Being suspended 2 meters or above is extremely rare, and when it does happen it seldom results in a favorable lie. Most shots that hit trees get deflected off course or end up dropping with trunks and branches in the way of one's next shot.

Cedar trees are more consistent at catching discs, but then all one would have to do under the soon to be eliminated 2 meter rule would be to hit at 1.99 meters or below to use the tree favorably. Even that though often ends up in a lie where there is a tree between you and the pin.

Superpro Schweb favors the elimination of the rule because he once had a good roller shot end up 7 feet high and was stroked.

Neither Schweb nor the Rule Committee is infallible, but they are as invested in doing what is best for disc golf tournament play probably as much as anyone. And, when one truly listens to the Rules Committee's reasoning, it makes little sense to suggest they didn't think this recommendation through. Nick's discussion of the superiority of OB is clear enough, is it not?

. Nick's discussion of the superiority of OB is clear enough, is it not?



Uh.........................No....no... it isn't

As far as Scweb's reasoning, I find it hard to believe that's his sole reason. You don't eliminate a rule just because of one freak bad bounce.

Getting stuck in a tree is already bad enough, the extra penalty stroke is too much. It's not like people are going to aim at trees now.

Let me get this straight. Most poor shots that hit above two meters don't stick (and therefore aren't penalized) therefore we shouldn't penalize the few poor shots that do?
Okay many poor shots are lucky(fortunate) and fall out of trees. So therefore we should manually knock down the few unlucky shots that don't fall on their own "just to be fair".




Makes perfect sense to me.

By the way, someone above equated not liking the 2m rule with not wanting OB penalties or that those people "just don't want to penalize bad shots." In my case at least, that's dead wrong. I like OB. It's highly predictable and equitable. You throw OB, the next guy throws OB, the next guy throws OB. EVERYONE is stroked.

That is far different than the 2m rule where everyone can throw a crappy shot, but we randomly penalize one poor sap.

I like OB. It's highly predictable and equitable. You throw OB, the next guy throws OB, the next guy throws OB. EVERYONE is stroked.

That is far different than the 2m rule where everyone can throw a crappy shot, but we randomly penalize one poor sap.



Finally a voice of science and reason. I wonder if any of those who are emotionally attached to the 2 meter penalty will listen and actually do the math? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I never said or implied that some sort of "reach rule" should replace the two meter rule( others may have but I did not).



Then what is this?

stevemaerz 01/04/05 02:06 PM
Yes, in a sense we get relief from every lie since we don't release(propel) our discs from our lie on the ground. I am approximatly
1.9 meters tall and in most cases I release a disc about waist high around 1 meter off the ground. If I'm behind an obstacle I'll stretch as far as I comfortably can to one side. Since my stride is about 1 meter you could say I'm exercising my 1 meter of relief. So, yes Nick I agree we don't play our shots exactly the way they lie, however we generally play them within close (usually within 1 meter) proximity of where they lie.

My biggest problem with the eliminating of the 2 meter rule is it departs from the concept that you be able to play your lie as it lies or if you want to split hairs in close proximity to where it lies. If you are unable to play a lie within close proximity( which in most cases is about a meter) of the actual lie you should be penalized. To allow a free drop from 50 ft up in a tree seems to be a huge departure from the concept of golf that you have to play from your given lie or if you can't you get a stroke.



This is the quintessential �reach rule� definition Steve. I put no words in your mouth. That�s like saying we put the words �Weapons of Mass Destruction� in Bush�s mouth prior to the invasion of Iraq�

But even if we did play it as you suggest above, then the player would have to have a supporting point exactly where the disc actually came to rest. So a kid or Mike Simone would have to take an unplayable lie if they could not reach the 1.99 meters up, where the disc came to rest.

But we don�t require that, even in the 2 meter rule. We mark it on the playing surface and play on. The �reach rule/play it where it lies� argument is simply not supportive of the 2 meter rules continued existence. That would, if necessary come under stance rules. That is where this could be resolved. But those rules are already about as convoluted as we can make them; and that is why I suggest that OB and Casual Obstacles (Areas) be used instead. All that is needed is a clarification that contact with IB and OB surfaces takes precedence over the old vertical plain OB line concept.

I know you think you are onto something new here, but this has been completely covered at least 3 times already here. As has the �bad shot�, �protect the trees� and �preserve the integrity of the game� substantiations, and they just don�t hold water when completely laid out �in context�. Individually they may sound quite good, like Bush sound bites about being tough, but in context of each other and all of our rules, they are not convincing in the least when considered in the larger context.

I did admit that we typically play (release) our shots from approx a meter from where they come to rest. (waist high~ 1m from ground, waist high ~1m below a 2m lie, straddle~1m) I'm not suggesting a new rule I'm just trying to find common ground with you and making the observation that in many cases we "play" our shots within about a meter from where they lie be it vertical or horizontal or a combo of horizontal and vertical. Taking a 3, 4 or 5m penalty-free relief just seems wrong to me.



Steve, our discs fly. We do not. Vertical relief has been an important part of our game since before the 2 meter rule was a twinkling in anyone�s mind. Why?

We do not want people playing from in/on trees or bushes. Other rules attest to this as well (see rules). We have decided, though not with 100% clarity, that our sport is to be played on the �playing surface�.


Yes some sort of reach rule would be ridiculous, ambiguous and unprofessional. However, 2 meters is a cut and dry measurement, not ambiguous, not open to interpretation and in my 17 years of competition I've never experienced, witnessed or even heard of any such dispute whether or not a lie was in violation of the 2m rule.



Similarly for OB rulings, but that does not prove that the 2 meter rule is right or necessary does it? And we should also restrain ourselves from using such a �ridiculous, ambiguous and unprofessional� idea to prop it up shouldn�t we.


You mentioned if we aren't playing/propelling our disc from its exact position at rest we need to establish a new exact position. Are you kidding me? The current rules clearly explain(this is a paraphrase as I'm too lazy to quote word for word) using a marker disc on the line of play marked at the front edge of your disc and playing your shot with one supporting point directly behind the marked lie with no other supporting point closer to the hole. The two meter rule also specifies placing the marker disc directly below your suspended disc.So what's the talk about a new standard must be set?



I was simply stating that we have already done the best we can with the basic �playing our lie where it is� rule. We accept that it does not matter where the disc is vertically; we place the marker on the playing surface immediately below it and play from there. Yes, even the 2 meter rule plays it that way�


Now to your point about being in favor of puting a circle around key trees near the pin to make the entire tree OB: how would you like it if you laced a tunnel shot down the middle of the fairway it hyzered around the bend ends up on the green and you're stoked thinking you have a birdie putt and you get to your lie only to find you're under a tree on the ground and will be putting for a circle three?
No one I know likes being penalized for making what appears to be a good shot only to find out they've been a victim of artificial OB.



Define �artificial OB�. All OB is artificial. TDs have to designated it; whether using seams between surfaces or string, if the TD doesn�t say,�The roped off area around the trees on hole 14 are OB.� Guess what? Nothing �naturally or for real� makes them OB.

Now who is putting words in who�s mouth Steve? I never said I would be �in favor of put[t]ing a circle around key trees near the pin to make the entire tree OB�. I offered as an alternative, a far better one, for those who just can�t fathom life without the 2 meter rule that they declare all trees OB above 2 meters. Other alternatives include using the seam between the playing surface and the tree surface as the OB line and any disc at rest not in contact with an IB surface is OB (and visa versa), or that they do this only with specific strategic trees and bushes (they actually could do this with anything). While I �favor� these alternatives over the all encompassing 2 meter rule, I actually do not favor them over simply removing the 2 meter rule all together. IMO the impact to the competitive outcomes of events will be miniscule, certainly less than due to foot faults, falling putts and discourteous play.


I have yet to hear a compelling argu[e]ment why we must do away with the 2m rule. I've heard the double penalization theory. It's complicated and up to interpretation theory. It takes up too much room in the rule book theory. It penalizes someone for being unlucky theory. The grassy knoll theory. Which ones am I missing? Are they're any reasons you can honestly give with a straight face?



Well, since you ask:

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 aberration within our rules. No other hazard is mandatory.
5) Because it does a less effective job of protecting trees than other designer declared 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 removal 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) It is a universal �reach rule� � incorrect when we already mark all lies on the playing surface.
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

All said with a straight face.

By your logic Rich we should penalize folks for just hitting trees then. Aren't they bad shots after all?

And what about missed putts? Let's take on another penalty throw... bad shot right?


So NOW you're arguing that there shouldn't be any penalty for ANY bad shots because ALL bad shots aren't penalized? Are you saying that even discs that are OB shouldn't be penalized because that would be unfair, too?

For crying out loud... your arguments make less and less sense.



Paul, I am saying that bad shots themselves are penalty enough, we do not need to add penalty strokes to them simply because some of us think they were "bad", as you point out that would make no sense.

OB is different and not even it is really there �to penalize bad shots� it is there �to penalize bad results� as determined by the design of the course by the TD or Course Designer NOT our rules of (fair) play. Good shots go OB, they also hit trees, and occasionally they even stick in trees and bushes. �Good/bad� throws has nothing to do with it. Our rules are to ensure, as best we can manage, a fair competition, not to be like Monopoly rules where you land on �go to jail� and can try for doubles 3 times or pay $50 (or whatever) to get out. (Though that does give me some interesting ideas for a mini, it shouldn�t go on at PDGAs.)

The hyzer line is a skip off the OB road. Player one tees and skips it up under the pin. Player 2 throws and hits one of the dots on the road, ruins his skip, but barely rolls over the curb fair. Player three's skip hits the curb and stays OB. Player four hits a car windshield, skips off the car, and lands fair.

Why are you only punishing the curb-hitter randomly for bad luck???????

Ermerald Isle hole 8. The basket is on a little hill near a lower OB ball golf green.

Player one putts and doinks the basket and lands under the basket. Player two putts and doinks the baskets and lands five feet away. Player three putts and doinks the basket and rolls 10 feet away. Player four putts and doinks the basket, land on edge and rolls down the little hill onto the ball golf green and is OB.

Four "identical" shots, but the OB punishes the unlucky guy. Isn't rolling 40 feet away punishment enough for being unlucky?????

The hyzer line is a skip off the OB road. Player one tees and skips it up under the pin. Player 2 throws and hits one of the dots on the road, ruins his skip, but barely rolls over the curb fair. Player three's skip hits the curb and stays OB. Player four hits a car windshield, skips off the car, and lands fair.

Why are you only punishing the curb-hitter randomly for bad luck???????



Rhett, superficially that's a good argument. But throwing a skip hyzer off of a parking lot with curbs is far more predictable and consistent than hitting in a tree. If you miss the curb, you'll skip IB. It's a clear situation of what you need to do. 4 shots landing in the same place at a similar angle and speed will yield similar results. A tree is far more random. 4 shots hitting at a similar angle and speed are likely to yield 4 different results and none are likely to stick. To penalize one of twenty shots is a bad rule, especially since most stuck shots yield a poor lie anyways. Twenty shots into the same place and one sticks. That's inconsistent at best.

We can bring up all kinds of inconsistent ways in which putts stick or roll away. But we should attempt to minimize that inconsistency as best we can. The elimination of the 2 meter rule is just such an attempt. The beauty of the elimination of the 2 meter rule is that particular trees can be declared OB. So in that sense you can take your chances and try to skip hyzer off the trunk if you like.

Rhett, is your argument that "here is an example of random bad luck, therefore a PDGA rule that institutionializes is OK." It's kind of like advocating lax accounting laws by pointing out all the people who lost money in the Enron scandal.

Anyways, most people would agree that the guy who rolled OB in your example was unfortunate when compared to his competitors with identical putts. Why we would want to create more scenarios like you describe?

Skipping off a road, that's OB or not, should never be the only route on a hole. Assuming that's the case here, the player has the option to fly over OB or even take a different route. Whereas, many times throwing thru a tree lined route is the only route. Why should the route over 2m be more treacherous than under 2m?

I agree reducing the chance for disc rollaways to OB should be minimized. That's a design issue not a rules issue though. I'm doing a lot more to reduce those situations with logs or other buffer to reduce 'putt doink rollaway OBs' near baskets.

My point is that the crux of your anti-2meter argument is "eliminating random bad luck." You are being extremely inconsistent if you don't apply your same argument to rules that you like. Therefore, I expect you to rally against all OB and all penalties because there is random bad luck there, too.

If you have better reason's to get rid of the 2 meter rule, then that would be different. But all I seem to have heard is how "it is random bad luck so the rule must go." By your logic all random bad luck rules must go.

But all I seem to have heard is how "it is random bad luck so the rule must go." By your logic all random bad luck rules must go.



If I believed that OB rules were just random bad luck, I would want them eliminated also. However, I just stated upthread how OB is pretty predictable (most people who throw OB, ie. a crappy shot, get penalized), despite your examples.

I have yet to hear a compelling argu[e]ment why we must do away with the 2m rule. I've heard the double penalization theory. It's complicated and up to interpretation theory. It takes up too much room in the rule book theory. It penalizes someone for being unlucky theory. The grassy knoll theory. Which ones am I missing? Are they're any reasons you can honestly give with a straight face?



Well, since you ask:

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 &amp;#8220;luck&amp;#8221; 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 aberration within our rules. No other hazard is mandatory.
5) Because it does a less effective job of protecting trees than other designer declared 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 &amp;#8220;specifically&amp;#8221; protected areas. Unlike the 2 meter rule which users may or may not be aware of.
6) Because it&amp;#8217;s removal allows &amp;#8220;some&amp;#8221; 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 &amp;#8211; So what then, we shouldn&amp;#8217;t remove the ones that can easily be removed? Preposterous.
3) 2 Meters &amp;#8220;IS OB&amp;#8221; &amp;#8211; 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) It is a universal &amp;#8220;reach rule&amp;#8221; &amp;#8211; incorrect when we already mark all lies on the playing surface.
4) Removing the rule makes the game easier &amp;#8211; Inconclusive at best. Removing a penalty stroke for something that certainly does not fall within the &amp;#8220;Cheating&amp;#8221; spectrum of our rules would in my opinion make the final results of the event actually &amp;#8220;MORE&amp;#8221; 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

All said with a straight face.

[/QUOTE]



I won't address the "non- issues" because.....uh....well...they are.......non-issues.


My responses to your "compelling" reasons for eliminating the 2m rule:

1) I'm okay with saying all lies suspended above 2m are OB. It's just another way of saying the 2m rule is in effect for this event. I disagree with making the entire tree surface OB unless there is good reason to ie. new sampling or an injured/diseased tree in rehab
2) I see no difference in this statement than the "we shouldn't penalize bad luck" arguement. We penalize OB bad luck at nearly every tournament ie. doink, roll aways
3) I see eliminating the 2m rule as taking away course design options. Trees are an integral part of course design and are among the best and most prevalent obstacles. Not in all cases but on some holes on some courses (Seneca comes to mind) the trees could be targets as much as they would be obstacles. I don't think the use of trees as targets is what the course designers had in mind.
4) Again I think the converse of your statement is more true. As I've said many times before, we generally play our shots in close proximity of our lie, so to allow players to now play their shots 10,20, or 50 feet away from their lie without penalty would be an abberation in our rules.
5) I never looked at protecting our trees as a goal of the 2m rule. If an at risk tree needs protection it, or a group of trees can be roped off and made OB at the TD's discretion.
6)" Double penalization theory" stated in different words

Review:
I said I was waiting to hear a compelling arguement why the 2m rule should be eliminated and guess what......I'm still waiting.

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

[/QUOTE]

1) highly debatable, because what is the definition of OB in this case ? the "surface (what is that?) of the vegetation? which vegetation qualifies? shrubs and trees over a certain height? 6" succulents?

2) not much more clear than 2M. they even make measuring devices in that length.

3) absolutely false. there has been far more tree crashing around the basket than ever before on our course in texas now that the 2m rule is regularly rescinded

4) agreed! because now trees are not as much of an obstacle or consideration

5) conjecture.

re: a previous post, i've played in a dozen or so minis that have suspended in the 2m rule because it "will be gone in 2005" (even though it wont be , and that it the "fallacy" i referred to) i played in a 1 day 2 round last weekend, non-sanctioned but pdga-ruled, where it was announced that the 2m was gone in 2005.


folks, i 100% buy the double penalty theory for fairway 2m sticks, and 100% support the removal of the penalty for such shots. just NOT around the basket. there IS a difference between the two situations!

Or the ones Keith is so proud of himself for pointing out: That the opt out of the 2 meter rule is not a new rule, that it is simply new; or that Casual OB doesn’t exist in our rules but Casual Areas do? Fallacies?




the ONLY reason i point out your errors is because YOU insist on being SO ACCURATE with all your rules and then when pointing out to you that by the way it is NOT a rule...you come back with your explainations above...
well keith you are TECHNICALLY right but this is what I(nick kight)THINK so that's what matters.....this is why i stick to being pizzed off when you are NOT READING what people write,and saying this is what i think they were meaning to write.....
as long as there are gray areas in the rules and lots of non-rules rules propagated here,most of the country will spread what they see here in their part of the world and that's when we start having trouble.....

you know if you travelled to tournaments outside of your region and japan you might learn what other td's do instead of thinking that only the td's YOU hear are the only one's that matter........
just my opinion on it nick...
i'll not bother you with any more of your mistatements on THIS thread anymore

keith

Review:
I said I was waiting to hear a compelling arguement why the 2m rule should be eliminated and guess what......I'm still waiting.



Well, we've found common ground here at least. I'm still waiting for any reason why the rule should continue, when OB can do anything it does and better. Bring it if you got it, the rest is all just so much duct tape.

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



1) highly debatable, because what is the definition of OB in this case ? the "surface (what is that?) of the vegetation? which vegetation qualifies? shrubs and trees over a certain height? 6" succulents?

<font color="green"> You know what a tree is don't you Pat? You want to have a debate about it? </font>

2) not much more clear than 2M. they even make measuring devices in that length.

<font color="green"> Incorrect. OB is superior, and as I have pointed out if we are going to penalize something as random and rare as sticking above 2 meters, then we should also penalize putts that spit out another stroke. It meets almost all of the same criteria as does 2 meters afterall. </font>

3) absolutely false. there has been far more tree crashing around the basket than ever before on our course in texas now that the 2m rule is regularly rescinded

<font color="green"> I believe you Pat, but I want to see it for myself. From my experience though, I doubt that it has resulted in that much more tree damage AND if OB were used rather than the 2 meter rule I am 100% sure that there would be less tree damage on key trees. Refute that. </font>

4) agreed! because now trees are not as much of an obstacle or consideration

5) conjecture.

<font color="green"> Opinion, but how does tossing extra strokes on someone for a non-hazard foul result in fairer competitions? "Sorry dude you landed on the unlucky blade of grass, you have to take a penalty throw."</font>

re: a previous post, i've played in a dozen or so minis that have suspended in the 2m rule because it "will be gone in 2005" (even though it wont be , and that it the "fallacy" i referred to) i played in a 1 day 2 round last weekend, non-sanctioned but pdga-ruled, where it was announced that the 2m was gone in 2005.

<font color="green"> Technically that is not what your said and since the PDGA Competition Director waiver was... ah whatever... I ain't no Keith no point minutia spittin' Johnson... </font>

folks, i 100% buy the double penalty theory for fairway 2m sticks, and 100% support the removal of the penalty for such shots. just NOT around the basket. there IS a difference between the two situations!

[/QUOTE]

<font color="green"> And I am fine with you as a Tournament Director or Course Designer to do what you want to deal with your percieved challenge. Just don't force your way of dealing with it on every other TD.</font>

Hey wheres the new rule book. Wheres the new rules.....
Wheres the new crutches . I cant control my big arm..
hehehehehe . Well i cant control my roller so when is the water going to be taken out.

Talk to your course pro. Water is casual unless specified otherwise.

<font color="green"> You know what a tree is don't you Pat? You want to have a debate about it? </font>


Yep, we know what trees are. But will everyone handing out the every-tree-is-OB penalty have the same definition? Some people will say a sapling is a tree. Some people will say a tree stump is a tree. Some people will argue that a fallen tree lying across the fairway is a tree. Some people...

<font color="green"> And I am fine with you as a Tournament Director or Course Designer to do what you want to deal with your percieved challenge. Just don't force your way of dealing with it on every other TD.</font>


This is funny coming from Nick.

thanks for my new signature nick
sorry but i had to correct your spelling for my signature though as you spelled it incorrectly and you know how i am about the IMPORTANT details

<font color="green"> You know what a tree is don't you Pat? You want to have a debate about it? </font>


Yep, we know what trees are. But will everyone handing out the every-tree-is-OB penalty have the same definition? Some people will say a sapling is a tree. Some people will say a tree stump is a tree. Some people will argue that a fallen tree lying across the fairway is a tree. Some people...



Paul,

Is a tree sappling a tree?
Is a tree stump a tree?
Is a fallen tree a tree?

Folks that can't tell what is a tree and what is not a tree need to learn more than just disc golf rules.

Besides, I don't see a need for declaring all trees OB, perhaps specific ones or groups of them on certain holes, but not over an entire course, that would be weird and way overkill. Kind of like the 2 meter rule is...

Is a tree sappling (sic) a tree?


Well, I would hope no one would call a penalty on someone whose disc rolls onto a sapling, but at what point does a sapling become a tree, Nick? (I'm going to laugh if you say when the tree is over 2 meters in height.)

Is a tree stump a tree?


I would say a tree stump was a tree, but not a tree anymore. Someone else might say yes, the stump still is a tree and try to take advantage of that fact by attempting to penalize someone else for being tree-OB.

Also, if a disc rolls up to the living stump of a tree, or onto its roots, would you consider the disc OB? I certainly wouldn't, but what about someone else who reads something like "a disc is OB if it rests on the surface of a tree."

That's why I think you have to be careful promoting tree-OB, Nick -- I think it opens a can of worms that either careful language in the rules or extra work by the TD will have to close up again.

Is a fallen tree a tree?


I know one tree that fell in Horizon Park, NC, right next to a basket. If a disc landed on the top branch (or a long, side branch, actually, because the tree was lying sideways), the 2m rule could have gone into play...

Folks that can't tell what is a tree and what is not a tree need to learn more than just disc golf rules.


Folks who want to change the rules had better do so with careful language rather than assume that everyone thinks like they do. You and I may share the same definition on trees, but I don't presume to know what everyone who plays disc golf calls a tree...

Besides, I don't see a need for declaring all trees OB, perhaps specific ones or groups of them on certain holes, but not over an entire course, that would be weird and way overkill. Kind of like the 2 meter rule is...


Sounds like a heckuva lotta work for the TD to designate each and every tree either OB or non-OB, and a heckuva lotta effort on the part of every player to understand which trees are OB or not. (I dunno, maybe you are about to propose that only trees over 2m in height should be OB...)

Well stated Paul, you conveyed my thoughts exactly.

2 m rule is pretty simple and cut and dry, why do so many want to complicate things?

So, for the PDGA events this weekend, if I throw a disc above 3 meters (and the TD says nothing about it in the rules) is it a penalty stroke?

So, for the PDGA events this weekend, if I throw a disc above 3 meters (and the TD says nothing about it in the rules) is it a penalty stroke?

roger that... take a stroke! the rule is the rule. the exception is no-stroke, but it must be announced by the TD at the playa's mtg

Yes. The 2m penalty rule is still in effect in 2005 unless the TD indicates otherwise.

good morning chuck! :)

OK, 2m rule stays the same this year. What about the Pro playing Am rule, is it in effect?

(notice I avoided the word 'stroke') :)

It looks like MN will be a 2m penalty free zone based on advance comments from our TDs but our first PDGA event isn't until Mar 26. The Mid-Nationals will likely have no blanket 2m penalty but we might choose to leave that penalty on selected holes.

What about the Pro playing Am rule, is it in effect?



Yes. I just sent my entry fee for the Memorial to play Advanced for the first time since 1990 (which was the one event I ever entered it). If pros had the option to pay the 'trophy only' entry in am divisions, I would have done that.

Well stated Paul, you conveyed my thoughts exactly.

2 m rule is pretty simple and cut and dry, why do so many want to complicate things?



It is not complicating it. Certainly not if you jut drop it all together. And OB is no more complicated than it has ever been. OB is OB, IB is IB.

If you haven't figured it out, one of the things I like least of all about the 2 meter rule is how it removes all control from TDs and Course Designers concerning aerial hazards. That is just wrong. Now if you are a TD that lives and breaths by the 2 meter rule, then simply state that everything 2 meters above the playing surface is OB. (Which also entails the elimination of the 2 meter rule, because it is already covered in the OB rule, not to mention the Casual Obstacle rules.)

BTW a sappling would have to be substantial enough to completely support the disc, if it was touching the in bounds playing surface then it is not OB anyway. Same for a stump. If an area has a thick area of undergrowth and the TD doesn't want players playing from in there anyway then make the whole thing OB, or not and let them deal with it whether their disc is over 2 meters or not (they are likely to have a very sick lie anyway).

The Mid-Nationals will likely have no blanket 2m penalty but we might choose to leave that penalty on selected holes.


That's interesting! What criteria do you think will be used to select those holes?

If you haven't figured it out, one of the things I like least of all about the 2 meter rule is how it removes all control from TDs and Course Designers concerning aerial hazards. That is just wrong.


I'd like to understand what you mean by this better, Nick, because it sounds like it's fundamental to your argument.

How does the 2m rule remove control from the TDs concerning aerial hazards? How does eliminating the 2m rule give that control back?

That's interesting! What criteria do you think will be used to select those holes?



You must have missed some of the early discussion back in October when the rule was going to be optional like OB. I can see situations where there's a good disc catching tree inside the 10m circle where the 2m penalty may make sense. I haven't reviewed the courses in regard to that yet but there might be a few.

However, I'm more inclined to go for the drop zone at the 10m line though with no penalty, instead of a 2m penalty for being stuck. I think I can do that without special permission from the Competition Director. If I specify that landing above 2m is a special conditions area within 10m of the basket, the current rules allow me to specify that the player throw from a drop zone without penalty that I'll mark 10m from the basket.

If you haven't figured it out, one of the things I like least of all about the 2 meter rule is how it removes all control from TDs and Course Designers concerning aerial hazards. That is just wrong.


I'd like to understand what you mean by this better, Nick, because it sounds like it's fundamental to your argument.

How does the 2m rule remove control from the TDs concerning aerial hazards? How does eliminating the 2m rule give that control back?



I don't know about "fundamental" but it is "one of the things I like least of all about the 2 meter rule ".

The 2 meter rule is not a hazard rule, it has to do with marking your lie when the disc is at rest above the playing surface (whatever that is...).

Now, if we did make it into a hazard rule, similar to our OB rule, it would be equivalent to declaring the entire course above 2 meters as OB. The loss of control is that the TD can't control where this hazard is in effect and where it is not. It would be equivalent to our rules saying that all bare earth, water, or unnatural ground covering is OB.

Don't you think TD should be able to decide those things? I do.

This little dialog just gave me a new idea (related to Chuck's post too):

Removing the 2 meter rule is basically equivalent to making all lies above the playing surface �Casual Relief Areas� with default relief being to mark their lie on the playing surface immediately below the disc. (As an interesting side note TD could designate other options, such as drop zones or previous lie�)

Making everything above 2 meters OB does the same thing only you add a penalty stroke.

The key is that with the 2 meter rule gone it is up to the TD to decide how to handle discs above the playing surface, not our rules.

I would like to hear an contextual and serious argument disputing what I just said in support of the 2 meter rule.

(Chuck, I think you would be safe to use the above example and not conflict with even current rules.)

As you can tell by my previous posts I feel that all lies suspended two meters or higher should be penalized (or OB if you must use that term). And in case you have forgotten why it is I am of this position is because of my view that golf is a play it as it lies (in close proximity of where it lies for hair splitters) sport and if you can't play the lie as it is you should be penalized for having to take relief.
Now then it seems to me to be a heck of a lot simpler to leave the 2m rule as it is so as not to give the TD one extra thing(or ten extra things) to have to announce at the beginning of every tournament.
And then there are the folks who are in favor of having the 2 m rule in effect on some holes and not others, in effect for some trees and not others and for within a certain distance from the pin but not in the fairway. I can see all kind of extra work for the TD's marking and discussing which hazards have height restrictions. I can also see controversy when unexpected things happen which may not have been covered in the players mtg. Like how about the 2m rule is in effect for the trees on holes 3,5,7,9 and 11 and not on the other holes and someone playing hole 6 gets his disc stuck in a tree on hole 7's fairway does he get a stroke? The tree is a "2m" tree, but he's not playing a "2m" hole. Can you see how this may lead to some controversy? Can you see how having the rule partially in effect or being OB sometimes and not others may make for a lengthy and confusing players mtg?

Maybe I'm just being devil's advocate but I've got visions of dozens of trees strewn with yellow tape, drop zones on half the holes, 40 minute players' meetings and a lot of confusion and disputed rulings. Yes, I know in many courses only a small percentage of discs stick in trees but nonetheless TD's have to prepare as though every disc will stick.

You answer your own questions:
As you can tell by my previous posts I feel that all lies suspended two meters or higher should be penalized (or OB if you must use that term).


If you are good with calling it OB, so am I, but then it should be moved to the OB section of the rules, and behave like every other OB hazard. And DECLARED by the TD like any other hazard.

And in case you have forgotten why it is I am of this position is because of my view that golf is a play it as it lies (in close proximity of where it lies for hair splitters) sport and if you can't play the lie as it is you should be penalized for having to take relief.


Then we will just have to disagree Steve, because it is just too clear to me that in disc golf we handle play it where it lies differently than ball golf, and rightly so. We play all discs above the playing surface as if they landed on the playing surface, not just ones 1 foot off the playing surface or 5 feet off of it, BUT ALL OF THEM.

Now then it seems to me to be a heck of a lot simpler to leave the 2m rule as it is so as not to give the TD one extra thing(or ten extra things) to have to announce at the beginning of every tournament.


Like anouncing other hazards such as OBs and Casual Releif Areas? Should we make all of those things "MANDATORY" also? It is the TDs job to inform competitors about hazards and course special conditions, isn't it? Or is it our rule book's responsibility?

And then there are the folks who are in favor of having the 2 m rule in effect on some holes and not others, in effect for some trees and not others and for within a certain distance from the pin but not in the fairway. I can see all kind of extra work for the TD's marking and discussing which hazards have height restrictions.


Only if they choose to make it complicated. If they, like you, are so inlove with the old 2 meter rule, then just declare everything above 2 meters as OB; if you don't like it at all then just don't declare anything based on height OB; and if you think it can be useful in certain situations like Chuck and Pat then announce where it is in effect and how it is to be played. All courses have particulars, the removal of the two meter rule just leaves it up to the TD.

I can also see controversy when unexpected things happen which may not have been covered in the players mtg. Like how about the 2m rule is in effect for the trees on holes 3,5,7,9 and 11 and not on the other holes and someone playing hole 6 gets his disc stuck in a tree on hole 7's fairway does he get a stroke? The tree is a "2m" tree, but he's not playing a "2m" hole. Can you see how this may lead to some controversy? Can you see how having the rule partially in effect or being OB sometimes and not others may make for a lengthy and confusing players mtg?


Actually Steve, no I can't see how it would be confusing. OBs are OBs for the entire course unless otherwise declared by the TD. The TD would have to say that they were only for those specific holes, otherwise they are OB for all holes.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER OB.

Maybe I'm just being devil's advocate but I've got visions of dozens of trees strewn with yellow tape, drop zones on half the holes, 40 minute players' meetings and a lot of confusion and disputed rulings. Yes, I know in many courses only a small percentage of discs stick in trees but nonetheless TD's have to prepare as though every disc will stick.


You have an overactive imagination then Steve, case at my events there will simply be no 2 meter rule in effect. Nothing could be simpler. TDs will, I am sure, get good at declaring there courses just the way they want them, they always have, to my knowledge.

In summary, 2MR lovers that run tournaments can continue to have it's equivalent in OB, those who don't can eliminate it, and everyone in between can season to taste. The only thing that will upset the 2MR lovers is that they can no longer FORCE every other TD to follow their will. Bummer.

I think I'm just gonna have to call it quits with this debate.

You and others see no problem with taking 20,30 or 150 feet of penalty free(vertical) relief. I am of differing opinion. I see the need for substancial relief as a need to penalize just because it is a game of golf . This is the only reason why I give a rats *** about preserving the rule.
I see OB as something that must be specificly announced. Whereas since the 2MR is already defined in our rulebook and it doesn't require the special attention OB's require.

I don't know if I'm failing to communicate clearly my position as it seems you don't grasp what I see to be obvious points as they relate to the game of golf. It's just pretty obvious for reasons I can't quite understand you think the 2MR is bad for the game. It's also very obvious you'll never see principle problems with eliminating the rule. Therefore I'll find other threads to post on since my head is getting quite sore banging it over and over into this brick wall.

The only thing that will upset the 2MR lovers is that they can no longer FORCE every other TD to follow their will. Bummer.


Oh brother.

Don't you think TD should be able to decide those things? I do.


Me, too. I guess that's why I back the use of the 804.01 rule.

I would like to hear an contextual and serious argument disputing what I just said in support of the 2 meter rule.


Yes, I would like you to hear it, too. But I guess we'll need the internet version of Anne Sullivan to make that happen!

I think I'm just gonna have to call it quits with this debate.


That is up to you. I am more than willing to continue discussing this with you.

You and others see no problem with taking 20,30 or 150 feet of penalty free(vertical) relief. I am of differing opinion. I see the need for substancial relief as a need to penalize just because it is a game of golf . This is the only reason why I give a rats *** about preserving the rule.


I know why you hold your position, but what you have not communicated convincingly is specifically why one vertical relief is without penalty throw while the other is. You say play it where it lies, but a person moving it from 1.88 Meters to the playing surface is no more playing it where it lies than someone moving it from 2.04 Meters. Whereas my argument against the 2MR is based on basic disc golf rules tenets of vertical relief. In disc golf ALL RELIEF for discs above the playing surface is to mark them on the playing surface. The reasons for this are indisputable: A) We play our sport on the playing surface and B) Our discs FLY on a course of unlimited vertical obstacles.
Now if you �personally feel� that there should be a penalty for your disc coming to rest above a certain specified hieght, GREAT! Run a tournament! And declare it so. But don�t force your �feeling� not based on the basic tenets of disc golf rules on every other TD.

I see OB as something that must be specificly announced. Whereas since the 2MR is already defined in our rulebook and it doesn't require the special attention OB's require.


I am with you here, only that the 2MR should be stricken from our rules and only TDs that want to use vertical hazards should need to announce them (whether for the entire course or specific areas - no different than any other hazard).

I don't know if I'm failing to communicate clearly my position as it seems you don't grasp what I see to be obvious points as they relate to the game of golf.


Steve, you are not failing to make your points, I get them, and appreciate them on a certain level, but they are not convincing.
Let�s see if I get them:
1) Disc golf rules �try� to be governed (as do all golf like games) by the tenet �play it where it lies�. Are we together here?
2) Disc golf simply does not play it where it lies due to the inherent fact that we must pick up the disc and throw it with our body (we do not like ball golf use a club to propell the ball from the �exact� place it came to rest). We still together?
3) In essence our lie is two positions 1. the spot on the playing surface where we mark our lie and 2. the exact position of the disc when we release it (which is limited only by our supporting point on the ground, the type of throws we know, and our own physical attributes - how far we can stretch out). Still together?
4) Your contention seems to be that if the disc comes to rest within this �lie� (obviously not just the point on the playing surface, but the �reach� when a point of support is on that lie) then no penalty throw for relief (moving the lie to the playing surface is necessary), but if the disc is outside this �lie bubble� then a penalty throw should be assessed.

Did I get it right?

Now, Steve, did we not just finish discussing why the �vertical reach relief� idea is irrelevant?

If we did not, let me give you another reason why it is:

The equivalent relief horizontally would equally be an outrage to basic golf principles. I.E. if my disc is in an OB water hazard, but I can lie down and reach it with one supporting point in bounds, should I be able to take that relief with no penalty throw!?!

NO WAY!

But �vertical relief� is within our rules and even ball golfs rules handled differently. Personally, I prefer our rules (minus the 2MR) due to our sport being far more dynamic in the fashion in which our projectiles fly, roll and skip around our courses. Vertical relief has always been handled the same way in disc golf: MARK IT ON THE PLAYING SURFACE AND PLAY ON. And it is wise and fair that we do so in light of the nature of our sport.


It's just pretty obvious for reasons I can't quite understand you think the 2MR is bad for the game. It's also very obvious you'll never see principle problems with eliminating the rule. Therefore I'll find other threads to post on since my head is getting quite sore banging it over and over into this brick wall.



The challenge for you Steve, is not that I don�t �understand�, it is that I do not �agree�. But I am willing to explain why as many times as it takes.

In short: The 2MR will always be available to those who feel as you do, whether in it�s current form or as a true hazard rule. What I feel is so important, is that there be an option for people that feel, as the PDGA Rules Committee, many TDs, many players and myself do, that there be a way to not penalize for vertical relief.

Do you see my point (whether you agree with it or not)?

i cant believe you all are still arguing (ooops, discussing) this as if all 2MR situations are the same.

they are not.

a 2M situation 200 feet from the tee and 200 feet from the hole is vastly different from one that is 398 feet from the tee and 2 feet from the hole.

if everyone would stop trying to make one size fits all, perhaps some agreement would arrive more easily.

in short, 2M situations within 10M should be treated different from those farther from the pin.

substitute "should be encouraged to be" for "should be" if you are one of those who still diagree that a shot on the ground 1' from the pin and a shot 50' up and 1' left og the pin are truly and inherently the same result.

this is something for both the rules committee and the course design folks to recommend!

at the sanctioned event yesterday we played without the 2MR. when that was announced the faces of many players lit up and voiced "wow cool now i can bomb in over the top with no fear!" i am NOT making this up.

in discussing the change with the most experienced players - i'm talking about solid open players and open masters players who cash in tour-quality fields - they are vehemently against the blanket removal of the 2MR. most did not care about having no penalty for fairway 2M situations. and most also thought the 10M drop zone proposal makes sense and is fair.

this is what i want:

1) the rules committee to recommend STRONGLY that TDs handle 2M situations within 10M with some sort of drop zone approach;

2) the competition director to clearly state what options are pre-approved for 2M situations within 10M, and to strongly recommend that such options are used;

3) the design committee to include strategies for dealing with 2M situations within 10M in its course design guidance.


couple interesting notes: the course we played yesterday is heavily wooded, and quite technical with narrow defined routes to the pins. about four of the 21 holes do not have serious chances for 2M situation within 10M, but even those do have the possibility. since its winter and there are not any leave and the vines are more thin and brittle, there was less chance of getting stuck anywhere, although it did happen.

i am happy to report that i DID stick 20' up at about 24' from a pin :):):) and yes i was bombing the top, quite conscious of the no risk clause /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The challenge for you Steve, is not that I don�t �understand�, it is that I do not �agree�.


Actually, the challenge is for you, Nick. It is you who posted that you have yet to see a "contextual and serious argument" in support of the 2m rule. That says you don't even recognize the efforts of others to make their points, not that you simply disagree with them.

So, if you want people to know that you simply disagree, simply say so. Stop going over-the-top with your language. You are trying to make strong points, with strongly worded language, I'm sure, but when you go so far as to say you haven't seen a serious argument yet, you're telling me that you have no respect for me and others who have posted something in disagreement with you. And that's what's been so hard to take in our past discussions.

when that was announced the faces of many players lit up and voiced "wow cool now i can bomb in over the top with no fear!" i am NOT making this up ............ - they are vehemently against the blanket removal of the 2MR. most did not care about having no penalty for fairway 2M situations. and most also thought the 10M drop zone proposal makes sense and is fair.

this is what i want:

1) the rules committee to recommend STRONGLY that TDs handle 2M situations within 10M with some sort of drop zone approach;

2) the competition director to clearly state what options are pre-approved for 2M situations within 10M, and to strongly recommend that such options are used;

3) the design committee to include strategies for dealing with 2M situations within 10M in its course design guidance.


couple interesting notes: the course we played yesterday is heavily wooded, and quite technical with narrow defined routes to the pins. about four of the 21 holes do not have serious chances for 2M situation within 10M, but even those do have the possibility. since its winter and there are not any leave and the vines are more thin and brittle, there was less chance of getting stuck anywhere, although it did happen.

i am happy to report that i DID stick 20' up at about 24' from a pin :):):) and yes i was bombing the top, quite conscious of the no risk clause /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif




Pat, I see your point. That was another real concern of mine. Many often state that eliminating the 2MR is no big deal, that it won't change the game and it's rare discs get stuck anyway. My response is that depends on which course you're playing. Cedar trees eat a pretty significant percentage of discs (I'd guess around 30- 40% will stick if it's any more than a glancing blow). Seneca Creek is one course I think will change dramaticly with the elimination of the 2MR. I would think bigger arms would ignore the fairways and throw spike hyzer after spike hyzer often aiming for trees rather than the gaps between them.
I have two concerns with your suggestion of having the 2MR in effect for greens and not fairways : 1.) the added work for the TDs and 2)possible disagreements in rulings ie. disc is 30 feet up in a network of entangled branches from several trees on the 10m border can you really determine which tree it's stuck in?

I would rather stick with rules that are universal for simplicity, ease ,consistency and to avoid controversial rulings.

The challenge for you Steve, is not that I don�t �understand�, it is that I do not �agree�.


Actually, the challenge is for you, Nick. It is you who posted that you have yet to see a "contextual and serious argument" in support of the 2m rule. That says you don't even recognize the efforts of others to make their points, not that you simply disagree with them.

So, if you want people to know that you simply disagree, simply say so. Stop going over-the-top with your language. You are trying to make strong points, with strongly worded language, I'm sure, but when you go so far as to say you haven't seen a serious argument yet, you're telling me that you have no respect for me and others who have posted something in disagreement with you. And that's what's been so hard to take in our past discussions.



That is your interpretation Paul. IMO I have given each argument in support of the 2 meter rule careful and serious consideration and where they fail every time is where they are put in context of all of our rules. If an argument is made in favor of the 2 meter rule that fits contextually within our other rules of play I will be more than glad to recognize that fact. Thus far that has not happened. Every argument in favor of the rule is based on the fact that it has always been a rule and therefore is correct somehow (which is neither a fact nor a convincing or contextual argument).

Don�t confuse respect for you with disagreement with your argument. I respect everyone who is trying to figure this out. Towards that end I will try to be a little less biting in my criticism of arguments for which I disagree.

i cant believe you all are still arguing (ooops, discussing) this as if all 2MR situations are the same. they are not.



Pat, they are in all the same (in the context of this discussion); namely �vertical relief�.


a 2M situation 200 feet from the tee and 200 feet from the hole is vastly different from one that is 398 feet from the tee and 2 feet from the hole. if everyone would stop trying to make one size fits all, perhaps some agreement would arrive more easily. in short, 2M situations within 10M should be treated different from those farther from the pin.



Your assumption that being 2 feet from the basket and 10 feet up means that you have a lie that is 10.198� away is not correct in context with our other vertical relief rules. While not being a �bad� or �illogical� idea, in disc golf we do not calculate the distance from the target for vertical relief only horizontal relief. Vertical relief is always to first mark the disc on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest. In other words, a disc at rest �above the playing surface� IS NOT CONSIDERED THE LIE; the lie is the point on the playing surface directly below the disc.


substitute "should be encouraged to be" for "should be" if you are one of those who still diagree that a shot on the ground 1' from the pin and a shot 50' up and 1' left og the pin are truly and inherently the same result.



The last thing we need is more confusing and grey area language within our rules. Make it a rule or not. IMO not.


this is something for both the rules committee and the course design folks to recommend! at the sanctioned event yesterday we played without the 2MR. when that was announced the faces of many players lit up and voiced "wow cool now i can bomb in over the top with no fear!" i am NOT making this up.



Pat, perhaps this is something for our �design folks� to recommend; however I do not agree that it is something our �rules committee� should be involved with. Unless they plan on adding another stipulation to our rules concerning lies within 10 meters of the pin, something I personally dislike, but that is not without precedent. This is not related directly to the discussion at hand, which is whether the 2 meter rule is an appropriate addendum to our vertical relief rule (�Above the Playing Surface�).


in discussing the change with the most experienced players - i'm talking about solid open players and open masters players who cash in tour-quality fields - they are vehemently against the blanket removal of the 2MR. most did not care about having no penalty for fairway 2M situations. and most also thought the 10M drop zone proposal makes sense and is fair.



Even if I accepted your �sample� poll as conclusive, which I do not, rules should not be defined or regulated by popular demand, they should be based on promoting fair play. That is where I am looking for your points about this topic to have credence. But as discussed above, your point is more related to our within 10 meters rules than to vertical relief on the rest of the course, so in my opinion it is twice removed from the topic at hand.

this is what i want:
1) the rules committee to recommend STRONGLY that TDs handle 2M situations within 10M with some sort of drop zone approach;


2) the competition director to clearly state what options are pre-approved for 2M situations within 10M, and to strongly recommend that such options are used;
3) the design committee to include strategies for dealing with 2M situations within 10M in its course design guidance.

[/QUOTE]

Pat, though I would not use these options as a TD, I have nothing against you promoting them (perhaps as a lead by example TD yourself or getting TDs you know to try it); but I do not want to see any such handling of the situation be included in the rulebook or an official decree by the PDGA Rules Committee or Board of Directors. If our rules allow it, and they currently do, then that is enough. If you want to promote this as an option that should receive serious attention by TDs, I support you in your efforts short of official PDGA involvement.

couple interesting notes: the course we played yesterday is heavily wooded, and quite technical with narrow defined routes to the pins. about four of the 21 holes do not have serious chances for 2M situation within 10M, but even those do have the possibility. since its winter and there are not any leave and the vines are more thin and brittle, there was less chance of getting stuck anywhere, although it did happen.
i am happy to report that i DID stick 20' up at about 24' from a pin :):):) and yes i was bombing the top, quite conscious of the no risk clause /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Individual instances do not prove a point. Last year I played in 21 PDGA events here in the North East, on courses with more 2 meter danger than probably most regions of the world (that of it that I have seen) and I did not take a single 2 meter penalty in any of them. In fact I can�t remember the last time I did. And if you know anyone who knows me they will tell you that no one loves to throw spike hyzers (on approaches and drives) more than I do. Does this prove that the removal of the 2 meter rule will be irrelevant? No, but neither does your example prove that it will be dramatic.

Again, the removal of the 2 meter rule is a matter of �vertical relief� plain and simple. What you propose is a matter for �within 10 meters rules�. Yes, it is related in that it is an �above the playing surface� rule also, but the context is different. You are assuming that everyone is cool with the no penalty throw relief outside that 10 meters, and clearly that is not yet resolved. You are also assuming that everyone is cool with the 2 meter designation, which I know in my case at least is completely uncool and unresolved. I mean a TD under current rules could do as you suggest for any disc within 10 meters �not on the playing surface� instead of 2 meters up; or use 3 meters up as the standard; or they could use an asymmetrical designated area around the pin ranging from 0 to 200 meters. All of which are interesting options, none of which should be written within our rulebooks.

Removal of the 2 meter rule would allow this. It would allow complete freedom with regards to how a TD or Course Designer handles certain areas �vertical relief� just as they are given complete control of how they handle areas �horizontal relief�. Some with penalty throws, some without; some with casual relief, some without.

I would rather stick with rules that are universal for simplicity, ease ,consistency and to avoid controversial rulings.



Those are the "exact" reasons we are reviewing this rule Steve, because the 2 meter rule IS NOT simple, ease, consistent or uncontroversial, and it's universal nature is pretty much the reason it fails in all of those areas.

I noticed that you did not answer my question as to whether I understood your point about why you think the 2 meter rule has to do with playing your lie where it lies or not. Why is that?

If an argument is made in favor of the 2 meter rule that fits contextually within our other rules of play I will be more than glad to recognize that fact. Thus far that has not happened.


I don't understand this, because technically the 2-meter rule is already part of our rules of play, and hence already "fits contextually" within them.

Are you trying to say that the 2-meter rule is inconsistent with respect to the other rules? I'm not sure I understand that, either, because many of the PDGA rules relate to each other like apples and oranges. The 2m rule is just another orange.

I guess my perspective is to look at the 2m rule for its own sake, not to see how it fits with respect to other rules. Is there a single, running theme within our rules? If so, it should be explicitly stated somewhere -- rather than allow it to be inferred in many ways by different people. Is it the Rule of Verticality which has you so upset with the 2m rule?


Every argument in favor of the rule is based on the fact that it has always been a rule and therefore is correct somehow (which is neither a fact nor a convincing or contextual argument).


This is not entirely true (or false). I think you're running into the idea that you are changing the rule, and therefore you are the one who needs to justify the change. You want instead for the rest of us to justify keeping the present rule. That's just another way of looking at it, but I don't say to you that you are therefore in love with change for change's sake, anymore than you should say to me that we are in love with the present rules and never want to change. The present rules are merely useful as a starting point of discussion, because that's where we are right now. Your change to the rules has to be carefully considered so that we don't keep doing this again and again. It's bad for the sport to have rules constantly in flux, isn't it?

So when we defend the 2m rule, or aspects of it, we aren't arguing against any and all changes to it. We are simply looking at the specific alternatives which you and others have raised. And the alternatives you have mentioned may have a good intention, but the language of the rule change is important, and may have several undesirable results if not crafted carefully. We don't want to replace a somewhat contentious issue with an even more contentious one, do we? Instead, there may be another way to do essentially what you want, with better language, and I think that's what sandalman has been trying to put together.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If an argument is made in favor of the 2 meter rule that fits contextually within our other rules of play I will be more than glad to recognize that fact. Thus far that has not happened.


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


I don't understand this, because technically the 2-meter rule is already part of our rules of play, and hence already "fits contextually" within them.

Are you trying to say that the 2-meter rule is inconsistent with respect to the other rules? I'm not sure I understand that, either, because many of the PDGA rules relate to each other like apples and oranges. The 2m rule is just another orange.

I guess my perspective is to look at the 2m rule for its own sake, not to see how it fits with respect to other rules. Is there a single, running theme within our rules? If so, it should be explicitly stated somewhere -- rather than allow it to be inferred in many ways by different people. Is it the Rule of Verticality which has you so upset with the 2m rule?




I'm afraid I do not understand what you are saying? The 2 meter rule is not a proper hazard or relief rule, it is a strange stipulation within our lie rule. Vertical hazards should be treated the same way as all other hazards and similarly as far as relief.

This is not entirely true (or false). I think you're running into the idea that you are changing the rule, and therefore you are the one who needs to justify the change.


Yes, that may well be a part of it, however when I look at the rules as a whole the 2 meter rule sticks out like a very sore thumb. I see no reason for its existence when we already have OB and Casual Areas that are fully functional.


You want instead for the rest of us to justify keeping the present rule. That's just another way of looking at it, but I don't say to you that you are therefore in love with change for change's sake, anymore than you should say to me that we are in love with the present rules and never want to change.


I am not interested in your motivation for supporting the 2 meter rule, I want to know what are the actual justifications �rules-wise� for supporting it.


The present rules are merely useful as a starting point of discussion, because that's where we are right now. Your change to the rules has to be carefully considered so that we don't keep doing this again and again. It's bad for the sport to have rules constantly in flux, isn't it?


I believe that I have, carefully considered the consequences, as has the PDGA Rules Committee and event the PDGA Board of Directors, and we all have concluded that the 2 meter rule should be make �just another� hazard rule available to TDs and Course Designers. (Yes there are dissenting individuals, but do not under appreciate the incredible amount of work and discussion that has gone into bringing us to this point. From what I know, it was not the revised language of the 2 meter rule that postponed the rules updates.)


So when we defend the 2m rule, or aspects of it, we aren't arguing against any and all changes to it. We are simply looking at the specific alternatives which you and others have raised. And the alternatives you have mentioned may have a good intention, but the language of the rule change is important, and may have several undesirable results if not crafted carefully. We don't want to replace a somewhat contentious issue with an even more contentious one, do we? Instead, there may be another way to do essentially what you want, with better language, and I think that's what sandalman has been trying to put together.



I appreciate Pat�s idea, I even think it is logical, it is not at the heart of this issue however, it is a decision and �option� for once we have agreed that OB and Casual Areas rules are better at handling vertical hazards. Basically, the default for �vertical relief� is to mark it on the playing surface directly below the disc and play on without penalty throw. If a TD or Course Designer wants to add a penalty stroke to such relief than use the OB rule to do so (with it�s various relief options). Though I would tend against using Pat�s suggestion, it is intriguing and it might well be fun to play in an event where that was the rule but I do not want to finally defeat one form of course design constriction to replace it with another. Best practices will speak for themselves, they do not need to be included in our rulebook.

This is similar to the Disc Golf Par discussion, where folks had some good ideas, but I wanted to nail down the fundamental premise first and before including, what seemed to me, uncritical details. I am, quite obviously no politician, I�m going to give you my take on it straight on, perhaps that is not the best way to get things done, but then I have been around this board long enough that this is purely for entertainment and that nothing of significant importance is going to get done here anyway. (A 3 message PM exchange between us would likely accomplish more than all 3000 posts on this topic here on the board. But again, it wouldn�t be as much fun, I don�t know why; it isn�t that way for everyone I know, but it is for me.)

...Though I would tend against using Pat�s suggestion...

actually, it was Chuck Kennedy's suggestion, not mine. maybe even someone earlier than Chuck stated it.

when Chuck did state it, i became starkly aware that my initial resistance to killing the 2MR was because i failed to recognize that there are basic 2M situations, ie fairway and within 10M. Chuck's solution offered a way to completely agree with no 2MR on the fairway, and also solves the 10M situation rather eloquently.

yes, for some courses, it would be a measurable amount of work for the staff. i have a feeling that the work would be reduced each tournament as drop zones become more well-defined.

over the next coupla months i'll be marking 10M circles on the applicable holes at Veterans, and working with the other TDs to establish dropzones. rules for sunday mini's may well vary by TD, but that will be ok too.

btw, nick, my specific examples were not intended to yield a general justification but only to serve as a possibly humurous anecdote.

If you saw my 10m idea before, it might be because I posted it at least a year or two ago, maybe even more.

I am not interested in your motivation for supporting the 2 meter rule


Well, if you're not interested in our motivation, then stop talking about our motivation. Seems simple enough.

From what I know, it was not the revised language of the 2 meter rule that postponed the rules updates.


Then explain this from Terry, posted on 01/05/05: "At that point, the list [of rule changes]... was to go to the Rules Committee with the request that they provide new rules language for the "easy" fixes we knew we could all agree on... As it turned out, when we (the board) ended up having to vote *now* on the rules changes, there were things in there that were not easily agreed-upon and outside the scope of the agreement we had made in Augusta."

I am not interested in your motivation for supporting the 2 meter rule


Well, if you're not interested in our motivation, then stop talking about our motivation. Seems simple enough.



I only brought it up when it was apparent that that was the sole point of contention.



From what I know, it was not the revised language of the 2 meter rule that postponed the rules updates.


Then explain this from Terry, posted on 01/05/05: "At that point, the list [of rule changes]... was to go to the Rules Committee with the request that they provide new rules language for the "easy" fixes we knew we could all agree on... As it turned out, when we (the board) ended up having to vote *now* on the rules changes, there were things in there that were not easily agreed-upon and outside the scope of the agreement we had made in Augusta."


Somewhere in here it said that the 2 meter language was not one of those main points of concern. Only time will tell if that is the case. But I hope that the BOD does not see fit to undo 14 years or more of discussion and work and debate by the PDGA Rules Committee.

This is similar to the Disc Golf Par discussion, where folks had some good ideas, but I wanted to nail down the fundamental premise first and before including, what seemed to me, uncritical details.


My take is that when the fundamental premise generates a mess of unintended consequences (maybe these are what you call "uncritical details"), then you have to question the fundamental premise. If getting rid of the 2m rule means complicating the lost-disc rule, then I wonder if that is the right thing to do. If making the 2m rule more like OB makes for more work for TDs to mark the OBs and more work for players to understand all the OB possibilities, then I wonder again if eliminating the 2m rule is the right thing to do. Perhaps the 2m rule is not ideal, in that all discs thrown into trees don't stick in them, but until I hear an alternative that doesn't shift the burden to another rule or onto the backs of the TDs, I'm not much in favor of the elimination of the 2m rule. So you see how details can derail a premise for some.

I am, quite obviously no politician, I�m going to give you my take on it straight on, perhaps that is not the best way to get things done, but then I have been around this board long enough that this is purely for entertainment and that nothing of significant importance is going to get done here anyway. (A 3 message PM exchange between us would likely accomplish more than all 3000 posts on this topic here on the board. But again, it wouldn�t be as much fun, I don�t know why; it isn�t that way for everyone I know, but it is for me.)


Yeah. I guess this is kinda fun. And a challenge. I always like a challenge.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say this is purely for entertainment purposes. People discuss things, gnash their minds on a topic, and in the end maybe a few people come together and make a rule change. People later discuss the rule change, and share their experiences with it.

Rule changes, throwing techniques, course designs, tournament results... lotta stuff covered by this forum. Our sport is spread out across the world, but on the web we're here. I like that.

I only brought it up when it was apparent that that was the sole point of contention.


I thought you had been saying for some time that our reason for defending the 2m rule is that we are in love with the rule, or that we simply hate changing it. That's talking about our motivation, isn't it?

But I hope that the BOD does not see fit to undo 14 years or more of discussion and work and debate by the PDGA Rules Committee.


That seems a little harsh. Is the debate over the 2m rule all the PDGA RC has been up to for the past 14 years?

getting rid of the 2m rule means complicating the lost-disc rule, then I wonder if that is the right thing to do.



Very funny when you know that it does nothing of the sort. If anything it will lead us to further clarify it. This has been fully detailed in another thread. But if you need me to explain it to you again I am ready and waiting.

If making the 2m rule more like OB makes for more work for TDs to mark the OBs and more work for players to understand all the OB possibilities, then I wonder again if eliminating the 2m rule is the right thing to do.



Now you are being purposefully misleading. Eliminating the 2 meter rule does nothing of the sort. Saying, "Above 2 meters is OB." Hardly constitutes "more work". And for the TDs that want to be more dynamic in their design use of 2 meters have that freedom and will, I am sure will be more than happy to mark off areas (particularly ones with FUVARed trees) and detail how to play them at the players meeting and in the event program.

But simply eliminating the 2 meter rule is simpler than having it rules wise. You play the same way just with no penalty throw.

Perhaps the 2m rule is not ideal, in that all discs thrown into trees don't stick in them, but until I hear an alternative that doesn't shift the burden to another rule or onto the backs of the TDs, I'm not much in favor of the elimination of the 2m rule. So you see how details can derail a premise for some.



The burden would be shifted to where it properly should have been since the dawn of our game.

Details are fine once we understand the guiding and underlying principle. If that underlying principle is simple and strong enough then there will be acceptable possibilities for everyone short of the people that can accept no alternative but their own. The 2 meter rule allows no dessent, it is an all or nothing proposition.

I would rather stick with rules that are universal for simplicity, ease ,consistency and to avoid controversial rulings.



Those are the "exact" reasons we are reviewing this rule Steve, because the 2 meter rule IS NOT simple, ease, consistent or uncontroversial, and it's universal nature is pretty much the reason it fails in all of those areas.





Assuming the 2MR were to remain universely enforced at all PDGA events I don't see any confusion or gray area or difficulty in making rulings.

Simple/Consistent:
Two meters is a given measurement in the same way ten meters for jump putts is a given measurement as are many other instances where we making rulings based upon a given measurement. If disc eating Cedars abound on a given course they could follow Seneca's lead with an abundance of 2m measuring sticks, but even if no measuring stick is availiable I believe the group can make an accurate, fair call.

Uncontroversial(or noncontroversial):
Like I mentioned in a previous post, in seventeen years of competitive golf I've never witnessed a 2MR ruling dispute (however I've witnessed many disputes concerning OB's, falling putts and foot faults).

Ease:
If the rule remains universal, there's no need for special OB provisions, marking with yellow tape or announcements at players mtgs

Having the rule be in place at some events but not others or in some circumstances but not others would no doubt complicate things, provide more work, more controversy and be inconsistent.
However, as I said, if it were to remain universal I see no problems in the future as I have seen no problems in my previous seventeen years.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I only brought it up when it was apparent that that was the sole point of contention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought you had been saying for some time that our reason for defending the 2m rule is that we are in love with the rule, or that we simply hate changing it. That's talking about our motivation, isn't it?



Again, I only brought it up when it was apparent that that was the sole point of contention.

When other points were raised I addressed them. Do you want me to address each of them again? No problem. Actually, I have summarized them several times up thread here.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I hope that the BOD does not see fit to undo 14 years or more of discussion and work and debate by the PDGA Rules Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That seems a little harsh. Is the debate over the 2m rule all the PDGA RC has been up to for the past 14 years?



Now I know that you are being purposefully misleading.

I can summarize your post thusly Steve:

Nothing could be simpler or more clear than keeping it the way we have always done it.

Steve, have we always used OB and IBs in disc golf? Is that more complicated than the 2 meter rule?

Why do you suppose we don't have more universal hazard rules in disc golf? Why is this the only one?

I noticed that you did not answer my question as to whether I understood your point about why you think the 2 meter rule has to do with playing your lie where it lies or not. Why is that?



*sigh* *deep breath*

WelI, actually I was taking a greatly needed "debate with Nick" break. Did you think I was kidding when I said my head felt sore from repeatedly banging it into a brick wall?

It seems to require many, many back and forth posts before the slightest bit of communication becomes evident. You are making some progress in understanding my position but I fear it may take another 20 or 30 posts to convey my view before you really understand what I'm saying. (most people even those opposed to my viewpoint would get it within 3-5 posts) I'm not sure committing all the time and effort in stating my position 16 different ways is a good use of my time. (Talking to Mitch about his red Uranus and how to grip it is far more entertaining if not productive) :eek:

Steve, have we always used OB and IBs in disc golf? Is that more complicated than the 2 meter rule?




Like I said I've seen more disputes (maybe 15-20 or so) with OB calls than the 2MR (0)
While I've seen these disputes, I'm not going to argue we need to eliminate all OB, nor am I going to say we need to modify our rules concerning OB. Making 2MR a part of OB as a special condition within the OB umbrella doesn't sit well with me since I believe it should remain universal,not conditional.

Why do you suppose we don't have more universal hazard rules in disc golf? Why is this the only one?



No universal hazards eh? I'm not totally convinced. I believe you could make a good point there are some universal hazards.

Tell me Nick have you ever in all your years of competitive golf ever played in a PDGA event that a lake,pond or river was not out of bounds???

Please tell me if in fact they were all (coincidently) hazards why do you think that was??? (and yes I want a well thought out answer)

Why do you suppose we don't have more universal hazard rules in disc golf? Why is this the only one?



No universal hazards eh? I'm not totally convinced. I believe you could make a good point there are some universal hazards.

Tell me Nick have you ever in all your years of competitive golf ever played in a PDGA event that a lake,pond or river was not out of bounds???

Please tell me if in fact they were all (coincidently) hazards why do you think that was??? (and yes I want a well thought out answer)



You first. What other hazard is universal? Which other hazard is not controlled by the TD or course designer?

Steve, have we always used OB and IBs in disc golf? Is that more complicated than the 2 meter rule?




Like I said I've seen more disputes (maybe 15-20 or so) with OB calls than the 2MR (0)
While I've seen these disputes, I'm not going to argue we need to eliminate all OB, nor am I going to say we need to modify our rules concerning OB. Making 2MR a part of OB as a special condition within the OB umbrella doesn't sit well with me since I believe it should remain universal,not conditional.



You can "believe" and "feel" but that does not an argument make. Why?

Why do you suppose we don't have more universal hazard rules in disc golf? Why is this the only one?



No universal hazards eh? I'm not totally convinced. I believe you could make a good point there are some universal hazards.

Tell me Nick have you ever in all your years of competitive golf ever played in a PDGA event that a lake,pond or river was not out of bounds???

Please tell me if in fact they were all (coincidently) hazards why do you think that was??? (and yes I want a well thought out answer)



You first. What other hazard is universal? Which other hazard is not controlled by the TD or course designer?



Surprise, surprise you ignoring my question and instead trying to turn my question into something it's not.

Tell me Nick have you ever in all your years of competitive golf ever played in a PDGA event that a lake,pond or river was not out of bounds???

Please tell me if in fact they were all (coincidently) hazards why do you think that was??? (and yes I want a well thought out answer)



This is the question I posed. Yes it is a two part question. The first part is yes or no . The second part is if the answer to the first part was yes, then why do you suppose that was the case.

Yes I know the answer but I'd like to hear it from you. You know full well what the answer is, which is why you are avoiding it.

You can "believe" and "feel" but that does not an argument make. Why?



No kidding. I'm not making an argument in the post you're referring to.
I use the term believe and feel because it should be unneccessary to have to restate how I've arrived at my position in every stinkin post. If you answer my question about significant bodies of water being consistently OB I can try to explain my position one more time from a different approach.

Surprise, surprise you ignoring my question and instead trying to turn my question into something it's not.


No more than you have Steve, and I did ask mine first.

Show me where in our rules another hazard is universal?

I can answer your question easily. It is the same answer as for my question. Read your rulebook for the answer.

Steve, have we always used OB and IBs in disc golf? Is that more complicated than the 2 meter rule?




Like I said I've seen more disputes (maybe 15-20 or so) with OB calls than the 2MR (0)
While I've seen these disputes, I'm not going to argue we need to eliminate all OB, nor am I going to say we need to modify our rules concerning OB. Making 2MR a part of OB as a special condition within the OB umbrella doesn't sit well with me since I believe it should remain universal,not conditional.



You did not answer my question, try again: have we always used OB and IBs in disc golf? Is that more complicated than the 2 meter rule?

You can "believe" and "feel" but that does not an argument make. Why?



No kidding. I'm not making an argument in the post you're referring to.
I use the term believe and feel because it should be unneccessary to have to restate how I've arrived at my position in every stinkin post. If you answer my question about significant bodies of water being consistently OB I can try to explain my position one more time from a different approach.



It is necessary to restate it in this case because you have gone in two completely opposite directions concerning your premise about "playing it where it lies" and "reach". I suspect that you do not want to rehash it because the irony is now all too apparent. You can not play it where it lies and move it from 2 meters to the playing surface, just as you can not base the 2 meter rules on average reach because that is some kind of "lie reach bubble" since not everyone can reach the same distance. So I am still waiting for your "stinkin' " substantiation of the 2 meter rule.

I am trying to take this debate forward, not backward. I don't want to spend another ten posts trying to define the play it as it lies concept or to play it within close proximity concept or as you are calling a lie bubble. The whole reach principle is others' concept and has little relevance to my point of view and your repeated referring to it is misrepresenting my position. But as I said I don't want to rehash old unresolved debates.

Therefore I want to try explaining my position from a different point of view which is why I want you to participate in telling me if you've ever experienced a PDGA event that had a significant body of water that was not OB .
I understand that you will not find any mandate in our rulebook requiring TDs to make lakes, ponds and rivers ob hazards but I want to know why does every TD choose to make them OB?

Keep trying. Nick has about 15 "standard tangents" in his arsenal, and he will keep breaking them out in succession to derail logical debate.

I understand that you will not find any mandate in our rulebook requiring TDs to make lakes, ponds and rivers ob hazards but I want to know why does every TD choose to make them OB?




Currently, all of the 'white' water on the ground up here is not OB and you don't get a lost disc penalty in it. That would be true even for PDGA events in winter. Even in summer, our marshes, discussed on another thread are not always OB but called casual because the water/land boundary is ill-defined. Even more relevant to your line of thinking are asphalt paths which are OB for some PDGA events and not others.

I do understand that pavement, parking lots, macadam and the like would be sometimes OB and other times IB. I also see your point with marshes. Specificly I am looking for an instance where a significant body of water with defined borders (ponds,lakes or rivers) was ruled in bounds. I'll now open this question to anyone, not just Nick as it seems he has no interest in answering it (interest or fear????).

I have run an event or two where I declared a signficant permanent body of liquid water not out of bounds. I did it primarily because declaring it not out of bounds was an equal or greater penalty than having it be out of bounds, but the water itself was not particularly hazardous. Also playing it in bounds would introduce some players to the casual water relief rule and the unplayable lie rule.

When Jon and I and his friends invented our own rules to frisbee golf we played the Des Plaines River as out of bounds because it was not safe to wade in it. We played safer bodies of water as play it where it lies, or take a stroke penalty where you went in, your option, unless it was declared out of bounds in advance.

Nick is only pretending to be dense. We make water and streets and up in trees a stroke penalty for two reasons primarily: it is self-evident that if you are taking relief from playing where your disc landed you take a penalty, and for some lies we want you to take relief for reasons of safety, practicality or preservation of the flora. Two meters, specifically, is merely an objective, uniform convention, as are our marking and stance rules.

That's my take on it and I'll revisit the thread in a month or two! :D

Nick is only pretending to be dense. We make water and streets and up in trees a stroke penalty for two reasons primarily: it is self-evident that if you are taking relief from playing where your disc landed you take a penalty, and for some lies we want you to take relief for reasons of safety, practicality or preservation of the flora. Two meters, specifically, is merely an objective, uniform convention, as are our marking and stance rules.

That's my take on it and I'll revisit the thread in a month or two! :D



That's right. We require players to take relief for their own safety,practicality and to preserve the flora.

I see the need for taking relief from 30 feet up in the tree much the same as 30 feet out in a lake. You don't want player injuries you don't want to injure the tree and besides it would look rather hokey and unprofessional to play a disc from 30 feet up in a tree or from the middle of a pond.

We assess a stroke penalty because you are playing your shot from a different position than where you threw it. For some reason some people think horizontal relief must be penalized but vertical relief shouldn't be penalized.

Our game is three dimensional. When we putt there is a heighth requirement as well as a directional requirement. Because this is a three dimensional game and not just two dimensional I see vertical relief much the same way I see horizontal relief.

I see vertical relief much the same way I see horizontal relief



Unfortunately, the real world doesn't see it that way. Gravity is a force out of the player's control that works vertically, not horizontally. If you throw a disc that will land roughly 30 feet into a horizontal marked area like OB, you're pretty sure it will remain there. However, if you throw a disc toward a spot in a tree 30 feet vertically above ground, it's likely not going to stay there because gravity continues to operate and change the disc's position relative to the ground. The primary issue with vertical penalties is whether a high probability of the same type of shot gets treated the same. If a shot 30 feet in the air stuck there with a similar probability as a shot 30 feet into an OB area, then I think you have a case for a penalty. Otherwise, it's a fluky penalty in addition to the loss of distance penalty for landing there.

Not that I really agree with the dismisal of the 2 meter rule, but I played a tournament last weekend that didnt enforce the 2 meter rule and it didnt really make much of a difference.

. The primary issue with vertical penalties is whether a high probability of the same type of shot gets treated the same. If a shot 30 feet in the air stuck there with a similar probability as a shot 30 feet into an OB area, then I think you have a case for a penalty. Otherwise, it's a fluky penalty in addition to the loss of distance penalty for landing there.



For some reason I don't see the relevance of probability. We penalize the improbable quite often.Every tournament has victims of improbable events I don't see how probability factors into why or why not we should penalize someone for playing a shot from an entirely different position than where he threw it.

Is this just another "we shouldn't penalize bad luck" arguement or is also a "being stuck in a tree is bad enough a player shouldn't be double penalized" theory?

I suspect that at most courses the effect would be minimal. However there are a some courses that would be affected significantly. Some courses have an abudance of trees that will catch your disc. Others have prominant trees close to the pins. On some of these courses (I said some, not all, not most) the trees near the basket will likely become targets for players with big arms who would opt to ignore the fairway and just bomb it over top and try to hit a tree close to the basket.

Let's say you have a bird's eye view above a tree. Let's say it's possible to throw 100 shots at the 'same' 5 ft area in the tree say 20 feet off the ground. Let's say we agree that on that hole, throwing at the spot would be considered a bad throw since you're still roughly 200 feet from the basket.

We do a scattergram on paper where the shots landed projected to the ground where the next throw will be taken. None of these throws is particularly great but some might have a better lie or angle to the basket than others. That's where the 'fair' luck and randomness comes into the game for a bad throw. The fact that one or two of those shots landed up in the tree above a certain height, whatever that is, shouldn't matter to the extent they deserve an additional penalty. Of course, if we can't find one of those throws then it deserves a lost disc penalty.

I don't disagree with that there is luck involved. Surely there is. You seem to be of the "we shouldn't penalize bad luck" camp.

I say you need to be penalized if you can not play from the position of your disc. If you are taking 10,20 or 60 feet of relief I believe a penalty is in order. Being that it is vertical or horizontal makes no difference. If you stick in a tree 30 feet directly above the basket, you are 30 feet away from the target. Just because the distance is one direction versus another direction makes no difference.
As far as the probability factor that to me should be a non issue. Two people putt from 15 feet away. They both hit close to dead center with the same velocity. One sinks uneventfully into the bottom of the basket. Unfortunately by a freak of nature the second putter experiences "ring rejection" the disc gets ejected and hits the ground, catches an edge and rolls 80 feet downhill into a river. One player gets a par, the other a circle six. It happens we all have seen it, heard about it even experienced it ourselves. We shouldn't change or eliminate rules in an attempt to sympathize with unlucky situations.

It's nice to have some new blood re-stating the obvious. Again.

Keep up the good work, Steve. Eventually you will tire of posting answers to the same ole same ole. Hopefully in two months when Nick and Chuck are still beating the same old line into the ground and you are tired, yet another will step up.

C'mon Rhett. That gravity angle was brand new wasn't it? And I've got another one coming...

The gravity angle was inconsequential when the "birds eye view...throw 100 shots at the same 5 foot section of tree" thing was used. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I hope that the BOD does not see fit to undo 14 years or more of discussion and work and debate by the PDGA Rules Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That seems a little harsh. Is the debate over the 2m rule all the PDGA RC has been up to for the past 14 years?



Now I know that you are being purposefully misleading.


Misleading? Nick, is English a second language of yours? You are exaggerating, I'm simply pointing out your exaggeration in what I thought was a humorous manner (do we need to reinstitute smiley faces?), and for doing that you call me misleading?!?!?

That's almost calling me a liar, Nick. Please be more careful in your future posts, because no one likes to be called a liar.

Of course, if we can't find one of those throws then it deserves a lost disc penalty.


Why "of course"? Isn't it a matter of luck, sometimes, that you can't find a disc? You can be standing right next to the disc and still not see it. Seems an awful thing to penalize someone for losing a disc -- losing a disc seems a bad enough thing already.

There. See how the argument against the 2m rule seems like it could be easily used against the lost-disc rule?

OK, here's another angle. A while back, the rules were modified to eliminate compound penalties. I believe few feel that a player should receive a lost disc penalty when the last place seen is over OB, or someone should get a 2-meter penalty when their disc is suspended in an OB area or that someone should get an OB penalty when they also miss a mando on the same throw. These fluky situations have been reduced to just a single throw penalty. But these scenarios fall in the same realm as a bad throw into trees and then compounding it with another throw penalty for the fluky occurrence of being suspended above 2m.

See how the argument against the 2m rule seems like it could be easily used against the lost-disc rule?




We've already covered the different flavors of 'lost disc,' which needs some work, on another thread if you want to check it out.

Dunipace and Duvall have influenced my thoughts on 'bad luck' around the basket. I believe a rollaway into OB should be considered weak design. OB can still come as close as 30 feet to a basket but it should be difficult for a disc to end up OB by rolling away from a struck basket by either using logs, curbs, sand or wood chips.

With regard to 'good' putts going thru the chains, I already covered that as a probability of occurrence that's in the same realm as getting a 2m penalty. However, we can remove the flukiness of the 2m penalty. Just because we can't yet squeeze out the chance for a bad luck putt doesn't mean we shouldn't correct another aspect of the rules where we can remove it.

I would also say that I'm inclined to start selectively removing a chain or two on different baskets to randomly change the chances of a bad luck putt to different levels on different holes. If we're willing to tolerate different probabilities of getting a fluky 2m penalty by having different types of trees and positions on the fairways, then we should also be in favor of having the designer vary the bad luck probabilities in a similar way for putting. Seems like these are parallel fluky situations that we should either embrace, or my preference would be to eliminate where possible.

These fluky situations have been reduced to just a single throw penalty. But these scenarios fall in the same realm as a bad throw into trees and then compounding it with another throw penalty for the fluky occurrence of being suspended above 2m.


You have once again thrown up a big pile of horse crap in an attempt to divert the discussion. And you have once again drawn me back in. Shame on me. :(

The difference, Chuck, as you well aware, is that the fluky situations you are using as a distraction to the topic are indeed penalized with a penalty stroke. As is the lie above 2 meters. Except now you are so against the lie above 2 meters being penalized that you appear to be willing to say anything to get people to be against it.

You yourself, in the quoted text above, have just stated that fluky situation get penalty strokes. You seem to have no animosity towards those fluky and exceptionally unlucky penalties. Then you follow that up with the argument that the penalty for landing above 2 meters is so-o-o-o-o-o-o fluky and unlucky that, of course, it must be abolished because we can't have fluky luck influencing our game.

Yet you have no problem with fluky luck influencing our game, as long as it isn't "above 2-meter" fluky luck.

So you are exceptionally inconsistent in your argument. So much so that I have to conclude that you have some sort of irrational personal vendetta against the 2-meter rule.

So you're saying that as long as someone gets a 1-throw penalty out of it, it's OK to reduce compound penalties for fluky multiple penalties. However, if you have compound situation where you have a bad shot and a penalty, that this situation can't be reduced to just the bad shot? Tsk,tsk...

Okay. I'm interested in removing bad luck from the sport.

So I propose:

...whenever a gust of wind takes a disc OB, no penalty. Player gets to re-throw.
...when a disc is lost, no penalty... re-throw.
...when a disc gets stuck in a tree... re-throw.
...when a disc is in a bad lie... re-throw.
...when a disc breaks against a tree... re-throw.
...when rain affects a disc... re-throw.
...when a disc rolls down a hill, especially after tapping the basket... re-throw.
...when a disc hits a basket in the chains, but one of the chains is broken and the disc falls out... re-throw.
...when a player's footing is obstructed in some unexpected manner during a throw... re-throw.
...when a damaged tree branch obstructs a fairway...
...when a creek carries a disc away...
...when the sun gets in your eyes...
...when a thunderclap startles you...
...when someone coughs behind you...
...when a child cries out somewhere in the park...
...when the squirrels squeak too loudly...
...when a disc skips off the ground at an odd angle...
...when a scuffed up disc scratches a player's hand...
...when a disc hits another disc on the ground...
...when a player aims for the wrong basket because the course is poorly marked...
...when momentum is interrupted because a slower group of players is playing ahead...
...when the wrong disc is accidentally pulled from the bag...
...when it's Friday the 13th...
...

No, wait, forget all that. Let's just eliminate the 2m rule. Because? It penalizes shots that stick high up in trees, but doesn't penalize shots that hit trees and fall out. And that's singularly unfair. The disc should be given a lie vertically below the stuck disc with no penalty, because we all know that a disc has no horizontal velocity when it enters a tree. Consequently, no horizontal displacement occurrs when the lie is marked directly below where the disc is stuck. The disc would have, of course, fallen exactly on that spot if the tree had not been present. Well, at least within 5 meters of that spot.

No? You mean a tree catching a disc in flight has the same impact as giving a disc horizontal relief? If the tree hadn't been there, the disc would have landed well past the tree? And the disc would have potentially landed further and further away, the higher up in the tree it is caught? Really? Yes, I see how you might equate that with providing horizontal relief. Yes indeedy, you might. But not me.

Remember, I don't like the rule. It is unfair. I therefore eliminate it. All better.

Steve,

Yes I have played in events where water was not designated OB by the TD.

Key phrase being "designated by the TD" not by the rulebook.

If you are serious about moving this discussion forward ,answer this:

Is there any possibility that you could accept TDs deciding if and when to designate vertical hazards themselves?

Without that we are walking down different roads that will likely never meet up.

Keep trying. Nick has about 15 "standard tangents" in his arsenal, and he will keep breaking them out in succession to derail logical debate.



It's nice to have some new blood re-stating the obvious. Again.



Keep up the good work, Steve. Eventually you will tire of posting answers to the same ole same ole. Hopefully in two months when Nick and Chuck are still beating the same old line into the ground and you are tired, yet another will step up.



You have once again thrown up a big pile of horse crap



you are using as a distraction



Except now you are so against the lie above 2 meters being penalized that you appear to be willing to say anything to get people to be against it.



So you are exceptionally inconsistent in your argument. So much so that I have to conclude that you have some sort of irrational personal vendetta against the 2-meter rule.


Rhett,
A) Don�t ever lecture me again about hostile posts.
B) I guess you�re plum out of any points. How can I tell? Just like in the good ol� days when your logic runs dry you start belittling people. Pretty sad really. You would think if the 2MR was such a solid rule you would have plenty of valid arguments to offer. Hmmm?
Nick

Pro-2MR folks like to say,"Remove all luck from the sport" when that is not the issue at all.

1) Vertical Relief is already covered in our rules.
2) If a TD wants to penalize a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface(any distance they want) we already have excellent rules to do so. None of them being the poorly conceived and unoptional 2 meter rule.
3) Removing a degree of luck is just a bonus to dropping 2MR.

Attack that fact that OB and Casual Relief are superior to the 2MR if you are so confident in the strenght and necessity of the 2MR.

Let's see it. Or is that moving the discussion backwards? Or a tangent? Or a load of crap? Please provide more than venom. A valid contextual point would be greatly appreciated.

is there anyone left who is totally pro-2MR ???

hadn't most if not all had been able to agree that it should go, but that some coherent approach should be proposed for dealing with 2M situations within 10M of the basket.

Let's say you have a bird's eye view above a tree.

would that be the eagle soaring high above the tree looking for a rodent under the tree, or the sparrow warming her eggs in her nest in a forked branch, or the swallow swooping low under the branches dining on the evening's insects? :D

Pro-2MR folks like to say,"Remove all luck from the sport" when that is not the issue at all.


No, of course it's not. So stop talking about it. Do it again and it will cost you one throw penalty.

3) Removing a degree of luck is just a bonus to dropping 2MR.


Okay, that'll cost you one throw penalty.

1) Vertical Relief is already covered in our rules.


Sure, vertical relief. For a disc coming down, landing within 2 meters of the playing surface, there's vertical relief. What does that have to do with a disc not near the earth yet, getting stuck high up in a tree, getting vertical relief? The disc was moving horizontally before it got stuck, right? Wouldn't the disc have kept moving if it hadn't gotten stuck? See the difference? (No, of course, you don't. Why am I even asking?)

2) If a TD wants to penalize a disc that comes to rest above the playing surface(any distance they want) we already have excellent rules to do so.


What rules are you talking about, pray tell?

None of them being the poorly conceived and unoptional 2 meter rule.


Unoptional? How is that ESL course going, by the way?

Attack that fact that OB and Casual Relief are superior to the 2MR if you are so confident in the strenght and necessity of the 2MR.


Been there, done that. When I say OB's not as clear, more work for the TD, you say no, that's not true, so we're not agreeing on this.

Let's see it. Or is that moving the discussion backwards? Or a tangent? Or a load of crap?


You're responding to me, Nick, but you're using somebody else's words against me, not mine. Again, who's being misleading?

Please provide more than venom.


Well, I could say that you reap what you sow, man. But my last post was more valium than venom, I think. I was trying to be funny. Or are you talking to someone else again?

A valid contextual point would be greatly appreciated.


There you go again. I don't think you know what "contextual" even means. You use the word too often. Why couldn't you just say, "a valid point..."? But then, I'm also not sure you know what "valid" means, either. Hint: "valid" does not mean: "Nick-approved".

And as for " greatly appreciated" -- you may know what that means, but you never have exhibited much, if any, appreciation for opposing points of view, so why even say this? Why give people false hope?

is there anyone left who is totally pro-2MR ???

hadn't most if not all had been able to agree that it should go, but that some coherent approach should be proposed for dealing with 2M situations within 10M of the basket.


I do like the reasoned approach you take to modifying the rule, although I don't see the pressing need to change it.

But the take-it-or-leave-it approach that others use doesn't sit well with me. It makes me think this is not an objective change to the rules, but a subjective one. Some people just don't like the rule, and they've convinced themselves that there's some logical rationale for why they don't like it, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

So it will come down to the personal preferences of the majority on the RC and on the BoD, I suppose. Fine by me, but don't tell me that there's an objective reason behind the change when any questioning of that reasoning gets such an emotionally charged response. The reaction seems out of place if the rule change is so cut-and-dry.

I see vertical relief much the same way I see horizontal relief



Unfortunately, the real world doesn't see it that way. Gravity is a force out of the player's control that works vertically, not horizontally. If you throw a disc that will land roughly 30 feet into a horizontal marked area like OB, you're pretty sure it will remain there. However, if you throw a disc toward a spot in a tree 30 feet vertically above ground, it's likely not going to stay there because gravity continues to operate and change the disc's position relative to the ground. The primary issue with vertical penalties is whether a high probability of the same type of shot gets treated the same. If a shot 30 feet in the air stuck there with a similar probability as a shot 30 feet into an OB area, then I think you have a case for a penalty. Otherwise, it's a fluky penalty in addition to the loss of distance penalty for landing there.



well said, and your credentials speak for themselves. the 2 meter rule is obselete and only being held up by printing delays and those who have hardening of the orthodoxies. :D

the 2 meter rule is obselete and only being held up by printing delays and those who have hardening of the orthodoxies. :D


We disagree, but I do like this turn of phrase: "hardening of the orthodoxies".

is there anyone left who is totally pro-2MR ???

hadn't most if not all had been able to agree that it should go, but that some coherent approach should be proposed for dealing with 2M situations within 10M of the basket.

I have not read all 27 pages but it looks to me like there are lots of players who are totally for the 2-meter rule. Players who don't have a 300 foot top shelf throw and players who know how to roll under the trees are for it for self-interested reasons. Players who think it is common sense to penalize a player for taking extraordinary relief from where they threw their disc think there should be a penalty for common sense reasons. And I'll take Chuck's word for it that some are just resistant to change. Anyone who knows me, and knows all the experimental format stuff I've done, knows I am not resistant to change.

There is this one hole i'm thinking of where there are scattered clumps of honeysuckle in what might otherwise be called a fairway out in the area where a good throw is going to land. Honeysuckle is catchy. To me it seems to be a matter of luck whether you catch or drop so Nick thinks I should get free relief. Well, it is also a matter of luck whether I land behind a bush or six feet over, so shouldn't I get free relief from that too?

Hopefully, rational discourse will carry the day. My credentials only mean I might be able to wreak a little more havoc on unsuspecting players by maybe designing nets suspended over baskets and/or 10m drop zones near them. While it might appear I'm totally against the 2m rule, I'm really looking for ways to fairly resolve the issues such as the 10m drop zone for discs suspended over 2m near the basket.

Determining where a design element transitions from fair/reasonable to fluky/unreasonable is a quest underway by the design group. Here are some examples:

Fairway width - when does a fairway in the woods become too narrow to be 'fair' for a particular skill level?

Sloped putting area - when does the slope and texture of the ground become unfair?

OB by putting area - when is OB too close to be fair and the probability of hitting a basket & rolling OB too high?

Landing area size - when is the size too small to be fair?

Suspended discs - are there better ways to more fairly treat these scenarios than the blanket 2m rule?

At the extremes for each of these elements, it's pretty obvious when a scenario seems fair, like an 80 ft wide fairway. And, a 3 ft wide fairway seems obviously unfair. But somewhere between these extremes the fairness transitions to unfairness. Knowing where these crossover points are is critical for designers and can be elusive to pin down. The blanket 2m penalty seems fluky and unfair like a blunt instrument, one size fits all. But design elements like fairway width have shades of gray and it seems like some selective alternatives to the blanket 2m would be better.

The primary issue with vertical penalties is whether a high probability of the same type of shot gets treated the same.


Now, Chuck says the primary issue has to do with treating the same shot the same way, creating a high-probability result, but Nick says removing luck from the sport is not the issue at all.

Which is it?

If a shot 30 feet in the air stuck there with a similar probability as a shot 30 feet into an OB area, then I think you have a case for a penalty.


Wouldn't a better comparison be the ratio of bad wide shots that go OB versus the ratio of bad tall shots that get stuck in trees? I've made a lot of bad shots that go into trees, but very few have gotten stuck there. Likewise, I've made many, many more bad shots that go wildly left or right, but very few go OB. Going OB is more like getting stuck in a tree, resulting in equivalent penalties, while making a bad throw wide of target is more like making a bad throw above 2 meters into a tree that later falls out, resulting in a distance challenge.

So you're saying that as long as someone gets a 1-throw penalty out of it, it's OK to reduce compound penalties for fluky multiple penalties. However, if you have compound situation where you have a bad shot and a penalty, that this situation can't be reduced to just the bad shot? Tsk,tsk...


The vast majority of OB I come across at courses end up in very bad lies compared to landing in the fairway. (Of course there are some where "safety OBs" are close to the pin, so I expect you and Nick to ignore the rest of my post and focus on those.) Isn't a bad shot with accompanying bad lie penalty enough? Does it have to also get a penalty stroke to go with that bad lie? Tsk Tsk yourself.

But I'm saying the same thing. Hitting a tree (except around the green) is not a desirable shot to start with. It doesn't need an additional penalty for the few that stick vertically. And, around the green, I think the 10m drop zone for above 2m in the 10m circle would work well in lieu of a penalty.

Hopefully, rational discourse will carry the day. My credentials only mean I might be able to wreak a little more havoc on unsuspecting players by maybe designing nets suspended over baskets and/or 10m drop zones near them. While it might appear I'm totally against the 2m rule, I'm really looking for ways to fairly resolve the issues such as the 10m drop zone for discs suspended over 2m near the basket.



Well, the loud and vocal opposition to the 2 meter rule change don't seem to be listening (surprise, surprise), yet your comments clearly show you are hearing their concerns. I like the idea of a net suspended at 2 meters over an entire course for the "keep the 2 meter rule" diehards, especially if you randomly vary the width of the netting here and there to let a disc inconsistently drop through and be IB. In other places you need to put springs that fling the disc randomly in any direction. :D

As for the possibility of a drop zone 10 meters or more away from the pin for discs suspended above 2 meters in trees within 10meters of a basket -- I too see that it is worth consideration depending on the constraints of a given course. Maybe we could make a universal symbol like a red ribbon circling all trees where the 2 meter rule/drop zone applies (trees within 10 meters of a pin). That way tournaments where they apply could hang them up.

An interestign side question -- if there is a 10 meter drop zone for given trees for hole 6 and someone shanks hole 9's drive and ends up within 10 meters of 6's pin and suspended above 2 meters, would a penalty or drop zone apply? My suggestion is no -- it should only apply if you are within 10 meters of the basket for the hole you are playing.

Bruce:
To me it seems to be a matter of luck whether you catch or drop so Nick thinks I should get free relief. Well, it is also a matter of luck whether I land behind a bush or six feet over, so shouldn't I get free relief from that too?



Incorrect. That is Chuck�s contention. I think it is somewhat valid, but it is not the main point. And Bruce, what do you call moving a disc from 1.99 Meters above the playing surface to the playing surface? Chopped liver? Is that not �free relief�!?! Why doesn�t that outrage you and other 2MR advocates?

Paul
Now, Chuck says the primary issue has to do with treating the same shot the same way, creating a high-probability result, but Nick says removing luck from the sport is not the issue at all. Which is it?



Don�t be surprised. Chuck and I often disagree on things. I do not say that �the removal of luck where easily possible�, �gravity� or other theories are poor ones, I think they are excellent, but for me the primary point of contention is that it is a �blanket hazard� in the context of a sport with rules that do not have blanket hazards. There is no need for it when we have better rules to accomplish similar goals (if the TD chooses to) in a better and more uniform manner.

Rhett:
The vast majority of OB I come across at courses end up in very bad lies compared to landing in the fairway. (Of course there are some where "safety OBs" are close to the pin, so I expect you and Nick to ignore the rest of my post and focus on those.) Isn't a bad shot with accompanying bad lie penalty enough? Does it have to also get a penalty stroke to go with that bad lie? Tsk Tsk yourself.



OB is a TD specified area. The 2MR is not. Misuse of the 2MR has been a given, misuse of OB is optional.

agreed, if you are playing Hole A and get stuck in a tree within 10M of Pin B, there is no drop zone involved. kinda like mandos - they only apply to the hole for which they are designated.

btw, who are the people who are load and vocal about the 100% retention of the 2MR? i havent heard any recently, once it became clear that we could discuss the two different situations - fairway vs. 10M

is there anyone left who is totally pro-2MR ???

hadn't most if not all had been able to agree that it should go, but that some coherent approach should be proposed for dealing with 2M situations within 10M of the basket.


I do like the reasoned approach you take to modifying the rule, although I don't see the pressing need to change it.

But the take-it-or-leave-it approach that others use doesn't sit well with me.
<font color="green"> The only thing that I am take it or leave it about is that the rule in its current form needs to be stricken from our rulebook.

That is not the same thing as saying that there is no possible need or use for vertical-based hazards. And it is not to say that TDs that feel strongly that a universal vertical-based hazard needs to be observed during competition on �their� course.

It is saying that IT SHOULD NOT BE MANDATED within our rules. </font>

It makes me think this is not an objective change to the rules, but a subjective one. Some people just don't like the rule, and they've convinced themselves that there's some logical rationale for why they don't like it, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
<font color="green"> There are logical reasons for striking this specific rule, in its current form, from our rulebook. There are logical reasons for using a similar rule to accomplish very similar behavior at some courses, or holes or areas of holes.

The disagreement comes down to whether or not mandatory 2MR should be universal across all courses and competitions. In that regard, it is pretty evenly split. So why not let each have it their way, short of the other forcing their way on the other? </font>

So it will come down to the personal preferences of the majority on the RC and on the BoD, I suppose.
<font color="green"> Yes, I suppose it will, though I hope that the BoD is clever enough to bow to the will of the RC, most of them have been around since the dawn of the sport and if they are anything like me, they are always thinking about the rules and searching for ways to improve them or for gray areas or gaps to improve or fill in. </font>

Fine by me, but don't tell me that there's an objective reason behind the change when any questioning of that reasoning gets such an emotionally charged response. The reaction seems out of place if the rule change is so cut-and-dry.


<font color="green"> What do you mean by �cut-and-dry�? If the 2 meter rule is stricken, its equivalent within the OB rule is still available for TDs interested in continuing a similar (but more contextual and better functioning) hazard (and saying that �Everything 2 meters above the playing surface is OB� is not confusing or controversial�). If the 2 meter rule is not stricken, then you have mandated a rule that almost half the membership doesn�t like or see as contextually appropriate within our rules.

Chuck, Rob and Pat want to discuss best practices for dealing with a world without the 2MR. Those are very worthy topics. Certainly, once it is gone many excellent practices will be developed to create and manage vertical hazards. But it is not gone yet and folks cling to it like the future of our sport depends on it. That is the demons we must first slay, then work in earnest can begin on the new era of vertical hazards in disc golf. I am very interested in those topics, but first things first, right?</font>


<font color="blue"> Main Entry: con�text
Pronunciation: 'k�n-"tekst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave -- more at TECHNICAL
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING
- con�text�less /-"tekst-l&s/ adjective
- con�tex�tu�al /k�n-'teks-ch&-w&l, k&n-, -ch&l/ adjective
- con�tex�tu�al�ly adverb </font>



You're arguments have not been in the overall context of other disc golf rules. They may sound, feel or you believe them to be very convincing individually, but in context they are not sound, or at least I have found them not to be so.

Contextual analysis is something our culture seems to be losing skill at. We accept "nice sounding" things as if they have the same objective reasoning as contextually founded facts.

Bush says "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." Contextual reality says that he lies. Yet our press and people present them as if they are equal truths. They are not, and if they ever are, civilization as we know it is doomed and chaos will rule.

btw, who are the people who are <font color="red"> load </font> and vocal about the 100% retention of the 2MR?



What are you? Canadian? "It aboat time we be load and clear aboat this rule!"

btw, who are the people who are load and vocal about the 100% retention of the 2MR? i havent heard any recently, once it became clear that we could discuss the two different situations - fairway vs. 10M



Pat, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us gave up on the argument, since attempting to reason with the unreasonable (not you or Chuck, of course, but other individuals) is a waste of time. I still don't like the 'drop zone in the green' idea, or the 'nets above the basket' idea. Hopefully, every tourney I play this year and in years coming will have the rule in place. I imagine most will.

Pat, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us gave up on the argument



So apparently you �can speak for��some of us��

Your reasons are welcome here, but don�t expect them not to be discussed or that you will not need to discuss why they are credible. Within context�(Sorry Paul�)

Pat, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us gave up on the argument, since attempting to reason with the unreasonable...is a waste of time.


Dan speaks for me with that statement. (And that one only. :) )

Certainly, once it is gone many excellent practices will be developed to create and manage vertical hazards. But it is not gone yet and folks cling to it like the future of our sport depends on it. That is the demons we must first slay, then work in earnest can begin on the new era of vertical hazards in disc golf. I am very interested in those topics, but first things first, right?

no, actually quite wrong. in fact, the situation in 2005 is probably the absolute best solution to continue with until all issues created by "slaying" the rule are resolved. if you are a TD and you dont want the rule, you are free to suspend it. otherwise, it exists. no forcing of anything there.

{thread corruption on}
what is it with the "we-must-destroy-it-completely-then-later-come-up-with-a-plan-to-rebuild" mantra??? you are so fond of accusing Bush of the same approach in iraq. my perception is that you are behaving like the neo-fascists you supposedly despise.
{thread corruption off}

{thread corruption on}
what is it with the "we-must-destroy-it-completely-then-later-come-up-with-a-plan-to-rebuild" mantra??? you are so fond of accusing Bush of the same approach in iraq. my perception is that you are behaving like the neo-fascists you supposedly despise.
{thread corruption off}



LMAO!!!!

I'm not going to make this personal Pat. I just think that it would be advisable to resolve whether or not the 2MR should be replaced with Vertical Hazards before defining the exact nature of those specialized hazards.

Your idea is not really specific to the 2MR question; it has more to do with the 10MR or group of rules; Of which I am not a fan (in brief because it is so contrived - not dissimilar to the 2MR). But let�s discuss it. I am fine with proceeding under the presumption that the 2MR has been removed. But when someone joins in our discussion of this 10MR under the assumption that the 2MR should continue, there will be little common ground and likely misunderstanding based on a lack of acceptance of the 2MR eminent end.

As someone that will welcome the end of the 2MR, I do not like the idea of your proposal being a mandatory hazard at every course on every hole. Because it again removes the control of course design from the TD and places it in the rulebook, a mistake in my book.

As someone that will welcome the end of the 2MR, I would like the idea of your proposal being an option among many many that a TD might choose to use.

As someone that will welcome the end of the 2MR, I would like to see �Greens� physically defined in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes.

In short, as someone that will welcome the end of the 2MR, I want to make sure that as many folks as possible are on the same page as to why the end of the 2MR is a big advantage and positive for our sport and competitions, before getting into discussions where conflict is inevitable due to folks approaching it from completely different positions. But go for it. It is interesting at least, and maybe you are right, more folks than not are getting why the 2MR must go or at least become another vertical hazard option within our OB or Casual Relief areas in our rulebook.

{thread corruption on}
what is it with the "we-must-destroy-it-completely-then-later-come-up-with-a-plan-to-rebuild" mantra??? you are so fond of accusing Bush of the same approach in iraq. my perception is that you are behaving like the neo-fascists you supposedly despise.
{thread corruption off}



LMAO!!!!



For the record I have never accuse Bush of anything of the sort. That would be giving him too much credit...

[QUOTE]
Pat, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us gave up on the argument





So apparently you �can speak for��some of us��





Yes, we are called the 'silent majority'. :D

[QUOTE]
Pat, I can't speak for everyone, but some of us gave up on the argument





So apparently you �can speak for��some of us��





Yes, we are called the 'silent majority'. :D



If that were true, the 'silent' part, we would have no contention here. Same goes for the 'majority' part...

Bruce quoting Nick quoting Bruce:



To me it seems to be a matter of luck whether you catch or drop so Nick thinks I should get free relief. Well, it is also a matter of luck whether I land behind a bush or six feet over, so shouldn't I get free relief from that too?


Incorrect. That is Chuck�s contention. I think it is somewhat valid, but it is not the main point. And Bruce, what do you call moving a disc from 1.99 Meters above the playing surface to the playing surface? Chopped liver? Is that not �free relief�!?! Why doesn�t that outrage you and other 2MR advocates?

I thought I had answered that question but I delete so much without ever posting, I may be wrong.

The 2-meter rule is best understood in an evolutionary way. Early frisbee golfers, and people who made the game up without influence from the PDGA, encountered the disc above the playing surface the first or second time they played a hole over or near a hedgerow. Frisbees, being lighter and bigger, were stickier. In our case, it was on our first hole, over the hedgerow to the Lashbrook's maple tree. You try different solutions like "If you can put some part of your body where it stuck in the bush, it is no penalty." You decide that that is a different rule for tall players than for short players, and the tall players already have a huge advantage, so you try another rule, like, "If Bruce can't reach it standing flat footed it is a penalty," but is Bruce trying equally hard for everyone? How much blood must he lose trying to get flat footed in the hedgerow because those suckers have thorns? So you settle on six feet because that is exactly this much taller than Bruce. Then someone gets stuck in a maple tree they can climb and they want to waive the 2-meter rule for climbable trees. Then either (a) Bruce flashes back to Billy Piest falling out of the maple tree trying to show how far you could throw from the top of a tree or (b) Mrs. Arsenjevich comes after us with a broom for climbing in her tree, and then there is a no climbing trees rule. Six feet then becomes the absolute rule until someone goes metric with it. So this is how you get to having the rule in the first place.

It is self-evident, since we are playing frisbee GOLF, that if you can't play it where lies you must take a penalty and the defined relief. We aren't playing frisbee target or frisbee-count-your-throws, we are playing frisbee golf. For the sake of consistency we have defined "playing it where it lies" as touching that spot, more or less, and "can't play it where it lies" as too high for the shorter people to touch that spot.

As soon as we worked out the wrinkles for the over six feet penalty, the suspended disc lie clearly was on the ground under the disc. It was all that was left.

So what I call taking 1.99 meters of free relief is following the rule. It is not MY rule. It is a rule we made against my better interests for Jon, Blakely, Mike, Doug or whoever else played frisbee golf with us back then. I could put my hand in the tree at five feet eleven inches and take no penalty under a simple "play where it lies" rule, but a standard height was more fair for the smaller players.

Two meters is a convention to define a legally unplayable lie in a way that applies equally to all. It would not actually be unplayable to most adult players but it is easier to measure than say 2.63 meters.

Here is a two meter anecdote. It is 2001 and eleven year old Jenny is stuck in a cedar just over two meters. Kelsey says, "Hold on. If that is over two meters you have to take a stroke penalty, I think." Jenny says, "Well, why is that?" and Sarah says, "Because, if Mr. Bruce wasn't here, we couldn't ever get it down!" Kelsey knew the rule but it was self-evident to Sarah then. It was self-evident when I was their age also.

Bruce, I'm glad you did not wait two months to bring back your sound voice of reason. I personally find your common sense and logic refreshing on this thread.

Bruce:
To me it seems to be a matter of luck whether you catch or drop so Nick thinks I should get free relief. Well, it is also a matter of luck whether I land behind a bush or six feet over, so shouldn't I get free relief from that too?



Incorrect. That is Chuck’s contention. I think it is somewhat valid, but it is not the main point. And Bruce, what do you call moving a disc from 1.99 Meters above the playing surface to the playing surface? Chopped liver? Is that not “free relief”!?! Why doesn’t that outrage you and other 2MR advocates?




Okay Nick, I'll try to explain why taking relief from 1.99 meters is quite different than from 19.9 meters


When you are playing your shot from the 1.99 meter lie you have essentially the same (not exactly,essentially for you hair splitters) shot as you would from a lie on the ground.

Now then hypothetically, if you could levitate from 19.9 meters and play your shot from there it would likely be an entirely different shot. You would have different obstacles in the way, different wind influences and you would be a different distance from the basket. You would be taking significant relief and it is this significant relief that I believe is worthy of a penalty.

On the other hand when you play a lie that has been suspended < 2m above the playing surface you are exercising inconsequential relief . I view this inconsequential relief akin to the penalty-free relief you take when your lie is IB but <1m from the OB line. In either case it has minimal if any effect on your next shot.

Nick has said the 2m rule is an abberation within our rules. I think to allow penalty-free significant relief would be an abberation. General rule of thumb when viewing the game of golf : if you can't play your next shot from where you threw your previous shot then you must be penalized for the significant relief you are taking.

Does this make sense to anyone other than , Bruce, Rhett and I?

[QUOTE]
is there anyone left who is totally pro-2MR ???

<font color="red">Yes, I would fall in that group </font>


hadn't most if not all had been able to agree that it should go, but that some coherent approach should be proposed for dealing with 2M situations within 10M of the basket.


But the take-it-or-leave-it approach that others use doesn't sit well with me.



Pat, I do see the logic behind your position. The 2MR is more crucial and would have a greater effect on the greens than in fairways.
My reason for keeping it is threefold:

1.) I like consistency in rules.
-I believe if taking significant relief is deserving of a stroke on the green it should be deserving of a stroke in the fairway as well.
- consistency goes hand in hand with credibility and I'd like to see our sport looked upon by spectators as a credible one.
2.) Special condition OB's require added work
- Marking off greens, putting yellow tape on trees that are deemed OB and marking and announcing drop zones is a lot of extra work. I believe extra work should be avoided unless absolutely neccessary (and I believe this would qualify as unneccessary)
-besides, all this marking off of certain trees and drop zones would hurt the natural aesthetics of the course and would eventually hurt us when trying to convince the nature-loving council members to allow us to put a new course in their backyard.
3.) Having borders for certain rules to be in effect increases the chance for controversy and disputes.
ie. a disc is suspended 10m up, entangled in a network of branches made up from 4 trees. Two of the four trees are within "the green" and the other two are outside the green. Can you determine which branches from which trees are participating in the suspension of the disc?

Bruce, I'm glad you did not wait two months to bring back your sound voice of reason. I personally find your common sense and logic refreshing on this thread.



I too am glad he didn't wait; because I'd hate to think that a PDGA Board Member is walking around so uninformed about this issue and oblivious to the progress made on understanding it.

We have been hearing that substantiation since we first played in a PDGA event. Steve, made the exact same argument and then retracted it, choosing (wisely) not to defend it. It is the same story every player was told the first time they started playing. Some buy it, some don�t and some (most is my guess) know that it is a poor �fit all� rule. By any stretch of the imagination it cannot be considered a �common sense rule�.

Consider please:
1) �Play It Where It Lies�- Any disc that is at rest above the playing surface and the lie marked on the playing surface is receiving relief. It is simply indisputable. You may dispute the degree, but that it is relief is not something that is up for debate.
2) �The Ancient History Reach Theory�- If reach in fact is some sort of golden rule, then why don�t we use it. Because it is unfair to short people? Can you think of a single �golf rule� designed to compensate for the difference of golfer�s height? If you want to bring up �reach� then don�t in the same idea turn around and throw it out the window because it isn�t fair to short people. Either it is, or it is not. Which is it? Do we not allow tall players to putt over branches that shorter players cannot? If you want to use the �reach argument then fine, use it, but don�t try to make it something it is not; namely some magic substantiation for the 2MR.

In disc golf, under current rules, we neither �play it where it lies� nor do we employ any golden �reach� criteria. The 2 meter rule, cut from whole cloth, is an attempt to codify disparate and incongruous theories into something that on the surface seems understandable but God forbid if you delve any deeper or consider the rest of the rules in relation to it.

If you truly support the play it where it lies and the reach theory then you should support the abolition of the 2 meter rules just as much if not more than I do.

You should whole-heartedly agree with the following statements:

�If you cannot reach it, you can not play it where it lies.�
�If you can not play it with a supporting point on where it was at rest, then you are not playing it where it lies.�
(If those are not is not dirt simple common sense I don�t know what it is. )

This happens to be the way �Golf� plays it as well. If you can�t reach it with your club, in a tree (or anywhere else) you have to take a stroke. Then you get relief. We use a supporting point as the criteria of playing it where it lies, if your disc is 1 foot 10 inches off the playing surface, then you must have a supporting point on that spot at the time of release. Same for a lie 1.99 inches up in a tree, or anywhere. Anything short of that is a cloudy and removed understanding of the rules.�

I would accept this understanding of �play it where it lies� and �reach� because they are 100% straightforward and without logical misdirection.

But this too means the end of the 2MR.

You either provide uniform relief for above the playing surface or you do not, there is no set, common sense or verifiable objective compromise. I am fine with either extreme, but the middle is the mess we have.

Now, if you want to really want to penalize discs a certain distance above the playing surface then, then there is a common sense option, time tested and accepted method. It is known as Out of Bounds.

Saying everything above 2 meters is OB is not difficult at the players meeting, is it?

Friend, you are grasping at straws.

How could OB more complicated when it is something we already use and have been using longer and more concisely than the 2MR.

2) “The Ancient History Reach Theory”- If reach in fact is some sort of golden rule, then why don’t we use it. Because it is unfair to short people? Can you think of a single “golf rule” designed to compensate for the difference of golfer’s height? If you want to bring up “reach” then don’t in the same idea turn around and throw it out the window because it isn’t fair to short people. Either it is, or it is not. Which is it? Do we not allow tall players to putt over branches that shorter players cannot? If you want to use the “reach argument then fine, use it, but don’t try to make it something it is not; namely some magic substantiation for the 2MR.




I believe you're the one grasping for straws, my neon friend.


You repeatedly misrepresent my positions as well as those of others. The need to misrepresent opposing positions shows the weakness in your arguements. The continued hairsplitting is another sign of your desperation.

Neither Bruce, nor I have suggested that a "reach rule" be instituted. He took the time to explain a common sense evolution of ideas that may have led to our current, objective 2m standard. You respond by misrepresenting our position. It's no wonder he said he was going to take a two month break from the discussion. I feel a little frustrated sometimes when I try to convey in clear terms what I view as good logic and common sense, and you turn around and try to misprepresent what I just said. Your tactics do not lend well to a good debate. Honestly they seem counterproductive at times. I can respect a differing point of view. I actually enjoy a good debate with someone who has an opposing view. What I don't enjoy, is having to restate my position over and over because someone has tried to make it sound like I'm saying something that even the opposing poster knows I'm not.

Consider please:
1) �Play It Where It Lies�- Any disc that is at rest above the playing surface and the lie marked on the playing surface is receiving relief. It is simply indisputable. You may dispute the degree, but that it is relief is not something that is up for debate.

actually, it could be defensibly argued that a lie on the ground thrown with a typical motion is being released further from its lie than would be a lie 2M up. if you wish to make this a discussion about "relief" than perhaps you whould argue for a rule mandating that lies on the ground be rolled from the ground, lies 2' up be thrown from the knees, lies 2M up be thrown normal backhand, and lies 2.5M be thrown overhand/tomahawk/thumber. then we'd have the least relief possible.

but i suspect we dont want to folloow your "logic" when it is actually applied, do we? :D

The key hairsplitting point of contention seems to be the word playing as in playing it where it lies .

Nobody in disc golf plays their shot from the position of their marker disc. You yourself said we don't as in ball golf propel our disc off the playing surface. We mark a position on the ground from where one supporting point must be placed and then we play (throw) our shot from wherever is advantageous and physically possible given our reach and stretching capablities. Typically most shots are played from about waist high. For me, incidentally waist high is approximately one meter above the ground. So you (in your hairsplitting fashion) could say I'm exercising my relief of approximately one meter. If I chose to throw a tomahawk shot released just over my head, you in a hairsplitting definition could say I'm exercising two meters of relief.
Now then given that I'm allowed, without penalty to play (throw) my shot from a heighth of two meters why should I be penalized for a disc suspended below two meters?

Now please, do not repond to this post in your usual fashion of: "well Mike Simone can't throw a tomahawk from 2 meters using your logic he'd get a stroke at 1.5 meters"

What I'm trying to do is to talk in your language. You say we take penalty free vertical relief all the time. I guess I'm just conceding that in a hairsplitting kind of way I guess we are.

However as I spelled out in a post earlier today the 1.99m lie requires essentially the same shot as the 0m lie especially since I've stated we are actually playing our shot from about 1m off the playing surface. Whereas if, hypothetically you could levitate yourself to a suspended 4,5 or 10m lie you'd be required to make a shot much different than a 0m or 1.99m lie. This need to play a different shot than the one you would play if you could levitate to the 10m lie is the reason for the penalty. As I covered earlier upthread:
inconsequential(defined by<2m) relief =no penalty; significant (as defined by >2m) relief = penalty

You're making too much sense. Expect distractions or silence. Or typically a measured silence to allow the momentum of your current hot-hand of logic to cool, followed by a barrage of distractions.

............and no Nick, I'm not suggesting that we write a new rule that says we get inconsequential relief in a horizontal manner

You're making too much sense. Expect distractions or silence. Or typically a measured silence to allow the momentum of your current hot-hand of logic to cool, followed by a barrage of distractions.



LOL! That is hilarious!

You are reading too many Tom Clancey novels.

Now did I mean to say that, or something else? Only the CIA knows...LOL!

Consider please:
1) �Play It Where It Lies�- Any disc that is at rest above the playing surface and the lie marked on the playing surface is receiving relief. It is simply indisputable. You may dispute the degree, but that it is relief is not something that is up for debate.

actually, it could be defensibly argued that a lie on the ground thrown with a typical motion is being released further from its lie than would be a lie 2M up. if you wish to make this a discussion about "relief" than perhaps you whould argue for a rule mandating that lies on the ground be rolled from the ground, lies 2' up be thrown from the knees, lies 2M up be thrown normal backhand, and lies 2.5M be thrown overhand/tomahawk/thumber. then we'd have the least relief possible.

but i suspect we dont want to folloow your "logic" when it is actually applied, do we? :D



Lack of context may make this seem clever, however there is a context, the context of in contact with the exact place the disc came to rest or as we in disc golf call, the lie.

Lack of context may make this seem clever, however there is a context, the context of in contact with the exact place the disc came to rest or as we in disc golf call, the lie.

and since we throw from about 1-2M up (usually), lets just say that the "lie" of a disc within 2M of the ground is directly below it. and lets also say that discs above 2M, since you cannot (universally, ie all players due to their height) throw from that height are, well, penalized, for not being on a playable lie.

gosh, this has all the makings of a sensible rule. lets call it the "2MR"!

hey great idea!

unfortunately some oppose sensibility :confused:

Steve, if you reread your position above you, anyone, should be able to find that it basically comes down to not being able to "reach" the disc 19.9 meters up from their mark on the playing surface

And

That the penalty is based on them not really, in your opinion, "playing from their actual lie" (as in where it really came to rest) 19.9 meters up (but not the same standard for not playing from 1.99 meters up).

You want your cake and eat it too Steve. You want to portray your point of view as common sense, but when it is clearly pointed out that it is not common sense you cry foul rather than prove that it is not.

Exactly how is your argument not about "reach" and "where it lies"?

The truth is Steve that we never play it where it lies concerning vertical or horizontal relief, you see that as an opportunity to attempt some kind of "closer to where it really was at rest", and if it is not in that lie bubble then somehow a penalty is required. That is not a bad idea really, but the only way it could really be excellent is if it was determined based on placeing one supporting point on the lie as marked on the playing surface and being able to reach the disc. That mark on the ground is the constant that disc golf has replaced ball golfs actual lie with. It is reasonable to replace this since we do not use clubs. What is not reasonable is trying to use some abstract average of what a disc golfers lie bubble hypothetically is, particularly when there is an absolute readily available; namely their "actual" or "real" lie bubble.

The alternative to this is to just call the lie that point on the playing surface regardless of how high the disc is above the playing surface

Yet another is to optionally declare certain hieghts above the playing surface as OB. This is basically the option that you, Bruce and Rhett want to make mandatory based on your interpretation of reach and playing it where it lies (also reach really).

If this is not accurate, then show me exactly how, and within this context.

What is not reasonable is trying to use some <font color="red"> abstract</font> average of what a disc golfers lie bubble hypothetically is, particularly when there is an absolute readily available; namely their "actual" or "real" lie bubble.

<font color="blue"> what is abstract about the measurement two meters? </font>

The alternative to this is to just call the lie that point on the playing surface regardless of how high the disc is above the playing surface

<font color="brown"> Because since this is a game of golf a disc's position does have relevance to where we play our disc from. And since it has relevace then if you are unable to play your shot from within this so called lie bubble (your term) than you must be assessed a penalty. Yes, we are saying nearly the same thing.

In certain areas of our sport's rules there are tolerances or wiggle room such as your supporting points must be within a certain tolerance from the front of the teepad at release. Or your supporting point must be within a certain distance (30cm) from your marker disc. So this use of tolerance (lie bubble as you are fond of calling it) is not unprecedented in our rules.You just like to imply that it is in order to support your arguement. Two meters is an acceptable tolerance five meters is not. </font>


Yet another is to optionally declare certain hieghts above the playing surface as OB. This is basically the option that you, Bruce and Rhett want to make mandatory based on your interpretation of reach and playing it where it lies (also reach really).


<font color="brown"> Unlimited penalty free vertical relief is just a bad idea. It seems so contrary to the concept of golf. To allow for some TDs to disregard the 2MR seems like a diversion from what golf is. I would liken it to allowing penalty free relief from lakes, ponds, streets and other hazards from which it would be dangerous, unwise or downright hokey to play from. You threw your shot into a place you can't play from guess what....you're getting a stroke to take relief....same concept with vertical relief </font>


If this is not accurate, then show me exactly how, and within this context.

<font color="orange"> accurate...for the most part,yes...misguided, absolutely </font>

Our sport has rules that allows for relief from casual obstacles and OB in a horizontal direction. The 2MR is the same type of rule but in the vertical direction. What is so foreign about that type of rule. You get up to 5M relief in the horizontal plane, but only 2M in the vertical plane. So for consistency sake shouldn't the horizontal relief only be 2M /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What do you think Nick, that would remove the inconsistencies as I see them :D

agreed, if you are playing Hole A and get stuck in a tree within 10M of Pin B, there is no drop zone involved. kinda like mandos - they only apply to the hole for which they are designated.

btw, who are the people who are load and vocal about the 100% retention of the 2MR? i havent heard any recently, once it became clear that we could discuss the two different situations - fairway vs. 10M



don't take 'loud' too literally. i am not sure who it was that convinced the Board to slap the Rules Committee in the face and then use the rulebook delay as a defense. Maybe Bruce played a big part?

Please, Nick! Your last post! Do you have to keep writing like that? How are we supposed to understand what you're trying to say?

I know my opinion means little or nothing to you, but will you listen to the results of a computer program? I just threw your last post into Stylewriter and received the results shown in the screen capture below. I highly recommend the software to anyone trying to improve his or her writing. I've used the program to correct my writing problems, as well.

(Yes, I liked it so much, I bought the... well, no, not the company. Just the program. It's expensive software, but it works! And there is the 30-day eval...)

http://members.aol.com/hitec100/cap.JPG

You're making too much sense. Expect distractions or silence. Or typically a measured silence to allow the momentum of your current hot-hand of logic to cool, followed by a barrage of distractions.

Or, he'll just call you deluded or a liar. A month ago didn't he try to insult me by saying I lacked the intellectual capacity to make up good lie? I thought he was complimenting me but then one of my smart friends said I was reading it wrong.

The reason for the two meter rule is that you are taking extraordinary relief from a location that we are not going to allow you to play from that you really could not play from anyway on the average. What Steve Maertz said.

The fact that discrete unrelated groups of PDGA-ignorant frisbee golfers the world over arrive at the same or similar rule suggests that it is intuitive.

The 2-meter rule, and other relief-with-penalty rules, are not merely intuitive by analogy to ball golf, but were intuitive to the inventers of ball golf. The whole point of the game is to reach the target in the fewest number of tries, accepting the challenge of taking your next shot from whereever the last one landed. If you land somewhere where we've decided it is not safe, legal or sporting to force you to play from, we make up some kind of penalty for that and let you or force you to take relief. Since we are always playing for score, but not always playing for money, we penalize your score.

The exact contours of these rules are arbitrary but the principle is not. You threw it there. You are not going to play it there. Take a penalty.

The fact that discrete unrelated groups of PDGA-ignorant frisbee golfers the world over arrive at the same or similar rule suggests that it is intuitive.

The 2-meter rule, and other relief-with-penalty rules, are not merely intuitive by analogy to ball golf, but were intuitive to the inventers of ball golf. The whole point of the game is to reach the target in the fewest number of tries, accepting the challenge of taking your next shot from whereever the last one landed. If you land somewhere where we've decided it is not safe, legal or sporting to force you to play from, we make up some kind of penalty for that and let you or force you to take relief. Since we are always playing for score, but not always playing for money, we penalize your score.

The exact contours of these rules are arbitrary but the principle is not. You threw it there. You are not going to play it there. Take a penalty.




There you go, making sense again. You know how upset that's going to make someone. :p

There you go, making sense again. You know how upset that's going to make someone. :p



Don't kid yourself. Consider his professional training. Were his opinion on the 2 meter rule less ossified,
Bruce could create an equally persuasive post explaining why the 2 meter rule is an arbitrary, inconsistent,
and unnecessary complication of our rulebook. :p

Yes, the old "primordial disc golf" argument. We used to play if you could jam your foot where the disc was, you could play it where it lies. Otherwise it cost you a stroke to knock it down and you played it wherever it ended up. You had to have one foot on the ground and one where the disc came to rest, so climbing and throwing from there was not allowed. Not sure why, but that's how we did it.

The ice-skater stance was always a crowd pleaser.

Claiming that the 2m rule is intuitive is questionable. Using that claim to support the rule seems misguided.

I was going to argue that some general concept of "play it where it lies" might be intuitive and generally accepted, but even it that concept is generally accepted, the 2m rule does not follow any more logically than the no 2m rule, or 1 cm rule. However, I realized that this argument is irrelevant.

Rules should be adopted for various reasons. Off the top of my head, I think to standardize play and to treat every player equitably. I suspect there are other reasons. Therefore, any argument that it is rule is legitimate because it is intuitive is secondary and therefore not persuasive. The arguments for the legitimacy/rightness/whatever of the rule should revolve around whatever qualities good rules must have. Being intuitive is not one of them.

Jets rule, Chargers drool. They beat us fair and square.



It seemed to me the Chargers beat themselves. :confused: And I was rooting for them.

Rules should be adopted for various reasons. Off the top of my head, I think to standardize play and to treat every player equitably. I suspect there are other reasons. Therefore, any argument that it is rule is legitimate because it is intuitive is secondary and therefore not persuasive. The arguments for the legitimacy/rightness/whatever of the rule should revolve around whatever qualities good rules must have. Being intuitive is not one of them.



Well stated. I too intuit that the use of 'being intuitive' seems to be a weak approach. When you consider that highly wooded fairways create situations where hitting a tree is penalty enough, combined with the rarity and inconsistency with which discs striking trees end up sticking above 2 meters, it seems to be a case of hardening of the orthodoxies to cling to the 2 meter rule as a default scenario. Give the TD and / or course designer flexibility. Today's courses have far more fairway trees than did courses 'back in the day' when the PDGA hadn't created a Rules Committee of experts to think these things through.

The Rules Committee well-thought-through suggestion to eliminate the 2 meter rule was wise, as was the vote by the Board of Directors to implement the Rules Committee recommendation. However it seems the BoD unnecessarily is going into the future dragging their feet and creating unnecessary confusion by voting to wait to eliminate the 2 meter rule completely until the (delayed) printing of the new Rules book in 2006. Any hole, portion of a hole, or course where the 2 meter rule is deemed necessary can still be declared as such with the elimination of the 2m rule as the default scenario. There is no need to make the rule a blanket default that smothers everything.

The whole point of the game is to reach the target in the fewest number of tries, accepting the challenge of taking your next shot from whereever the last one landed. If you land somewhere where we've decided it is not safe, legal or sporting to force you to play from, we make up some kind of penalty for that and let you or force you to take relief. Since we are always playing for score, but not always playing for money, we penalize your score.

The exact contours of these rules are arbitrary but the principle is not. You threw it there. You are not going to play it there. Take a penalty.



I like that - whether or not it is intuitive is hardly the point. Seems a rather "common sense" principle of "play".

Of course that depends on your definition of where there is. If it is fine to mark a disc 6' up a tree on the ground without penalty (thereby establishing a 2 diminsional format for defining where "there" is), why is it natural to not do the same thing for a disc 7' off the ground ?

Because with rules come objective standards . You're allowed 1 meter relief from an OB boundary (not 1.5 or 2m). You must have a supporting point within 30cm (not 40 or 50) of your marker disc. You (at this point) can jump putt from 10m (not 9m).

Two meters is a reasonable measurement and it is the standard we use, To say 2M is a bad standard because it is exactly that, a standard is a very weak arguement I would expect better from you, Gary.

Yes, I'm not sure why it is common sense to have 7 feet as a penalty, but 5 feet is OK.

Common sense might be described as what the average person would conclude. I bet if I took 100 people off the street, briefly described disc golf, showed them a disc stuck at one foot, described the rule for playing it, then showed them a disc at 3 feet, described the rule for playing it, then I show them a disc stuck at 7 feet and asked them how to play it, where do you think their common sense would lead them?

Alternatively, I could start at 30 feet and move down to 5 feet. What would be most people's answer?

Common sense, like intuition, is very subjective. The real arguments really should revolve around whether it adequately meets the criteria for a good/necessary rule. It may. But there should be better reasons than "it's intuitive" or "it's just common sense."

I like the "no substantial free relief" line of reasoning as the strongest defense of the 2m rule. All the "intuition" stuff is merely backing.

Common sense, like intuition, is very subjective. The real arguments really should revolve around whether it adequately meets the criteria for a good/necessary rule. It may. But there should be better reasons than "it's intuitive" or "it's just common sense."



I believe the points made by Bruce shows that it's intuitive to most people (even those not familiar with the rules of play) that a rule addressing vertical relief is neccessary.

I believe if you polled 100 people on the street a high percentage would say a disc suspended 20' up in a tree would require relief and some sort of penalty. If you polled another 100 people and posed the question about a disc 15' up you'd likely get fewer in favor of a penalty but most likely the majority of respondents would choose to penalize. The closer to the ground you went with your question the fewer would say it required a penalty.

The need for a penalty in exchange for relief is intuitive for most people. The exact standard for how much relief should be given before a penalty would be assessed would vary between the respondents.

I haven't heard people saying the 2MR is a good rule but it needs to be changed to 3M because of x,y or z. I just hear this lame arguement of "why is six feet good, but not seven?". Of course if the standard were seven feet they'd say "why is seven feet good but not eight?"

Many of these arguements sound like words of a spoiled child. Can anyone give a good arguement as to why it's obvious to penalize substancial horizontal relief but we should give free unlimited vertical relief ? Do people seem to forget it is golf that we are playing?

I believe if you polled 100 people on the street a high percentage would say a disc suspended 20' up in a tree would require relief and some sort of penalty. If you polled another 100 people and posed the question about a disc 15' up you'd likely get fewer in favor of a penalty but most likely the majority of respondents would choose to penalize. The closer to the ground you went with your question the fewer would say it required a penalty.




Possibly. But, the variance in your data would lead away from any conclusion that it is common sense or intutive. Anyways, my point was not to prove/disprove if if was intuitive or not, only that that is at most a secondary criteria for a rule.


The need for a penalty in exchange for relief is intuitive for most people.



I honestly don't know what this means. It makes sense to me when talking about discs on the surface, but suspended discs? What is my relief from?



I haven't heard people saying the 2MR is a good rule but it needs to be changed to 3M because of x,y or z. I just hear this lame arguement of "why is six feet good, but not seven?". Of course if the standard were seven feet they'd say "why is seven feet good but not eight?"




If you have read these threads, most arguments against rule want it eliminated, with a few exceptions that only want it apllied near the basket. People have given reasons, ad naseum in fact. The reasons convinced me. I used to be against the elimination of the rule.


Many of these arguements sound like words of a spoiled child.



Ironically, I agree.

I'm not following this vertical/horizontal arguement, but I can honestly say that most horizontal penalties?? I've encountered seem reasonable to me. The vertical penalties have always seemed arbitrary and unnecessary.

I honestly don't know what this means. It makes sense to me when talking about discs on the surface, but suspended discs? What is my relief from?

<font color="green"> Any time you throw to a location you can't throw from (given the tolerances our rules allow) you take relief. If a disc is suspended 20' up unless you have the ability to levitate you will be taking relief. Hypotheticly if you could levitate to the 20' lie you would have different obstacles, different wind conditions and therefore a different shot would need to be played than if you were throwing from a lie near the ground </font>


I haven't heard people saying the 2MR is a good rule but it needs to be changed to 3M because of x,y or z. I just hear this lame arguement of "why is six feet good, but not seven?". Of course if the standard were seven feet they'd say "why is seven feet good but not eight?"




If you have read these threads, most arguments against rule want it eliminated, with a few exceptions that only want it apllied near the basket. People have given reasons, ad naseum in fact. The reasons convinced me. I used to be against the elimination of the rule.

<font color="green"> I have read nearly every post (or at least most) on this subject I have yet to hear a compelling arguement for elimination of what I see is a neccessary universal rule. Please, James tell me what arguement did you find compelling enough for you to change your position? </font>


Many of these arguements sound like words of a spoiled child.



Ironically, I agree.

I'm not following this vertical/horizontal arguement, but I can honestly say that most horizontal penalties?? I've encountered seem reasonable to me. The vertical penalties have always seemed arbitrary and unnecessary.

<font color="green"> Can you (or others) explain to me why substancial horizontal relief must be penalized but somehow we should allow for unlimited free vertical relief? </font>

It was probably two years ago or so and there was a thread mentioning the elimination the 2m rule. My immediate reaction was "BS, people can then just bomb trees above the basket with impunity." It was basically Sandalman's argument.

Somehwere in the thread, someone mentioned the argument that this was effectively a two shot penalty since you usually had a screwed lie and lost distance. I thought to myself "Yea, getting stuck in a tree is almost always enough of a penalty. Hitting trees is a deterent in itself. We don't need to tack a penalty on top of it."

I saw the light. :p

Then, as these threads appeared after the proposed elimination, I heard a second argument that the penalty was basically arbitrary. Not the 5 feet vs. 7 feet arbitrary argument, but the fact that everyone in the field could basically hit the same tree above 2m, but one poor guy got stuck and penalized. It seems arbitrary to penalize this one poor guy when everyone else essentially did the same thing. This argument also made sense to me.

Now, I am more than a convert. I am a true believer. :D

So there. One person's conversion based on real arguments that the rule was both unnecessary and arbitrary.

And these were the arguements that swayed you?

You you are in two camps:
1. The no double penalty camp
and
2. The" we shouldn't penalize bad luck" camp

...Wow , sorry to hear that James I was hoping it might have been a little more substative than those

I guess "substance" is in the eye of the beholder.

.

Somehwere in the thread, someone mentioned the argument that this was effectively a two shot penalty since you usually had a screwed lie and lost distance. I thought to myself "Yea, getting stuck in a tree is almost always enough of a penalty. Hitting trees is a deterent in itself. We don't need to tack a penalty on top of it."

<font color="green"> I'll tell you why I don't find this a compelling arguement. I may be influenced by the types of courses I've played but I find being up against a tree, under a tree or beside a tree, a very common occurence even with good drives. I never feel as though I'm being penalized. I just adjust my shot for the stance I happen to have. Sometimes that means going to a sidearm, or stretching really far to one side with a backhand and in some cases I'll have to short-arm my follow through to avoid hitting my hand. I've always looked at it as tools in the trade that must be utilized. Another reason this doesn't work for me is there are other cases, such as missing a mando where you are in a sense double-penalized, if I miss a mando I'm typically losing far more distance than the distance I'm likely to lose in a tree. While I'm losing distance by going back to the drop zone (and the fact I likely can't rethrow the same disc), I still deserve a stroke. </font>



Then, as these threads appeared after the proposed elimination, I heard a second argument that the penalty was basically arbitrary. Not the 5 feet vs. 7 feet arbitrary argument, but the fact that everyone in the field could basically hit the same tree above 2m, but one poor guy got stuck and penalized. It seems arbitrary to penalize this one poor guy when everyone else essentially did the same thing. This argument also made sense to me.


<font color="green"> The bad luck story doesn't work for me either. Bad luck is penalized all the time. It's silly to eliminate a rule I believe is rather inherent to the concept of golf because we feel a need to sympathize with bad luck. Luck is part of the game. The player who fell out of the tree was every bit as lucky (and I would contend more lucky ) than the golfer with the suspended lie was unlucky </font>

Now, I am more than a convert. I am a true believer. :D

So there. One person's conversion based on real arguments that the rule was both unnecessary and arbitrary.

I am more in the camp of 2D marking. Though we play in a 3D environment. We mark and play our lies in a basically 2D world. And as I have stated before, it much more common that I would get stuck in a tree on a throw that never got more than 15' off the ground than one that exceeded 80'.

The few times I have gotten suspended lately have been on line drives that manage to tick something and sail off into the shule and find something to hang in.

So I don't fall into the group that thinks bombing in from the top is now easier, it was the most likely not to stick in the first place, and I use over to top thumbers quite often.

I just don't see the necessity for multiple marking rules for suspended discs. I do see the inequity of discs suspended further from the target than they are in horizontal distance, but in the luck side, had they not stuck, they would have fallen under the tree. As for my shots, anything hitting 30'-50' up a tree would be in a near vertical drop already. Not a bad shot, just one that managed to snag on the way down. And I don't believe that aiming at the trees on most holes and courses is a beneficial approach. Trees are still 80% air and the majority of discs won't stick.

I am more in the camp of 2D marking. Though we play in a 3D environment. We mark and play our lies in a basically 2D world.



While I don't agree with your point I must say it's more credible than most of the other arguements( which I consider 90% laughable)

The reason for marking our lies in a 2D enviornment is a little pesky law known as gravity. As I've said before in many posts, if we could levitate and play from 20' suspended lies there would be no need for penalties as we would just play it as it lay(20' up). Being that we can't levitate and that the line and other factors are significantly different from an elevation 20' than they are at 5' we are being penalized for throwing from a location that is significantly different than the location where our disc came to rest.

Many of you may still disagree with my position. If you do, can anyone tell me why playing from a significantly different position than from where your disc came to rest is not deserving of a stroke? To me taking significant free relief is contradictory to the basic concept of golf (play it as it lies)

It was probably two years ago or so and there was a thread mentioning the elimination the 2m rule. My immediate reaction was "BS, people can then just bomb trees above the basket with impunity." It was basically Sandalman's argument.

Somehwere in the thread, someone mentioned the argument that this was effectively a two shot penalty since you usually had a screwed lie and lost distance. I thought to myself "Yea, getting stuck in a tree is almost always enough of a penalty. Hitting trees is a deterent in itself. We don't need to tack a penalty on top of it."

I saw the light.

i saw the light also. except near the basket. i believe it is extremely difficult to defend the position that a shot on the ground and a shot 20, 30, 50 feet up, both 2' laterally from the pin, are equitably dealt with by marking the lie 2' from the pin.

i'm buying the "eliminate-the-double-penalty" argument are the most reasonable position for eliminating the 2MR (everywhere except within 10M).

nick should arrive any minute to "explain" how vertical is the same as horizontal and then something about the "surface" of a tree (which is an EXTREMELY obscure concept given Gary's correct point that trees are 80% air) and then demand consistancy and while stating that its better to have different shaped greens on every hole like ball golf even though discs fly while balls roll. i cant wait :)

I miss the days of the discussion of 50-foot discs and aerial putting greens. :(

Two meters is a reasonable measurement and it is the standard we use, To say 2M is a bad standard because it is exactly that, a standard is a very weak arguement I would expect better from you, Gary.



Who are you and what have you done with Meartz-o-matic? Let's try to play nice here, he was discussing a topic not attacking you personally Stevo...

I like the "no substantial free relief" line of reasoning as the strongest defense of the 2m rule. All the "intuition" stuff is merely backing.



Yeah, let's have no wishie washie reasoning here! Only solid factual logic like "substantial relief"... (?) :confused:

...Wow , sorry to hear that James I was hoping it might have been a little more substative than those



and what is your position with regard to the Rules Committee's recommendation that the penalty be eliminated and the Board of Directors vote to eliminate it once a new rulebook gets printed? Are you saying that the reasons members of the PDGA Rules Committee and Chuck Kennedy favor eliminating this rule are less intelligent, thoughtful, and substantive than yours?

I believe the points made by Bruce shows that it's intuitive to most people (even those not familiar with the rules of play) that a rule addressing vertical relief is neccessary.




No more than James' point proves that the 2MR is not intuitive.

It's clear that certain folks here, including myself, have formed such strong opinions on this issue that we would be well advised to steer clear of the "common sense" or "intuitive" arguments and focus more on what the rule does or does not do.

With the exception of 2 people on the PDGA Board of Directors and PDGA Rules Committee, all of them should be able to consider that factor, though none as well as newbies who have never heard the little fable Bruce shared.

Can you (or others) explain to me why substancial horizontal relief must be penalized but somehow we should allow for unlimited free vertical relief?


First I want to make sure I understand "what you mean" by your question. By "substantial relief" do you mean relief from where you are required to have a supporting point at the point of release or from where the disc actually came to rest?

If it is relief from where you are required to play from by rule, then there is no relief regardless of how far above the playing surface your disc was at rest.

If you are talking about where your disc came to rest, which our rules DO NOT REQUIRE YOU to play from, but the difference between vertical and horizontal relief is this:

There is no such thing as "Vertical Relief" in our rules, it is not in the "relief" section of our rules it is in the "above the playing surface" section. You mark your lie on the playing surface (period, end of discussion). If your disc must be given horizontal relief, meaning you must "significantly" change the position of the mark on the playing surface, then that might qualify as "significant" (it likely qualifies as penalty worthy within our rules i.e. OB).

The challenge you are having with this Steve is from your apparent idea that up in a tree or bush is somehow on a "unsafe playing surface". According to our rules up in a tree or bush is "NOT" again to be clear, "IS NOT" an unsafe playing surface. It is not considered a playing surface at all.

Otherwise how could it ever be "ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE", right?

I think I may have made the arguments noted by James in his previous postings, but I am sure that others have made the same arguements as well. I am still not a big fan of the 2M rule for the same reasons, whether folks agree with the reasoning behind it or not. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

I have also given up arguing rules on the message board. Everyone has their opinions and and for the most part those opinions really don't seem to be very flexible. Also, since I don't believe that I have taken a 2M penalty in about 2 or 3 years I just really don't care anymore. I not saying that I haven't hit any trees, just that I haven't stuck.

But anyhow the whole thing reminded me of a fairly humerous anecdote concerning the interpretation of how to deal with discs suspended in a tree.

I became acquainted with a guy through work that had been playing disc golf recreationally for quite some time but had never been introduced to the PDGA or the official rules of disc golf. This fellow had a fairly high opinion of his game and decided since I played in tournaments and the like that I would be a good test of his skills and he challenged me to a round, which I of course accepted (he was actually pretty good). At some point during the round, his disc became lodged in a tree. I didn't say anything and we played out the hole. When I asked his score, he replied that he had scored a two which I knew was not true. I said, "Hey man, you threw into the tree on your first shot, then your next shot was next to the basket, then you putted out." A three at best in my rule book. He replied, "Yeah, but my first shot didn't hit the ground, so my second throw was just a continuation of the first, then my putt was two, right?" In other words, his interpretation of the situation was, if the disc doesn't hit the ground, you next throw was free, because your first throw wasn't competed until the disc actually made physical contact with the ground. This guy and his buddies had been playing like that for years. So perhaps it wasn't the most "intuitive" interpretation of the situation, but it was creative.

if the disc doesn't hit the ground, you next throw was free, because your first throw wasn't competed until the disc actually made physical contact with the ground.



Now there is a good reason to aim at trees and hope you stick!

...Wow , sorry to hear that James I was hoping it might have been a little more substative than those



and what is your position with regard to the Rules Committee's recommendation that the penalty be eliminated and the Board of Directors vote to eliminate it once a new rulebook gets printed? Are you saying that the reasons members of the PDGA Rules Committee and Chuck Kennedy favor eliminating this rule are less intelligent, thoughtful, and substantive than yours?



Rob, by your logic, all previous iterations of the Rules Committee and BOD were fools for not overturning the rule. Is that really what you mean?

I have also given up arguing rules on the message board. Everyone has their opinions and and for the most part those opinions really don't seem to be very flexible.



John, you are right, it is seemingly useless as concerns certain users here. Some say that of me, I have accused others of it too. I guess it comes down to 2 things, first, do you enjoy discussing rules and second can you maneuver around negative posts to find the kernel ideas that interest you?

I can think of 4 or more folks who have given this issue significant consideration for over 10 years, who originally were dead against the removal of the 2MR, who now are sure that it needs to go. Folks directly involved in the rules review process or running events. You have heard testimonials right here about folks coming to understand that the 2MR is unnecessary. I haven�t heard any from people who originally thought that the 2MR rule should go that changed their minds and now think it should stay, have you? (Of course now that I said that some might.)

Scott Wolfe, one of the original DGRZs, who died a year ago or so of cancer, and who had an unquenchable passion to get down to the fundamental issues and challenges facing disc golf�s rules, would agree with me here I think. Not about whether the 2MR should go or not, but that if you want to participate in rules discussions, be passionate about it, relentlessly consider the issues from all sides, but above all else make sure that you are enjoying it. If it isn�t fun for you then don�t do it.

I don�t know Rhett, Gary, James, or Rob, other than here on the DISCBoard, but I have been friends with Steve, Carlton, Craig and others here for over a decade. We can jibe each other pretty intensely and know that it is only jibes, this might be tougher for outsiders to understand, but it�s tough to suddenly stop East Coast Jiving after decades cold turkey. Anyhow, the point is to, if you enjoy the discussion of rules, try and go around the static and get to the rudimentary arguments going on. If you don�t enjoy the discussion then your choice is a simple one.

Dan,

You speak as someone never involved in a group decision making process. Because the consensus of the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors is to now remove (or make optional) the 2MR, does not necessarily follow that previous RCs and BoDs were foolish, just that they came down in a different place.

I argue adamantly for the removal of the 2MR, because I truly believe it is a bad and unnecessary rule whose time has come, and I make no apologies for being an advocate. What I do apologize for are disparaging remarks to those who feel differently. It is not right to disparage the person, ideas are fair game, but I am quite certain that almost all involved here and in the RC and BoD are sincerely trying to do their best to come down on this issue correctly (whatever that may be).

Let�s agree to try and go about this discussion in a fashion that pays heed to that fact. Let�s try to avoid adolescent banter intended to childishly undermine the credibility of those we disagree with.

In short, let�s do something never before accomplished here! LOL!

Nick, you completely missed my point. Rob has been saying (repeatedly) that:

1) since the current RC recommended removal of the rule, and
2) since they must be much more qualified than the average layman
3) any arguments against the rule from said average layman are null and void

Thus, I responded as above.

I imagine the same arguments were used in favor of prohibition almost 100 years ago.

...Wow , sorry to hear that James I was hoping it might have been a little more substative than those



and what is your position with regard to the Rules Committee's recommendation that the penalty be eliminated and the Board of Directors vote to eliminate it once a new rulebook gets printed? Are you saying that the reasons members of the PDGA Rules Committee and Chuck Kennedy favor eliminating this rule are less intelligent, thoughtful, and substantive than yours?



Rob, by your logic, all previous iterations of the Rules Committee and BOD were fools for not overturning the rule. Is that really what you mean?



I'll answer your question even though you've evaded mine. No I don't think it's a foolish rule on paper, but in actual play (where the proverbial tire meets the road) the rule far too often is doubly punitive in the rare, inconsistent times when a disc sticks in a tree. This is especially true as hole lengths have increased with time. I listened carefully to the Rules Committee's rationale for eliminating the rule and would say it was wise and well thought through. Any TD will have the discretion to declare the 2 meter rule as being in effect for particular trees near particular baskets or even for a whole course. They will also have the discretion to allow the rule not to apply to trees 300 feet down fairway on a 500 foot hole, thus forcing players to consider whether to attempt a skillful accurate shot around trees with the risk of hitting them and deflecting off course, or taking the safe approach.

Did you listen to the radio segment?

October 11, 2004
http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma (Windows Media Player)
http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.ram (Real Audio)
Week of October 11: It's the end of the Two Meter Rule! PDGA Rules Committee Chairman Carlton Howard explains when and how this controversial rule will change.

Dan,. with which part(s) of it do you disagree and do you think Carlton Howard's rationale isn't substantive?

Nick, you completely missed my point. Rob has been saying (repeatedly) that:

1) since the current RC recommended removal of the rule, and
2) since they must be much more qualified than the average layman
3) any arguments against the rule from said average layman are null and void

Thus, I responded as above.

I imagine the same arguments were used in favor of prohibition almost 100 years ago.



Dan, thanks for revealing just where you are misreading my argument. Here is my position:

1. The Rules Committee recommended elimination of this rule
2. The members of the Rules Committee have considerable experience and expertise both with competitive disc golf and with crafting rules.

3. Therefore those suggesting it is foolish to do away the rule and who also suggest those that favor elimination of the rule aren't thinking it through carefully are ignoring points 1 and 2 above. (they are also disrespecting the Rules Committee)

4. It is especially unfortunate that they (you?) apparently are missing the fact that any TD will still be free to implement the 2 meter rule or designate particular or all trees on a course as OB if they see fit.

Nick, you completely missed my point. Rob has been saying (repeatedly) that:

1) since the current RC recommended removal of the rule, and
2) since they must be much more qualified than the average layman
3) any arguments against the rule from said average layman are null and void

Thus, I responded as above.

I imagine the same arguments were used in favor of prohibition almost 100 years ago.



Dan, thanks for revealing just where you are misreading my argument. Here is my position:

1. The Rules Committee recommended elimination of this rule
2. The members of the Rules Committee have considerable experience and expertise both with competitive disc golf and with crafting rules.

3. Therefore those suggesting it is foolish to do away the rule and who also suggest those that favor elimination of the rule aren't thinking it through carefully are ignoring points 1 and 2 above. (they are also disrespecting the Rules Committee)

4. It is especially unfortunate that they (you?) apparently are missing the fact that any TD will still be free to implement the 2 meter rule or designate particular or all trees on a course as OB if they see fit.



Ok, let's go over again and compare what I said you meant with what you said you meant.

1) - looks the same to me
2) - looks the same to me
3) - looks the same to me - with one minor exception - disagreeing with the RC does not mean one does not respect them. You are starting to sound like Nick when you make illogical assumptions and/or conclusions like that one.
4) - looks like you didn't read Terry's post in the other thread. For now, it is the other way around, and any TD can waive the rule without prior CD approval. The rule is still in the books for 2005.

Yes, I listened to Carlton's PDGA radio address, and somewhere further up this thread wrote a pretty long dissertation on where I found fault in his logic.

As far as earlier versions of the Rules Committee, I believe the current committee is very close to the same membership as the original committee. I was on it for several years in the early 90s and perhaps one or two new members have been added along the way. I think it's telling that this committee has been able to observe the span of disc golf history and has come to the conclusion that the 2m rule as currently written is unnecessary. Rather than being traditionally entrenched in their opinions as one might expect, they've had the mental flexibility to reassess the needs of the competitive scene and reshape the rules where warranted. Other parts of the world have already rationally chosen to drop the rule. Hopefully, we'll eventually catch up and perhaps add our own twist such as using a 10m drop zone for discs suspended near the basket.

You are starting to sound like Nick when you make illogical assumptions and/or conclusions like that one.



Foul! That is purely your opinion about me and has nothing to do with the topic. Now put your clothes back on... ;)

And it wasn't fault with "his logic" it must have been fault with "their logic" since they approved the change as a group.

This does not seem to be a major point though; basically it seems to come down to some of us agreeing with the PDGA RC and BoDs finding concerning this rule and others not. That is self-evident. The discussion is about why.

Why did you find fault with their logic?

Yes, I understand you tire of repeating yourself, but that sadly comes with the territory of discussing something, IF getting somewhere with it is the goal. Seems like every time we get to the brink of getting somewhere, someone says,"I already answered that! I'm not going to go over it again!". The equivalent of hitting the ejection button and escape facing the flaws in their own argument, or to clarify their points.

So go ahead, pick your weapon (argument), but be prepared to beat it purple and let's stick to the topic and not personal attacks (another form of escape).