But what about this:


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.

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.


Well, I'm not arguing keeping the 2MR, I'm arguing that if you remove the 2MR, I think the language for the lost-disc rule needs clarification. I think I've stated that multiple times. I did say that clarifying the lost-disc rule seems strange when the 2MR was functioning well on its own, but if it's going, then I think the lost-disc rule needs clarification. As sandalman says as a follow-up, there are other reasons for keeping the 2MR. But I'm tired of arguing those points; they fall on deaf ears. I'm satisfied just to go back to the original point I made ages ago, which is that the lost-disc rule needs clarification if the 2MR is removed from the rulebook.

But what about this:


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.






It's definitely a molehill now, or a microdot perhaps, with the 2MR in place.

I don't know what might happen in the future with the 2MR removed with regard to frequency of occurrence -- but then rules are not just made for frequently occurring events.

In many cases, rules are defined especially to cover the rare event, because you don't want players and officials standing around scratching their heads at any time.

The idea is that the rules should cover every case that can come up during a disc golf game. If the rules don't cover a case, then they need to be extended to cover that case. I'm just pointing out where I think that extension or clarification will be needed if the 2MR is removed.

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.



Fair enough, though pure speculation. I'm not sure why you are unwilling to transfer your trust in Out of Bounds in general to an Aerial Out of Bounds though. If the 2MR really does start pushing up daisies, I suspect that many TDs and/or players will not share your reluctance in giving it a try.

Got it.

I love how no one on this thread is either for or against the banishment of the 2meter rule, yet it's gone on for 100 pages. Just imagine if everyone had a strong opinion. :D

But what about this:

[QUOTE]
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.





Maybe I didn't answer your point directly in my last post. I think you also said that this can happen in other rules, and in those cases, the ruling goes to the player where the group doesn't agree. I'm not sure about OB or not OB, that should be pretty clear. Falling putts should be fairly clear, too, right? But foot faults happen so fast, they may not be witnessed by everybody. And there may be other instances where a group disagrees if a rule was violated or not based on the evidence before them.

What I'm talking about is people disagreeing about the rule, not about the evidence. With the 2MR removed, the lost-disc rule is not clear enough to promote agreement within a group. It says a player must locate his disc. That's it. How is that done? It does not specify that locating a disc requires the approval of the group. But it also doesn't say specifically that the group has no involvement -- in fact, the group is helping to look. But how the player locates his disc is left up in the air.

So to your point again: with a foot fault, everyone knows what a foot fault is. But some in the group might have missed it when it happened. Hence the disagreement, and the benefit to the player.

What I'm saying is no one really knows what proper identification of a disc means, as it applies to lost disc rule. But they will be sure of the evidence around them: there's the disc, up in the tree, unretrievable. Some members of the group may think he has "located" his disc, while others may think otherwise, but that won't be because the evidence was transient and not available anymore. It'll be because no one really knows what locating a disc means.

And later on, if the disc is somehow retrieved and the disc is found to be someone else's, people start throwing the "cheater" word around...

Look, if you think there's ill will now regarding the 2MR, which occurs rarely, but is serious enough of a problem to require change, then how much ill will do you think will develop if a group thinks someone is trying to skirt around the lost disc penalty for a disc up in a tree, and starts calling that player a cheater? Re-write the lost-disc rule to accommodate the future lack of the 2MR, I say. (Or for that matter, the present lack of the 2MR for those tournaments where the rule is disabled.)

Got it.

I love how no one on this thread is either for or against the banishment of the 2meter rule, yet it's gone on for 100 pages. Just imagine if everyone had a strong opinion. :D


Oh, I'm against the banishment of the 2m rule. And you can read the prior 100 pages to find out why, if you like, or do a search.

But I don't see the need to re-hash those arguments when I'm talking about the need to clarify the lost-disc rule if the 2MR is revoked.

I can accept that. Would Dave's clarification clear it up, or do you think more needs to be added?


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.

The one valid reason for keeping the 2M rule,<font color="blue">[PaulM: do you mean one valid reason for a penalty when a disc is in a tree?]</font> 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.


See, this is what I'm talking about. If this is what it takes for one person to be convinced that the lost disc rule doesn't apply, will it be the same for everyone?

To make it the same, something like what davei said above will have to be spelled out in the lost disc rule, so that everyone will know what it means to identify a disc.

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.


Paul,

This is just patently false. Yes, they both carry a 1 throw penalty, however the lie given can be worlds apart. Perhaps that doesn't seem like much on a pitch and put course (but this never occurring in 25 years of my playing disc golf) could make a huge difference on a course like Seneca, Patapsco, Tinicum, Nockamixon, and so on.

Now if it does happen. And there is a question about the disc in question, then we DO ALREADY HAVE RULES TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION. And they are no different than they were with the 2MR.

I'm not saying that it would never happen, it might, but if it did, and it was later determined not to be his disc then there is a rule to deal with this. Innocently done or not the rule will have been broken and at the very least penalty throws assessed.

I have nothing against the PDGA Rules Committee looking into this, but if it is just a huge can of worms for a ruling that happens once a life-time then I know it does not meet their criteria for review. I'll keep my eye out for it though as I play in more and more events without the 2MR. So far so good...

Respectfully,
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.


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.


Paul,

This is just patently false. Yes, they both carry a 1 throw penalty, however the lie given can be worlds apart. Perhaps that doesn't seem like much on a pitch and put course (but this never occurring in 25 years of my playing disc golf) could make a huge difference on a course like Seneca, Patapsco, Tinicum, Nockamixon, and so on.

Now if it does happen. And there is a question about the disc in question, then we DO ALREADY HAVE RULES TO HANDLE THIS SITUATION. And they are no different than they were with the 2MR.

I'm not saying that it would never happen, it might, but if it did, and it was later determined not to be his disc then there is a rule to deal with this. Innocently done or not the rule will have been broken and at the very least penalty throws assessed.

I have nothing against the PDGA Rules Committee looking into this, but if it is just a huge can of worms for a ruling that happens once a life-time then I know it does not meet their criteria for review. I'll keep my eye out for it though as I play in more and more events without the 2MR. So far so good...

Respectfully,
Nick Kight


This is the lack of open-mindedness to any suggestion whatsoever that people are talking about. I've accepted the 2MR is gone, and I mention the lost-disc rule needs a little help, and you don't have any specific refutation for it -- you just don't agree.

Good-bye, Nick Kight. Have a nice life.

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?



Dear Paul,

Please pick ONE that clearly shows us all what you are talking about. Complete and self-contained. Even your reply hints at no less than 6 possible situations, all of which I could show how existing rules, without the 2MR, could handle elegantly.

If you can think of a single one that does not I am very anxious to hear it. So far I haven't heard the example that clearly and concisely show the holes you say are created. I am patient, but I wish you would just come out and say it. Please?

Regards,
Nick Kight

Whatever he said up there, please no one quote him.

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?


You make a distinction between positive identification that is not part of our rules, nor does it need to be.

If it is identified, that is enough. Whether 30 feet up in a tree or on the ground. Our rules provide for mistaken identification of discs quite elegantly.


Look, if you think there's ill will now regarding the 2MR, which occurs rarely, but is serious enough of a problem to require change, then how much ill will do you think will develop if a group thinks someone is trying to skirt around the lost disc penalty for a disc up in a tree, and starts calling that player a cheater?


I doubt it. And if there is a serious enough question the group could require a provisional. If the player refuses the provisional, then they will have to live with the consequences if it is later found not to be their disc. Better safe than sorry, right?
I know how much you like to cling to something you think gives you an edge in this Paul, but ill-will between competitors, in my experience is very rare, almost as rare as having someone claim that a disc up in a tree is theirs to avoid a worse score or lie. And believe me we�re talking blue moon rare.


This is the lack of open-mindedness to any suggestion whatsoever that people are talking about. I've accepted the 2MR is gone, and I mention the lost-disc rule needs a little help, and you don't have any specific refutation for it -- you just don't agree.

Good-bye, Nick Kight. Have a nice life.



Paul,

All I am asking for you to clearly show us what you are talking about. ONE EXAMPLE, start to finish that makes your point undeniable. Then if it floats I will be very willing to agree with you. C'mon, it can't be that hard can it?

This is like talking with Craig!?! As soon as we are getting somewhere you refuse to finish your thought. Don't you even want to know if it really is as you believe it is? Aren't you the least curious?

Don't get so distraught about this, it's just a chat.

I really am interested to see if it is as you say it is. Really!

Whatever he said up there, please no one quote him.



Dear Paul,

That's just mean spirited and rude Paul. You know what I am asking. I want to believe that you might really think you have an example that clearly shows your point, but your apparent reluctance to share it is starting to make me wonder if it exists. Your frantic mixing of 5 to 7 scenarios it might seem to some that you are being purposefully vague.

Show us that you are not. Give us that one example that shows without a doubt you are correct in your contention that without the 2MR a disc up in a tree and our lost disc rule can create the situation you predict. Show us and I will be the very first to say thank you and say you were right.

Regards,
Nick

Whatever he said up there, please no one quote him.



Paul http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/images/itchy.gif & Nick

Rhett, earlier you asked the 'get rid of the 2 meter penalty' camp to be open to compromise. Are you open to compromise? If so why not let the year 2006 as currently proposed play out? For many years the 50% of disc golfers who want a 2 meter penalty have had their way. Now the 50% who want it scrapped will have 2005 as a transition year and 2006 as a year with the rule book their way. Give it a chance, and if you still feel strongly in 2007 against the elimination of the rule, speak up then.

Eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise. :)

Paul quoted somebody who said:

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.



So...some travelling pros roll into the El Dorado Open one year. On one of the holes they all tee off from the wrong tee pad. Prior to any subsequent throws they realize they were at the wrong tee pad. Instead of taking the one throw penalty each for a practice throw that they all know well and good is what the rules call for, they call for a ruling from an official.

WTF???

Their hope is that the official doesn't know the rules and they can get away with a practice throw for no penalty. That seems like blatant cheating. The official makes the ruling and they all get a penalty throw and an incredulous look from the official. And the local pros think it was a smart move to try and avoid the stroke. :confused:

So there are people already accustomed to trying to get over whenever they can. Claiming that you think that disc up there is yours falls right in line with those actions.

Whatever he said up there, please no one quote him.



Paul http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/images/itchy.gif & Nick



LOL! Thanks Nick. Hey the mouse always wins, right?

Eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise. :)


And neither is keeping it with an additional stipulation piled on top...
What "IS" a compromise is allowing designers and TDs to turn it on and off as they will. I don't like it, you don't like it, but it certainly is a compromise.

Eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise. :)



And neither is keeping it with an additional stipulation piled on top...



I haven't been following the latest conversation but just for clarification.............

Nick - I can understand how someone might think that eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise, please explain how changing the rule (to add relief, or in some other fashion) is NOT a compromise. Or is it just not the compromise you favor?

Bingo!

Whatever he said up there, please no one quote him.



Paul http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/images/itchy.gif & Nick


Very funny. I guess if I didn't respond to Nick's jabs, it would be just one cartoon character with a mallet smacking me to the ground.

So you see how someone will eventually smack back. Or take the mallet away (ignore future posts). Wait until it's your turn...

Eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise. :)



And neither is keeping it with an additional stipulation piled on top...



I haven't been following the latest conversation but just for clarification.............

Nick - I can understand how someone might think that eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise, please explain how changing the rule (to add relief, or in some other fashion) is NOT a compromise. Or is it just not the compromise you favor?



Dear Craig,

Gladly, as soon as you tell me how it IS a compromise to keep the 2MR and add another stipulation on top of it that does not address the initial challenge with it to begin with? Namely that it is an uncompromising mandatory rule that removes the freedom of TDs and Designers to create the course the way they see fit. Not the way you or Rhett think every TD and Designer should do it, or to satisfy some phantom hole in our rules Paul sees.

How is it a compromise to not satisfy any, or only a miniscule fraction of your opponents needs, but rather get everything you want plus a piled on stipulation (which also seems to be even further away from the concept of "Play It Where It Lies"?

A compromise is when both sides get some of what they want, but neither likely gets entirely what they want. Rhett and your idea of a compromise is that you get everything you want and your opponents get nothing. That is not compromise.

Respectfully,
Nick Kight

Dear Rhett and Paul,

Anyone really wanting to cheat will find a way to cheat, but those of us ready and willing to protect the sport from such players have the tools we need (our rules). Even in this, yet to be fleshed out scenario Paul foresees.

Though, perhaps, the player may be able to "immediately" seem like they are able to use the absence of the 2MR to "Get Over" and avoid a penalty stroke, there are some rules that will not permit this to happen (and I will detail them below), but it takes more than written rules to effectively protect our game. It takes:

1) Honest, Knowledgable, Compliant, and Ready To Defend our Rules Disc Golfers: Yes, I believe that 99.9% of disc golfers at PDGA events want to play fairly and according to the rules. It is their sense of right that protects our game and spurs them on to develop an ever better working knowledge, compliance of rules and willingness to protect our sport from those few who would lessen it. If they don't, well then, we have the second line of defense:
2) Other PDGA Officials and Players, the 99.9% mentioned above, will make sure that existing rules are followed. Paul says there is a hole in these rules that would allow these 0.1% of players "get over" (whether innocently or not) on the 99.9% ready and willing to protect our sport by using these:

(803.07 B. 2 Meter Rule is waived or just dead>)
Ignorantly (not knowing our rules so not trying to cheat) abusing the rules:
A) Player A throws. The disc goes around a bend and out of site about 40 feet in the air.
B) When the group (B, C and D players) approaches the place they last saw the disc, the bend, they see a similar disc 35 feet up in a tree.
C) Player A thinks it is his disc.
D) Players B and D think it is his disc. Player C is unsure and asks if Player A is certain that is his disc (something I have never once seen happen in 25 years of disc golf, and not because it is the same penalty (803.10 LOST DISC or 803.07 B. 2MR), which it most certainly is not considering the vast difference in spotting the lie).
E) Player A says yes it is. And under our rules of play only he is required to identify the disc. Though Player C would be showing good sportsmanship to advise Player A to first look down the fairway a bit, using the 3 minutes for lost disc to see if his disc actually got further down the fairway. Player A would likely agree since this would likely result in a significantly better lie and also to avoid a 803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE penalty. <font color="RED">Note: This is the exact same procedure for play even if the 803.07 B. 2MR WERE IN EFFECT.</font>
F) They all look and do not find another disc, even so because Player C is not certain that the disc in the tree is the one Player A threw, he advises Player A to take a provisional throw, incase it is later determined that the disc in the tree that Players A, B and D think is Player A�s is in fact not Player A�s (and perhaps Player A�s disc was found further down the fairway, even possibly moved prior to Player A�s groups ruling, which would remove the lost disc penalty) that he have a score reflecting the lost disc possibility as well as the 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE ruling. Explaining further, if needed, that if the disc is later found not to be his Player A would risk a 2 throw penalty for violating rule 803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE.
G) Player A throws as if the disc above the playing surface was his and takes a provisional back(a good 40 feet) at the bend where the disc was last seen by the group. If he does not take the provisional, then he is essentially agreeing that if the disc in the tree turns out not to be his he accepts the 2 throw penalty for violation of rule 803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE.

The scenario is 100% covered by the proper execution of our existing rules; this whether rule 803.07 B. 2MR were in effect or not. The procedure is exactly the same. Whether there were 2 or 100 discs up in that tree, a player would be wise and within existing rules to play a provisional and let the TD have the final say later. It is only prudent.

Now do you need a scenario where Player A fully knows the rules and is trying to �get over� on the competition? Or can you now see that our rules cover that as well?

In the end, our rules are adequate concerning this, but the only way to truly ensure fair play is for everyone to know, follow and call them. Whether the player him or herself or the players in their or other groups.

If a hole truly does exist Paul, then the PDGA Rules Committee will move quickly to correct it. But in this case, it certainly should not stop them from making significant progress in doing something that should have been done many years ago; the removal of 803.07 B. 2MR from our rules of play.


Paul quoted somebody who said:

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.



So...some travelling pros roll into the El Dorado Open one year. On one of the holes they all tee off from the wrong tee pad. Prior to any subsequent throws they realize they were at the wrong tee pad. Instead of taking the one throw penalty each for a practice throw that they all know well and good is what the rules call for, they call for a ruling from an official.

WTF???

Their hope is that the official doesn't know the rules and they can get away with a practice throw for no penalty. That seems like blatant cheating. The official makes the ruling and they all get a penalty throw and an incredulous look from the official. And the local pros think it was a smart move to try and avoid the stroke. :confused:

So there are people already accustomed to trying to get over whenever they can. Claiming that you think that disc up there is yours falls right in line with those actions.

Gladly, as soon as you tell me how it IS a compromise to keep the 2MR and add another stipulation on top of it that does not address the initial challenge with it to begin with? Namely that it is an uncompromising mandatory rule that removes the freedom of TDs and Designers to create the course the way they see fit.



Lemme see - I thought that the vast majority of people having a problem w/ the 2MR were concerned about being unfairly penalized twice due to having to place a mark directly underneath the suspended disc AND be assessed a penalty?
Did I miss something?

Your claim of removing designer freedom - or impacting a TD's right to play the course as they see fit is at best a secondary consideration in the entire argument - hardly the primary driving consideration. Even the RC discussion was more about the penalty part of the rule Nick. Is this going to be another "lines are not one dimensional" argument? Where only you know what you're talking about - and you sit back and chuckle at your own joke - while the rest of us ponder what planet you're typing from?

Poll: Is it a compromise to remove the 2MR because it's contentious? Or is it a compromise to alter the rule to address the most contentious part of the rule? I say the latter is a compromise.

Just out of curiosity -I took a little player poll while out at Seneca last Saturday (we were in a group of 8 players - of all skill levels). Not one player thought it was a good idea to remove the 2MR. There were a few who were adamant about the stupidity of removing what was in their minds a basic and essential part of the game. All I did was ask how they felt about removing it - and did not otherwise elaborate or influence the discussion.


A compromise is when both sides get some of what they want, but neither likely gets entirely what they want. Rhett and your idea of a compromise is that you get everything you want and your opponents get nothing.

.

Gee Nick -offering relief is miniscule? It significantly changes how we would play doesn't it? So how is significantly altering how we play considered "nothing". Please explain.

Lemme see - I thought that the vast majority of people having a problem w/ the 2MR were concerned about being unfairly penalized twice due to having to place a mark directly underneath the suspended disc AND be assessed a penalty?
Did I miss something?


Nick lost that argument when all the 2MR proponents agreed that adding relief when a penalty is incurred makes a lot of sense. Now Nick has changed the argument to some other pie-in-the-sky [*****] about "design freedom" or some such nonsense.

You see, back in the day all Nick could talk about was how the "double penalty" lie inside the tree branches was so unfair that the rule must be removed. But since a real compromise was put forth, he had to abandon that in his quest to get rid of the 2MR at all costs.

Craig, I suggest you killfile Nick. I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything new.

well, either craig or paul needs to keep nick alive. that way we can from time to time revalidate the fact that we aint missing nothing by reading a couple quoted post fragments. :D

maybe we should rotate the de-cloak nick responsibilities every week or so just to be fair.

Maybe the two meter rule should be abolished. I don't know. It does seem kind of silly to be able to stand on the ground and be able to reach your disc by hand and be stroked for it. Maybe it should at least be a three meter rule so you at least have to be far enough up that you can't reach it by hand from the ground. It really seems like the only arguement for it would be speed of play. If it is to be completely abolished, it should still be treated as a lost disc wherein you have three minutes to retrieve it before you get a penalty stroke. Make sense?

Sorry if this has already been pointed out. I didn't really want to read 103 pages to check it out. :)

Nick lost that argument when all the 2MR proponents agreed that adding relief when a penalty is incurred makes a lot of sense.



There are still other viable arguments against it, but this is a step forward. However, it does seem strange that the pro 2m crowd supports relief. Isn't that counter to the "play it where it lies" "you should recieve the full penalty for all bad shots" mentality. In many of the courses I would play, you would be better off taking the penalty and relief than you would be if you took no penalty but played from the spot beneath the disc.

In many of the courses I would play, you would be better off taking the penalty and relief than you would be if you took no penalty but played from the spot beneath the disc.


You have always had and still have that option, any time you want to take it. It's called "The Unsafe Lie" rule. Check it out.

There are still other viable arguments against it, but this is a step forward. However, it does seem strange that the pro 2m crowd supports relief. Isn't that counter to the "play it where it lies" "you should recieve the full penalty for all bad shots" mentality.


Gosh golly darn, I guess we aren't as pig-headed as some would make us out to be. Gee-willickers.

I guess I must have misunderstood the relief option proposed. I assumed it was take it anywhere on the line of play or rethrow (or something similar). This is hardly akin to the unsafe lie rule, but thanks for setting my lackofrulesknowledgeass straight, o righteous one.

I never said I want to compromise, particularly since I haven't yet heard any convincing reason to keep it.

If one comes up I will certainly consider compromise.

Really you guys are not talking about compromise, just making the rule "slightly" less objectionable. The list of objectionable aspect to the 2MR are long and well documented. That can not be said for any of the reasons you guys keep recirculating to keep it.

If I didn't know better I'd say you guys just support the rule to spite me. That would be too silly though wouldn't it?

Tell me this though, as concerns this exact point about relief for being above 2MR; doesn't your admission that it is a double penalty as much as say that it IS A PENALTY IN THE FIRST PLACE, EVEN WITHOUT THE 2MR to hit a tree? Seems like it does.

I've been pushing for the 1 penalty throw version of the unsafe lie rule relief, with the thrower having the option to "upgrade" it to the 2 penalty throw version if 5 meters doesn't help enough.

But thanks for keeping up with the discussion. :)

Maybe the two meter rule should be abolished. I don't know. It does seem kind of silly to be able to stand on the ground and be able to reach your disc by hand and be stroked for it. Maybe it should at least be a three meter rule so you at least have to be far enough up that you can't reach it by hand from the ground. It really seems like the only arguement for it would be speed of play. If it is to be completely abolished, it should still be treated as a lost disc wherein you have three minutes to retrieve it before you get a penalty stroke. Make sense?

Sorry if this has already been pointed out. I didn't really want to read 103 pages to check it out.


Hi Kent,

Yes, we have covered in depth the �reach� concept previously.

I am not necessarily against such a change to our rules, to require that the player should be able to retrieve the disc while having a supporting point on their lie on the playing surface. Yes, it might give limber or taller players a bit of an advantage, but not necessarily. But it is better than what we have in the Two Meter Rules attempt to homogenize the reach concept. I mean in ball golf, if one player is too short to reach a ball with their club, they don�t penalize the tall player for being able to do they? In Basketball, they don�t penalize players for being able to dunk, do they?

The main challenge with changing to a �reach� concept is that it would entail changing a great many other rules and I know that the PDGA Rules Committee always stresses �elegance� over �ever-expanding� rulings.

We play our sport from the playing surface. We don�t climb trees and play from there. We ALWAYS MARK OUR LIE ON THE PLAYING SURFACE, ALWAYS.

It�s not a bad idea, it just would involve a nearly entire new way of dealing with Marking and Playing lies. It would be interesting to explore this to its logical end; but for me, just removing the 2MR alone will make our rules instantly better with no need for additional rulings.

I�m not thrilled with keeping the 2MR as an option in 2006, but if it gets the rest of it out of the rules, that is IMO a step in the right direction. I have played in an event already without it, and it was very nice. It happened once during the 2nd round and I was really surprised at just how matter of fact everyone was about it. I was the only one wigging, �You mean the 2 meter rule is waived?!? No way, I didn�t here that. Are you sure?� The other players were just like �Yup. Ah huh.� And kept on walking to their lie.

It�ll take a little more getting used to I suppose for those of us that feel strongly one way or the other, and Paul and Pat may be right as concerns the Lost Disc/Disc Identification conflict and whether our greens need some form of mandatory elevated OB or not. There is one way we will all know for sure; and that is to run and play in events where the 2MR is not in effect. If those or other challenges do arise we�ll have time to get necessary changes into the rulebook before the reprint. I�ve seen the draft, and I think the PDGA Rules Committee has it pretty well figured out already. But we will see, won�t we?

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

james, i think the unsafe rule was coming in cuz an unsafe lie can be called by the player at any time with no explanation required. with the penalty, the player could relocate as per the rules. the suggestion in relation to the 2MR was to provide no relief and no penalty, but mark the lie directly under the suspension. if such a lie is nort satisfactory for some reason, then the player is free to call an unsafe lie and proceed as the rules specify.

actually, this approach is far more simple than aerial OB or OB tree circles. thats why it wont go far with the anti-2MR zealots.

james, i think the unsafe rule was coming in cuz an unsafe lie can be called by the player at any time with no explanation required. with the penalty, the player could relocate as per the rules. the suggestion in relation to the 2MR was to provide no relief and no penalty, but mark the lie directly under the suspension. if such a lie is nort satisfactory for some reason, then the player is free to call an unsafe lie and proceed as the rules specify.

actually, this approach is far more simple than aerial OB or OB tree circles. thats why it wont go far with the anti-2MR zealots.



Still trying to figure out how deleting a superfluous rules makes our rules more complicated. It�s not like Out of Bounds is some kind of new rule or something�

In many of the courses I would play, you would be better off taking the penalty and relief than you would be if you took no penalty but played from the spot beneath the disc.


You have always had and still have that option, any time you want to take it. It's called "The Unsafe Lie" rule. Check it out.



<font color="blue">Rhett, while in letter you could call an unsafe lie at any time, wouldn't it be a violation of the spirit of the game to declare an unsafe lie simply to gain an advantage rather than in order to prevent injury? </font>


803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.




<font color="blue"> besides, with the old way of dealing with discs suspended 2 meters and above in a tree, declaring the unsafe lie rule would add penalty strokes in addition to the penalty stroke already occurred for being stuck above 2 meters... </font>

Rhett, earlier you asked the 'get rid of the 2 meter penalty' camp to be open to compromise. Are you open to compromise? If so why not let the year 2006 as currently proposed play out? For many years the 50% of disc golfers who want a 2 meter penalty have had their way. Now the 50% who want it scrapped will have 2005 as a transition year and 2006 as a year with the rule book their way. Give it a chance, and if you still feel strongly in 2007 against the elimination of the rule, speak up then.




Eliminating the 2MR isn't a compromise. :)



Making no 2 meter rule the default scenario and enabling TD's and curse designers to put the 2 meter rule in effect for particular trees, holes, or courses is certainly a compromise.
That is probably why the Rules Committee recommended it. You will still be free as TD to put the 2 meter penalty in effect -- you probably could even allow up to 2 meters relief if you wanted :D

besides, with the old way of dealing with discs suspended 2 meters and above in a tree, declaring the unsafe lie rule would add penalty strokes in addition to the penalty stroke already occurred for being stuck above 2 meters...


Well, as someone else has said before regarding obstacles on the fairway, I guess the player shouldn't have thrown the disc there.

Paul that would be great if bad shots into trees stuck more consistently. Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules. (hence the Rules Committee recommendation)

Making no 2 meter rule the default scenario and enabling TD's and curse designers to put the 2 meter rule in effect for particular trees, holes, or courses is certainly a compromise.
That is probably why the Rules Committee recommended it.


Rob, I hope the day never comes when the RC does something you disagree with.

(hence the Rules Committee recommendation)


Oh for crying out loud. Should I start a counter to see how many times you drop the RC into your posts?

<font color="blue">Rhett, while in letter you could call an unsafe lie at any time, wouldn't it be a violation of the spirit of the game to declare an unsafe lie simply to gain an advantage rather than in order to prevent injury? </font>


No, the rules state that "a player may, by adding one penalty throw..." do that. It isn't free. It costs a stroke. Or it costs two strokes. The name of the rule is unfortunate. I have lobbied on more than one occasion to change the name to "The Undesirable Lie" Rule because the body of the rule makes no mention of unsafe things or what they may be. Just that a player may [at any time] add the stroke(s) and relocate.

Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules.


Not everyone who hits the chains gets the disc into the basket. Some discs roll down hills, and others don't for nearly the same throw. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I feel the same way about discs not all sticking in trees.

If everything happened the same way for everybody, I think I'd get bored, or suspect I was trapped in a poorly written video game.

<font color="blue"> besides, with the old way of dealing with discs suspended 2 meters and above in a tree, declaring the unsafe lie rule would add penalty strokes in addition to the penalty stroke already occurred for being stuck above 2 meters... </font>


Since you just keep saying the exact same things over and over and over again, I no longer feel the need to play nice.

You should read and follow the thread a little more carefully when you try to make points like the one above. If you did, you would realize what I was responding to when you quoted me.



Here's my whole post that you only quoted my part of:


In many of the courses I would play, you would be better off taking the penalty and relief than you would be if you took no penalty but played from the spot beneath the disc.


You have always had and still have that option, any time you want to take it. It's called "The Unsafe Lie" rule. Check it out.



As you can plainly see, the poster I was responding to said you would be better off taking the penalty and relief than you would be if you took no penalty but played from the spot beneath the disc. I was simply pointing out to that poster that the option to do just that exists now and has existed for at least several iterations of the rule book.

It's kind of the reason that I have been pushing for using the unsafe lie rule's relief when a 2 meter penalty is assessed. You know, because it makes sense in the context of the situation. When you get a 1 stroke penalty for being above 2 meters, it actually makes sense to get some relief. But since you are dead set against keeping the 2 meter penalty you probably can't see that.

Paul that would be great if bad shots into trees stuck more consistently. Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules. (hence the Rules Committee recommendation)


blah blah blah blah blah

Random dumb luck is a part of the game. 19 out of 20 putts that are 2 inches low hit the tray and drop and stay within 10 feet of the basket. 1 out of 20 rolls 40 feet away. Why should the one get penalized by a random "intrusion" of dumb luck?

Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules.


Not everyone who hits the chains gets the disc into the basket. Some discs roll down hills, and others don't for nearly the same throw. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I feel the same way about discs not all sticking in trees.

If everything happened the same way for everybody, I think I'd get bored, or suspect I was trapped in a poorly written video game.



you're missing the point. if 15 out of 20 stuck then the penalty would make sense. 15 out of 20 putts hittting the center of the chains stick. If only 1 out of 20 did, you can bet the targets would be replaced by a design that better measured skill. A shot hitting a tree is a bad shot. A very good player isn't going to roll the dice and hit one because the resulting lie isn't as good as a shot that avoids the tree. Players who feel rolling the dice and hitting the tree is their best option will have final scores reflecting their skill level since the resulting deflections will be bad more often than good. As for using a tree to your advantage -- that takes skill. You can use the trunk provided you don't clock it. you can use a cedar tree by hitting below 2 meters and hitting the outer perimeter of the branches so your lie won't be too severely obstructed by the tree.

as for my mentioning the Rules Committee -- it was the original rules committee who made the mistake of creating the 2 meter rule to begin with and then waiting till now to remedy that mistake. so it's not like i give them carte blanche :p

if you 2 meter rule zealots prevail i hope you'll at least change the rule so that suspension above 2 meters gives a penalty stroke and up to 2 meters of relief no closer to the pin. fortunately as we stand the Board of Directors has voted to eliminate the 2 meter rule as the default scenario beginning in 2006 with the printing of a new rule book. :p

2 meters relief isn't enough to get out of those big cedars. That's why 5 meter relief is better.

if you throw into the middle of a cedar you don't deserve more than 2 meters relief. The problem with the 2 meter rule is with non evergreens which drop 19 out of 20 shots and only catch 5%. play it (below) where it lies is my preferred ruling, but in the absence of that, up to 5 meters relief no closer to he pin is better than the present 2 meter rule.

I liked 2 meters relief because it fit the title '2 meter rule' -- that would help make '2 meters' seem less arbitrary :D

<font color="blue">Rhett, while in letter you could call an unsafe lie at any time, wouldn't it be a violation of the spirit of the game to declare an unsafe lie simply to gain an advantage rather than in order to prevent injury? </font>


No, the rules state that "a player may, by adding one penalty throw..." do that. It isn't free. It costs a stroke. Or it costs two strokes. The name of the rule is unfortunate. I have lobbied on more than one occasion to change the name to "The Undesirable Lie" Rule because the body of the rule makes no mention of unsafe things or what they may be. Just that a player may [at any time] add the stroke(s) and relocate.



And that is one of the excellent and well thought out changes they have suggested and the Bod Approved for 2006. That along with the excellent and well thought out change of making the 2MR a glossary option TDs can Opt Into.

And Paul, when I disagree with the PDGA RC I do more than babble on and on hear about it. Belie Dat!

Paul that would be great if bad shots into trees stuck more consistently. Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules. (hence the Rules Committee recommendation)


blah blah blah blah blah

Random dumb luck is a part of the game. 19 out of 20 putts that are 2 inches low hit the tray and drop and stay within 10 feet of the basket. 1 out of 20 rolls 40 feet away. Why should the one get penalized by a random "intrusion" of dumb luck?



So by your own logic there Rhett, the missed putt should have an additional penalty stroke added to it??? :p

if you 2 meter rule zealots prevail



Don't even think such a thing Rob... :o:D;)

I'm just wondering why the relief offered for OB isn't in this discussion? Specifically since I am sure that Rhett is aware that the options in 2006 are likely only to be Drop Zone and Throw & Distance?

I'll say it again: Marking your lie on the playing surface IS NOT RELIEF, it is what our rules call your "Lie". If you don't believe me look it up, It's right there in the Glossary. There is no relief from anything but OB and casual objects and areas that the Designer/TD designates as such. Solid Objects being the exeption.

I mean, if their should be relief for a disc above the playing surface, then there should also logically be relief for discs ON the playing surface too, right? It's only fair isn't it. Oh that's right, the 2MR folks want you to penalized for being more than a certain distance above the playing surface because you threw a bad shot that stuck above that height rather than crashed off it and went into the basket... And why was that again?

Why should 1 player out of 20 who throws into the same 1 square meter of a tree be penalized while 19 walk away free? It's a random intrusion of dumb luck that we can prevent through a better crafting of the rules.


Not everyone who hits the chains gets the disc into the basket. Some discs roll down hills, and others don't for nearly the same throw. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I feel the same way about discs not all sticking in trees.



<font color="blue"> So Paul, why don't we give additional penalty strokes for such bad or unlucky shots. Certainly people miss more putts and have more roll aways than they do 2MR violations, right? The result is far more predictable, isn't it? You could do something like a clean miss on a putt inside 10 Meters is a 3 throw penalty, off chains left or right a 2 throw penalty, spit out and roll away is just 1 (we wouldn't want to be too harsh here... ;) ) </font>

IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.

A real solution that addresses the double penalty argument is to call it OB so the thrower could rethrow or have the "line of play" concept that allows the player to take a lie anywhere on the line from his previous lie to his new lie, with a penalty of course.

Rhett the argument that "dumb luck" is present in other aspects of the game and therefore should be imbedded into the rules is weak. It is akin to a publically sanctioned procedure of randomly pulling someone from the street for imprisonment and then justifying it by saying "Well, life is unfair. People are always getting screwed"

if you 2 meter rule zealots prevail i hope you'll at least change the rule so that suspension above 2 meters gives a penalty stroke and up to 2 meters of relief no closer to the pin.


I would have no problem with the additional relief. As Rhett posted before, that makes sense and is consistent with the way the unsafe lie rule works.

fortunately as we stand the Board of Directors has voted to eliminate the 2 meter rule as the default scenario beginning in 2006 with the printing of a new rule book. :p


Fortunately? Because additional relief would be a bad thing?

IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.

A real solution that addresses the double penalty argument is to call it OB so the thrower could rethrow or have the "line of play" concept that allows the player to take a lie anywhere on the line from his previous lie to his new lie, with a penalty of course.


How is this different from the way the unsafe lie rule operates? You have to take a penalty when you relocate your lie.

Rhett the argument that "dumb luck" is present in other aspects of the game and therefore should be imbedded into the rules is weak. It is akin to a publically sanctioned procedure of randomly pulling someone from the street for imprisonment and then justifying it by saying "Well, life is unfair. People are always getting screwed"


I suppose it would be akin to that if trees were intelligent and gravity was a government law.

Trees aren't holding onto discs out of spite, you know. It's just a fact that if you throw some discs into trees, not all of them will fall out. It will always be that way. The fact that trees and discs will always interact in that manner doesn't make that interaction "wrong" or "unfair".

[QUOTE]
IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.[QUOTE]


WRONG! The rule says nothing along those lines. You take your penalty and go on.

<font color="blue">803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.</font>

How is using the rule to your advantage considered abuse? How does one determine abuse consistently across the event (or even the country)? Group decision? Ha.....

How is rethrowing from your previous lie different than than the unsafe lie rule?
That's pretty obvious.

How is the "line of play concept different?"
1) It would always be on the line of play, not "within 5 meters."

2) It would always be on the line of play, not "relocated to any new lie on the "fairway" no closer than the unsafe lie.

3) It never results in a 2 stroke penalty, but only one.

Anyway, I don't advocate this language because I do think you should have to play from your lie, I just think the two meter rule is nonsensical in so many ways.



My analogy was lame. The similarities between our 2m law and my example is that both of them legislate/create pure randomness. Furthermore, the justification for both is this 'throw our hands up in the air' attitude that says "life is unfair, therefore any unfair law is acceptable." This type of thinking appears smallminded and irresponsible, applied to real life or to our sport.

[QUOTE]
IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.[QUOTE]


WRONG! The rule says nothing along those lines. You take your penalty and go on.

<font color="blue">803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.</font>

How is using the rule to your advantage considered abuse? How does one determine abuse consistently across the event (or even the country)? Group decision? Ha.....

All these quotes are confusing me, but if your claim is that it is not abuse, but merely using this rule to your advantage, I accept that view, but hardly agree with it. I'm not sure that I would call someone that moved their lie even though it was not "unsafe" a cheater (since the language is subjective). However, in my own little world at least, I would view them as something way less than a true sportsperson.

All these quotes are confusing me, but if your claim is that it is not abuse, but merely using this rule to your advantage, I accept that view, but hardly agree with it. I'm not sure that I would call someone that moved their lie even though it was not "unsafe" a cheater since the language is subjective. However, in my own little world at least, I would view them as something way less than a true sportsperson.



A person with an allergy to poison ivy throws into some ivy. Are you saying he has to risk his health to play the next shot or he's not a true sportsman?

Better example (and a true story), I throw my shot and it ends up in a patch of the nasty briars. I do not want to donate blood to the Rock, so I relocate my lie to a spot straight out of the patch, take my penalty, and proceed on. Whether I take one shot to pitch out or pull out, it is one shot regardless. I chose to risk my arm instead of my entire body.

It looks like you are stuck on the term "unsafe," James. Try Rhett's suggestion of "undesirable," which gives it a truer sense of the rule [NOTE: THE RC SHOULD CONSIDER THIS AS WELL, IMO]. There is nothing subjective about the rule. You can move your lie (and incur a one shot penalty for <= 5m, or two for > 5m, no closer to the hole).

What is the definition of "Playing Surface"?
It's used a lot in this discussion (playing surface) but it seems like nothing that really is something.

Is it like "Fairway"? One could be 100ft. deep in the woods and still be in the fairway!

Fix the glossary, tweak some rules, dump the others and let's go throwing.

Mike Shaw

All these quotes are confusing me, but if your claim is that it is not abuse, but merely using this rule to your advantage, I accept that view, but hardly agree with it. I'm not sure that I would call someone that moved their lie even though it was not "unsafe" a cheater since the language is subjective. However, in my own little world at least, I would view them as something way less than a true sportsperson.



A person with an allergy to poison ivy throws into some ivy. Are you saying he has to risk his health to play the next shot or he's not a true sportsman?

Better example (and a true story), I throw my shot and it ends up in a patch of the nasty briars. I do not want to donate blood to the Rock, so I relocate my lie to a spot straight out of the patch, take my penalty, and proceed on. Whether I take one shot to pitch out or pull out, it is one shot regardless. I chose to risk my arm instead of my entire body.

It looks like you are stuck on the term "unsafe," James. Try Rhett's suggestion of "undesirable," which gives it a truer sense of the rule [NOTE: THE RC SHOULD CONSIDER THIS AS WELL, IMO]. There is nothing subjective about the rule. You can move your lie (and incur a one shot penalty for <= 5m, or two for > 5m, no closer to the hole).


I agree.

a "playing surface" is everything that is below an "aerial OB" space. air doesnt count, because air is nothing. so the playing surface is the first solid thing you come to when you drop below aerial OB. the part of the surface of a tree that is below the aerial OB "line" is actually part of the playing surface. (good luck trying to play from it though). the aerial OB line is determined in 3D space only - you must take great care to NOT use 2D space, because lines to NOT esxist in 2D. btw, volume does not exist in 3D, and time does not exist in 4D either, but those are for the "is my aerial OB half full or half empty" and the "30 second clock must die" threads.

hope this helps.

As for the poison ivey, I sort of understand. Donating blood. No way. I don't consider briars as unsafe, at all. I can easily imagine scenarios where using the "unsafe lie" rule with a penalty is advantageous to play it where it lies. If it is not truly "unsafe", not "unpleasant" or "undesirable," then I feel people should buck up and take their medicine.

The larger point is that the claim that using/abusing the unsafe lie rule is a carrot to anti 2m zeolots is merely deceptive word play. It does not really adequately address the issue and apparently loosens our rules and legitimizes unethical play IMO.

All these quotes are confusing me, but if your claim is that it is not abuse, but merely using this rule to your advantage, I accept that view, but hardly agree with it. I'm not sure that I would call someone that moved their lie even though it was not "unsafe" a cheater (since the language is subjective). However, in my own little world at least, I would view them as something way less than a true sportsperson.


But a penalty is involved when invoking the unsafe lie rule. Are you forgetting that?

No, I understand the penalty is taken. I just have seen too many instances where 5 meter relief (with a penalty) is way better than the probable outcome of no penalty/but play from the lie.

As for the poison ivey, I sort of understand. Donating blood. No way. I don't consider briars as unsafe, at all. I can easily imagine scenarios where using the "unsafe lie" rule with a penalty is advantageous to play it where it lies. If it is not truly "unsafe", not "unpleasant" or "undesirable," then I feel people should buck up and take their medicine.

The larger point is that the claim that using/abusing the unsafe lie rule is a carrot to anti 2m zeolots is merely deceptive word play. It does not really adequately address the issue and apparently loosens our rules and legitimizes unethical play IMO.


Wow. You really have an interesting view. One can play within the rules and still be unethical? That makes it sound like you think there are true rules and false rules, and players who want you to have a high opinion of them will have to determine somehow which you consider those true rules to be.

If you want the unsafe lie rule to be re-written, or thrown out, you should just say so, rather than impose a view on others that is not explicitly written in the unsafe lie rule.

Until the unsafe lie rule is modified, however, I think you should withhold judgment from those who use the rule as it is written. It's not "deceptive word play" to take the unsafe lie rule literally.

No, I understand the penalty is taken. I just have seen too many instances where 5 meter relief (with a penalty) is way better than the probable outcome of no penalty/but play from the lie.


Really? You must be speaking of lies where you can't even throw the disc 5 meters in any direction. Is that what you mean?

championship 8 at Veterans Park, Arlington TX. throw from the top of the "hill", out over a forest canopy towards a pin about 700-800 away. elevation drop is about 40-50'. you need 300+ dead straight to clear, and substantially more if you veer left or right.

it is absolutely certain that if you fail to clear the forest by more than a couple meters it iwll take at least 2 throws to get in the clear. by using the unsafe lie rule, a player could move the lie to the opposit side of the basket and have a clear path in. sure its two strokes, but thats less than the cost of playing it where it lies.

thats an extreme example, but it does occur. if you're looking to use this loophole, it might show up more than than expected.

btw, the hole i decsribed above is an interesting case for the 2MR discussion. it seems like kicking him when he's down to hit a player with a penalty for being 2M up when he's 100' deep in a forest. at the same time, 5M relief only puts him deeper in the doo-doo, even with no penalty stroke. aerial OB/OB tree circles would practically require him to retee, since the hill drops off sharply in fron ot the tee - all throws are OB (above OB trees) when they are 10M in front of the pad. just a thought (and perhaps not even a complete one at that :) )

IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.

A real solution that addresses the double penalty argument is to call it OB so the thrower could rethrow or have the "line of play" concept that allows the player to take a lie anywhere on the line from his previous lie to his new lie, with a penalty of course.

Rhett the argument that "dumb luck" is present in other aspects of the game and therefore should be imbedded into the rules is weak. It is akin to a publically sanctioned procedure of randomly pulling someone from the street for imprisonment and then justifying it by saying "Well, life is unfair. People are always getting screwed"



James,

Yes, I agree 100%. But if you cannot get in there to take a legal stance or you do not want to, yes, that is fine, even now as we banter on, it is fine to say I don't want that lie, I call an "Unsafe Lie" soon to be properly renamed (at Rhett's suggestion apparently) "Undesirable Lie" the price of which is a stroke, perhaps 2 in some cases. The upside is that it frees us up to better define what a truly hazardous lie is, currently it is covered in the rule:
803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round...

I would hope that directors would designate areas such as 1M from the edge of a precipous as relief worthy, or any other area of their course that could result in very serious injury as casual. If they don�t, the �Undesirable Lie� is the catch all for anything they might miss, and it is also a tool that provides something that players would be well advised to think on as they play. It comes with a price tag though, as it should.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

IMO, the unsafe lie rule used by people who simply don't like their lie (even though it is not unsafe) is bs. Pure abuse of the rules. While I personally think the 2m rule is totally unnecessary and arbitrary, I always think you should play from what I call your "lie." That is your penalty for throwing into the shiite, not some arbitrary rule.

A real solution that addresses the double penalty argument is to call it OB so the thrower could rethrow or have the "line of play" concept that allows the player to take a lie anywhere on the line from his previous lie to his new lie, with a penalty of course.


How is this different from the way the unsafe lie rule operates? You have to take a penalty when you relocate your lie.

Rhett the argument that "dumb luck" is present in other aspects of the game and therefore should be imbedded into the rules is weak. It is akin to a publically sanctioned procedure of randomly pulling someone from the street for imprisonment and then justifying it by saying "Well, life is unfair. People are always getting screwed"


I suppose it would be akin to that if trees were intelligent and gravity was a government law.

Trees aren't holding onto discs out of spite, you know. It's just a fact that if you throw some discs into trees, not all of them will fall out. It will always be that way. The fact that trees and discs will always interact in that manner doesn't make that interaction "wrong" or "unfair".



It would be nice if Paul didn't get his panties in such a bunch when we disagree, so that he could "see" when we actually "agree". ;)

I don't really think we communicate well.

The definition of "unsafe lie" is
A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is relocated with a penalty.

This is obviously subjective, as I have stated. I interpret the language/spirit of the rule to be found in my interpretation of "unsafe."

My decision of whether a lie is unsafe is purely based on the nature of the lie, not on some calculations on whether the combination of 1 stroke penalty/known lie is more than likely better than what I will likely get by climbing into the shiite and throwing.

Therefore, since I interpret "unsafe" this way, I do consider it less than sporting to ignore whether the lie is truly unsafe, but instead to base the decision on how it will effect my final score.

And yes, I have been in plenty of places where the likelihood of pitching it to a place of open safety within 5 meters is hardly given.

Anyway, the deceptive word play is coming out and saying that use/abuse of this rule is some kind of salve to those who feel the 2m rule is nonsensical. It was not written for instances where you do not like your lie, it is written for instances where the player might get really injured by playing from their lie. And I'm sorry, but a little blood on the leg/arm is hardly an injury in my book.

i'm with james on this one. using/abusing the unsafe lie in order to provide relief does feel like a misuse of the rule, regardless of the letter-of-the-law allowance to do so.

i'm with james on this one. using/abusing the unsafe lie in order to provide relief does feel like a misuse of the rule, regardless of the letter-of-the-law allowance to do so.



Can you capture the "spirit" of the rule in written form so it is clear what constitutes safe or unsafe? Not being rude, but the rule as it is (not the definition) is clear and applicable in any situation.

What is the definition of "Playing Surface"?
It's used a lot in this discussion (playing surface) but it seems like nothing that really is something.

Is it like "Fairway"? One could be 100ft. deep in the woods and still be in the fairway!

Fix the glossary, tweak some rules, dump the others and let's go throwing.

Mike Shaw



Hi Mike,

Pat is just having a little fun with you, he hoped at my expense. Here is the new definition that will appear in the 2006 Rulebook, I don't see any harm it could do if folks started using it now, it is just stating what most of us have intuitively known all along. I can't express how much I appreciate the hard work of the PDGA Rules Committee in whittling this down to such an elegant solution (I thought it was going to have to be far more involved).
<font color="blue"> Playing Surface: The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official. </font>

So I suppose it could be argued that if an in bounds playing surface existed beneath the elevated out of bounds area(Mike, this is just something to appease the 2MR lovers...) then, though the disc is definitely OB, I suppose the player could mark the lie on the in bounds playing surface directly below it within this new understanding of "playing surface". Any tree that had tons of lower branches or where the TD really wanted to protect the area below the tree could just designate anywhere under that tree as out of bounds. If it were even questionable whether the disc was under the tree (by standing over it and looking straight up at the outer most edge of the tree, then benefit of the doubt goes to the player and they still get a meter away from the edge (marking these rare trees (or where this is likely to happen often) with rope or string would probably be advisable.

Personally, I like the rules as they are currently, just minus the 2MR. If a disc is stuck in thick tree with branches to the ground, then the player has to take a legal stance, if in doing so they damage the tree or bush or whatever the object is, then they get an immediate 2 throw penatly with NO WARNING, if they don�t want to risk the 2 throw penalty they can declare an �Unsafe Lie� and move their lie out of that situation. And even without an elevated OB area, the TD still has the option of making that one sensitive tree OB.

This to me is pure elegance.

Regards,
Nick Kight

I don't really think we communicate well.

The definition of "unsafe lie" is
A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is relocated with a penalty.


We're communicating fine. We may not be in full agreement on this rule however.

So an unsafe lie is a lie from which it might be "impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw". So some people will think it's more practical for them to relocate a lie and get hit with a penalty than to throw from their present lie. I don't see a conflict with the glossary definition.

This is obviously subjective, as I have stated. I interpret the language/spirit of the rule to be found in my interpretation of "unsafe."


That must mean the unsafe lie rule needs to be written better, if you feel there's a lot of room for a subjective interpretation.

My decision of whether a lie is unsafe is purely based on the nature of the lie, not on some calculations on whether the combination of 1 stroke penalty/known lie is more than likely better than what I will likely get by climbing into the shiite and throwing.


Well, those calculations influence how "practical" the lie is. If the penalty and relief is more practical, then you take the penalty and relief. I still don't see the problem with interpreting the rule this way.

Therefore, since I interpret "unsafe" this way, I do consider it less than sporting to ignore whether the lie is truly unsafe, but instead to base the decision on how it will effect my final score.


I try to throw all my shots so that I get the lowest score. Why should following the rules to get the lowest score be a problem?

And yes, I have been in plenty of places where the likelihood of pitching it to a place of open safety within 5 meters is hardly given.


I'm only asking, because the only time I've needed the unsafe lie rule is when I couldn't take a stance, myself -- not where I could take a stance but couldn't throw. Seems like when I'm in trouble, I can always pitch a disc backward or sideways, if not at the basket. And as I understand the unsafe lie rule, you can only relocate a lie backwards or sideways, never closer to the basket, so the advantage of using it would not seem to be great, especially given that a penalty is added to your score. I can't imagine why anyone would use it if he wasn't in serious trouble, and why using it would then mean you were "less than sporting".

Anyway, the deceptive word play is coming out and saying that use/abuse of this rule is some kind of salve to those who feel the 2m rule is nonsensical. It was not written for instances where you do not like your lie, it is written for instances where the player might get really injured by playing from their lie.<font color="blue">PaulM: then what does the "impractical" wording mean to you? I'm sorry, but your sentiment doesn't seem borne out by either the glossary term or the ruling language.</font> And I'm sorry, but a little blood on the leg/arm is hardly an injury in my book.


What?!? Now you're redefining what an injury is? Bleeding in a war gets you a purple heart! What do people have to do to obtain an injury "in your book"?

i'm with james on this one. using/abusing the unsafe lie in order to provide relief does feel like a misuse of the rule, regardless of the letter-of-the-law allowance to do so.


Interesting. If the title of the rule matched its glossary definition -- "Impractical or Unsafe Lie Rule" -- would you still feel that way? Just trying to figure out if the word "unsafe" is drowning out the word "impractical" when you consider this rule.

Playing Surface: The area below where the disc came to rest from which the stance for the next shot is taken. The playing surface is generally the ground but can be any surface deemed suitable for play by the tournament director or course official.



Thanks for sharing this with us Nick.

My question is: has the RC defined playing surfaces ABOVE the lie? If not, now would be a good time to do so.

It has always been a gray area in my reading of the rules as to how one should/could play a disc landing under a bridge (with both the bridge surface and dry land below defined as IB) or if the disc is in a culvert or under a log. Do you get to mark your lie directly ABOVE the disc on the higher IB playing surface?? From the current rules, I find no reason why one could not mark your disc on the higher playing surface.

See Rules>Q & As>Multiple Playing Surfaces.

Even if hang your hat on "impratical," I don't think my argument changes at all. I suspect the word "unpractical" was used to describe lies that were physically impractical to reach or you would be unable to throw from. Based on your quote:


If the penalty and relief is more practical, then you take the penalty and relief.

you seem to be determining if the penalty and relief are impractical, not determining whether the "stance or throwing motion" make it impractical to throw.

In fact, since you ****** me off and I don't give a **** anymore, I maintain that you are simply "using" the rules to your advantage, not simply "following" them as you state.

Additionally, I doubt too many soldiers get purple hearts or miss any battles because of briar scratches, or at least I hope not. They should get slapped by General Patton though.

I played a round with my son, age 14, this past weekend, and for fun we agreed to play the round without the 2 meter rule. This is his second year playing and is familiar with most of the rules. When we got to the first tee, by chance another player was getting ready to tee off and we joined him for the round. This guy is about 4 strokes better than my son based on last year's summer league here locally. I thought it would be a good test for my son and they both played from the red tees. Through eleven holes they were even and at twelve my son's tee shot landed under a fairway tree while our friend's landed about fifteen feet up. As we approached the tree and then stood there looking at both discs it seemed to me that to basically treat both throws the same (scoring wise) seemed wrong! If our sport is "result oriented" or "result dictated" (as it should be), to treat these two very different results identically is totally against the spirit of the game!
I reminded my son about what we had agreed to before we started playing (no 2MR) and he looked up at me with disbelief in his eyes and quite honestly told me he thought it was a stupid rule change. Then he added what I thought was the gist of it. "Dad," he said, "that is just totally unfair!" And you know what...He's right! Sometimes from the mouths of babes...
I totally agree with him. Unfair. Against the spirit of the game! All too true. To eliminate the very black and white 2MR is to alter our beloved sport away from result dictated scoring.I feel this is a hugh mistake!
Before this round of golf, I had a wait and see attitude about the rule change, but now, after seeing in practice how it would effect the game in it's essence, it horrible!
Simply by using your eyes it was obvious that two such differing results should never be treated the same...EVER! I had been reading this thread for quite a while and now after rereading post after post from Nick and his possy the more I got sick to my stomach. He reminds me of the guy who spent his energy convincing the emperor that he had on beautiful clothes only to find out once he went out into public that it was all false.
At this point Nick has as much credability as a tobacco company lawyer telling us daily how cigerettes don't cause cancer.
Nick, if the boat you build sinks to the bottom, stop trying to tell us it's a submarine!
It just isn't right!

DO WHAT YOU CAN, just don't do it here!

Mark Morris
#22371

and that about sums it up!

thanks, mark. its good to hear a real life story of how it plays out in practice.

I'm with Paul on the Unsafe Lie usage. How often does getting 15 feet for the price of a stroke a good deal? In almost all cases, I feel I can pitch forward for one stroke to better position than paying a stroke to move laterally or backwards.

But it is the name of the rule that is the problem. The language within the rule is clear and unambiguous. It is just the name of the rule that causes the problem.

And we will never agree on what is "unsafe", so renaming the rule to "Undersirable Lie Rule" is best answer. I'm with Bruce (or was it Jon) that wading into the nasty briars and getting all scratched and cut up is unsafe, while James thinks you are a wimp if you don't wade in and bleed. On this we will probably never agree. I would never push for anyone else calling you lie "unsafe", so people will stay free to bleed in briar patches, impale themselves on broken branches, break nones in thier hands against trees.

But if you don't want to suffer the pain, you should be able to pay your stroke and not worried about some bleeder calling you names. He can laugh and say "that wasn't worth a freakin' stroke you moron", but it should be my choice.

Although these Q&A's are not in the rule book and therefore would not be available on the course, this does address some scenarios. So, thanks for pointing to these.

But, it still does not make it clear in some very real scenarios that I have run into several times. Here is one: This crude sketch shows my disc lying in a culvert which is 12" in diameter.

line of play --->
____________ (ground level)
<font color="white"> --- </font> |-----|
<font color="white"> --- </font> | <font color="white"> ---- </font> |
<font color="white"> --- </font> | <font color="white"> ---- </font> |
<font color="white"> ---</font> |-=---|

The disc is 4' in and I can in no way get my foot behind the disc to take a legal stance. If I choose not to use a mini and take my 30cm behind the disc, I am in solid dirt. So, can I then mark my disc on the playing surface above? Or do I have to take a stroke for unplayable lie?

The object of the game is to create lies that are as desireable as possible. If you are playing a game that has "The Undesirable Lie Rule" and obtaining relief, even with penalty, from any lie at the whim of the player, you are no longer playing golf.

since most of this division seems to be among the pro-2MR camp, maybe we need to back up a bit. the use of the unsafe lie rule was to reference an existing rule that provides relief from a lie as a basis for providing relief from a suspended disc.

i say that no such reference is required. we all agree that in some cases a stroke penalty and a mark directly under the suspension is a double penalty. some of us agree that providing relief from such a lie is far superior to eliminating the rule entirely. thats really all the further we need to take. we dont need to rationalize a rational approach/compromise. the "unsafe" rule clouds the issue, makes it more complicated than it needs to be. (like aerial obs and trees with strings around them.)

1. above 2M is OB and cost you a stroke
2. up to 5M LOP relief is available
3. if thats not satisfactory, stay away from the freakin tree!

In my tournament life, I have probably seen easily 1,000 instances of people entering briars to play their lie. Thankfully, I have never seen anyone back down and call it an unsafe lie. Anyway, implied in your interpretation, like Paul's, is that safety and practicality are somehow contingent upon expected results, even though the rule/definition never even hints at such a thing. You at least have the honesty to change the name of the rule to at least allow something that IMO violates the very spirit of the game.

James, then how would you reword the rule to prevent me (or anyone with some common sense) from obtaining my fairly issued relief (at the cost of my score) so that the "spirit of the rule" is captured and presented clearly?

To be consistent and fair, the rules must be applied based on literal readings, not on their "spirit."

And I HAVE gone into briar patches to throw. Obviously, I'd rather not take the penalty if at all possible. In the two instances I did call myself "unsafe" (unplayable/undesirable/whatever), both would have required me to destroy more vegetation than necessary and my only option would have been to pitch out to where I marked my unsafe lies.

Until now, I have never heard anyone interpret it differently from unsafe. I see that they and I were reading that rule in an entirely different mindset than y'all are. Like I said earlier, I have never seen the rule invoked for anything other than what I and all group members would consider unsafe. Therefore, I personally think the language is fine as is.

But to add clarification, they should could change "impractical" to something that denotes that you are either physically unable to reach your lie or physically unable to throw from it. I guess I trust most golfers and don't have a problem with the group making the determination, but the TD or marshall could certainly overrule them.

The problem as I see it is that different people consider different things unsafe. That will always be true and there will never be a way to write down all the possibilities. You shouldn't be able to make me go into a briar patch and I shouldn't be able to stop you from sliding down a mud hill where you throw at the exact moment you pass behind your marker disc.

That being said, the wording of the rule works. A player may [at any time] declare an unsafe lie. There are no other conditions. It isn't free. Your threshold of bloodiness might not match my threshold of bloodiness.

BTW, there was a Worlds a few years ago where everyone playing a certain course was encouraged to use the 2-penalty version of the unsafe lie rule to relocate back to the fairway if they shanked a drive over the edge of a big schuul-infested dropoff, even though it was perfectly "safe" to throw from way down there. I think it was metioned in the players meeting.

It's dificult to read "intent" when all we have are the written rules. Maybe the person encouraging use of the rule was one of the original writers of the rule, so the intent covered that. Who knows.

Mark,

Try it again, but from the position of there NEVER HAVING BEEN A 2MR.

I am quite certain that if the rules were being written from scratch right now an idea like the 2MR would be laughed out the door. "Why? Can't designers and tds use OB or Casual Areas? What would be the point, we don't play the game from the trees, we play it on the playing surface!?! It�s not like it�s OB or something..."

And I will do what I can WHERE AND WHEN I want, thank you

Hope you are able to stop seething soon and think straight.

Regards,
Nick Kight

PS: What if your sons disc was 1mm lower than the BETTER PLAYERS disc? What then? Would giving him a penalty throw while your son got nothing be fair and within the spirit of the game? And don't bring up the OB comparison again, if that area was OB none of this discussion would ever have happened in the first place.

and that about sums it up!

thanks, mark. its good to hear a real life story of how it plays out in practice.



Hey Pat!?! What about my real live, with witnesses, story of how it plays out in Professional Competition? Is that chopped liver?

I know you secretly argree with me on almost all of this. You just can't get around NOT FORCING TDs to make above the playing surface around the pins non-penalty worthy. You know darn well that the 2MR is as overly punitive as is handing out penalty strokes to someone for just missing a putt.

It all comes back to the familiarity folks have with this rule. I know, I know, "there are valid reasons", sure there are, that is why exactly zero have been brought to light in all these threads and in all these years other than (and including Marks) we just feel it is right because it is the way it always has been...

Yuck!

1. above 2M is OB and cost you a stroke
2. up to 5M LOP relief is available
3. if thats not satisfactory, stay away from the freakin tree!



I could live with this. Designer specified that is... :D

That position is right next door to Alice's Wonderland and Dorothy's Oz. It's not reality!
I'm thinking quite clearly, thank you, and your postion is unfair!
The rules are not being written from scratch are they?

Mark

Even if hang your hat on "impratical," I don't think my argument changes at all. I suspect the word "unpractical" was used to describe lies that were physically impractical to reach or you would be unable to throw from. Based on your quote:


If the penalty and relief is more practical, then you take the penalty and relief.

you seem to be determining if the penalty and relief are impractical, not determining whether the "stance or throwing motion" make it impractical to throw.

In fact, since you ****** me off and I don't give a **** anymore, I maintain that you are simply "using" the rules to your advantage, not simply "following" them as you state.

Additionally, I doubt too many soldiers get purple hearts or miss any battles because of briar scratches, or at least I hope not. They should get slapped by General Patton though.


As I've said, I've only ever declared an unsafe lie rule when I couldn't take a stance. I just wouldn't bad-mouth anyone who decided their lie was unsafe or impractical for whatever reason and relocated their lie according to the rules. That person still has to take a penalty stroke. Because of that penalty, I don't expect anyone declares an unsafe lie on a whim. As long as people play within the rules, I'll leave people alone and not judge them for making a decision that I may not have made.

I played a round with my son, age 14, this past weekend, and for fun we agreed to play the round without the 2 meter rule. This is his second year playing and is familiar with most of the rules. When we got to the first tee, by chance another player was getting ready to tee off and we joined him for the round. This guy is about 4 strokes better than my son based on last year's summer league here locally. I thought it would be a good test for my son and they both played from the red tees. Through eleven holes they were even and at twelve my son's tee shot landed under a fairway tree while our friend's landed about fifteen feet up. As we approached the tree and then stood there looking at both discs it seemed to me that to basically treat both throws the same (scoring wise) seemed wrong! If our sport is "result oriented" or "result dictated" (as it should be), to treat these two very different results identically is totally against the spirit of the game!
I reminded my son about what we had agreed to before we started playing (no 2MR) and he looked up at me with disbelief in his eyes and quite honestly told me he thought it was a stupid rule change. Then he added what I thought was the gist of it. "Dad," he said, "that is just totally unfair!" And you know what...He's right! Sometimes from the mouths of babes...
I totally agree with him. Unfair. Against the spirit of the game! All too true. To eliminate the very black and white 2MR is to alter our beloved sport away from result dictated scoring.I feel this is a hugh mistake!
Before this round of golf, I had a wait and see attitude about the rule change, but now, after seeing in practice how it would effect the game in it's essence, it horrible!
Simply by using your eyes it was obvious that two such differing results should never be treated the same...EVER! I had been reading this thread for quite a while and now after rereading post after post from Nick and his possy the more I got sick to my stomach. He reminds me of the guy who spent his energy convincing the emperor that he had on beautiful clothes only to find out once he went out into public that it was all false.
At this point Nick has as much credability as a tobacco company lawyer telling us daily how cigerettes don't cause cancer.
Nick, if the boat you build sinks to the bottom, stop trying to tell us it's a submarine!
It just isn't right!

DO WHAT YOU CAN, just don't do it here!

Mark Morris
#22371


Your story fits with my sense of fairness regarding the 2MR, as well.

But to play devil's advocate, I wonder what your son's reaction would have been if he had been the one stuck in a tree, and the better player had thrown at the base of the tree. If you ask him, it'd be interesting to hear.

Personally, I think my reaction would be I'd gotten away with something, if my disc were stuck in a tree but I didn't get a penalty for it. Sort of the feeling you get when you hit the top of the net in tennis and then win the point.

the use of the unsafe lie rule was to reference an existing rule that provides relief from a lie as a basis for providing relief from a suspended disc.

i say that no such reference is required. we all agree that in some cases a stroke penalty and a mark directly under the suspension is a double penalty. some of us agree that providing relief from such a lie is far superior to eliminating the rule entirely. thats really all the further we need to take. we dont need to rationalize a rational approach/compromise. the "unsafe" rule clouds the issue, makes it more complicated than it needs to be. (like aerial obs and trees with strings around them.)

1. above 2M is OB and cost you a stroke
2. up to 5M LOP relief is available
3. if thats not satisfactory, stay away from the freakin tree!


Sounds good to me!

You know, it is interesting that when we try to discuss what to do with the remaining rules when the 2MR is removed, we talk about the lost-disc rule, the unsafe-lie rule, and the OB rule. The 2MR just seems to fit an area where all three rules don't really apply, and everyone is doing their best to twist one or the other rule into shape so that it covers what the 2MR covered handily.

the use of the unsafe lie rule was to reference an existing rule that provides relief from a lie as a basis for providing relief from a suspended disc.

i say that no such reference is required. we all agree that in some cases a stroke penalty and a mark directly under the suspension is a double penalty. some of us agree that providing relief from such a lie is far superior to eliminating the rule entirely. thats really all the further we need to take. we dont need to rationalize a rational approach/compromise. the "unsafe" rule clouds the issue, makes it more complicated than it needs to be. (like aerial obs and trees with strings around them.)

1. above 2M is OB and cost you a stroke
2. up to 5M LOP relief is available
3. if thats not satisfactory, stay away from the freakin tree!


Sounds good to me!

You know, it is interesting that when we try to discuss what to do with the remaining rules when the 2MR is removed, we talk about the lost-disc rule, the unsafe-lie rule, and the OB rule. The 2MR just seems to fit an area where all three rules don't really apply, and everyone is doing their best to twist one or the other rule into shape so that it covers what the 2MR covered handily.



Great! So we are all on board then!
1. Delete the 2MR and let TDs/Designers declare above 2MR (3MR or Just above the playing surface period) OB if they want.
2. up to 5M LOP relief is available (this would be a new OB rule, but I'll be glad to "compromise" on it).
3. if thats not satisfactory, stay away from the freakin tree!

If this doesn't show that the 2MR is unneeded I don't know what would...

That position is right next door to Alice's Wonderland and Dorothy's Oz. It's not reality!
I'm thinking quite clearly, thank you, and your postion is unfair!
The rules are not being written from scratch are they?

Mark



Mark,

You must mistake me for someone else; I don't react to insults, I see them for what they are, a call for help.

Best Wishes (seriously),
Nick Kight

a "playing surface" is everything that is below an "aerial OB" space. air doesnt count, because air is nothing. so the playing surface is the first solid thing you come to when you drop below aerial OB. the part of the surface of a tree that is below the aerial OB "line" is actually part of the playing surface. (good luck trying to play from it though).



are there not instances of discs being below the playing surface? your disc falls in a groundhog hole that slopes at a 45 degree angle down. your disc lies 2.1 meters down, but vertically above your disc is solid ground.

doesn't the 2 meter rule work both ways? why or why not? :)

fortunately our rules will be clearer in 2006 when the 2 meter rule is relegated to the glossary as a TD option.

You need to think this through more. Let's say both your son and player x hit the tree in the same general area and player x's disc falls out but your son's doesn't. Further let's say you hit this tree almost everytime you play that course and your disc has never stuck.

Or, your son and player x are tied. your son makes a beautiful drive that crashes the chains but spits out, stands up, and walks 30 feet away. Player X throws a drive 20 feet right of the pin that hits a tree and deflects in for an ace. How fair would that feel?

You just can't take one instance and base a rule upon it. The Rules Committee thought this through, whether you like to believe that or not.

You need to think this through more. Let's say both your son and player x hit the tree in the same general area and player x's disc falls out but your son's doesn't. Further let's say you hit this tree almost everytime you play that course and your disc has never stuck.

Or, your son and player x are tied. your son makes a beautiful drive that crashes the chains but spits out, stands up, and walks 30 feet away. Player X throws a drive 20 feet right of the pin that hits a tree and deflects in for an ace. How fair would that feel?


I think Mark is talking about the fairness of the end result. You wouldn't call the disc that walked 30 feet away an ace out of fairness, would you? Similarly, Mark's son didn't think it was fair that a disc stuck in a tree was given a no-penalty lie next to the disc that he threw to the base of the same tree.

You just can't take one instance and base a rule upon it. (snipped obligatory comment about the RC)


I think it's good to listen to the stories, both pro and con, as they come in, so we can hear how the no-2MR is "playing in Peoria", so to speak.

Good perhaps, but no sampling from here or likely even arguments here are going to set the new rules for 2005, I mean 2006. Only the PDGA Rules Committees recommendations approved by the PDGA Board of Directors will do that. So Mark, if you really want your opinion to count you should shoot a message to those two organizational bodies. I'm more than happy to argue until "YOU" are blue in the face, but perhaps you're not cut out for it. It's supposed to be fun, some of us forget that and get our little feelings hurt and don't want to play anymore... ;)

Seriously, one email is worth a thousand posts. So I've sent about 6.4 emails I guess... :D

As Nick has already pointed out, if no 2 meter rule was the norm, and then Mark and his son experienced the same scenario -- they would have felt it very unfair to add a penalty stroke to a disc caught in a tree rather than marking it on the playing surface and playing on (just as if it had been stuck up in the same tree 1.5 meters above the playing surface :eek:).

Of the attempts to scientificly guage the consistency of the 2 meter rule that I am familiar with -- of a 100 discs thrown with a similar trajectory from a distance of 100 feet into a tree only an average of 4 will stick (non-evergreen).

You can argue 4 out of 100 good putts will bounce out and may even roll a good distance away -- but do you also argue a penalty stroke should be added to them?

For the rare trees which are close enough to pins that they now reward 96 out of 100 similar throws but penalize 4 -- the elimination of the 2 meter rule won't change the hole much except it will remove the slot machine chance of a penalty for tree shots. Making the whole tree OB at least would penalize the shot suck 1.5 meters up and not just the one 2 meters and above. The pin placement on any hole dependent upon the 2 meter rule is questionable at best (unless it is an evergreen -- in which case the tree itself will punish any discs that stick due to the resulting obstructed lie).

Many of the courses i play involve trees that already penalize throws when hit regardless of whether you do or don't stick above 1.9999 meters (trees which are pretty far from the pin). I'd rather people feel more free to risk the tree shots since, absent a lot of skill, such attempts are punished more often than they are rewarded...

if you 2 meter rule zealots prevail



Don't even think such a thing Rob... :o:D;)

<font color="blue"> the BoD already voted the 2 meter rule out as a default scenario for 2006, so the pro 2 meter rule zealots should simply start planning their 2007 startegy to get the 2 meter rule re-instated. Of course by then it may become clear even to them that the 2 meter rule is better replaced by aerial OB -- when deemed appropriate due to a particular hole design </font>

I'm just wondering why the relief offered for OB isn't in this discussion? Specifically since I am sure that Rhett is aware that the options in 2006 are likely only to be Drop Zone and Throw & Distance?

I'll say it again: Marking your lie on the playing surface IS NOT RELIEF, it is what our rules call your "Lie". If you don't believe me look it up, It's right there in the Glossary.

<font color="blue"> right. an even simpler way to wrap one's mind around this fact is to consider a disc suspended up in a tree at a height of 1.5 meters above the playing surface </font>

There is no relief from anything but OB and casual objects and areas that the Designer/TD designates as such. Solid Objects being the exeption.

I mean, if their should be relief for a disc above the playing surface, then there should also logically be relief for discs ON the playing surface too, right? It's only fair isn't it. Oh that's right, the 2MR folks want you to penalized for being more than a certain distance above the playing surface because you threw a bad shot that stuck above that height rather than crashed off it and went into the basket... And why was that again?



<font color="blue"> maybe it's just conditioning -- one can get so used to a particular rule being in effect that it's absence seems scary. i have already played a few tournaments without the 2 meter rule in effect however, and nothing unsightly happened. those who played the best golf finished on top :eek: </font>

James, then how would you reword the rule to prevent me (or anyone with some common sense) from obtaining my fairly issued relief



I agree with Sandals and James that it's darn near cheating as well, but one rewording that would help is to make it 2 strokes for the simple relief, and then remove the full relief 2-stroke option.

Nick,
Sorry about the sarcasm in my previous posts.

I would like to point out that you said..."Try again, from the position of there never having been a 2MR.

Again, I ask "Where is that reality? I don't understand how you can approach our rules from that imaginary position?

I'm just asking...

I'll tell you what, I'll concede the point if you can explain to my son, Keenan Coyle (# 24859), how that ruling is not UNFAIR!

You could solve the mystery of where, specifically, I wasn't thinking straight also, but that's just a side bar.

Just explain the fairness of the real life situation I found myself in last Sat.

Paul,

I asked my son that very question last evening at dinner and his response was that he thought he would have been happy to play on without a penalty stroke. Then I asked what he thought would have been fair, and he said he thought the penalty stroke was a fair decision based on the results of the pair of throws. The fairness of the 2MR was so obvious to anyone with eyes in this situation that I'm anxiously awaiting Nick's response. I seem to remember Nick asking for a real life situation to defend the 2MR.

Again, I will concede the point to Nick, if he can simply explain why my son, or any regular disc golfer, should be subjected to such an UNFAIR ruling. Results of the throw needs to take precedence. Where is that unreasonable?

Mark

To truly guage the impact of a rule upon competitive play, you really must be able to deal in hypothetical scenarios -- which is why Nick was asking you to consider your reaction if there never had been a 2 meter rule and then suddenly someone put one in effect.

If the one disc had been 2.5 meters up and the other 1.5 meters up where is the 'fairness' in that? Or if your son had hit the chains and bounced out and was then deflected 2.1 meters up in a tree when the other guy hit the tree and bounced into the chains would you really want to craft a rule based upon that particular experience? Stranger things have happened.

The simple fact is that most tree shots fall out, and most tree shots lead to unpredictable deflections which a skilled player would prefer to avoid. Does anyone really think the elimination of the 2 meter rule will lead to less skilled players triumphing? Seriously?

Again, I will concede the point to Nick, if he can simply explain why my son, or any regular disc golfer, should be subjected to such an UNFAIR ruling. Results of the throw needs to take precedence. Where is that unreasonable?

Mark



The ruling is only "UNFAIR" when looked at from the vantage point of the expectations created by the soon-to-be-obselete 2 meter penalty. From the vantage point of:

<font color="blue"> "mark the disc vertically below where it is suspended -- regardles of whether it is suspended 6 inches, 6 feet, or higher than 2 meters up in a tree" </font>

the ruling not to penalize the throw makes a great deal of sense and PENALIZING it is unfair.

It seems to me you and your son agreed to play the round without the 2 meter rule and the honorable thing was to do just that. So where's the problem? I would add though that unless the person who joined you and your son also opted into the no 2 meter rule agreement -- he should have done the honorable thing and added a stroke to his score.

the ruling not to penalize the throw makes a great deal of sense and PENALIZING it is unfair.


That is a pure unadulterated opinion trying to be passed off as fact.

The current 2MR is absolutely fair. It penalizes all disc that come to rest more than 2 meters aboved the playing surface.

Rhett, read what I wrote in context and stop taking cheap shots.

We did finish the round as we had agreed to. I have absolutely no problem with that. My concern was to the fact that in my son's eyes, and in mine, the treating of different results identically seemed blatantly unfair. I never have a problem dealing with results ( putts spitting out and rolling away / lucky shots off trees even for aces...saw one last year)
The problem is explaining to my son the rational behind it without sounding like a lawyer, no offense to Nick.

Sorry if that pisses some people off!

Mark

Rhett, read what I wrote in context and stop taking cheap shots.


Rob, you are becoming Nick junior. Cheap shots come with the territory. If you post the same thing again and again across different threads without varying your arguments or listening to the other side, then expect them.


In my "primordial" disc golf life, before I ever heard of the PDGA or any rules, we had a suspended disc penalty rule. It totally passed the "common sense" test as it just made sense.

The way we did it was this: the object of the game was to play it where it lies. We played with one disc back then, usually a World Class 165, and you would pick up your thrown disc and cram your foot wherever it had just been. If your disc landed in a shrubbery above the ground, you had to hold your foot at the spot where the disc was stuck, above the ground, and throw. If it was a large shrubbery or a small tree, you would have to get your foot higher. We were all younger and pretty flexible, so the most comical stance was the "ice skater", where you would bend over forward and lift your leg straight up behind you as high as you could to stick it up there, and then throw like that. If the disc was suspended higher than you could put your foot, you had to knock it down for the price of a stroke and then play it from wherever it came to rest.

This was long before any of us had heard of the PDGA or any official rules.

When I did learn the PDGA rules, the 2 meter penalty made perfect sense and seemed perfectly fair to me. It was a nicely codified version of what me and my buddies were doing. What we had always considered perfectly fair without any prior knowledge of a 2 Meter Rule. And while the "ice skater" stance was gone, the marking rules and 2 meter rules seemed more like a "real sport" than the goofball funness of our initial version.

So there is no need to wonder how I would have felt about a suspended disc if I had never heard of the 2 meter rule, because I can remember exactly how I felt about it.

I was stationed at Beale AFB near Marysville CA from 1980-1983 (approx). We played almost the same way with a 165g. frisbee. A great disc! Everyone understood the concept and we had fun discovering the endless possible positions to throw from. It was a blast. Unfortunately, today, we are being overrun by people that have decided water is no longer wet and the sky is no longer blue. I guess it's not really shocking, just disappointing. No replys necessary here.

Same general time frame. :) I grad-gee-ated high skoo in 1980, and had already played Morley a bunch by then. So maybe from 1979 on, going to play 3 or 4 times year.

We did finish the round as we had agreed to. I have absolutely no problem with that. My concern was to the fact that in my son's eyes, and in mine, the treating of different results identically seemed blatantly unfair. I never have a problem dealing with results ( putts spitting out and rolling away / lucky shots off trees even for aces...saw one last year)
The problem is explaining to my son the rational behind it without sounding like a lawyer, no offense to Nick.

Sorry if that pisses some people off!

Mark



Doesn't **** me off and I take no offense.

Thing is Mark, what is the difference, within our current rules, between those 2 lies, in your story, (as you were playing without the 2MR in effect)?

I remind you:

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



In this light it is clearly inappropriate to give one guy a penalty throw just because he is further from the playing surface than the other.

Rob is correct, your "sense" or "feeling" of uneasiness or "unfairness" is exclusively due to your inability to think of this situation without the influence of the 2MR. I understand that, I "felt" a little strange not taking the throw penalty the first time myself.

It will take a little adjusting to, particularly for all of us that have had it drilled into us all these years. I suspect TDs like Rhett and Craig will always keep it as a part of their events and that's cool. I just won't ever have it as a part of mine again. Maybe an Aerial OB or 2 around putting greens or important major doglegs in the fairways, but never course wide.

Rhett the Black Kettle... ;) :D:D

Rhett, read what I wrote in context and stop taking cheap shots.


Rob, you are becoming Nick junior.

<font color="blue"> Rhett, judging by your post count and the tenaciousness with which you keep repeating your opposition to the elimination of the 2 meter rule -- it seems to me you are much more of a Nick Jr. than I. Of course you don't treat yourself to the same critical review that you give to those of us who don't dwell with you in the "keep the 2 meter rule" zealots camp. If you mean that I won't lay down and give you the last word -- then thanks for the compliment. </font>

Cheap shots come with the territory. If you post the same thing again and again across different threads without varying your arguments or listening to the other side, then expect them.



<font color="blue"> thanks for the warning. still, you might do well to consider that cheap shots cheapen both you and your argument </font>

Rob,

Stay on point; they do this same thing every time they run out of logic or reason in defending their positions on this or any topic. It's like clockwork. "Can't fight the message, attack the messenger..."

The issue is coming ever clearer and that is a good thing, whichever side of the fence you may sit.

Regards,
Nick Kight

thanks for the warning. still, you might do well to consider that cheap shots cheapen both you and your argument

so does reiterating the same tired arguments for abolishing the 2MR while summarily dismissing arguments for its retention, combined with namedropping the RC as if they represent the only valid opinion on the topic.

thanks for the warning. still, you might do well to consider that cheap shots cheapen both you and your argument

so does reiterating the same tired arguments for abolishing the 2MR while summarily dismissing arguments for its retention, combined with namedropping the RC as if they represent the only valid opinion on the topic.



So does endlessly discussing discussion tactics rather than actually discussing the topic...

its sad that "tactics" are driving your pursuit to rebuild disc golf in your image.

dont bother replying you are back on ignore.

better yet, dont you have your own moderated thread to play on? what, nobody wanna play over there in such an environment?

its sad that "tactics" are driving your pursuit to rebuild disc golf in your image.

dont bother replying you are back on ignore.

better yet, dont you have your own moderated thread to play on? what, nobody wanna play over there in such an environment?



As long as guys just keep launching the ducks, I'll just keep shooting them down.

Rob,

We have two documented cases quoted above about how disc golf with no prior knowledge of the 2MR considered above-the-ground lies penalty-worthy.

What say you to that?

Or will you just say how trees are multi-directional deflection devices and the 2MR is stupid?

Please, anecdotes have their place (I guess), but it's surely not as a substitute for persuasive reasoning. Additionally, the "it's inately understood" argument was a scud missile that badly missed its intended mark, a long time ago.

The only coherent or persuasive argument I have heard to keep the rule is Sandalman's, and his concerns are best addressed by the TD simply stating that the rule is in effect on such and such holes.

Real life experience is blown off in favor "that rule isn't fair."

Interesting logic.

thanks for the warning. still, you might do well to consider that cheap shots cheapen both you and your argument

so does reiterating the same tired arguments for abolishing the 2MR while summarily dismissing arguments for its retention, combined with namedropping the RC as if they represent the only valid opinion on the topic.



Practice what you preach. You and Rhett have endlessly repeated the same tired arguments as to why the sky will fall if the 2 meter rule is eliminated, and you guys ignore invitations to discuss the mathematical flukiness of the 2 meter rule. Whenever I simply try to counter your opinion, you complain.

Come 2006, with the elimination of the 2 meter rule as the default scenario for PDGA-sanctioned play, TD's like Rhett will still have the option to declare the 2 meter rule in effect for their particular tournaments, and it will be mentioned in the glossary of the rulebook. So stand down from red alert.

If it really bothers you that I keep bringing up that the PDGA Rules Committee looked at this issue for years and decided the 2 meter rule was best eliminated as the default scenario for PDGA play -- get over it.

I'll agree to stop posting on this topic if you and Rhett agree to cease and desist also :D

naa... since they killed the "Fate of DISCussion" thread yesterday, this is where the action is :)

Real life experience? It's just an anecdote for chrissakes. What if it was an anecdote for the "other side," would you roll over and relent?

That you also travialize "it isn't fair" speaks volumes, especially when discussing rules.

i have never summarily dismissed the calls for the elimination of the 2MR. in fact after listening to all the reasons in support of such a move, i agreed that in many cases a no-relief plus penalty did in fact smack the player with an overly severe penalty.

i also realized, thanks to several before me, that the 2MR has different ramifications depending on where you are relative to the pin.

providing relief from the tree requires about 10 words in the rule book. it does not require any decisions, yellow rope, conical planes, or advanced understanding of the time-space continuum. even the 2MR on the green issue goes away if we simply add relief to the existing rule.

as the most simple solution possible that answers the primary concerns, it could be readily incorporated into the rule book. it is the least disruptive to our widely understood rules of play.

with so much going for it, it appears the only reason it is not accepted is that the anti-2MR zealots INSIST that its all or nothing.

remember, eliminating something really does means its permanent death. eliminating the rule in 2006 will result in it never coming back. that approach is NOT an experiment!

Guys guys guys. As always this always boils down to this.

*******************************

Remove 2m Rule Guy: My disc was falling to the ground, it happened to get caught by a branch, I should just place it on the ground where it would have ended up, with no penalty.

Keep 2m Rule Guy: If I can't reach my disc (see footnote) from where the rules mandate I take my next throw, which is directly below my disc, then I need to receive a penalty throw.

Remove 2m Rule Guy: WHY do I need to be able to reach the disc? By what LOGIC should I receive a penalty if I can't reach my disc?


footnote: The 2m line was drawn at 2m as it's a nice round number that's a height where pretty much any player can reach. Obviously some can reach higher but it had to be drawn somewhere.

**************************************

These are philosophical differences. You believe one or the other. Or you're like me and totally understand both sides, fully see the merit in each, and thus don't care which way it ends up. There's no convincing the other side. But it's apparently fun trying. Helps the time pass anyway. :D :eek: :cool:

with so much going for [penalty stroke plus relief for discs caught above 2 meters], it appears the only reason it is not accepted is that the anti-2MR zealots INSIST that its all or nothing.

<font color="blue"> that's ridiculous. In 2006 the 2 meter rule will still be an option for TD's on particular holes or for entire tournaments. What will be eliminated is a 2 meter penalty as the default scenario. So it is hardly all or nothing. The fact still remains however that the 2 meter rule is generally a double penalty and that hitting a tree is not a good shot. In the total score of a round, anyone relying on sticking in trees is going to have their score hurt a lot more than helped. For those pins where design forces it -- make the whole tree near the pin OB. Why should a shot suspended 1.9 meters not be penalized too? If tree sticks are bad shots and a penalty must be applied to equalize the gain, then why don't you favor penalizing any disc suspended above 30cm? Mere tradition is not a good answer..There was a time when slavery was tradition.

[QUOTE]

remember, eliminating something really does means its permanent death. eliminating the rule in 2006 will result in it never coming back. that approach is NOT an experiment!



<font color="blue"> Not true. The 2 meter rule will be relegated to the glossary for those TD's and pin designs which feel lost without it. </font>

Guys guys guys. As always this always boils down to this.

*******************************
Remove 2m Rule Guy: My disc was falling to the ground, it happened to get caught by a branch, I should just place it on the ground where it would have ended up, with no penalty.

Keep 2m Rule Guy: If I can't reach my disc (see footnote) from where the rules mandate I take my next throw, which is directly below my disc, then I need to receive a penalty throw.

Remove 2m Rule Guy: WHY do I need to be able to reach the disc? By what LOGIC should I receive a penalty if I can't reach my disc?

footnote: The 2m line was drawn at 2m as it's a nice round number that's a height where pretty much any player can reach. Obviously some can reach higher but it had to be drawn somewhere.

**************************************

These are philosophical differences. You believe one or the other. Or you're like me and totally understand both sides, fully see the merit in each, and thus don't care which way it ends up. There's no convincing the other side. But it's apparently fun trying. Helps the time pass anyway. :D :eek: :cool:



<font color="blue"> The reach/can't reach argument is not an issue to me. The Rules Committee based their decision on the mathematical rarity at which a disc stays stuck in a tree when it strikes it, especially taking into consideration that with virtually identical throws, of 100 discs thrown into a typical non-evergreen tree from a distance of 100 feet, only an average of 4 stick. Add to that the fact that shots which hit trees get deflected any number of ways -- unpredictably and therefore are usually punished by the natural result. Further, any (or all) tree(s) can be declared OB by a course pro/TD. The default scenario -- so the eliminate the 2 meter penalty goes -- should be that the 2 meter rule is not in effect </font>

Rob,

For accuracies sake, and that is if it is more or less unaltered, the 2MR Option will appear in a new section at the beginning of the rules called "Definitions". The glossary will be going bye-bye.

I can live with the 2MR as an option, I know that it is mainly to appease the "strange feeling" of it being gone than any rational reason for keeping it, but that is understandable.

The point that I really think this all boils down to is this: Even if the 2MR is completely and permanently stricken from our rules, TDs will still under power of Out of Bounds and Casual Areas be able to do everything the 2MR currently does and more. It is nice the the 2MR guys want to keep the blanket rules to protect all of our courses and competitions, but I prefer to leave such protection in the hands of those who can do the most with it, the Course Designers and Tournament Directors. The logical next steps for the 2MR are things like, additional penalty strokes for missed putts, or landing on a park furnature, or checkerboard IB/OB fairways. It's just silliness. Silliness we've grown accustomed to, but silliness none the less.

i have never summarily dismissed the calls for the elimination of the 2MR. in fact after listening to all the reasons in support of such a move, i agreed that in many cases a no-relief plus penalty did in fact smack the player with an overly severe penalty.



I concur with you on this and can see where people would feel the 2004 and earlier 2MR is overly severe. But I still compare the 2MR rule to our OB rule.

For instance, if the disc lands in OB water. You are stroked and get 1M relief. This rarely affords you good footing or a good approach. Compared to ballgolf where you can play from out of shallow water if you desire and/or where a ~1m IB drop usually allows for a pretty good swing, our OB rules are very harsh to begin with.


as the most simple solution possible that answers the primary concerns, it could be readily incorporated into the rule book. it is the least disruptive to our widely understood rules of play.



Here is my first pass attempt at a re-write. Modify the "Disc Above the Playing Surface" (803.07) by taking away the current 2MR and replacing it with this "Aerial OB" rule:
---------
Aerial OB: If the disc comes to rest in a tree or other object on the course (a hazard) that has been defined as an aerial OB and is not touching the ground, the lie shall be marked within 1 meter behind said hazard directly in the line of play towards the pin. The edges of the hazard shall be defined as the outermost extremities of the hazard. The OB line from which 1 meter relief is taken shall be the imaginary line that would be made if the hazard�s edges were traced on the ground directly under (vertically below) those outermost extremities. As with other OB areas, the player shall be assessed a one throw penalty and shall resume play from the lie that was just determined. If that lie is OB or within 1 meter of OB, treat the entire area under the hazard as an extension of the OB area and proceed according to the Out-Of-Bounds rule (803.08)

The TD, at his sole discretion, can determine which course objects will be defined as aerial OB�s. These OB areas are to be clearly defined and announced well in advance of the event.
-----------

i have never summarily dismissed the calls for the elimination of the 2MR. in fact after listening to all the reasons in support of such a move, i agreed that in many cases a no-relief plus penalty did in fact smack the player with an overly severe penalty.

i also realized, thanks to several before me, that the 2MR has different ramifications depending on where you are relative to the pin.

providing relief from the tree requires about 10 words in the rule book. it does not require any decisions, yellow rope, conical planes, or advanced understanding of the time-space continuum. even the 2MR on the green issue goes away if we simply add relief to the existing rule.

as the most simple solution possible that answers the primary concerns, it could be readily incorporated into the rule book. it is the least disruptive to our widely understood rules of play.


Those points were made so eloquently and concisely that they were worthy of repeating.

The Rules Committee based their decision on the mathematical rarity at which a disc stays stuck in a tree when it strikes it, especially taking into consideration that with virtually identical throws, of 100 discs thrown into a typical non-evergreen tree from a distance of 100 feet, only an average of 4 stick. Add to that the fact that shots which hit trees get deflected any number of ways -- unpredictably and therefore are usually punished by the natural result.


I didn't realize that you were on the RC or that they had conducted such an extensive research project. Can you please provide a link the results of the studies you quote so that I can verify the methodology? You seem to pin a lot of your arguments on this "4 out of 100" thing. I would like to see where that number comes from.

These are philosophical differences. You believe one or the other...There's no convincing the other side.


Hank is correct. Isn't about time we started back up on the DROT issue?

<font color="blue"> The reach/can't reach argument is not an issue to me. </font>



Which is exactly why you don't get it. :)

We (okay, I) understand the whole rest of your post and the whole entire reason and WYCC logic behind it.

However even after your whole post, the other side will still say "But you can't reach your disc, so you deserve a penalty". Because that's truly all they have.

And if you're smart, you'll simply say "WHY do I deserve a penalty for not being able to reach my disc?" Because that's truly all you have.

And around you go.

If it matters, I personally held the same belief as you for years and years of wanting to get rid of the rule. I still do. Though now I fully understand the other side. So as I said, I don't really care which way it goes.

The reach/can't reach argument is not an issue to me. The Rules Committee based their decision on the mathematical rarity at which a disc stays stuck in a tree when it strikes it, especially taking into consideration that with virtually identical throws, of 100 discs thrown into a typical non-evergreen tree from a distance of 100 feet, only an average of 4 stick. Add to that the fact that shots which hit trees get deflected any number of ways -- unpredictably and therefore are usually punished by the natural result. Further, any (or all) tree(s) can be declared OB by a course pro/TD. The default scenario -- so the eliminate the 2 meter penalty goes -- should be that the 2 meter rule is not in effect

thats funny becuz you just implied that the rule should be in effect if there is a near certainty a disc would stick when thrown in a particular tree type. hahaha - i suppose you will be supporting the retention of the 2MR for cedar trees! but wait - thats the very tree that you want penalty free relief from! isnt that backwards? oh geez this is sooo confusing :D:D:D

WYCC logic

now that, sir, is f.funny! :D

Isn't about time we started back up on the DROT issue?



I'd rather go with the Falling Putt.

The banality and pure stupidity of the arguments to keep the Falling Putt rule are confoundingly hilarious.

There's no convincing the other side.



I started out thinking it was insane to abolish the rule, but was convinced otherwise.

I also believe most of the regional 2m rule supporters (not the posters here) are driven by pure historical inertia. If those people had played in an alternative universe with no 2m rule, the inertia would have them supporting the no 2m rule. I also bet that as people play more tourneys without the rule, the vocal opposition will generally turn into an educated indifference.

There's no convincing the other side.



I started out thinking it was insane to abolish the rule, but was convinced otherwise.

I also believe most of the regional 2m rule supporters (not the posters here) are driven by pure historical inertia. If those people had played in an alternative universe with no 2m rule, the inertia would have them supporting the no 2m rule. I also bet that as people play more tourneys without the rule, the vocal opposition will generally turn into an educated indifference.



wird

i have never summarily dismissed the calls for the elimination of the 2MR. in fact after listening to all the reasons in support of such a move, i agreed that in many cases a no-relief plus penalty did in fact smack the player with an overly severe penalty.



I concur with you on this and can see where people would feel the 2004 and earlier 2MR is overly severe. But I still compare the 2MR rule to our OB rule.

For instance, if the disc lands in OB water. You are stroked and get 1M relief. This rarely affords you good footing or a good approach. Compared to ballgolf where you can play from out of shallow water if you desire and/or where a ~1m IB drop usually allows for a pretty good swing, our OB rules are very harsh to begin with.


as the most simple solution possible that answers the primary concerns, it could be readily incorporated into the rule book. it is the least disruptive to our widely understood rules of play.



Here is my first pass attempt at a re-write. Modify the "Disc Above the Playing Surface" (803.07) by taking away the current 2MR and replacing it with this "Aerial OB" rule:
---------
Aerial OB: If the disc comes to rest in a tree or other object on the course (a hazard) that has been defined as an aerial OB and is not touching the ground, the lie shall be marked within 1 meter behind said hazard directly in the line of play towards the pin. The edges of the hazard shall be defined as the outermost extremities of the hazard. The OB line from which 1 meter relief is taken shall be the imaginary line that would be made if the hazard�s edges were traced on the ground directly under (vertically below) those outermost extremities. As with other OB areas, the player shall be assessed a one throw penalty and shall resume play from the lie that was just determined. If that lie is OB or within 1 meter of OB, treat the entire area under the hazard as an extension of the OB area and proceed according to the Out-Of-Bounds rule (803.08)

The TD, at his sole discretion, can determine which course objects will be defined as aerial OB�s. These OB areas are to be clearly defined and announced well in advance of the event.
-----------



Interesting. I suspect that Conrad, Joe, Jim, Rick, Carlton and company might be able to make that a little more elegant (by that I mean simple). I'm not even sure it needs it's own rule or definition. Might? I just don't know.

Maybe something like, Dave D was suggesting and it would have to have a physical marker to define the height below which is in bounds and above which on the contiguous surface is Out of Bounds. All such instances or OB must be played with either throw and distance, distance, throw and drop zone or drop zone. This would take the whole "last place IB" off the table, which IMO would be a big step forward.

OB is a rule about designer designated restricted areas. The 2MR is a rule about some universal hazard that designers and tournament directors have no say about.

My hope is that the PDGA RC is doing a little thinking about providing an elegant solution for what will essentially be "Aerial OB". One that will be easier for folks, particularly folks with their 2MR blinders on, to fathom and at least appreciate, even if they are incapable of fully accepting due to nostalgia.

Real life experience? It's just an anecdote for chrissakes. What if it was an anecdote for the "other side," would you roll over and relent?

That you also travialize "it isn't fair" speaks volumes, especially when discussing rules.


Actually, I've been sort of surprised that no one has countered with an anecdote on the other side yet. Or did I miss it?

Oh yea. Here goes. In the late 70s and early 80s, my friends, family and neighbors played disc golf with Whamo frisbees. As far as I knew, there was no official sport, so no one referred to any official rules of the game, other than counting throws.

You know what. Based on my memory, it never crossed anyone's mind that a frisbee stuck in a tree was a one stroke penalty. Most of the time, the comment was probably "you know what...it would fly farther if you missed the trees" or "your strategy of aiming at trees isn't working" or "that will probably cost you another buck." Strangely, noone ever said "How much is two metres?...how far above my head is it?..oh six feet eight...that's a stroke."

There. Are you now questioning your beliefs? ;)

that just proves you werent thinking even as a kid

:D

There's a difference between remembering things and making up memories about things. :)

Oh yea. Here goes. In the late 70s and early 80s, my friends, family and neighbors played disc golf with Whamo frisbees. As far as I knew, there was no official sport, so no one referred to any official rules of the game, other than counting throws.

You know what. Based on my memory, it never crossed anyone's mind that a frisbee stuck in a tree was a one stroke penalty. Most of the time, the comment was probably "you know what...it would fly farther if you missed the trees" or "your strategy of aiming at trees isn't working" or "that will probably cost you another buck." Strangely, noone ever said "How much is two metres?...how far above my head is it?..oh six feet eight...that's a stroke."

There. Are you now questioning your beliefs? ;)


Did you play with penalties of any kind? (i.e. OB)

Oh yea. Here goes. In the late 70s and early 80s, my friends, family and neighbors played disc golf with Whamo frisbees. As far as I knew, there was no official sport, so no one referred to any official rules of the game, other than counting throws.

You know what. Based on my memory, it never crossed anyone's mind that a frisbee stuck in a tree was a one stroke penalty. Most of the time, the comment was probably "you know what...it would fly farther if you missed the trees" or "your strategy of aiming at trees isn't working" or "that will probably cost you another buck." Strangely, noone ever said "How much is two metres?...how far above my head is it?..oh six feet eight...that's a stroke."

There. Are you now questioning your beliefs? ;)


Did you play with penalties of any kind? (i.e. OB)



That is an entirely different question Paul. If it were the same question, this discussion would never have begun. This is what the 2MR lovers just can't bring themselves to see...

Getting rid of the 2m rule will do nothing but lower your score if your disc is stuck above 2m. That's it. It's not going to make the game any easier, just lower your score if you get stuck above 2m.

I'm wondering how this ended up being an all-or-nothing kind of decision. It is not a black or white issue, it's a grey area. I hear that it's a 50 - 50 split on keep it or dump it (2MR). I believe given a 3rd choice of modifying the current rule with stroke and some kind of relief there would be no split. My guess is the rule would stay with relief.

(drift on)OB has its share of double penalty also. Maybe it is just me but with OB I get crappy lies near waters edge, crappy lies when it is marked in the trees, crappy lies from the tall, tall grass and real crappy lies when I'm throwing from the briar patch and there is mowed grass 3' from me which defines OB. The only time I get a decent lie from an OB drop is when I dump one in the parking lot. Add to that loss of distance. Geez, loss of distance is penalty enough. (drift off)

Getting rid of the 2MR is kind-of-like having the crossbar removed from a soccer goal; or like telling an airline pilot that he doesn't need to land on the runway, just land it somewhere on the airport property. So he lands it in the control tower. Hey, it's on the property!

Getting rid of the 2MR is kind-of-like having the crossbar removed from a soccer goal; or like telling an airline pilot that he doesn't need to land on the runway, just land it somewhere on the airport property. So he lands it in the control tower. Hey, it's on the property!

bravo, dude! that's right on, and funny! :D

Getting rid of the 2MR is kind-of-like having the crossbar removed from a soccer goal; or like telling an airline pilot that he doesn't need to land on the runway, just land it somewhere on the airport property. So he lands it in the control tower. Hey, it's on the property!



No it's not. It's EXACTLY like getting rid of the 2MR. That's it. The game goes on exactly as before, but with designers perhaps a little more aware of sensitive areas and therefore more likely to take an active, rather than passive, role in protecting those areas.

But as far as competition it will change no more than 3 to 6 strokes out of an entire year of PDGA play.

You guys act like you are afraid to find out what I and others are saying is true. I fear nothing about finding out if the 2MR is necessary, I doubt it is, but if it becomes clear that it is, that's fine with me.

Can you say the same?

The Rules Committee based their decision on the mathematical rarity at which a disc stays stuck in a tree when it strikes it, especially taking into consideration that with virtually identical throws, of 100 discs thrown into a typical non-evergreen tree from a distance of 100 feet, only an average of 4 stick. Add to that the fact that shots which hit trees get deflected any number of ways -- unpredictably and therefore are usually punished by the natural result.


I didn't realize that you were on the RC or that they had conducted such an extensive research project. Can you please provide a link the results of the studies you quote so that I can verify the methodology? You seem to pin a lot of your arguments on this "4 out of 100" thing. I would like to see where that number comes from.



<font color="blue"> Rhett, that is what you will find if you throw into a non-evergreen tree from 100 feet with 100 similar shots. It is also the number I heard cited by a member of the RC who formerly backed the 2 meter rule but has since changed his mind. Practicly evertime I play it is on a highly foliated course, and that number seems right on to me in terms of the percentage of discs which hit a tree and don't drop or deflect down and out (it may even be a little too high). Of course evergreens and trees with vines growing in them tend to catch more. Another thing that holds true is most tree shots end up with unfavorable lies irregardless of the 2 meter penalty. Go throw 100 shots into an average tree from a distance of at least 100 feet away and report back what you find.

My support of the elimination of the 2 meter rule in no way suggests that I want to crash trees for an advantage. I favor its elimination because I think sticking in a tree is too flukey and too undesirable to begin with to add a penalty. Plus, OB and other options work better imo than 2 meters. Why exactly do you oppose penalizing a disc stuck at a heighth of 1.5 meters but favor penalizing a disc stuck at 2 meters? Is it just because you were spoon food fed the 2 meter rule when you threw frisbees?

The reach/can't reach argument is not an issue to me. The Rules Committee based their decision on the mathematical rarity at which a disc stays stuck in a tree when it strikes it, especially taking into consideration that with virtually identical throws, of 100 discs thrown into a typical non-evergreen tree from a distance of 100 feet, only an average of 4 stick. Add to that the fact that shots which hit trees get deflected any number of ways -- unpredictably and therefore are usually punished by the natural result. Further, any (or all) tree(s) can be declared OB by a course pro/TD. The default scenario -- so the eliminate the 2 meter penalty goes -- should be that the 2 meter rule is not in effect



thats funny becuz you just implied that the rule should be in effect if there is a near certainty a disc would stick when thrown in a particular tree type.

<font color="blue"> you are jumping too quickly to unwarranted conclusions (which coincidentally enable you to self-servingly dismiss my whole argument :eek: :D My citing the flukiness with which a disc sticks is to underscore the inconsistency of the applicability of this penalty rule. It skews the results of the rare disc that sticks too negatively. I also favor the elimination of the 2 meter rule for cedar trees for 2 other reasons based on my experience with them:
1. the resulting lie generally involves a subsequent shot with the thick formidable obstacle of the cedar tree in the way. -- and --
2. It is just too easy to use a cedar tree if the 2 meter rule is in effect to your advantage by throwing low line drives (maximum height of 1.99 meters) at them.

One of the added natural penalties of hitting a tree (in addition to the highly unpredictable deflection) is that if you stick high up you have lost your trusty disc for the remainder of the round) </font>

hahaha - i suppose you will be supporting the retention of the 2MR for cedar trees! but wait - thats the very tree that you want penalty free relief from! isnt that backwards? oh geez this is sooo confusing :D:D:D



<font color="blue"> I think it is better to make a player mark their lie either where the disc lands or vertically below where it lands regardless of whether it is 1.5 or 2.1 meters above the playing surface and play on with NO relief and NO penalty. Which is what the default rule will be for 2006 and beyond anyways...
</font>

Oh yea. Here goes. In the late 70s and early 80s, my friends, family and neighbors played disc golf with Whamo frisbees. As far as I knew, there was no official sport, so no one referred to any official rules of the game, other than counting throws.

You know what. Based on my memory, it never crossed anyone's mind that a frisbee stuck in a tree was a one stroke penalty. Most of the time, the comment was probably "you know what...it would fly farther if you missed the trees" or "your strategy of aiming at trees isn't working" or "that will probably cost you another buck." Strangely, noone ever said "How much is two metres?...how far above my head is it?..oh six feet eight...that's a stroke."

There. Are you now questioning your beliefs? ;)



<font color="blue"> Thanks James. That was priceless. A story about how </font>

two guys played a round for 100 bucks in 1970 and went into the last hole tied and then one landed 2.1 meters up in a tree and then the next guy landed 1.8 meters up and then a 2 meter rule zealot from the 2005 PDGA DISCussion board time travelled back in time and into the picture and ruled that the first guy would incur a penalty stroke while the second guy could play on stroke free.

<font color="blue"> would have been funny too. I wonder how "fair" the 2 meter ruling would have felt? :D </font>

Why exactly do you oppose penalizing a disc stuck at a heighth of 1.5 meters but favor penalizing a disc stuck at 2 meters? Is it just because you were spoon food fed the 2 meter rule when you threw frisbees?


Condescending attitudes do little to strengthen your argument.

That statement also shows that you didn't read my post about my original "frisbee golf" days. If you had, you would know that we came up with that on our own because it made sense to get penalized if you couldn't cram your feet where your frisbee had landed. My little clan was not spoon-fed anything at all about 2 meter rules.

Why penalize 2 meters and not 1.5 meters? Because there is a height where you can retrieve a disc from a tree and there is a height that you cannot retrieve a disc from a tree. (Without climbing it or cutting it down, that it is.) If you throw your disc to where you cannot get it, then that is what is penalty worthy in my book. There is retrievable and there is not retrievable. And there is boundary between the two. 2 meters is as good a boundary as any, so we use that.

To me, it is plain to see that stuck 40 feet up in the crown of a palm tree results in not only a lie that is unplayable, but a disc that you cannot reasonably get to. It is also very plain to see, to me, that a disc laying on the ground at the base of that same palm tree is a perfectly fine shot that is in no need whatsoever of a penalty. And it is also quite obvious to me that those two shots are not the same, and that they are nowhere near the same. Nor should they be treated the same.

Conversely, it is very obvious to me that a disc at rest atop a small shrubbery 1 foot above the ground is perfectly playable. Since a small shrubbery will not supprot the weight of a behemouth like me, it also perfectly reasonable, to me, to put your foot on the ground below said disc and play on.

Another thing quite obvious to me is that there is an area between the 1 foot high shrubbery disc and the 40 foot high palm tree disc, and that somewhere in that massive area the disc goes from being perfectly playable to completely unplayable. In the old days for me, that point was between 4 and 7 feet off the ground, depending on the throwers flexibility.

Having a 3 foot tall grey area is not a good thing, in my opinion. So establishing a precise height to define the playable disc from the unplayable one seems like a good idea to me.

The specific height of 2 meters has a lot of things going for it. It's a nice round number. It was a metric number at a time when people actually thought the metric system would take hold in the USA. It is the same height for everybody.

I really don't care if it the exact height is 2 meters, 1 meter, 3.75 feet, or whatever.

All I know is that, in my opinion, a disc that is 1 foot off the ground in a small shrubbery is an entirely playable lie while a disc 40 feet off the ground in the crown of a palm tree it a completely unplayable lie. And there needs to be something that makes them different. The 2 meter rule does just that.

And a disc on the ground at the base of the palm is completely playable, so making a big OB ring on the ground is not even the same because it punishes a completely playable lie.

Rhett, one thing that makes a disc stuck 40 feet high and one stuck 1 foot high different is that the former cannot be retrieved until -- if even then -- the round has been completed. Seems to me that's a difference.

I suppose i should have found a better word than spoon fed -- but at least you concede that 2 meters wasn't a measurement you found intuitively was the right height.

If the rule was if you can reach it play on nwith no penalty it might make more sense. But why penalize a wheel-chair user who wants to enjoy disc golf with her more ambulatory friends? For that matter why not set a height at which even a very young disc golfer can retrieve their disc? 1 meter sounds good.

As Nick (I know you are unable to give his posts a fair hearing) has pointed out -- aerial OB is a far more elegant way to deal with this issue and like all OB it would then be up to the course pro/TD.

You are of course free to disagree with and resist the future.

Resisting change is natural, so it is no small affair when the official body of a sport decides to change the rules. Why do you suppose that Europe eliminated the 2 meter penalty (it was afterall in a Euro friendly system of measurement)?

Also why do you suppose the RC voted to eliminate it? Isn't it because they legitimately feel it is what is best for the future of competitive disc golf?

Nick
Explain to my son, as simply as you can, how the situation last Saturday was not unfair to him. He doesn't have all the history of "fair play" that I am locked into. Only the way the game was taught to him according to our rule book at the time. He's the future of our sport. At 47, I am certainly a dinosaur, with my own antiquated sense of right and wrong.
Truely no sarcasm intended. I have been a member of our organization only a couple of years and have been an avid reader of DISCussion for just as long. I haven't posted until now, even knowing the abuse handed out to anyone that opposes certain views. That fact cannot be argued.(well maybe here it could). I posted because of a compelling sense of something not being fair. I am most certainly proven wrong many times about a variety of subjects. you suggested contacting the RC. I did. Their expaination will do for me. This is how it will be and that's it. But to my son, who could care less about two page explainations of whatever, someone (you) should attempt to say something to encourage him to pick up his bag and throw again. I thought you had,in a previous post, asked us for a real life example for not eliminating the 2MR, and I thought I did. ( again sorry for the sarcasm in my original post, you do inspire some passion from people). I think I was stating something that looked unfair. I think if you took someone from no point of view right off the street with no knowledge of our rules, and they saw those two discs they may not understand how they were really the same thing. Thats all.

ribj, change rhett's example from a 40 foot palm tree to 15 feet in a maple or oak. you are quoting the insignificant parts and dismissing the germane. as you might be aware, we are accustomed to this trick because we are used to Nick. while we mostly have him on ignore we still remember his tactics and still have the capacity to argue reasonably against them.

btw, rhett's explanation of playable heights versus unplayable heights, and the need for a clear delimiter, makes a ton of sense. if you wish to read it with an open mind.

Resisting change is natural, so it is no small affair when the official body of a sport decides to change the rules. Why do you suppose that Europe eliminated the 2 meter penalty (it was afterall in a Euro friendly system of measurement)?



Who gives a rat's ascii what Europe did? I'm sure some freelanders in Montana don't have a 2 meter penalty as well, so what? This was one of the weak arguments thrown out there in the PDGA radio bit from Carlton Howard and it held no water then, either. Maybe they didn't want to count strokes? Maybe they are lazy? Maybe they confused the 2 meter penalty with a toothbrush and were afraid of it, it doesn't matter.



Also why do you suppose the RC voted to eliminate it? Isn't it because they legitimately feel it is what is best for the future of competitive disc golf?



Did you even listen to the PDGA radio bit from Carlton? There was no mention of the 'future of competitive disc golf' at all. Just the same tired arguments that you and Nick keep repeating.

When you get pulled over for speeding do you tell the policeman that you don't deserve a ticket because 65 m.p.h. is an 'arbitrary' number?

Playable heights and unplayable heights never made a lick of sense to me. It looks like an odd morphing of two disparate ideas that were strange enough by themselves: that the height you can reach is somehow significant (practical, but by no means leads to the conclusion that a penalty is necessary) and that you actually play from where the disc lies (bizarre).

Mark,


Nick, Explain to my son, as simply as you can, how the situation last Saturday was not unfair to him.


Mark, I think that you are actually asking me to answer the question, �Why should he not �feel� that the situation was unfair to him?� I can only guess at that, but it seems clear from your recounting of the tale that the 2 Meter Rule was clearly on your minds and thinking as you played, have decided to try a round without it; so chances are that you both were thinking more in terms of which is more fair, play with the 2MR or play without, and that that had a heavy influence on both of your thinking.

When you play any game for the first time, and hopefully like me you want to play it by the rules, you learn them and play by them. So if you are playing �a game� and decide on a certain rule, (e.i. that you will not play disc golf using the 2 meter rule) then �that� is the way it must be played. It is no less fair than playing with it in this example, it is simply different for the purposes of this experiment you engaged in.

So in answering your question as I read it, your son felt that it was unfair mainly due to the fact that you guys actually did not follow through on your plan �to play the round without the 2 Meter Rule�. It was his recollection of the 2 Meter Rule and that the other guy didn�t get a penalty throw that lead to his �feeling� of unfairness. Not the situation or even the �Actual Rules With Which You Were Playing Under� that caused that sense of unfairness.

As far as the �actual� unfairness or not of the situation, that is far more complicated. In my opinion, there is nothing �inherent� in the situation; it all has to do with where you come down on the issue of �marking your lie� and what is �relief� in disc golf under our current rules.

If you feel that we should be marking our lies 2 feet up in a bush, or 5 feet up in a tree, or 40 feet up in a tree otherwise we �ARE actually taking relief�, then you, in my opinion are going beyond what is in our current rules of play and making something elegant and simple fuzzy and complicated. We don�t play our game from the trees and bushes, we play it from the �playing surface�.

Marking a lie is among the simplest of rules to follow in disc golf. I encourage everyone to read their rule books, �Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.� I can understand, perhaps, logically, why folks think or �feel� that marking their lie according to our rules of play, without the 2 Meter Rule, on the playing surface might feel like �relief�, but the thing is that it is not. And when �Playing Surface� is added to our new rulebook�s list of definitions, this will be even clearer. A disc sitting on any object or obstacle is not the �lie�, the spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules, is. Always has been, likely, always will be.

Do you want that to change? Cause it would have to if you want marking your lie on the playing surface to be considered �Relief�.


I thought you had,in a previous post, asked us for a real life example for not eliminating the 2MR, and I thought I did. ( again sorry for the sarcasm in my original post, you do inspire some passion from people). I think I was stating something that looked unfair. I think if you took someone from no point of view right off the street with no knowledge of our rules, and they saw those two discs they may not understand how they were really the same thing. Thats all.Nick,


And I am glad that you did decide to share your experience. Thing is, we need to look at that experience and the reasons behind it and why you �feel� this way and �think� that and conclude this? I�m not saying your feeling, thinking or conclusion is wrong, just that I can easily see where it comes from and that it is a clear example of how difficult it is for some folks to separate themselves from the 2 Meter Rule.

You kind of pose a new question here, and this is one that I wanted you actually to answer, along with your son; if you took a guy off the street, had him read and study the rules thoroughly (WITHOUT THE 2 METER RULE INCLUDED, so they have no preconception of it what so ever), and they went out to play and found themselves in the situation your son and this other competitor found themselves in, what do you think they would think about the fairness of their lie as opposed to your sons?

My contention is that they would not think anything as concerns the rules, because there would actually BE NOTHING AS CONCERNS THE RULES. Marking your lie IS NOT taking relief.

The only way it would be is if that area above the playing surface, where this guy off the street�s disc landed, were Out of Bounds. And if it were, then it is completely understandable that to play on with no penalty throw would be unfair.

Thing is, the 2 Meter Rule is in no way, shape or form our Out of Bounds Rule. It is different in stark and significant ways.


Explain to my son, as simply as you can, how the situation last Saturday was not unfair to him. He doesn't have all the history of "fair play" that I am locked into. Only the way the game was taught to him according to our rule book at the time.



That would be an act in futility Mark. He is going to �feel� it unfair to him because he apparently cannot keep focus on the experiment to play the round without the 2MR. Perhaps if he played 16 years in Open with the 2MR in effect, and saw how fluky and unfair the rule is he would �feel� differently. And that is why I asked if you guys would try it again and really just block out the entire 2MR completely from your thinking. In the end, for example, did your son feel that he had been ripped off? That he really should have been one stroke closer to the other player? That he had played better than the other guy? How about if it was over the course of an entire event, season, year or career? What would be the feeling then?

I would mainly make the point to him that the 2MR is not OB, and that OB is just a better rule. If he feels, after a year or two of play without the 2MR that too much �unfair� play is going on, that he can run an event and designate everything above 2 meters as OB. Until that, he should just enjoy himself and concentrate on improving his skills.

Hope that clarified where I am coming from on this for you.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

We did finish the round as agreed (no 2MR), again no problem with that. But we did play it to experience the difference between the two. Our friend accessed himself the penalty because he was not privy to our arrangement. My son and myself only were speaking as what if our friend would have been beholden to our agreement. He was not and we played on, as agreed. How do you think casual rounds should be handled from now on. No sense playing one way on Monday and a different way on Thursday. No sense in playing one way in New York and another in Pa. Everyone should be playing the same rules.
My person "fresh off the street" reference was only to speculate as to how it would appear, playing two different results as if they were the same. That's all.
I believe we remained focused on our agreement to play the round with out the 2MR, regardless of our intent to test the rule change.
IMHO

thanks for your time!

Yes, that's fair Mark. But I hope that you can see what I am talking about when I point out that the lack of the 2MR when playing without the 2MR is not really a matter of "fairness", because:

A) It is not a rule (at the time).
B) It has no affect on anyone's score, because it is not a rule (at the time).

Now if we want to compare the fairness of a round with the 2MR against one without it, it would be a far different kettle of fish. Now I think that it actually is "fairer" without, particularly in view of the bigger and more long term questions involved, but it is pretty much a useless exercise.

I practice without the 2MR. Probably always have. The difference will be made only if the TD chooses to use the 2MR and there really is little real planning you can do for that. I mean are you suddenly going to start throwing all rollers or never let your disc rise above 2 meters? That would be silly.

As with any course you are getting ready to play in competition, you need to learn the special conditions and be ready to compete. That is just part of the game.

You say you don't want different rules in different places, that is a good point. Let's look at it more closely, shall we?

At a course in MD concrete paths and across are Out of Bounds but at a very similar course in CA just on the paths is Out of Bounds, across is fine. Still at another course in Missouri the paths and across are not Out of Bounds at all.

Is this an example of "Different Rules" or of "Different Application of the Same Rules"? I am of the position that they are the same rules just, rightly, applied differently by the course designers and tournament directors.

Hope this answered your questions.

Regards,
Nick Kight

If the rule was if you can reach it play on nwith no penalty it might make more sense. But why penalize a wheel-chair user who wants to enjoy disc golf with her more ambulatory friends? For that matter why not set a height at which even a very young disc golfer can retrieve their disc? 1 meter sounds good.


robj,

You have just conceded the main point of my argument: that there are obviously playable lies that are suspended above the playing surface (my 1 foot in the shrubbery example) and that there are completely unplayable lies suspended above the playing surface. (my 40 foot palm tree example, and the 15 foot maple tree example.)

Since you agree that there are playable and unplayable lies above the playing surface, we are now simply left with deciding what is the best height at which to distinguish the two.

You stated that you favor 1 meter.

The current rule is 2 meter.

You argument against the rule comes down to only disagreeing with the measured value.

Since we both agree that there should be a defining height, I guess the grand debate is now officially over. The 2 meter rule makes perfect sense, it is only the height of 2 meters that is the problem.

Why do you suppose that Europe eliminated the 2 meter penalty (it was afterall in a Euro friendly system of measurement)?


That's an interesting comment. Does the whole bias against the rule stem from using the wrong units? Is this really a mini-revolt against the metric system?

Also why do you suppose the RC voted to eliminate it? Isn't it because they legitimately feel it is what is best for the future of competitive disc golf?


Why did the older RC originally have it? Because they wanted the worst for the sport?



Edited to add that my comment about the bias against the metric system was a joke.

Playable heights and unplayable heights never made a lick of sense to me. It looks like an odd morphing of two disparate ideas that were strange enough by themselves: that the height you can reach is somehow significant (practical, but by no means leads to the conclusion that a penalty is necessary) and that you actually play from where the disc lies (bizarre).


So you're disagreeing with both the words "playable" and "height"?

If height is not significant, why is the basket elevated off the ground? We have to hit a target between two heights (the top of the basket and the rim of the basket) -- why is it difficult to understand that a disc may also get stuck at a height during its journey? Or is hitting the base of the basket the same as holing the disc to you?

With regard to "playable" -- what is your threshold for playable, if it doesn't have to do with being able to take a stance on the playing surface when you reach for your disc?

thread drift on

according to Terry, on another thread, Nichole can get banned for calling us idiots from now on :D

thread drift off

If the rule was if you can reach it play on nwith no penalty it might make more sense. But why penalize a wheel-chair user who wants to enjoy disc golf with her more ambulatory friends? For that matter why not set a height at which even a very young disc golfer can retrieve their disc? 1 meter sounds good.


robj,

You have just conceded the main point of my argument: that there are obviously playable lies that are suspended above the playing surface (my 1 foot in the shrubbery example) and that there are completely unplayable lies suspended above the playing surface. (my 40 foot palm tree example, and the 15 foot maple tree example.)

Since you agree that there are playable and unplayable lies above the playing surface, we are now simply left with deciding what is the best height at which to distinguish the two.

You stated that you favor 1 meter.


<font color="blue"> Rhett, that is a false assumption. Preposterous even. I asked why you don't prefer 1 meter over 2 meters since you seem to be arguing for a universally reachable measurement. I am just trying to understand why you favor 2 meters since you know very well that kids play this sport and that persons in wheelchairs should be free to too. If you believe in a rule separate from the OB section of our rule book which sets a reachable height above which one gets a penalty stroke then why not make it 1 meters instead of 2? </font>

The current rule is 2 meter.

<font color="blue"> well, the soon-to-be-obselete-as-a-default-scenario rule is :eek: </font>

You argument against the rule comes down to only disagreeing with the measured value.

<font color="blue"> Not true. I am opposed to a penalty for suspension at any height provided the playing surface below the suspended disc is not declared as OB. I was just asking you to tell me why 1 meters is not a superior height than 2 meters since many disc golfers cannot reach a disc suspended 1.9 meters up and you've argued it is a reachability issue </font>

Since we both agree that there should be a defining height, I guess the grand debate is now officially over. The 2 meter rule makes perfect sense, it is only the height of 2 meters that is the problem.



<font color="blue"> To the contrary I do not favor a 2 meter rule though I think a TD or course pro should be able to declare an aerial OB if they see fit. 2 meters seems preposterous to me because tree shots are not in the overall score of a round rewarded anyways and because it is all too easy to throw low line drives with modern plastic. I want you to be encouraged to hit all the trees you want because you'll find hitting one is generally all the penalty needed to deter a repeat performance.

To take Mark's example -- say his son had stuck 2.1 meters up in that tree and his son's competition stuck at 1.8 meters. Explain to Mark's son how it is FAIR that he gets stroked and the other disc does not -- that the disc suspended 1.8 meters high in the tree gets to mark it on the playing surface and play on with no penalty. Let's hope a World's playoff isn't ever decided that way, especially not with a bunch of viewers new to the sport wondering what kind of freaky euro measurements we use anyways :D </font>

To take Mark's example -- say his son had stuck 2.1 meters up in that tree and his son's competition stuck at 1.8 meters. Explain to Mark's son how it is FAIR that he gets stroked and the other disc does not -- that the disc suspended 1.8 meters high in the tree gets to mark it on the playing surface and play on with no penalty.

yeah i have the same problem explaining to my wife why they use such a stupid shape for football's. talk about unlucky bounces built into the game. i just hope a super bowl is never decided by the bounce of the ball! sure woud be hard to explain.

look - AT SOME HEIGHT a shot that gets caught in a tree is the just result of a crappy shot. another shot that somehow finds its way to the ground is just **** lucky, thats all. we've determined that 2M is a convenient, easily determined measurement. no more arbitrary than a 10yd end zone, a 10M circle, 5M casual relief, 1M OB relief, 10' baskets, 100M soccer fields or any other measurement in the history of sports. as such it is by definition FAIR!

forget this stuff about rube goldberg deflection machines. IF such a thing is true, that discs are randomly deflected this way and that, then the disc BY YOUR OWN LAW, would end up sticking very close to where it hit or dropping to the ground close to directly below its impact point. because a series of random deflections necessarily leaves the disc about where it started. do the math. now add gravity, which in our universe at human-normal speeds and densities is a constant, and you get discs that drop a little bit as they are deflected around.

discs that hit trees and find their way to the ground are LUCKY DISCS! discs that stick get whats coming to them.

yeah i have the same problem explaining to my wife why they use such a stupid shape for football's.

<font color="blue"> that comparison is a smokescreen -- we're not talking about the shape of discs </font>


forget this stuff about rube goldberg deflection machines. IF such a thing is true, that discs are randomly deflected this way and that, then the disc BY YOUR OWN LAW, would end up sticking very close to where it hit or dropping to the ground close to directly below its impact point. because a series of random deflections necessarily leaves the disc about where it started. do the math.



<font color="blue"> LOL you are saying that on average they tend to end up below where they last struck the tree -- but that only holds true if you play a round where each time you hit a tree you are allowed to throw a nearly infinite series of throws at the same tree and then take the average resting point of these discs as your lie. In which case you are really advocating that any time you hit a tree you should get to mark your lie beneathe wherever the disc last struck the tree. That might encourage and reward hitting a tree -- removing the 2 meter penalty will not. Get back to me in 2007 on this. I'll bet you find any holes that suffer from the elimination of the 2 meter penalty will find a better remedy through using OB or moving the pin 10 to 20 feet away from its present location.
</font>

not surprisingly you missed the point. whether thats deliberate or genetic is anyones guess.

hello robj,

Can you please get back to the point.

Do you think there is a height that a disc is unplayable? Is a disc stuck 40 feet up in a tree a playable lie?

Please skip any talk of 1.99 meters versus 2.01 meters (which was an argument that originared from me manythousands of posts ago), or multi-deflectional organic brownian motion devices.

Is a disc 40 feet up in a palm tree a playable lie?

Please pretend like you were never spoon-fed the PDGA rules about marking your lie directly below your suspended disc. You are playing golf with discs, and there your disc is way up there. What's the call?

hello robj,

Can you please get back to the point.

Do you think there is a height that a disc is unplayable? Is a disc stuck 40 feet up in a tree a playable lie?

Please skip any talk of 1.99 meters versus 2.01 meters (which was an argument that originared from me manythousands of posts ago), or multi-deflectional organic brownian motion devices.

Is a disc 40 feet up in a palm tree a playable lie?

Please pretend like you were never spoon-fed the PDGA rules about marking your lie directly below your suspended disc. You are playing golf with discs, and there your disc is way up there. What's the call?



<font color="blue"> Rhett here's the call:
"wow, last time I tried to throw a tunnel shot to the left of that tree and I was deflected 45 feet into the woods and almost took a snowman on this hole. Today i try to throw over the tree's top and lo and behold I am stuck 40 feet up! [email protected]! That was my favorite disc, a broken in CE Valkyrie. Why did I make such a crappy shot? If I had followed Ron Russell's advice and used the most open part of the fairway I would have had a shot at a birdie and almost a guaranteed par. Now I have to place my mini below the suspended disc and proceed to play from this terrible obstructed lie! Now I am looking at a bogey if I play well. I'm going to need that favorite Valkyrie of mine for 6 of the remaining 11 holes, but I can't even try to retrieve it till the end of the round. If I am lucky and make a perfect recovery I can get a bogey! Oh well, that's golf -- if you make a bad shot like hitting a tree you have to live with the consequences. Note to self: remember to think twice before risking the hitting of a tree." </font>

why do you suppose the RC voted to eliminate [the 2 meter rule]? Isn't it because they legitimately feel it is what is best for the future of competitive disc golf?



Did you even listen to the PDGA radio bit from Carlton? There was no mention of the 'future of competitive disc golf' at all.



<font color="blue"> So you don't think PDGA Rules Committee members consider the impact of a rules change on the future of competitive disc golf before they vote to support a change? What do you think they are considering? How to create loopholes in the rules so that crappy players have a better shot at cashing? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>

why do you suppose the RC voted to eliminate [the 2 meter rule]? Isn't it because they legitimately feel it is what is best for the future of competitive disc golf?



Did you even listen to the PDGA radio bit from Carlton? There was no mention of the 'future of competitive disc golf' at all.



<font color="blue"> So you don't think PDGA Rules Committee members consider the impact of a rules change on the future of competitive disc golf before they vote to support a change? What do you think they are considering? How to create loopholes in the rules so that crappy players have a better shot at cashing? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>



A simple "no, I never listened to it" would have sufficed.

And the BOD creates the loopholes you mention, not the RC.

I listened to the piece (read the very first message in this thread) and I have also corresponded with the Rules Committee about this change.

Now answer the question -- what do you think the RC members have in mind when they vote on a rules change if not the future of competitive disc golf?

Again not an answer.

I listened to the piece (read the very first message in this thread) and I have also corresponded with the Rules Committee about this change.

Now answer the question -- what do you think the RC members have in mind when they vote on a rules change if not the future of competitive disc golf?


Are you asking us to be mind-readers, Rob?

And no one doubts the good intentions of the RC except you, when you pretend to read our minds.

Here's a clue: you aren't a mind-reader, either. (Or maybe you're an anti-mind-reader -- you always seem to get the opposite point of view that we're trying to convey.)

Now do you remember the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? The saying means good intentions don't always beget good results.

So that means even if we were all mind-readers, and we could determine that the RC was populated with the Dalai Lamas of our sport, that would still have nothing to do with absolutely anything that we're discussing here, which is the consequence of their recommendation.

So, to sum up, we are not discussing the good intentions behind the RC's recommendation, nor do we doubt the RC's intentions, but some of us are trying to figure out if the consequences make their recommendation worthwhile to implement.

And yes, to answer your next question, I'm sure the RC has worked through the consequences as they see them, but they haven't worked through the consequences from our individual perspectives, because I know they can't read our minds, either.

Fair enough?

Seems to me they had the future in mind and how to lower scores for anyone who suspends a disc above 2m. Lower scores for any disc at rest above 2m is a fact!

If my partner and I were playing and had no clue about any rules we would make the other play the disc from where it came to rest. It wouldn't matter if that was 40' above the ground, go climb the tree. I'd give him the option of throwing from there, take a drop directly below the suspended disc but it would cost him a stroke or knock the suspended disc from the tree and where ever it came to rest throw it from there; that would cost a stroke also. Knowing him I'd be climbing trees with no options :)

Mike Shaw

Clearly. And since we don't want you guys climbing trees we just make it a stroke penalty.

until 2006.

Clearly. And since we don't want you guys climbing trees we just make it a stroke penalty.



Bruce, as a courtesy would you mind pointing out where in our rulebook it says that there is a one stroke penalty for climbing trees?

You're not going to join the Rules Committee are you?

do you remember the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? The saying means good intentions don't always beget good results.



<font color="blue"> Right, which is what the RC determined regarding the results of the 2 meter rule -- hence, their decision to eliminate it. Note that Carlton Howard had for years been in favor of retaining the 2 meter penalty until he finally realized that the way the rule actually plays out is incongruent with the idea of how it 'should' work in theory. </font>

Could not the same be said of the lost disc rule? Are not a lot of lost discs lost due to flukey circumstances? So why does the RC want to make a lost disc effectively a two-stroke penalty?

Because if you can't find it, it must be much worse off than whare you are currently standing.

on the contrary, the ONLY thing you know if you cant find it is that its not where you have looked so far. we all know discs that are lost then found are often discovered in very surprising places.

That's why it must much worse off, You have presumably already searched all of the places that are easier to get to (and throw from).

That's why it must much worse off, You have presumably already searched all of the places that are easier to get to (and throw from).


Three of my lost discs I found later in the fairway, either slipped under a layer of leaves, or tilted up against something (once a log, and once a stump), so that all I had was an edge-on view to find it. I would have preferred throwing from those lies if I had found them within 3 minutes.

Of course, the discs I never found, I have no idea where they were. (But I'm amazed that somehow you know, or else how could you make any kind of statement about the condition of the lie for anyone's lost disc...)

do you remember the saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? The saying means good intentions don't always beget good results.



<font color="blue"> Right, which is what the RC determined regarding the results of the 2 meter rule -- hence, their decision to eliminate it. Note that Carlton Howard had for years been in favor of retaining the 2 meter penalty until he finally realized that the way the rule actually plays out is incongruent with the idea of how it 'should' work in theory. </font>


Thanks for quoting me, Rob, but what does your post have to do with mine?

Could not the same be said of the lost disc rule? Are not a lot of lost discs lost due to flukey circumstances? So why does the RC want to make a lost disc effectively a two-stroke penalty?



LOL. Sure it could be said, but I doubt you'd get a lot of people to agree with such a change. iow, the lost disc penalty is not nearly so controversial as the 2 meter penalty. Why don't you write (or speak) to the RC and get back to us with their answer.

it seems to me some of the major differences that exist are that --

you play a lost disc where it was last seen -- not on the playing surface below where it ended "up" (pun intended).

you have the potential to play the disc where it is and not take a penalty if you can locate the disc within 3 minutes.

Maybe you missed this part of my post
...and had no clue about any rules...

Mike

you play a lost disc where it was last seen -- not on the playing surface below where it ended "up" (pun intended).


Where a 2MR disc was last seen is where it ended up. No difference.

you have the potential to play the disc where it is and not take a penalty if you can locate the disc within 3 minutes.


Then it's not a lost disc. An equivalent analogy would be discs that fell out of trees also escape being subject to the 2MR.

Could not the same be said of the lost disc rule? Are not a lot of lost discs lost due to flukey circumstances? So why does the RC want to make a lost disc effectively a two-stroke penalty?



LOL. Sure it could be said, but I doubt you'd get a lot of people to agree with such a change. iow, the lost disc penalty is not nearly so controversial as the 2 meter penalty.


I thought the controversy with the 2MR was all about the "flukiness" of it.

But if you admit the same could be said of the lost disc rule, why doesn't a controversy exist for the lost disc rule, as well? How does the lost disc rule escape it?

The 2MR can't be stoned for the same sin that the lost disc rule is committing, can it?

yes i can because the RC says so and the RC doesnt make mistakes.

That's why it must much worse off, You have presumably already searched all of the places that are easier to get to (and throw from).


Three of my lost discs I found later in the fairway, either slipped under a layer of leaves, or tilted up against something (once a log, and once a stump), so that all I had was an edge-on view to find it. I would have preferred throwing from those lies if I had found them within 3 minutes.

Of course, the discs I never found, I have no idea where they were. (But I'm amazed that somehow you know, or else how could you make any kind of statement about the condition of the lie for anyone's lost disc...)



Um, not to be a smart alec, but what does it matter? Once the disc is declared lost, that's it, game over. It doesn't matter a lick what the lie of the lost disc "is like", IT'S LOST! Mark it where the group last saw it and play on.

And what does this have to do with marking your lie when your disc is above the playing surface?

The question you guys are dancing around is whether it is relief of some kind to "mark your lie" when the disc is at rest above the playing surface?

Maybe you missed this part of my post
...and had no clue about any rules...

Mike



What do you mean Mike?

I thought the controversy with the 2MR was all about the "flukiness" of it.

<font color="blue"> Flukiness in and of itself is not the issue. Aces are flukey. So are turbo putts or intentional skips off water. Here flukiness is an issue because the 2 meter rule by design seeks to punish shots hitting trees, but ends up only punishing less than 10 percent. It's occurence is unpredictable. A disc thrown into a tree on average sticks less than 10 percent of the time. So the rule isn't effective at deterring tree shots. What is effective at deterring tree shots is knowledge that they deflect discs and once in a great while even catch them. (If you really want to deter a tree shot make the tree OB.) Flukiness is an issue because you want a round or competition to be decided by skill and you want rules which encourage that to happen. While luck enters in and that's inevitable, you don't want rules which make luck more of a factor than is absolutely necessary. </font>

But if you admit the same could be said of the lost disc rule, why doesn't a controversy exist for the lost disc rule, as well? How does the lost disc rule escape it?

<font color="blue"> The lost disc rule is different because it is the inability of the thrower to locate their disc which creates a scenario where a lie has to be decided upon for the next shot. A penalty is assessed because relief is given. A disc suspended 2.1 meters up in a tree needn't be given relief and can be located (if it can't it is a lost disc and not a 2 meter rule infraction). Note a disc suspended 1.9 meters up is marked below where it ends 'up' and no penalty (or relief) is provided. </font>

The 2MR can't be stoned for the same sin that the lost disc rule is committing, can it?



<font color="blue"> Again, not that you've shown any inclination to think this through in a way that reveals the difference, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A lost disc is only declared lost and penalized after the thrower is given an opportunity to locate their disc and play on without relief. The best solution is to eliminate the 2 meter rule altogether and use OB for trees deemed obstacles which need added protections. That way there is a penalty stroke and the normal relief granted (up to 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line) for the resulting lie. It is simple if you just open your mind and let the 2 meter rule be put to sleep without nostalgic remorse. </font>

this weekend at loriella i disallowed the 2 meter rule for the entire course with the exception of 2 cedars near the baskets of hole 1 and 18. i thought this worked out very well. when there are only a couple of spots on the course where the rule is in effect, it really gets into your head to a greater degree as a player. only one person either day had any question about it and he simply was not listening in the player's meeting.

this weekend at loriella i disallowed the 2 meter rule for the entire course with the exception of 2 cedars near the baskets of hole 1 and 18. i thought this worked out very well. when there are only a couple of spots on the course where the rule is in effect, it really gets into your head to a greater degree as a player. only one person either day had any question about it and he simply was not listening in the player's meeting.



[sarcasm mode fully engaged]

The sky didn't fall? :D

Oops, sorry. That was meant for Bruce

I thought the controversy with the 2MR was all about the "flukiness" of it.

<font color="blue"> Flukiness in and of itself is not the issue. Aces are flukey. So are turbo putts or intentional skips off water. Here flukiness is an issue because the 2 meter rule by design seeks to punish shots hitting trees, but ends up only punishing less than 10 percent. It's occurence is unpredictable. A disc thrown into a tree on average sticks less than 10 percent of the time. So the rule isn't effective at deterring tree shots. What is effective at deterring tree shots is knowledge that they deflect discs and once in a great while even catch them. (If you really want to deter a tree shot make the tree OB.) Flukiness is an issue because you want a round or competition to be decided by skill and you want rules which encourage that to happen. While luck enters in and that's inevitable, you don't want rules which make luck more of a factor than is absolutely necessary. </font>

But if you admit the same could be said of the lost disc rule, why doesn't a controversy exist for the lost disc rule, as well? How does the lost disc rule escape it?

<font color="blue"> The lost disc rule is different because it is the inability of the thrower to locate their disc which creates a scenario where a lie has to be decided upon for the next shot. A penalty is assessed because relief is given. A disc suspended 2.1 meters up in a tree needn't be given relief and can be located (if it can't it is a lost disc and not a 2 meter rule infraction). Note a disc suspended 1.9 meters up is marked below where it ends 'up' and no penalty (or relief) is provided. </font>

The 2MR can't be stoned for the same sin that the lost disc rule is committing, can it?



<font color="blue"> Again, not that you've shown any inclination to think this through in a way that reveals the difference, but you are comparing apples and oranges. A lost disc is only declared lost and penalized after the thrower is given an opportunity to locate their disc and play on without relief. The best solution is to eliminate the 2 meter rule altogether and use OB for trees deemed obstacles which need added protections. That way there is a penalty stroke and the normal relief granted (up to 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line) for the resulting lie. It is simple if you just open your mind and let the 2 meter rule be put to sleep without nostalgic remorse. </font>


Having an open mind doesn't mean swallowing nonsense.

And I think the 2MR could be modified to provide some amount of horizontal relief to compensate for the penalty. I think a sensible argument has been made for that modification.

But you just want the rule gone, and nothing you wrote above made any sense towards explaining why.

this weekend at loriella i disallowed the 2 meter rule for the entire course with the exception of 2 cedars near the baskets of hole 1 and 18. i thought this worked out very well. when there are only a couple of spots on the course where the rule is in effect, it really gets into your head to a greater degree as a player. only one person either day had any question about it and he simply was not listening in the player's meeting.


Interesting! Sounds like you had a psychology experiment running there.

Do you think that by making the 2MR effective on just those 2 cedars, that you essentially gave advice on how to throw those 2 holes? (Sort of a "psst, avoid those trees" rule.) Can you tell from statistics whether or not holes 1 and 18 became easier?

Or did holes 1 and 18 become harder because by pointing those trees out, you made it more difficult for players to ignore the trees, and as a result they were more inclined to hit them?

this weekend at loriella i disallowed the 2 meter rule for the entire course with the exception of 2 cedars near the baskets of hole 1 and 18. i thought this worked out very well. when there are only a couple of spots on the course where the rule is in effect, it really gets into your head to a greater degree as a player. only one person either day had any question about it and he simply was not listening in the player's meeting.



Very interesting. I wonder how players would react if those 2 trees were made OB, whether just the trees surface or underneath as well? I suspect this would get in folks heads even more so when they approach those holes than the 2MR did.

Notice how when a major tournament director shares an actual story of how the waiving of the 2MR actually plays out in tournaments Rhett, Pat and Paul are nowhere to be found.

Interesting to say the least.

So tell us Nick - how did it play out? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn? Are you even familiar with the holes? Hole 1 has a cedar tree pretty much behind the basket - and is the point tree in a tree line filed with ugliness (bushes, stickers, etc) Play on that hole is to avoid going as deep as that tree anyway - so I don't see how voiding the 2MR for that hole could get into anyone's head. Hole 18 has another large cedar short and left of the basket - with the pin placed slightly downhill from the base of the tree. The tree is generally not in the line of play - unless you hyzer out early or are just clearly short of your target. Loriella in general just does not have many opportunities to get stuck above 2M - so waiving the rule has little affect on that course.

The Faux Leap was a different matter - I personally had 2 penalty strokes in the first round - and when I asked for a show of hands at the end of the day - there were at least 6 or 8 people who acknowledged being penalized.

So tell us Nick - how did it play out?


Read John�s post.

Are there any conclusions that can be drawn?


You tell me. I think it is pretty clear.

Are you even familiar with the holes?


No, but I�ll trust John�s account of it.

Hole 1 has a cedar tree pretty much behind the basket - and is the point tree in a tree line filed with ugliness (bushes, stickers, etc) Play on that hole is to avoid going as deep as that tree anyway - so I don't see how voiding the 2MR for that hole could get into anyone's head. Hole 18 has another large cedar short and left of the basket - with the pin placed slightly downhill from the base of the tree. The tree is generally not in the line of play - unless you hyzer out early or are just clearly short of your target. Loriella in general just does not have many opportunities to get stuck above 2M - so waiving the rule has little affect on that course.


I appreciate you admitting that there �ARE� situations where the 2MR are meaningless.

The Faux Leap was a different matter - I personally had 2 penalty strokes in the first round - and when I asked for a show of hands at the end of the day - there were at least 6 or 8 people who acknowledged being penalized.



So tell us Craig - how did it play out? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn?

Would those strokes have changed the outcome of the competitions? Were the strokes appropriate and warranted (unlike the situations at Loriella)?

Sorry I forgot you in the list of 2MR Goggled Ones...

Sorry I forgot you in the list of 2MR Goggled Ones...



:) :D :D

What i find especially silly is the argument that bad shots 40 feet too high will be rewarded without the 2 meter rule :D

Do these same proponents (zealots) of the 2 meter rule think a shot that hits a tree above 2 meters and then deflects near or even in the basket should be penalized too? Do they also think someone with a game that leads to shots hitting an obstacle 40 feet away from the basket is going to be suddenly catapulted into NT level play once the 2 meter rule is eliminated? It's absolutely mindboggling that they use the example of a disc sticking 40 feet above the pin! Make that tree OB or move the stinkin' pin! Or even more scientificly -- follow the player who hits 40 feet too high for a whole round and report back on how close he came to the course record :D

Sorry I forgot you in the list of 2MR Goggled Ones...



:) :D :D

What i find especially silly is the argument that bad shots 40 feet too high will be rewarded without the 2 meter rule :D

Do these same proponents (zealots) of the 2 meter rule think a shot that hits a tree above 2 meters and then deflects near or even in the basket should be penalized too? Do they also think someone with a game that leads to shots hitting an obstacle 40 feet away from the basket is going to be suddenly catapulted into NT level play once the 2 meter rule is eliminated? It's absolutely mindboggling that they use the example of a disc sticking 40 feet above the pin! Make that tree OB or move the stinkin' pin! Or even more scientificly -- follow the player who hits 40 feet too high for a whole round and report back on how close he came to the course record :D


With that reasoning, someone who goes 40 feet OB is playing so badly anyway, we shouldn't penalize him at all -- his bad playing is enough penalty in and of itself!

I have seen many discs stick directly above the basket, so yes I think that they would be rewarded with out the 2 meter rule. Where are you coming up with this 40'junk, I believe that it is 6'9". I think that it is pathetic how many TDs are using this rule/nonrule in their tournaments we need to leave well enough alone! If your disk sticks in the tree above 6'9", than it was a bad shot and deserves to be reflected that way on the score card.

the 40' thing was just to make the point that a horrendous shot can be treated the same as a good shot. not saying the line is at 40'. its at 2M (which is a lot closer to 6'6" than 6'9", btw)

the 40' thing was just to make the point that a horrendous shot can be treated the same as a good shot. not saying the line is at 40'. its at 2M (which is a lot closer to 6'6" than 6'9", btw)



What about the shot that hits 40 feet high and falls in the chains? After eighteen holes, anyone who throws 40 feet above where they're aiming will have a score at the end of the day that reflects just how competitive they really are.

If you are going to use this ludicrous example of a disc sticking 40 feet above the basket, you also need to cite the equally flukey ocuurrence of a disc skipping off the basket into a tree and sticking at a height above 2 meters. Those two rare occurences cancel each other out.

Note also that any hole with a design dependent upon a 2 meter rule can easily declare that tree OB with the coming elimination of the 2 meter rule as a default scenario. They can even use Nick's aerial OB and declare any disc sticking above the playing surface in said tree is OB. Why reward the bad shot hitting 40 feet high that trickles down and gets stuck at a height of 1 meter?

What about the shot that hits 40 feet high and falls in the chains?

what about it... it got lucky.


After eighteen holes, anyone who throws 40 feet above where they're aiming will have a score at the end of the day that reflects just how competitive they really are.

what about the ones who take shots into the trees knowing that they dont need to be accurate in order to get a drop close to where they wanna be?


If you are going to use this ludicrous example of a disc sticking 40 feet above the basket, you also need to cite the equally flukey ocuurrence of a disc skipping off the basket into a tree and sticking at a height above 2 meters. Those two rare occurences cancel each other out.

hardly. far more common to stick in a tree than to skip off a tree and go in the bucket. the two have nothing to do with one another. are you postulating that if i have one happen to me then the other is sure to happen?


Note also that any hole with a design dependent upon a 2 meter rule can easily declare that tree OB with the coming elimination of the 2 meter rule as a default scenario.

have you ever actually been on a disc golf course???


They can even use Nick's aerial OB and declare any disc sticking above the playing surface in said tree is OB.

even the ones sticking 6 inches above the surface? now that will look soooooo intelligent on espn.


Why reward the bad shot hitting 40 feet high that trickles down and gets stuck at a height of 1 meter?

the 2MR does not reward such a shot. in fact the 2MR is both moot and mute regarding that shot.

your irrational attachment to the 2 meter rule is deeper than i intiially suspected :eek: :p :D

With that reasoning, someone who goes 40 feet OB is playing so badly anyway, we shouldn't penalize him at all -- his bad playing is enough penalty in and of itself!



Au contraire, someone going 40 feet OB gets 1 meter relief from the OB line (in effect they get 41 feet relief) -- hence the added penalty stroke. Someone in a tree gets no relief -- they have to play below where there disc rests -- just as if they were suspended 1.9 meters high. That's why you need to consider the superiority of eliminating the 2 meter rule and letting OB come into play as deemed necessary by course designers and TD's. OB is always declared at the start of the round -- there's nothing set-in-stone about what parts of a course will be declared OB.

With that reasoning, someone who goes 40 feet OB is playing so badly anyway, we shouldn't penalize him at all -- his bad playing is enough penalty in and of itself!



Au contraire, someone going 40 feet OB gets 1 meter relief from the OB line (in effect they get 41 feet relief) -- hence the added penalty stroke. Someone in a tree gets no relief -- they have to play below where there disc rests -- just as if they were suspended 1.9 meters high. That's why you need to consider the superiority of eliminating the 2 meter rule and letting OB come into play as deemed necessary by course designers and TD's. OB is always declared at the start of the round -- there's nothing set-in-stone about what parts of a course will be declared OB.


I think everyone has already said that providing relief from the tree would be an improvement to the 2MR. If that were done, why would we have to eliminate the 2MR?

With that reasoning, someone who goes 40 feet OB is playing so badly anyway, we shouldn't penalize him at all -- his bad playing is enough penalty in and of itself!



Au contraire, someone going 40 feet OB gets 1 meter relief from the OB line (in effect they get 41 feet relief) -- hence the added penalty stroke. Someone in a tree gets no relief -- they have to play below where there disc rests -- just as if they were suspended 1.9 meters high. That's why you need to consider the superiority of eliminating the 2 meter rule and letting OB come into play as deemed necessary by course designers and TD's. OB is always declared at the start of the round -- there's nothing set-in-stone about what parts of a course will be declared OB.


I think everyone has already said that providing relief from the tree would be an improvement to the 2MR. If that were done, why would we have to eliminate the 2MR?




�consider the superiority of eliminating the 2 meter rule and letting OB come into play as deemed necessary by course designers and TD's. OB is always declared at the start of the round -- there's nothing set-in-stone about what parts of a course will be declared OB.

your irrational attachment to the 2 meter rule is deeper than i intiially suspected :eek: :p :D


Attachment to the 2MR? I think Sandalman wants to modify the 2MR to provide relief, too. In fact, wasn't he the one who initially proposed that change?

What's irrational is not reading what he's saying in his posts, what all of us are saying in our posts, and just assuming the "worst", whatever you conceive the worst to be.

If the PDGA simply modifies the 2MR to provide some measure of relief from the tree, then that rule change would apparently address all of your concerns, without taking an action that would raise any of our concerns. Why it doesn't satisfy your concerns hasn't been satisfactorily explained by anyone yet.

Attachment to the 2MR? I think Sandalman wants to modify the 2MR to provide relief, too. In fact, wasn't he the one who initially proposed that change?



Nope, that was me that recommended changing the rule to allowing 5m relief a la the unplayable lie rule.

But sandalman was wise enough to agree with it. :D :D

yeah i dont think i am capable of having an original thought... as witnessed by my blind subserviance to the 2MR! :D

lets just provide relief... not provide relief "a la the unplayable lie rule". otherwise nick and his follower will get all confused.

So if the PDGA simply modifies the 2MR to provide some measure of relief from the tree, then that rule change would apparently address all of your concerns, without taking an action that would raise any of our concerns. Why it doesn't satisfy your concerns hasn't been satisfactorily explained by anyone yet.

Our concerns:
Pat Brenner:
1) That there is a difference between a disc at rest above 2M and on at rest below 2M particularly around the pin.
Show me other than the 2MR where that is a part of our rules?
Paul Young:
1) That there will be an significant enough occurrence of his hypothetical �lost disc� conflict of interest scenarios with discs above 2M.
Which he decided to put me on ignore rather than provide a stone cold single example of how such an occurrence would come about. (And now is simply in full reactionary retreat mode against any argument (nitpicking with no stated position other than providing a little relief for the 2MR will satisfy) Rob, Paul, James and my (not to mention the PDGA Rules Committee�s and PDGA Board of Director�s) reasons for putting aerial hazards under the direct control of Course Designers and Tournament Directors.

To say that adding a little relief from your �actual� lie (according to our rules) because your disc more than 2M above the playing surface has absolutely nothing to do with our concerns.

You make it sound like improving a terrible and superfluous rule is some kind of preferable solution is like saying, well the rule is unfair, over punitive, and the only one of its kind but at least it is a little more palatable now.

Not to me it�s not. Relief doesn�t answer any of my main concerns with it.

I find it informative that none of you guys have approached directly the solution of replacing it with Out of Bounds. You flirt around the parameter, saying vague things about how it would be impossible to judge where it was last in bounds (which isn�t even necessary under even current rules), but don�t allow yourselves to stray to close to the fire. Wonder why that is?

Might have something to do with the fact that any TD with any of the concerns you say you have would certainly avail themselves of the options offered by our Out of Bounds rules?

I think treating it as a species of Unplayable Lie would work better than Out of Bounds. The relief granted for an unplayable lie eliminates the pine tree double penalty and treating it as a type of unplayable lie is consistant with the purpose of the rule.

But my opinion is as irrelevant as anyone else's at this point. Either the BoD will let the members vote on these important rule changes or they won't. If they don't, we'll all play by the rules in the book, I'm sure.

Attachment to the 2MR? I think Sandalman wants to modify the 2MR to provide relief, too. In fact, wasn't he the one who initially proposed that change?



Nope, that was me that recommended changing the rule to allowing 5m relief a la the unplayable lie rule.

But sandalman was wise enough to agree with it. :D :D


Good idea, Dan-- I wondered who came up with that. I think it was something that sandalman wrote that me agree with it, too.

I think treating it as a species of Unplayable Lie would work better than Out of Bounds. The relief granted for an unplayable lie eliminates the pine tree double penalty and treating it as a type of unplayable lie is consistant with the purpose of the rule.

But my opinion is as irrelevant as anyone else's at this point. Either the BoD will let the members vote on these important rule changes or they won't. If they don't, we'll all play by the rules in the book, I'm sure.


Nick's on his OB crusade again? And you're talking about modifying the unsafe lie rule, while I've described in the past what I think may be the missing 2MR's impact on the lost disc rule.

Again, if we feel one of those 3 rules needs to be modified to compensate for the 2MR's absence, then it must be that the 2MR closes a gap left open by those 3 rules. At least it seems so to me.

I think treating it as a species of Unplayable Lie would work better than Out of Bounds. The relief granted for an unplayable lie eliminates the pine tree double penalty and treating it as a type of unplayable lie is consistant with the purpose of the rule.

But my opinion is as irrelevant as anyone else's at this point. Either the BoD will let the members vote on these important rule changes or they won't. If they don't, we'll all play by the rules in the book, I'm sure.


Nick's on his OB crusade again? And you're talking about modifying the unsafe lie rule, while I've described in the past what I think may be the missing 2MR's impact on the lost disc rule.

Again, if we feel one of those 3 rules needs to be modified to compensate for the 2MR's absence, then it must be that the 2MR closes a gap left open by those 3 rules. At least it seems so to me.



The Out of Bounds Rule needs no modification, similar to your hazy reasoning behind (and yet to be clarified) thought on some lost disc challenge. The only thing missing when the 2MR is gone will be the penalty throw for marking your lie on the playing surface beneath a disc more than 2 meters from the playing surface. That's it.

Well, besides these endless circular arguments too I suppose...

Nick's on his OB crusade again? And you're talking about modifying the unsafe lie rule, while I've described in the past what I think may be the missing 2MR's impact on the lost disc rule.

Again, if we feel one of those 3 rules needs to be modified to compensate for the 2MR's absence, then it must be that the 2MR closes a gap left open by those 3 rules. At least it seems so to me.



<font color="blue"> Have you stopped and looked at this from any other perspective? maybe, just maybe, Nick is trying to point out that the rules should be as clear and concise and intuitive as possible, and that the 2 meter rule is therefore not only redundant -- it's an awkward part of the rulesbook. The advantages of OB over the 2 meter rule are several:

1. By definition TD's define OB. Therefore for the tree near the pin scenario 2 meter proponents are bent on citing -- the TD has plenty of options to make that tree an extra problem for any tree crashing gamblers. If the TD notes that a natural general consequence of hitting that tree is a failure to hole out at or under par -- no need to craft any artificial penalty.

2. The double penalty problem presented by trees not even close to the pin and by trees that are already surrounded by other trees (your in the woods) likewise can be averted by TD declaration of OB or not OB

3. The awkward measure of 2 meters goes out the window unless that is the height a TD decides upon for aerial OB for nany given tree, course, or hole. Therefore no more evocation of a rule that punishes less than one out of ten similar throws into a tree -- unless the TD likes that kind of math. Instead the TD can make the whole area under the tree OB as s/he sees fit. Note that making the whole tree OB solves the "let's protect the tree(s)" argument)

4. The "should we grant or not grant relief -- after all we are assessing a penalty stroke?" question is answered succinctly by the OB rule -- you get up to 1 meter perpendicular to the OB line. Here whether aerial OB is designated or the whole area below the tree's outer perimeter is declared OB it would make sense to give the thrower 1 meter relief from the trees outer perimeter since they've just been stroked.

5. No more arguments about the weird 2 meter rule -- it is part of the OB section where it has always belonged.

6. The 2 meter rule zealots and the anti-2 meter rule zealots will have more time to practice as opposed to posting on this DISCussion board (all bets are off) :D</font>

"Zealot" is too good a word for either side here. "Bonehead" I suspect is more appropriate. :o

And yes, I am being self-deprecating.

not to mince words -- well okay, yes: to mince words -- how about "extremists" instead?

Well help me with this.
Let's say that all trees are declared OB. Using the outermost edge of the trees limbs, from the ground straight up as the OB line. Even anything that slides under one will be OB.
A disc lands 25' into the woods suspended 15' above the ground. The disc is clearly identified by the players name and number by all others in the group.
The thrower states that the tree he is in overlaps another tree closer to the fairway; which overlaps another, which blends into another... so he thinks the mark for his drop will be at the edge of the fairway. Another player thinks the disc flew over some trees, then over a gap in the trees and then sticks into the tree. Another player thinks the disc came to rest farther behind the original flight path; thinks the disc bounced off something to get to it's current position. The last player wished he could throw that far and isn't sure of the route because he was cleaning his glasses at the time of the throw. All 4 players are looking directly at the disc, they know exactly where a spot directly below said disc is. But here is my question.
Where does "perpendicular to the OB line start" when trying to mark this disc?

Thanks in advance,
Mike

I found this thread by accident and find it hard to believe some folks are still debating the 2MR.

If it's in the tree two or more meters up, it's a stroke! :( Deal with it! Next time, stay outta the trees! :eek:

(it WAS nice to see Nick is still being Nick) :D:D:D

(it WAS nice to see Nick is still being Nick) :D:D:D

did you come across the gemetry week?

Well help me with this.
Let's say that all trees are declared OB. Using the outermost edge of the trees limbs, from the ground straight up as the OB line. Even anything that slides under one will be OB.


If the TD declares �the trees to be OB�. This indicates that the surface of all trees is to be considered, by rule, to be Out of Bounds. Any disc completely supported by the surface of a tree is Out of Bounds. Now, how do you mark your next lie. Well, by rule you have 3 options (if the TD doesn�t limit them, which I certainly would to avoid any confusion; I�d make it throw and distance( think that wouldn�t significantly get into peoples heads about avoiding going near trees?)), A) Play from the point on the playing surface the last place the disc was in bounds (that would be the outermost point of the tree the disc is at rest in as judged by the group, official or td), B) Throw and distance or C) Drop Zone. Under the tree is NOT Out of Bounds, the disc has to be completely supported by the OB tree surface to be considered Out of Bounds.

The other possibility is that the TD declares any disc at rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface as Out of Bounds. In this case, if the disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface then it is Out of Bounds and the same procedures for the next short are utilized as above. The area beneath 2 meters is not Out of Bounds.

The last main possibility, and this if the TD or Designer REALLY wants to protect a tree or course object, the TD ropes off the area of the playing surface beneath the tree and declares it as Out of Bounds. Procedures for the next shot are also the same as above.

All three of these could be used on a single course or only one, or none; it would be up to the TD or Course Designer to decide. This is no different or less consistent than any other use of Out of Bounds.


A disc lands 25' into the woods suspended 15' above the ground. The disc is clearly identified by the players name and number by all others in the group.
The thrower states that the tree he is in overlaps another tree closer to the fairway; which overlaps another, which blends into another... so he thinks the mark for his drop will be at the edge of the fairway. Another player thinks the disc flew over some trees, then over a gap in the trees and then sticks into the tree. Another player thinks the disc came to rest farther behind the original flight path; thinks the disc bounced off something to get to it's current position. The last player wished he could throw that far and isn't sure of the route because he was cleaning his glasses at the time of the throw. All 4 players are looking directly at the disc, they know exactly where a spot directly below said disc is. But here is my question.
Where does "perpendicular to the OB line start" when trying to mark this disc?


In situations where such a situation was likely to happen with great frequency, as a TD who thought certain or all trees needed to be OB, I would restrict options to stroke and distance or drop zone. But if I didn�t restrict the options, yes, the group would have to, to the best of their abilities, determine the point on the playing surface where the disc was last in bounds. This is no different than a disc going out of sight and into other OB areas; the group just has to do their best with it if the TD has not restricted the options. (Note: I�ve been playing more and more ball golf lately, and I have noticed that drop zones are used when stroke and distance would be overly punitive, i.e. you are on your second shot on a par 4 and go into a mid fairway shule, the course pro usually puts a drop zone on the edge of that shule. That is a good practice IMO. Better than sending them back to the same spot with a stroke just to potentially hit it in there again.)

OB is an excellent rule. Very adaptable and ready to meet the needs of the PDGA, TDs, Designers and Competitors.

Hope that helped.

Nick

Well help me with this.
Let's say that all trees are declared OB. Using the outermost edge of the trees limbs, from the ground straight up as the OB line. Even anything that slides under one will be OB.
A disc lands 25' into the woods suspended 15' above the ground. The disc is clearly identified by the players name and number by all others in the group.
The thrower states that the tree he is in overlaps another tree closer to the fairway; which overlaps another, which blends into another... so he thinks the mark for his drop will be at the edge of the fairway. Another player thinks the disc flew over some trees, then over a gap in the trees and then sticks into the tree. Another player thinks the disc came to rest farther behind the original flight path; thinks the disc bounced off something to get to it's current position. The last player wished he could throw that far and isn't sure of the route because he was cleaning his glasses at the time of the throw. All 4 players are looking directly at the disc, they know exactly where a spot directly below said disc is. But here is my question.
Where does "perpendicular to the OB line start" when trying to mark this disc?

Thanks in advance,
Mike



<font color="blue"> TD's declare OB based on what they ascertain will make for the best competition. Your scenario would probably therefore never occur. Let's not get way out of bounds to try and resuscitate the mortally wounded 2 meter rule. A TD only declares as OB those things which accomodate competitive and practical play.

to sum up: If you are 25 feet in the woods, you incur natural penalty enough.

A designation of a particular height for aerial OB; or a tree perimeter being declared OB -- would only be in those instances where a hole's design formerly leaned on the 2 meter rule like a crutch to ensure the hole presents a competitive challenge.

If it's in the tree two or more meters up, it's a stroke!



Rick, actually it is a "throw".

It's nice to see Rick is still being Rick! (Wrong) :o:D;)

I think everyone has already said that providing relief from the tree would be an improvement to the 2MR. If that were done, why would we have to eliminate the 2MR?



<font color="blue"> Because although providing relief is an improvement to the existing 2 meter rule, eliminating the 2 meter rule altogether is the better move. Especially when you consider that OB can address those holes which due to their design had to heretofore lean on the 2 meter rule in order to present any challenge. The 2 meter rule only works on average less than ten percent of the time (throw 100 similar throws into an average tree from 100 feet away and see how many stick and how many fall), and when it does 'work' it often leads to what is in effect a double penalty. Note also that you will find very big holes in the "trees are good backstops" theory if you actually go out and see what happens when you attempt to make use of them in that way. You'll find trees are multi-directional deflectors*
<font color="black">
(*note for sandalman: even though the sum total of infinite shots distributed randomly is zero, the individual deflection distance for any single disc is much larger than zero and completely variable as to which direction the disc gets deflected -- iow, it's a crap shoot) </font>

and that It takes just as much skill (if not more) to use a tree shot favorably as it does to miss the tree altogether. If trees were uniformly shaped obstacles the so-called backstop argument would have more weight, but then even with a 2 meter rule one can easily use this alleged loophole by throwing low line drives at 1.9 meters or lower to use the tree as a 'backstop.' If you do the math -- instead of advocating for the retention of the 2 meter rule -- you'll do all you can to encourage your opponent to hit trees on every hole, since the odds will favor you if they do. </font>

I think everyone has already said that providing relief from the tree would be an improvement to the 2MR. If that were done, why would we have to eliminate the 2MR?



<font color="blue"> Because although providing relief is an improvement to the existing 2 meter rule, eliminating the 2 meter rule altogether is the better move. Especially when you consider that OB can address those holes which due to their design had to heretofore lean on the 2 meter rule in order to present any challenge. The 2 meter rule only works on average less than ten percent of the time (throw 100 similar throws into an average tree from 100 feet away and see how many stick and how many fall), and when it does 'work' it often leads to what is in effect a double penalty. Note also that you will find very big holes in the "trees are good backstops" theory if you actually go out and see what happens when you attempt to make use of them in that way. You'll find trees are multi-directional deflectors*
<font color="black">
(*note for sandalman: even though the sum total of infinite shots distributed randomly is zero, the individual deflection distance for any single disc is much larger than zero and completely variable as to which direction the disc gets deflected -- iow, it's a crap shoot) </font>

and that It takes just as much skill (if not more) to use a tree shot favorably as it does to miss the tree altogether. If trees were uniformly shaped obstacles the so-called backstop argument would have more weight, but then even with a 2 meter rule one can easily use this alleged loophole by throwing low line drives at 1.9 meters or lower to use the tree as a 'backstop.' If you do the math -- instead of advocating for the retention of the 2 meter rule -- you'll do all you can to encourage your opponent to hit trees on every hole, since the odds will favor you if they do. </font>


I think OB substituting for the 2MR will present problems unless the OB rule is also changed. Right now, having 3 ways to mark a lie presents problems substituting OB for the 2MR. One of those 3 ways will be difficult to estimate (determining last IB position), and another of the 3 ways will require too much work, I think (establishing drop zones). The third way, going back to the previous lie to throw, seems overly punitive for a 2MR violation.

I've heard mention that last IB position might be removed from the OB rule -- is that true? And throw-and-distance might be added? Also true? Or are those OB modifications just being talked about, not really on tap for the new rulebook in 2006?

Edited to add: just want to clarify here, Rob -- I'm not saying the above to argue keeping the 2MR. I'm saying removing the 2MR is not enough, if you want to replace its function with the OB rule. You have to change the OB rule. I think you also have to clarify the lost disc rule (as I've said before). I have yet to hear how the OB rule will be changed, if at all, when the 2MR is removed, or if the lost disc rule will be clarified. So maybe I'll take this tack, rather than the keep-the-2MR approach: if removing the 2MR from the rulebook is inevitable, I'd like to see complementary changes in the lost-disc and OB rules. Do you know if those changes are already planned, and if those changes are connected with the removal of the 2MR?

Hi Paul (in case Rob kindly quotes my entire reply so you can see it. And I am not going to mock your ignoring me, I have used the feature myself a time or two�),

First of all, I�d like to invite Rob and everyone else here to join me in trying to behave civil to one another here, regardless of which side of the issue you may find yourself. Yes, this is really Nick Kight asking this�


I think OB substituting for the 2MR will present problems unless the OB rule is also changed. Right now, having 3 ways to mark a lie presents problems substituting OB for the 2MR. One of those 3 ways will be difficult to estimate (determining last IB position), and another of the 3 ways will require too much work, I think (establishing drop zones). The third way, going back to the previous lie to throw, seems overly punitive for a 2MR violation.


Paul, (if this should happen to make it in front of you), I�d ask that you consider what you just said there. If it is true, that the difficulties involved in following the relief options within our Out of Bounds rules are great, then this is true for all Out of Bounds rulings, and not just ones having to do with replacing the 2MR. I agree that last place in bounds is too loose an option and has potential for favoritism and abuse. The others are what they are, and in my experience OB is rare enough that �throw and previous lie� and the occasional �drop zone� when needed, are not going to cause the disruption to play you hint at. Besides, don�t you think that if a player knows from the tee pad that the tree he/she was planning to use as a backstop is completely OB (not just above 2M), and that they will have to not only take an OB penalty throw but throw their tee shot again, that they will be far far less likely to use that strategy, but avoid that tree at all costs? Won�t that be better for the tree? Won�t it add to the challenge the tree presents?


I've heard mention that last IB position might be removed from the OB rule -- is that true? And throw-and-distance might be added? Also true? Or are those OB modifications just being talked about, not really on tap for the new rulebook in 2006?


Throw and distance is already in our rulebook, I misspoke before when I said that the last place in bounds option would be removed in 2006. Unless further changes than I am aware of occur it will still be one of the 3 tournament director options available in 2006 for Out of Bounds. (The 2MR will also be an option for TDs wishing to use it, again, unless further changes occur. Note, I am not on the PDGA Rules Committee and do not have a say in their decisions in any way. I am a Disc Golf Rules Zealot though and very proud of it.)


Edited to add: just want to clarify here, Rob -- I'm not saying the above to argue keeping the 2MR. I'm saying removing the 2MR is not enough, if you want to replace its function with the OB rule. You have to change the OB rule.


Specifically how so Paul? A Tournament Director has, and will have, the authority to restrict the options for aerial OB to throw and distance or drop zone. (They will also have the option of selectively using the 2MR in 2006.)

I think you also have to clarify the lost disc rule (as I've said before).


I can�t speak for Rob, but I am still waiting for you to flesh that perceived challenge out for us. I have tried to recreate it at least 3 times and see no new added challenge. I mean, I need for you to show me a single instance of when a lost disc is known to be above 2M, and/or when a disc above 2M is known to be lost. That is something I think will be nearly impossible to demonstrate, and even if possible will be such a rarity that it may not arise in the lifetime of a disc golfer.

I have yet to hear how the OB rule will be changed, if at all, when the 2MR is removed, or if the lost disc rule will be clarified.


First of all, the 2MR is not being removed in 2006, secondly, if it were how exactly do you think the OB and Lost Disc rules will need to be changed?


So maybe I'll take this tack, rather than the keep-the-2MR approach: if removing the 2MR from the rulebook is inevitable, I'd like to see complementary changes in the lost-disc and OB rules. Do you know if those changes are already planned, and if those changes are connected with the removal of the 2MR?


I don�t know if the removal of the 2MR is inevitable. As you know, I hope that it is; but it is not planned for 2006. It will be an option Tournament Directors can use if they want, similar I suppose to OB areas and such. In the very elegant and well thought out update version I saw, the Two Meter Rule gets it�s own definition within the �DEFINITIONS� section that will replace the glossary and be at the beginning of the rulebook rather than the end (which makes sense, since you need to know the terminology to understand the rest of the rules). Again, though, what changes specifically do you think need to be made to the OB an Lost Disc rules to function without the 2MR in effect? I am interested to hear them.

PS: I played in an organized event today at Sedgley Woods and the TD waived the 2MR. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending) no one that I know of took a 2 meter penalty. It didn�t even enter my thinking for a single hole, and as the name indicates there are a LOT of trees on this course. I can report that the few places OB was used received a fair amount of mental attention and discussion on strategy. Doesn�t prove anything I suppose, but I�ll keep on watching to see if there are any major or minor issues one way or the other.

Regards,
Nick Kight

Hi Paul (in case Rob kindly quotes my entire reply so you can see it. And I am not going to mock your ignoring me, I have used the feature myself a time or two�),

First of all, I�d like to invite Rob and everyone else here to join me in trying to behave civil to one another here, regardless of which side of the issue you may find yourself. Yes, this is really Nick Kight asking this�


I think OB substituting for the 2MR will present problems unless the OB rule is also changed. Right now, having 3 ways to mark a lie presents problems substituting OB for the 2MR. One of those 3 ways will be difficult to estimate (determining last IB position), and another of the 3 ways will require too much work, I think (establishing drop zones). The third way, going back to the previous lie to throw, seems overly punitive for a 2MR violation.


Paul, (if this should happen to make it in front of you), I�d ask that you consider what you just said there. If it is true, that the difficulties involved in following the relief options within our Out of Bounds rules are great, then this is true for all Out of Bounds rulings, and not just ones having to do with replacing the 2MR. I agree that last place in bounds is too loose an option and has potential for favoritism and abuse. The others are what they are, and in my experience OB is rare enough that �throw and previous lie� and the occasional �drop zone� when needed, are not going to cause the disruption to play you hint at. Besides, don�t you think that if a player knows from the tee pad that the tree he/she was planning to use as a backstop is completely OB (not just above 2M), and that they will have to not only take an OB penalty throw but throw their tee shot again, that they will be far far less likely to use that strategy, but avoid that tree at all costs? Won�t that be better for the tree? Won�t it add to the challenge the tree presents?


I've heard mention that last IB position might be removed from the OB rule -- is that true? And throw-and-distance might be added? Also true? Or are those OB modifications just being talked about, not really on tap for the new rulebook in 2006?


Throw and distance is already in our rulebook, I misspoke before when I said that the last place in bounds option would be removed in 2006. Unless further changes than I am aware of occur it will still be one of the 3 tournament director options available in 2006 for Out of Bounds. (The 2MR will also be an option for TDs wishing to use it, again, unless further changes occur. Note, I am not on the PDGA Rules Committee and do not have a say in their decisions in any way. I am a Disc Golf Rules Zealot though and very proud of it.)


Edited to add: just want to clarify here, Rob -- I'm not saying the above to argue keeping the 2MR. I'm saying removing the 2MR is not enough, if you want to replace its function with the OB rule. You have to change the OB rule.


Specifically how so Paul? A Tournament Director has, and will have, the authority to restrict the options for aerial OB to throw and distance or drop zone. (They will also have the option of selectively using the 2MR in 2006.)

I think you also have to clarify the lost disc rule (as I've said before).


I can�t speak for Rob, but I am still waiting for you to flesh that perceived challenge out for us. I have tried to recreate it at least 3 times and see no new added challenge. I mean, I need for you to show me a single instance of when a lost disc is known to be above 2M, and/or when a disc above 2M is known to be lost. That is something I think will be nearly impossible to demonstrate, and even if possible will be such a rarity that it may not arise in the lifetime of a disc golfer.

I have yet to hear how the OB rule will be changed, if at all, when the 2MR is removed, or if the lost disc rule will be clarified.


First of all, the 2MR is not being removed in 2006, secondly, if it were how exactly do you think the OB and Lost Disc rules will need to be changed?


So maybe I'll take this tack, rather than the keep-the-2MR approach: if removing the 2MR from the rulebook is inevitable, I'd like to see complementary changes in the lost-disc and OB rules. Do you know if those changes are already planned, and if those changes are connected with the removal of the 2MR?


I don�t know if the removal of the 2MR is inevitable. As you know, I hope that it is; but it is not planned for 2006. It will be an option Tournament Directors can use if they want, similar I suppose to OB areas and such. In the very elegant and well thought out update version I saw, the Two Meter Rule gets it�s own definition within the �DEFINITIONS� section that will replace the glossary and be at the beginning of the rulebook rather than the end (which makes sense, since you need to know the terminology to understand the rest of the rules). Again, though, what changes specifically do you think need to be made to the OB an Lost Disc rules to function without the 2MR in effect? I am interested to hear them.

PS: I played in an organized event today at Sedgley Woods and the TD waived the 2MR. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending) no one that I know of took a 2 meter penalty. It didn�t even enter my thinking for a single hole, and as the name indicates there are a LOT of trees on this course. I can report that the few places OB was used received a fair amount of mental attention and discussion on strategy. Doesn�t prove anything I suppose, but I�ll keep on watching to see if there are any major or minor issues one way or the other.

Regards,
Nick Kight



<font color="blue"> Nick, i too have played a few events without the 2 meter rule in effect (both were at very wooded courses) and did not encounter any situations where a player was stuck above 2 meters in a tree. Today during a casual round a friend got stuck in a tree about 400 feet short of the pin (hole 1 at Idlewild). I proceeded to use my Pro Orc to throw forehand blades at it to knock it down. My friend was worried I'd lose my disc trying to get it down. I wasn't -- it is all too rare to get stuck in the average tree. After a few throws, down both discs fell. The resulting lie was completely surrounded by trees and an attempt at a forehand roller to get out wasn't quite successful. The second throw out made it and he was still 350 feet from the pin. If the 2 meter rule were in effect there, he'd be ready to take his fifth throw and still 350 feet away from the (pro par 4) pin. Without the 2 meter rule he is now on throw 4 and 350 feet away. This seems to me to be a perfect example of how hitting a tree and sticking in a tree is penalty enough without the 2 meter rule. (also note that i would not have thrown discs at the stuck disc to retrieve it if it were a PDGA round and my friend would have had to finish the round without that disc) </font>

Nick, i too have played a few events without the 2 meter rule in effect (both were at very wooded courses) and did not encounter any situations where a player was stuck above 2 meters in a tree. Today during a casual round a friend got stuck in a tree about 400 feet short of the pin (hole 1 at Idlewild). I proceeded to use my Pro Orc to throw forehand blades at it to knock it down. My friend was worried I'd lose my disc trying to get it down. I wasn't -- it is all too rare to get stuck in the average tree.



Robj, i too have played a few events without the 2 meter rule in effect (many were at very wooded courses) and have seen a number of situations where a player was stuck above 2 meters in a tree. Yesterday during a casual round a friend got stuck in a tree just 8 feet short of the pin (hole 9 at Veterans). I proceeded to use my waterbottle to throw at it to knock it down. We knew that if i threw my disc at it, there was a good chance I'd lose my disc trying to get it down. with his disc already up there, i wasnt willing to take a chance like that since the tree obviously could snag a disc.

see, stories like this do absolutely nothing to further either side of the argument.

see, stories like this do absolutely nothing to further either side of the argument.



Well, that might be true Pat, but the thing that is statistically relevant perhaps is the clear rarity of how often people stick above 2M during PDGA rounds (or any rounds). That combined with the locations of high likelihood on each course, seem to illustrate that a blanket 2MR is clearly overkill and just as often overly punitive. I think you could even agree with that last part.

If there is an area in close proximity to a crucial strategic course obstacle where there is an extremely high likelihood of a disc getting stuck anywhere (not just above 2M in it), and the Course Designer or TD would like to not only �put a little fear� in folks thinking as they approach that area, but would also like to protect that object from harm, for me, clearly Out of Bounds with throw and distance or a drop zone will accomplish this in far superior fashion than the 2MR has or could. With the 2MR in effect these areas might go unnoticed resulting in the all too often FUBARed trees, bushes and other course objects we see around our courses.

Besides, in 2006, if a TD or Course Designer so chooses they can use the 2MR in those instances you point out, selectively or blanket, though as I think I make a decent case for selective 2MR or normal OB gets into folks thinking at a much higher level, and OB, in my opinion, does a much better job of persuading folks to choose a different path and protecting the course obstacle. I think our 2006 rules account for these factors.

PS: Thanks Rob for clarifying that there were no instances of players having stuck above 2M; of course there were no instances of the 2MR violations, there was no 2MR!!! Dope! LOL! :o;) :D :p

Wow � 125 pages over 4 1/2 months. Keep it up and this book is going to be pretty long. I'll help it get there:

So you get stuck 205cm up in a tree. Although a fall from that height is definitely survivable, you do risk injury. Call for help if you're not confident you can climb down.

Now suppose it's your disc that's 205cm up in the tree, and you're safely on the ground under it. See? Better already, but it still sucks. And to make matters worse, the shot would've been parked if it hadn't gotten stuck. That really sucks. And you're in a dead heat match to keep your #1 bag tag. Wow, that really really sucks.

But if it weren't for all that suckiness that happens on the course, the really good shots wouldn't be as satisfying.

So 195 centimeters up in the tree is a good place to be?
Also, the disc that hits 600 centimeters (6m) up but falls down anywhere below 200 cm is a fall to the domain of a highly skilled shot (anti-suckiness)?

Doesn't this hinge upon proximity to the basket? It's one thing to look at this from an armchair, and quite another to see how it plays out in tournaments. Giving the TD discretion by eliminating the 2 meter rule as the default scenario makes a whole lot of sense.

Rob, good point!

We should let TDs remove any rule they find dissatisfying! If we are trying to remove flukiness then I'm all for it.

804.03.D - How many times have you seen a signed scorecard? Initialed maybe, but never have I seen one with a signature next to each player's name. Why don't we just dump that rule altogether, or, as you suggested, let the TD decide. I mean, when is the last time you saw someone take a penalty for it. And, of course, we'd hate to see someone lose a tournament because of some flukey rule that gets called once every blue moon, right? Besides, some courses have scorecards that don't leave any room for something like a signature. I think the TD should be able to decide if, based on the type of scorecards in use, this rule should be enforced at his tourney. After all, the TD knows best.

804.03.E Here's another one, and I know you'll love it. Late scorecards. You can get assessed 2 strokes if your scorecard is turned in 25 minutes late. Not only you, but everyone else on your card will get hit with a 2 stroke penalty. I mean, geez, what's the real difference between being 25 minutes late or 24 minutes, 47 seconds late?? And not only that, but what about the guys that simply signed the card and gave it to the person responsible for turning it in? If that person forgets to turn it in on time then should everyone on the card get stroked? That would be pretty darn unlucky if you happened to be on a card with a player that did that, wouldn't it? Why 25 minutes? I mean, is there really a significant difference between 25 minutes and 24 minutes, 58 seconds? Can you imagine someone losing a tourney because a guy on his card forgot to turn in the scorecard? Pretty durned flukey if you ask me.

Either way that's an awfully long time for the TD to wait. I think that if a TD is in a rush to go somewhere after the tourney he should be able to change that to a more reasonable 10 minutes, or 12 minutes or whatever he desires. After all, the TD knows best.

Though amusing your argument is a non sequitur.

It follows that if a disc above the playing surface should be played from that height that it should therefore be played from any other height also above the playing surface.

But our rules allow us to mark it on the playing surface below the disc at rest regardless of how high off the playing surface it may be. And for good reason (or reasons).

The argument about climbing trees is off the table. It is. Unless you intend to change the elegant and succinct rule concerning how we mark our lie.

Your other examples have to do with the issue of not complying to our rules, not with whether they are redundant or self-contradictory like the 2MR.

Your other examples have to do with the issue of not complying to our rules, not with whether they are redundant or self-contradictory like the 2MR.



No, my arguments pump hot lead into the anti-2m camps assertion that 2m is an arbitrary height, and that TDs should have more control of the rules at their tourneys.
They also take a minor broadside at the whole 'luck' factor that the anti-2m people seem to not understand.