"pump hot lead" :eek:

In my mind, it not that 2M is arbitrary as much as it is unnecessary. Also, just to play this game, the arbitrariness of 25 minutes is entirely under the control of the player, whereas with the 2m, the player is subject to the whims of lady luck.

As to the scorecard, later in the paragraph, the rules outline the penalty for not signing the card.

Yeah, I'm gearing up for a trip to Vegas and plan on hitting the Gun Store for a few rounds with a rental Thompson .45 Sub Machine gun and I guess I got carried away. :D

Instead of the 25 minute late scorecard would you prefer an arbitrary 10m falling putt? Or 30 cm foot fault? I'm trying to get the point across that there are arbitrary numbers peppered throughout the rule book (and throughout life, if that matters).

The signing of the scorecard could be a totally separate thread, but I was using that more for the 'give the TD control' factor. They get the cards printed, why can't they adjust the rule to their liking, or to match the 'terrain' of the scorecard itself?

my arguments pump hot lead into the anti-2m camps assertion that 2m is an arbitrary height


Oh so this discussion is a drive-by shooting now is it? If a TD or Course Designer comes up with 2M as a standard for aerial OB, I have no problem with it. I�ll have a good idea where they got the idea, but it is their course, their event, and their reputation on the line, so I�ll have no issue with it.

and that TDs should have more control of the rules at their tourneys.


Again with the non sequitur? This is about TDs having more control over where they want/need to restrict play, i.e. areas where an additional throw is added to the players score for having their disc come to rest there (possibly no throw if designated casual), and has very little to do, if anything, with TDs having the ability to change PDGA rules of play. In 2006, as really this year, TDs are not changing the rules event to event, they are just opting in or out of using a rule. No option exists for any other rule without the approval of the PDGA Competition Director.

They also take a minor broadside at the whole 'luck' factor that the anti-2m people seem to not understand.


Oh so this discussion is a nautical battle now is it? I think the nature of the 2MR has been exhaustively discussed and defined, and there is no arguing that it does not have a higher degree of unpredictability than do most of our other rules concerning the result of where a disc comes to rest. This is not a point of major contention for or against the continued inclusion of the 2MR in our rulebook for me. I�d greatly prefer �Any Distance Above� than 2M. It would at least have a higher degree of effectiveness in penalizing throws that hit the tree or object and likely prolong the life of lower limbs.

I have thought about all the logical arguments presented in this forum...and even some illogical ones! My problem with getting rid of the 2M rule altogether has to do with free relief CLOSER to the basket. It just doesn't seem fair. A disc that has come to rest 50 feet from the basket and a disc that has come to rest 8 feet away from the basket shouldn't both be marked 8 feet away from the basket (unless there is a penalty for the disc getting 42 feet of relief). No matter what anyone says in support of getting rid of the 2M rule, that just will never seem right to me.

By all the empty links on this thread, it looks like we lost an ID of someone who posted often to this thread. They need to contact Conrad ASAP so that their ID is not permanently lost.

Marking your lie on the playing surface when your disc is above the playing surface is not considered by our rules to be taking relief or moving your lie. Your lie was never in the tree, just your disc, the lie is ALWAYS on the playing surface below the disc at rest.

THAT IS UNLESS YOU WANT TO REDEFINE TREES, BUSHES AND OTHER COURSE OBJECTS AS "PLAYING SURFACE".

(But that would just about put the last nail in the coffin of the 2MR now wouldn't it...)

The "you are getting relief and should be stroked" argument doesn't address why you can be 1.9 meters up and go free. (btw, I haven't heard anyone address why the 2 meter rule does or does not impact a disc resting 2 vertical meters below the playing surface...)

Noone it seems to me, has refuted Nick's point that OB is a far more elegant way for our rules to address the problems presented by particular trees on particular holes than is the 2 meter rule (a rule that often leads to a double penalty -- all the more so on wooded, long courses). While the defense of the 2 meter rule by the crowd that wants to preserve the past is admirable, the RC recommendation should at least be given a chance to play out. TD's or course designers can always choose to invoke the 2 meter rule for holes that fail to present any challenge without it (though I don't see any reason OB or even just aerial OB couldn't be used instead) ...

I think many people who say "take 100 discs and throw them into a tree and there will be a low percentage of discs that get stuck" are only thinking of where they play, the types of trees they play in regularly, and not how the rest of the country may be. I know numerous places have thinner trees and aren't likely to get stuck, but out here in Cali you are way more likely to get stuck in a tree due to the thickness, and I can think of many trees that it's easy to get stuck 6'8" or 60'8" up in it. This has always been part of the sport, and has always been a penalty. Removing the 2m rule would only help the guy in a tourney who got his disc stuck in a tree, not the guy who played the hole cleanly. I don't think it's fair to give the guy who stuck in the tree next to the basket the same or about the same lie as the one who made to the green on his own. The two meter rule needs to stay, it has changed many a time who won a tourney out here. Just my 2cents....

I think many people who say "take 100 discs and throw them into a tree and there will be a low percentage of discs that get stuck" are only thinking of where they play, the types of trees they play in regularly, and not how the rest of the country may be.



Let's say what you present here is true, which I don't know that it is (since I have played at a course for years with trees that are about as catchy as you can get and they still only catch them less than 25% of the time), but let's just say you are correct.

Isn't what you just presented the quintessential argument for allowing local TDs to decide what is worthy of a throw penalty and what is not? Who is in a better position to know if their courses trees catch discs more consistently than average and there for, according to your logic, need to be declared as having the 2MR in effect for them? The Course Designer/TD, or the PDGA Rulebook?

Furthermore, what is the deal with it being 2MR? Is the part of the tree or bush or course object below 2MR chopped liver!?! If the area above 2MR is worth protecting, why isn�t the part below 2MR?

TD declared Out of Bounds is superior in every way shape and form, and where it isn�t it can be made so with more logic and consistency within our rules than the 2MR ever can.

Besides, in 2006, TDs that want to use the 2MR, can.

TD declared Out of Bounds is superior in every way shape and form...


Except for all the extra work the TD must do marking trees with OB lines around them.

And the confusion factor of some trees being OB and others not, and most trees within the 10 meter circle being called OB but some not, and some TDs calling a tree OB and others TDs not, and some TDs forgetting in the rush to mark some trees that almost everyone knows are always called OB.

And that fact that your statement is a pure and unadultered opinion. But don't let that stop you from posting it as fact over and over and over and over and over.

And thanks for supporting EIEIO. :)

When did the 2MR become a rule and get placed into the rulebook?
The reason I ask this is because I've talked to a gentleman who has played in tournaments since 1984 and he stated that the rule has been in place since he started playing professional disc golf.
Also can anyone tell me how the game was played back in the early days before the 2MR?

Facts would be preferred, hazy memories are okay too.

Thanks
Mike

TD declared Out of Bounds is superior in every way shape and form...


Except for all the extra work the TD must do marking trees with OB lines around them.


You mean like they do for parking lots, ponds, streams, fences, buildings, etc.? I�ve seen courses with all of these things and no string was necessary at all. What makes you think they would suddenly have to mark all the trees? Isn�t there a seam between the playing surface and the tree? If any doubt, benefit goes to the thrower�


And the confusion factor of some trees being OB and others not, and most trees within the 10 meter circle being called OB but some not, and some TDs calling a tree OB and others TDs not, and some TDs forgetting in the rush to mark some trees that almost everyone knows are always called OB.


How many trees do you have within 10 meters of your holes, then how many of them really need to be a hazard? If it is that way on all 18 holes (which I can�t even imagine) then just say all trees are OB, if not just on the holes where it is? To say this substantiates having the 2MR in effect on every hole everywhere is overkill to the extreme.


And that fact that your statement is a pure and unadultered opinion. But don't let that stop you from posting it as fact over and over and over and over and over.


And your point is not opinion? I didn�t say it was fact, I said it was my opinion based on observation, facts will evolve over the coming year. So far it is mostly speculation.


And thanks for supporting EIEIO. :)


No problemo, can you snitch the worlds logo from the website?

When did the 2MR become a rule and get placed into the rulebook?
The reason I ask this is because I've talked to a gentleman who has played in tournaments since 1984 and he stated that the rule has been in place since he started playing professional disc golf.
Also can anyone tell me how the game was played back in the early days before the 2MR?

Facts would be preferred, hazy memories are okay too.

Thanks
Mike



Mike,

I played in my first tournament in 1984, the Delaware Masters at Brandywine and Bellevue. I played with a 168g Midnight Flyer I got back in 1982.

Honestly, I can remember clearly that the 2MR never came up once. (Brandywine doesn't have tons of trees, but it is not without trees that you could get stuck in, Bellevue was 9 holes back then in and out of trees along a horse race trace.)

I'm not disputing that there were and are reasons for the 2MR, I am disputing that they are necessary when there are other options that are more effective and not mandatory.

No problemo, can you snitch the worlds logo from the website?


Did it last night for the website. (Click below.) :)

I need a higher res version for the actual tee-sign or else it will look like crap when it prints. A PDF is best because they scale well when I re-size them to fill up as much of the tee-sign as possible.

This thread is real easy to read now...especially when all you see is-

*** You are ignoring this user *** http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/nopity.gif

*** You are ignoring this user ***

*** Okay, maybe you're not... ***

*** Okay, maybe you're not... ***


Now DAT wuz funny!

You had me wondering why I was ingnoring you!

Ok, so now that everyone has heard all the 2MR aguments and we've all come to a consensus can we move onto other issues? :D

Ok, so now that everyone has heard all the 2MR aguments and we've all come to a consensus can we move onto other issues? :D


You mean you actually want to reduce the number of active 2MR threads?

Maybe you're right. Let's close them all down and start the "2MR consensus" thread. The rule would be to post what only everyone else agrees with. (Should be a quick read.)

Or if not consensus, maybe a "2MR devil's advocate" thread, where the rule of the thread is to take the other side's opinion and make a convincing argument for its case. Not a sarcastic argument, but actually argue the other side. Supposed to be a common debating technique. You can follow it with the disclaimer, "This is not my actual opinion", to prevent people from saying it was later. That might be more entertaining. (Heck, I'd start reading Nick's posts on the subject again!)

*** You are ignoring this user ***

Can someone quote my previous post so Rhett, Pat and Paul can read it?

:)

Stickbump, I recall the 2M rule being instituted around 1983ish, and I recall the reasoning for the limit being 2M. The reasoning was that 2M was a multiple of meters, (that we were changing everything to from yards), and that it was a height that most people could easily reach to retrieve their disc if stuck. I believe the rule before that was that you had to locate and identify your disc in the tree, mark and play from there with no penalty. I am hazy on that however. It might have been the supporting point thing, where you could play it if you could put a supporting point on the lie. At that time, a supporting point could be your hand. Both of the previous might also be individual evolutionary steps. Sorry I can't recall more.

jdtitan
Disc Golfer


Reged: 03/16/05
Posts: 13
Loc: Just North of Insane, TX Re: Best "Phrases/Terms" during round [Re: Nick_Kight]
#388200 - 06/11/05 03:55 AM Edit Reply Quote




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


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

I can name 4 holes on one course that have 30ft trees within 5 ft of the basket. Yes TD can still make the decision, and i neither know nor care how any of Y'ALL do it, but I'm quite certain Central Texas will use the 2MR forever. (REAL MEN)


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



Real men don't need unnecessary rules...

TDs that sleep with the 2MR can just call all non-playing surfaces 2 meters above the playing surface OB. (No string or tape needed...) Kind of silly to have that much OB on you course though isn't it...

Term: Insult to Injury - When your disc sticks at 2.01 meters above the playing surface.


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



All rules are unnecessary.
<font color="blue"> No they are not. The ones that clearly are not are the ones that provide for fair play. As fair as we can manage at any rate. </font>

Some make the game worth playing.
<font color="blue"> Yes, because they make the game more consistant and fair. </font>

"Our quarterbacks are getting hurt, let's stop calling holding on the poor OVERMATCHED linemen." Same freaking difference.
<font color="blue"> The NFL is a poor choice of example sports, they update their rules on an annual basis. And in disc golf we don't have other players purposefully inflicting injuries on each other. Unless you call Sweb and Brian hitting each other with discs prior to final nines that.... </font>

You chose to play this game.
<font color="blue"> Yes, I do. But that does not mean that I or other folks are precluded from improving it when there is just cause. You just disagree with the cause, which is fine, but don't expect the rest of us to just blindly follow your's. </font>

This game has rules. FOLLOW THEM.
<font color="blue"> I do, more than most, and maybe less than a few others. We are not talking about "following rules", we're talking about getting them right, more fair and consistant. </font>

I can't tell you how many times a day I think to myself "I'd throw a thumber here next year."
<font color="blue"> Wonderful! And if the TD or course designer doesn't want you to, then they will STILL be able to make those trees have the 2MR in effect or declare them OB above 1, 2 or 3 (etc.) meters. In other words have far greater control over the protection and challenge of their courses. </font>

Get over yourself.
<font color="blue"> That is pure projection. </font>

[/QUOTE]Get over yourself.
<font color="blue"> That is pure projection. </font>


[/QUOTE]
Actually it was just fustration combined with drunken hubris, and as I usually choose a more cereberal form of discourse, please forgive me those two.

Now...

Luck - inherent in any game. Ball golfers on Sundays will hit a perfect drive exactly where they imagined it, only to approach and find the end result was in a divot, giving them little to no chance to spin the ball effectively. Ever throw a drive RIGHT at the top of the tree you were aiming OVER, only to get a helpful gust at just the right time to lift you up and on your way home? Did you deserve it? No. Should you feel like a cheater when your playing partner never gets HIS gust? No. Some elements you just can't control and should not legislate out because you don't like them.

Fairness - I thought of a clever little axiom today to cover this one. I thought it quite helpfull. It goes like this...life isn't fair. Isn't that just neat? Hope that clears it up a bit.

Consistency - That 25 MPH headwind gust that just will not let up while I'm on the box might not rear at all by the time Bob gets up to throw. Should we all drive at the same time to ensure we all get the same conditions? That would be consistent and all...

Bad Analogies - Those defensive minded trees sure do seem to inflict pain upon my plastic, often causing me to sign a free agent disc to the tune of $15.00. The NFL updates its rules NOT to ensure competitve fairness, but to increase marketability, please don't confuse this point. I assume that's not what the braniacs on the rules commision are motivated by.

Special conditions in tournaments - Couldn't TDs now just name trees that AREN'T OB, or tourneys where 2MR WON'T be used, or does that just make too much sense?

Cen Tx will always be 2MR territory.

Cen Tx will always be 2MR territory.



I'm guessing evolution isn't popular there either...

Some of us already evolved.

aw come on chuck, no need to get nasty. that nick's and rob's job. :D

Just pent up, since I hadn't posted on this topic in a while. :)

Many of our penalties have something in common. You are penalized for not being able to throw from where your disc landed. OB it's because you're off the course, possibly creating a traffic hazzard or a nuisance to other park users. The water and unsafe lie are obvious in this respect, as should be the tree. When I would play casually with no knowledge of PDGA rules, our "2MR" was "you can retrieve it with two feet flat on the ground or a stroke" because that meant if you can't grab it, you can't play it. Pretty close no? (we were way off on other things but anyway...) If we had to stop, wait for you to climb a tree or take 5 - 10 rock flings at it (or if I'm helping, I'm wasting a couple of thumbers in my shoulder's life) then you should be penalized. If you hit the tree and didn't stick, you were (are) penallized the distance/line you wanted, but if fate held that you stuck, you were penalized those PLUS a storoke on the card. Remember we had NO knowledge of the 2MR at all, just a knowledge of ball golf's rules and common sense.

Common sense is not common.

If the 2MR was an OB rule this discussion would not be happening.

But then it is not an OB rule, it is a "Universal Special Condition" rule unlike any other in our rulebook. (i.e. there are no rules saying landing on a manhole cover is a throw penalty, or landing on a picnic table, or all discs landing on their edge are a penalty throw; those would all be, rightly, considered equally ridiculous...)

DO you read and reply or just endlessly spout your rhetoric? On a manhole cover, you can play it. On a picnic table, you can play it. Neither of these objects are an intregal part of the course's defense as the trees are.

DO you read and reply or just endlessly spout your rhetoric? On a manhole cover, you can play it. On a picnic table, you can play it. Neither of these objects are an intregal part of the course's defense as the trees are.



I definitely do. Do you? Everything on a course IS and intregal part of the course's defenses. EVERY THING!

Care to address the real issue here?

I'd rewrite it but you'd accuse me of spouting. Let's see how well you really read, rather than just how knee-jerk you are when reading one of my posts...

See hint in subject line.

Many of our penalties have something in common. You are penalized for not being able to throw from where your disc landed.



Are you able to throw from 1.99 meters up?

Many of our penalties have something in common. You are penalized for not being able to throw from where your disc landed.



Are you able to throw from 1.99 meters up?

I can, when I wear my "Cat in the Hat" hat.

Many of our penalties have something in common. You are penalized for not being able to throw from where your disc landed.



Are you able to throw from 1.99 meters up?

I can, when I wear my "Cat in the Hat" hat.



Besides being a scarey thought, how exactly to do you get a supporting point 1.99 meters off the playing surface?

Seems strange that you guys don't know that we mark our lie on the playing surface below the disc at rest. You might want to browse our rule book a little, cause marking your lie on the playing surface is not changing your lie "at all" according to our rules and the way we play disc golf and never has been.

Now if you want to make it that way, fine, let's discuss it, but it still wouldn't have any relation to our existing 2MR. None at all. Well, other than your fancy wishful thinking...

Many of our penalties have something in common. You are penalized for not being able to throw from where your disc landed.



Are you able to throw from 1.99 meters up?



Let's not be so simplistic. Of course I can. There just needs to be a linear standard whereas 2M seems perfect. Just about the average human's reach. It's like water - let's not haggle over labels - you can throw ankle deep, you can throw knee deep, some would choosse to throw waist deep to save a stroke if they could. There needs to be a clear, linear, universal standard. THAT'S your job. Making sure that those are CLEAR.

***TANGENT ALERT***

Your nonsensical analogy got me to thinking. Middle of the night, some loser steals or simply removes the cover on the manhole dead center of the fairway on #1 @ Circle C. Your disc actually GOES DOWN THE MANHOLE!!! I'm sure crazier stuff has happened in our sport. Ruling O Wise One?

Yes I get it...Hazards, OB, 2MR are all labeled differently in our hallowed rule book. Semantics necesarry to explain your response to each situation but the priciple is the same - "If you land here bad things happen."

Do you fella's communicate with the original writers of our rules? Can they not dissuade you?

Do you fella's communicate with the original writers of our rules? Can they not dissuade you?

Dan "Stork" Roddick is one of the originals. He is an adviser to the Board. He could not persuade the Board that abolishing the 2 meter rule is silly. He tried.

Frisbee golf IS a silly game. "Dude, I know, let's play golf with frisbees!" We might as well have silly rules.

Move it 30 feet closer to the basket from where it landed. Don't take a penalty. Yeah, that's golf!

If you land in the schule take three big steps laterally. Don't take a penalty. Yeah, that's golf too. Not. :(

The PDGA radio show with Carlton Howard expresses my feelings exactly on the 2M rule. Anyone looking for a good argument against the 2M rule should listen to it. If the PDGA insists on keeping the rule, there should be a provision for relief. The obvious reason is that getting stuck in a tree on the tee box side is a double penalty. If I threw the disc in the water I wouldn't have to take a penalty and swim out to throw my next shot. Relief is a fundamental part of a golf penalty.

The PDGA radio show with Carlton Howard expresses my feelings exactly on the 2M rule. Anyone looking for a good argument against the 2M rule should listen to it. If the PDGA insists on keeping the rule, there should be a provision for relief. The obvious reason is that getting stuck in a tree on the tee box side is a double penalty. If I threw the disc in the water I wouldn't have to take a penalty and swim out to throw my next shot. Relief is a fundamental part of a golf penalty.



And you will be extremely hard pressed to find a single 2 Meter Rule supporter that would argue with adding some kind of relief when the penalty is assesed.

I favor calling a lie above 2 meters an "Unsafe Lie" and then proceeding under the penalties and relief granted by that section of the rule book.

I favor calling a lie above 2 meters an "Unsafe Lie" and then proceeding under the penalties and relief granted by that section of the rule book.



A couple of challenges with that Rhett:
A. The "Unsafe Lie" is changing to the "Undesirable Lie"
B. It is neither Unsafe nor Undesirable for a disc to be 2.0 meters above the playing surface when under �current� �existing� rules you mark your lie on the playing surface and play on.

In order for me to agree with your thinking:
A) The definition of disc golf �lie� would have to change to be the �actual location� of where the disc came to rest and not the point below the disc on the playing surface. And other than this one superfluous rule (2M) our lie functions flawlessly and keeps our feet on the ground where they belong.
B) All discs above the playing surface are penalized. But considering our sport is not shuffleboard and is played in the air, that would be silly.

I could live with either of those options. I can even live with TDs and Course Designers having the ability to use the 0, 1, 2 oir 3 meter rule wherever and whenever they want. What I am glad to see go is that the 2MR be mandatory for everyone and every course.

blah blah blah

whooda ever thunk that Nick's reply would've been exactly that.

The unsafe lie relief addition (the speculation that the name of that rule might change in some future revision of the rules has absolutely no bearing on this discussion at all, and neither does trying to determine if the lie is "unsafe" since all that is required of that rule is for the thrower to opt to take a penalty and relocate) addresses the Number One concern of almost all of the anti-2MR camp, that being the "double penalty" of having to throw from inside the tree after taking a penalty.

the "the branches are so low that i get a double penalty for throwing a sucky shot waaa waaa waaa" camp is too shortsighted and selfcentered to realize that in some parts of the country trees do not have limbs that go all the way down to the ground.

they coulda just roped off their trees and called them OB, but then they would have solved their pizzing match without forcing their ideas on the rest of us.

instead, they destroy the play around the green in their quest to save par by changing the rules.

who cares if the shot stunk! i want my par! waaaaaaa! waaaaaaah! waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

they coulda just roped off their trees and called them OB, but then they would have solved their pizzing match without forcing their ideas on the rest of us.


Has that been said before? It's true.

Roping off a tree is much harder than killing a stupid rule.

By the way, it is June and I have yet to see a tourney shot stuck above 2m near the basket. In fact, I have yet to see it in any play.

roping off the tree is what they suggest we do. it is their solution to the problem they caused!!!

its june and i have seen at least one per month. two were mine - one at Poison Ivy Open - stuck 25' up about 20' from the basket, and the 2MR was NOT in effect. it felt like i was cheating. the other was off of a blind tee shot at maceman's A2Z doubles event. we were playing alternate at the time and the 2MR was used for that event. that one was an ouchie! :)

Roping off a tree is much harder than killing a stupid rule.


First off, the rule isn't stupid, those who oppose it are stupid. :)

Secondly, one of your Prophet's favorite statements is that TDs can simply rope off as OB all the trees that they want the 2MR rule to apply to. Simpler would be for TDs to simply rope off any trees that they felt would be too punitive with the "double penalty" and leave the 2MR alone.


By the way, it is June and I have yet to see a tourney shot stuck above 2m near the basket. In fact, I have yet to see it in any play.


Golden State had at least one. There were two on my cards in Casitas and one at Evergreen.

Maybe they should take the sandtraps out of stick/ball golf courses.
It would make that sport easier.

(stay out of the trees, they are meant for kites :D)

Your prophet. :D

Maybe I just play with a low throwing crowd. Are thse people trying to play the canopy. If so, how often do they hit and roll or kick away? In other words, if a rule change is encouraging this behaviour, isn't it just another form of risk reward?

Or maybe they should have the sand traps randomly kick out 98% of the shots that land in them. Then it would be like disc golf.

trees already kick out 99.99% of the golf balls that hit them. but the ones that stick will be either penalized or the player becomes a tree climber and hits it FROM WHERE IT LIES.

Play it where it lies. Play it where it lies.

I suspect this argument has been rehashed a hundred times on here. I never read those arguments because it makes little sense as a standard to measure a rule by. Instead of evaluating a rule on whether it is equitable, clear and meets our desire to create a challenging sport, we instead first ask the Play-it-where-it-lies-God if he accepts our rule. Why is this concept so important that it appears to be the primary arbiter of all arguments?

I don't know, according to our rules, it lies on the playing surface directly below where it ends up.

...play-it-where-it-lies... Why is this concept so important that it appears to be the primary arbiter of all arguments?

ummm, cuz its GOLF maybe?

I favor calling a lie above 2 meters an "Unsafe Lie" and then proceeding under the penalties and relief granted by that section of the rule book.



A couple of challenges with that Rhett:
A. The "Unsafe Lie" is changing to the "Undesirable Lie"
B. It is neither Unsafe nor Undesirable for a disc to be 2.0 meters above the playing surface when under �current� �existing� rules you mark your lie on the playing surface and play on.

In order for me to agree with your thinking:
A) The definition of disc golf �lie� would have to change to be the �actual location� of where the disc came to rest and not the point below the disc on the playing surface. And other than this one superfluous rule (2M) our lie functions flawlessly and keeps our feet on the ground where they belong.
B) All discs above the playing surface are penalized. But considering our sport is not shuffleboard and is played in the air, that would be silly.

I could live with either of those options. I can even live with TDs and Course Designers having the ability to use the 0, 1, 2 oir 3 meter rule wherever and whenever they want. What I am glad to see go is that the 2MR be mandatory for everyone and every course.




blah blah blah

whooda ever thunk that Nick's reply would've been exactly that.

The unsafe lie relief addition (the speculation that the name of that rule might change in some future revision of the rules has absolutely no bearing on this discussion at all, and neither does trying to determine if the lie is "unsafe" since all that is required of that rule is for the thrower to opt to take a penalty and relocate) addresses the Number One concern of almost all of the anti-2MR camp, that being the "double penalty" of having to throw from inside the tree after taking a penalty.



Rhett, if hostility and denial made you right, then you would be a god.

You are simple WRONG, that the 2 meter rule is in any way related (rules-wise) to the unsafe lie rule, for reasons already discussed many times. Don't take my word for it read your rulebook. For it to be, your lie would have to be up in the tree, above the playing surface, and by rule it simply is not, it is on the playing surface directly below the disc. This regardless of how high off the playing surface it has come to rest. Marking it on the playing surface is not �relocating your lie� it is �marking your lie�, a huge difference. How you can deny that is really something for a DGRZ.

Now, you can go on with your head buried in the sand hoping to retain this superfluous rule or not, it makes no difference to me, and it will likely make no difference when the rule as scheduled becomes an option listed in the glossary of the new rulebook in 2006�

Maybe they should take the sandtraps out of stick/ball golf courses.
It would make that sport easier.

(stay out of the trees, they are meant for kites :D)



Actually to be like disc golf's 2 meter sentence they'd have to make them an additional penalty stroke and you play out of them anyway Rhonda.

Sandaldude: "when you release a disc and it heads unintended towards a tree, what goes thru your mind? for the overwhleming majority of players it goes something like "holy crap, i hope i get lucky! please dont stick!""

Wrong again. The overwhelming majority of players it goes something like "Get through!" Only after it hits the tree and then only if the tree is a type that catches discs more than 1% of the time does the "overwhelming majority" (LOL!) think don't stick above 2 meters (and then only at the now growingly rare tourney where the TD still uses that outdated relic of a partial subsection of a rule. :) )

You are simple WRONG, that the 2 meter rule is in any way related (rules-wise) to the unsafe lie rule, for reasons already discussed many times. Don't take my word for it read your rulebook.


Nick, you are about the most dishonest debater that has ever existed in the entire history of the internet. How can you make such unfounded assertions again and again and sleep at night? Seriously, do you believe your own posts?

There is nowhere on this board where I have ever said that the 2 meter rule and the unsafe lie rules were related. No where. Why would you make that kind of crap up?

But that's what you do when you "debate". Right here, right now, you have once again made up some bull crap about what I said, and then proceeded to attack that stance. Even though you are the one that made-up what my stance is.

<font size="5">Nick, I have never said that the 2 meter rule and the unsafe lie rules are related. I have never once said that the current PDGA rules tie those two situation together. Nick, you made that part up and then attacked me saying that I said it, when I never said that.

Nick, unlike you I have read and listened to both sides of this argument. The one undeniable thing that I have taken from the anti-2MR side is the "double-penalty" situation. It has great merit. Even though we really don't have any trees on disc golf courses out here like that, I can see where that could be a real problem.

It seems that most other penalties in our game that are incurred because of where the disc lands also have some kind of relief or relocation that goes with the penalty. In light of the "double penalty" situation, which I almost never see out here, I am in favor of adding some kind of relief when a 2 meter penalty in incurred. Hmmmmm.....what kind of relief could we possible have.......gosh, there is a pretty good relief situation already described in the rule book, under the Unsafe Lie section of the rules. I wonder if that would possibly fit in the case of a 2 meter shot?......by golly, when I think about it, that would fit really really well with a 2 meter penalty, and it's already in the rule book so it would make it a lot easier to implement. And if no suitable spot could be found within 5 meters the player would have the option of moving to the fairway for the cost of another stroke.....man, that seems like it should do the trick for even the worst cedar tree......I think it would be a swell idea if we used the penalty/relief options from the unsafe lie rule for the 2 meter rule, too.....and when you think about it, it probably isn't very safe to climb a tree and try to throw from there, so calling a 2 meter disc a "1 shot uinsafe lie penalty with relief" seems to work.

Hey, where did I say those two rules were related, Nick? I DIDN'T! I said I thought it would be a great way to add relief to the 2MR if we used the Unsafe Lie rules penalties and relief.

Got it? Or are you already making up something to claim that I said?????????</font>

WOW.......................Hey Rhett....................Is this guy some kinda of Michael Jackson , OJ Simpson , Robert Blake Attourney ?

If so , I guess anything is possible. :eek:

And you will be extremely hard pressed to find a single 2 Meter Rule supporter that would argue with adding some kind of relief when the penalty is assesed.

I favor calling a lie above 2 meters an "Unsafe Lie" and then proceeding under the penalties and relief granted by that section of the rule book.


Second!

that doesnt mean he said they are related. hwhat he said was that the penalty and procedures for the unsafe lie could be easily applied to 2MR situations as well.

that doesnt mean he said they are related. hwhat he said was that the penalty and procedures for the unsafe lie could be easily applied to 2MR situations as well.


??? I was seconding Rhett's quote.

ok. sorry for that... i missed the "second"

In my opinion:

Disregarding claims that it "just doesn't make sense" to be allowed to play normally from a disc stuck way up in a tree where you can't reach it, the best argument I see in favor of the two meter rule is the issue of being stuck forty feet above a drop-in. (Incidentally, I personally think that such a situation is MORE deserving of the birdie if it was a bomb shot over the top than if it was a regular level shot...I get the vague impression that many of the people claiming about it disagree, but it seems to me that the dive-bomb would have been closer to the basket if you eliminated the trees. However, that's neither here nor there.) A shot that arguably is nowhere near where it should be playing to gets an easy drop-in putt. Ok.

Ignoring complaints that a disc 201 cm up shouldn't be considered worse than one 199 cm up, the best argument I see against the two meter rule is the double jeopardy situation.

Ok, I think I have figured out what I don't get. Is there someone out there who is arguing that the 2MR is too alien to the rest of the way we play the game and should be dealt with some other way for the sake of consistency, but who still believes that IF it stays as it is, the TD's prerogative to assess the penalty in some regions on the course but not others does actually provide for a solution to both the above problems?

Because if not, then there's someone out there whose arguments I'm not following at all and I can't remember who it is because I don't feel like opening the thread back up in a separate window from my reply.

Rhett, if as you claim, that you listen to both sides of this argument, then you need to simply answer the following questions:

1) Does marking your lie on the playing surface below your disc at rest represent a �relocation� or some kind of �relief� ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT RULES OF PLAY; the ones we currently play under?
2) Name me one other �MANDATORY� special condition rule that mandates a penalty throw? Not Out of Bounds, but a specific group of locations; such as streams, ponds, thorn bushes, buildings where our rules stipulate a mandatory penalty throw regardless of the judgment and design intent of the director or course designer? I�m just asking for one example; that should be easy, right?
3) Tell me why Out of Bounds should not serve as the single delineation for designating areas of our courses where a 1-throw penalty is accessed if a players thrown disc lands there?

You are the one playing with words here. You say that the 2 meter rule should be �called� an �Unsafe Lie�, but then when I detail what that �really� means (that we would have to change our rules definition of �lie� and �relief� because the lie is not, according to our rules, actually up in the tree, but on the playing surface below) you cry wah, wah, wah all the way home and that I am misquoting you. That is just crazy. You are throwing up smoke screens and avoiding the heart of the debate. Perhaps this fools some here, but I see it for exactly what it is. Where is the substance of your argument Rhett? Spare us your rants, they may make you feel better, but they don�t add a stitch to the discussion.

Ok, I think I have figured out what I don't get. Is there someone out there who is arguing that the 2MR is too alien to the rest of the way we play the game and should be dealt with some other way for the sake of consistency, but who still believes that IF it stays as it is, the TD's prerogative to assess the penalty in some regions on the course but not others does actually provide for a solution to both the above problems?



That would likely be me. I see no need for the 2 meter sentences in our rules when we already have Out of Bounds and Special Conditions (and now it looks like Hazards are within our rules to use as well). Having this one universal penalty throw worthy area EVERYWHERE regardless of the design intent or judgment of the Course Designer is absolutely too much and an aberration within our rulebook (there is nothing else even close to it).

If directors or Course Designers �DECIDE� to make certain trees and surfaces above the playing surface Out of Bounds, FANTASTIC! I fully support their right to protect their courses obstacles and to create the challenge presented by their course the way they see fit. Rules should assist in this, not �direct� or �force�.

Are there situations where a 2-meter like ruling makes sense? To be perfectly honest, I don�t think there really is. However, that call is not up to me and it should not be up to a few folks that want to preserve these �mandatory� designations of vast portions of courses everywhere as penalty throw worthy areas against the wishes of their directors and course designers.

We have a rule, an excellent one in fact, for restricting areas on our courses. Steeped in the full tradition of the �game� of golf. A tool for course designers and directors to add challenge and protect fragile obstacles on their courses, one they are free to choose to utilize or not. One that presents a clear and unmistakable impression on the players who see it. It is called Out of Bounds.

If we really want to keep these quirky sentences in our rules, then we need to face the clear fact that it would involve the redefinition of one of our most basic and fundamental rules: the lie. We would have to change it from the spot on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest, to the �actual� location of the disc at rest. This, in my opinion, would create such a devastating domino effect on the rest of our rules, all of which are perfectly fine with the currently defined �lie�, that it actually would undermine the progress of our organized sport.

If as Bruce says, it doesn�t make sense to be able to move your disc 40 feet closer to the target with no penalty, then what he is really arguing for is that our definition of lie be redefined to where the disc actually comes to rest, so that any disc above the playing surface where the player marks their lie on the playing surface IS TAKING RELIEF.

If as Rhett says, we should call marking your lie on the playing surface when it has come to rest above 2 meters an Unsafe Lie, what he is really arguing for is that our definition of lie be redefined to where the disc actually comes to rest.
The can of related rules worms involved in preserving this superfluous rule is off the charts! And why even try? To �FORCE� a narrow, and mistaken in my opinion, idea of a mandatory penalty throw area on every director and designer REGARDLESS of specific knowledge and consideration of each individual course and hole.

And all this for what? One or two throws per annum!?! Ridiculous!

But what of the fact that declaring above 2m 'out of bounds' would not satisfy the issue that most anti 2m folks have with the current 2m rule: lack of relief?

Most anti 2m crusaders cite lack of relief as the main problem with the current rule. Replacing the current rule with OB does not resolve this.

Perhaps a better resolution would be twofold - allow designers the use of OB instead of 2m, or allow designers to keep the 2m rule, but allow relief up to 5m as per unhappy lie.

Restructuring the definition of lie to be something more logical would be fine with me as well, if it allowed us to keep the necessary (IMO) 2m rule in place.

first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw. marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken. this much should be obvious to all. moving the disc from the place at which it came to rest to a different place from which it will be next thrown IS RELIEF! it is moving the disc from one lie to another. (although the new position is aptly named for TWO reasons!)

with that established, lets move on to the second point, which concerns consistency of rules. for some reason, there are those (well, one) who believes that a single instance of anything is not valid. two or more, apparently, is ok, but if only one case exists, then that case must be eliminated and the situation dealt with by applying some rule that already has a set of situations to which it applies.

To the Consistency God, let us pray:

1. that all tee shots must be made from within 30 cm of the front of the tee pad directly on the line of play; cast out the demons that uniquely allow such loathsome latitude for the tee shot;

2. that all shots be restricted so that no contact with the playing surface past the lie be incurred prior to the disc coming to a full stop; consume the evil singularity of the falling putt;

3. that all players must wear collared shirts with sleeves; throw aside the wretched sin of women exposing bare upper arms and underarm hair whilst men must suffer gladly the rage of summer's heat.

we ask this as not-so-humble, yet deeply narrow-minded servants of the one size fits all mentality, to install our concept of what-is-good to the game regardless of history, intuition, and well stated opposing views, and in complete homage to you and your homogeneity. amen.

Let�s try to agree that we all want rules that make sense, are consistent and are easily understandable; even if we disagree on what those rules should be.

Lack of relief is not the main problem I have with the 2 meter sentences within our rules; it is just one of the many. If I had to pick one it would be its �mandatory� nature; if a TD or Course Designer could turn it on or off at their discretion I would be fine with it remaining an option (this much as it is proposed for 2006). I do however believe that it will quickly become apparent that Out of Bounds and possible Hazards will be far better suited for the purposes of adding challenge and protecting course obstacles; not to mention be easier for folks to play by and understand.

I do not believe that redefining our �lie� would be a wise move. I am willing to look at it, and hope that the PDGA RC does so, but I strongly suspect that it will open an endless can of worms as concerns existing rules that depend on us marking our lie on the playing surface (a disc golf term that will get its official definition in the next rulebook; and a good one at that).

Here are the existing options for a disc that comes to rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface. The TD can specify that they be:

A) Treated with the 2 meter sentences in our rules in effect � Where the player would mark their lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest and take a penalty throw.
B) Treated as Out of Bounds � Where the player would mark their lie within 1 meter perpendicular to the elevated boundary of the OB and take a penalty throw, move to a drop zone and take a penalty throw, or move back to their previous lie and take a penalty throw.
C) Treated as a Hazard - Where the player could either mark their lie on the playing surface immediately below and play on with no penalty or could move to a drop zone and take a penalty throw, or move back to their previous lie and take a penalty throw.
D) Treated as a Disc Above the Playing Surface � Where the player could mark their lie on the playing surface immediately below and play on with no penalty.

Of the 4 clearly the first is the least fair and least in line with our other rules, even so, I�m fine with leaving it in the correct hands to make the call, the TDs and Designers.

ROFL, that is a keeper. Pat, if you don't mind I am going to print and frame that one. :)


first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw. marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken. this much should be obvious to all. moving the disc from the place at which it came to rest to a different place from which it will be next thrown IS RELIEF! it is moving the disc from one lie to another. (although the new position is aptly named for TWO reasons!)

with that established, lets move on to the second point, which concerns consistency of rules. for some reason, there are those (well, one) who believes that a single instance of anything is not valid. two or more, apparently, is ok, but if only one case exists, then that case must be eliminated and the situation dealt with by applying some rule that already has a set of situations to which it applies.

To the Consistency God, let us pray:

1. that all tee shots must be made from within 30 cm of the front of the tee pad directly on the line of play; cast out the demons that uniquely allow such loathsome latitude for the tee shot;

2. that all shots be restricted so that no contact with the playing surface past the lie be incurred prior to the disc coming to a full stop; consume the evil singularity of the falling putt;

3. that all players must wear collared shirts with sleeves; throw aside the wretched sin of women exposing bare upper arms and underarm hair whilst men must suffer gladly the rage of summer's heat.

we ask this as not-so-humble, yet deeply narrow-minded servants of the one size fits all mentality, to install our concept of what-is-good to the game regardless of history, intuition, and well stated opposing views, and in complete homage to you and your homogeneity. amen.

first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw.
<font color="blue"> As discussed in great detail and at great length (not to mention being boldly obvious) we in disc golf do not �play it where it lies�; we �play it from the marked lie�. A fairly substantial difference and one worth getting straight.</font>

marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken.
<font color="blue"> Incorrect. It establishes �The Lie� from which play continues. </font>

this much should be obvious to all.
<font color="blue"> Only to those who do not understand the reality of the way we actually play, nor the actual application of our existing rules is such an interpretation �obvious�. </font>

moving the disc from the place at which it came to rest to a different place from which it will be next thrown IS RELIEF!
<font color="blue"> Absolutely incorrect. No where is it described as relief, nor considered relief within our rules. If it were then any time we marked our lie on the playing surface it would be considered by our rules as taking relief. Which of course it is not. </font>
it is moving the disc from one lie to another. (although the new position is aptly named for TWO reasons!)
<font color="blue"> Though I would not deny that this is your opinion or �feeling�, it simply is not supported by our rules of play, nor is it �actually� the case so long as our �lie� is what it is currently defined as within our rulebook. To say that your lie has been repositioned is flatly incorrect and misleading. The repositioning of a disc is not involved in the marking of a lie other than after you have marked it with a mini (required when the disc is above the playing surface), then you put the disc in a �new position�: your golf bag or throw it. </font>

with that established,
<font color="blue"> This perfectly illustrates where Rhett and Bruce (and now Pat) have created a clean disconnect in this discussion between what they would like our rules to say and what they actually do say. </font>
lets move on to the second point, which concerns consistency of rules. for some reason, there are those (well, one) who believes that a single instance of anything is not valid. two or more, apparently, is ok, but if only one case exists, then that case must be eliminated and the situation dealt with by applying some rule that already has a set of situations to which it applies.
<font color="blue"> Cutting the fat is something that would seem to be a natural part of �improving� and �clarifying� our rules, not something strange or undesirable. </font>

To the Consistency God, let us pray:

1. that all tee shots must be made from within 30 cm of the front of the tee pad directly on the line of play; cast out the demons that uniquely allow such loathsome latitude for the tee shot;
<font color="blue"> Not a bad idea, that or require us to mark a lie within the tee area from which we intend to throw (similar to the other two lies we play from. But I am fine with leaving the entire tee area as the equivalent of our lie.</font>


2. that all shots be restricted so that no contact with the playing surface past the lie be incurred prior to the disc coming to a full stop; consume the evil singularity of the falling putt;
<font color="blue"> This is nothing I have ever proposed. I support having one way of marking and playing our lie, but am open to anything from �no follow through� to �last point of contact being the lie�. We just need to choose. Currently we have at least 3 distinctly different lies and rules determining how we play those lies. That is not consistent and, incidentally, confusing. </font>

3. that all players must wear collared shirts with sleeves; throw aside the wretched sin of women exposing bare upper arms and underarm hair whilst men must suffer gladly the rage of summer's heat.
<font color="blue"> I am in full support of complete nudity while playing disc golf, just not at Professional Disc Golf Association National Tour Events. Disc golf events have an infinite variety of commitments and attitudes as far as promoting our organized sport to people. 95% are primarily concerned with just getting out the faithful for some familiar �good times�; probably why 99% of us love the sport in the first place. 5% or less of events are concerned with presenting our sport as a Professional Sport with Mainstream Appeal (as per our associations membership mandate to do so). In other words saying that all �fun� events are bad because they are �unprofessional� is as nonsensical as saying all �professional� events are bad because they are �not fun�. The variety between these extremes is nearly infinite. Exactly as it should be.</font>

we ask this as not-so-humble, yet deeply narrow-minded servants of the one size fits all mentality
<font color="blue"> I�m pretty sure this is an oxymoron. The 2 meter sentence supporters want to �force� this �mandatory� �restricted� �penalty throw� area on every Course Designer, Course, Hole, Player and Tournament Director, regardless of the individual intents or specific needs. That in my book represents �not-so-humble�, �deeply narrow-minded�, �one size fits all mentality�, does it not? </font>
, to install our concept of what-is-good to the game regardless of history, intuition, and well stated opposing views, and in complete homage to you and your homogeneity. amen.
<font color="blue"> Again with the ironic superlatives!
A. History is written by the side that wins, so it is already on my side as the 2 meter sentences are �now� optional.
B. Intuition clearly is irrelevant considering that nearly 50% feel that the 2 meter sentences are not intuitive and the same number feel that they are.
C. �Well stated opposing views� is a little too generous, when mainly I have observed that they usually end up �cutting and running� when the discussion nears any conclusive understanding. Resorting instead(as your post clearly illustrates) to mockery, insult and name calling, rather than trying to understand and reply �in good faith� to the points under discussion.
D. Homogeneity is something you clearly have no understanding of Pat. You are constantly on this discussion board telling everyone that disagrees with your sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, back to nature hippy life-style that they are �elitist� or that they stifle diversity, yet you yourself, on this board, are the ultimate snob and intolerant person, who doesn�t want any options other than your narrowly defined �retro� (event though it is not really retro in anything but catch phrase) understanding of our sport to see the light of day. Thankfully, most folks see that shallowness for what it is, and move about their business, doing what they can to move us forward as a sport that is more inclusive and appeals to a wider demographic than the narrow one you seem to think �owns� this sport.</font>

first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw.
<font color="blue"> As discussed in great detail and at great length (not to mention being boldly obvious) we in disc golf do not �play it where it lies�; we �play it from the marked lie�. A fairly substantial difference and one worth getting straight.</font>
<font color="purple"> ummm, thats my point. obviosly you can read. now its time to work on the comprehension. </font>

marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken.
<font color="blue"> Incorrect. It establishes �The Lie� from which play continues. </font>
<font color="purple"> HELP! isnt the stuff in blue the exact statement as the stuff in black??? </font>



as for the rest of it, nick, you take it far too seriously. just like yourself. amen.

Nick once again made up something and claimed I said the following:
If as Rhett says, we should call marking your lie on the playing surface when it has come to rest above 2 meters an Unsafe Lie



Hello? Is this thing on???

Nick, I did not say to call a disc above 2 meters an unsafe lie. I said that when a disc comes to rest above two meters, we should use the unsafe lie penalty and relief sections of the rule.

Is that nit-picking? No. Nick has chosed to claim I worded it in that fashion so that he can use his "what's a lie" BS to attack a position I did not take.

Come on, Nick.

I said "use the unsafe lie penalty and relief" because it's pretty good relief and already defined. If you want another reason, well, it would be kind of unsafe of throw up in a tree so it fits that way, too.


As for OB, it doesn't work for a lie above 2 meters. OB requires you to take your next shot from the last place you were in bounds. Where is that for disc suspended over 2 meters?

first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw.
<font color="blue"> As discussed in great detail and at great length (not to mention being boldly obvious) we in disc golf do not �play it where it lies�; we �play it from the marked lie�. A fairly substantial difference and one worth getting straight.</font>
<font color="purple"> ummm, thats my point. obviosly you can read. now its time to work on the comprehension. </font>
<font color="green"> No, it obviosly is not your point. You are trying to say, incorrectly that we "play it where it lies" when we do not, we play it from where it is marked, that is the lie. </font>

marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken.
<font color="blue"> Incorrect. It establishes �The Lie� from which play continues. </font>
<font color="purple"> HELP! isnt the stuff in blue the exact statement as the stuff in black??? </font>
<font color="green"> Yes, you do certainly need some help. The lie is on the playing surface the entire time, you are just required to mark it when it the disc is above the playing surface. Don't try to weasel out of this. You clearly were trying to say that marking your lie on the playing surface is some form of relief, which is clearly unsupportable according to our rules. </font>



as for the rest of it, nick, you take it far too seriously. just like yourself. amen.



Did I predict the insulting retreat technique?

Rhett, you are mincing words.

In order for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to be even considered for the "Unsafe Lie" rule you would have to:

A) Choose that option over playing from the discs "actual" lie which is on the playing surface below the disc at rest. This option is always open to players, 2 meter sentence or not.
B) If you want it to be "mandatory", then you would have to change the definition of "lie" within our rules to "where the disc comes to rest" when, and I quote:


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



You�re just being purposefully evasive. I suppose I would be too if caught with my hand in the cookie jar like you currently are�

first, the phrase "play it where it lies" refers to where the disc ends up at the end of the throw.
<font color="blue"> As discussed in great detail and at great length (not to mention being boldly obvious) we in disc golf do not �play it where it lies�; we �play it from the marked lie�. A fairly substantial difference and one worth getting straight.</font>
<font color="purple"> ummm, thats my point. obviosly you can read. now its time to work on the comprehension. </font>
<font color="green"> No, it obviosly is not your point. You are trying to say, incorrectly that we "play it where it lies" when we do not, we play it from where it is marked, that is the lie. </font>
<font color="brown"> i am NOT trying to say we play it where it lies. i am trying to say we play it from where we mark it. and that where it lies is differnt from where we mark it. and thats what causes your confusion about the two uses of the word "lie". had i wanted to say we play it where it lies, i would say something like this: "we play it from where it lies." but we dont. so i am not saying that. </font>

marking the "lie" refers to establishing the location from which the next thrown will be taken.
<font color="blue"> Incorrect. It establishes �The Lie� from which play continues. </font>
<font color="purple"> HELP! isnt the stuff in blue the exact statement as the stuff in black??? </font>
<font color="green"> Yes, you do certainly need some help. The lie is on the playing surface the entire time, you are just required to mark it when it the disc is above the playing surface. Don't try to weasel out of this. You clearly were trying to say that marking your lie on the playing surface is some form of relief, which is clearly unsupportable according to our rules. </font>
<font color="brown"> thats my point (again) we do NOT play it from where it ends up (very commonly referred to as the "lie). we play it from where we place it (also very commonly referred to as the "lie".) those two arent the same. you are tripping over the words, nick. its not all that difficult to understand there are two uses of the word! </font>


as for the rest of it, nick, you take it far too seriously. just like yourself. amen.

Did I predict the insulting retreat technique?


<font color="brown"> i'm not retreating. i'm trying to explain that the disc lies where it comes to rest. the lie is marked at the point from which it will be played. two different things. if moving from one to the other is not relief, then what pray tell is it? </font>

i'm not retreating. i'm trying to explain that the disc lies where it comes to rest. the lie is marked at the point from which it will be played. two different things. if moving from one to the other is not relief, then what pray tell is it?



It is marking your lie. Your lie has never changed, it was and is on the playing surface below the disc at rest.

Your lie is not relocated, relief is not given, you are merely "marking" it.

You are confusing our "lie" with the location of the "disc at rest". Those are different quite often. The "lie" itself does not change. If it did then that would be relief, such as moving out from under a tree or out of OB or away from OB.

Marking your lie is not relief.

You�re just being purposefully evasive. I suppose I would be too if caught with my hand in the cookie jar like you currently are�


Excuse me? I've been clear in my arguments and have not resorted to making up quotes for you.

Let me state publicly that the 2M Rule will be in effect on all courses all the time during the '05 Pro Worlds.
Using this rule will demand a higher level of play from our World Championship competitors.

Thanks,
jdflyer (John Duesler)




Well, at least someone in PA has some common sense. :D :D :D :D

Nick, wanna take a prop bet on the over/under of 2m penalties assessed? I'm sure it will be more than 'one or two per annum'.

Using this rule will demand a higher level of play from our World Championship competitors.




Well, since there is going to be a 2M rule, I guess I'll abandon the strategy of aiming high up in the trees. I was so looking forward to this less demanding level of play. :p

It is marking your lie. Your lie has never changed, it was and is on the playing surface below the disc at rest.

Your lie is not relocated, relief is not given, you are merely "marking" it.

You are confusing our "lie" with the location of the "disc at rest". Those are different quite often. The "lie" itself does not change. If it did then that would be relief, such as moving out from under a tree or out of OB or away from OB.

Marking your lie is not relief.

i am not confusing anything with anything. i am saying that the basic tenet of golf is to play it where it comes to rest. this is commonly known as the "lie". it is our rules that add a new definition. i have no problem with that either. but to ignore the fact that the word first, and still frequently, refers to where the disc came to rest is missing the point.

i KNOW the two are different positions frequently. THATS MY POINT!

forget the wording of the rules. in the spirit of the game, marking your lie somewhere other than where it rests IS relief.

if you are so enthralled by the sanctity of the rules, then why are you so vehemently challenging them over the 2MR rule? after all, the RULE is the RULE, right?

Let me state publicly that the 2M Rule will be in effect on all courses all the time during the '05 Pro Worlds.
Using this rule will demand a higher level of play from our World Championship competitors.

Thanks,
jdflyer (John Duesler)


wow. and to think it would happen in Pennsylvania! actually i am sorry. because i seriously doubt nick is gonna let this happen without a fight. it will probably get quite ugly.

Nick,

This is not meant as an attack, but I have noticed that you have a tendency to read things into what others say and that you do not follow a point � counterpoint type of discussion. I have read through quite a bit of this 2M rule discussion and it is obvious you have failed to consider the possibility that you may be wrong. I am not saying you are and I am not saying you are not, however in any point - counterpoint discussion you must argue the merits of a point and either concede an issue or provide reasons why the other side should concede. More often than not, you simply plow off in your own direction.

For example, Rhett implied that the rule for "Unsafe Lie" could be useful and could be applied similarly to the 2M rule. This seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion and worthy of discussion. Instead of discussing why this may not be applicable, as you seem to lean, you start arguing that Rhett does not know what he is talking about. That the disc above 2M is not an "Unsafe lie". This by the way is not what Rhett implied, and if you read the posts that followed, you will see that you are the only one that believes Rhett said this.

You and I have had several discussions, and I have noticed that you rarely take a breath and consider the position that someone is taking. This by the way is an integral part of debating an issue.

You might also consider that sometimes things happen that you have no experience of. For instance, I have been playing as long, if not longer than you have and I have never seen a skip ace. If I were to follow your lead then I would be forced to say that skip aces do not occur or if they do they are so rare that they are not worth consideration. Just an example, but this is some of the reasoning that you tend to apply. Consider checking the wind before you drive into you argument.


Rhett, you are mincing words.

In order for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to be even considered for the "Unsafe Lie" rule you would have to:

A) Choose that option over playing from the discs "actual" lie which is on the playing surface below the disc at rest. This option is always open to players, 2 meter sentence or not.
B) If you want it to be "mandatory", then you would have to change the definition of "lie" within our rules to "where the disc comes to rest" when, and I quote:


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



You�re just being purposefully evasive. I suppose I would be too if caught with my hand in the cookie jar like you currently are�

Let me state publicly that the 2M Rule will be in effect on all courses all the time during the '05 Pro Worlds.
Using this rule will demand a higher level of play from our World Championship competitors.

Thanks,
jdflyer (John Duesler)




Well, at least someone in PA has some common sense. :D :D :D :D

Nick, wanna take a prop bet on the over/under of 2m penalties assessed? I'm sure it will be more than 'one or two per annum'.



Dan, while I disagree with John's assessment of the nature of challenge presented by the 2 meter phrases within our rules, I have always been quite clear that I respect a director or course designers decision to use them in this transitional year.

How many two meter penalties have you taken in a PDGA this year Dan? I have taken exactly one, and I haven't even seen another one even at the Soiree. I think one per player per year is likely pretty close to the correct average. Though this isn't one of my main reasons for wanting to see the sentences go, it is just another of many.

i've already taken two in sanctioned play. that makes me above average i guess :)

i've already taken two in sanctioned play. that makes me above average i guess :)



So far this year I have had more discs over 2M than in water OB. Maybe we should consider revising the OB rule for water? :p

I know I've had more than 1

I'm feelin' above average today :D

Pat,

I have heard you at least twice on this message board declare emphatically that you would support the removal of the 2 meter rule from all but within 10 meters of the pins. I concede that this position has merit on fronts already discussed. My challenge is that it be blanked when a TD directly, specifically and consciously decides that it should not be a part of a specific holes design. They should have the option not to make that mandatory designation.

That marking your lie on the playing surface when it has come to rest above the playing surface appears to be a relocation of our lie is something I can agree with. That it actually is, similar to relocation of your lie according to Out of Bounds or other rules, I cannot, for state reasons agree with.

I am prepared to discuss any aspect of this, but let's keep the language straight. That there is a difference when you are talking about what "you feel" is an "intuitive" interpretation of a rule and then when we discuss the "actual" meaning of our existing rules.

Yes, the 2 meter language is currently in our rulebook, it is also an option to, without asking the competition director to opt out of that language (by playing it the same way just without the additional penalty throw). The gap it leaves is non-existent within our rules and even if their was a gap it can easily be covered by other rules by the director or course designer.

Is anything so strange or confusing about these points?

its beyond comical to me that the anti-2MR zealots claim that it happens once or twice a year... 0.00000001% of the shots, etc... but have made it their mission in life to kill off the rule! if it so infrequently happens, it shouldnt matter, no should it.

1. it hardly ever happens (right?) so it doesnt matter.
2. you could just rope of the tree and make it OB. no need to change the rules (and obsolete MANY parks signs in the process)
3. dropping without a penalty frequently constitutes free relief from a less than desirable resting place.

i've already taken two in sanctioned play. that makes me above average i guess :)



I guess, obviously, that the 2 meter sentences in our rules are not dissuading you from throwing up in trees then are they? :D

Let me state publicly that the 2M Rule will be in effect on all courses all the time during the '05 Pro Worlds.
Using this rule will demand a higher level of play from our World Championship competitors.

Thanks,
jdflyer (John Duesler)


wow. and to think it would happen in Pennsylvania! actually i am sorry. because i seriously doubt nick is gonna let this happen without a fight. it will probably get quite ugly.



Unlike you Pat; I have never said that I will not play an event because they will not use the 2MR, nor have I ever challenged a TD or course designers right to "CHOOSE" to opt for the optional hazards they decide on.

So no, there will be no ugliness.

one was the result of my only chance being a tomahawk. the other was a blind shot over a hill. didnt have much choice on either. the 2MR does dissuade me when dissuasion makes sense.

I am ready to discuss Jerry. Can you provide an example of how one would use "Unsafe Lie" in the place of the 2 meter sentences in our rules? How would it work exactly?

one was the result of my only chance being a tomahawk. the other was a blind shot over a hill. didnt have much choice on either. the 2MR does dissuade me when dissuasion makes sense.



But not in the actual instances where they happen...

Frequency is not a major issue, it is just another reason to pair our rules down to more essential options; OB in this instance.

i've already taken two in sanctioned play. that makes me above average i guess :)



So far this year I have had more discs over 2M than in water OB. Maybe we should consider revising the OB rule for water? :p



Water is not mandatory OB. There is a significant difference there if you are looking Jerry.

You should drop the use of the anti 2m rule "zeolots" tag. It adds little to the debate and can be rightly applied to anyone with a consistent opinion. Anyway, your argument that:


its beyond comical to me that the anti-2MR zealots claim that it happens once or twice a year... 0.00000001% of the shots, etc... but have made it their mission in life to kill off the rule! if it so infrequently happens, it shouldnt matter, no should it.




seems flawed. The way you mean it, IMO at least, it applies to both sides. Why do y'all want to penalize them if it is so infrequent?

Anyways, one of my reasons for eliminating it revolves around its infrequent occurence; its arbitrary nature. 100 shots into the tree, 1 sticks, lets penalize that one. Makes little sense to me. I get little joy from adding a stroke to my or a competitor's score because they stuck, while 99% of the other shots just as bad as theirs did not.

Before I get flamed, for this, I am simply arguing a point that has merit. I can be convinced otherwise if valid points are raised and discussed.

As I understand it, Rhett's suggestion was that if the disc is above 2M then change the rule to say something like:

If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall mark the lie directly below the disc on the playing surface and be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player is allowed five meters of relief to obtain an unrestricted throwing area. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the marked 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. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.07 A.

I believe this is what Rhett meant when he suggested the use of 'Unsafe Lie'. This then would reduce further restriction of play if the disc lands in the middle of a cedar 2 meters up. I believe it is a valid suggestion that would answer most anti-2Mers problems and coincide with those in favor of keeping the 2M rule. I don't believe that you would agree to this, because I think you are opposed to the 2M rule in general, but if you have a counterpoint, I am more then willing to hear it.



I am ready to discuss Jerry. Can you provide an example of how one would use "Unsafe Lie" in the place of the 2 meter sentences in our rules? How would it work exactly?

ok, i'll drop the zealots things. :( i'll miss it tho :cool:

of course the infrequency thing can go both ways. the anti-2MR people brought it up first, so it is fair for me to use it as a counter argument.

i will readily grant that the frequency argument is one of the least persuasive, either for removing or keeping the rule. before arguments exist on both sides.

Water is not mandatory OB. There is a significant difference there if you are looking Jerry.



You are correct, it was meant as a joke.....I will keep trying. :confused:

We played Hudson Mills last Sunday for family golf. Somewhere in the middle of the round I realized we had not made a decision on the 2-meter rule so I called it: "We're in Ann Arbor so we're playing by Ann Arbor wussy rules."

I had two over 2-meter penalties in my first PDGA tournament this year, IOS #2 at Lombard. The first was well deserved. The second was freaky. On that first one I was also marking my lie approximately 3 feet seven inches closer to the basket from where the disc came to rest. If our game followed the golf rule of "play it where it lies" I would have had to take an unplayable lie penalty because the branch would not have supported my weight anywhere near where the disc came to rest.

"30 feet closer. No penalty. Silly game. Not golf."

Alacrity hits the nail on the head. That is the jist of what I am suggesting. (Although "no closer to the hole" needs to be added in there.) Relief is granted and shots that land 20 feet up get penalties.

"30 feet closer. No penalty. Silly game. Not golf."


You wanna know something funny about the arbitrary height of 2 meters? When you mark your lie directly below the disc, the mark and the disc are pretty much the same distance from the sweet spot of the basket. When you mark a disc that is only one meter you are actually moving farther away from the sweet spot. When you mark a disc that is over 2 meters the mark is definitely closer to the sweet spot than the disc.

Well, the actual "break-even" point is probably closer to 8 feet, but 8 feet isn't a nice whole number of those cool international units "metre". :p


Just pointing out that moving "the lie" to the ground from 2 meters or less really isn't getting you closer to the target like moving from higher elevations is.

Just pointing out that being a big user of overhead shots and spike hyzers, none of my over the tree shots have ended up above 2m, only my low level drives that topped out at less than 20' high.

I think the logical extension of that fact is that overhead shots have less of a chance of getting stuck that line drives that wander over 2m around trees.

I meant to stick that in there, my mistake.


Alacrity hits the nail on the head. That is the jist of what I am suggesting. (Although "no closer to the hole" needs to be added in there.) Relief is granted and shots that land 20 feet up get penalties.

<font color="green"></font>

Before I get flamed, for this, I am simply arguing a point that has merit. I can be convinced otherwise if valid points are raised and discussed.
<font color="green"> You mistake me for someone else, I don�t flame.</font>

As I understand it, Rhett's suggestion was that if the disc is above 2M then change the rule to say something like:

If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall mark the lie directly below the disc on the playing surface and be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player is allowed five meters of relief to obtain an unrestricted throwing area. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the marked 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. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.07 A.
<font color="green"> This is still predicated on the premise that a disc at rest above two meters has a lie that is either unsafe, unplayable or that it is somehow Out of Bounds (a restricted area).

When considered in light of other rules, such as the glossary definition of �Lie� and �803.02 MARKING THE LIE � it is not credible to argue that such a situation has a lie which is unsafe, unplayable or is Out of Bounds because the actual lie is not up in the tree but on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest.

Now if that lie on the playing surface is unsafe, unplayable or is Out of Bounds, then there are existing rules that need no alteration to handle the situation. In short this suggestion though reasonable if one concedes the need for the 2 meter phrases in the �803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE � rules, but I do not concede that point. However reasonable those sentences might �seem�, �feel� especially due to �familiarity� it does not usurp the other major reasons for the removal of those sentences. Namely (in no particular order):
- Out of Bounds and Special Conditions, which are in unison with other rules governing restricted areas; and are at the complete control of the experts involved in tournament play and designing of the that specific course and its infinitely varying holes. The 2 meter sentences are overly restrictive.
- Fairness, which is injured by the highly unpredictable nature of a disc striking and tumbling through a tree. This is different from Horizontal Out of Bounds in that once a disc strikes a Horizontal Out of Bounds the result is more than 50% higher that it will stick Out of Bounds than the chances of a disc striking a tree will stay up in that tree, let alone 2 meters above the playing surface.
- Hidden and Contrary to Other Rules, concepts within the 2 meter sentences that �our lie� is actually up in the tree or off the playing surface and that marking our lie when the disc is above the playing surface is �gaining relief�. This when neither is the case. (now if we want to change these other rules to fit the 2 meter sentences, that is an interesting and involved discussion, but I suspect it would undermine many other rules which currently function flawlessly.
- Overly punitive in 80%+ of situations, where not only is there a penalty throw for no reason under any other ruling, but no relief is provided. (Yes, I know Rhett has attempted to address this, and done a good job within the limited scope of the 2 meter sentences, however as explained it does not address the more fundamental flaws with those sentences.). </font>

I believe this is what Rhett meant when he suggested the use of 'Unsafe Lie'. This then would reduce further restriction of play if the disc lands in the middle of a cedar 2 meters up. I believe it is a valid suggestion that would answer most anti-2Mers problems and coincide with those in favor of keeping the 2M rule. I don't believe that you would agree to this, because I think you are opposed to the 2M rule in general, but if you have a counterpoint, I am more then willing to hear it.
<font color="green"> I hope that I have provided some counterpoints to consider. I am not �just� opposed in general, I have specific and concise reasons based on the reality of our sport and rules. I really believe that the arguments in support of the 2 meter sentences are primarily founded on the pre-existence of the rule. It is a rule, therefore it is right, and all reasons for it follow from that premise. In this, I would ask you another question:

If disc golf never had these few 2 meter sentences in our rules, and we were now discussing adding them, what reasons would you provide for adding them? What part of any of it is not already covered by Unsafe Lie, Special Conditions and Out of Bounds?</font>


I am ready to discuss Jerry. Can you provide an example of how one would use "Unsafe Lie" in the place of the 2 meter sentences in our rules? How would it work exactly?




<font color="green"> Discussion is better, isn�t it? </font>

The rules committee wants to eliminate the current unplayable lie rule in favor of a stroke, penalty and distance rule. So the chances that they would add the former unplayable lie rule to the former two-meter rule does not seem likely. Besides, it is not nearly as silly as a rule where you might move your disc 30 feet closer to the basket from where it came to rest without a penalty.

When will we get the free hop, skip and jump out of the schule like in bongo golf?

Maybe we could figure out some way to incorporate a spinner and some large colored dots into the game.

it's your "30 feet closer, no penalty" scenario that is silly. A disc coming to rest 1.8 meters above the playing surface is not moved 1.8 meters -- it is marked according to the rules (vertically below where it came to rest). same with a disc resting 6 miles above the playing surface. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

if there's a velcro tree right over the pin then the pin should be moved or the tree can be made OB. quit turning a molehill into a mountain...

Well.............it is what it is.

This kinda prevents guys from Bombing the hole , with a tree next to the basket. Using the tree as a stoping point. Easy birdie or possible ace.

Any disc thrown out of bounds , and I don't care if it lands on someone's house or two story appartment building , it is ONLY out of bounds. Play the shot where it was last Inbounds.

For a shot , landing in a Tree or other obsticle , above two meters , Play the shot directly below or no closer to the PIN.

NO CLOSER

NO CLOSER !!!!!!!

Thank you.

Don and Bruce,

You are beating a dead horse. Marking your lie on the playing surface IS NOT RELIEF, IT IS NOT MOVING YOUR LIE CLOSER TO THE PIN, IT IS SIMPLY THE METHOD WE HAVE CHOSEN TO �MARK OUR LIE�.

Your challenge is not with the 2 meter rule being eliminated but with the rules that govern how we go about marking our lie and what a lie is.

Now Bruce admitted earlier in the discussion that he does not see this as a rules discussion but as a �common sense� or �intuitive� discussion of how he thinks many folks perceive the situation when a disc comes to rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface and is then marked on the playing surface below. That it �seems� like the lie is being moved closer to the target and that it �seems� like relief is being given. Now if you look at it this way, not in light of our rules, these are reasonable arguments.

However, if you look at it in light of our rules, specifically the method and definition of marking a lie and what a lie is in disc golf then marking your lie on the playing surface below, regardless of distance from the playing surface �is not� a relocation of your lie nor is it in any way relief. It just isn�t, according to our rules; not even our 2 meter sentences propose that it is!

Our sport decided long ago that though our discs may take any and all paths to the pin, whether along the playing surface or through the air, but when it comes to our players, our throwers, we want them to be firmly supported by the playing surface when they play disc golf. The best way to accomplish this, without a rule book the size of a Webster�s Dictionary, is to require that all lies be marked on the playing surface; from which the thrower must have a supporting point of contact upon release of the disc. Simple, concise, well thought out, and once understood intuitive.

Furthermore, with the precisely worded definition of �playing surface� being added in the next rule update, understanding of why we mark our lie on the playing surface and not .5, 1, 1.5, 2 or more meters above the playing surface will become even more readily available and intuitive.

Clinging desperately to this argument of �no closer� is not a rules consideration, that is unless we plan on completely revising our rules concerning �lie� and �marking our lie� not to mention all of the ways those definitions and rules affect other rules in our rulebook. An interesting talking point perhaps, but not something that presents a convincing pro or con 2 meter rule argument.

Sensible Person: gosh, where did my drive go?
Nick: i dont know... looked like it hit the tree right above the basket.
Robj: yeah, i thought you were gonna get really lucky and have it drop in for an ace!
Sensible Person: well, i dont see it. maybe it got stuck.
Nick: i think i see something way up there.... see it about 40' up... just left of the pin?
Robj: oh yeah, i see it too! just right of that squirrel nest way up there.
Sensible Person: geez, i cant believe i let it go that badly! i was lucky it didnt fly into the next county. it's like at least 40' feet up there. where do i play it from?
Nick: well, its only 6' to the left of the pin, so just mark it on the ground here next to the pin.
Sensible Person: but that doesnt seem fair to mark my lie so much closer to the basket from where my disc came to rest!
Robj: it not really any closer.
Nick: exactly. it just looks that way cuz of geometry.
Sensible Person: wow thanks! in that case nick's 35 footer is out. i hope you make your putt!

Replace "Sensible" with "Ignorant of the Rules" and you aren't that far off.

Try this one:

Ignorant of the Rules: gosh, where did my drive go?
Sensible Person : i dont know... looked like it hit the tree right above the basket.
Pat: yeah, i thought you were gonna get really lucky and have it drop in for an ace!
Ignorant of the Rules : well, i dont see it. maybe it got stuck.
Sensible Person : i think i see it.... see it about 2 meters up... just left of the pin?
Pat : oh yeah, i see it too! One centimeter above my disc. I hope the 2 meter rule in effect!
Sensible Person : I didn�t hear anything at the players meeting so you've got your wish and Ignorant is screwed.
Ignorant of the Rules : geez, i cant believe i threw nearly exactly the same shot as Pat but now I have to take a 1 throw penalty while this ******* get's a birdie!
Sensible Person : yeah, it is completely unfair that Pat�s disc is only one centimeter below yours and yet he doesn�t get a penalty stroke. If this tree (right next to the basket�bad hole design) was marked OB, you�d both be getting a stroke and some relief from the tree.
Ignorant of the Rules : Yeah that makes a lot more sense. This however is definitely not fair!
Pat: Ah hah! It�s fair because my disc was closer to the pin.
Sensible Person : I knew he was going to say that. But what about the lie, is it any closer?
Pat: (Shrug)
Ignorant of the Rules : wow thanks! in that case I quit this dumb game! Call me when the 2 meter rule is dead.



Anymore meatballs Pat?

if there's a velcro tree right over the pin then the pin should be moved or the tree can be made OB. quit turning a molehill into a mountain...


Making the tree OB will make the basket OB. Be sure to read the definition of "OB". Most people don't like it when there is OB within 10 meters of the pin, let alone making the basket itself sit OB.

Here's the math for the math challenged. Take a disc at rest 34 feet up in a tree and then mark the lie on the ground beneath the disc five feet from the basket. The location where you need to throw your putt is about four feet off the ground so your disc came to rest about 30 feet above that spot and five feet back.

The square root of 30 squared plus 5 squared is the distance from where your disc came to rest to the target area. Approximately 30 feet 5 inches. Where you will be putting from is approximately 5 feet from the basket.

No matter what kind of meaningless semantics you want to pull with definitions of lie and fib, your disc came to rest about 30 feet from the target [in a location where you could not have made the putt besides] and you are taking your next throw five feet from the basket.

Without a penalty.

That is just silly. It is not golf. It is silly.

It is not golf.



It is just a rule, created for the game we play. To make it equitable, challenging, whatever. "To make it golf" is nonsensical as a rationale. A secondary concern. A deceptive reason that leads us away from what should guide us.

Anyway, the reasonable argument you gave for determining that the no 2m rule is silly is but part of the total picture. As stated ad naseum for crissakes, there are aspects of the 2M rule that are also "silly" and arguably more destructive to creating a fair and challenging game, which ought to be the goals guiding the rules, not to replicate someones vision of what "golf" means.

(Straight Faced)
Bruce,

Believe it or not I would be in complete agreement with you if "objects on the course" were considered "playing surfaces" and our "lie" was considered "where the disc comes to rest".

The difference between playing surface and objects on the courses is provided in our Rules Q&As:

Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)

Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it.



Clearly our rules force us to mark our lie to be marked and played on the playing surface. There is no way the branch of a tree 40 feet off the playing surface could be considered a playing surface (particularly because if it could be then the disc at rest would not be ruled as 2 meters above the playing surface, right?). It follows that since the tree is not a playing surface you cannot mark your lie on it either, right?

If the tree were a �playing surface� and a player could mark their lie on it, then a player would be permitted to climb the tree, mark the lie and play from there (and I bet there are one or two players that could hit those putts). This is correct isn�t it?

Clearly we do not folks to be climbing trees or any other object during PDGA Tournament Play, or for it to even be an option within our rules, right?

As stated ad naseum for crissakes, there are aspects of the 2M rule that are also "silly" and arguably more destructive to creating a fair and challenging game, which ought to be the goals guiding the rules, not to replicate someones vision of what "golf" means.


Yes, and the double-penalty argument has been recognized as one of the problems with the 2MR. To solve that, people have offered to add some sort of relief to the rule to avoid the double-penalty scenario. Seems to many like that would be a good correction to the rule, and it wouldn't throw at the baby with the bathwater.

As far as I know, that's all that's wrong, that's silly, with the 2MR. I don't understand the argument from people who say that the 2MR is silly because not all discs thrown into trees stick in them. Wind isn't silly because it's variable, and teepads aren't silly when they aren't well-maintained, and so forth. I just don't get that line of thinking. Part of what makes golf interesting (to me) is trying to recover from an unexpected problem.

And then many go further to argue that a disc sticking in a tree is such a rare event anyway as to hardly make a difference to your score. So why advocate the elimination of a rule that in their estimation is having almost no impact to the sport? I don't get it, I really don't.

Perhaps if someone could explain that apparent contradiction to me, then that will help me to understand why some anti-2MRs are upset with the rule.


It is just a rule, created for the game we play. To make it equitable, challenging, whatever. "To make it golf" is nonsensical as a rationale. A secondary concern. A deceptive reason that leads us away from what should guide us.


I don't think anybody's trying to be "deceptive" when they say "it is not golf". Words mean things, and just as there is a lot of discussion on what a "lie" is, there are definitions in people's minds for what "golf" is.

So when somebody says "it is not golf" when a disc is recovered far from the basket and moved closer to the basket without a penalty, he's just expressing his opinion about what he feels defines golf to him. He has a right to his opinion, I have a right to mine, you have a right to yours, and none of us should be called essentially a liar for expressing a truly held opinion.

Nick, I get more and more confused with each arguement you post (and they are many.) I have become convinced that YOU don't even believe the abolishment of the 2MR is a good idea anymore, you just want the rules to be wrapped up in a nice little package, without room for variable or interpretation by those that play it, and are going to play Devil's advocate with circular reasoning until you get it your way (and good for you - seriously - I support that 100%.) I also believe that working together on this thread we have actually done that to everyones' satisfaction. It seems as if a complete revamp of the rules and our terms is in order. If you break it down, dissect it, and compare a rule against a completely seperate rule, then yes, you can find some apparent minor contradictions and obfuscations, but THE SPIRIT OF THE RULES ARE CLEAR. As I said (and you so effeciently neglected to respond to) is that it is obvious the designers of this game intended you to throw from where your disc landed, and if you were unable to do so then a penalty of a throw or two was assesed as you moved your disc from where it landed to where you could throw safely. Don't give me your lie and playing surface semantics. These arguements are not what the rules were meant to create. What we should be concentrating on - AS A TEAM - is making sure that our next version of the rulebook is congruous with the spirit of the designers of this game while still making total grammatical, logical, and common sense. They never envisioned these arguements I'm sure, and therefore made the mistake of making the rulebook too thin. (cue Cumbaya).
Your nonsensical analogy got me to thinking. Middle of the night, some loser steals or simply removes the cover on the manhole dead center of the fairway on #1 @ Circle C. Your disc actually GOES DOWN THE MANHOLE!!! I'm sure crazier stuff has happened in our sport. Ruling O Wise One?


This wasn't as capricious as it seemed. I think I made a point. Can your hamster run fast enough to let you see it?

This Tuesday at the Pease mini I started pretty hot and my scorecard was showing it. I felt pretty good about myself as it had been a long while since I'd had a decent round in competition. Then on 13 I let go a hell of a Sidewinder that was turning on my line just fine until it hit the primary wall guarding the basket. Stuck about 7' up. Lost all my mo' and my #1 finish. Guess what? It's a great rule that is integral to our game. Makes me think some of us aren't mentally tough enough to deal with a bad break so maybe we should just legislate them out as much as possible. Oh, and also change "collared shirt" to "halter top and skirt."

Nick, maybe you should remember that 95% of disc golfers are amatuers, casuals, or one disc and six beers players. They miss by 40ft quite often, and I don't know how your home courses are, but string marking trees or any of the nonsensical arial OB solutions you've offered are impractical at any of the parks I play here. It's funny how easily all these players understand, follow, and use the 2MR effectively.

I'm sick of this. You mavericks anger me sometimes. I mean REALLY anger me. Like you know so much more than EVERYBODY else about what is good for our game that you would change the rules. Not clarify them. Not tweak them after much long, careful debate and an open vote of members. But CHANGE THEM. Just give relief behind the tree and take the throw like a man and stop trying to ruin my favorite sport.(or would having to throw over or around the tree you just hit constitute a double penalty Nicholas?!?!)


Nick: exactly. it just looks that way cuz of geometry.


When I start my "Great Moments in 2MR Thread History" thread, THAT is DEFINITELY going at the top. Nice job sandals, give 'em hell.

I'm sick of this. You mavericks anger me sometimes. I mean REALLY anger me. Like you know so much more than EVERYBODY else about what is good for our game that you would change the rules. Not clarify them. Not tweak them after much long, careful debate and an open vote of members. But CHANGE THEM. Just give relief behind the tree and take the throw like a man and stop trying to ruin my favorite sport.




See how you make people feel, Nick? How long will it take for you to realize how your behavior affects others? Will you ever, or will you just continue to live in denial?

Hey,Don't mean to impose but I suppose it's something affecting us all.I like the reasoning of your statements.It can take alot of angles to make the situation right.And that's just progress.Discs will wind up in the most unlikely places.The hardest or most complicated to play are the tree situations.Although not all wind up 40ft or so high it does on rare occasion happen.You can't play a shot out of a tree.Or at least it isn't a good idea we all know this.If in ball golf your shot lands two feet up in a bush or tree what do you do?I realize our sport isn't quite like ball golf but the same principal applies doesn't it?Two meters really is just outta reach for most of us.But who's wanting to carry around a measuring device every time they wanna challenge a call.a 12 inch ruler will fit in the bag.Make it 12 inches.DONE.If it's at that level it'll always be simple enough to mark the shot.And if some wisecracker want's to JAB it in the ground 2 inches and call it OB.Smack him in the head take another stroke and finish the hole.There will always be the trouble makers.They'll Never take the Spirit of the Sport away from me.They usually just fade away,I've seen alot of them come and go.See Ya Guys and Gals.Pitch Jr,#3902,Outta La Mirada Calif,Ft Smith AR today,Disc Golfer Always.First Round 1978.(OH YEAH Check out NW Doubles Challenge on No West AR thread)Alot of new stuff happening here folks.Just tryin to get it on out here.4 courses in our area now.Two Brand New.Come see us.

This is why I have such faith in the Arkansas public school system. Thanks for your support. Stop typing.

You know something wisearse!I was throwing plastic and you we're probably on your mommas' teet.Still are I suppose.Is it not OK for golfers to express an opinion?Or is this the guy Crying because he's always stickin his shot in the wrong place.The problem is everyone want's to pick this shi! to death.If they'd just make a decision and stick to it.Whiners like you could move on to other things and us Real Golfers could get back to kickin your arse on the course.I may live in AR but this So Cal boy could school ya like you've never seen.Later Whiner!

So when somebody says "it is not golf" when a disc is recovered far from the basket and moved closer to the basket without a penalty, he's just expressing his opinion about what he feels defines golf to him. He has a right to his opinion, I have a right to mine, you have a right to yours, and none of us should be called essentially a liar for expressing a truly held opinion.



Gimme a break. First, I acknowldeged that his argument made sense. Secondly, saying that "it ain't golf" is a deceptive argument is a far cry from calling Bruce a liar. As you say, words have meaning. Work a little harder.


I don't understand the argument from people who say that the 2MR is silly because not all discs thrown into trees stick in them. Wind isn't silly because it's variable, and teepads aren't silly when they aren't well-maintained, and so forth. I just don't get that line of thinking. Part of what makes golf interesting (to me) is trying to recover from an unexpected problem.




I'm sorry that you can't understand this. The fact that one poor sap gets screwed when everyone else doesn't IS NOT DEEP. It is a simple argument. To say it is a variable like wind seems pretty lame. Also, like Pat before you, the infrequency of the call can be translated as "why the hell do you care" to both sides. The difference is that one side wishes to punish the insignificant event while the other does not.

(Not directed at Paul) Please, before I retire from this crap again, can I hear one more freaking time how macho the rule is, and how people should just take their medicine for their bad shot and how anti 2m people are just wusses that want to make the sport easier and how it is just like a water OB and you must want to get rid of all OBs cause you are scared. blah blah blah.

James, i cant believe you are retiring from this melee! well, i suppose you should. this discussion, like the 2MR itself, is for REAL men. if you throw a crappy shot into a tree then take your freakin medicine like a man for christ sake! get over the whining that you and all the wussy anti-2MR zealots (bonus epithat just for the occasion!) spew forth when you want what amounts to a mulligan. penalty free relief makes the whole sport easier. while its not exactly like OB, you might as well ban all OB. at least that approach might lower your scores and keep your cissy egos from tearing up!

:D:D:D

Here's the math for the math challenged. Take a disc at rest 34 feet up in a tree and then mark the lie on the ground beneath the disc five feet from the basket. The location where you need to throw your putt is about four feet off the ground so your disc came to rest about 30 feet above that spot and five feet back.

The square root of 30 squared plus 5 squared is the distance from where your disc came to rest to the target area. Approximately 30 feet 5 inches. Where you will be putting from is approximately 5 feet from the basket.

No matter what kind of meaningless semantics you want to pull with definitions of lie and fib, your disc came to rest about 30 feet from the target [in a location where you could not have made the putt besides] and you are taking your next throw five feet from the basket.

Without a penalty.

That is just silly. It is not golf. It is silly.



Here�s the rule for the rule challenged. Take a disc at rest 34 feet up in a tree and then mark the lie on the playing surface directly below the disc.

Congratulations! Now you have marked your lie according to the rules.

If the 2 meter sentences are in effect add a stroke to your score, if not don�t.

That is disc golf. It is not Gnome golf. It is elegant.

As stated ad naseum for crissakes, there are aspects of the 2M rule that are also "silly" and arguably more destructive to creating a fair and challenging game, which ought to be the goals guiding the rules, not to replicate someones vision of what "golf" means.




Yes, and the double-penalty argument has been recognized as one of the problems with the 2MR. To solve that, people have offered to add some sort of relief to the rule to avoid the double-penalty scenario. Seems to many like that would be a good correction to the rule, and it wouldn't throw at the baby with the bathwater.





The 2 meter sentences in our rules are not some baby that needs to be handled with care, they are a section that if removed would have next to no impact on the way we play nor the outcome of competitions. Furthermore, anything they can do other rules can do better, just devoid of the rare under considered mandatory penalty throw some feel is so sacred to our game. To truly solve that and other challenges created by the 2 meter sentences does not involve further complication of an already faulty rule, but the replacement where needed as judged by directors and designers with special conditions that can either provide penalty throws or not and absolutely provide relief. That is a real solution, and not another band-aid.


I don't understand the argument from people who say that the 2MR is silly because not all discs thrown into trees stick in them� I just don't get that line of thinking.


I don�t think the 2 meter sentences are silly; I think they are completely unnecessary and, unfortunately, actually has a negative impact on the perception and experience of disc golf in that it is not intuitive and in most cases clearly overly punitive.


Part of what makes golf interesting (to me) is trying to recover from an unexpected problem.



Out of Bounds and Special Conditions present a clear and known challenge; the 2 meter sentences challenge are a crapshoot. It is like having a course with pieces of green string strung tight to the ground intermittently here and there that the TD has declared as a special condition: If your disc at rest is touching one of these strings then add a penalty throw to your score. Furthermore, that the PDGA has mandated that all courses place these special condition strings everywhere on every hole and every course in direct proportion to the number of trees on them.

�Ah, dude, that is your 3rd string on this hole! Too bad��


And then many go further to argue that a disc sticking in a tree is such a rare event anyway as to hardly make a difference to your score. So why advocate the elimination of a rule that in their estimation is having almost no impact to the sport? I don't get it, I really don't.



Get this Paul, the impact it has is only negative. It solves no rules gap, other than the one we have created out of whole cloth, and it creates an �unfair� and �randomly harmful� aspect to competitive disc golf that simply is not warranted or necessary (particularly since we already have a host of solid elegant rules that can address any issue the 2 meter rule might actually cover).



It is just a rule, created for the game we play. To make it equitable, challenging, whatever. "To make it golf" is nonsensical as a rationale. A secondary concern. A deceptive reason that leads us away from what should guide us.


I don't think anybody's trying to be "deceptive" when they say "it is not golf". Words mean things, and just as there is a lot of discussion on what a "lie" is, there are definitions in people's minds for what "golf" is.



So when somebody says "it is not golf" when a disc is recovered far from the basket and moved closer to the basket without a penalty, he's just expressing his opinion about what he feels defines golf to him. He has a right to his opinion, I have a right to mine, you have a right to yours, and none of us should be called essentially a liar for expressing a truly held opinion.

[/QUOTE]

I understand that you feel you have a point that has teeth, with the moving closer to the pin without penalty thingy, but as far as our, disc golf�s that is, rules are concerned (fundamental rules �lie� and �marking a lie�) your lie is not moving closer to the pin.

Now if you Paul, Bruce or Pat have any challenge with this, particularly within 10 meters of the pin, you<font color="blue"> as tournament directors or designers</font> may <font color="blue">choose</font> to create a special condition within that area to address this perceived �non-rules� design issue. You guys would be free to create these special conditions ANYWHERE you see fit, even the entire course, and I would have no issue with any of them and if I did I could just avoid your event.

Hope this has helped to explain my position. I don�t hate the 2 meter sentences, I just see them as complete superfluous and even mildly negative to our image and experience. This unlike special conditions and out of bounds. (And there are a host of aspects to special conditions and out of bounds that are infinitely superior to the 2 meter sentences; such as providing relief options�.)

Nick, I get more and more confused with each arguement you post (and they are many.)



Which ones for example?
A) That the 2 meter rule is superfluous? That OB and Special Conditions are superior in every shape, manner and form for repeatedly stated reasons?
B) That the 2 meter rule is overly punitive? Tossing a penalty stroke on an already likely difficult situation.
C) That marking your lie according to our rules, 2 meter penalty or not, is not relief?
D) That Tournament Directors, Course Pros and Designers should have complete control of restricted areas, penalty throws for landing in such areas, and what form of relief is provided?
Which of these are confusing to you?


I have become convinced that YOU don't even believe the abolishment of the 2MR is a good idea anymore, you just want the rules to be wrapped up in a nice little package, without room for variable or interpretation by those that play it, and are going to play Devil's advocate with circular reasoning until you get it your way (and good for you - seriously - I support that 100%.)


There is a certain truth that I am �discussing� this here, expressing ideas and reading them as an act of entertainment; and yes I am interested in making our rules �better�, with fewer gaps or holes; but I assure you that while I would greatly favor the complete and total removal of all 2 meter sentences from our rulebook, that I am more than willing to leave it as an option for TDs and Designers who have not yet realized that there are superior existing ways to handle all similar situations.


I also believe that working together on this thread we have actually done that to everyones' satisfaction. It seems as if a complete revamp of the rules and our terms is in order. If you break it down, dissect it, and compare a rule against a completely seperate rule, then yes, you can find some apparent minor contradictions and obfuscations, but THE SPIRIT OF THE RULES ARE CLEAR. As I said (and you so effeciently neglected to respond to) is that it is obvious the designers of this game intended you to throw from where your disc landed, and if you were unable to do so then a penalty of a throw or two was assesed as you moved your disc from where it landed to where you could throw safely. Don't give me your lie and playing surface semantics. These arguements are not what the rules were meant to create.


IN YOUR OPINION. Don�t forget that disclaimer. You do not have final say on the Spirit of the Rules. If anything, the rules themselves combined with actual experience are the best arbiter of Spirit of the Rules. And in my opinion, they clearly indicate that marking your lie is not an act of relief (if it were then marking your lie when it is above the playing surface but below 2 meters would be equally considered relief would it not?


What we should be concentrating on - AS A TEAM - is making sure that our next version of the rulebook is congruous with the spirit of the designers of this game while still making total grammatical, logical, and common sense. They never envisioned these arguements I'm sure, and therefore made the mistake of making the rulebook too thin. (cue Cumbaya).


You do not give them enough credit I suspect. I believe their thought process, or the majority of them obviously, was similar to many of the arguments on behalf of the 2 meter sentences expressed here. Their failure, as I see it, is that they didn�t consider the reality of such an addition to our rules during actual competition that result in the many faults I and others have discussed and observed in real play. On some level I can see how they missed the glaring faults; we needed 20 years for them to be clear enough to take some action after all�

The solution for those shortcomings, or part of them, offered by those who wish to preserve the 2 meter sentences, is to add a new provision to those sentences providing �relief�. For me, that would be a complete and total waste of valuable space within an otherwise concise, elegant and tight group of rules governing play in disc golf; because we already have rules that are completely capable of dealing with any situation as concerns a disc above the playing surface.


Nick, maybe you should remember that 95% of disc golfers are amatuers, casuals, or one disc and six beers players. They miss by 40ft quite often, and I don't know how your home courses are, but string marking trees or any of the nonsensical arial OB solutions you've offered are impractical at any of the parks I play here. It's funny how easily all these players understand, follow, and use the 2MR effectively.


What �effect� is that? To be over penalized?
And I happen to think that you are wrong: most Joe Six-Pack Golfers have no idea that OB or the 2 meter rules even exist. Players who are ignorant of the rules and have no interest in learning or playing by the rules are of no interest to me or this discussion. We need to stay focused on those who want to know and play by the rules and make them as good as we can. I can remember back to when I first started to play (and care about the rules) and was told about the 2 meter penalty; and I remember thinking how strange it was. I can remember, multiple times, when I was playing with a newbie and had to tell them about the 2 meter rule and how strange they thought it was and that I would have to say, �It�s not a rule you would just think up on your own.� (No matter what Bruce says.)


I'm sick of this.


Then perhaps you should abstain from further participation if it is causing you so much distress.

You mavericks anger me sometimes. I mean REALLY anger me. Like you know so much more than EVERYBODY else about what is good for our game that you would change the rules.


James and I are no different from you or anyone else here, we are just PDGA members discussing something that interests us and something we believe could help our sport. Because you disagree with us does not make us �mavericks�. We are providing arguments for why we feel and think as we do and you are invited to do likewise. Don�t get anger at either Player or the Game, or like you said you will be neither a Player or in the Game.

Not clarify them. Not tweak them after much long, careful debate and an open vote of members. But CHANGE THEM.


This is particularly amusing to me since I have, more than anyone, clarified my position again and again, and have never shied away from �tweaking� them. (i.e. I no longer believe marking trees OB above 2 meters is possible under current rules (minus the 2 meter sentences or with them and so on)). I am changing nothing; adding relief to the 2 meter sentences would be �change�, all that I propose is �removal� of those sentences.

Just give relief behind the tree and take the throw like a man and stop trying to ruin my favorite sport.(or would having to throw over or around the tree you just hit constitute a double penalty Nicholas?!?!)


How about just making that specific tree on that specific hole on that specific course a special conditions area where if you land above 2 meters you get relief according to the directors specifications designed specifically for that hole and that specific situation? How would this ruin �YOUR� game? Or would it ruin �YOUR� game for someone not to get a penalty throw when they stick above 2 meters? Have you even played in an event where the 2 meter sentences are turned off? I have played in a bunch and �it� not being there was as matter of fact as �who�s up next?�!



Nick: exactly. it just looks that way cuz of geometry.


When I start my "Great Moments in 2MR Thread History" thread, THAT is DEFINITELY going at the top. Nice job sandals, give 'em hell.



Though clever and funny, his little Christmas avatar and Bruce�s silliness have no bearing on the rules under which we play. If they want them to have some bearing then I suggest they start lobbying the PDGA Rules Committee to begin work on redefinition of our lie and how we mark it.

Besides even with the 2 meter sentences in effect we still don�t play it from the exact distance our disc was at rest from the center or the sweet spot, so the guy would still have a 6 foot putt.

So what is your motivation for giving the guy a penalty throw? Or on all other golfers regardless of specific conditions of the hole or course? Or your design theories on all other Tournament Directors, Course Pros and Designers? Or having a rule in our rulebook that is clearly superfluous? Or...

Jeff, your petty is showing. If this upsets you perhaps you should go play elsewhere?

I hope that I have provided some counterpoints to consider. I am not �just� opposed in general, I have specific and concise reasons based on the reality of our sport and rules. I really believe that the arguments in support of the 2 meter sentences are primarily founded on the pre-existence of the rule. It is a rule, therefore it is right, and all reasons for it follow from that premise. In this, I would ask you another question:

If disc golf never had these few 2 meter sentences in our rules, and we were now discussing adding them, what reasons would you provide for adding them? What part of any of it is not already covered by Unsafe Lie, Special Conditions and Out of Bounds?

I am ready to discuss Jerry. Can you provide an example of how one would use "Unsafe Lie" in the place of the 2 meter sentences in our rules? How would it work exactly?



Nick, I have read through your comments and you have some valid points. I agree that the 2M rule does not fit well within the definition of Unsafe Lie, Out of Bounds or unplayable lie (within the guidelines of marking the disc). This for the most part leaves us with a rule that you feel is unnecessary. I would suggest that since it does not fit within the definition of unsafe lie, out of bounds or unplayable lie that this is the reason for the rule. Others will argue that it is a rule of the game and that removing it will change the game. This will not be resolved by those on either side of the 2M rule. People on both sides are too adamant. I agree that all guidelines given under Unsafe Lie, Special Conditions or Out of Bounds appear to adequately handle the situation, should the 2M rule be removed. I also believe they would work if the sentences about marking a disc above the playing surface were removed. This of course would tend to be more punitive then the 2M rule, but that is neither here nor there. But I have a question of you and I want you to take your time answering this question, how does the 2M rule vary from Lost Disc? Should we further penalize someone for losing a disc by adding a stroke to their score? Be careful how you answer this question, because if you say that they obviously cannot play from their lie, I will respond that the rules are quite clear on marking the lie for a lost disc. Once the lie is marked it is just as valid as marking the lie of a disc in a tree. If you tell me there is a difference in that you can clearly identify the disc, then what about the disc that is stuck 40 feet up in the air, it is irretrievable and a distinguishing mark is not visible? I have already asked about this and you're response was along the lines of 'benefit of the doubt'.

I believe that every argument you have used against the 2M rule could just as easily be applied to the rule for a lost disc. Before everyone gets excited, I am offering this as an example of a rule that fits outside of the boundary of Unsafe Lie, Out of Bounds or unplayable lie. I am not saying it should be removed.

Whew.............what's with the 800 quotes.

Unless someone just wants to argue ?

...saying that "it ain't golf" is a deceptive argument is a far cry from calling Bruce a liar. As you say, words have meaning. Work a little harder.


Liar. Synonym: deceiver.

Deceptive. Definition: designed to deceive.

Whew! Hard work done.


Also, like Pat before you, the infrequency of the call can be translated as "why the hell do you care" to both sides.


I never agreed the 2MR was infrequent. I said others said it was infrequent, so why do they care. It actually seems to happen a lot more often than others state -- maybe I'm a bad player playing with other bad players -- so it does affect me. Seems every round I play in a wooded course, the 2MR comes up. So I care. Don't know why you care, though, if you think the rule is far more infrequent.

I noticed, by the way James, that you completely ignored the point I made that the "silliness" (to use your word) of the double-penalty has been admitted by those of us who support the 2MR, and adding relief to the 2MR has been proposed to solve that. So no one I can think of in this discussion is fully pro-2MR, as it is currently written.

How 'bout a little recognition of that, and not so much vitriole and hostility over what you seem to think is our intransigence over a "silly" rule? We aren't being intransigent if we are proposing a modification to the rule to deal with a legitimate complaint!

We just don't think it's wise to rip out a rule without looking at the unintended consequences that you dismiss so readily. Some discs will really end up 40 feet high in the air, it is not a violation of the basic laws of physics, and there will be no penalty assessed, even if the thrower can't retrieve his disc, because the benefit of the doubt will be given to him that that far-distant object is his disc. Why is it so hard to understand that some of us might think that in such a situation, a penalty might be in order?

Which ones for example?
A) That the 2 meter rule is superfluous? That OB and Special Conditions are superior in every shape, manner and form for repeatedly stated reasons?
B) That the 2 meter rule is overly punitive? Tossing a penalty stroke on an already likely difficult situation.
C) That marking your lie according to our rules, 2 meter penalty or not, is not relief?
D) That Tournament Directors, Course Pros and Designers should have complete control of restricted areas, penalty throws for landing in such areas, and what form of relief is provided?
Which of these are confusing to you?




<font color="blue">A. Again, maybe simple in a tourney, but confusing in casual play.

B. Not overly punitive w/ relief, which a majority of us "pros" have offered as sensible.

C. "According to our rules" which is one of the reasons I support the revamp.

D. Which is EXACTLY why NO CHANGE is needed. Declare your tourney "2MR free" snd you can play your way whenever you want.
</font>
***tangent alert***
Lost Disc - Today losing a disc got me to thinking...I've got to throw from where I last saw rather than the preferable spot that I think it's in, I lost a disc I'll need later, AND I take a penalty throw. All for a good shot I simply could not locate in the twilight. What's overly punitive?!?!

IN YOUR OPINION. Don�t forget that disclaimer.

I never do. I thought it was understood among intellectuals such as us.

Jerry, without quoting everything to this point, it would seem that we agree that the 2 meter sentences do not have an easy relationship with other rules governing �restricted areas�. You, and others, cite �lost disc� as a reason for keeping the 2 meter sentences within our rules, when I have discussed at great length that the relation is tenuous at best, since basic logic dictates that a disc that is lost can not be known to be above 2 meters and a disc that is known to be above 2 meters can not also be lost.

But let me attempt to answer your question directly:


But I have a question of you and I want you to take your time answering this question, how does the 2M rule vary from Lost Disc?
<font color="blue">
Not what are similar but how do they vary? I�m glad you asked that and not how they are similar. There are some obvious similarities. Here are what I see as different:
1) The 2 meter sentences are a universal restricted area special conditions rule, basically restricting all areas 2 meters above the playing surface as an area worthy of a penalty throw; whereas the �lost disc� rule has nothing to do with special conditions or restricted areas, but is a rule for dealing with the situation where a competitively thrown disc is not able to be �located� (notice I did not say �recovered�; this being how our rules, wisely, define it, i.e. a disc vanishes after being seen dive into the center of a deep pond or river).
2) For the 2 meter sentences to be applicable the location of the disc must be known. For the lost disc rule, obviously, the location of the disc cannot be known.
3) The lie of a disc above 2 meters is determined the same way any disc above the playing surface is determined, while the determination of a lost discs lie currently is determined by a judgment call of the group or an official.
Now Jerry, I know that you wished to set up a situation by which these situations were the same in that the disc could not be �identified� (i.e.� stuck 40 feet up in the air, it is irretrievable and a distinguishing mark is not visible�), however IF that disc way up in the tree was not able to be located as the throwers disc, then this discussion of lost disc versus disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface would actually be lost disc versus lost disc, is this not correct?
</font>
Should we further penalize someone for losing a disc by adding a stroke to their score?
<font color="blue"> Good question. But has no relation directly to our current rules other than the fact that a penalty throw exists for both of these rules already and that (naturally) our rules already provide a fixed method of determining a lie from which play may continue (if our rules didn�t, then a player who lost a disc or had a disc land above the playing field would have no option other than to withdraw from the event�). The basis for the penalty throw in each case is based on different criteria, as is the method of marking the lie. </font>
Be careful how you answer this question, because if you say that they obviously cannot play from their lie, I will respond that the rules are quite clear on marking the lie for a lost disc. Once the lie is marked it is just as valid as marking the lie of a disc in a tree. If you tell me there is a difference in that you can clearly identify the disc, then what about the disc that is stuck 40 feet up in the air, it is irretrievable and a distinguishing mark is not visible? I have already asked about this and you're response was along the lines of 'benefit of the doubt'.
<font color="blue"> I think I have covered this already. If I have not been clear let me know. </font>
I believe that every argument you have used against the 2M rule could just as easily be applied to the rule for a lost disc.
<font color="blue"> Though interesting to consider, the differences are significant enough that the comparison is inappropriate, and conclusions drawn tenuous at best. The primary difference being that the lie of the disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface is known and can be marked according to our rule governing unrestricted areas, where as the lie of a lost disc is by definition unknown and can only be marked according to rules governing a situation where the lie of the disc is unknown.</font>
Before everyone gets excited, I am offering this as an example of a rule that fits outside of the boundary of Unsafe Lie, Out of Bounds or unplayable lie. I am not saying it should be removed.


<font color="blue"> This is an interesting take on it Jerry, I appreciate the immediate puzzlement of such a comparison, but on, hopefully, careful consideration, the differences are significant enough that no substantiation for the preservation of the 2 meter sentences within our rules is clearly or emphatically warranted. </font>

Seems every round I play in a wooded course, the 2MR comes up. So I care. Don't know why you care, though, if you think the rule is far more infrequent.



The frequency only speaks to the fundamental practice of the PDGA Rules Committee do deal with situations that come up more than rarely. If we were trying to get these additional sentences concerning a disc at rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface added to the rulebook, they likely would not give it much consideration.

Now, of ALL restricted area rules (which by the way are all designated by the tournament director or designer and not our rulebook, unlike the 2 meter sentences), none occurs, in my experience, as infrequently as the 2 meter sentences.

The significance, of frequency, to this discussion is little more than this.

We just don't think it's wise to rip out a rule without looking at the unintended consequences that you dismiss so readily. Some discs will really end up 40 feet high in the air, it is not a violation of the basic laws of physics, and there will be no penalty assessed, even if the thrower can't retrieve his disc, because the benefit of the doubt will be given to him that that far-distant object is his disc. Why is it so hard to understand that some of us might think that in such a situation, a penalty might be in order?



But you are, obviously, free to argue it, and we are free to see it's inherently flawed logic. Besides, if you are 100% convinced of it's validity, as a tournament director or course designer you would still, even with the complete removal of the two meter sentences,be free to restrict such areas (free of charge!), wouldn't you?

I appreciate your concern for me and players around the world that we get a penalty throw, but it is misplaced; we will all be just fine without it. ;)

Nick,

First of all I agree with the majority of your points, but I don't think you understand the intent of my post. I am not saying a disc above 2M is the same as a lost disc, and I see your point about not being able to identify a disc. It is and should be considered a lost disc and handled differently from an identified disc lodged securely in a tree. I misunderstood your previous posts.

The point I was trying to make was that I could apply most of your points against the 2M rule to the rules for a lost disc, not that a disc above 2M is the same as a lost disc. It happens rarely, if it is lost in an unplayable lie, the same penalties for an unplayable lie could be applied. If the disc is lost in what is believed to be OB, it could be handled with the same rules for OB. If there is no penalty for a lost disc, then the player is not additionally penalized for losing a disc. Conversely and using the same reasoning that you use, if the disc cannot be identified, but your disc appears to be 40 feet up in a tree, I believe that we could agree as a group that that may be your disc, but since it is above 2M you would receive a 1 penalty stroke. The same reasoning you would use if the disc could not be identified and would be considered lost with the removal of the 2M penalty rule.

I am not arguing for removing or changing the rules for the lost discs, I am just saying your points against the 2M rule appear to apply to this situation as well.

Question: How do you think our rule handles a �lost disc� that is last seen over an out of bounds playing surface versus how it handles a disc that is last seen over an in bounds area that is flying more than 2 meters above the playing surface? Does the likely actual landing location of the disc matter in either case?

I think this in summation clarifies the difference I perceive.

Lost discs are treated the same way without regard to their height or the playing surface they were last seen flying over. In all cases, it is a 1 stroke penalty and the approximate lie is marked inbounds nearest to where the disc was last seen.

This does bring up an interesting question. If a disc was thrown well out over an OB area that parallels the fairway and is seen to be coming back close to IB near the basket, but can not be found, where is the lie, and what is the call ?

Is the disc OB since it never was seen to come back IB, or lost because it can't be found ?

The difference will be in the lie. If it is ruled OB, then the OB rules apply, and the thrower has options (re-tee, mark where the disc crossed into OB, drop zone). If it si declared lost, the lie should be IB at the nearest point to where the disc was last seen (near the basket).

One could argue that if the disc can not be found, it can not be ruled to be OB since the OB rule requires that the disc be clearly surrounded by the OB area. It can be deduced that the disc is OB since it was not seen to come back IB, but is that clear evidence that the disc is OB ?


803.08 Out-of-Bounds
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area.

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

Clarification, to one and all, I am not stating that a lost disc and a disc being above 2M is the same, nor am I debating that either or both rule should or should not be removed from the rule book. I believe that the majority of the arguments used to defend removing the 2M rule could be applied to a lost disc as well.


Question: How do you think our rule handles a �lost disc� that is last seen over an out of bounds playing surface versus how it handles a disc that is last seen over an in bounds area that is flying more than 2 meters above the playing surface? Does the likely actual landing location of the disc matter in either case?



Our rules don't speak about a disc that was last seen out of bounds, before being lost, however using the same logic that is used for the 2M rule, it would be assumed OB. The only difference would be if the player specifically states the disc is lost, then three minutes of searching must ensue. In either case the player is penalized 1 stroke.

In the case of the disc last being seen disappearing into a tree or shrub above two meters, the disc is marked last seen and the player is penalized 1 stroke.

So using your argument:

Question: How do you think our rule handles a "disc above 2M" that is located out of bounds versus how the rule handles a disc that is found in an in bounds area 2 meters above the playing surface? Does the likely actual landing location of the disc matter in either case? Is the player penalized the same?


I think this in summation clarifies the difference I perceive.



Maybe I am just thick headed, but I still believe that your arguments could be applied to removing the lost disc rule as well.

Gary, I agree with you that this is an interesting point, but my primary reason for asking the question of Jerry was for how it relates to the 2 meter sentences in our rules.

I have always played that if it cannot be verified by an player in the group, nearby groups, spotter or official, that we should not try to deduce other than what is required by the rules as far as providing a lie. If the last place anyone saw the disc was over OB, then the discs last place in bounds was where we last saw it in bounds. We can not, or should not, guess at what might or might not have happened once the disc was out of sight. You can not assume that the lost disc is at rest surrounded by in bounds designated playing surface.

A disc flying along at above 2 meters that vanishes into a stand of in bounds trees can not be declared as at rest above 2 meters because where would you mark the lie? Where it first passed above 2 meters back at the tee pad? Where it was last seen entering the tree? Where you think it stopped up in the tree?

Where you last saw it enter the tree, does not fit the definition of the 2 meter sentences, it fits the sentences within the lost disc rule solely. What happened after it disappeared can only be determined if the disc can be found as far as a 2 meter ruling; and this is in direct contrast to the disc last seen over out of bounds.

Please show me where I am mistaken if you think I am.

I'm still interested in Jerry's take on this as well.

We can not, or should not, guess at what might or might not have happened once the disc was out of sight. You can not assume that the lost disc is at rest surrounded by in bounds designated playing surface.


Interesting points, but not related to my questions.

My question was if a disc traveled over OB territory and was seen to be coming back close to IB territory neat the basket. No assumption of what happened since the disc was not out of sight until it neared IB terriroty.

You are not required to assume the disc is surrounded by IB territory, you are required to show the disc is clearly surrounded by OB area before the disc is considered OB.

In either case, which rule is used. The difference in the lie is about 300' on the hole I am thing about, and the penalty is the same (except that the disc is lost).

Reading the wording of the rules led me to think of a few holes where one route from the tee goes out over OB territory for the majority of the flight, but OB area is not blocked from view from the tee. The first trees that could obscure sight of the disc are near the OB/IB line and within 40' of the basket. You can clearly see the disc coming into the area around the trees (quite overgrown in one case) but you can't see the IB area from the tee to know if the disc came inbounds until you reach that area.

The lost disc rule makes no mention of the last place the disc was seen IB, only the last place the disc was seen.

The lost disc rule makes no mention of the last place the disc was seen IB, only the last place the disc was seen.




Thank you for the answer. If it was last seen over OB it is OB, if last over IB then IB. Not complicated.

Is there a connection to the 2 meter sentences discussion? Not peeved just wondering.

No, just noticed this when I went looking at the lost disc stuff.

There still is no assumption the disc is OB just because the last place you saw it was OB.

The OB rule demands proof that the disc is OB, not anectodal evidence that it isn't IB. As in "A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area."

The question is which rule takes precedence and where would you mark the lie ?

It would seem that if the disc can not be found, it can't be determined to be OB so the lost disc rule would be the one applied. The lie would IB nearest to where the disc was last seen, not IB where the disc entered the OB area.

if there's a velcro tree right over the pin then the pin should be moved or the tree can be made OB. quit turning a molehill into a mountain...


Making the tree OB will make the basket OB. Be sure to read the definition of "OB". Most people don't like it when there is OB within 10 meters of the pin, let alone making the basket itself sit OB.



you are already calling for the retention of a blanket rule which mandates any tree above 2 meters as OB, so in the case above -- even with the elimination of the 2 meter rule come January 1st, 2006 -- all you have to do is declare that particular tree in question as involving an aerial OB for anything stuck above 1, 2, or 3 meters (name your poison).

If you read Nick's position on this rule without prejudging his comments as too Nick-like /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) you'll find he has made clear that even after the elimination of the 2 meter rule, TD's will have the freedom to declare aerial OB where they see fit (such as for those hole's that formerly were overly dependent upon the 2 meter rule)

Hmmmmmmmm.............just doesn't sound right to me.... :confused:

neither should the 2 meter rule /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif the only way to mitigate the 2 meter rule's problems is to offer up to 2 meters of relief in exchange for the penalty stroke. (i say 2 meters of relief in the attempt to make the arbitrary measurement of 2 meters a little more standard -- perhaps it would be better to make it a 1 meter rule with 1 meter of relief to make it consistent with the OB penalty = up to 1 meter relief rule. still, why not eliminate the 2 meter rule altogether as a separate bizarre rule in our book and move it into the OB section where it belongs? that way TD's have discretion to implement it or not as they see fit for particular holes/courses/tournaments. if we were starting out new -- making the 2 meter rule separate from the OB rules section seems counterintuitive. and if it would be better as part of the OB section, let's eliminate it and put it there. iow, let's get on board with the RC decision :p)

disclaimer: i only praise the RC if they do what makes perfect sense to me -- and regarding the 2 meter rule: they have

It's only counter-intuitive to you because you equate the 2MR with being OB, which it is not.

I never read these Rules threads, and i guess its for a reason...why do all you guys argue about this stuff? Just dont throw into 30 ft. trees. And if you do, tough luck, and play by the TD's rules. Sheesh...

Rob,

I no longer believe that a TD can declare "the surface" of a tree as being Out of Bounds. This due to the fact that it is not considered as a "playing surface" within our rules of play, therefore it can't have a different IB/OB designation than the playing surface beneath it.

"Special Conditions" is the rule that allows the declaration of a tree as a restricted area where the TD can designate a drop zone and whether or not a penalty stroke will be part of the condition. This is actually better than OB for trees near a pin.

TD:"If you land more than 3 meters up in the tree next to the pin on hole 7, take a penalty throw and move to the drop zone 10 meters back on the fairway."

Stands of bushes and trees can still, certianly, be marked OB and function well, superior in fact to the 2 meter sentences, as far as getting into players thinking, protecting the obstacles, and increasing design possibilities.

Again, unless the RC allows a tree to be considered a "playing surface", which is extremely unlikely, then a tree's surface cannot be considered a defined OB area. Of course, at the same time, since the tree or non-playing surface obstacle can not be considered playing surface, and no lie marked upon them, argument that marking your lie on the actual playing surface as relief is not possible. In both cases the tree or obstacle would have to be able to be labelled as "playing surface" to be OB or your Lie by rule. Neither of which makes sense nor would improve our rules.

It's only counter-intuitive to you because you equate the 2MR with being OB, which it is not.



Rhett, I agree that the 2 meter sentences are not Out of Bounds, but what in your estimation "are they"?

Gary, I think that you have found something here:


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




My understanding of the rules governing a lost disc in an OB area would have this read:


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




I believe that that was the actual intent but let us ask the PDGA RC, shall we?

I never read these Rules threads, and i guess its for a reason...why do all you guys argue about this stuff? Just dont throw into 30 ft. trees. And if you do, tough luck, and play by the TD's rules. Sheesh...



I can't speak for anyone else, but I discuss these things because they interest me. As to why certain folks are interested in certain things, can't say, they just are. In your words, "Sheesh".

As far as not throwing 30 feet into trees, I'll stop when you stop throwing 2 meters 1 centimeter into trees.

Perhaps you, like we here, should find a discussion that is of interest to you and avoid the ones you have no interest in. Makes sense doesn't it?

It's only counter-intuitive to you because you equate the 2MR with being OB, which it is not.



what to you is the common sense meaning of "out-of-bounds" -- and what besides the point above the playing surface at which out-of-bounds begins is it that the 2 meter rule penalizes?

almost everyone in favor of resuscitating the dying 2 meter rule seems to agree that some relief should be granted to avoid the double penalty the 2 meter rule often creates. OB rules provide 1 meter of relief. Wouldn't it make more sense to have placed the 2 meter rule as a special condition of OB so that the 1 meter relief would naturally follow? all of this of course is water under the bridge that can't be put back. that doesn't stop us from considering a more reasonable approach to our rules.

my home course entails many holes over 500 feet that are lined with and riddled by trees. to double penalize the disc that hits a tree 60 feet from the tee, and then deflects into the woods off fairway and gets suspended 2.2 meters up -- makes little sense because there is a natural penalty and addign an additional stroke is a double (or triple) penalty.

as to the disc stuck 20 feet above the pin -- i am still waiting for someone who cites this problem to go throw 50 shots from the tee at this tree and report back how successfully they can use the no 2 meter rule in their favor. (you must make the putt when and if you do stick rather than deflect). then go try 50 shots where you attempt a birdie by missing the tree. report back on your findings.

if you really do have a 'velcro' tree right above the pin then it is fairly simple to put the 2 meter rule in effect for that particular hole (or for within 10 meters of the pin on that particular hole).

my home course entails many holes over 500 feet that are lined with and riddled by trees. to double penalize the disc that hits a tree 60 feet from the tee, and then deflects into the woods off fairway and gets suspended 2.2 meters up -- makes little sense because there is a natural penalty and addign an additional stroke is a double (or triple) penalty.


And almost all of the courses around me have sparse trees that offer no double-jeopardy, and as it turns out without the 2-meter penalty there is usually no penalty at all for getting stuck because you have a clear shot from the mark.

Rhett, i have two ideas about that for you to shred:

1). move out here
2). create a successful movement to retain the 2 meter rule only for discs suspended above the playing surface within 10 meters of the pin

also, if you get a chance throw all your drivers and midranges into that tree and see how many stick. then throw them all at the pin trying to miss the tree and report back which approach is most rewarded in the absence of a 2 meter penalty.

PS: is there anyone in the Stroh family who favors the elimination of the 2 meter penalty? :)

also, if you get a chance throw all your drivers and midranges into that tree and see how many stick. then throw them all at the pin trying to miss the tree and report back which approach is most rewarded in the absence of a 2 meter penalty.


There are trees at La Mirada that will catch 97 out 100 discs that hit their canopy.

my home course entails many holes over 500 feet that are lined with and riddled by trees. to double penalize the disc that hits a tree 60 feet from the tee, and then deflects into the woods off fairway and gets suspended 2.2 meters up -- makes little sense because there is a natural penalty and addign an additional stroke is a double (or triple) penalty.


And almost all of the courses around me have sparse trees that offer no double-jeopardy, and as it turns out without the 2-meter penalty there is usually no penalty at all for getting stuck because you have a clear shot from the mark.



Any chance of you seeing how this illustrates that the local course designer or tournament director should have full control over restricted areas and not some strange universal blanket special condition that works in some (though none that I am aware of) situations but is horrible in another?

It's only counter-intuitive to you because you equate the 2MR with being OB, which it is not.



what to you is the common sense meaning of "out-of-bounds" -- and what besides the point above the playing surface at which out-of-bounds begins is it that the 2 meter rule penalizes?

almost everyone in favor of resuscitating the dying 2 meter rule seems to agree that some relief should be granted to avoid the double penalty the 2 meter rule often creates. OB rules provide 1 meter of relief. Wouldn't it make more sense to have placed the 2 meter rule as a special condition of OB so that the 1 meter relief would naturally follow? all of this of course is water under the bridge that can't be put back. that doesn't stop us from considering a more reasonable approach to our rules.

my home course entails many holes over 500 feet that are lined with and riddled by trees. to double penalize the disc that hits a tree 60 feet from the tee, and then deflects into the woods off fairway and gets suspended 2.2 meters up -- makes little sense because there is a natural penalty and addign an additional stroke is a double (or triple) penalty.

as to the disc stuck 20 feet above the pin -- i am still waiting for someone who cites this problem to go throw 50 shots from the tee at this tree and report back how successfully they can use the no 2 meter rule in their favor. (you must make the putt when and if you do stick rather than deflect). then go try 50 shots where you attempt a birdie by missing the tree. report back on your findings.

if you really do have a 'velcro' tree right above the pin then it is fairly simple to put the 2 meter rule in effect for that particular hole (or for within 10 meters of the pin on that particular hole).



My problem with this interpretation is that I don't see any way to consider above 2 meters to be OB without any relief granted being up to one meter of relief from where the disc was last below two meters, perpendicular to the OB line. So once you mark your lie directly below where it was last OB, you may dig a one meter deep hole (in thirty seconds) and throw from there.

Or throw from your previous lie. Or the drop zone.

my home course entails many holes over 500 feet that are lined with and riddled by trees. to double penalize the disc that hits a tree 60 feet from the tee, and then deflects into the woods off fairway and gets suspended 2.2 meters up -- makes little sense because there is a natural penalty and addign an additional stroke is a double (or triple) penalty.


And almost all of the courses around me have sparse trees that offer no double-jeopardy, and as it turns out without the 2-meter penalty there is usually no penalty at all for getting stuck because you have a clear shot from the mark.



Any chance of you seeing how this illustrates that the local course designer or tournament director should have full control over restricted areas and not some strange universal blanket special condition that works in some (though none that I am aware of) situations but is horrible in another?



for Rhett (since he has Nick on ignore)

It's only counter-intuitive to you because you equate the 2MR with being OB, which it is not.



what to you is the common sense meaning of "out-of-bounds" -- and what besides the point above the playing surface at which out-of-bounds begins is it that the 2 meter rule penalizes?

almost everyone in favor of resuscitating the dying 2 meter rule seems to agree that some relief should be granted to avoid the double penalty the 2 meter rule often creates. OB rules provide 1 meter of relief. Wouldn't it make more sense to have placed the 2 meter rule as a special condition of OB so that the 1 meter relief would naturally follow? all of this of course is water under the bridge that can't be put back. that doesn't stop us from considering a more reasonable approach to our rules.




My problem with this interpretation is that I don't see any way to consider above 2 meters to be OB without any relief granted being up to one meter of relief from where the disc was last below two meters, perpendicular to the OB line. So once you mark your lie directly below where it was last OB, you may dig a one meter deep hole (in thirty seconds) and throw from there.



your premise that the disc was last IB when it was last below 2 meters above the playing surface seems fatally flawed. The disc isn't stroked for being above 2 meters until it comes to rest -- so vertically below whereever it comes to rest would be the point from where you would be granted up to 1 meter relief. (the disc 1.9 meters up wouldn't get up to 1 meter relief because no penalty stroke is assessed)

your premise that the disc was last IB when it was last below 2 meters above the playing surface seems fatally flawed. The disc isn't stroked for being above 2 meters until it comes to rest -- so vertically below whereever it comes to rest would be the point from where you would be granted up to 1 meter relief. (the disc 1.9 meters up wouldn't get up to 1 meter relief because no penalty stroke is assessed)


But that isn't how OB works.

Any chance of you seeing how this illustrates that the local course designer or tournament director should have full control over restricted areas and not some strange universal blanket special condition that works in some (though none that I am aware of) situations but is horrible in another?



for Rhett (since he has Nick on ignore)


Nope.

It all comes down to our basic difference of opinion on how to play disc golf. I've spelled it all out before, but here's the short version.

I think that a shot is penalty worthy if it comes to rest where you can't get it/can't play it. The 2 meter rule addresses this concern. The 2 meter rule is not OB and is not an Unsafe Lie and it is not any other rule at all. It is the "disc above the playing surface" rule.

You think that a shot that sticks 40 feet above the playing surface should not get a penalty. Reasons vary depending on the day, but usually it is either that sticking is too fluky and only happens 3 out of 100 times, or else that the penalty is too severe when one of those 3-out-of-100 shots stick in a Cedar tree and the thrower gets a penalty and a crappy lie.

That is the bottom line fellas. I'm pretty sure that since the 142 tera-bytes of posts on this topic has not yet swayed either side to change their opinion, that no opinions will be swayed.

Which argument has had more discussion -- the 2m or the DROT?

Isn't the 2m newer than the DROT?

I used to have a link to all the old Kight v Gangloff stuff but I've lost track of it.

I found Duesler's claim that the 2m would require more skill an interesting thought . . .. I play on wooded courses all the time and rarely think about the 2m rule prior to throwing -- of course I ain't as good as most but I'd be surprised if guys avoided throws because of the 2m rule. I TRY to avoid trees . . . . don't always do it -- but that's because I've thrown a bad throw.

Any chance of you seeing how this illustrates that the local course designer or tournament director should have full control over restricted areas and not some strange universal blanket special condition that works in some (though none that I am aware of) situations but is horrible in another?



for Rhett (since he has Nick on ignore)


Nope.

It all comes down to our basic difference of opinion on how to play disc golf. I've spelled it all out before, but here's the short version.

I think that a shot is penalty worthy if it comes to rest where you can't get it/can't play it. The 2 meter rule addresses this concern. The 2 meter rule is not OB and is not an Unsafe Lie and it is not any other rule at all. It is the "disc above the playing surface" rule.

You think that a shot that sticks 40 feet above the playing surface should not get a penalty. Reasons vary depending on the day, but usually it is either that sticking is too fluky and only happens 3 out of 100 times, or else that the penalty is too severe when one of those 3-out-of-100 shots stick in a Cedar tree and the thrower gets a penalty and a crappy lie.

That is the bottom line fellas. I'm pretty sure that since the 142 tera-bytes of posts on this topic has not yet swayed either side to change their opinion, that no opinions will be swayed.



And I (sort of) agree with both of you. I'm pretty much indifferent as to whether a penalty should be assessed if a disc sticks more than two meters up in a tree in the middle of the fairway; if it happens in one of the much-discussed situations that essentially result in double jeopardy, I'd much rather be dealing with a special condition or have some relief provided than have to take a penalty AND get all scratched up (although in most cases I'd still prefer even the altered 2MR to having the bushy tree marked OB...go figure); and if it happens in such a way that the resulting lie would produce a very easy putt, I don't think that shot is generally deserving of the same score as a shot that misses the tree and lands the same distance from the basket. (I don't like the fact that the disc 1.99m high gets the birdie and the one 2cm higher doesn't, but I don't like any of the suggested means of eliminating that problem either.)

Gee, I think that means that I like the situation where the TD has the option of deciding where on the course to assess what kind of penalty for being above two meters. Isn't that what we're doing now?

...If I'm not mistaken, that means that I generally agree with Nick except that I'm indifferent to the question of whether the 2MR is the best way to provide for the effect that it produces, and I agree with Rhett except that I don't care as much whether a shot stuck in a tree gets a penalty stroke except when our rules for marking the lie make the stuck shot result in an easy putt. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

(In case people are wondering why I bother to post when I don't lean particularly much to either side, it's because I think it's funny that I agree as much as I do with both sides of such a long-lasting argument.)

I wish we all could enjoy it as much as you Bob.

I think we have a clear idea of where Rhett and I differ on this. It comes down to him beleiving that the two meter sentences in our rules should be universal and dictated by rule and I believe they should be just another restricted area option available where needed and designated by the TD or Course Designer.

It is difficult for me to get passed the idea that we must mandate this universal penalty throw hazard, and it is impossible for Rhett to get passed the idea that it be optional.

Yes, I know, this is only stating the obvious, but I thought it was worth getting out there.

think we have a clear idea of where Rhett and I differ on this. It comes down to him beleiving that the two meter sentences in our rules should be universal and dictated by rule and I believe they should be just another restricted area option available where needed and designated by the TD or Course Designer.



or to put it more accurately and succintly...

"him beleiving (sic) that the two meter sentences in our rules should be dictated by universal rules, and me believing i am the universal dictator of the rules"

hypocritical hyperbole?

think we have a clear idea of where Rhett and I differ on this. It comes down to him beleiving that the two meter sentences in our rules should be universal and dictated by rule and I believe they should be just another restricted area option available where needed and designated by the TD or Course Designer.



or to put it more accurately and succintly...

"him beleiving (sic) that the two meter sentences in our rules should be dictated by universal rules, and me believing i am the universal dictator of the rules"



Clearly Pat holds an unbiased position... :p and is always willing to put aside his personal grudges to further the discussion and keep it moving forward... :D

my bias is towards playing the disc where it ends.

i dont have personal grudges.

i doubt anyone other than you and rob think i am the one "holding" back this discussion! that is just plain laughable! :D

OK then let's discuss the content of your last two posts as concerns this discussion:

playing the disc where it ends



So do you regularly play the disc from the playing surface?
No, you mark the lie, pick it up and play it from wherever your release point is.
How about 1.99 meters above the playing surface?
No, you mark the lie, get it and play it from wherever your release point is.
How about from 2 feet away and 10 inches above the playing surface from the trunk of a bush that has 5 foot wide folliage stretching out in all directions?
No, you mark the lie, pick it up, stretch way out clearing the outside edge of the bush and play it from wherever your release point is.
You likely have NEVER played from exactly where the disc ended up?

Playing the disc where it ends is not a physical possibility in the game of disc golf because we do not propell a stationary projectile; we mark a spot on the playing surface, pick up the projectile, do all manner of strange movements then fling it from an entirely different location from where it came to rest.

Get this through you head Pat!

We "play from" where the lie is marked on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest. It is not possible, nor would it ever likely be, desirable to play from the exact position where it came to rest.

Discussion of how we could make rules that force us to be in contact with the exact position of the disc at rest would be fascinating; but that discussion would not be a discussion of current rules or even ideas that underlie current rules of play in disc golf. Unless we decide to start using clubs...

And saying it does does not make it so mr bush:"playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends, playing the disc where it ends."

Interesting considering you likely have never done that even once.

nick you are so ignorant it is not really worth the time it takes to put you on ignore.

i guess we never really play from the tee either, do we?

you know exactly what i mean, and so does everyone else reading this thread. someday god willing you will grow up.

Post deleted by sandalman

If you repeat a post twice, is it more effective? :D

Anyways, as a sidebar, I was struck by "ignorant" and "ignore." Are they related? They seem like different concepts.

hehehe... it just means i got interrupted by some actual work :D

ignore is what i should go back to doing with ignorant people such as nick.

How specific are the rules in general ?

Will a player be arrested for being approximate ?

I have talked to Marshall's in an Major Event. It is not that critical , unless cheating is taking place.

Case by Case basis. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

hehehe... it just means i got interrupted by some actual work :D

ignore is what i should go back to doing with ignorant people such as nick.



One thing I am not ignorant of is your lack of meaningful contribution to this discussion Pat. In your last 5 posts here, only one phrase has been related to the discussion:

�my bias is towards playing the disc where it ends.�

I attempted to engage you on your single point of discussion upon which you just continued the personal tirade against me.

I now understand that that was a mistake, considering you only see red when reading my posts. So this is for the rest of the folks reading this:

Pat�s point is a farce as concerns the 2 meter rule. It is a complete disconnect not only with our rules of play, but with how we �actually� play our game. If we were to follow the logic of his point, or apply it to our rules, the results would be that we would have to play from a blade of grass 2 inches from the playing surface, or 4 feet up in a bush, or even from a branch 6 feet 5 inches above the playing surface.

But we do not! And for dangg good reasons!

Without re-detailing all of those reasons consider these rules in our rulebook:


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

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



So �Playing it from where it lies� in disc golf means from spot on the playing surface below where the thrown disc came to rest. Whether 2 inches, 1.99 meters, 2.01 meters or 40 feet above the playing surface; when we mark our lie, as per rule, then we ARE playing it from where it lies.

If you feel this is wrong, then you need to change the rest of our rules so that marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above the playing surface is not playing your lie but taking relief.

Personally, I think it would not improve our rules or game to do this, but it is worth discussion, if we can agree that it is unrelated to the discussion of the current rules and the deletion or making the 2 meter rule just an option within our current rules.

If this is ignorance of our rules and the actual situations out on our courses as relates to this discussion and rule then I apologize.

this discussion was going nowhere a long time ago, nick. funny how the greatest single cause of this (you) is only now realizing it.

be that as it may, answer this question (instead of ignoring it)

i guess we never really play from the tee either, do we?


by the way i dont see red when i read your posts. i do not allow you to have that kind of control over my emotions. you read far far too much into my posts.

this discussion was going nowhere a long time ago, nick. funny how the greatest single cause of this (you) is only now realizing it.



Pat, if you truly believe that, then why this:


be that as it may, answer this question (instead of ignoring it)

i guess we never really play from the tee either, do we?



What relevance does that have to do with anything under discussion? But for S&amp;G the entire defined playing surface of the tee pad is our lie, so yes we do play from our lie on the tee pad, but instead of being a 30 cm line it is an infinite number of shaped areas or if only a front line is defined, then 3 meters back of that front line.

Again, we play from where our lie is, never from where our disc comes to rest (or extremely rarely from there).


by the way i dont see red when i read your posts. i do not allow you to have that kind of control over my emotions. you read far far too much into my posts.



Perhaps so, but you seem to almost always be hostile regardless of provocation. Disagreeing about disc golf rules is not like some moral imperative is it? Seems like it is the way you throw insults around at folks that disagree with you and is as clear an indication as any available that you lack valid arguments concerning the actual topic.

If you have a point to make about the topic, then by all means make it, but spare us your vitriol. Flaming is more than prohibited, it is unproductive.

you are the one saying that no matter where the disc ends up we NEVER play it from there, right? therefore we never play it from our lie?

you point out that because we do not roll the disc from the ground, letting it go at precisely the point where it contacts the "lie", that we do not play it from the lie, right? we stretch around obstacles, etc? sound familiar? (if not, go back just a couple dozen posts at most)

my point is that the spirit of golf is to play from where the last shot ends up.

because the tee shot allows us to stand upright and throw the disc while our throwing hand is in the air, then basically the rest of the game is played that way as well.

the lie simply exists to provide a point of reference for where your support point must be when throwing. it is NOT where the last shot ended.

establishing a lie directly under a disc that is no more than 2M up satisfies the spirit of the game. it does not provide relief in any real sense of the word.

establishing a lie directly under a disc that is more than 2M up deviates from the spirit, and offers relief. the amount of deviation and relief increases in proportion to the distance the disc is resting above 2M, up to the point that such an action renders nonsensical the meaning of the game.

if you fail to see the relevance of discussing the differences between "where it ends" and "the lie" then may i suggest you go reflect on what golf really is for a year or so, then report back after you've obtained at least a modest understanding of the game.

The only thing I don't like about the 2m rule is that sometimes you are penalized a stroke and distance.

For example, this past weekend I had a bad shot and it went only 60 feet off of the tee and got stuck in a tree above 2 meters(it was being used at the tourny). I was still close to 200 feet away from the basket, but had a horrible stance to try and get to the hole to save a circle 4. Needless to say I didn't make it and took a circle 5. I felt like on that hole I was double penalized for the bad shot(distance and stroke).

I see the difference of playing the disc where the rules say the lie is and where the disc came to rest, but do not see why that is necessarily considered relief.

We play the game in three dimensions, but always mark our lie and take our stance basically in two dimisions. The playing surface is the poorly defined srface from which we play. Our lie is always marked initially below the point the disc came to rest. Some rules allow relief from that point for various reasons.

I understand that this differs from how ball golf handles the "playing it where it lies", but all of our stance and throwing rules differ from ball golf's treatment of a lie.

My point is that relief is granted from the initial lie, not from where the disc came to rest. If you want to argue against how we mark the lie, and how to establish a reasonable method for marking the lie when the distance between the disc and the target is greater than the distance between the marked lie and the target, then apply your energies to that argument. Arguing the semantics of whether marking the lie as defined by the rules is relief or simply establishing a lie is not productive because one side is arguing definitions and the other is arguing empirical evidence.

well, i can understand your pain. thats why virtually all of the 2MR supporters agree that the TD should be able to suspend the rule on various parts of each hole.

however, the PDGA seems intent on ADDING stroke plus distance type penalties to the game, not removing them. the 2MR is actually more consistent with the current direction of the sport than the anti-2MR zealots care to admit.

on the other hand, what if you had thrown into a horrendously thick briar patch and it took two strokes just to get free? would you make the same complaint? best solution: dont make terrible shots that end up in trees!

And as I have said on many occasions, it's not always the bad shots that end up stuck in trees. Many truly bad shots (not near the fairway) end up finding their way back into the fairway and many really good shots (down the heart of the fairway) manage to kick out of the fairway and get stuck in a tree.

truly bad shots that hit trees and find their way back to fairways are truly lucky bad shots.

MANY REALLY good shots (down the heart of the fairway) manage to kick out of the fairway and get stuck in a tree???

oh dear, i cant believe what i am reading! i thought 0.000000000000000001% of all shots that hit trees got stuck in trees. now you have perfect shot doen the heart of the fairway deciding somehow to jump off of the fairway and into trees, AND deciding to stick?!?

the only good shot that gets stuck in a tree is one that you intended to get stuck. there can be no other way for it to be a good shot.

(assuming you believe that golf is a sport in which we play the next shot from where the previous shot ends.)

I can't believe that you play Z-Boaz and the Vet and have never seen a shot down the heart of the fairway kick off into an unfavorable spot or get stuck above 2m. I am allowing leeway of 2'-3' on the line aimed at because most players would consider anything in that area to be a good drive. There are many holes on that course where a drive is only allowed to deviate a couple of inches from the intended line before it meets a tree in the fairway.

I don't think the global cop-out of good shot/bad shot is a valid argument for this point. Unless you want to add vergbage to the rule that defines good/bad in terms other than where the disc comes to rest and punishes bad shots even when they end up good, and does not punish good shots even when they end up bad.

The "stroke and distance" double penalty argument doesn't appear to be a valid reason to eliminate the 2MR.

We have other rules (such as rules regarding OB and mandos) which you are typically made to play from a lie farther from the hole than where your disc ended up and you're assessed a stroke. For some reason, I'm not hearing objections of the penalty given in those other situations, so why should it be a valid concern here?

If you want to say one is double penalized because you have a hindered stance under a large bush or other obstacle that suspended your disc that has a little more validity.

In my experience (18yrs playing tourney disc golf), 99% of the time you're suspended 2m up, you have a reasonable stance to play your approach/putt.You may have to crouch or stretch to one side, but it comes with the territory. I have never seen a situation where a player had to take an unplayable lie penalty after getting stuck above 2 meters.(on top of a building is typically deemed OB since you couldn't play from inside the structure either) Not saying it can't happen, just in the 20,000 or so holes I've played I've never seen it.

Having said all that, I'll admit the rule could be amended to allow for some relief provided the player is already taking a stroke for the 2M lie.

if i was 2 feet closer to the trunk of the tree, the only options i would have had would to take, unplayable lie or pitch out for 0 or negative distance. that hole and one other were my only over par holes. The other was from a unlucky roll that gave me a 50 foot putt to save 3 when i was putting from around 30 for a 2.

I had one other drive this year that 2m applied to, and that was just bad luck. It wasn't a bad shot, but the disc got wedged in an area where the tree branched off(it kinda looked like an upside down tripod). My group stayed quiet until I started laughing at it. you could even see my name written under the disc. Oh well.

I just wish that if you take a penalty for going 2 meters that you should be able to get some relief if necessary.

z-boaz and the vet??? z-boaz very ever so slightly maybe. the vet no way. there's barely any trees there. a better example would be that ridiculous coyote course were even if you hit your line at 80' then an hidden sapling at 140' might knock you off plan into the schule.

either way tough titties. bad shot. deal with it.

IMO, amending the rule a la unplayable (undesireable, unhappy, whatever) lie to allow up to 5m relief is the only thing that needs to be done with the 2m rule. I said this about a zillion posts ago on this (or some similar) thread and still stand by that.

There is no way that the rules should allow someone to put a disc 30' up in a tree, leave it there, and play on without penalty. That is utterly insane.

but thats not what nikki wants! waaaaaaa1 waaaaaah! waaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I am allowing leeway of 2'-3' on the line aimed at because most players would consider anything in that area to be a good drive. There are many holes on that course where a drive is only allowed to deviate a couple of inches from the intended line before it meets a tree in the fairway.


Gary, you yourself are pointing out that the holes in question are of poor design. Why should the rules be changed to compensate for poor luck-driven design? If you have 14 inch fairways, you need to either resign yourself to playing a "poke-n-hope" course or else expand the fairway a little.

14 inch fairway = 10 inch disc + 2 inches left + 2 inches right

10 inch discs = benefit of the doubt for beach plastic. Most golf discs are about 8".

No, I am saying that there is a designated path that winds through multiple obstables that individually have a several feet of clearance, but combined leave a line that may be effectively just a couple of feet across.

You have to clear the first tree by a few inches to the left, the next three just to the right, an additional few further down to the left again. The line only allows a few inches of clearance to either side.

A "good" drive could be just inches off of this thin line, kick off a tree and end up in a very bad location or above 2m.

I admit that it is a risk reward decision to try for a birdie putt instead of laying up after half of the obstacles and attempting to negotiate the ramaing half from there, but a drive that is within inches of the perfect line can't really be called a bad drive. It just got "unlucky".

I wouldn't call that a "good drive" that reaches the basket. Under those conditions that would be a "great drive" or a "spectacular shot" or "a really risky shot".

Why would you want to take some of the risk out of the risk/reward decision? :)

There is only one fairway. Your decision is to try and get close to the basket, or lay-up 200' away at the short tee. From the short tee, the line is more open for a hyzer approach, from the long tee it should a long slight S shot.

The fairway between the long and short tees is a rather narrow gap (10'-12') lined with large trees and thick shule. Once you reach the short tee, it opens up. It is not a bad design, but there is ample opportunity for very similar shots to end up with very different results.

And I have bounced away to some pretty deep ivy-ridden schuul on Z-Boaz hole #1 also.

But that doesn't mean that the 2-meter rule has anything to do with it. Risk versus reward. Play smart or go for it.

Maybe the rule for that hole should be changed to "if you hit a tree on your drive from the long pad, you get to throw from the shrot pad with no penalty." We wouldn't want any bogeys, would we?

what hole are you talking about gary? i cant picture it. hole 11 comes to mind, but its only 150' (and there is a hyzer bomb available)

This wasn't a pro/anti 2m argument. It was an argument against calling all discs that stick above 2m "bad" and all those that don't "good". That one hole easily demonstrates that many truly bad shots still find a way to get in the fairway while many reasonably good shots find a way to stick above 2m.

It is not valid to call all shots that stick above 2m "bad" and shots that don't stick "good". Lucky and unlucky maybe, but not good and bad.

Rhett figured it out and he doesn't even live here.

At the Vet holes 4,5,7,10 come to mind where a shot over 2m is required to reach putting distance. Not too many tight lines where a lateral kick is likely to get stuck.

ok, its #1 long. all i have to say about that hole is:

if you cannot hit a 12' gap about 60' in front of you, then the problem is your game - NOT the 2MR!

and if you do make that gap straight you have a clear path all the way to 60-70' of the long pin. if you hit the gap at an angle and do nick a tree midway down the fairway and do kick into the schule, well, the schule is not that bad in those locations. take your four and move on.

Are you sure you are talking about the same hole ?

Once you pass the short tee, there is a group of trees encroaching on the fairway from the left that extend nearly to the right edge of the line viewed from the long tee. As you near the basket, the trees encroach from the right. There is no clear wide opening after you clear the short tee.

If you hope to reach the putting area off the tee, it is a demanding hole with little room for error. Most of my shots on that hole make the 12' gap, very few of them reach the green cleanly.

BTW this hole description still does nothing in validating the good shot/bad shot argument for keeping the 2m rule.

11, 14L, 15, 18L and arguably 12L are just as demanding off the tee.

if you are standing on the short tee on hole 1 its wide open down the fairway. granted, if you throw a crooked drive from the long you could have trouble even after clearing the short tee. when that happens, remember these famous words:

if you cannot hit a 12' gap nice and straight thats 60' from the tee, then the problem is your game, NOT the 2MR.

IMO, amending the rule a la unplayable (undesireable, unhappy, whatever) lie to allow up to 5m relief is the only thing that needs to be done with the 2m rule. I said this about a zillion posts ago on this (or some similar) thread and still stand by that.

There is no way that the rules should allow someone to put a disc 30' up in a tree, leave it there, and play on without penalty. That is utterly insane.



Repeat after Dan, "stroke and 5 meters." You've got me support!

the anti-2MR fascists coulda accepted that compromise a long time ago, but unfortunately creating rules that make sense is not their agenda.

Gary, it's a two shot hole with 1 shot distance. In other words, a sucker-play to go for the deuce. You've got to either be a fool or possess mad escapability skillz to go for it off the tee. :)

Throwing a bad shot that goes careening into the woods and sticks above 2 meters is a bad shot. Going for it from the long tee and banging wood is a bad shot. Banging wood and pachinko-ing to the pin for a drop in a bad shot that got super lucky. A potential 2 meter penalty is part of the risk of the risk/reward evaluation.

Pat, I threw a shot on Vet # 5 at the long pin (I think). It hit the lone little 4 inch diameter tree near the top at about 40 feet, trickled straight down onto the bush that has grown around that tree and stuck, leaving me with a five. Y'all can spin that however you want. Everyone throws the same shot. A foot either way, it's a two or a three. Yeah, I can deal with the consequence of my throw, even though reasonable people would admit it was the same as other throws that were birdies. However, the additional stroke is unnecessary.

The 2M rule serves no purpose other than to create some random danger. It does not make the game more challenging, just more unpredictable and arbitrary.

It was an argument against calling all discs that stick above 2m "bad" and all those that don't "good".


I think it's fairly clear that any shot that gets stuck in a tree is bad by definition.

But no one has ever said, to my knowledge, that all shots that don't get stuck in a tree are good. They're just unpenalized (unless they land OB or get lost or fall afoul of some other penalty.)

So those shots that don't get stuck in trees are either good, unpenalized shots, or bad, unpenalized shots.

You know, the only thing I can think of that might be a good, penalized shot is when a disc gets lost in leaves or snow as it lands on a line toward the basket.

The 2M rule serves no purpose other than to create some random danger. It does not make the game more challenging, just more unpredictable and arbitrary.


Well, doesn't that make it more challenging? Isn't the idea to control your throw so that you avoid the unpredictable and arbitrary as much as possible?

I mean, that's golf, right?

i hit a fence post off #3 tee at grapevine today. luckily i didnt richochet OB. (although that would have sucked so bad i would have lobbied to eliminate OB). my second shot on this 300 foot hole slipped out early and somehow found the only tree in the entire fairway. it stuck 8feet up. i took a five. oh well. most bad shots... one stroke. bad shot wityh crappy luck... two strokes. my problem!

the anti-2MR fascists coulda accepted that compromise a long time ago, but unfortunately creating rules that make sense is not their agenda.



you are demonizing the anti-2 meter rule camp -- does that mean you haven't the character to respect those that disagree with you on a rules issue? are you the John Bolton of disc golf? LOL

the anti 2 meter rule camp wants the TD to have contextual discretion rather than having the 2 meter rule force fed to them by the RC for all situations. (and even you agree that the rule is unnecessary outside of 10 meters from the pin)
is it too much to ask that you stop the name-calling and Nick-picking and stick to discussing the issue itself? :confused:

I guess I'll voice my opinion here. I agree that the two meter rule is a little weird. I think it should be a play it where it lies or rethrow situation. If I'm stuck in a tree, and I'm willing to try to go up there and take a swing at it, let me. If I'm going to be taking a stroke for it anyways, let me try to get a favorable lie out of it. Some of the pine trees I've ended up in here in michigan have been less than decent about the lie you get once you get down. After taking the stroke to put the disc at the base of the tree(always way up at the top, right near the center, it takes one stroke to get the disc out to the edge of the tree(always seems to get caught on a branch on the way out because you have no room for a backswing) then another stroke to get out far enough into the fairway to get a run at the basket. So now I've taken 3 strokes for a 1 stroke penalty. If I was allowed to toss the disc from up in the tree, I would have been able to toss it out into the fairway from there and then made a run at it. Still basically a stroke penalty.

The only downside is safety when you got some 350 pound gorilla up there trying to throw a 300 foot upshot from the top of a 12 inch pine tree swinging back and forth.

I'd support a 2m rule where you're allowed to take relief OUTSIDE the tree, but then you run into people arguing that being 2.01 meters up on the pinside of the tree shouldn't force you to take a lie on the side away from the pin.

Anyways, that's all the rant I need to say. Our TD only enforces the 2m rule on holes where it's a risk/reward for going over the trees or around them to get to the pin. There is one hole in particular that's a short par 3 with a line of tall pines between you and the tree. You have the option of trying to power through them(generally leads to a par or a bogey), going around them(par for rhbh, lhfh, birdie for rhfs, lhbh) or go over(birdie attempt, with major 2m rule risk). That hole can get a lot of 2ms when there's wind because the wind is generally from the direction that your disc gets blown into the trees and man do they love catching em.

On an aside, I've only had 1 disc stick in a tree in a tourney, and it was in a NON 2m rule situation. I felt kinda dirty getting a free lie from it.

establishing a lie directly under a disc that is no more than 2M up satisfies the spirit of the game. it does not provide relief in any real sense of the word.

establishing a lie directly under a disc that is more than 2M up deviates from the spirit, and offers relief. the amount of deviation and relief increases in proportion to the distance the disc is resting above 2M, up to the point that such an action renders nonsensical the meaning of the game.



Or, in summation: The 2 meter rules substantiates the 2 meter rule and that is good enough.


if you fail to see the relevance of discussing the differences between "where it ends" and "the lie" then may i suggest you go reflect on what golf really is for a year or so, then report back after you've obtained at least a modest understanding of the game.



I�m not going to answer your insults with insults or even mild chiding Pat.

It is of note that I did explained the differences between where a disc comes to rest and where it�s lie is to you; as well as where the disc comes to rest and where we actually play it from according to the rules of play and reality. Both of which have no necessity for the inclusion of the 2 meter sentences in order to function logically and flawlessly. If in your opinion or the opinion of any director then you and they are free to use the 2 meter options selectively or broadly. What you will not be able to do is force your narrow, overly punitive and severely restrictive opinion on other directors by mandating its use within our rulebook.

BTW, when I teach you something about disc golf, a simple �thank you� will do.

We have other rules (such as rules regarding OB and mandos)



Both director or course designer designated restrictions. Just thought I'd point that out Steve.

This wasn't a pro/anti 2m argument. It was an argument against calling all discs that stick above 2m "bad" and all those that don't "good". That one hole easily demonstrates that many truly bad shots still find a way to get in the fairway while many reasonably good shots find a way to stick above 2m.

It is not valid to call all shots that stick above 2m "bad" and shots that don't stick "good". Lucky and unlucky maybe, but not good and bad.



This is precisely and exactly correct.

IMO, amending the rule a la unplayable (undesireable, unhappy, whatever) lie to allow up to 5m relief is the only thing that needs to be done with the 2m rule. I said this about a zillion posts ago on this (or some similar) thread and still stand by that.

There is no way that the rules should allow someone to put a disc 30' up in a tree, leave it there, and play on without penalty. That is utterly insane.



Repeat after Dan, "stroke and 5 meters." You've got me support!



Can you tell me exactly why a disc at rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface is any more "Unsafe", "Unplayable", or "Undesirable" according to our rules (other than the 2 meter sentences), than any other disc at rest above the playing surface?

Particularly in light of the fact that we still mark it on the playing surface immediately below the disc at rest, regardless of distance from the playing surface.

he didnt say it was ANY of those things. he said to write a rule "a la" those things. there IS a difference, and several people have been trying to get you to see this point for some time now.

robj, get over it. i'm just giving you and nick what you two so regularly give the rest of this discussion. if you cant take the hyperbole, stay outa the thread.

It was an argument against calling all discs that stick above 2m "bad" and all those that don't "good".


I think it's fairly clear that any shot that gets stuck in a tree is bad by definition.
<font color="blue"> Not according to your very next point of contention�</font>

But no one has ever said, to my knowledge, that all shots that don't get stuck in a tree are good. <font color="blue"> It is a natural conclusion that if it is a bad shot to stick in a tree, that not sticking in a tree is a good shot, or at the least better. The only thing that makes that true is the existence of the 2 meter rule. Without that it is not a valid point.</font> They're just unpenalized (unless they land OB or get lost or fall afoul of some other penalty.) <font color="blue"> As you yourself point out not sticking in a tree can be a worse shot (or if we are only dealing in extremes) can be a �bad shot�; when if it didn�t stick at 1.99 meters it would have gone OB. Sticking in a tree, even hitting a tree, has no relation to the designation of a good or bad shot, it is just a factor like any other factor (wind, surface texture, elevation changes, kicks off obstacles, etc.).</font>

So those shots that don't get stuck in trees are either good, unpenalized shots, or bad, unpenalized shots.
<font color="blue"> Or to continue, �So those shots that don't get stuck in trees are either good, unpenalized shots, or bad, unpenalized shots. And those shots that do get stuck in trees are either good, unpenalized shots, or bad, unpenalized shots. The opposite is also true. Which is to say that it is completely relative.</font>

You know, the only thing I can think of that might be a good, penalized shot is when a disc gets lost in leaves or snow as it lands on a line toward the basket.<font color="blue">The relation of this to this discussion eludes me.</font>

The 2M rule serves no purpose other than to create some random danger. It does not make the game more challenging, just more unpredictable and arbitrary.


Well, doesn't that make it more challenging? Isn't the idea to control your throw so that you avoid the unpredictable and arbitrary as much as possible?

I mean, that's golf, right?


No it is not golf, and unpredictability and arbitrary results for the same shot do not increase challenge, they increase unpredictability and arbitrary results, which is something most disc golfers dislike in a course, and my guess is they also dislike them in our rules of play as well.

sandalman #399500 - 07/01/05 12:24 AM :

i hit a fence post off #3 tee at grapevine today. luckily i didnt richochet OB. (although that would have sucked so bad i would have lobbied to eliminate OB). my second shot on this 300 foot hole slipped out early and somehow found the only tree in the entire fairway. it stuck 8feet up. i took a five. oh well. most bad shots... one stroke. bad shot wityh crappy luck... two strokes. my problem!



sandalman #399175 - 06/30/05 04:02 PM
well, i can understand your pain. thats why virtually all of the 2MR supporters agree that the TD should be able to suspend the rule on various parts of each hole.



Which is it Pat? Shouldn�t a �bad shot� always be penalized with a penalty throw?

I think it's fairly clear that any shot that gets stuck in a tree is bad by definition.
<font color="blue"> Not according to your very next point of contention�</font>

But no one has ever said, to my knowledge, that all shots that don't get stuck in a tree are good. <font color="blue"> It is a natural conclusion that if it is a bad shot to stick in a tree, that not sticking in a tree is a good shot...</font>



so if one statement is true, then all statements that are different (cant even use "opposite" in this case) are false?

"It is good to park your car in your garage"
"It is bad to park your car in your driveway"

"It is good to eat with a knife, fork, and spoon"
"It is bad to eat with chopsticks"

"It is good to use color when responding to a quoted post"
"It is bad to use italics when responding to a quoted post"

get serious. it seems you need summer skul not only in geometry but also logic.

btw, i do NOT believe all shots in trees are bad shots. lets say i choose a highly risky hyzer bomb through the canopy. i hit my line and spot within a few feet of my intention, but got stuck way up there. that was likely a fine shot. just unlucky. but thats the nature of risk/reward decisions. and so i take my penalty like a man, obtain relief by marking my lie directly under the disc, and play on.

IMO, amending the rule a la unplayable (undesireable, unhappy, whatever) lie to allow up to 5m relief is the only thing that needs to be done with the 2m rule. I said this about a zillion posts ago on this (or some similar) thread and still stand by that.

There is no way that the rules should allow someone to put a disc 30' up in a tree, leave it there, and play on without penalty. That is utterly insane.



Repeat after Dan, "stroke and 5 meters." You've got me support!



Can you tell me exactly why a disc at rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface is any more "Unsafe", "Unplayable", or "Undesirable" according to our rules (other than the 2 meter sentences), than any other disc at rest above the playing surface?

Particularly in light of the fact that we still mark it on the playing surface immediately below the disc at rest, regardless of distance from the playing surface.




he didnt say it was ANY of those things. he said to write a rule "a la" those things. there IS a difference, and several people have been trying to get you to see this point for some time now.

robj, get over it. i'm just giving you and nick what you two so regularly give the rest of this discussion. if you cant take the hyperbole, stay outa the thread.



So how would you write such a rule that would not be in conflict with all of the rules cited and others not? Basically remains the same question. The only thing that would make it similar is the 2 meter sentences, without those sentences no one would likely ever suggest we needed to add additional restrictions, since other optional restricted area rules are already more than adequate.

Hyperbole is one thing Pat, substituting belittlement and insult for real argument is another. Clearly you are involved in only one of those activities.

sandalman #399500 - 07/01/05 12:24 AM :

i hit a fence post off #3 tee at grapevine today. luckily i didnt richochet OB. (although that would have sucked so bad i would have lobbied to eliminate OB). my second shot on this 300 foot hole slipped out early and somehow found the only tree in the entire fairway. it stuck 8feet up. i took a five. oh well. most bad shots... one stroke. bad shot wityh crappy luck... two strokes. my problem!



sandalman #399175 - 06/30/05 04:02 PM
well, i can understand your pain. thats why virtually all of the 2MR supporters agree that the TD should be able to suspend the rule on various parts of each hole.



Which is it Pat? Shouldn�t a �bad shot� always be penalized with a penalty throw?



wow, you really have quite a file on my posts. it is could to know that you are developing an archive of my wisdom :)

those two posts are not contradictory in the slightest. we were playing with the 2MR yesterday... therefore i took the stroke. i also believe that the TD should be able to suspend the 2MR on various parts of the course at his/her descretion. yesterday we had it ON over the entire course. suspending the rule is vastly different from reinstating it.

to solve this whole thing to everyone's satisfaction, except those whose identities are so intimately tied to removing the rule completely, is incredibly simple:

1. empower the TD to suspend the 2MR at any location on the course;
2. for areas where the 2MR remains in effect, provide either 5M of relief on LOP or a drop zone

in these two simple sentences we solve all kinds of problems:
1. existing park signs all over the country that talk about the 2MR
2. the double penalty for 2MR situations in trees with thick lowhanging branches
3. the inequities of not penalizing a shot that sticks 40 feet up directly over the basket
4. the need for designers and TDs to exercise complete control over how they define the course for their events
5. the concept of golf as a sport where you play from where your last shot ended

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

he didnt say it was ANY of those things. he said to write a rule "a la" those things. there IS a difference, and several people have been trying to get you to see this point for some time now.

robj, get over it. i'm just giving you and nick what you two so regularly give the rest of this discussion. if you cant take the hyperbole, stay outa the thread.


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



So how would you write such a rule that would not be in conflict with all of the rules cited and others not? Basically remains the same question. The only thing that would make it similar is the 2 meter sentences, without those sentences no one would likely ever suggest we needed to add additional restrictions, since other optional restricted area rules are already more than adequate.

Hyperbole is one thing Pat, substituting belittlement and insult for real argument is another. Clearly you are involved in only one of those activities.



if i am involved in one one of those activities then why did you pose an honest followup question to my comment? or have you finally warmed up to the fact that a single post can contain both a real contribution as well as ridiculous invective?

i also believe that the TD should be able to suspend the 2MR on various parts of the course at his/her descretion.



Terrific, then I expect you to support the language of the 2006 PDGA Rulebook Update concerning the 2 meter sentences becoming an option in the glossary of terms.

He thinks that the rule should be in effect unless the TD takes action remove it instead of the other way around.

I think the biggest impact from this difference would be seen in the casual rounds. Since there is no TD, and no one would think about it until it came into play, the default reading would be the one most common in casual play.

i also believe that the TD should be able to suspend the 2MR on various parts of the course at his/her descretion.



Terrific, then I expect you to support the language of the 2006 PDGA Rulebook Update concerning the 2 meter sentences becoming an option in the glossary of terms.

there is no chance i will ever support the proposed language of the 2006 rulebook. relegating the 2MR to the glossary is a gross error.

what i would support is to make the modifications to the rules that allow a TD to suspend the rule at his/her will. that is the fastest, most efficient, and most consistent way of solving the most problems associated with the 2MR or lack thereof.

Yes, I suppose you are right Gary. I'd rather we get on with the business of living in a world without the 2 meter sentences though. Mainly so folks would more quickly realize all the other superior, IMO admittedly, available options.

This is the system currently in use right? I just cant believe there is 148 pages if 2 meter. I kinda like it the way it is but that is only my opinion. One our TD'd calls a puddle of dog urine OB so I would keep it in the hands of the TD as well. It makes for an interesting game.

IMO, amending the rule a la unplayable (undesireable, unhappy, whatever) lie to allow up to 5m relief is the only thing that needs to be done with the 2m rule. I said this about a zillion posts ago on this (or some similar) thread and still stand by that.

There is no way that the rules should allow someone to put a disc 30' up in a tree, leave it there, and play on without penalty. That is utterly insane.



Repeat after Dan, "stroke and 5 meters." You've got me support!



Can you tell me exactly why a disc at rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface is any more "Unsafe", "Unplayable", or "Undesirable" according to our rules (other than the 2 meter sentences), than any other disc at rest above the playing surface?




Because it is higher than other discs at rest above the playing surface. 2 meters is a reasonable, easily measurable line of demarcation.

Can you tell me how you could allow someone to land a disc 30' up in a tree, play from beneath it penalty-free and move on, leaving the disc in the tree?

[I'm a potty-mouth!] the rules, show me some common sense in allowing that.

:oSounds pretty cut and dry to me. :D

Dan,

This is not a common sense issue. It is a rules issue. We will get used to not having a penalty throw added when we mark a lie when our disc has come to rest above 2 meters just as we are used to having a penalty throw added. We are already used to not taking one when the disc is at rest above the playing surface less than 2 meters up, are we not?

If you as a player want to play with the 2 meter rule in effect, or it's equivalent as a special condition, then search out and attend events that have then in effect. Or run one yourself.

there is no chance i will ever support the proposed language of the 2006 rulebook. relegating the 2MR to the glossary is a gross error.



Even if it were shown to you that your position is undeniably in error?

Are'nt the rules based on what would be considered fair common sense?

Don't run away. Its just a question. :D

uh, judging from the fact that you andf robj are pretty alone in your zealotry, and there are several solid reason for the retention of the rule, "undeniably in error" seems more like another of your feeble attempts at obsfucation.

now, right on cue, accuse me of not contributing and running from the argument.

Are'nt the rules based on what would be considered fair common sense?

Don't run away. Its just a question. :D


I see you Mike, you don't need to jump up and down and wave your hands.

Nick said:

Dan,

This is not a common sense issue. It is a rules issue.



I think I need to frame this one and mount it on the wall.

uh, judging from the fact that you andf robj are pretty alone in your zealotry, and there are several solid reason for the retention of the rule, "undeniably in error" seems more like another of your feeble attempts at obsfucation.

now, right on cue, accuse me of not contributing and running from the argument.



It is an obfuscation to say that it is only Rob and I that believe that the 2 meter rule should be only an option, when there is emphatic evidence to the fact that many here and elsewhere support this opinion, including the PDGA Rules Committee and PDGA Board of Directors (not to mention yourself). Besides, I did not claim that we were �undeniably correct� only that you have apparently, via your statement saying that you will never change your mind, cut yourself off from further consideration, regardless of whether convincing arguments are made or not.

As far as contributing to the discussion, did you? Or was it just further attacks on myself and rob for being TD Pro-Choice?

Nick said:

Dan,

This is not a common sense issue. It is a rules issue.



I think I need to frame this one and mount it on the wall.



Yes I agree. I asked about that statement pertaining to the rules but only got a reply of sarcasm. Mmmmm.

(AP) Frisbee(TM) Golf Association Rule Promotes Littering

Recent changes to the rule book for 'Disc Golf' made by the Professional Disc Golf Association (the sport's self-appointed rules overseer) have been said to encourage littering in the state and local parks that most courses are located in.

Dick Gozinya, East Bumfark resident had this to say:

"It has become a real problem. It used to be that players would throw them frisbees in trees and get penalized for it. But they all went and changed the rules and now guys are just leaving them there. I asked one of them why and he said it weren't no penalty to do it and that he'd get it later. Seems like they always forget tho. Now I gotta look at all them frisbees up in the cedar trees while I walk my shih-tzu."

A PDGA member who asked to remain brainless responded to our questions:

"Well, we don't really play it where it lies, just on the ground below where it lies, if it doesn't lie on the ground, of course, in which case we'd play it from the ground, not the ground below the ground. Theoretically I could throw a shot that landed on the stabilizer wing of the Goodyear Blimp and I'd just throw my next shot from underneath it without a penalty. Of course, if the Goodyear Blimp was hovering over the putting area within 30' of the basket I'd have to be careful not to follow through on my next shot, cuz that would be a penalty."

When asked if this meant the PDGA was condoning littering in public areas, the member said, "Umm, no we penalize you for littering. If you leave a biodegradable cigarette butt on the ground we will stroke you. Discs stuck in trees are not cigarette butts, they are made from plastic and other fossil fuel-based products. Leaving them in the trees is fine."

I asked the member if there was any common sense to that, and he replied, "This isn't a common sense issue, it's a rules issue." He then told me I was being argumentative and ended the interview.

- as reported by Harry Yambag, Tuscaloosa.

opting in is vastly different from opting out. please do not misconstrue my desire to make certain options avaialbe as meaning my position is the same as yours. yours has been rigid and uncompromising from the start. mie has been reasoned and nuanced, and open to input.

point of fact: the Rules Committee is NOT universally in favor of the upcoming changes. it has barely a majority... a majority that most likely would not have existed had the discussion/votes not taken place under rather dubious circumstances that were seemingly designed to sneak the changes through.

my attacks on you and rob are not for being "pro-choice". they are for being relentless in your quest to have it your way, and for your caviliar dismissals of the valid points that undercut your postion.

Did you really expect more ? :)

Rules are also to cover the points where common sense leads to two very different, yet equally intuitive results. The rules specify which is the intended method.

It is equally intuitive that any resting place that does not support a legal lie would require that the disc be moved to the playing surface with a penalty and that the real lie is directly below a suspended disc on the playing surface and is marked there without penalty.

The rule specifies that any disc suspended below 2m is marked without penalty, and those above are marked with penalty. Since the rule is a compromise, it is not immediately intuitive to either group.

What arguments undermines his position ?

I no longer see a battle over whether the rule is universally valid, but over whether the rule should be opt-in or opt-out.

What are the arguments for/against the opt-in vs opt-out. ?

When it comes down to it, I think we all know when we have to stroke ourselves. :D

LOL!!!! Werds of wizdom!

robj, get over it. i'm just giving you and nick what you two so regularly give the rest of this discussion. if you cant
take the hyperbole, stay outa the thread.



Cliff notes to Sandalman Pat's 2M arguments:

* Pat's opinion is gospel and if you disagree with him you are not only nuts, you don't understand disc golf and you are a fascist

* hyperbole is his go-to "disc" -- that's what he throws best

The disc golf community has always been split on the 2 meter rule. The least we can do is respect those who disagree with us on this issue, and attempt to understand the viewpoints and opinions of those who disagree with us. There will always be those who try to dominate a discussion by talking the most trash...

I am wondering if part of the philosophical differences on this issue have more to do with geographical issues. Out here in good ole Idaho we have a bunch of Blue Spruce trees on one of the courses. I know when I throw near these trees that it isn't a matter of if my disc will get caught by the tree, but when.

Another course has mostly deciduous trees. I throw at those trees knowing that 99 times out of 100 my disc will fall out. If I were to play on only courses with leafy trees I would probably agree with Nick. A stuck shot in those trees is unlucky.

It is a risk-reward scenario in my mind. I think in some areas the courses were designed with the mind that the trees would block the path. In other areas the trees are more of a disc catching obstacle. I don't know, maybe you could compare it to the different kinds of bunkers in golf. The difference between a sand trap (deciduous tree that knocks the disc down without a stroke) and a water hazard (a evergreen tree that catches the disc). Don't tell me that ball golfers don't get lucky sometimes and have their ball skip across the water and avoid the penalty. I know we are not the same as ball golf, but don't try and reinvent the wheel.

By allowing the 2-meter rule to be turned on by default with the TD option to opt-out, you allow the TD the same amount of choice. You are also avoiding the confusion that comes with a major change in the rules by a sports governing body. Now if twenty years down the road, with the opt-out version you may be able to more easily move to an opt-in rule or totally getting rid of the rule entirely. People will be more familiarized to the rule by then. With having it as an opt-in right away, you are going to create confusion and negate some great hazard features of some disc golf courses.

That I feel is the common sense version of things.

LOL!!! :D

hows it feel to take what you give? :D

btw, i've agreed that SOMETIMES a fairway 2MR situation creates a double penalty, and that the double penalty can be mitigated by providing LOP relief.

what have you agreed/compromised on? your ONLY position is that the 2MR must be relegated to the glossary.

you have consistantly maintained that people who support the 2MR are "against change"

you and nick have both expressed your desire that the 2MR be totally and completely removed. you have both epxressed unbridaled glee that the rule will become an option in 2006. you have both denigrated those us who do not share your opinion. despite several good points supporting the retention of the rule (close-in 2M situations, allowing LOP relief in the fairway, etc) you continually try to say that we have offered no points at all for the retention.

i will agree with nick on one thing: repeating something does not make it true:

"there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. there is no valid alternative to removing the 2MR. "

nope.

still not true.

I know the cedars here in central Texas are a 90% chance of sticking the majority of the time. I feel the geographical differences weigh heavily in this opinion as the courses and results of trees vary so widely.

I support the 2M rule because it tunes your game and makes you play better. I could not imagine just firing an upshot or drive into a wall of cedars behind the basket only to shoot from the point it stuck with no penalty. Thats Nansy golf. Lets keep the control factor of the game.

ajones, you are correct. nick does have thick cedars in PA also. his argument against the 2MR is that those trees have such lowlying branches that there is no escape route when playing from deep inside the tree. and he's right! thats why we proposed providing 5M LOP relief. but by then the crusade to eliminate the rule completely was underway, and for some reason a major change to the rules - even if it obliterates common sense around the pin - was deteremined to be the only possible objective.

and of course, the people who proposed the compromise are now labelled as unwilling to change :) oh well, lines do not exist in 2 dimensions.

Low-lying branches just add to the risk-reward situation. You really just need to find a better line if you are throwing at trees like that.