Hey Nick,

What is your opinion on the over the basket issue; do you support a drop zone or some other measure? While I don't like the removal of the 2 meter rule, I have to admit that for the most part Chuck and Nick have ways to deal with every issue that has come up including (I believe) Chuck's support of a drop zone within 10 meters.

Is that position being advocated to the BOD and Rules Committee?

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.


Or perhaps they're getting tired of hearing from you guys and decided to drop the rule to silence you?

Look, we can all assign a motivation to someone's decision. You can assign the motive you think best fits your argument, and I can assign the motive that best fits mine. We aren't mind readers, and even if they tell you their motives, the subconscious is a tricky thing, so they may not be 100% sure themselves. So let's keep other people's motivations out of this debate.

Other parts of the world have already rationally chosen to drop the rule.


Are we talking about the deserts in Africa? The snowy plains of Antarctica? The white cliffs of Dover? (Actually, the lost-disc rule would probably be more germaine on that last one.) I'd just like to know if these other parts of the world that you speak of are full of disc golf courses, and if they are, are these courses densely filled with trees?

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.


Again, catch up with what other organization, exactly? (I guess little ol' backward me is asking.)

And it wasn't fault with "his logic" it must have been fault with "their logic" since they approved the change as a group.



Nick, I found fault in his logic that disagreeing with the RC meant not respecting the RC.

I disagree with you all the time, but I still respect you.

He is talking about the Swedes.

I agree that people's motivations are not important, but isn't this a bit over-analytical


We aren't mind readers, and even if they tell you their motives, the subconscious is a tricky thing, so they may not be 100% sure themselves.

We aren't mind readers, and even if they tell you their motives, the subconscious is a tricky thing, so they may not be 100% sure themselves. So let's keep other people's motivations out of this debate.




Oh my god, someone is brainwashing the Rules Committee into making descisions that they really didn't want to make for reasons that they think they believe were well thought out, but were apparently in planted into their subconcious by unscrupulous message board users.

I beseech you, no more subliminal postings on the Message Board please. :cool:

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :)

I have met a couple of members of the Rules Committee and find it hard to believe that they could be browbeaten into making decisions that they had not truly thought out and debated amongst themselves.

Hey Nick,

What is your opinion on the over the basket issue; do you support a drop zone or some other measure? While I don't like the removal of the 2 meter rule, I have to admit that for the most part Chuck and Nick have ways to deal with every issue that has come up including (I believe) Chuck's support of a drop zone within 10 meters.

Is that position being advocated to the BOD and Rules Committee?



No, I do not support it as a rule written in our rulebook. I would support individual TDs right to declare such zones at their events or even course pros to designate them or an infinite variety of "greens" shapes and sizes at their courses.

I do not think it is a bad idea, I just think it is a bad idea as a blanket rule. TDs and course pros should know best how hazards should or should not be used at their courses.

Example: Hole #5 at Warwick. The pin sits 3 feet from a 10 foot cliff. If a disc gets stuck in a tree above 2 meters but level with the hole 4 feet away from the basket, is it fair or correct to move that disc automatically to a drop zone 39 feet away from the base of the target? The person will already have to mark it on the playing surface some 13 feet away from the base of the target. If I were the TD or Course Pro I would consider that penalty enough. If there were a high likelihood of a situation as Pat described happen "I as TD might choose" to penalize the result of coming to rest above a certain height near the target by requiring relocation to a drop zone outside a certain distance (both of which I would determine and lay out).

If I was going to do it at all, which I am not saying I would, as a TD, I would likely make the "certain" height more than 2 meters, more like 10 or 12 feet. But it would depend on the nature of the actual green area.

In short, I would not support an "all-encompassing" mandatory hazard rule, believing that each situation needs to be assessed and addressed properly by the TD or Course Pro. I believe in uniform application of hazard rules(penalty strokes/relief), but not that there should be set blanket hazards(all roads, trees, water, etc).

I do not know what the PDGA RCs take is on the 10MDropZone idea is. I know that they believe the 2 meter rule should just be one of many available options to TDs and Course Pros. In that I agree.

We aren't mind readers, and even if they tell you their motives, the subconscious is a tricky thing, so they may not be 100% sure themselves. So let's keep other people's motivations out of this debate.




Oh my god, someone is brainwashing the Rules Committee into making descisions that they really didn't want to make for reasons that they think they believe were well thought out, but were apparently in planted into their subconcious by unscrupulous message board users.

I beseech you, no more subliminal postings on the Message Board please. :cool:

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :)

I have met a couple of members of the Rules Committee and find it hard to believe that they could be browbeaten into making decisions that they had not truly thought out and debated amongst themselves.



Zactly! These are all formidable folks. Joe Garcia the biggest advocate of 2MR on the RC is not one to be easily swayed by others. None are actually. As Carlton describes them they are all unique in personality and temperament, but I for one would never question their commitment to "wanting" to do the right thing, and it is clear from past actions that they are very careful about their revisions or any changes (overly so in my opinion, but I don't have the mantle of responsibility they have).

In short I respect them all very much, even the ones that may disagree with me, but this is not the issue here. We are talking about whether, essentially, Tournament Directors and Course Pros should have complete control over Course Hazards to fit each individual situation the way they see best or should we have Blanket Hazard Rules that may or may not fit every situation.

And it wasn't fault with "his logic" it must have been fault with "their logic" since they approved the change as a group.



Nick, I found fault in his logic that disagreeing with the RC meant not respecting the RC.

I disagree with you all the time, but I still respect you.



Glad to hear it. So renew your PDGA membership, get your MADC Membership (support the 05 Worlds) and stay IN THE GAME!'

While I'm at it everyone should subscribe to Dave Hendrickson DISC GOLF magazine http://www.discgolfmag.com/ . I've subscribed to just about every dg mag that ever came out and this is the one of the best by far. Not as flashy as DGWN but really well thought out and put together. Check it out! If you are a disc golf addict like me it will be an excellent bi-monthly fix, I guarantee!

We aren't mind readers, and even if they tell you their motives, the subconscious is a tricky thing, so they may not be 100% sure themselves. So let's keep other people's motivations out of this debate.



I have met a couple of members of the Rules Committee and find it hard to believe that they could be browbeaten into making decisions...


Zactly! These are all formidable folks...


See how this works? I say don't try to read the minds of the RC members. Someone else then makes a humorous suggestion that certainly the RC members weren't brow-beaten, and now the RC is being defended as if that was the intent of my original post.

Sigh.

Chuck was just making a comment explaining why the RC was able to make the decision to change the rule (something about them having "mental flexibility" and not being "entrenched" in their thinking). I say that if the RC had come to a different conclusion, that wouldn't have meant they were therefore inflexible and entrenched.

That's why I said we shouldn't try to read the minds or guess the motives of the RC members regarding their majority opinion on the 2MR. Doing so says nothing about the RC, really; it only indicates your own opinion on the subject.

If I was going to do it at all, which I am not saying I would, as a TD, I would likely make the "certain" height more than 2 meters, more like 10 or 12 feet. But it would depend on the nature of the actual green area.

proposed addition: "I would also, if i did this at all, which i am not saying i would, provide laster measuring devices to each player in order to safely measure such a high distance just a few iunches from a cliff" :D

You seem to be missing the point of point #3. I am not saying one should not question the RC. What I said was those that suggest or imply that the Rules Committee was foolish to recommend the elimination of the 2 meter rule, or that they didn't give this issue considerable thought -- are being ignorant, disrespectful, or both.

As for your reply regarding point #4, the BoD voted to implement the RC recommendation for the next rulebook printing for 2006. So I am pointing out that even with the new direction we are heading where the 2 meter rule is eliminated, a TD will still have the freedom to declare particular trees, holes, or courses as involving a 2 meter penalty. So where's the problem?

Other parts of the world have already rationally chosen to drop the rule. Hopefully, we'll eventually catch up



Well, we eventually caught up with our former European allies who told us that we should let the UN weapons inspectors continue to do their jobs in Iraq rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing thousands of people rushing to war. Maybe the Swedes are worth listening to. I sure hope noone arrogantly declares: "either they're with US or against US."

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...



Okay. maybe that did come out a little harsh, didn't it?

I've read many of Gary's posts on varying topics and I often find his logic very sound. However questioning a given measurement as a standard just because it was just that: a standard seemed well below his normal reasoning abilities.

You seem to be missing the point of point #3. I am not saying one should not question the RC. What I said was those that suggest or imply that the Rules Committee was foolish to recommend the elimination of the 2 meter rule, or that they didn't give this issue considerable thought -- are being ignorant, disrespectful, or both.


I haven't read a post in which anyone suggested or implied any such thing. Have you? Or is this a preemptive action on your part?

...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, I am an independent thinker. I judge ideas, concepts and arguement points on their own merit regardless of who the author or proponents happen to be.
I am every bit entitled to my viewpoint as the rules committee members and BoD are entitled to theirs as are you and everyone else in this sport.

I am not questioning their consideration or expertise.

Just because a person serves on a committee or has a certain title does not automatically make their opinion superior to anyone else's
. I've noticed a pattern with your repeated citing of others' positions as a sort of evidence as which side of an issue is the correct one. Earlier in this thread you cited Brian Schweberger as a proponent of the elimination of the 2MR because an unfortunate bounce into a tree cost him money in a tournament. Showing "who's on your team" is not an arguement, nor is it evidence your position is the correct one.

You seem to be missing the point of point #3. I am not saying one should not question the RC. What I said was those that suggest or imply that the Rules Committee was foolish to recommend the elimination of the 2 meter rule, or that they didn't give this issue considerable thought -- are being ignorant, disrespectful, or both.


I haven't read a post in which anyone suggested or implied any such thing. Have you? Or is this a preemptive action on your part?



Yes, I certainly have or I wouldn't bring it up. One person even had an avatar entitled "Fules Committee" and a picture of a disc suspended above a basket. There have been many posts which imply the RC didn't bother to think in this and other threads.

Basicly I have no problem with those who disagree with the PDGA decision to eliminate the 2 meter penalty provided they at listen to the rationale behind the Rules Committee's recommendation and acknowledge the Rules Committee did consider the potential for discs to get suspended above baskets.

To cite a shot sticking 50 foot above a basket seems to me to be like citing a low line drive that skips off a basket and lands suspended 2.01 meters up in a tree. We could also site a shot that hits 50 feet up and deflects into the basket. Such anomalies seem to me to be beside the point.

What seems much more practical is to look at how often and consistently a disc hitting a tree stays stuck. More often than not a disc does not stick.

The idea of having a 10 meter rule where a suspended disc within 10 meters of the basket leads to a drop zone shot seems reasonable to me. I'm not sure I have heard anyone argue that a disc suspended in a tree off the fairway and 200 feet short of the pin should be penalized. And unless that is your position I don't see why eliminating the 2 meter penalty but leaving it available as a TD option presents any problems.

Just because a person serves on a committee or has a certain title does not automatically make their opinion superior to anyone else's



<font color="blue"> agreed. you are mis-taking why I am citing their position. isn't it fair to say that PDGA Rule Committee members bring considerable expertise and experience to the table when they make Rule change suggestions? They have volunteered their time to try and make the best possible rules for our sport. does that mean they are infallible or above criticism? -- of course not. does it mean that we should voice our criticism of their suggestions in a way that respects their experience, expertise and good intentions? I hope so. It is a free country though. </font>


I've noticed a pattern with your repeated citing of others' positions as a sort of evidence as which side of an issue is the correct one. Earlier in this thread you cited Brian Schweberger as a proponent of the elimination of the 2MR because an unfortunate bounce into a tree cost him money in a tournament. Showing "who's on your team" is not an arguement, nor is it evidence your position is the correct one.



<font color="blue"> I am citing Schweb's position because he is someone who plays at a level far higher than I, and has more than me at stake. That he disagrees with the 2 meter rule in part because he has had a good roller shot end up suspended 7 feet up in a tree is imo worth hearing. To me that holds a lot more credibility than the arguments of those of us who have ratings below 950 since it is the world class players who have their very livelihood at stake and who play the game at a level at which they wouldn't want mere luck (or lack thereof) to dictate who wins and cashes. Do I think one should automaticly agree with anyone who plays at a higher level and in more NT events than oneself? -- No. Do I think their position is worth considering? -- Yes, or I wouldn't bring it up. I also am assuming the RC is giving considerable weight to the effect of rules on WCP level play when they make their decisions, as well they should. </font>

If I was going to do it at all, which I am not saying I would, as a TD, I would likely make the "certain" height more than 2 meters, more like 10 or 12 feet. But it would depend on the nature of the actual green area.

proposed addition: "I would also, if i did this at all, which i am not saying i would, provide laster measuring devices to each player in order to safely measure such a high distance just a few iunches from a cliff" :D



Actually the Warwick hole is an example of where I wouldn't use the 10M2MR. Truth is I wouldn't use it at all anywhere that I can think of. If you can, and you are a TD or Course Pro then I would support your right to implement such a ruling. All I am saying is that I do not believe there is a need for any "universal" or "blanket" hazard, that they should all be declared (or not) by the TD. Is that so bad? Haven't they been doing it with every other hazard from the dawn of disc golf?

I really don't see what is the big deal with this. And yes, this is what leads me back to figuring that folks cling to it just because it is familiar. I mean, even if every argument in its defense is 100% true, shouldn't TDs and Course Pros still have final say over the hazards at their events and their courses? Seems reasonable.

I've read many of Gary's posts on varying topics and I often find his logic very sound. However questioning a given measurement as a standard just because it was just that: a standard seemed well below his normal reasoning abilities.



It was a tongue in cheek response to intuitiveness. All I was doing was pointing out that to the non-disc golfer, there is nothing intuitive about 2m. It's either on the ground or it's not. That's intuitive. If you have to move it to play it, you are taking relief.

<font color="blue"> I am citing Schweb's position because he is someone who plays at a level far higher than I, and has more than me at stake. That he disagrees with the 2 meter rule in part because he has had a good roller shot end up suspended 7 feet up in a tree is imo worth hearing. To me that holds a lot more credibility than the arguments of those of us who have ratings below 950 since it is the world class players who have their very livelihood at stake and who play the game at a level at which they wouldn't want mere luck (or lack thereof) to dictate who wins and cashes. Do I think one should automaticly agree with anyone who plays at a higher level and in more NT events than oneself? -- No. Do I think their position is worth considering? -- Yes, or I wouldn't bring it up. I also am assuming the RC is giving considerable weight to the effect of rules on WCP level play when they make their decisions, as well they should. </font>



Have you considered the fact that Brian just happens to be "the thumber king" and throws shots likely to get stuck above 2 meters far more often than most players regardless of rating?

I'm not saying Brian's motivations are self-serving. I do however, find the logic in many of your arguements flawed. I still find no one's position to have any more weight or importance than anyone elses. A player's rating, experience or to the degree a certain rule may affect one's game matters not. Nor does someone with a certain title, membership, affiliation or stature have an inherent right to be heard or considered any more than anyone else.

If you have logical reasons as to why the elimination of the 2MR will improve our game then bring it. However any kind of "name dropping" is really pointless. As I said earlier, rules, ideas, concepts and arguements must be judged on their own logical merits without regard to who is proposing or supporting them.

I still find no one's position to have any more weight or importance than anyone elses. A player's rating, experience or to the degree a certain rule may affect one's game matters not. Nor does someone with a certain title, membership, affiliation or stature have an inherent right to be heard or considered any more than anyone else.




I suppose our Rules Committee should just be 'random draw' each year?

I suppose our Rules Committee should just be 'random draw' each year?

instead of what ?

it actually might good to require that at least a certain number of members are new each year. 'specially since its members are not there by vote.

I think that would be a scary proposition. The rules committee should not be motivated by the chance to retain the position, nor decisions made based on popularity.

No, I do not support it as a rule written in our rulebook. I would support individual TDs right to declare such zones at their events or even course pros to designate them or an infinite variety of "greens" shapes and sizes at their courses.

I do not think it is a bad idea, I just think it is a bad idea as a blanket rule. TDs and course pros should know best how hazards should or should not be used at their courses.





In short, I would not support an "all-encompassing" mandatory hazard rule, believing that each situation needs to be assessed and addressed properly by the TD or Course Pro. I believe in uniform application of hazard rules(penalty strokes/relief), but not that there should be set blanket hazards(all roads, trees, water, etc).




Nick, I am using your quote mainly because it seems to be representative of most if not all of those in favor of eliminating the 2MR. <font color="red"> I just want to share the evolution of my thought processes as to explain why I believe the 2MR should remain universally enforced. </font>

I first heard of the talk about eliminating the penalty for discs suspended over 2 meters in September '04. My first reaction was basically <font color="red">"whatever, no big deal it's not going to have a real big impact as it does not happen with any real frequency anyway." </font>
Then later I thought well on most courses I play it wouldn't have a significant effect, however on some courses (such as Seneca Creek st pk) it very well could have a significant effect . I remembered years ago when the trees at Seneca were smaller, one strategy was to ignore the fairways and just bomb your drive over all the small bushy trees and cedars and aim for a prominant tree close to the basket. I recalled that big arms used this strategy with great success. Over the years as the cedars grew larger it not only became more difficult to bomb over the top but it became much riskier as two meter penalties became more common among the "bomb over the top" strategists. So after considering this, my take on the proposed rule change went from "gee, I don't care" to that's going to lessen the impact of some courses' design . It also occured to me the big arms would now be receiving yet another advantage over the mere mortals. <font color="red">( at this point my position became similar to that of Sandalman's and Chuck's in that on certain courses something must be done around the greens to prevent this bomb over top without risk strategy. </font>
Over the next few months I occassionally thought more about the subject as it became discussed more and more on the courses as well as here on this board. My thoughts started turning to the whole concept of golf and how the proposed rule change would either support or negate the concepts of golf. I came to the realization that the biggest part of golf whether it be of the disc variety or the ball variety was that you must deal with your given lie "as it lies". If your lie is near a tree,an obstacle, on a steep embankment or other undesirable location the challenge with golf is to improvise using your developed arsenal of acquired skills to overcome your less than desirable situation.
If you want a good spot from which to throw your second shot, then don't throw it into one of these difficult spots on (or off) the fairway. If you happen to throw into an uncomfortable lie then you'll be scrambling with a sidearm, forehand roller, tomahawk or whatever to try and save par. <font color="red"> At this point I may have been a little more receptive to using the term OB and enforcing it at the TD's discretion as Nick and others are proposing </font> Then I started taking a closer look at OB.....
In golf there are certain areas marked as OB. In most cases the purpose for marking an area OB is not simply to provide extra challenge to the course, but instead there is usually a reason involving player safety, pedestrian safety, personal property preservation or for the protection of plant life/course beautification.When you throw a disc into a tree and it becomes lodged 20' up course pros as well as parks people don't want to see players climbing the tree for mainly two reasons: the player's safety and the tree's safety. For these reasons ( as well it would look kinda hokey) we don't play our shots from the suspended lies, but instead mark our lies on the ground directly below the suspended location. Now this brings us to the debate: to stroke or not to stroke? I have come to the conclusion that a shot required to play from a lie suspended 20' up in a tree (assuming you were exempt from the law of gravity and could actually play it from there) is significantly different than the one you actually are playing on the ground.From 20' up it is a different line to the basket. From 20' up there are different obstacles, different wind effects and a different disc attitude is required: possibly a downward shot versus a level shot from the ground. Now returning to the concept of golf we are expected to throw from where our previous shot came to rest even if it is uncomfortable or more challenging than we'd prefer. If for some circumstance we cannot play our shot from this location due to it's an area deemed as unplayable (as a shot requiring you to climb a tree would be) or OB we then take whatever relief is afforded to us by our rules and take a one stroke penalty (with the exception of areas that have been otherwise deemed as casual objects and free relief has been offered).
Now then the only arguement I see left after considering all this is: with all lies we play them with one supporting point "on the playing surface" which in most cases is the ground. If you have a disc suspended four feet above the playing surface, most golfers are not flexible enough nor have the balance to place a "supporting point" at this four foot suspended lie and it would be difficult to argue that "supporting point" in this case is anything other than a foot.So why don't we take a stroke at four feet? My viewpoint is aligned with Nick's observation that none of us in disc golf play our lies from our supporting point. We do not release our discs from ground level as ball golf does with the aid of a club. Typically most of our usually release our shot around waist high.(for me waist high is approx 1 meter above the playing surface). If we need to play our shot from behind a tree or other obstacle, it is common to stretch as far as we physically can to one side.(my stride is incidently approx 1 meter and with my sidearm reach I am capable of reaching approx 2 meters from my supporting point). So in a sense we are taking relief everytime we throw an upshot or a putt. I believe this relief is insignificant and is neccessary given the differences between disc golf and ball golf.
Now back to the 2 meter standard as it relates to the rule in question. I believe any lie below 2 meters could be deemed as falling into what Nick has affectionately named as our "lie bubble". Should we encounter a lie that falls out of this 2 meter bubble it is imperative we take a stroke penalty in exchange for what I term significant relief. I am not in love or joined at the hip with this measurement. If it were changed to 2.5 meters or 8 feet or whatever is of little consequence to me.However the measurement 2 meters does seem reasonable. And for you members of the don't double penalize party I wouldn't mind affording some sort of horizontal relief for those taking a 2M penalty. <font color="red">Therefore I am somewhat flexible to a discussion of amending minor specifics of the rule but as I believe the play it as it lies concept is far too central to the theme of golf to allow unlimted penalty free vertical relef</font> (and yes Nick that is my term as vertical relief is not presently found in our rulebook)

I hope this explains the method to my madness and my arrived conclusions.

I still find no one's position to have any more weight or importance than anyone elses. A player's rating, experience or to the degree a certain rule may affect one's game matters not. Nor does someone with a certain title, membership, affiliation or stature have an inherent right to be heard or considered any more than anyone else.




I suppose our Rules Committee should just be 'random draw' each year?



That would be an incorrect inference Chuck. Rob and I (I believe) were debating the significant merits of the ideas voiced here in this discussion not undermining any committee member's qualifications or suitablity to serve on said committee.

Have you considered the fact that Brian just happens to be "the thumber king" and throws shots likely to get stuck above 2 meters far more often than most players regardless of rating?

I'm not saying Brian's motivations are self-serving.


Um, not to be a killjoy, but YES YOU ARE!

I do however, find the logic in many of your arguements flawed.


Well care to share in what way? These arguments about how to argue do not have anything to do with the 2MR.

I still find no one's position to have any more weight or importance than anyone elses. A player's rating, experience or to the degree a certain rule may affect one's game matters not. Nor does someone with a certain title, membership, affiliation or stature have an inherent right to be heard or considered any more than anyone else.


Steve, it is fine for you to feel this way, that is your choice. Thing is that there really are people in a better position to decide what is best to do, and I am not talking about you and I, not talking about even the PDGA Board of Directors (I think you and I have more to bring than most of the BoD; with all due respect Steve and I have been in the sport a lot longer and have played in a few more events), this should be left to the PDGA Rules Committee.

They also happen to have the authority to make the decisions too. (A useful detail.)


If you have logical reasons as to why the elimination of the 2MR will improve our game then bring it.



Consider it �brung�!

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

1) The �lie� in disc golf is the mark on the playing surface below the disc at rest. It is not where the disc necessarily comes to rest above the playing surface.
2) The 2MR should rightfully be one vertical hazard option, and not �thee� vertical hazard option.
3) Tournament Directors, Course Pros and Course Designers should have the same control over vertical hazards as they have over all other hazards.
4) The 803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS rule is superior in every way to the 2MR. Any positive that the 2MR can claim can be covered better by OB and TD stipulated special conditions.
5) Tournament Directors wishing to continue the likeness of the 2MR could just announce that all discs more than 2 meters above the playing surface are to be treated as OB.
6) 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). A disc tumbling to the ground via gravity is quite different than a disc skipping or flying from OB under its own power.
7) Because it does a less effective job of protecting trees than other designer declared hazards.
8) 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 categorically not able to also be lost, and a lost disc is 100% unable to be above confirmed as being above 2 meters.
2) Removing All Luck From Our Rules Not Possible � Only remove what can easily be removed.
3) 2 Meters �IS OB� � It simply is not, if it were then it would cease to be the 2MR and become just another part of the out of bounds rule.
4) With out the 2MR YOU AREN�T PENALIZED for playing it with �significant� relief � The �lie� in disc golf is the mark on the playing surface below the disc at rest. It is not where the disc necessarily comes to rest.
5) Good shots don�t hit trees � Well except the ones that bounce of them and go in the basket. And if we get into the practice of penalizing bad shots (other than OB shots) then what�s next? Penalty throws for missed putts!?! Penalties for short upshots!?!
6) Universal hazards are more consistent and easier to understand- Well, that may be true, but they are also very lonely occurrences within disc golf rules; in fact, the 2MR is the only one! And in 2006 it will be the first and last universal hazard disc golf has ever had�

2MR bye-bye - Review:
1) Our lie is on the playing surface below the disc at rest, not where the disc comes to rest.
2) OB is Better
3) Our rules more clear
4) Increases Design Freedom
5) 2 Meter-like use of OB remains available.
6) Reduces likelihood of luck to decide penalty throw.
7) Makes tree protection a conscious effort rather than a presumed (often falsely as illustrated by FUBARed trees at your course) protection.



However any kind of "name dropping" is really pointless. As I said earlier, rules, ideas, concepts and arguements must be judged on their own logical merits without regard to who is proposing or supporting them.



That I, Rob, James, Chuck, a quorum of the PDGA Rules Committee and Board of Directors all agree with the need to remove or make the 2MR optional, is not a non-factor. Our collective knowledge, logic and experience is what it is, yours what it is.

Whachyoo got?

Our collective knowledge, logic and experience is what it is, yours what it is.

could you possibly be more condescending?

your entire post was a list of so-called "reasons" but all they were really only statements of your opinions. no proof, no real discussion. just some opinions followed by a review that restated them, then your arrogant conclusion.

Our collective knowledge, logic and experience is what it is, yours what it is.

could you possibly be more condescending?

your entire post was a list of so-called "reasons" but all they were really only statements of your opinions. no proof, no real discussion. just some opinions followed by a review that restated them, then your arrogant conclusion.


Yup. Been there, read that.

Pat,

I didn't notice, did you have anything to discuss regarding the topic at hand? I'll be happy to discuss your opinion of me through PM or email anytime, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the points I just made and I suspect that you know this.

Which do you think are pure opinion and why?
What kind of proof are you looking for on an internet message board?
Discussion is a two way street. I present my ideas you present yours and back and forth we go. I'm a little confused as to how exactly you hoped that I would have a discussion with myself.

What you call as an "arrogant conclusion" perhaps is the only "fact" in this whole discussion. That we feel this way while you feel that. Not quite sure how stating that is arrogant. Can you explain why you think it is?

Our collective knowledge, logic and experience is what it is, yours what it is.

could you possibly be more condescending?

your entire post was a list of so-called "reasons" but all they were really only statements of your opinions. no proof, no real discussion. just some opinions followed by a review that restated them, then your arrogant conclusion.


Yup. Been there, read that.




Hey Guys,

Don't blame me for your acquiescence. You are, as always free to express your opinions and thoughts on this topic and to disagree with me.

Can I help it that knowledge, logic and good sense are my allies? LOL!

Can I help it that knowledge, logic and good sense are my allies? LOL!



LOL!

1) Our lie is on the playing surface below the disc at rest, not where the disc comes to rest.

except that we do NOT throw it from that point, just have a supporting point at that point. most disc golf thorws are away form the body and away from the "lie"

2) OB is Better

opinion, by anyone's definition

3) Our rules more clear

opinion, by anyone's definition

4) Increases Design Freedom

so does the way it is in 2005, so whats wrong with that?

5) 2 Meter-like use of OB remains available.

always was, so what?

6) Reduces likelihood of luck to decide penalty throw.

or increases, depending on whether you believe the lucky ones drop or the unlucky ones stick

7) Makes tree protection a conscious effort rather than a presumed (often falsely as illustrated by FUBARed trees at your course) protection.

thats opinion, and a luducrious one IMO. it makes people WANT to hit trees, or at least not care if they hit them or not.


nick your condescion and arrogance are demonstrated when, among other times, you drop a few names, include yourself with them, and suggest or declare that the collective opinion of the group is undeniably superior to the opinion held by any other person or group (unless of course it agrees with yours). at times like these you seem like the equivalent of the Donald Rumsfeld of disc golf.

Free relief is given when you are within 1 meter of OB. You get up to 1 meter relief perpendicular to the OB even if it takes you closer to the hole.

Keeping our rules of play in mind, getting free relief from a lie above the playing surface but within some set distance from the playing surface is perfectly consistent with our rules of play. There is no controversy here. Keep the 2 meter rule, and move along now.

Free relief is given when you are within 1 meter of OB. You get up to 1 meter relief perpendicular to the OB even if it takes you closer to the hole.

Keeping our rules of play in mind, getting free relief from a lie above the playing surface but within some set distance from the playing surface is perfectly consistent with our rules of play. There is no controversy here. Keep the 2 meter rule, and move along now.



So Rhett, you consider the place where the disc came to rest the lie then, rather than what our rules tell us which is that the lie is the place on the playing surface below the disc, is that right?

Relief is relief then. Moving a disc any distance vertically is cheating then in your book. If not then you do not believe that the lie is where the disc comes to rest but the mark on the playing surface below it, and you logically will agree with me that any penalty stroke is in conflict with marking and playing our lie.

1) Our lie is on the playing surface below the disc at rest, not where the disc comes to rest.

except that we do NOT throw it from that point, just have a supporting point at that point. most disc golf thorws are away form the body and away from the "lie"



That is our only constant Pat. It is our lie.

nick your condescion and arrogance are demonstrated when, among other times, you drop a few names, include yourself with them, and suggest or declare that the collective opinion of the group is undeniably superior to the opinion held by any other person or group (unless of course it agrees with yours). at times like these you seem like the equivalent of the Donald Rumsfeld of disc golf.



I think that you have hurt feelings Pat, and for that I am sorry to have upset you.

I think that you have hurt feelings Pat, and for that I am sorry to have upset you.

LOL, leave the psychology to the professionals, please. my feelings are not by not being included in a list that agrees with you - on the contrary, such an omission usually serves as validation of my position. :D

Any comments on this fact of relief?

at times like these you seem like the equivalent of the Donald Rumsfeld of disc golf.



Please, please, please . . . if you continue this analogy the only person in the entire Bush cabinet I would have wanted to be was Colin Powell. :D

The problem is that we all want to be Colin (well except for those few who want to be Condi) and no one wants to be Don. :D

Free relief is given when you are within 1 meter of OB. You get up to 1 meter relief perpendicular to the OB even if it takes you closer to the hole.

Keeping our rules of play in mind, getting free relief from a lie above the playing surface but within some set distance from the playing surface is perfectly consistent with our rules of play. There is no controversy here. Keep the 2 meter rule, and move along now.




Any comments on this fact of relief?



Marking your lie on the playing surface is not explicitly or inexplicitly inferred as any form of relief. Relief is defined within our rules, and quite accurately:

Relief: A change made to the player's lie or surrounding area, such that an obstacle is removed from the vicinity, or when that is impractical, the lie is relocated away from the obstacle in accordance with section 803.04 C.

Reminder:
Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.


Can you show me a single instance of where it is written or inferred that marking your lie on the playing surface is �relief�? I�ve looked through all pertinent rules and found no sign of it, so I would be very interested in knowing if anyone has found something.

The current rules do not recognize the concept of vertical relief. They also recognize anything suspended over 2m as deserving a penalty stroke.

Which do you want to use. The current rules or the possible new rules ?

Before we can move forward, certain terms need to be nailed down. In order to discuss the concept of where the disc came to rest versus the mark, the 2 need to be separated.

I would propose:

Lie: Spot where the last throw came to rest.
Mark: Location of marker disc used for reference for stance rules compliance.

If you accept that the lie can be elevated from the playing surface, then the marker disc can either be the thrown disc, or a mini marker placed on the playing surface.

In this case the concept of vertical relief is viable. The question becomes, why is a little vertical relief acceptable while a lot is not. There have been many times where even six inches of horizontal relief would have made a tremendous difference to me.

So, for those strong supporters of playing it where it lies and in favor of keeping the 2m rule, why is 6 feet of vertical relief insignificant ?

To clear this up, I have no agenda. I don't like the 2m rule, but it is a rule, and my preferences would not lead me to change it. I just see a little hypocracy in stating we need to play it where it lies or take a penalty, unless it lies less than 2m above the playing surface.

I see both cases as vertical relief, and if you are insisting on the requirement of penalties for relief then both cases should be penalized or neither.

gary, a lot of your thinking on this makes sense, but the all or none theory is without precedent already. a player can claim dangerous lie relief anytime they want, take a penalty and move on. but they get free relief from a lie within 1M of OB. and thats just one quick example.

I say that the 2 meters of vertical relief is analogous to the 1-meter of free horizontal relief you receive from the OB line. Since stance is defined on the playing surface, it makes sense to put the mark on the playing surface.

For OB, you get up to 1 meter of horizontal relief so that you can take a legal stance.

For a disc suspended above the playing surface, you get 2 meters relief. Is it for safety? Is it because most disc golfers can easily reach their disc at that height while any higher than 2 meters is in the realm of "throwing it where you can't get it"? The rules don't say because they don't have to say that in order to clearly codify a rule that is easy to enforce. Those reasons sound like good reasons to me even if they aren't in the rule book as reasons.

Not trying to do anything but point out that relief is relief whether 1 foot or 2 meters. Pointing out that players advocating keeping the 2m rule are in fact advocating free relief, when their arguments are mainly made against allowing free relief. But if you have to explain the irony, its too late.

in that case, i am proud to be an advocate of free relief, both for discs under 2M (where players can universally reach them) and for within 1M of OB (allowing players to take just about any legal stance).

BUT - ya throw it OB or stick it above 2M - then pay the price for your follies.

I have no problem with minimal relief that is given in the rules so long as everyone plays by the same set of relief rules. As I've stated in a previous post, the 2M rule will not be waived at tournies I TD. I will not have time to mark all the trees as OB as one foolishly suggests. The trees were there before the course and are obstacles, both horizontally and vertically. Play with the trees or against them, it's your choice.

I believe in using all of the course, including the trees when playing :eek:

If I didn't use all of the course, maybe my scores would be lower :D

I say that the 2 meters of vertical relief is analogous to the 1-meter of free horizontal relief you receive from the OB line. Since stance is defined on the playing surface, it makes sense to put the mark on the playing surface.

For OB, you get up to 1 meter of horizontal relief so that you can take a legal stance.

For a disc suspended above the playing surface, you get 2 meters relief. Is it for safety? Is it because most disc golfers can easily reach their disc at that height while any higher than 2 meters is in the realm of "throwing it where you can't get it"? The rules don't say because they don't have to say that in order to clearly codify a rule that is easy to enforce. Those reasons sound like good reasons to me even if they aren't in the rule book as reasons.



I'd be fine with this "IF" above 2 meters was declared OB, but it is not OB, as you well know. And further the logic does not hold up for discs at rest further than 2 meters above the playing surface: If a disc is 20 meters above the playing surface then by your logic (transposition of releif from OB) the player should have to take a 2 throw penalty (anything more than 5 meters I believe is the rule).

If you want to make above 2 meters OB, then I say go for it, but that still orphans the curretn 2MR, and correctly so.

I have no problem with minimal relief that is given in the rules so long as everyone plays by the same set of relief rules. As I've stated in a previous post, the 2M rule will not be waived at tournies I TD. I will not have time to mark all the trees as OB as one foolishly suggests. The trees were there before the course and are obstacles, both horizontally and vertically. Play with the trees or against them, it's your choice.



For all areas further than 2 meters above the playing surface to be declared OB, all that is needed is to say so. You don't have to mark a single tree.

Furthermore, if you did want to declare just certain areas or even specific trees where this 2 meter OB was in effect, it is no more burden than declaring any other area OB (trees do have seams, just like water, between themselves and earth). And there is always the choice just not to declare ANY area as OB.

Understanding your options is the first step in understanding the increased amount of design freedom you now have as a TD.

why are we forcing TD's into "designer" mode? why are we assuming that TD's will somehow know what the course had in mind? why are we assuming that TD's will respect what designers had in mind, even if they know?

nick, this "more design freedom" thing is working against your arguments for the elimination of the 2MR. if you're smart you will retreat from this line of discussion. its actually weakening your arguments because it is so full of holes. the best reason to get rid of 2MR outside of 10M is the double-penalty argument. and that one has holes to begin with, because a huge percentage of trees provide plenty of room for a stance underneath.

why are we forcing TD's into "designer" mode? why are we assuming that TD's will somehow know what the course had in mind? why are we assuming that TD's will respect what designers had in mind, even if they know?

nick, this "more design freedom" thing is working against your arguments for the elimination of the 2MR. if you're smart you will retreat from this line of discussion. its actually weakening your arguments because it is so full of holes. the best reason to get rid of 2MR outside of 10M is the double-penalty argument. and that one has holes to begin with, because a huge percentage of trees provide plenty of room for a stance underneath.



It is more than just a design freedom question it goes to the very heart of "hazards" and how our rules handle them. All hazards, except the 2MR, are consistently and precisely governed by OB and Relief rules. Why should the 2MR be any different? There simply is no compelling reason for it to be different or outside the rules governing the other hazard rules.

Is it the only compelling argument to remove the 2MR? No, but it is a very worthy one to keep in mind.

The "Double-Penalty" idea is intriguing, but it is not as clearly delineated within our rules. Besides, if a TD declared everything above 2 meters as OB, that would end in a small measure, the double penalty by at least providing some relief.

Moreover, the �Double-Penalty� idea, incorrectly, IMO, assumes that a penalty is EVEN justified in the first place for marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is over 2 meters. It assumes that the �Universal-Reach� theory is substantiated, which in my opinion, and in context of other rules it is not. It assumes that marking your lie on the playing surface is some kind of RELIEF, when IMO, and the context of the rest of our rules it is not, nor is it defined with them as such.

In short, it assumes more than I am willing to concede.

Where as I have no reservations in making all hazards be governed by the same rules, rather than one sticking out like a big old sore thumb.

And if TDs aren�t concerned with the design of their courses, then I�m not sure if they should be running events.

And if TDs aren�t concerned with the design of their courses, then I�m not sure if they should be running events.

huh. i'd wish that TDs had more time to Direct rather than running around redoing and revalidating what the designer had already done weeks/months/years before

And if TDs aren�t concerned with the design of their courses, then I�m not sure if they should be running events.

huh. i'd wish that TDs had more time to Direct rather than running around redoing and revalidating what the designer had already done weeks/months/years before



What are you talking about? If the course needs redesign just prior to the event, then yes they WILL have to run around and get it ready and make sure their are no rules gaps. If the course is designed and ready to go with all special conditions an hazards predefined (as is the case for most courses) then they don't have to do anything but announce them at the Player Meeting (and if they are really good include them on the scorecards and event programs). You act as if this is something new! Any complication is of their own making...

If the course is designed and ready to go with all special conditions an hazards predefined (as is the case for most courses) then they don't have to do anything but announce them at the Player Meeting (and if they are really good include them on the scorecards and event programs). You act as if this is something new! Any complication is of their own making...

you see, therein lies the problem.

the courses WERE designed for the last however many years. when the 2MR goes away, they will no longer be fully designed.

i act like this is something new because it is!!!

.... the best reason to get rid of 2MR outside of 10M is the double-penalty argument. and that one has holes to begin with, because a huge percentage of trees provide plenty of room for a stance underneath.



I have to disagree with your logic there, Pat. I agree that the 'double penalty' is the only legitimate argument against the existing 2m rule, but dumping the rule is not the only (or best solution). The best solution is to address the double penalty issue. That would be why I recommended (somewhere way up one of these zillion 2m threads) allowing up to 5m relief a la casual obstacle relief (with the 1 stroke added of course).

To me, that is the best way to resolve the double penalty thing. I'll say it again - don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If the course is designed and ready to go with all special conditions an hazards predefined (as is the case for most courses) then they don't have to do anything but announce them at the Player Meeting (and if they are really good include them on the scorecards and event programs). You act as if this is something new! Any complication is of their own making...

you see, therein lies the problem.

the courses WERE designed for the last however many years. when the 2MR goes away, they will no longer be fully designed.

i act like this is something new because it is!!!



You are assuming a significance for the 2MR that simply is not there Pat. Besides, folks are so slow at catching on to new rules that there will be a buffer for Course Pros to update tee signs and scorecards. I doubt many casual players ever follow the 2MR to begin with (let alone know about it). The courses that will update quickly are the ones where PDGAs are held, and I'm betting dollars to donuts most will either just waive the stinkin' thing or not, and not mess with defining certain areas as OB or not, and for those who are interested, they will now have complete design freedom.

That would be why I recommended (somewhere way up one of these zillion 2m threads) allowing up to 5m relief a la casual obstacle relief (with the 1 stroke added of course).


Since semantics is everything on this board, you should say "allowing up to 5m relief a la the unsafe lie rule.

The mere mention of the casual relief will probably spin this thread off on yet another tangent, and the good idea of adding horizontal relief (to go with your vertical relief) for your stroke penalty will be lost.

that IS a good idea dan, and thanks for reminding me as i had forgotten. dang it, i really AM starting to lean back towards just keeping the rule. the relief thing is clean and sweet.

OMG, are you all still talking about this? :D

I thought the conversation ended when I suggested a stroke penalty with the next throw from either A) anywhere on the line of play, behind the marker, as marked under the suspended disc, ORRRRRRRRR B) anywhere along the line of the throw, back to the previous lie if necessary. Whichever one works better for the infinitely wise RC is good enough for me.

It's much like Dan's 5m deal only better. IMHO of course. :eek: :)

Since semantics is everything on this board, you should say "allowing up to 5m relief a la the unsafe lie rule.




Thanks Rhett, you are on da money with that.

That would be why I recommended (somewhere way up one of these zillion 2m threads) allowing up to 5m relief a la casual obstacle relief (with the 1 stroke added of course).


Since semantics is everything on this board, you should say "allowing up to 5m relief a la the unsafe lie rule.

The mere mention of the casual relief will probably spin this thread off on yet another tangent, and the good idea of adding horizontal relief (to go with your vertical relief) for your stroke penalty will be lost.



That would be a neat trick considering that it is against the rules. You'd have to first redefine "lie" within our rules, of course the player under your interpretation would be permitted to climb the tree and play from there without penalty.

I know you want your cake and eat it too but there are certain inconsistencies that have to be accounted for.

That would be why I recommended (somewhere way up one of these zillion 2m threads) allowing up to 5m relief a la casual obstacle relief (with the 1 stroke added of course).


Since semantics is everything on this board, you should say "allowing up to 5m relief a la the unsafe lie rule.

The mere mention of the casual relief will probably spin this thread off on yet another tangent, and the good idea of adding horizontal relief (to go with your vertical relief) for your stroke penalty will be lost.



That would be a neat trick considering that it is against the rules. You'd have to first redefine "lie" within our rules, of course the player under your interpretation would be permitted to climb the tree and play from there without penalty.


Um, against the rules? Which rules? The rules that haven't been written yet? Or the current rules? Because if you're talking about the current rules, any changes to the 2MR are also against the rules. I mean, technically, any change to any rule is against the rules.

If you support rule changes of any kind, you shouldn't argue against other changes simply because "those changes are against the rules."

Nick was quoted as typing:

That would be a neat trick considering that it is against the rules. You'd have to first redefine "lie" within our rules, of course the player under your interpretation would be permitted to climb the tree and play from there without penalty.


Since the topic was Dan's proposed change to the rules, your comment is stupid.

Yes, I suppose you are right. The point is that such a change would entail changing a great many other rules as well (including the definition of "lie").

Actually I would favor Dan's rule compared to the blanket 2MR. At least it would be in context and conformity with other hazard rules. I do think we would need to figure out another way to keep folks out of the trees though... and that is where this idea is not as elegant as the current "lie" rule.

It's been a long while since I've been on this forum. This thread keeps growing! I think I left off just before 50 pages. I don't have the time to filter through everything with my slow dial-up, so I thought I'd just ask for an update.

I hadn't heard anything from our local club on the 2m rule so I wrote our president to ask him what our position on the matter would be for club events. From what I'd heard on this board, I thought I'd ask for everyones' clarity, because by default, the 2m rule would not be in effect. Here's what I wrote in a nutshell....

Personally, I think that the 2m rule serves a useful purpose. A fair example is hole 2 at Herman Hill. Risk/ reward is a little more a factor when one has to consider the trees as a potential hazard and not just convenient disc stoppers. I have heard of several modifications that keep the rule while helping to eliminate the "double penalty."

1) A penalty stroke is taken if above 2m. The player can take his shot as far back as he wishes (or could set a limit) on a line straight back from the pin so that he gets a decent stance or shot.

2) A penalty stroke is taken if above 2m. The player has the choice of playing where the shot is marked or from their previous lie (stroke and distance, like ball golf).

3) Throw away the 2m rule except for within, say, 50' of the basket. This would serve a decent portion of the purpose for the 2m rule while not over punishing very bad shots.....

From browsing through a few pages I see that a few people are getting the idea that a modification (if needed) would be better than an elimination of the entire rule.

I did notice that a few people are for the rule only inside 10m of the pin. A drop zone 10m out has been suggested. I think that playing it where it lies with one stroke penalty would be superior to just giving a player an open putt with no penalty. This keeps the spirit of "play it where it lies." If you go into a tree within 10m of the basket, it was probably intentional or a very poor shot, thus deserving penalty. If the putt can't be made from that range, double penalty. We can't make disc golf a game of "call it a 2 and move to the next hole." You should have to earn your score. Skill adds a dramatic difference in scoring in ball golf. I feel disc golf should be the same way.

An example of why it may be inadequate to draw the 10m (or 50') distinction is as follows... on some extreemly long holes where a player can cut substantial distance off of the hole's length by throwing over a tree line, the shot that finds it's resting point over 2m deserves penalty for trying to circumvent the hole's intended fairway. Don't get me wrong, throw whatever you feel gives you the best shot, but if a player can take the trees out of play for 95% of his flight, plus cut distance off the hole by not playing through the fairway, shouldn't there be some penalty should the shot be errant enough to become lodged in a tree on it's crashing way down? The disc may not get stuck that often, and if the infrequency was large enough, the over-the-top shot would still be the better choice. But, with the 2m rule, it at least makes the player evaluate a decent level of risk/ reward for the hole. If you call it poor design, you are calling just about every course with good variety a poor design. Do we want the game to evolve to where most of the drives thrown on a course that has trees are tomahawks?


Getting back to my main point... The president of our club told me that for 2005, the 2m rule WAS in effect by default and that it could be changed by a TD in tournament play.

Is this true? When was the change made? Did it become apparent that too much confusion would arrise from creating a default no 2m situation? Why was the change made? What will be the ruling for 2006? Thanks for the replies.

Basicly, the Board of Directors disregarded the recommendation of the PDGA Rules Committee that the default scenario for 2005 be no 2 meter rule, and voted to delay the complete elimination of the 2 meter rule until 2006 (when a new rules book will be out). So for 2005, a TD can choose to declare the 2 meter rule is NOT in effect, or the default scenario will be the old way (2 meters = a penalty).

The main reason for eliminating the 2 meter rule is that it applies too randomly. Throw 20 discs above 2 meters into a tree and very few stick. Trees can be used as brakes by throwing 2 meters and below under the present scenario. Anyone who thinks players will benefit from hitting 25 feet and higher in a tree should try that theory out scientificly and see where it lands them. The great thing about the elimination of the 2 meter rule is that while it may encourage people to take risky shots into or over canopies, it will punish them more equitably than the flukey 2 meter penalty.

In 2006, with the elimination of the 2 meter rule, TD's will still have the option to declare certain trees as OB (to protect them or when a pin placement warrants it).

Shots over the canopy are no more deserving of penalties than rollers on long fairways. Both shots are skills that should mastered and used when the terrain and foliage make them the best options. Course designers are aware that those shots exist and should be designing courses with those shots in mind.

I'm sorry, I had to do it. One note that I have mentioned before, my overhead and knife hyzer shots generally stick less than regular backhand shots that encounter trees.

The main reason for eliminating the 2 meter rule is that it applies too randomly. Throw 20 discs above 2 meters into a tree and very few stick. Trees can be used as brakes by throwing 2 meters and below under the present scenario. Anyone who thinks players will benefit from hitting 25 feet and higher in a tree should try that theory out scientificly and see where it lands them. The great thing about the elimination of the 2 meter rule is that while it may encourage people to take risky shots into or over canopies, it will punish them more equitably than the flukey 2 meter penalty.


and iraq had wmd's and met us dancing in the street showering us with flowers

You are accusing the PDGA Rules Committee of political BS? I guess you know disc golf better than the Rules Committee and Dave Dunipace and anyone else who disagrees with you on this issue? The loud and vocal minority opposing the elimination of the 2 meter rule seems a lot like the Miami Cubans who have a lot of political power in Washington and have created a foolish embargo.

Even the board voted to eliminate the 2 meter rule in 2006 when the latest greatest rules book gets printed. Quit resisting the future and embrace the elimination of the 2 meter rule. Make those trees you think are trouble OB once a disc rests in them above a height of 30cm. But leave the fairway trees out of it. Or create a drop zone for discs suspended above 2 meters that are within 10 meters of a pin.

...I thought I'd ask for everyones' clarity, because by default, the 2m rule would not be in effect.



That is incorrect. For 2005, the 2 meter penalty is in effect by default.

You are accusing the PDGA Rules Committee of political BS? I guess you know disc golf better than the Rules Committee and Dave Dunipace and anyone else who disagrees with you on this issue? The loud and vocal minority opposing the elimination of the 2 meter rule seems a lot like the Miami Cubans who have a lot of political power in Washington and have created a foolish embargo.

Even the board voted to eliminate the 2 meter rule in 2006 when the latest greatest rules book gets printed. Quit resisting the future and embrace the elimination of the 2 meter rule. Make those trees you think are trouble OB once a disc rests in them above a height of 30cm. But leave the fairway trees out of it. Or create a drop zone for discs suspended above 2 meters that are within 10 meters of a pin.



Rob, you make it sound as if the only ones against removal of the rule are those that post on here, when that is not the case at all. The Rules Committee that you worship so much was not unanimous in their recommendation, nor was the board unanimous in their original approval of said recommendation.

If there is a loud and vocal minority, it appears to be on your side of the coin, not ours.

Craig and Pat have shown that using the OB rule as written leads to lie marking issues. I completely disagree with your 'random shot' argument as well as Carlton's "it's a matter of luck" reasoning since they are pretty much the same thing. We play a game of physics, there is no luck or randomness involved.

well, in a way, i guess i am, altho i meant to direct my comments at the person who was reiterating a faulty party line without regard to its implications. especially after reading about how the elimination of the 2MR was snuck into the package of rules to bew changed.

my own opinion of the change to the 2MR is based on a lot more than what i think. its based on the reaction of the majority of players in this area, who understand that given our particular terrian/fauna, the elimination of the 2MR takes away from the overall game. these people have as much experience as any group of disc golfers you care to assemble. the difference is that they do not have a problem with star-worshiping or name-dropping.

We play a game of physics, there is no luck or randomness involved


As a physicist, I feel compelled to refute this argument. Have you heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Chaos Theory?
Let's start with the latter. A key factor in Chaos theory is "sensitive dependence on initial conditions". As a golfer, you only have control over a tiny proportion of the initial conditions involved in the full flight of a disc; ie speed, angle of release etc. Even of those you only have nominal control over, on a molecular level, but we'll let that slide. You have no control or knowledge whatsoever of what the air is doing 200' or even 20' down the fairway. You have no knowledge of the flexibility of individual leaves/branches in the tree your disc hits.

Even if you thought you could measure all these things, you couldn't, the act of observing them changes their properties (Heisenberg).

In discgolf, luck can be seen as the effects of all the factors over which you have no control. As far as it applies in this case, yes, there is a great deal of luck in whether or not your disc sticks in a particular tree.

If you want to look at it that way, Bruce, then it could be argued that there is a great deal of luck in whether or not your disc sticks in the basket. Or lands out of bounds. Or goes in the water.

Sheesh, with all this 'luck' involved, why do we even bother practicing? Is it disc golf, or lotto?

The Rules Committee that you worship so much was not unanimous in their recommendation, nor was the board unanimous in their original approval of said recommendation.



<font color="blue"> In the Board's vote, there was one vote against delaying the elimination of the 2 meter rule until 2006. That was the Competition Director who supported the Rules Committee recommendation (to eliminate the rule as a default scenario beginning in 2005). The Rules Committee has been looking at this issue for years, and there has never been unanimity with regard to the 2 Meter rule amongst any group of disc golfers. The status quo is far easier to defend than change, so the fact that the RC recommended this is no small matter. Also, to suggest I worship the RC is absurd. I do appreciate the time and expertise they bring to the table, and I also realize they are serious people who know a lot about disc golf and the effects of the rules upon the game. Are you aware that people resist change, and often defend the status quo as if the sky will be in danger of falling even when it may be superstitious nonsense to do so? :D </font>


I completely disagree with your 'random shot' argument as well as Carlton's "it's a matter of luck" reasoning since they are pretty much the same thing. We play a game of physics, there is no luck or randomness involved.



<font color="blue"> Luck is a factor, that's obvious. But the goal of rules is to minimize the role which luck plays in determining the outcomes of tournament play. Disc catching devices which spit out half of all putts hitting dead center would be scrapped in favor of a device which is less flukey. If you really think it is easy to purposely get your disc favorably suspended in a tree, then I suppose you are in favor of changing the 2 meter rule to the 30cm rule -- right? Go throw 25 similar throws into a tree from 200 feet away and see how many stick, and what percentage end up with a favorable lie. If the majority do, you have a flukey tree and pin placement scenario and can simply make that tree OB in 2006. </font>

Yep I'd agree with that. There is a great deal of luck whether or not a 250' fairway shot sticks in the chains. Let's keep these things on a level playing field shall we, unless you want to discuss how often a disc sticks in a tree when throwing it just 30'?

I've gone OB (water and otherwise) when a perfectly good looking shot got sat on by the wind, or got lifted and hyzered out short.

That said, you must be able to see that there are a great many more uncontrolled variables involved with a tree collision than with a simple air shot that goes OB.

We play a game of physics, there is no luck or randomness involved


As a physicist, I feel compelled to refute this argument. Have you heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Chaos Theory?
Let's start with the latter. A key factor in Chaos theory is "sensitive dependence on initial conditions". As a golfer, you only have control over a tiny proportion of the initial conditions involved in the full flight of a disc; ie speed, angle of release etc. Even of those you only have nominal control over, on a molecular level, but we'll let that slide. You have no control or knowledge whatsoever of what the air is doing 200' or even 20' down the fairway. You have no knowledge of the flexibility of individual leaves/branches in the tree your disc hits.

Even if you thought you could measure all these things, you couldn't, the act of observing them changes their properties (Heisenberg).

In discgolf, luck can be seen as the effects of all the factors over which you have no control. As far as it applies in this case, yes, there is a great deal of luck in whether or not your disc sticks in a particular tree.



Sort of. The problem is that while we can't measure all these things, they do indeed follow rules and have structure. On the release of the disc we might not know their structure but we can reasonably compensate for that. If there is wind, we can observe that and adjust our throw to stay away fromt he tree. I disagree with you that we can't read the wind 20' or 200' away. We simply have to take into account our environment. If there have been gusts all day then you compensate and throw more conservatively. You might not see the wind, but you know it might be there. The ability of a golfer to read his/her environment and make the best adjustment to it is one of the differences between a good golfer and a bad golfer.

[grab chain and pull firmly] As for Heisenberg, while not a physicist, I have to disagree with the man (even now Bruce is breathing deeply to retain his calm). Under Heisenberg's principals, if I look at a flying duck I have modified its path of flight. How? The fact is that I have not; you might argue that the light reflecting off the bird has modified its path but the observer has not; he�s simply received the light. Yes I know that the motions of my body in following the flight of the duck might infinitesimally affect the duck but how do you distinguish the interaction, and what would be the relevance anyway? My guess, without studying Heisenberg, is that his principal is based on the current reality that to observe many molecules you have to use molecules of similar size and motions and set up a collision. The end result is that you have modified the path of the molecule that you are observing. So, because we are so crude that we can't find a cleaner more sophisticated measure of these molecules that doesn't involve our modification of them or their path, we can't look at anything without modifying it? Awfully arrogant aren't we that we know everything and know the only ways to observe things. [release chain, hand Bruce his pint and await rebuttal]


On the other hand, we can simply acknowledge what Dan wrote in his post and let it go at that.

If you really think it is easy to purposely get your disc favorably suspended in a tree, then I suppose you are in favor of changing the 2 meter rule to the 30cm rule -- right? Go throw 25 similar throws into a tree from 200 feet away and see how many stick, and what percentage end up with a favorable lie.

actually, the fact that cedar trees will catch a disc a very high percentage of the time is one of the strongest arguments put forth by the most vocal of the 2MR opponents who has thought (and i use that term loosely) about this rather than just spouting a replay of something they heard on digital radio.

and that argument was coupled with the fact that cedars have thick low-lying branches. with the 2MR a player not only got a one-stroke penalty, but also was the envy of his card as he somehow crawled under the tree and barely managed to putt out to the fairway. in essense a two-stroke penalty.

and guess what? most of us <font color="purple"> thought about this and came to understand that the 2MR was overly harsh in this case! </font> in other words, we listened to the other side's arguments with an open mind. we then said, ok fine, lets get rid of the 2MR for fairways, buit we MUST consider other areas of the course (around the green) differently!

but our plea has NOT been heard - probably because the anti-2MR zealots dont give a rip about anything except getting their way - and it appears that they will in '06.

face it - the committee's courageous decision comes across as heavy-handed because they have not yet admitted that their emphasis on a one-size-fits-all rule is not hte best solution to this problem. and the board zealots are making the situation worse by contributing nothing except a rehash of the arguments.

This argument that y'all are maintaining is a freakin joke. I suppose we can take all the initial meterological conditions and predict where the next tornado will hit also?

We, our minds, or our abilities don't operate in some ideal state where you can model all the initial conditions and predict if a disc will stick in a tree. I even doubt a super computer could predict it. Similar to what Rob said: if it is truly "predictable," everyone should be able to determine in mid-flight which discs will stick and which won't. No one can, thus it is random. Claiming otherwise is folly.

Sort of. The problem is that while we can't measure all these things, they do indeed follow rules and have structure. On the release of the disc we might not know their structure but we can reasonably compensate for that. If there is wind, we can observe that and adjust our throw to stay away fromt he tree. I disagree with you that we can't read the wind 20' or 200' away. We simply have to take into account our environment. If there have been gusts all day then you compensate and throw more conservatively. You might not see the wind, but you know it might be there. The ability of a golfer to read his/her environment and make the best adjustment to it is one of the differences between a good golfer and a bad golfer.



Trying to stay on thread with this, we're discussing two discs that hit the same tree. Regardless of the quality or otherwise of the golfer that threw the disc, I don't for a minute think that you believe he will have sufficient knowledge of the motion of the air along the flight path to have calculated the angle at which he hits, relative to the branches, such that he can utilise their relative flexibilty to safely guide his disc to the ground, preferably to a particular lie that gives him a nice clean shot to the basket... If he did have that knowledge, surely he would have just missed the tree! ;)


[grab chain and pull firmly] As for Heisenberg, while not a physicist, I have to disagree with the man (even now Bruce is breathing deeply to retain his calm). Under Heisenberg's principals, if I look at a flying duck I have modified its path of flight. How? The fact is that I have not; you might argue that the light reflecting off the bird has modified its path but the observer has not; he�s simply received the light. Yes I know that the motions of my body in following the flight of the duck might infinitesimally affect the duck but how do you distinguish the interaction, and what would be the relevance anyway? My guess, without studying Heisenberg, is that his principal is based on the current reality that to observe many molecules you have to use molecules of similar size and motions and set up a collision. The end result is that you have modified the path of the molecule that you are observing. So, because we are so crude that we can't find a cleaner more sophisticated measure of these molecules that doesn't involve our modification of them or their path, we can't look at anything without modifying it? Awfully arrogant aren't we that we know everything and know the only ways to observe things. [release chain, hand Bruce his pint and await rebuttal]



[rebuttal] Well the first mistake you have made is to confuse the macro with the micro. Heisenberg's principle applies to ojects with very specific characteristics, specifically sub-atomic particles. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not say "everything is uncertain." Rather, it tells us very exactly where the limits of uncertainty lie when we make measurements of sub-atomic events.
As far as this applies to the subject in hand, the way in which a leaf will bend is very sensitive to these events within the leave itself.
Admittedly, the Chaos theory arguements are much more effective in this case, as they scale up to macro levels much more effectively. I note you didn't take issue with those :)

That said, you must be able to see that there are a great many more uncontrolled variables involved with a tree collision than with a simple air shot that goes OB.



<font color="blue"> Right, from a distance of 250 feet, 10 shots entering OB with similar speed and angle will have similar outcomes. 10 shots hitting a tree with similar speed and angle will likely have dissimilar outcomes. Ending up with a favorable lie after hitting a tree is not a common scenario, so in a tournament the player who benefits from the elimination of the 2 meter rule because s/he chooses to 'use' trees as deflectors on a particular hole will likely be harmed by a 'let-me-hit-this-tree' approach after playing several holes with that mentality. Skilled players have better options than to hit trees, since skips, deflections, and harmed discs are not as beneficial as quality shots which involve less luck. For those rare holes where particular trees do work like brakes for the not-so-skilled thrower, make the whole tree OB. Doesn't everyone throw into cedar trees below 2 meters under the present rules if they think the lie will be more advantageous that way? The rules should work best for WCP players and not the hack who is almost better off gunning throws into trees because their accuracy blows.

Come 2006 once the new rule book is printed reflecting the elimination of the 2 meter rule, TD's and course designers will be free to call any or all trees on a course OB. So what's the problem? Will anyone miss the present scenario where a disc suspended 1.9 meters in a tree is not penalized while one 2.1 meters up is? (in addition to the bad lie that likely results)

As someone whose favorite course is Idlewild, I look forward to the elimination of the 2 meter rule so that players feel more inclined to try over-the-top risk/reward shots. That's high stakes gambling and being suspended above 2 meters is not nearly as common as getting terrible deflections. :D On the other hand, quality shots to that effect will navigate over and around trees and will deservedly be rewarded. </font>

If there is a loud and vocal minority, it appears to be on your side of the coin, not ours.



<font color="blue"> Au contaire. The vast majority of players are silent on this issue. There are two vocal minorities -- one at each end of this argument. But yours is louder, as evidenced by the BoD's vote to delay of what the PDGA body in charge of Rules voted to implement this year. Change is always resisted, maybe that's why the Board voted to make 2005 a transition year. If there are particular holes or even courses you're worried about -- just have particular trees, holes, or even courses declared OB if suspended above 30cm. OB is a better way to handle this problem anyways </font>

This argument that y'all are maintaining is a freakin joke. I suppose we can take all the initial meterological conditions and predict where the next tornado will hit also?

We, our minds, or our abilities don't operate in some ideal state where you can model all the initial conditions and predict if a disc will stick in a tree. I even doubt a super computer could predict it. Similar to what Rob said: if it is truly "predictable," everyone should be able to determine in mid-flight which discs will stick and which won't. No one can, thus it is random. Claiming otherwise is folly.



evidently their opinions resist science in favor of superstition.
I am still waiting for someone to throw 100 discs from a distance of 250 feet at a tree and report back where each disc ended up in relation to the tree trunk/earth juncture.

Using a tree to your advantage involves skill not random luck. And it is smarter to miss the tree altogether if you are a highly skilled player -- since the tree involves so many dissimilarly angled deflectors. Getting suspended is very difficult to replicate except for certain cedar-type trees -- in which case you still may get a terrible lie. Under the present rule you can of course use a cedar tree as a brake by throwing into it less than 2 meters high anyways...

actually, the fact that cedar trees will catch a disc a very high percentage of the time is one of the strongest arguments put forth by the most vocal of the 2MR opponents <snip> and that argument was coupled with the fact that cedars have thick low-lying branches. with the 2MR a player not only got a one-stroke penalty, but also was the envy of his card as he somehow crawled under the tree and barely managed to putt out to the fairway. in essense a two-stroke penalty.

and guess what? most of us thought about this and came to understand that the 2MR was overly harsh in this case!



IMO, I would like to see the rule stated that TD's can implement the 2M rule to apply ONLY to cedars.

As you state, the luck factor of sticking in a cedar is low. So, course designers most likely left the cedars standing to have a similar effect as water hazards.

There are a ton of times that I have gone into the drink and had VERY poor footing after taking my 1M relief. That too is essentially a 2 stroke penalty. I do not think that this is overly harsh and do not think that the 2MR for cedars is overly harsh (for well designed courses, of course).

Cedars add significantly to the mental aspect of the game. Look at these video clips of Renaissance Gold hole 11 (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_11G.mpg), hole 13 (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_13G.mpg) (aka Cedar Hell), and hole 14 (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_14G13O.mpg). Taking away the 2M rule would defeat the designer's intent for the myriad of cedars on them. Play smart, play controlled, or pay!

IMO, I would like to see the rule stated that TD's can implement the 2M rule to apply ONLY to cedars.



<font color="blue"> There's a better way under the RC's decision to end the 2 meter rule and the Board's subsequent vote to make 2005 a transition year and end the 2 meter rule in 2006: Call particular trees (or all trees) OB as you please. OB is up to the TD and/or course designer. Why should a person like me get away with nailing a cedar tree lower than 2 meters? </font>


Taking away the 2M rule would defeat the designer's intent for the myriad of cedars on them. Play smart, play controlled, or pay!



<font color="blue"> Not if they alter their pin placements slightly, or simply designate particular cedars as OB. Even puting the 2 meter rule aside regarding cedar placements, how often have you been in a cedar tree near a pin and then missed the putt because the resulting lie put the tree between you and the basket or because you were streched too far out to make a decent putt? </font>

This argument that y'all are maintaining is a freakin joke. I suppose we can take all the initial meterological conditions and predict where the next tornado will hit also?

We, our minds, or our abilities don't operate in some ideal state where you can model all the initial conditions and predict if a disc will stick in a tree. I even doubt a super computer could predict it. Similar to what Rob said: if it is truly "predictable," everyone should be able to determine in mid-flight which discs will stick and which won't. No one can, thus it is random. Claiming otherwise is folly.



Too much caffeine James,

Bruce had some fun and I had some back for entertainment and to get educated. Bruce complied nicely and in good meter. It is obvious that Bruce is against the 2M rule because he doesn't like the randomness and uncontrollable nature of it (what else would you expect from a physicist).

On the other hand, I'm for it because it changes how a player plays (not all and not to the same extent). It is simply a tool that can be used very effectively to change player strategy, and hence the difficulty of the course. Nothing more, nothing less, remember, even if it changes how the player thinks about a hole, it has had an effect (Wow! Almost Heisenbergesque).

Taking away the 2M rule would defeat the designer's intent for the myriad of cedars on them. Play smart, play controlled, or pay!


Not if they alter their pin placements slightly, or simply designate particular cedars as OB. Even puting the 2 meter rule aside regarding cedar placements, how often have you been in a cedar tree near a pin and then missed the putt because the resulting lie put the tree between you and the basket or because you were streched too far out to make a decent putt?



Who is talking about putting? Look back at the videos.

On #11 there are cedars around 150' down that force you to throw controlled off the tee on a 1042' hole. Then there are cedars dotting the left side of the fairway with the right side being open. You are rewarded by placing your drives well. This NOT a simple 400', 400', 240', putt hole in large part due to the risk/reward of the velcro cedars.

On #13 notice how the cedars around the basket are trimmed below 2M. It might be hard to see on the video, but these cedars are a big deterent from thowing a big spike hyzer or thumber if you end up too far right with 200-250' to go.

On #14 the cedars are less strategic, but they do punish you for missing your line. On this hole, IMO, there is not a need for the 2MR for cedars since it is not a risk/reward factor - just a penalty for a poorly thrown drive. And, loss of distance and poor stance is enough.

I am limited to a 28K dial-up connection so i did not watch the videos. The 2 meter rule is not needed for the situations you cite. hitting and sticking in a fairway cedar is not advantageous -- you will have to stand and throw and the lie will dictate forehand or backhand.

When deemed necessary, TD's can simply designate particular trees as OB or certain holes or courses as involving a 2 meter penalty (though a half meter makes more sense). Declaring any disc suspended above a designated height (such as 2 meters) as OB would work fine too. The 2 meter rule is and always has been an awkward rule. Notice all water is not declared OB but only water so designated.

Proponents of the removal of the rule prefer to use the argument that if you "throw 100 shots into the trees some will stick and some will not, therefore it's luck". My argument is that you treating all the shots as if they were identical, when they are not.

As far as the Heisenberg thing, I thought George C. Scott was great in it, but the special effects were overrated.

On #13 notice how the cedars around the basket are trimmed below 2M. .



Trimming the cedars everywhere below 2 meters keeps the tree from being an obstacle for low line drives and also eliminates the double penalty of being suspended. [Suspension above 2 meters in] Cedar trees usually represent a double penalty when they aren't so trimmed. Get rid of the 2 meter rule and let the cedar trees grow free. Or just declare the relevant cedar trees OB if you want to reward skillful circumnavigation.

is there some reason you want to punish throws that take a line higher than 2 meters above the ground? it still requires skill to get near the basket.

Proponents of the removal of the rule prefer to use the argument that if you "throw 100 shots into the trees some will stick and some will not, therefore it's luck". My argument is that you treating all the shots as if they were identical, when they are not.



<font color="blue"> not at all. the proponents of the rule change argue that it is too flukey to double punish the one out of 25 errant shots that both hit the average tree and stay suspended above 2 meters. It is such a rare occurence as to be flukey, and it usually becomes a double penalty. Eliminate the 2 meter rule and grant the TD or course designer license to declare particular (or all) trees OB. </font>

Proponents of the removal of the rule prefer to use the argument that if you "throw 100 shots into the trees some will stick and some will not, therefore it's luck". My argument is that you treating all the shots as if they were identical, when they are not.




I hate this argument more then i hate anything. To the naked eye the shots look the same. So your saying just because 1 shot was a quarter inch off from another that one should get a penalty and the other should not because they werent the EXACT same shot???

That is a terrible argument because if someone is watching a tournament and Cam Todd throws into the center of a tree and falls down to 1.999 meters then Steve Rico throws into the center of the same tree and sticks 2.111 meters up and THEN gets a penalty people are going to say "Are you freakin kidding me???? They just threw the SAME FREAKIN SHOT and Steve got a Penalty and Cam didnt. Their discs are less then a 1ft apart!!!!!! What the hell is that all about???

Im not saying this rule should be gotten rid of because i can throw spike hyzers with less worry now im saying it should be gotten rid of because it is a STUPID RULE!!!!! I will still beat the people i was beating before and i will lose to the people i was losing to before. This penalty being gone doesnt give anyone an advantage or a disadvantage no matter what you guys say or think IT DOESNT.

Rob, I'd rather punish a bad shot (hit the tree) that stayed bad (stuck in the tree) than reward a bad shot that stayed bad (which would be the case if you allow someone to park a disc 20 feet up in a tree and play on unpenalized).

As for the bad shots (hit the tree) that ended up good (on the ground)? Thank Allah, Vishnu, or Odin (or whatever your inclination) and move on. Consider yourself 'lucky'.

exactly. a shot that hits a tree and drops is LUCKY! not the other way around. if 25 shots hit the same tree and all 25 fall, then there was a lot of luck around that tree today. so what. shots that stick in trees are NOT UNLUCKY.

btw, the downfalls of the yellow-rope theory of tree-OB have been thoroughly documented and discussed. since that has always been an option, making it the only option is a step backwards.

Rob, I'd rather punish a bad shot (hit the tree) that stayed bad (stuck in the tree) than reward a bad shot that stayed bad (which would be the case if you allow someone to park a disc 20 feet up in a tree and play on unpenalized)



Chances are if someone is parked and 20ft up in a tree they prolly SUCK anyway and you shouldnt worry about them gaining an advantage by being parked because on the next hole where there are no trees around the basket that same shot is going to go about 100 ft by the basket and they are going to take 2 or 3 shots to get in the basket from there so it makes up for the 1 shot they saved by getting stuck in the tree. No one in there right mind is going to say hey let me throw 20 ft OVER the basket and hope i get stuck so i can have a short putt for birdie.

Come on guys are you really that afraid of not having this rule???

is there some reason you want to punish throws that take a line higher than 2 meters above the ground? it still requires skill to get near the basket.



Yes. As I mentioned, the designer did not want thumbers or spike hyzers through the cedar canopy to be a low-risk route.

BTW, I like the option you say is coming in 2006 where the TD can at his/her discretion name any or all trees OB above 2M or anyway he likes. That is, I like it if the TD consults with the designer to understand his design intentions. A TD should be a TD and a course architect should be a designer (sometimes the TD is the architect).

don't throw your discs in trees and the 2 meter rule doesn't come into effect.

i've taken a few penalties from it, having played at seneca alot. but everyone has the same odds of sticking in a tree. if you want to play the shot to hit the trees near the basket, that's the price you pay sometimes. i definitely think the 2 meter rule should stay.

That is a terrible argument because if someone is watching a tournament and Cam Todd throws into the center of a tree and falls down to 1.999 meters then Steve Rico throws into the center of the same tree and sticks 2.111 meters up and THEN gets a penalty people are going to say "Are you freakin kidding me???? They just threw the SAME FREAKIN SHOT and Steve got a Penalty and Cam didnt. Their discs are less then a 1ft apart!!!!!! What the hell is that all about???





that would be funny. cam would probably laugh at steve. then steve would pop him in the mouth, cam would fall against the tree, knocking steve's disc down before he could reach his lie... :D

seriously, pros hardly ever take 2 meter penalties. mostly it is us ams who are crying about it.... :p

That is a terrible argument because if someone is watching a tournament and Cam Todd throws into the center of a tree and falls down to 1.999 meters then Steve Rico throws into the center of the same tree and sticks 2.111 meters up and THEN gets a penalty people are going to say "Are you freakin kidding me???? They just threw the SAME FREAKIN SHOT and Steve got a Penalty and Cam didnt. Their discs are less then a 1ft apart!!!!!! What the hell is that all about???





that would be funny. cam would probably laugh at steve. then steve would pop him in the mouth, cam would fall against the tree, knocking steve's disc down before he could reach his lie... :D

seriously, pros hardly ever take 2 meter penalties. mostly it is us ams who are crying about it.... :p




:D:D:D:D:D:D Man that hurt, the guy in the office next to me is looking to see why I'm laughing so hard.

As far as the Heisenberg thing, I thought George C. Scott was great in it, but the special effects were overrated.



Man, I was thinking the same thing! :D

Power to the TD. Letting the TD decide will, in the long run, resolve this issue properly.

States rights baby!

We play a game of physics, there is no luck or randomness involved


As a physicist, I feel compelled to refute this argument. Have you heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Or Chaos Theory?

Let's start with the latter. A key factor in Chaos theory is "sensitive dependence on initial conditions".


That dependence has to do with the mathematical model and trying to calculate a deterministic result from it. For some physical systems, the mathematical models are sensitive to initial conditions, but that does not mean that the actual physical realities are equally sensitive. It only means the model is sensitive. Which means that we have difficulty making long-term predictions based on those models, not that the physical reality itself is random. The intrigue about chaos theory is that the physical system is truly deterministic, not random at all, and yet its predicted behavior is still dynamically unstable, given the models we use to define that behavior.

As a golfer, you only have control over a tiny proportion of the initial conditions involved in the full flight of a disc; ie speed, angle of release etc. Even of those you only have nominal control over, on a molecular level, but we'll let that slide. You have no control or knowledge whatsoever of what the air is doing 200' or even 20' down the fairway. You have no knowledge of the flexibility of individual leaves/branches in the tree your disc hits.


When you speak of something outside of your complete control, you mean there is a degree of uncontrollability or instability in the system. Again, this is not the same as having a random system.

Even if you thought you could measure all these things, you couldn't, the act of observing them changes their properties (Heisenberg).


That's true at the quantum level. Throwing a disc is pretty much a Newtonian event. And you don't have to leave Newtonian physics to see manifestations of chaos theory.

In discgolf, luck can be seen as the effects of all the factors over which you have no control. As far as it applies in this case, yes, there is a great deal of luck in whether or not your disc sticks in a particular tree.


If you wish to define luck that way, then maybe so, but a smart player can still play the percentages. Just as in other games of skill that involve some level of chance, an experience player can draw upon his knowledge of the sport to judge whether or not to throw a disc into some trees. He should know ahead of time that some percentage will stick above 2 meters, and over time will get a sense for that percentage for a given hole or course. That's how we re-apply some level of control back into the system, by making value judgments based on what mathematicians call statistics and what regular people call experience. Given that understanding, I'm not sure why anyone would want to eliminate luck, as you've defined it, from any game of sport.

That said, you must be able to see that there are a great many more uncontrolled variables involved with a tree collision than with a simple air shot that goes OB.


Eliminating the 2m penalty still leaves all those "uncontrolled variables" in place. You still don't have an accurate sense of where each disc is going after it hits a tree. But over time, statistically, you can get an idea of what some discs will do when they hit certain types of trees. Again, experience will enable you to take a calculated risk when you want to.

That said, you must be able to see that there are a great many more uncontrolled variables involved with a tree collision than with a simple air shot that goes OB.


Eliminating the 2m penalty still leaves all those "uncontrolled variables" in place. You still don't have an accurate sense of where each disc is going after it hits a tree. But over time, statistically, you can get an idea of what some discs will do when they hit certain types of trees. Again, experience will enable you to take a calculated risk when you want to.


And does that change due to the inclusion or exclusion of the 2MR?
What if the tree is OB? Then what?

Similar to what Rob said: if it is truly "predictable," everyone should be able to determine in mid-flight which discs will stick and which won't. No one can, thus it is random. Claiming otherwise is folly.


Unpredictable doesn't mean random. Random means that the result has an evenly statistical spread of outcomes. Unpredictable means a number of outcomes are possible, but it still may be possible to say that one outcome is more likely than any.

For example, most people here agree that discs in general do not stick in most trees. If the result were truly random, then discs would stick in trees as often as not, no matter the tree, no matter the disc, no matter the skill level of the player.

That said, you must be able to see that there are a great many more uncontrolled variables involved with a tree collision than with a simple air shot that goes OB.


Eliminating the 2m penalty still leaves all those "uncontrolled variables" in place. You still don't have an accurate sense of where each disc is going after it hits a tree. But over time, statistically, you can get an idea of what some discs will do when they hit certain types of trees. Again, experience will enable you to take a calculated risk when you want to.


And does that change due to the inclusion or exclusion of the 2MR?


The risk factors change, depending on the inclusion or exclusion of 2MR. I would imagine less risk throwing into trees means more throws will be made into them.

What if the tree is OB? Then what?


Now the risk is back, but the workload is higher. If only some trees are OB, the TD has to work hard and the players have to work hard to determine which trees those are.

If all trees are OB, then the extra effort goes into determining where the disc was last IB to mark the disc. Or again, the TD works hard to define drop zones. (I doubt returning to the previous lie is ever going to be an attractive option for those whose discs stick in trees.)

So while I like the fact that badly thrown discs are appropriately penalized (IMO), I don't like defining trees as OB because of the added workload and the uncertainty in marking the lie. I think of the 2MR as a way of applying that penalty without adding unnecessarily to the TD workload and still making it straightforward for players to mark their lies.

So the challenge presented by a tree with the 2MR in effect is significantly higher?

How much higher in terms of percentage?

Now compare that to the challenge presented by the tree without the 2MR, just on its own?

Is it like a 99% to 1% difference?

In my estimation it is.

And the difficulty of judging were something was last over IB has never been a huge challenge. (a little bird told me that it will be stroke and distance or drop zone in the future anyway...)

(a little bird told me that it will be stroke and distance or drop zone in the future anyway...)

care to elucidate? or just wanna play passive-aggressive?

I hope that you're wrong (I usually do :D) The proposed rule changes seem to be someones agenda...LEAVE THE 2 METER RULE ALONE...BAD SHOT=CONSEQUENCE...GOOD SHOT=REWARD

The PDGA Rules Committee made their recommendation and the PDGA Board of Directors voted to implement it in 2006 with the printing of a new rule book. Get used to it. Embrace the future now. There are plenty of alternative ways to safeguard holes in which the design leans on the 2 meter rule like a crutch.

If 1 out of 10 or less similar shots lead to a penalty, the rule needs to be changed. Players with terrible accuracy may seemingly benefit from the elimination of the 2 meter rule, but closer examination reveals that anyone who depends upon sticking 25 feet up in a tree is going to be deflected errantly far more often than they will be rewarded. WCP level play is what should be most considered -- not the play of hacks.

WCP level play is what should be most considered -- not the play of hacks.



It seems to me that the hacks are the one's to benefit...ahem robj

The PDGA Rules Committee made their recommendation and the PDGA Board of Directors voted to implement it in 2006 with the printing of a new rule book. Get used to it. Embrace the future now.


What are you talking about? For 2006, we all expect that the 2MR to be turned off by default, but the TD will still have the option to turn the rule back on. The 2MR is not being fully eliminated, so discussion of the rule is not moot.

If 1 out of 10 or less similar shots lead to a penalty, the rule needs to be changed.


Are you going to use this reasoning to argue against the lost disc rule, too? Most throws don't result in lost discs -- surely even fewer throws than one in 10.

WCP level play is what should be most considered -- not the play of hacks.


So again you argue that people with skill somehow avoid the 2MR. If you believe that, then you don't believe that it's all about "luck"; you believe that skill is involved. Otherwise, the rule would affect the skilled and unskilled alike.

Anyone whose game depends upon sticking 25 feet above the pin in a tree is going to be penalized by errant deflections far more often than they will be rewarded by ending up suspended with a favorable lie. A tree has a wide array of deflectors at various angles, and predicting the type of deflection that will occur for a throw 200 feet away is the type of gamble that will be punished far more often than rewarded.

just do the math

if ten throws are thrown with the same general angle into the same 1 square meter area of a lake from a distance of 200 feet away, most are going to result in the same scenario (lost or skipped IB). Throw 10 shots with the same general angle into the same 1 square meter area of a tree from a distance of 200 feet away and no two will likely land in the same general place. And maybe one will stick. Why double penalize only one out of 10 bad shots in such a flukey way?

Don't you think the PDGA Rules Committee gave this serious consideration? Maybe you are just resisting change (it's natural) and overestimating the problems that the elimination of the 2 meter rule will entail (the sky won't fall and a player with less skill than you will still be at a disadvantage when competing against you).

Actually, I'm ambivalent, just one of that silent majority who don't care much either way. I just like a good physics argument :D

T/F: Albert Einstein wasted the last 20 years of his life, trying to prove the unprovable. :D

give up the "resisting change" argument, please. its insulting. we have valid reasons for wanting to keep some semblance of the 2MR. the arguments for keeping some form of the 2MR are as strong if not stronger than the arguments against it (sweden doesnt have the rule - get real!)

your example of throwing 10 discs into the tree from 200' is flawed. i would bet money that all discs end up in the same "general place" they are not gonna be so widely scattered that an observer who only sees their resting place would be unable to guess they all followed similar paths while in the air.

how come this board is so quiet today?

Because Nick has taken his crusade to the moderated topic where he control all the responses.

there is an attempt to use the monitor abilities to unduly influence the 2MR discussion by placing a biased and misleading "poll" in the moderated board section.

the "monitor" is perhaps the mist voal propoent of complete abolishment of the 2MR, and he is controlling the response on the moderated thread. trust me, he has blocked the posting of at least one relatively innocuous message - with absolutely NO direct response asto the reason.

this is the kind of crap we are gonna have to put up with if the "moderated" concept advances much further. it is BS and a blatant misuse of the players/participants trust. it needs to stop.

posted by "moderator" Nick:

I am against the 2m rule, but believe that it should either be eliminated, modified, or kept as is, period. I really don't like the "will or won't be used based upon the TDs discretion," wording. It is either a rule or it isn't. The whole discretionary thing is a bit wishy-washy and in my opinion, not very professional. I haven't done any research on this, but I cannot think of any other instances in a "professional soirts organization", where certain rules can be voided by officials based upon their personal opinions or discretion (if I am wrong on this, feel free to correct me). A rule, or lack there of, should be the same from tournament to tournament, and I hope that the rules committee and the BOD will approach any final decision with this in mind.


refused by "moderator" Nick:

given the choices as described in this poll, i am now completely for the retention of the 2MR in its entorety on all areas of the course. the TD should NOT have any wiggle-room. it should be in place for all tourneys everywhere, period.


WHATS THE DIFFERENCE EXCEPT THAT YOU AGREE WITH ONE AND NOT THE OTHER???

The "Moderated Area" is moderated. The rules are clear. I will moderate no post that adhere to the simple rules. And I will not respond to every rejected post due to normal time restraints. Things like flaming will simply not be allowed.

Maybe folks aren't posting here because they are tired of just chasing their tails...

I too have posted on those thread and only one has been excepted. Of course I was pointing out what most of us already new, Monitor is Nick Night.

After much though, I think I will chime in on this subject.

I DON'T CARE

I could have it either way. As for Pizza God the TD, he will keep the rule. But if the new rules book next year takes it out, I don't care.

yes, but i believe you used the word "sucks"

what nick doesnt understand is that there are some ways to track what is submitted and rejected. at least until he covers his trails by deleting the declined posts completely

With regard to the moderated thread, if it's not doing the job, for reasons that you do or don't like, just leave it lie and keep an intelligent, reasoned, discussion going on here. If your thread is a better one, it should be obvious eventually.

The rule is going to change in 2006 but TDs will be able to impose some version of it if they want to.

I personally like the rule the way it is. I think waiting to see if the disc is going to come out is one of the most exciting moments in the game. But it's not critical, we are pretty evenly divided on it. My vote was won over based on the "Let's try it the other way for a couple of years and see how it works" argument.

Maybe I'll start a thread with an argument about emdashes and endashes. No, wait, how about "How many angels can dance on the head if a pin?" :D

if ten throws are thrown with the same general angle into the same 1 square meter area of a lake from a distance of 200 feet away, most are going to result in the same scenario (lost or skipped IB). Throw 10 shots with the same general angle into the same 1 square meter area of a tree from a distance of 200 feet away and no two will likely land in the same general place. And maybe one will stick. Why double penalize only one out of 10 bad shots in such a flukey way?

Don't you think the PDGA Rules Committee gave this serious consideration?


I'm not talking to the rules committee. I'm talking to you.

I said, and I still say, that your reasoning is faulty, because you say that for any penalty, if only 1 out of 10 similar shots gets penalized, then that penalty should be removed from the rules. Your reasoning would make me believe that you want the penalty revoked wherever that argument applies.

Well, I've thrown shots where discs just miss a tree, and similar shots where the disc edge scrapes the same tree and deflects OB. I've thrown discs that skipped onto a layer of leaves, and similar shots where the discs slipped under the same leaves and, after 3 minutes of searching, resulted in a lost disc penalty.

So by your reasoning against the 2MR, would you argue that for the cases I describe above, the OB and lost disc rules should be revoked wherever similar shots result in "unfairly" applied penalties?

Now, if the rarity of the penalty is your primary issue, then the foot fault rule is rarely called, and the excessive time rule is rarely called. Would you also like these penalties on the chopping block, next to 2MR?

If your answer is to keep all the other penalties, even those that can be shown to have issues similar to the 2MR, then what specifically about the 2MR truly makes you want to eliminate it?

Maybe I'll start a thread with an argument about emdashes and endashes. No, wait, how about "How many angels can dance on the head if a pin?" :D


Definitely emdashes. And the answer to the angels question is "all but one".

[*****] you Nick.

Please "moderate" and delete your stupid hide-your-name poll from the moderated topic. You suck.

Perhaps the monitor needs a reminder as to what the job they do is. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. That DOES NOT give the monitor the license to remove messages containing opinions that may be contrary to that of his own.

excellant post rhett. that summarizes the feelings of many many board users (and probably many members of the board too :) )

Perhaps the monitor needs a reminder as to what the job they do is. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. That DOES NOT give the monitor the license to remove messages containing opinions that may be contrary to that of his own.

it does it they are the "monitor" of the thread in question, and they are trying to suppress honest thought that conflicts with their lines-are-not-two-dimensional thinking

Perhaps?

You are misreading my point in an easily refutable way rather than openly looking at the problems which the 2 meter rule presents. Aces are rare and I am not calling for us to throw them out. What i am saying is that since 9 out of 10 similar shots into a tree do not end up suspended above the playing surface but are instead subject to the array of deflectors at many different angles which the tree represents -- a shot into a tree is generally a bad shot to begin with. The resulting lie is going to be unpredictable and unfavorable at least as often as it is favorable. Therefore adding an additional penalty to one out of every ten similar shots is both kooky and flukey.

It seems to me far better to declare the whole area beneathe a tree OB if you want to discourage tree usage as a way to enhance one's score on particular holes. Play your casual rounds however you like, but lets reward skill over luck as best we can in tournament play.

As such, all shots that can clearly and distinctly be seen hitting the pole between the basket and the upper chain assembly should be counted as "in" no matter where they end up. Probably 19 out of 20 or even 49 out of 50 that get to the pole stick. And of course any disc that strikes the pole between the stripes is good. Why punish pure unadulterated bad luck by making the unlucky thrower suffer at least one more throw penalty for a good shot? (Could easily be more than one if the disc rolls away and/or goes OB.)

Let the basket be there to demonstrate aces because you can't really tell if it hit the pole or not from the tee pad.


That's the same argument you are using, isn't it?

Not really. Baskets are fairly uniform and symmetrical in their construction and the array of deflectors a basket represents is far different than a tree. If only one out of every ten shots with similar angle and speed hitting a basket in the center fell out, it might be considered flukey but i don't think we should double penalize it. The goal is however to make baskets which catch good shots. You cannot argue trees are designed to catch bad shots, can you? Would you favor placing a netting under all trees at a height of 2.01 meters in order to make tree shots less likely and tree sticks less flukey? :D

Would you favor placing a netting under all trees at a height of 2.01 meters in order to make tree shots less likely and tree sticks less flukey? :D



No I wouldn't, because I think the rule is just fine the way it's been. Shots that don't hit trees dont' freakin' stick. :) Shots that hit trees usually get lucky, but sometimes your luck runs out and they stick. Just because 95% of low righty hyzer shots off an OB road skip in fair is no reason to throw out the OB rules because it's "so random" when someone hits a rock, car, or curb and gets stuck with a OB penalty.

Hey, that's my new counter argument for all you "it's too random" argument guys. What about the low hyzer skip off the OB road? That is very much the same as the disc that hits the tree. You think you are good and go for the skip shot, and it doesn't work, too bad. If you think you are good and go for the "near the tree route" and miss and stick. Too bad. Sometimes people throwing the skip shot miss their line and end up safe anyway, juts like lots of people hit the trees and end up safe.

Counter that! :D


By the way robj, are you another Nick Knight user-name? That's classic Nick faulty-debate-technique there. You know, drawing some bizarre twist of logic and making it an over-the-top ridiculous scenario, and then asking if I support it, trying to make it sound like I had ever said anything even remotely close to that somewhere before. Which of course I haven't.

You are misreading my point in an easily refutable way rather than openly looking at the problems which the 2 meter rule presents.


If you can't state your case clearly, stand up for it later, and listen fairly to reasoned criticism without insulting people, then prepare to always be misread, misunderstood, and easily refuted.

Play your casual rounds however you like, but lets reward skill over luck as best we can in tournament play.


So now you're arguing for the 2MR? It takes skill to avoid trees, doesn't it?

And what is this about "rewarding luck"? There is no 2MR reward. With 2MR, we penalize a few bad throws -- not all of the bad throws, because not all of them stick in trees, but a few them.

The only reward I can think of comes from having missed the tree entirely, throwing a good enough throw that the disc never hits the tree and is never in danger of sticking in it.

[*****] you Nick.

Please "moderate" and delete your stupid hide-your-name poll from the moderated topic. You suck.



That's worth repeating.

I started to complete the poll, until a few questions in it became obvious that it was written by NK. Nice try.

PaulM - thanks for your very well written points about the rule, hopefully someone on the RC and/or BOD will read them and reconsider their recommendation.

I had expressed concerns over the monitor position being abused to promote someone's personal agenda a while back. Rhett understood it then, hopefully others will now. Fox in charge of the henhouse, anyone?

I'm in agreement here. Moderators who feel the need to fuel debate (perhaps a better word would be 'steer') by commenting in individual posts? Deleting contrary views? My impression is that the 'experiment' was to cut down on flaming, inappropriate language and so on. Instead, it looks to me that we have someone on a power trip who can't keep his ego in check, and feels that moderating a board includes injecting his personal opinions and starting self serving threads as opposed to making sure set policies and guidelines are followed.

The old saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely applies when someone doesn't have the necessary personality traits to handle a position's responsibilities. The temptation to overstep their bounds is too great for some to handle.

I posted earlier on the most recent moderated thread asking if it might be prudent to offer an explanation and intended use for moderated threads. Either that was not allowed - or hasn't been "approved" yet.

I started to fill out that survey the other day - til I got about 3 or 4 questions in and saw that the poll was skewed in a familiarly biased fashion.

If moderated threads are intended to keep debate and conversations civil - I have no problem with them. If (as has been suggested here) a moderator wishes to use the board to further a personal agenda - that's plainly inappropriate (in a fully 3D way ;) )

exactly.

here's a concrete example of this nonsense in action:

here is what Rocmon posted on the "directed" thread:

<font color="orange"> "am against the 2m rule, but believe that it should either be eliminated, modified, or kept as is, period. I really don't like the "will or won't be used based upon the TDs discretion," wording. It is either a rule or it isn't. The whole discretionary thing is a bit wishy-washy and in my opinion, not very professional. I haven't done any research on this, but I cannot think of any other instances in a "professional soirts organization", where certain rules can be voided by officials based upon their personal opinions or discretion (if I am wrong on this, feel free to correct me). A rule, or lack there of, should be the same from tournament to tournament, and I hope that the rules committee and the BOD will approach any final decision with this in mind. " </font>

nothing wrong with that at all. whether you agree or not, its a valid part of the discussion.

so i tried to post something but it got rejected. so i thought, well, i like Rocmon's approach, but i disagree with his viewpoint, so i'll use his wording as a model to ensure it gets posted.

here is what i came up with:

<font color="purple"> "am for the 2m rule, and believe that it should be kept as is, period. I really don't like the "will or won't be used based upon the TDs discretion," wording. It is either a rule or it isn't. The whole discretionary thing is a bit wishy-washy and in my opinion, not very professional. I haven't done any research on this, but I cannot think of any other instances in a "professional sports organization", where certain rules can be voided by officials based upon their personal opinions or discretion (if I am wrong on this, feel free to correct me). A rule, or lack there of, should be the same from tournament to tournament." </font>

i submitted it and waited. then i got a PM from the "moderator", a copy of which i shall post here:


<font color="brown"> Please reword this so that it is not so obviously mocking a fellow poster. Negativity just isn't going to make it onto this thread. The ideas are fine, the tone is not. </font>



so my question to right-thinking people everywhere is this: if my post is full of "negativity" then what was the original post full of? good vibes? my post was not mocking at all - it used the other post as a model to ensure approval!

nick has really taken the cake on this one.

Nick,

It is becoming increasingly evident that you are abusing your moderators license. Remember, your job is only to remove messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content. If you cannot abide by these guidelines, I ask that you give up your moderator privileges on the PDGA message board.

i fear making a comment fore or against this thread for i feel it will be seen by the monitor and i will be put on the
"WATCH LIST OFNON-COMPLIANT POSTERS" :D

You are misreading my point in an easily refutable way rather than openly looking at the problems which the 2 meter rule presents.


If you can't state your case clearly, stand up for it later, and listen fairly to reasoned criticism without insulting people, then prepare to always be misread, misunderstood, and easily refuted.



Play a round in which you try to use the elimination of the 2 meter rule to your advantage and report back what the actual results were. Why do you support a rule which disinclines your opponents from throwing into trees which represent a multi-directional array of deflectors? Do you really want to discourage that?

Also, when you look at this rule, do you consider the many trees which are hundreds of feet away from the pin, or only ones close to it?

Why do you support a rule which disinclines your opponents from throwing into trees which represent a multi-directional array of deflectors? Do you really want to discourage that?



What does this mean? Doesn't the 2MR (with a penalty added) "disincline" players from throwing at trees? Your question is unclear (at least to me).


Also, when you look at this rule, do you consider the many trees which are hundreds of feet away from the pin, or only ones close to it?



I consider all trees as legitimate obstacles to be avoided - regardless of their spacial relationship to the target. Don't you?

Would you favor placing a netting under all trees at a height of 2.01 meters in order to make tree shots less likely and tree sticks less flukey? :D



No I wouldn't, because I think the rule is just fine the way it's been. Shots that don't hit trees dont' freakin' stick. :) Shots that hit trees usually get lucky, but sometimes your luck runs out and they stick. Just because 95% of low righty hyzer shots off an OB road skip in fair is no reason to throw out the OB rules because it's "so random" when someone hits a rock, car, or curb and gets stuck with a OB penalty.

Hey, that's my new counter argument for all you "it's too random" argument guys. What about the low hyzer skip off the OB road? That is very much the same as the disc that hits the tree. You think you are good and go for the skip shot, and it doesn't work, too bad. If you think you are good and go for the "near the tree route" and miss and stick. Too bad. Sometimes people throwing the skip shot miss their line and end up safe anyway, juts like lots of people hit the trees and end up safe.

Counter that! :D



<font color="blue"> not a problem :D If you throw a shot with hyzer at a road in a way that normally leads to skipping IB, but make a bad shot and hit a curb -- that's not dumb luck. Unlike a road, a tree represents an array of multi-directional deflectors. Hitting one predominantly leads to a bad lie. Occasionally it gets 'rewarded.' Over time though, the downside to hitting a tree trumps any short-term good luck. That's not necessarily true for the far more flukey stick above 2 meters. It's a double penalty. If you are concerned about open holes in which the only trees are close to the pin, there are better ways to deter tree shots than the awkward 2 meter rule.

My issue with the 2 meter rule has nothing to do with rewarding poor shots by throwers too unskilled to navigate around or under trees. Since hitting a tree is a crap shoot in which you may be deflected god only knows where (just a phrase -- let's not get theological :D) a 'hit-the-tree' strategy will be punished statisticly by the trees (note Chuck Kennedy favors elimination of the 2 meter rule) themselves. Why disincline your opponent from a shot which is more likely than not going to end up hurting his score?

Ss for anomalous trees where throwing into them creates a stick and a favorable lie -- there are better ways to contain that then using the 2 meter rule. And in that same vein -- why reward the guy/gal who throws at a height of 1.8 meters in order to use a cedar tree without concern for a stick? I know you probably have trouble reading anything Nick says, but he has spelled out the advantages of OB over the awkward 2 meter rule in a way a fair reading of his posts will reveal.
</font>



By the way robj, are you another Nick Knight user-name? That's classic Nick faulty-debate-technique there. You know, drawing some bizarre twist of logic and making it an over-the-top ridiculous scenario, and then asking if I support it, trying to make it sound like I had ever said anything even remotely close to that somewhere before. Which of course I haven't.



<font color="blue"> not worthy of a response Rhett. btw, have you tried a round in which you tried to use the elimination of the 2 meter rule to your advantage? tell us how many stick and how many favorable lies you get. you'll probably find where the favorable lies really lie if you'll only try this out in the real world </font>

PaulM - thanks for your very well written points about the rule, hopefully someone on the RC and/or BOD will read them and reconsider their recommendation.



you can't be serious

Rob, then how do you address the situation where a player sticks his disc 20 feet up and will be allowed to not only throw penalty free, but won't even have to retrieve his disc?

And you should stop using the "2.01 meters vs. 1.99 meters argument", it's completely futile. There is no 'arbitrary-ness' in a defined number (2 meters).

(dictionary.com)
Main Entry: ar�bi�trary
Pronunciation: '�r-b&-"trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by standards, rules, or law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>


Sticking and getting penalized at 2.01 meters is the same as landing 29.9 meters from the basket (no falling putt) or landing 1 cm beyond the yellow rope (ob) or 1 cm from the shoreline of an ob lake. There is a line of delineation and you have crossed it. C'est la vie.

Why do you support a rule which disinclines your opponents from throwing into trees which represent a multi-directional array of deflectors? Do you really want to discourage that?



What does this mean? Doesn't the 2MR (with a penalty added) "disincline" players from throwing at trees? Your question is unclear (at least to me).



<font color="blue"> it means a tree has so many branches at various angles that the unpredictability of which part of which one(s) you'll hit leads to a crap shoot in which god-only-knows where you'll be deflected. why discourage that? obviously skilled players will try and avoid it. but when they don't -- why double-penalize them? and why not penalize the disc suspended 1.5 meters up? </font>



Also, when you look at this rule, do you consider the many trees which are hundreds of feet away from the pin, or only ones close to it?



I consider all trees as legitimate obstacles to be avoided - regardless of their spacial relationship to the target. Don't you?

[/QUOTE]

<font color="blue"> yes i do. and on many courses i play there are trees all around the whole hole and even some with many in the fairway. why double penalize the one in 25 (or is it more like 1 in 100?) shots that not only hit a tree, but stick? it's already a bad shot. There are plenty of options WITHOUT the 2 meter rule to prevent use of trees next to pins. </font>

Rob, then how do you address the situation where a player sticks his disc 20 feet up and will be allowed to not only throw penalty free, but won't even have to retrieve his disc?.



<font color="blue"> Mark it and play on. The player can retrieve their disc after the round. If it is one of their favorite broken in discs -- that's tough luck. If the trunk and / or low tree branches are in their way that's tough, but they saw the tree there -- didn't they? The 2 meter rule is stupid and ineffective. Use OB or let hacks throw at them all they want. In consequence and effect, hitting a tree is more-often than not a bad shot. [color]

PaulM - thanks for your very well written points about the rule, hopefully someone on the RC and/or BOD will read them and reconsider their recommendation.



you can't be serious



Of course I'm serious. I think they made a mistake in removing the rule. Are you implying that they could never make a mistake? Ever heard of Pro2?

I am not saying the RC is infallible -- haven't they waited till now to do away with the awkward, ineffective, flukey 2 meter rule? :D (i meant you can't be serious about Paul's points)

so my question to right-thinking people everywhere is this: if my post is full of "negativity" then what was the original post full of? good vibes? my post was not mocking at all - it used the other post as a model to ensure approval!

nick has really taken the cake on this one.



Don't mock me :)

Actually, I was a little suprised that the postings on that thread had to be pre-screened prior to their inclusion on the thread. I thought that monitoring would entail, well "monitoring", with deletion of negative or nasty posts where required. If this is what is meant by monitoring, then I don't like it.

But anyhow, although I am against the 2m rule, I find the discretionary wording even more disconcerting. As was noted in the portions of my post provided by sandalman, I believe that whatever the outcome in this debate, it should be the defacto rule. No suprises to competitors at the players meeting in other words.

However, I would be fine with the whole TD's discretion wording if an X-tier sanctioning was required. This would at least allow for prior notification of any modifications to the rules before the players meeting.

Also, I have decided that I could also be satisfied with some modifications to the existing rule that would allow for some relief from a 2m situation along the lines of casual relief. Where I am from there are some courses that have 20 to 40 ft diameter coniferous trees that extend down to ground level that essentially result in a 2 stroke penalty under the current wording of the rule, and this is my primary problem with the existing 2m rule. If casual relief were allowed in these situations (i.e. along the LoP and no closer to the basket, but would allow for a more unhindered throw), I would not find the existing 2m rule so unfair and arbitrary. So, I suppose that I have shifted from a black and/or white position, depending upon which side of the argument you are on, to more of a gray position on this issue.

how about starting a new thread entitled: "Monitor Abuse Alert!" -- instead of crashing this thread about the 2 meter rule? :D

it would get deleted :eek: :D

Where I am from there are some courses that have 20 to 40 ft diameter coniferous trees that extend down to ground level that essentially result in a 2 stroke penalty under the current wording of the rule, and this is my primary problem with the existing 2m rule. If casual relief were allowed in these situations (i.e. along the LoP and no closer to the basket, but would allow for a more unhindered throw), I would not find the existing 2m rule so unfair and arbitrary. So, I suppose that I have shifted from a black and/or white position, depending upon which side of the argument you are on, to more of a gray position on this issue.

see, Rocmon is able to see where both sides are coming from and look for a compromise - like all intelligent people do. many, if not most, of us in the Save-the-2MR camp agree that relief from the tree is fine. the beauty is that this solution preserves the integrity of the green area and solves the double penalty problem (which is the single most compelling reason to change the 2MR).

this should be so simple:

1) move the 2MR wording into the OB section of the rule book
2) provide relief along LOP

no OB under trees, no miles of yellow tape, no trees that are OB for one fairway but not another... the problems ALL GO AWAY. aint open minds and compromise grand?!?

But anyhow, although I am against the 2m rule, I find the discretionary wording even more disconcerting. As was noted in the portions of my post provided by sandalman, I believe that whatever the outcome in this debate, it should be the defacto rule. No suprises to competitors at the players meeting in other words.

However, I would be fine with the whole TD's discretion wording if an X-tier sanctioning was required. This would at least allow for prior notification of any modifications to the rules before the players meeting.



Your thinking seems falwed to me. How do you feel about TD's laying yellow rope before tournaments to turn mindless holes into high risk/reward holes? This discretionary/arbitrary action is allowable without x-tier requirements. Why not be consistent when it comes to the new/modified 2MR?

I am on a similar page as so in that I think TD's should show the competitors courtesy by making announcements of said OB and 2MR additions/modifications available to the competitors at least 1-2 weeks prior.

I'd like to see it stay it's own section, mainly because of the "last place inbounds" language that doesn't work for 2 M. Using relief similar but bigger than OB, the language could be something like "up to 5 meters relief, no closer to the hole and on the LOP, is granted when a penalty throw is incurred."

We could even drop the LOP part. Or better yet, as suggested about 14 thousand posts ago, write the language such that a lie above 2 meters is a 1 penalty-throw unsafe lie, with the thrower having the option to go to the 2-penalty throw version if 5-meter relief isn't good enough.

Play a round in which you try to use the elimination of the 2 meter rule to your advantage and report back what the actual results were. [QUOTE]
Why do you support a rule which disinclines your opponents from throwing into trees which represent a multi-directional array of deflectors? Do you really want to discourage that?

I'll report based on actual, non-sanctioned tournament experience.

Hole 18 at Cornwallis Road (Durham, NC) has 4 large, Leyland Cypresses (an evergreen that is commonly used to create privacy screens and windbreaks) guarding the dead straight and righty hyzer approaches to the basket. The left side of the fairway is lined with mature trees, which eliminates both the sky and the sweeping anhyzer route to the basket. The basket sits ~35' behind the leftmost Leyland Cypress, so you can't just throw over them and expect to end up in the vicinity of the basket: your throw has to be dropping before it gets to the cypresses and has to thread its way between them. The ideal shot on the hole is a low, straight drive that breaks 12-15' right starting approx. 270' from the teepad.

Due to the density and close spacing of their branches Leyland Cypresses can and do catch and hold a significant percentage of throws that hit them, and due to the density of the foliage, discs that do strike them rarely deflect out of the perimeter of the tree's cone.

Being a reckless sort of fellow who loves a challenge and doesn't care whether or not I incur a penalty stroke, I have always played the righty hyzer route, Leyland Cypresses be damned. The times I've negotiated the cypresses successfully, I've ended up parked. At least 50% (probably closer to 60%) of the time I've hit one of the cypresses, I've ended up suspended above 2m, and less than 10% of the time, I've had a disc that struck the tree filter all the way to the ground.

Until this year, most of the folks I regularly play with wouldn't even attempt the hyzer route, even during casual rounds. Funny thing is, since we've gone to eliminating the 2m rule at monthlies, at least half a dozen regulars have been throwing the hyzer route on a regular basis, both in casual play and during monthlies, and on several occasions in the past few months when I've climbed one of the cypresses to retrieve a stuck disc, I've come down with two or three others that were simply abandoned in place. So, clearly, for some people, the elimination of the above 2m penalty made the righty hyzer route a more attractive option than the turnover

Here's the really sad thing, though: over the past 4-5 months, most of the branches below ~3' on the right side of the leftmost Leyland Cypress have been broken off, and the other cypresses show definite signs of "pruning." So, in answer to your question, yes, I DO want to discourage opponents from throwing into trees.

This is a great thread with lots of ideas being thrown around and those of us who don't really have a strong opinion can read them and evaluate them. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

As far as moderator abuse, we had a similar issue on the MSDGC pages a few months back, and I think it was Nick who did the "moderating" (aka deleting). After some heat, the thread was restored, with a lame excuse, and the side jab that they were happy to restore the thread because it made us all look like a bunch of jack arses. Anyway, those pages are all gone again - I don't know why or when - but I don't trust the moderated thread concept, especially if the posts are pre-approved before posting. It seems like the non-moderated threads are arbitrarily over-moderated.

Keep up the great work on the 2m discussion, it is an entertaining and educational read.

As a side note, I like getting rid of the 2m rule and letting the TD define specific trees / groups of trees as OB - hopefully after a discussion with the course designer.

Steve, whatever you do at the MSDGC is fine, as long as you are wise enough to lay your hand down every time I raise into you at the holdem tournament.

Fear me!

Unlike a road, a tree represents an array of multi-directional deflectors. Hitting one predominantly leads to a bad lie.

Depends on the species and the individual tree.


Since hitting a tree is a crap shoot in which you may be deflected god only knows where (just a phrase -- let's not get theological :D) a 'hit-the-tree' strategy will be punished statisticly by the trees (note Chuck Kennedy favors elimination of the 2 meter rule) themselves.

Again, depends on the tree.

The fact that Chuck, or any statistician for that matter, favors eliminating the 2m rule is of no value as an argument regarding whether or not the 2m rule should be eliminated. It's simply one person's opinion/preference, no less and no more. One of my parishoners is an Associate Professor of Statistics at Duke, and he favors keeping the 2m rule. Does the fact that he has a Ph.D in statistic and teaches graduate level statistics courses mean that his opinion should count for more than Chucks?

Unlike a road, a tree represents an array of multi-directional deflectors. Hitting one predominantly leads to a bad lie.

Depends on the species and the individual tree.


And it depends on the road. A pot-hole here, a rock there, a crack in the asphault...

Most discs skip fair with no problem. Why randomly punish the ones that don't? Is it because shots that don't reach the road don't end up OB on it?

For that matter, if the goal is to remove WWCC-luck from the game, why not declare that a disc that gets lucky and skips off the pond and makes it to land is o.b.? And off-the-tree aces? Write down a two and move on to the next hole!

:D

what does WWCC stand for? the only thing i've come up with is " <font color="brown"> What Would Christ Crush </font> " but i doubt thats it

WWCC = What We Currently Call (insert Ams, OB, relief, etc.)

WWCC = What We Currently Call

Normally it is used as an adjective before the word "amateurs," and has been used this way over 25 times in the last two weeks. It is used as a way of saying, "I'm not arguing whether the term we use is appropriate and I'm not inviting that argument. It is just the word we use for that concept."

The other day on one of the 2-meter threads there was a philosophical and quasi-scientific discussion of whether "luck" is what sticks a disc in a tree, or whether it is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal that sticks the disc. If it is the latter, you should order some Heisenberg Remover. The rules committee recently ruled that the use of Heisenberg Remover is permitted under the rules on alterations to discs.

For that matter, if the goal is to remove WWCC-luck from the game, why not declare that a disc that gets lucky and skips off the pond and makes it to land is o.b.? And off-the-tree aces? Write down a two and move on to the next hole!

And wedgies. Don't forget wedgies. :D

And why not declare putts that hit chains, spit, and roll away, good? At the very least, they should be marked under the basket for a drop-in. After all, at least 9 out of every 10 putts that hit chains stick, and at least 9 out of every 10 putts that do happen to spit flop over within drop-in distance from the basket. :D

I am not saying the RC is infallible -- haven't they waited till now to do away with the awkward, ineffective, flukey 2 meter rule? :D (i meant you can't be serious about Paul's points)


Very funny, Rob. But I bet you can't re-state three of the points I have made. Can you even state one of them?

The rules committee recently ruled that the use of Heisenberg Remover is permitted under the rules on alterations to discs.



<font color="red">Thats supposed to be a secret, Bruce!!!!!!!!!!! </font>

and has been used this way over 25 times in the last two weeks.

yes, and every time i have wondered WTF it meant :) thanks both for the explanations.

btw, i find the "physics" argument to be inconsequential. while its true that it is impossible to have two throws exactly the same, there are so many variables beyond our control that even trying to throw two truly identical shots is folly.

however, the heisenberg argument for the impossiblity of two identical throws is equal inconsequential. not to mention that according to the HP merely watching the disc's flight alters it, which qualifies us for an immediate penalty. but if we dont watch we are derelicyt in our duties according to the rules. ie, the rules conflict with themselves, they are fallible. if this were Dogma, all of existance, or at least disc golf, would disappear immediately and forever. :D

I am not saying the RC is infallible -- haven't they waited till now to do away with the awkward, ineffective, flukey 2 meter rule? :D (i meant you can't be serious about Paul's points)


Very funny, Rob. But I bet you can't re-state three of the points I have made. Can you even state one of them?



Both of you go to your rooms! No ice cream for either of you!

You both make valid points. Don't waste your time trying to tear each other down.

This rule's rational has been questioned for a long time. This year's "power of the TD" option is not the end of the world. Have an open mind, give it a go for a while. Nowhere is it written in stone that the two meter rule is gone for good.

this year's power of the td IS a great thing. but rest assured, the powers-that-wanna-be are working overtime to make sure that the 2MR WILL begone for good.

in 2006 it will disappear completely. after that it will be absolutely impossible to recover it. yes, it is controversial. and the rules committee is NOT going to ever recommend that something controversial be created anew.

it appears their egos are wed to the elimination of the 2MR instead of an optional removal or more balanced rewrite/redirection of the rule. changing their minds is out of the question because that would be an unpalatable admission that their first decision was not in the best interests of the sport.

You both make valid points. Don't waste your time trying to tear each other down.


Just coming to my own defense, Nick.

This rule's rational has been questioned for a long time. This year's "power of the TD" option is not the end of the world. Have an open mind, give it a go for a while. Nowhere is it written in stone that the two meter rule is gone for good.


You know, it's strange, but I keep thinking of this "power of the TD" option as a "burden on the TD" option. I'm just against making the game more complicated than it has to be.

I think removing the 2MR makes the game more complex because now the lost-disc rule will now come into play when a disc is stuck in a tree. There may be disagreement over whether or not a stuck disc can truly be identified when it can't be retrieved. The lost-disc rule will need to be clarified to avoid this confusion.

If the rule is clarified to the extent that it is avoided by declaring trees to be OB, as some have suggested, then how do we determine when a disc was last IB for discs entering a tree? Will it become necessary to mark the disc under its final resting place in the tree, for simplicity's sake? If we do that, how would it be different from the original 2MR?

No, it's not the end of the world, but I would like to know how the game should be played when I step out onto a disc golf course. Right now, with the 2MR in place, I know how. Without the 2MR, I've been wondering if I interpret the remaining rules the same as others interpret them. If I were in a player's group with Rob or Nick Kight, I still wonder how they might interpret the lost disc rule if my disc got stuck in a tree. This discussion thread leads me to believe that I have a different interpretation. Because I certainly haven't been able to predict their posts up to now.

I don't think I like the "tree is OB" proposal. On some holes/courses everywhere but the tee &amp; basket would be OB.

Oh, and IF you end up in Rob's group, THEN it's ok to slap him around. :cool: But then again, unless you play at Idlewild, it's unlikely you'll ever play with him. ;)

I am not saying the RC is infallible -- haven't they waited till now to do away with the awkward, ineffective, flukey 2 meter rule? :D (i meant you can't be serious about Paul's points)


Very funny, Rob. But I bet you can't re-state three of the points I have made. Can you even state one of them?



<font color="blue">
Rob's cliff notes to Paul's 2 meter rule points --

1. the 2 meter rule is good
2. elimination of the 2 meter rule is bad
3. Rob and Nick favor number 2 and are therefore bad.
4. The RC is stupid
5. when Rob plays the game my way it's disgusting
6. oops, I like ice cream :D</font>

Unlike a road, a tree represents an array of multi-directional deflectors. Hitting one predominantly leads to a bad lie.



Depends on the species and the individual tree.



<font color="blue"> right. and there is great variation even within a given species. probably we should differentiate between evergreens and trees which lose their leaves -- evergreens generally being far more dense </font>


Since hitting a tree is a crap shoot in which you may be deflected god only knows where (just a phrase -- let's not get theological :D) a 'hit-the-tree' strategy will be punished statisticly by the trees (note Chuck Kennedy favors elimination of the 2 meter rule) themselves.

Again, depends on the tree.

The fact that Chuck, or any statistician for that matter, favors eliminating the 2m rule is of no value as an argument regarding whether or not the 2m rule should be eliminated. It's simply one person's opinion/preference, no less and no more. One of my parishoners is an Associate Professor of Statistics at Duke, and he favors keeping the 2m rule. Does the fact that he has a Ph.D in statistic and teaches graduate level statistics courses mean that his opinion should count for more than Chucks?



<font color="blue"> actually, I cite Chuck because i think reasonable people will agree he has statistical expertise, course design experience, and an interest in dumb luck not intervening in scores more than is necessary. The guy who is one of your parishioners may also know statistics and disc golf, but i am not sure he has the course design experience or the working knowledge of how particular rules impact disc golf ratings. I am assuming Chuck has thought this through. I am sure he would say the TD should have discretion on a hole which involves a great deal of evergreens to declare them OB -- which coincidentally they already do... :D

Don't you find that under the 2 meter rule it is easy to use evergreens to your advantage by throwing low line drives (especially line drives at a height of 1.9 meters or lower)?
Why not just declare all the trees on an evergreen riddled course, or on evergreen riddled holes, OB?

By the way, thanks for jumping in Felix. I still have the pm from you in which you replied to my request for your reasons for supporting the retention of the 2 meter rule. May i reply to your points publicly on this thread? Part of me thinks that may not be such a good idea -- as you bring formidable skills to the discussion table and your integrity is impressive -- but the other part of me thinks it would be best to take on the best competition i can find. :D
</font>

that was funny rob :), but lets try this:

1) the 2MR is easy to understand
2) the 2MR is universal - all trees are treated the same
3) the 2MR does not reward bad shots way high up in the trees close to the basket
4) the 2MR requires no rope
5) the 2MR requires no work at all on the part of the TD
6) the 2MR is incomprehensible to nick and therefore by tautology it must based on reality, sense and eight-grade geometry.

(oh darn, i was being so good until then)

I am not saying the RC is infallible -- haven't they waited till now to do away with the awkward, ineffective, flukey 2 meter rule? :D (i meant you can't be serious about Paul's points)


Very funny, Rob. But I bet you can't re-state three of the points I have made. Can you even state one of them?



<font color="blue">
Rob's cliff notes to Paul's 2 meter rule points --

1. the 2 meter rule is good
2. elimination of the 2 meter rule is bad
3. Rob and Nick favor number 2 and are therefore bad.
4. The RC is stupid
5. when Rob plays the game my way it's disgusting
6. oops, I like ice cream :D</font>


Well, I guess I was right, you can't state any of the points I've made.

Well, I guess I was right, you can't state any of the points I've made.



<font color="blue"> what did you expect from a guy who favors elimination of the 2 meter rule and likes to underline the fact that so too does the PDGA Rules Committee and the INNOVAtor of the beveled-edged disc: Dave Dunipace?
:eek: :D :D</font>

Well, I guess I was right, you can't state any of the points I've made.



<font color="blue"> what did you expect from a guy who favors elimination of the 2 meter rule and likes to underline the fact that so too does the PDGA Rules Committee and the INNOVAtor of the beveled-edged disc: Dave Dunipace?
:eek: :D :D</font>



Yeah, and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, so what? No one is perfect. :D

:D

How about this?
Above 2m mark the disc directly below the suspended disc on the playing surface. From there relief is granted up to 1 meter from marked disc, in any direction, no nearer the hole, with a one-throw penalty stroke added.

Just my 2 cents worth

And why not declare putts that hit chains, spit, and roll away, good? At the very least, they should be marked under the basket for a drop-in. After all, at least 9 out of every 10 putts that hit chains stick, and at least 9 out of every 10 putts that do happen to spit flop over within drop-in distance from the basket.



Actually, in relation to the behavior of the 2MR, you wouldn't count that putt as good, and you wouldn't mark it under the basket, what you would do is mark it were it stopped rolling and add a penalty stroke.

How about this?
Above 2m mark the disc directly below the suspended disc on the playing surface. From there relief is granted up to 1 meter from marked disc, in any direction, no nearer the hole, with a one-throw penalty stroke added.

Just my 2 cents worth


The best point the anti-2MR camp has is the "double jeopardy" case of thick trees that go all the way to the ground, where the lie within the branches is akin to another penalty. This is a good point. 1 meter isn't far enough to address this concern. If we are going to change the rule, it should consider all the valid points. That's why I like the unsafe lie rule relief of 5 meters no closer to the hole for one penalty throw, and anywhere on the fairway no closer to the hole for 2 penalty throws. Option of the penalized thrower to pick which one to use.

this year's power of the td IS a great thing. but rest assured, the powers-that-wanna-be are working overtime to make sure that the 2MR WILL begone for good.

in 2006 it will disappear completely. after that it will be absolutely impossible to recover it. yes, it is controversial. and the rules committee is NOT going to ever recommend that something controversial be created anew.

it appears their egos are wed to the elimination of the 2MR instead of an optional removal or more balanced rewrite/redirection of the rule. changing their minds is out of the question because that would be an unpalatable admission that their first decision was not in the best interests of the sport.



Pat,

I hope you are right, but for differing reasons.

With the complete removal of the rule, which is not a given in 2006, Course Designers and Tournament Directors will have MORE, not LESS, control over the design of their course; because rather than having a �RULE ON HIGH� forced on them, they can choose when and where they want players to get a penalty throw or not for landing in a restricted area of their course.

It is controversial because it is so clearly superfluous to so many PDGA Members, PDGA Rules Committee Members and PDGA Board Members when considered along side our foundational Out of Bounds and Casual Relief Rules. You�re right that if someone ever tried to get the 2MR added, once removed, the suggestion would not get serious consideration due to the fact that Out of Bounds covers it and more completely, fairly and with final control over it in the proper hands: The Course Designer.

I think that it is pretty obvious that you are speaking on a personal level when you cite �egos wed� to one way of thinking. I am and always have been open to other folks take on this and any other rule of play, if it is convincing. 99% of my position on this topic is based on others positions (pro or con). I suspect that you are involved in a bit of projection here.

Regards,
Nick Kight

I understand what your saying about double jeopardy. My thinking was that once the marker was placed on the playing surface, a player had up to 1m in any direction, no nearer the hole to mark the lie. That would give someone up to 6 1/2ft. at the front edge of the mark, no closer to the hole to choose a place for the lie. Obviously that area would get smaller as a player moved backwards from the mark.

Double jeopardy can happen with OB too. Up to 1m does not always give one a desireable lie.

Paul,



This rule's rational has been questioned for a long time. This year's "power of the TD" option is not the end of the world. Have an open mind, give it a go for a while. Nowhere is it written in stone that the two meter rule is gone for good.


You know, it's strange, but I keep thinking of this "power of the TD" option as a "burden on the TD" option. I'm just against making the game more complicated than it has to be.


Paul, sort of like Bush calling the Social Security �Personal Accounts� and others calling it �Private Accounts� or the �End of Social Security�? And it certainly makes their job�s no more complicated than it already is concerning restricted areas (Out of Bounds and Casual Areas).


I think removing the 2MR makes the game more complex because now the lost-disc rule will now come into play when a disc is stuck in a tree. There may be disagreement over whether or not a stuck disc can truly be identified when it can't be retrieved. The lost-disc rule will need to be clarified to avoid this confusion.


This is just wrong, Paul. If a disc can�t be identified to the satisfaction of the group, an official or the TD, even if the 2MR is in effect, it has to be ruled a �Lost Disc�. To just say, �Well, it�s either a lost disc or a 2MR violation, so just mark it below that �unidentified� disc and play on with a penalty throw.� Is a complete misinterpretation of our rules of play. You can�t have it both ways:

A) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is "the throwers" disc that is "lost".
AND
B) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is a two meter violation.

Neither is correct. If that disc can�t be identified, then you have to look for a disc that can be identified for 3 minutes. The unidentified disc up in the tree has no relevance to the ruling. That is unless it can be identified, in which case, the disc IS NOT LOST.
And if the disc can�t be identified, then you cannot assume that it is above 2 meters (wherever it might have ended up). Remember, the 2MR is not OB.


If the rule is clarified to the extent that it is avoided by declaring trees to be OB, as some have suggested, then how do we determine when a disc was last IB for discs entering a tree? Will it become necessary to mark the disc under its final resting place in the tree, for simplicity's sake? If we do that, how would it be different from the original 2MR?


I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Paul, that you are not being purposefully misleading. Out of Bounds has long specified methods for determining the next lie once a disc is determined to be Out of Bounds (which also has long specified and understood methods). Only 1 out of 3 of the methods for determining the next lie involve a judgment of where it last was over in bounds; the other 2 require NO JUDGMENT AT ALL (Throw & Distance and Drop Zone).
The necessity to mark the disc under its final resting place in the tree, or any other course object that is able to suspend a disc above the playing surface, is what our rules called �803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE �, and that is exactly what it will be called when the 2MR is gone.


No, it's not the end of the world, but I would like to know how the game should be played when I step out onto a disc golf course. Right now, with the 2MR in place, I know how. Without the 2MR, I've been wondering if I interpret the remaining rules the same as others interpret them. If I were in a player's group with Rob or Nick Kight, I still wonder how they might interpret the lost disc rule if my disc got stuck in a tree. This discussion thread leads me to believe that I have a different interpretation. Because I certainly haven't been able to predict their posts up to now.



Paul, I agree that this needs to be fixed, and that fix is to remove the 2MR completely; then the only concern players, officials and tds need have is knowing specified Out of Bounds and Casual Relief Areas (this exactly as it is now, without consideration of the 2MR being on or off).

I can tell you categorically how I would rule if your disc got stuck in a tree and Rob and I were in your group: Your disc is in the tree. Is the 2MR in effect?
A) (Yes.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it, take a penalty throw, and play on.
B) (No.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it and play on.
The key phrase in your description of the situation is that you know that it is your disc up in the tree. If you do not identify it and we can not decide as a group that it is or is not your disc, and neither can an official or the TD, then we have to go about trying to find your disc (for 3 minutes) and if we don�t find it then we give you a lie based on the last place we saw it.

This is the same whether the 2MR is in effect, is not in effect, or has been completely eliminated from our rulebook.

�Retrieving� and �Positively Identifying� a disc are simply not the same thing. And �Disc Above the Playing Surface� is in no way related to �Out of Bounds�(other than if the disc is above OB, which is not this discussion) OR �Lost Disc� rules.

Please address directly the points made here in. If I misunderstood your points, then please clarify.

Regards,
Nick Kight

The best point the anti-2MR camp has is the "double jeopardy" case of thick trees that go all the way to the ground, where the lie within the branches is akin to another penalty. This is a good point. 1 meter isn't far enough to address this concern. If we are going to change the rule, it should consider all the valid points. That's why I like the unsafe lie rule relief of 5 meters no closer to the hole for one penalty throw, and anywhere on the fairway no closer to the hole for 2 penalty throws. Option of the penalized thrower to pick which one to use.



Rhett, why oh why isn't the RC implementing "stroke plus relief" instead of this nonsense about either keeping the rule or dropping it or making it TD discretion? I ask you, because you are Rhett. Mua ha ha ha ha.

It is the logical and obvious solution. WHICH relief is codified is up for discussion, but that's minor to the whole deal.

I totally totally understand both sides. Each side fully believes in his or her viewpoint. But it all really boils down to:
For 2m Rule: You threw your disc somewhere you can't retrive it = penalty.
Agin 2m Rule: The penalty is (sometimes) too harsh.

Neither of those points can be argued very effectively.

Seriously that's all this is.

THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS STROKE PLUS RELIEF. Now everybody get on the same page!!!! :D

How about this?
Above 2m mark the disc directly below the suspended disc on the playing surface. From there relief is granted up to 1 meter from marked disc, in any direction, no nearer the hole, with a one-throw penalty stroke added.

Just my 2 cents worth


The best point the anti-2MR camp has is the "double jeopardy" case of thick trees that go all the way to the ground, where the lie within the branches is akin to another penalty. This is a good point. 1 meter isn't far enough to address this concern. If we are going to change the rule, it should consider all the valid points. That's why I like the unsafe lie rule relief of 5 meters no closer to the hole for one penalty throw, and anywhere on the fairway no closer to the hole for 2 penalty throws. Option of the penalized thrower to pick which one to use.



Or accomplish the same thing (AND MORE) by making the area beneath such �bushy to the ground trees� Out of Bounds.

(AND MORE)
1) This way those branches and foliage beneath 2M have an �actual� fighting chance of being there next tournament or next year.
2) Regardless of how far down that tree the disc tumbles it will still be OB and relief is given outside its branches.
3) The player gets an unencumbered stance for the single penalty throw.

This would only be necessary for trees like these. Trees with no branches below 2M could just do their thing or be declared OB above a certain height by the TD.

Hey Stick - great to see you around! Well...at least here in cyberspace since we haven't crossed paths at Renny recently. I have been advocating the need to keep the 2MR (optional to TD's to define as they see fit) especially for Renny Gold holes 11, 13, and 14.

I think you got the rules mixed up with marking an OB lie. As of today and the 2005 rules (1/1/02 rev. rulebook), the 2MR is its own condition and does <bold>not[/b] fall under the OB rules. (see rule 803.07) So, the 1M relief is not applicable as you erroneously suggest.

<bold>BUT</bold>, it sounds like in 2006 trees will be able to be defined as OB by TD's. Your point brings up a <bold>very</bold> good question as to how to mark the lie of a disc stuck in a tree in 2006 when trees can be defined as OB areas.

Any comments from the rules experts out there???

(Edited to say - sorry about calling your understanding to be in error. I read the thread incorrectly. This was your suggestion as to a rules change, not an interpretation. My bad!)

It's "throw and distance", and the severity of the rule is not the primary issue. That it is simply not necessary is.

If the course designer or tournament director says that that tree, or all trees, are to be treated as Out of Bounds, and a disc lands in one, THEN throw and distance or drop zone makes perfect sense. Otherwise, according to current rules mark the lie on the playing surface and play on.

We play our game from the �playing surface� not from the �trees�. This is fundamental and well thought out.

the severity of the rule is not the primary issue. That it is simply not necessary is.



Thanks for the laugh. Made my Friday.

But tell me this, what do you think about creating a true amateur classification in disc golf?

the severity of the rule is not the primary issue. That it is simply not necessary is.



Thanks for the laugh. Made my Friday.

But tell me this, what do you think about creating a true amateur classification in disc golf?



Sure, I think it is the single best idea currently available to solve the widest variety of challenges organized disc golf currently faces.

They say laughter can sometimes be a sign of low self-esteem or nervousness. You don't suffer from either of those do you little Miss Annie?

I think you are confused, that post was mine. Who is Miss Annie?

Who is Miss Annie?



Anyone afraid (or lacking the self-esteem) to share their real name.

They say laughter can sometimes be a sign of low self-esteem or nervousness. You don't suffer from either of those do you little Miss Annie?

and you think I'm the one projecting??? :D:D:D

They say laughter can sometimes be a sign of low self-esteem or nervousness. You don't suffer from either of those do you little Miss Annie?

and you think I'm the one projecting??? :D:D:D



Yes, I do.

thats ok, you're used to being wrong :)

And you're used to projecting...

I ask you, because you are Rhett. Mua ha ha ha ha.



I don't know why, but that line is cracking me up. And it keeps cracking me up. :)

I'M RHETT STROH, DAMMIT!!!

:D


Seriously, though. I don't know of a single board-posting 2MR supporter who is against the added relief compromise. It juts makes sense.

There are anti-2MR posters who are against it, but as far as I can tell they oppose any compromise to anything. Whatever.

i'm so glad you're back on this thread. you have soooo much to offer. you should stick to posts that are 2ML so that you can better hide your intelligence. oh wait - dont you have your own sanitized thread you can play on? or isnt anyone playing your game? i know, most of what you post would get rejected on a moderated thread anyway.

I must have low self-esteem cause that really made me laugh.

<font color="purple"> FYI: I've agreed not to post on threads that I am moderating. </font>

Seriously, though. I don't know of a single board-posting 2MR supporter who is against the added relief compromise. It juts makes sense.



It may make sense but it is in no way shape or form any kind of �compromise�.


There are anti-2MR posters who are against it, but as far as I can tell they oppose any compromise to anything. Whatever.



Again, what compromise is involved in not only supporting the continuation of the 2MR, but also adding another lame-brained rule on top of it? If anything that is actually going further away from a compromise, isn�t it?

A compromise is what the PDGA Rules Committee proposed and the PDGA Board of Directors already approved for 2006. That TDs can turn it on or off at their discretion.

It�s not what I want and it�s not what you want, it is right in the middle. That is a compromise, at least it used to be considered one. But definitions seem to be losing their meaning lately� Amateur, Constitution, Rights, Freedom, Security, Moral Values, American, etc.

But definitions seem to be losing their meaning lately� Amateur, Constitution, Rights, Freedom, Security, Moral Values, American, etc.




Add 'Moderator' to that list

:D

But definitions seem to be losing their meaning lately� Amateur, Constitution, Rights, Freedom, Security, Moral Values, American, etc.




Add 'Moderator' to that list

:D



You certainly would prove that Dan...

Seriously, though. I don't know of a single board-posting 2MR supporter who is against the added relief compromise. It juts makes sense.

There are anti-2MR posters who are against it, but as far as I can tell they oppose any compromise to anything. Whatever.



Rhett, each side of the fence has its extremists so don't be too quick to say none who favor the 2 meter rule would oppose relief to mitigate the potential for a double penalty.

If after a suitable trial period in which the two meter rule is eliminated (okay say 2007) it proves to be missed, I would willingly accept your added relief compromise. Are you open to giving the RC recommendation the year 2006 to see what transpires?

But definitions seem to be losing their meaning lately� Amateur, Constitution, Rights, Freedom, Security, Moral Values, American, etc.




Add 'Moderator' to that list

:D



Sorry Nick but that was funny :D

rob, icant speak for everyone, but even the most vocal folks here who are for the 2MR would be willing to provide relief except for around the pin. our frustration is mostly due to the removal of the 2MR creating absurd situations around the pin - and the forces in favor of killing the 2MR do not even recognize that this is a problem.

our compromise is to go along with the need to change the rule away from the pin. the anti-2MR folks could make a compromise by agreeing to support a 2MR-like rule within 10M.

if we could get the anti-2MR folks to this position, i am fairly certain both sides would be in complete agreement, and able to embrace a permanent change for 2006.

since the anti-2MR camp introduced the idea of selective OB/aerial OB/etc, it is fair to counter with the argument that a selective, tree-by-tree repeal is even better. it leaves the current rule intact for the areas that benefit from it, and keeps the status quo around the pin (a goodthing), and minimisez teh TD's new workload. all that is really needed is for TDs to selectively say which trees are NOT covered by the 2MR.

I am not at all opposed to ensuring trees near the pin aren't used to turn bad shots into good ones, but I don't think the 2 meter rule is the answer. For starters, all one has to do is throw line drives at a heighth of 1.9 meters and they can circumvent the 2 meter rule as it stands. I think a suspension height of .5 meters would make more sense and then a drop zone at 10 meters out. And while we are standardizing rule distances (10 meters) -- let's change the marker rule to say that you have to be on the line of play within .5 meters when you release your disc -- 30 centimeters is too small. Why not let someone be anywhere behind their marker up to one half meter?

I think Nick has done an excellent job of stating why OB is a better way to handle suspension issues than the awkward 2 meter rule is. For trees near the pin problems lets do one of the following:

1. call those trees OB (a mulch area below would work)
2. call any disc suspended above one half meter in such trees OB
3. Have a drop zone for all discs suspended above .5 meters in trees closer than 10 meters to the pin
4. relocate the pins in question so that the trees aren't too close

I hope you recognize though that such trees when hit by a disc become a multi-directional deflector that is very hard to predict. It seems to me purposely hitting them isn't usually a good option even without a 2 meter rule in effect.

rob, thanks for a thoughtful response. i'll try to address some of your points.

first, changing the height to .5M is just the same rule with a different height. so i can infer that the concept behind the 2MR is ok with you. i'm not really opposed to changing the height to some other value, altho i think making it bigger than 2M creates impossible measurement challenges. i dont really see any advantgage to changingit to .5M, but if it does make more sense, then fine.

as far as the other measurements go , i dont really know - its prolly for another thread. i have thought about, but never discussed, providing more lateral space on the stance as well.

on to the trees around the pin:

1. call those trees OB (a mulch area below would work)

not very practical on many courses. we have lots of pins with large oaks in the vicinity and a pin might easily be "under" more than a dozen trees.

2. call any disc suspended above one half meter in such trees OB

ok fine, but i dont see the advantage relative to a 2M measurement. and for those of the "how to we explain it to ESPN" camp, explaining a 2M height is a lot easier than explaining why two discs 50 cm apart are treated differently

3. Have a drop zone for all discs suspended above .5 meters in trees closer than 10 meters to the pin

i totally dig both the drop zone idea, and the idea of playing on LOP at 10M

4. relocate the pins in question so that the trees aren't too close

on a fair percentage of existing course this is a major problem. even assuming the land could support a drastic redesign, the parks depts and other entities would have a say for sure. i think that this point is beyond workable for many courses. for those that could pul it off, great. but we should not put good solid courses in jeopardy simply because we wish to eliminate the 2MR.

"I hope you recognize though that such trees when hit by a disc become a multi-directional deflector that is very hard to predict. It seems to me purposely hitting them isn't usually a good option even without a 2 meter rule in effect. "

i do recognize that deflections in trees can be crazy. however, i submit that the average result of said deflections is far less dramatic than you make it out to be. at least this is true for cali and texas, where i have played. (i've also played in az, but trees are not the main thing in phoenix/scottsdale.) i do know that over the last six months i have lowered my average on 2 holes at our local course (veterans) by deliberately crashing the canopy. i believe hitting the trees can, and is, a good option without the 2MR on a significant number of holes. granted, not all.

(btw, if tree deflections are as crazy as you suggest, throwing at 1.9 M does not really take the 2MR out of play, does it?)

I don't think there needs to be any of this inside 10 meters is different than outside 10 meters stuff if the 2MR is kept intact.

If you do away with the 2MR then you create the very real scenario, that will in fact happen, of a disc stuck 20 feet up in a tree resulting in an easy birdie. Creating goofy language about "if you are so high and within so far of the basket, you move so many meters away" just seems preposterous to me.

Keep the rule. It works.

Get rid of the rule and create that scenario.

Or deal with the double-jeopardy penalty by allowing relief when a 2 meter penalty is incurred.

But please don't create ridiculous language to deal with side effects of getting rid of the rule.

(btw, if tree deflections are as crazy as you suggest, throwing at 1.9 M does not really take the 2MR out of play, does it?)



i don't have a lot of time right now to address all of your points -- i have a fantasy baseball draft in a few minutes and tomorrow morning i'll be out working to help improve a local course -- but i'll address this one for now.

first, for trees with a high 'stick' factor (evergreens) and therefore that make some sense as an argument for a suspension penalty -- throwing 1.9 meters or lower exposes the flaw of the 2 meter rule. second, deflection distances on average greatly decrease the lower you throw (and hit/deflect). don't you find throwing low on tight highly foliated tunnel shots helps keep the disc near if not on the fairway?

If a disc can�t be identified to the satisfaction of the group, an official or the TD, even if the 2MR is in effect, it has to be ruled a �Lost Disc�.


The lost-disc rule doesn't say the disc has to be identified to the satisfaction of the group, an official or the TD. The lost disc rule simply says that the player must locate his disc within three minutes.

To just say, �Well, it�s either a lost disc or a 2MR violation, so just mark it below that �unidentified� disc and play on with a penalty throw.� Is a complete misinterpretation of our rules of play. You can�t have it both ways:

A) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is "the throwers" disc that is "lost".
AND
B) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is a two meter violation.

Neither is correct.


What do you mean, neither is correct? Isn't A) correct?

If that disc can�t be identified, then you have to look for a disc that can be identified for 3 minutes. The unidentified disc up in the tree has no relevance to the ruling. That is unless it can be identified, in which case, the disc IS NOT LOST.
And if the disc can�t be identified, then you cannot assume that it is above 2 meters (wherever it might have ended up). Remember, the 2MR is not OB.


Well, how can you ever positively identify a disc that you can't retrieve? Some people will say you can't. Yes, in the past, people could have called the lost-disc rule against another player rather than call the 2MR for discs stuck above 2 meters, but there would have been little incentive to argue the difference. The 2MR would invoke a penalty and mark a lie below the elevated disc. The lost disc rule would invoke a penalty and mark a lie nearest the spot where the disc was last seen. In some cases, maybe some people did impose the lost disc rule rather than the 2MR, if no one ever saw the disc go into the tree in question. But if everyone saw the disc go into the tree, with the 2MR in place, those who believe the disc is unidentifiable would have little reason to say so, because the lost-disc penalty and its approximate lie would be roughly equivalent to (if not the same as) the 2MR penalty and its resulting lie.

Without the 2MR, that scenario falls apart, because those who believe the disc was lost will now have sufficient incentive to speak up and say so. They will say you must retrieve your disc to identify it. If you can't knock down the disc from the tree in 3 minutes, then the disc is lost, and they would ask a penalty to be applied. They will probably be irate if the rule is pointed out to them that they don't need to agree with the player's identification of his disc for him to avoid the lost disc penalty. Once that is understood, I wonder if some players may even abuse the rule and just look up in a tree and call a disc his even when he's not sure, just to avoid a lost disc penalty.

That's why I say, and have said since the beginning, that the lost-disc rule needs clarification if the 2MR is revoked, to come down on one side or the other regarding whether or not a disc can be identified if it can't be retrieved. The lost disc rule should either say that if a disc cannot be retrieved in sufficient time, then a lost-disc penalty should be imposed, or it should say that discs don't have to be retrieved to be identified; they merely need to be recognizable to the player, to the satisfaction of the group. I don't like getting rid of the 2MR, but I think this minor clarification to the lost disc rule would be useful.


If the rule is clarified to the extent that it is avoided by declaring trees to be OB, as some have suggested, then how do we determine when a disc was last IB for discs entering a tree? Will it become necessary to mark the disc under its final resting place in the tree, for simplicity's sake? If we do that, how would it be different from the original 2MR?


I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Paul, that you are not being purposefully misleading.


How do you expect someone to respond to this kind of comment, Nick? Because it rankles.

Out of Bounds has long specified methods for determining the next lie once a disc is determined to be Out of Bounds (which also has long specified and understood methods). Only 1 out of 3 of the methods for determining the next lie involve a judgment of where it last was over in bounds; the other 2 require NO JUDGMENT AT ALL (Throw & Distance and Drop Zone).


Yes, I know these other two methods, but drop zones require a lot of work for the TD to set up for each and every tree that a disc can get stuck in, and TDs don't have to be provide them if they don't want to. That leaves returning to the previous lie as the only guaranteed alternative (is this what you mean by "Throw and Distance"?), but how likely is that to be preferred over trying to establish the last IB position of the disc? But even if two more options are available, saying so doesn't take away from the fact that establishing the last IB position of the disc is still one of the 3 options, and people can elect to choose it. To make that choice, they will still have to figure it out the last IB position of the disc before it entered the tree. And that will not be so easy to figure out, compared to establishing a lie from a disc's final resting place in the tree.

I can tell you categorically how I would rule if your disc got stuck in a tree and Rob and I were in your group: Your disc is in the tree. Is the 2MR in effect?
A) (Yes.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it, take a penalty throw, and play on.
B) (No.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it and play on.
The key phrase in your description of the situation is that you know that it is your disc up in the tree. If you do not identify it and we can not decide as a group that it is or is not your disc, and neither can an official or the TD, then we have to go about trying to find your disc (for 3 minutes) and if we don�t find it then we give you a lie based on the last place we saw it.

This is the same whether the 2MR is in effect, is not in effect, or has been completely eliminated from our rulebook.

�Retrieving� and �Positively Identifying� a disc are simply not the same thing. And �Disc Above the Playing Surface� is in no way related to �Out of Bounds�(other than if the disc is above OB, which is not this discussion) OR �Lost Disc� rules.

Please address directly the points made here in. If I misunderstood your points, then please clarify.


Again, I come back to the fact that you have no say in determining whether or not I have positively identified my disc up in the tree, as the lost-disc rule is currently written. I think many people have the understanding that you have, and think they do have a say, but they don't.

So how does that affect your answers to the scenario above where my disc is in a tree? Are you satisfied that neither you nor anyone else in the group has any say in whether or not I can positively identify my disc up in a tree, when the 2MR is not in effect? No matter how high up in the tree it is? No matter that no one but me saw my disc go up into that tree?

I please don't create ridiculous language to deal with side effects of getting rid of the rule.



Amen

call those trees OB (a mulch area below would work)
2. call any disc suspended above one half meter in such trees OB
3. Have a drop zone for all discs suspended above .5 meters in trees closer than 10 meters to the pin
4. relocate the pins in question so that the trees aren't too close

I hope you recognize though that such trees when hit by a disc become a multi-directional deflector that is very hard to predict. It seems to me purposely hitting them isn't usually a good option even without a 2 meter rule in effect.



Please do not confuse OB with the 2 meter rule. They are 2 seperate things. ALL this talk of trees beeing OB is crazy! Either 2 meters is a 1 store penalty, or you mark it and take no stroke. RC please hear me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear Pat,


rob, icant speak for everyone, but even the most vocal folks here who are for the 2MR would be willing to provide relief except for around the pin. our frustration is mostly due to the removal of the 2MR creating absurd situations around the pin - and the forces in favor of killing the 2MR do not even recognize that this is a problem.



Your perception of this so-called �problem� is based on two fallacies:
1) That marking a lie on the playing surface for a disc above the playing surface is �relief�. It is not. It is simply marking your lie on the surface from which all play occurs.
2) That the 2MR is the only possible savior from this perceived problem when it is nothing of the sort. 3 already existing solutions avail: The Course Designer or Tournament Directors direct and specific knowledge of the situations around �their� own courses greens and can employ:
1. Design the pin placement to reduce or eliminate any advantage of hitting trees near the pin.
2. Design Aerial Out of Bounds above the pin in any shape they want (what is with the 10M thing?), with stroke and distance or drop zone.
3. Design a casual area with relief above the pin in any shape they want.


our compromise is to go along with the need to change the rule away from the pin. the anti-2MR folks could make a compromise by agreeing to support a 2MR-like rule within 10M.



Pat, you are arguing for something that is not necessary. Course Designers and Tournament Directors know the reality of their putting greens and fairways and where best to create hazards that entail a penalty stroke and/or relief. You are arguing this as if they do not; as if some rule in our rulebook needs to be forced upon them because they are incapable of taking appropriate action on their own. I categorically do not accept that, and I suspect most Course Designers and Tournament Directors when made aware of the options will not accept it.


if we could get the anti-2MR folks to this position, i am fairly certain both sides would be in complete agreement, and able to embrace a permanent change for 2006.


The issue here is not pro or anti 2MR, it is about the freedom of course designers and tournament directors to know how best to design their courses and implement restricted areas on them. I do not see any need to �Force� my philosophy of course design on another course designer or tournament director, while you apparently do.
I mean, if as you say, this is a major problem, don�t you think course designers and tournament directors will find effective methods of resolving the challenges without having to be �forced to� by some �fit all� rule? I guess I just have more faith in them than you do.


since the anti-2MR camp introduced the idea of selective OB/aerial OB/etc, it is fair to counter with the argument that a selective, tree-by-tree repeal is even better. it leaves the current rule intact for the areas that benefit from it, and keeps the status quo around the pin (a goodthing), and minimisez teh TD's new workload. all that is really needed is for TDs to selectively say which trees are NOT covered by the 2MR.



A Course Designer or Tournament Director can already do this: By declaring the entire course and outside the course as Out of Bounds, then specify In Bounds Areas. That doesn�t sound like such a great idea though; it sounds like more work, not less.

If a Tournament Director or Course Designer �chooses� they can declare all areas more than a certain height above the playing surface as Out of Bounds and specify throw and distance as the only option; whether 2 meters or 1 or whatever, they are in the best position to judge what is best. There is no increase in workload in this.

Or if a Tournament Director or Course Designer �chooses� they can declare only specific areas more than a certain height above the playing surface as Out of Bounds and specify throw and distance as the only option; whether 2 meters or 1 or whatever, they are in the best position to judge what is best. There is no increase in workload in this. Certainly no more than already exists as concerns Out of Bounds on their course.

Or if a Tournament Director or Course Designer �chooses� they can declare no height above the playing surface as Out of Bounds, they are in the best position to judge what is best. It is certain that there is no increase in workload in this.

In other words, there is no increase in workload beyond what the Tournament Director or Course Designer �CHOOSES� to create, and that at �THEIR JUDGMENT� as to how to create the best challenge for their competitors and course users while doing their best to protect and preserve that challenge well into the future.

This is very reasonable I believe, and in reality it is no knock on your concerns Pat, it is just an acknowledgment that some Course Designers and Tournament Directors might feel differently than you do and should have the freedom to design their courses the way they see fit, without any rules making any areas on their course mandatory penalty throw violations. Something only the 2MR currently does.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

Why is this such a big debate? If your up- your out! No Wimps No Winers remember. Trees are a very important part of the game, play the shot and don't hang it out to dry then you don't have to worry. This is my own opinion like it or not, but this is getting blown waaay out of proportion. Learn how to roll if your having issues. 6ft is out, and it will always be out. There are more important issues that the pdga is trying to focus on than wasting time and energy on this bogus rule change. :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Furthermore, while we're at it let get with Parker Brothers and change the long standing rule in Monopoly that now we get two rolls of the dice with each turn without penalty. These rules were set a long time ago and that's just how you play the game. Who knows, they might go for it. ;)

Why is this such a big debate? If your up- your out! No Wimps No Winers remember. Trees are a very important part of the game, play the shot and don't hang it out to dry then you don't have to worry. This is my own opinion like it or not, but this is getting blown waaay out of proportion. Learn how to roll if your having issues. 6ft is out, and it will always be out. There are more important issues that the pdga is trying to focus on than wasting time and energy on this bogus rule change. :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif



This is being discussed because the 2 meter rule has always been controversial -- largely due to its flukey occurence and because it more often than not leads to a double penalty. The PDGA Rules Committee has spent years looking at and considering the matter and has made a decision. The Board of Directors voted and 2005 is a transition year where the elimination of the 2 meter rule is an available option for any TD who chooses not to use it. In 2006, with the printing of a new Rule book, the 2 meter rule will be eliminated by default.

as for rolling -- an interesting sidenote -- Schweb opposes the 2 meter rule because he had what otherwise was a good roller have flukey luck and roll up a tree for a 2 meter penalty. Probably someone who crashed that tree's top would have fallen right out. some rule.

Support the PDGA Rules Committee recommendation and let 2006 be a year in which you give the elimination of the 2 meter rule a chance without wimping or whining. See Nick K's recent posts here if you want to see why there are plenty of intelligent options for a TD or course designer trying to protect particular tree-near-pin scenarios (without the 2 meter rule).

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your responses.


If a disc can�t be identified to the satisfaction of the group, an official or the TD, even if the 2MR is in effect, it has to be ruled a �Lost Disc�.


The lost-disc rule doesn't say the disc has to be identified to the satisfaction of the group, an official or the TD. The lost disc rule simply says that the player must locate his disc within three minutes.
<font color="blue"> Sophestry Paul. If the player can identify their disc game over. If it is subsequently found out that the disc was not theirs then there are rules to deal with it. </font>

To just say, �Well, it�s either a lost disc or a 2MR violation, so just mark it below that �unidentified� disc and play on with a penalty throw.� Is a complete misinterpretation of our rules of play. You can�t have it both ways:

A) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is "the throwers" disc that is "lost".
AND
B) That disc can�t be positively identified, therefore it is a two meter violation.

Neither is correct.


What do you mean, neither is correct? Isn't A) correct?
<font color="blue"> No, it is not. If it is not identified by the thrower as his/her disc then it certainly can not be considered as being �the� lost disc. How could it be when the thrower says that it is not his/her disc? And if they do say it is their disc then it is not lost, right? </font>

If that disc can�t be identified, then you have to look for a disc that can be identified for 3 minutes. The unidentified disc up in the tree has no relevance to the ruling. That is unless it can be identified, in which case, the disc IS NOT LOST.
And if the disc can�t be identified, then you cannot assume that it is above 2 meters (wherever it might have ended up). Remember, the 2MR is not OB.


Well, how can you ever positively identify a disc that you can't retrieve?
<font color="blue"> Quite easily, you look at it and say,�That is my disc.� </font>
Some people will say you can't.
<font color="blue"> As you point out above, it doesn�t matter what �Some people� will say, only what you say. If it is found out that it was not your disc then there are rules to deal with such situations. </font>
Yes, in the past, people could have called the lost-disc rule against another player rather than call the 2MR for discs stuck above 2 meters, but there would have been little incentive to argue the difference. The 2MR would invoke a penalty and mark a lie below the elevated disc. The lost disc rule would invoke a penalty and mark a lie nearest the spot where the disc was last seen. In some cases, maybe some people did impose the lost disc rule rather than the 2MR, if no one ever saw the disc go into the tree in question. But if everyone saw the disc go into the tree, with the 2MR in place, those who believe the disc is unidentifiable would have little reason to say so, because the lost-disc penalty and its approximate lie would be roughly equivalent to (if not the same as) the 2MR penalty and its resulting lie.
<font color="blue"> Paul, I�m not trying to be unreasonable here, I�d really like to understand your point. I find your mixing of 4 or 5 scenarios highly confusing. Could you please provide separate ones for each example you are trying to describe?
Under current rule, as you point out, the only identification of a disc necessary is by the thrower. If it is later found that that disc was not the throwers there are rules to deal with such a situation. Also, you say the lies of an unidentified disc in a tree and the place where the disc was last seen by the group would be roughly equivalent; how so, couldn�t they easily be quite different indeed; and considering how on modern multi-par courses how just a couple feet this way or that make such a huge difference in your next shot, isn�t the difference quite significant even if it is just a couple feet?
</font>

Without the 2MR, that scenario falls apart, because those who believe the disc was lost will now have sufficient incentive to speak up and say so. <font color="blue"> And? As you said at the beginning and I agree with, it doesn�t matter what the other players, official or even the TD says, only the thrower need identify the disc. If they are found to be cheating later then we have rules to deal with it. </font> They will say you must retrieve your disc to identify it. <font color="blue"> Is this request by these other players, official or tournament director specified anywhere within our existing rules? I have not found it. The player could simply refuse. And by rule, if another player did knock it down there are rules that would penalize them.</font> If you can't knock down the disc from the tree in 3 minutes, then the disc is lost, and they would ask a penalty to be applied. <font color="blue"> This is not within our rules of play Paul. There is no such stipulation, nor need there be in a gentlemen�s game. </font> They will probably be irate if the rule is pointed out to them that they don't need to agree with the player's identification of his disc for him to avoid the lost disc penalty. <font color="blue"> There is nothing in our rules about them not being permitted to be irate. </font> Once that is understood, I wonder if some players may even abuse the rule and just look up in a tree and call a disc his even when he's not sure, just to avoid a lost disc penalty. <font color="blue"> Well, Paul, this would be cheating then wouldn�t it? And if judged to be so by an official or TD the player could face disqualification and possible suspension by the PDGA.</font>


That's why I say, and have said since the beginning, that the lost-disc rule needs clarification if the 2MR is revoked, to come down on one side or the other regarding whether or not a disc can be identified if it can't be retrieved. <font color="blue"> This is a fine suggestion, but it is not necessary due exclusively to the deletion of the 2MR is it? Really? </font> The lost disc rule should either say that if a disc cannot be retrieved in sufficient time, then a lost-disc penalty should be imposed, or it should say that discs don't have to be retrieved to be identified; they merely need to be recognizable to the player, to the satisfaction of the group. I don't like getting rid of the 2MR, but I think this minor clarification to the lost disc rule would be useful. <font color="blue"> I�m not sure I agree or disagree with your assessment, it could cloud our rules more than we can predict, the rules committee folk would be in a better position to understand the broader ramifications. It seems to me that it insinuates that players will be dishonest, rather than honest, and I flatly reject that. </font>


If the rule is clarified to the extent that it is avoided by declaring trees to be OB, as some have suggested, then how do we determine when a disc was last IB for discs entering a tree? Will it become necessary to mark the disc under its final resting place in the tree, for simplicity's sake? If we do that, how would it be different from the original 2MR?


I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt Paul, that you are not being purposefully misleading.


How do you expect someone to respond to this kind of comment, Nick? Because it rankles.

Out of Bounds has long specified methods for determining the next lie once a disc is determined to be Out of Bounds (which also has long specified and understood methods). Only 1 out of 3 of the methods for determining the next lie involve a judgment of where it last was over in bounds; the other 2 require NO JUDGMENT AT ALL (Throw & Distance and Drop Zone).


Yes, I know these other two methods, but drop zones require a lot of work for the TD to set up for each and every tree that a disc can get stuck in, and TDs don't have to be provide them if they don't want to. That leaves returning to the previous lie as the only guaranteed alternative (is this what you mean by "Throw and Distance"?), but how likely is that to be preferred over trying to establish the last IB position of the disc? But even if two more options are available, saying so doesn't take away from the fact that establishing the last IB position of the disc is still one of the 3 options, and people can elect to choose it. To make that choice, they will still have to figure it out the last IB position of the disc before it entered the tree. And that will not be so easy to figure out, compared to establishing a lie from a disc's final resting place in the tree. <font color="blue"> How easy or how difficult it would be to judge the last place a disc was in bounds is a hassle, whether surface or aerial Out or Bounds, that is why I support removal of that option from our rules and giving Course Designers and Tournament Directors just the options of Throw and Distance (look it up in our rules) or a Drop Zone. Even so, deciding where a disc was last in bounds is no different for an Aerial OB than it is for a Surface one. Any complication you can come up with for an Aerial OB is identical to a Surface OB. But that is not going to even be part of the discussion after 2006 according to my knowledge of the rules changes to come, and if it is it is miniscule.</font>

I can tell you categorically how I would rule if your disc got stuck in a tree and Rob and I were in your group: Your disc is in the tree. Is the 2MR in effect?
A) (Yes.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it, take a penalty throw, and play on.
B) (No.) Then mark your lie on the playing surface immediately below it and play on.
The key phrase in your description of the situation is that you know that it is your disc up in the tree. If you do not identify it and we can not decide as a group that it is or is not your disc, and neither can an official or the TD, then we have to go about trying to find your disc (for 3 minutes) and if we don�t find it then we give you a lie based on the last place we saw it.

This is the same whether the 2MR is in effect, is not in effect, or has been completely eliminated from our rulebook.

�Retrieving� and �Positively Identifying� a disc are simply not the same thing. And �Disc Above the Playing Surface� is in no way related to �Out of Bounds�(other than if the disc is above OB, which is not this discussion) OR �Lost Disc� rules.

Please address directly the points made here in. If I misunderstood your points, then please clarify.


Again, I come back to the fact that you have no say in determining whether or not I have positively identified my disc up in the tree, as the lost-disc rule is currently written. I think many people have the understanding that you have, and think they do have a say, but they don't.

So how does that affect your answers to the scenario above where my disc is in a tree? Are you satisfied that neither you nor anyone else in the group has any say in whether or not I can positively identify my disc up in a tree, when the 2MR is not in effect? No matter how high up in the tree it is? No matter that no one but me saw my disc go up into that tree? <font color="blue"> My feeling about it is irrelevant Paul. Our rules addressing it is the only concern I have. And they do.</font>



<font color="blue"> So, the question remains, how is the situation any different, other than no penalty throw, between this situation with the 2MR in effect and this situation without it. Perhaps clarifying your first set of scenarios will make this clear? I find it unlikely that you will be able to prove the difference in light of how we identify our thrown discs within the existing rules of play for disc golf. But I am interested to see if it is possible.</font>

Respectfully,
Nick Kight

I�m not sure I agree or disagree with [Paul's] assessment, [changing the lost disc stipulations in the way Paul suggests] could cloud our rules more than we can predict, <font color="blue"> the rules committee folk would be in a better position to understand the broader ramifications </font> .



Thank you Nick. Now would you do me the favor of treating me like one who knows nothing at all about the Rules Committee and explain what puts them in a good position to understand the ramifications of a rules change? I've begun to wonder whether people think the RC is three guys who picked up disc golf yesterday and were handed the job. :D

they may be experienced. they may be honest and honorable people. they may have the best interests of the sport in mind. in other words, they may be just like hundred of other players around the world. they are not gods or demi-gods or above any other player.

there is no instantly available list of RC members. they are not voted in or out. they do make their votes officially known. in other words they are not accountable.

dont take me wrong - i am NOT dissing the individuals. i am pointing out the opacity of the system.

its funny that we get a nice printed survey in our membership mailing and an online version to make it even easier to complete and submit - but it was about the freakin message board for pete's sake.

what about some formal communication about the RULES!

This is being discussed because the 2 meter rule has always been controversial -- largely due to its flukey occurence and because it more often than not leads to a double penalty.


That is simply not true. Maybe your experience on your course with your types of shots leads you to believe that statement, but mine do not.

Part of the problem with the whole 2MR debate is that trees in different parts fo the country are different, and the way the 2MR plays out is vastly different in different areas. We should all try to see and remember that.

Rhett, I have edited my statement after re-considering the wording of the part you highlighted -- tell me what you think.


This is being discussed because the 2 meter rule has always been controversial -- largely due to its flukey occurence and because it <font color="blue"> all too often leads to a double penalty. </font>



Also, I am still waiting to hear if you are willing to give the RC recommendation a chance and will wait until after 2006 before you insist the elimination of the 2 meter rule as the default scenario is bad for disc golf?

i think that if no=2MR is the dfault, its gonna be awfully hard to get any TDs to re-instate it, worthy or not. if the default is no, RIP 2MR.

Rob, I agree with Sandalman's comment. I will abide by whatever the PDGA rules of play are. But once you get rid of it, it will be gone for good.

I still have not heard anything near to a compelling argument (to me) that warrants the removal of the rule.

I have not heard you say you would be willing to consider relief added to the 2MR as a compromise.

I still have not heard anything near to a compelling argument (to me) that warrants the removal of the rule.



Doesn�t this inform the reason why? I mean why won�t TDs and designers choose to use it if it is not the default?


Rob, I agree with Sandalman's comment. I will abide by whatever the PDGA rules of play are. But once you get rid of it, it will be gone for good.




I have not heard you say you would be willing to consider relief added to the 2MR as a compromise.



Because it is not a compromise at all; It is an acquiescence and even further move towards the entrenchment of the 2MR. The compromise is to allow TDs and designers to declare certain areas or the entire course OB above a certain height, and relief be specified by the existing OB rule. Even I can see that this might come in handy on (rare) occasion.

Pat�s reasons for not wanting the 2 meter rule repealed around the pin are founded, but not universally so, and in the end the designer and TD should be the ones to decide what is best. If many challenges arise, which I doubt they will, the TD or designer will certainly act quickly to adjust their design.

I have never face the challenge of an OB Tree, nor a group of OB trees, nor a course of OB trees, but I am willing to bet that the will enter my strategy far more than the 2MR consideration ever has.

I have never faced the challenge of an OB Tree, nor a group of OB trees, nor a course of OB trees, but I am willing to bet that the will enter my strategy far more than the 2MR consideration ever has.



<font color="blue"> excellent point Nick. Just because one has yet to face that scenario is no reason to fear it. I welcome the improvement in consistency that will yield as compared to the flukey 2 meter penalty.

Rhett, I commented on my willignness to compromise yesterday. The PDGA Rules Committee gave this issue years of thought and consideration and finally concluded that the sport would be best off eliminating the 2 meter rule as the default scenario. Note that this decision still leaves TD's and course designers many options other than the 2 meter rule to prevent trees near pins from being used to aid poor throws flung on a line higher than 2 meters -- options which will discourage / punish such 'poor' throws with greater consistency and therefore effectiveness.

If, after an adequate trial period (current decision making that year 2006), what the RC decided is highly unpopular, I am quite willing to compromise and will not oppose the re-inclusion of the 2 meter penalty provided relief is part of the crafting of the rule. However, I am willing to bet that after 2006 being a year in which no 2 meter rule is the default scenario is finished -- those opposing this change will find their concerns were fear of the unknown rather than of what will actually transpire in the 2 meter rule's absence. </font>

I have never face the challenge of an OB Tree, nor a group of OB trees, nor a course of OB trees, but I am willing to bet that the will enter my strategy far more than the 2MR consideration ever has.


They would enter my strategy, too. I would avoid any tournament that had them until someone explained to me how OB would be implemented around those trees. Will there be drop zones? Will we have to determine the last IB position of the disc? Will Rob or Nick be there as officials?

However, I am willing to bet that after 2006 being a year in which no 2 meter rule is the default scenario is finished -- those opposing this change will find their concerns were fear of the unknown rather than of what will actually transpire in the 2 meter rule's absence. </font>


Look, the inclusion or exclusion of 2MR is not going to affect my game so much that "fear of the unknown" plays any kind of factor here. This rule is too small a thing for there to be some great fear regarding its elimination.

What I've been commenting on is the fact that certain special cases will no longer be specifically covered by the rules without the 2MR. And when those special cases come up, there will be inconsistent interpretations applied, depending on the player's and the group's interpretation of the rules.

If a player can be convinced by the group that his disc is lost when it's so high in a tree it can't be identified, or that it's lost when he can't determine which of the two discs in a tree are his, or that it's lost when two players throw their identically colored discs into the same tree and when they get to that tree, only one disc of that color can be seen, then the player will have a lost-disc penalty assessed against him -- but if you can't convince the player his disc is lost, even given the uncertainty of the above cases, then he will take the vertical relief without a penalty, and throw on. To me, the 2MR covers a case that the lost-disc rule doesn't currently spell out. Spell it out in the lost disc rule when you remove the 2MR, and most of my objection goes away -- although I just don't see the need to remove a functioning rule just so you have to embellish another to make up for its absence.

I have never face the challenge of an OB Tree, nor a group of OB trees, nor a course of OB trees, but I am willing to bet that the will enter my strategy far more than the 2MR consideration ever has.


They would enter my strategy, too. I would avoid any tournament that had them until someone explained to me how OB would be implemented around those trees. Will there be drop zones? Will we have to determine the last IB position of the disc? Will Rob or Nick be there as officials?



Not to be smart Paul, but have you ever been to a players meeting? That is where such information is distributed. And if as you suspect, an OB Tree would be too difficult to judge where the disc was last over in bounds (which I do not agree that it would be), the TD need only specify "Throw and Distance" as the only method of marking the next lie for such Out of Bounds Areas. And TDs and Designers knowing their course well, might want to use a drop zone here or there to not be overly punitive, this similar to ball golf (think Masters hole 12 I believe).

However, I am willing to bet that after 2006 being a year in which no 2 meter rule is the default scenario is finished -- those opposing this change will find their concerns were fear of the unknown rather than of what will actually transpire in the 2 meter rule's absence. </font>


Look, the inclusion or exclusion of 2MR is not going to affect my game so much that "fear of the unknown" plays any kind of factor here. This rule is too small a thing for there to be some great fear regarding its elimination.


What I've been commenting on is the fact that certain special cases will no longer be specifically covered by the rules without the 2MR. And when those special cases come up, there will be inconsistent interpretations applied, depending on the player's and the group's interpretation of the rules.


Hi Paul,

Thanks for responding, and further clarifying the situation you perceive to be a challenge.


If a player can be convinced by the group that his disc is lost when it's so high in a tree it can't be identified, or that it's lost when he can't determine which of the two discs in a tree are his, or that it's lost when two players throw their identically colored discs into the same tree and when they get to that tree, only one disc of that color can be seen, then the player will have a lost-disc penalty assessed against him -- but if you can't convince the player his disc is lost, even given the uncertainty of the above cases, then he will take the vertical relief without a penalty, and throw on. To me, the 2MR covers a case that the lost-disc rule doesn't currently spell out. Spell it out in the lost disc rule when you remove the 2MR, and most of my objection goes away -- although I just don't see the need to remove a functioning rule just so you have to embellish another to make up for its absence.



Your premise then, let me get this straight is the following:
1) The Two Meter Rule is not in effect. (Whether completely eliminated or just turned off for this situation.)
2) The TD and/or Course Designer is not using an aerial Out of Bounds for this specific situation.
3) Player A throws.
4) When the group approaches the place they last saw the disc, they see a similar disc 35 feet up in a tree.
5) He knows it is not his disc.
6) Other players in his group suspect that it is not his disc and even possibly "know" that it is not his disc..
7) You are arguing that because the 2MR is not in effect and the player might want to escape a violation with a penalty throw that he would say,"That disc is mine."
8) Under the rules, as covered previously, they do not have a say in the identification (retrieved or not)..
9) The player marks their lie, as per rule, on the playing surface below the disc identified as Player As and play resumes.
Am I correct that this is the situation you fear will happen with some regularity? If not, please specifically change this scenario to fit your supposition.

If this is the correct scenario, then in my opinion, it is not a challenge created by the removal of the 2MR, but by the complete lack of ethics of the clearly "Cheating" player A. If the disc were to be retrieved later and found not to be his, then at the least 2 penalty strokes will be added to Player As score for that round or the event*, and they could face possible disqualification or suspension from future PDGA events. (Not to mention being widely considered as a straight up "cheater".

So, your logic appears to me to be based on the idea that a player would openly and brazenly cheat, where they would have no cause if the 2MR were in place. Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely in consideration of existing rules that would stop him from getting away with it. (I mean, if I were in his group as suspected him of such behavior, I would be sure to mention it to an Official or the Tournament Director and get out there after the round to get the disc down with them. In fact, there is nothing stopping this from happening "during the round".

Hope I got your scenario correctly, it still seemed to be a mix of about 5 to6 different scenarios all mixed together.

*803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE
A. A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed.

B. The player whose lie was played by the offending player shall be given an approximate lie as close to the original lie as possible, as determined by the offending player, a majority of his or her group, or an official. See section 803.10 C if the disc has been declared lost.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

If a player can be convinced by the group that his disc is lost when it's so high in a tree it can't be identified, or that it's lost when he can't determine which of the two discs in a tree are his, or that it's lost when two players throw their identically colored discs into the same tree and when they get to that tree, only one disc of that color can be seen, then the player will have a lost-disc penalty assessed against him --



All of these situations are possible WITH the 2 meter rule, but I've never seen (or heard of) any close to this happening.


but if you can't convince the player his disc is lost, even given the uncertainty of the above cases, then he will take the vertical relief without a penalty, and throw on.



This can happen in any number of instances where there is a rules question. OB or not OB, foot faults, falling putts, etc. There are occasions where a group can not agree and the benifit is given to the player & you play on.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I have been following this debate on and off for a while and I haven't noticed anyone talking about the relative impossibility of determining 2 meters, even if they had a measuring device. It is a rare situation when the ground under the lie is perfectly flat, and in some situations, it's sloped, rocky, undulating and difficult to get to. I personally object to regular, on the ground ob that is not clearly marked, they same way I object to the fuzzy "ob line" for two meters. I have personally witnessed many controversial situations, Cinncinnatti Worlds for instance, that colored a group's assessment of whether a shot was 2 meters or not, because it was difficult to assess; which is the point here. The group was going to give Steve Wisecup a stroke because they were "sure" he was OB. He wasn't. Fortunately for Steve, I was able to stand under the disc and demonstrate to the group that the disc was less than 2 meters, as it was touching my head. The "tree" was really a tall bush, which has happened many times too. Trees and bushes make good obstacles, but poor ob lines, especially when vested interests are at stake and the difference of an inch makes a difference in a stroke. Personally, I want all ob lines to be clearly delineated, like a rope, paint, string, line of unbroken concrete etc.

Yep, yep.

If a player can be convinced by the group that his disc is lost when it's so high in a tree it can't be identified, or that it's lost when he can't determine which of the two discs in a tree are his, or that it's lost when two players throw their identically colored discs into the same tree and when they get to that tree, only one disc of that color can be seen, then the player will have a lost-disc penalty assessed against him --



All of these situations are possible WITH the 2 meter rule, but I've never seen (or heard of) any close to this happening.


You will. That's because currently a lost disc and a disc above two meters carry the same penalty, so debating the discs "lostness" would make absolutely no difference in the final outcome. The problem will come when they don't. See Dave Dunipace's post. When the chips are down and $500 is on the line, watch for it.

This is sound thinking. It undoes my aerial OB options, though, perhaps not.

Dave, if, and for me this is a huge "IF", a course designer or td ever decided that a key tree on a specific fairway needed to be protected, and as you point out that there need be (possibly by rule) a physical line (string, rope, or clearly defined seam), could the TD use the line of the seam where the tree trunk goes into the ground as the OB line?

The theory goes, as somewhat covered in the "Multiple Playing Surfaces" PDGA Rules Committee Q & A; that if there are multiple playing surfaces, one being IB the other OB, then the status of the disc is determined by the surface immediately below the disc at rest. Essentially, this makes the vertical OB plane of the OB line stop when it comes in contact with a surface of a differing OB/IB status.

So, any disc supported completely by that OB tree, and that would obviously make the first surface directly beneath the disc Out of Bounds, then the disc would be OB, right?

Basically, what it boils down to is this: Designers and Tournament Directors should at their own discretion be able to designate anywhere they want on their course (within reason and the rules) as a restricted area. Whether OB or Casual, if they want folks to stay out of that area they should have the right and tools within our rules to do so. And I agree that a physical line should be provided as an indisputable reference.

You will. That's because currently a lost disc and a disc above two meters carry the same penalty, so debating the discs "lostness" would make absolutely no difference in the final outcome. The problem will come when they don't. See Dave Dunipace's post. When the chips are down and $500 is on the line, watch for it.



I can understand that. My point is that this type of thing is not limited to the 2 meter rule and shouldn't be the basis for an argument to keep it.

agreed that its no basis for retention. there's plenty of solid reasons for keeping some semblance of it.

saying that it is impossible to measure is NO reason to get rid of it. any player who doesnt carry a 2M rule is lacking in the equipment category. if no one has a 2M rule, and the disc is "close", remember the benefit ALWAYS goes to the player.

We'll agree to disagree on that one.

Both the red states (pro 2m) and the blue states (anti 2m) make valid points. I just hope the red states will be able to accept their defeat. We can debate forever on here, but I don't think it will have much of an affect on the final decision. Give it a chance for Pete's sake!

The one valid reason for keeping the 2M rule, IMO, is the disc up in the tree that no one saw go in and can't be positively identified. In that case, I would penalize a lost disc. Just seeing a disc of the same color, would not be good enough. There would have to be something uniquely identifiable like huge initials in marker pen seen by the group to avoid a penalty. Or, in another scenario: if the group sees the disc hit and stick in the tree positively, then it is already seen and spotted before you need to read a name on the disc. In other words, it has been spotted and positively identified because it was never out of sight. Something along these lines would be needed to cover the gap that would be created by dropping the 2M rule.

Give it a chance for Pete's sake!


I don't understand that one. Either we have the rule or we don't. Discs don't stick very often at all, so what's there to give a chance to?

I guess we can give it a chance and see how many additional discs get stuck in trees. But this isn't like the ill-named "speed of play" rules where it will come up a bunch of times.

I have never face the challenge of an OB Tree, nor a group of OB trees, nor a course of OB trees, but I am willing to bet that the will enter my strategy far more than the 2MR consideration ever has.


They would enter my strategy, too. I would avoid any tournament that had them until someone explained to me how OB would be implemented around those trees. Will there be drop zones? Will we have to determine the last IB position of the disc? Will Rob or Nick be there as officials?



Not to be smart Paul, but have you ever been to a players meeting? That is where such information is distributed. And if as you suspect, an OB Tree would be too difficult to judge where the disc was last over in bounds (which I do not agree that it would be), the TD need only specify "Throw and Distance" as the only method of marking the next lie for such Out of Bounds Areas. And TDs and Designers knowing their course well, might want to use a drop zone here or there to not be overly punitive, this similar to ball golf (think Masters hole 12 I believe).


Let me clarify: if I knew ahead of time there would be "OB trees" at a tournament, I would absolutely avoid the tournament unless the new OB-tree rule was clearly defined WELL before the player's meeting. That's because I won't pay money to attend a tournament when it's likely to end up being a frustrating experience.

Give it a chance for Pete's sake!


I don't understand that one. Either we have the rule or we don't. Discs don't stick very often at all, so what's there to give a chance to?

I guess we can give it a chance and see how many additional discs get stuck in trees. But this isn't like the ill-named "speed of play" rules where it will come up a bunch of times.



Give the (no) 2m rule a chance. I'm sure (I hope) the final decision won't be made next week. Test drive the sucker for a while and see how she handles. This isn't necessarily directed at you Rhett, but I think there will be people blaming the lack of the 2m rule for not placing higher.

It is a rule/it isn't a rule. The TD will tell you if it's not a rule this year. I think this is a much better way to handle it, as opposed to dropping it all together. I'm sure we'll all have a better understanding of it's ramifications after we've played SEVERAL tournaments without it.

Your premise then, let me get this straight is the following:
1) The Two Meter Rule is not in effect. (Whether completely eliminated or just turned off for this situation.)
2) The TD and/or Course Designer is not using an aerial Out of Bounds for this specific situation.
3) Player A throws.
4) When the group approaches the place they last saw the disc, they see a similar disc 35 feet up in a tree.
5) He knows it is not his disc.
<font color="blue">No, my concern starts out with a player who thinks that's his disc up there, but can't prove it to the group around him. And some level of discontent will emerge from that, I think. (And yes, there will also be some number of people who just might stretch the rule to their advantage. I'm not so naive to believe that no one at all does that -- there will be a few.)</font>
6) Other players in his group suspect that it is not his disc and even possibly "know" that it is not his disc..
<font color="blue">If the disc can't be proven to be his, it can't be proven not to be his.</font>
7) You are arguing that because the 2MR is not in effect and the player might want to escape a violation with a penalty throw that he would say,"That disc is mine."
<font color="blue">Well, yes. Most people wouldn't want to penalized for a lost disc if they thought their identification of the disc in the tree was "good enough". For others in the group, some might say "good enough" needs to be better, and the disc needs to be retrieved to prove ownership. Again, something for a lost-disc rule clarification to correct.</font>
8) Under the rules, as covered previously, they do not have a say in the identification (retrieved or not)..
9) The player marks their lie, as per rule, on the playing surface below the disc identified as Player As and play resumes.
Am I correct that this is the situation you fear will happen with some regularity? If not, please specifically change this scenario to fit your supposition.
<font color="blue">I did that above.</font>




If this is the correct scenario, then in my opinion, it is not a challenge created by the removal of the 2MR, but by the complete lack of ethics of the clearly "Cheating" player A.


No one's clearly cheating in the scenario above. Even those stretching the rules to their advantage are not technically cheating, because no specific rule would be violated if a person just hoped that was his disc up there, identified as such, and threw from directly under it. That's why I'd like the lost disc rule clarified so that the scenario is covered. With the lost disc rule as currently written, there's simply opportunity for ill will to develop within the group, as the threshold for proper disc identification will be different among players within that group unless it is spelled out.

If the disc were to be retrieved later and found not to be his, then at the least 2 penalty strokes will be added to Player As score for that round or the event*, and they could face possible disqualification or suspension from future PDGA events. (Not to mention being widely considered as a straight up "cheater".


See what I mean about developing ill will unintentionally? The player may have truly thought the disc was his, even if he couldn't really know for sure, and now you're calling him a cheater, lumping him in with others who actually go out of their way to cheat. If you remove 2MR, you gotta clear up that lost-disc rule so you don't go around calling people trying to play the game cheaters.

So, your logic appears to me to be based on the idea that a player would openly and brazenly cheat, where they would have no cause if the 2MR were in place. Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely in consideration of existing rules that would stop him from getting away with it. (I mean, if I were in his group as suspected him of such behavior, I would be sure to mention it to an Official or the Tournament Director and get out there after the round to get the disc down with them. In fact, there is nothing stopping this from happening "during the round".

Hope I got your scenario correctly, it still seemed to be a mix of about 5 to6 different scenarios all mixed together.


No, it's just one scenario: a disc stuck so high in a tree, it may be too far away to positively identify. There are others, such as two discs thrown into a tree, but only one visible disc stuck within it. Whose disc is it? Who draws the lost-disc penalty? Both players? Or will the one player who's most convinced that's his disc avoid the penalty, so the other must take it?

If a player can be convinced by the group that his disc is lost when it's so high in a tree it can't be identified, or that it's lost when he can't determine which of the two discs in a tree are his, or that it's lost when two players throw their identically colored discs into the same tree and when they get to that tree, only one disc of that color can be seen, then the player will have a lost-disc penalty assessed against him --



All of these situations are possible WITH the 2 meter rule, but I've never seen (or heard of) any close to this happening.


You will. That's because currently a lost disc and a disc above two meters carry the same penalty, so debating the discs "lostness" would make absolutely no difference in the final outcome. The problem will come when they don't. See Dave Dunipace's post. When the chips are down and $500 is on the line, watch for it.


What Rhett said.