Or maybe you need to learn how to control your throw like I stated previously. If the disc does not go where you wanted it and ends up in a tree that is to thick to play out of, tell me how moving on without a penalty will help Nicks game? Oh, maybe his game is at its peak and he needs to change the rules to get a lower score. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Sarcasm not pointed at you ajones.

I have several questions for both sides of the 2M rule, please refrain from calling me ignorant if this has been discussed or if it appears to just be a series of stupid questions:

For Anti-2M group:

Is there a point in height that marking the disc on the ground could be considered relief? For instance, if the disc is at 2M or less the distance to the basket is minimally changed by marking the lie on the ground, is this true when the disc is 3M high? How about 10M? Certainly all disc golfers can agree that moving the disc closer to the basket is an unfair advantage. Maybe a disc stuck above 2M would be better handled by requiring the disc be thrown over. This suggestion would be very difficult to manage though and is not a suggestion, just conjecture.

Next question, let's assume the TD does decide to use the 2M rule, almost all the Pro-2M group feels a rewrite of the rule to provide relief would be appropriate. Do you agree that the rule should include guidance for relief? Won't application of the rule by the TD simply continue the problems you believe exist?

Won't removal of the 2M rule result in more damage to trees? If you consider the possibility of a disc wedged in a tree above 2M you will often consider a different throw than if you have no fear. Do you think it is possible that more people will opt to throw into trees around the basket as opposed to taking a more challenging line?

I have seen quite a few people argue that it is poor design to have disc catching trees in the fairway, what if that is the intent? For example hole #16 at Athens, Texas will generally catch and hold at least one disc for every two groups that play the hole. In my opinion the hole is very well designed and the trees affect your throw. A cautious throw can easily net you a three, a risky throw can often result in a trapped disc and a very good throw can end with a chance at a birdie. Doesn't removing the 2M rule as an obstacle change the course layout?

For the Pro-2M (or anti-anti-2M) group:

I have seen a disc get stuck in the middle of a cedar with a base 20 foot diameter branch sweep, do you believe that some relief should be added to the 2M rule for unplayable lies, or do you believe that a stroke should be given for 2M violation and another for unplayable lie relocation? To make matters worse, rather than take another stroke for the unplayable lie the player can damage the tree trying to throw the disc back out.

At what height do you think marking the lie does not yield an advantage? Granted it would be small below 2M, but what about children and shorter men and women? There is a point at which the 2M rule yields more advantage to some than others.

In my opinion, if the rule is to be used a height must be defined and I don't see that 2M is not as valid height, but would it be okay to change the height to 10 cm? If it would not be, then why?

Both sides:

Can't we all just get along ;)

Sorry that last one was a stupid question....

(Grunion clapping) Very nice post!!!! :cool:

I feel the trees have it worse in this scenario. Just climbing into them to get your disc causes damage and playing out of them even more. Lets see if we can keep the precious obstacles from becoming riddled with damage by enforcing the 2M. If it did not cause a penalty stroke I believe the damage would be disgusting. Can we come to a conclusion that preserves our courses? I think this is the most important factor. ;)

Won't removal of the 2M rule result in more damage to trees? If you consider the possibility of a disc wedged in a tree above 2M you will often consider a different throw than if you have no fear. Do you think it is possible that more people will opt to throw into trees around the basket as opposed to taking a more challenging line?



I can't imagine anyone will of all of a sudden adopt a strategy of "Wow, I will now try not to avoid the trees." # 16 at Athens for example, I (and every nonidiot for that matter) will still avoid those trees.

For the other points, I'm too tired of this. I just hope wisdom rules on the rules committee. Over time, people will wonder why the hell the rule ever existed in the first place.

Opting in to an old option forces those considering the question to consider the questions at hand, rather than just going with the flow. Opting out would lead to the 50% of folks adverse to any change, at all, to never give it a second thought. Besides, the Unfair Penalty Throw Zealots have already had their way for 25 years. It�s time to test out the other side, the TD Pro-Choice side.

The PDGA Rules Committee reached a quorum in favor of �removing� the 2 meter sentences from where they were and putting a simple option to use or not use the 2 meter designation in the glossary. Rarely are any decisions at any level of disc golf organization, involving more than one person, unanimous. They agreed upon the changes, many long overdue and sent them on to the PDGA Board of Directors who approved them for implementation in 2005. Only the fact that they could not be water-tight by next printing of the rulebook stopped them from going into effect in 2005. Certainly there was no sneaking around. Most of these updates have been in the works for years, including the 2 meter sentence changes.

Pat,

You say that Rob and I are not willing to compromise, right? Well, what exactly would you like for us to compromise on?

You can say: Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am. Rob and Nick are not willing to compromise and I am.

And it still doesn't make it so.

The point is that we are apparently much closer together on this than you are able or willing to acknowledge. Opt in or opt out, so long as it is just one among many options.

I am not anti 2 meter rule, I am PRO TD CHOICE!

Jerry, I would like to see the addition of relief from within the spread of a cedar (or similar tree) be added to the 2m rule. It would be in keeping with other penalties that offer some type of relief in conjunction with taking the penalty stroke.

This relief goes along with one of the stated purposes of the pro-2m rule players (protecting flora on the course) by preventing players from crawling inside the low canopy trees (like cedars) to take their stance. It also addresses one of the major concerns of the anti-2m players by largely removing the double penalty properties of the existing 2m rule.

45 posts in under 12 hours.

Was any progress made in any of that? Probably not...

I am not anti 2 meter rule, I am PRO TD CHOICE!

then let the TD CHOOSE to suspend the 2MR!

otherwise, truth requires a rewrite to this:

"I am not anti 2 meter rule, I am PRO TD CHOICE! as long as I get to determine the choices they may make"


alacrity: in the case of the fairway cedar, the stroke would be for 2MR, as would the granted relief. relief would become a part of the 2MR. at the TDs descretion (and encouraged for near-pin), a drop zone would be designated for 2MR situations. in short - the penalty is one stroke, but you get relief.

I am PRO TD as well. I am also PRO Rhett as he likes his parks beautifull as well. :)

Thanks for your questions.

I would be more inclined to support this rule if it were the 3 meter rule or if there were 2 meters of relief granted (2 meters is so arbitrary that at least 2 meters of relief would make it a bhit more standardized). It is an awkward part of our rules -- i would like to see it be either part of the OB section (up to TD's and involving 1 meter of relief for the penalty stroke) or eliminated altogether for the following reasons:

hitting a tree is not the advantageous trick the pro 2 meter rule camp appears to believe it to be. First, a tree may deflect you left, right, back, forward -- it's a crap shoot and may result in an obstructed lie plus the unpredictable deflection. A skilled player will miss the tree. (if you argue one can skillfully use a tree as a brake -- you can already do so by throwing under 2 meters into it). It takes more skill to use a tree to your advantage than it does to miss it altogether.

Throwing into trees damages them less than many assume. Often it prunes them in a way that encourages denser growth. many courses have so many trees you can't help but hit them. getting stuck in a tree 500 feet away from a 640 foot hole, and ending up with a lie obstructed and a penalty stroke is a bit over-the-top (pardon the pun). The 2 meter rule only changes my thought when i am throwing around a cedar tree. in fact without the 2 meter rule i seek to miss cedars anyways -- obstructed lies, irretrievable discs, etc. disincline me from throwing into them.

As for over-the-top shots, the 2 meter rule has never deterred me. Getting stuck above 2 meters is such a rare occurrence that it is not the deterrent that worrying about being deflected by a tree far off course is.
That's one of my gripes about this rule -- it doesn't change my approach to a hole at all -- and it only comes into effect once in a blue moon. often one disc will hit a tree dead center, high up and drop out, while a second throw will hit the fairway edge of the same tree a lot lower and be the one that sticks. why add an arbitrary penalty in once every 150 shots?

yes luck plays a part in our game but the rules shouldn't magniify the role luck plays. hitting a tree is generally a bad shot that leads to bad results and the elimination of the 2 meter rule won't change that -- nor will it make bad golfers better.

also note that those welcoming the elimination of the 2 meter as the default condition do not oppose giving TD's the ability to invoke the 2 meter penalty where they see fit. that's an important point to consider (and completely debunks sandalman's contention that we are zealots).

it is intellectually inconsistent to support a 3MR but dis the 2MR IF your reason is that discs 2.01M are treated differently than discs at 1.99M.

2M makes sense for two reasons:

1. it is a height that everyone can reach and measure easily
2. the average release point on the next throw is likely to be as far away from 2M up as it is from the ground (ie the lie)

it is intellectually inconsistent to support a 3MR but dis the 2MR IF your reason is that discs 2.01M are treated differently than discs at 1.99M.

<font color="blue"> I don't believe in The God of Sandal Men, so your Decree on the intellectual consistency of my position is merely an amusing opinion as far as i am concerned :D I don't favor a 3 meter rule -- i am just saying i wouldn't find it as counterintuitive as the 2 meter rule </font>

2M makes sense for two reasons:

1. it is a height that everyone can reach and measure easily

<font color="blue"> i can see why the opt-in 2 meter rule camp would make such a claim, but i can also see why the eliminate the 2 meter rule camp disagrees with it -- and i agree with the 50% who oppose the 2 meter rule unless specially invoked by a TD for particular holes, courses, or tournaments. the fine folks running the Bowling Green amateur championships declared the 2 meter rule in effect at one of the four courses -- the one that had a lot of evergreens. i was fine with that. As for tournament play in general, it won't surprise you to learn that i concur with the RC decision. No 2 meter rule should be the default and Td's should be free to invoke it where they see fit.

As for casual play -- make up the rules -- it's CASUAL play for god's (sandalman's? :eek:) sake :D</font>

2. the average release point on the next throw is likely to be as far away from 2M up as it is from the ground (ie the lie)



<font color="blue"> that's a reach. your arguments are amusing, but unconvincing :p. even you have admitted the 2 MR should only be in effect near the pin :D

btw, how many tournaments have you TD'ed? Maybe only TD's should have a say ;-) </font>

saying they are amusing is soooooo much easier than debunking them!

you spent most of your post listing who you agree and dont agree with. well, we already know all that from the previous 10,000 posts.

running a tournament is not the only activity that endows one with the right to an opinion on this topic. but thanks for the dose of arrogance anyway.

i run at least one tournament every month.

btw, whats the J stand for? Joke ?

45 posts in under 12 hours.

Was any progress made in any of that? Probably not...



I think Rhett has a point, but I will say you guys have assured that I am not going to get too much work done today. If I did get too much done they might start actually giving me real work!!! :eek:

I think that everyone really agrees more than they think. But I do propose a chocolate pudding eating contest to settle the matter. According to the rules, hands will be allowed to be used to eat the pudding unless the tournament director wishes to opt not to allow the use of hands. Or should it be that hands are not allowed unless the tournament director opts to have them allowed.

What do you all think? :D

saying they are amusing is soooooo much easier than debunking them!

<font color="blue"> well, the problem with debunking them is it requires giving you and your opinions far more attention than i find equitable :eek: </font>

you spent most of your post listing who you agree and dont agree with. well, we already know all that from the previous 10,000 posts.

<font color="blue"> there are only eight of us reading and posting on this thread anyways :D</font>

running a tournament is not the only activity that endows one with the right to an opinion on this topic. but thanks for the dose of arrogance anyway.

<font color="blue"> i was just trying to gauge how arrogant you are. if you already TD, what's the big deal? Surely you find TD's competent to decide where the 2 meter rule should or should not apply -- so make it an opt-out default scenario and opt-in as much as you like </font>

i run at least one tournament every month.

<font color="blue"> good for you. maybe that shouldn't matter, but i find too many people that never lift a finger to work on a course, run an event, or help a local club. since you know events don't run themselves, should i also take it that you appreciate the work the RC does and that you just think they lost it on this one rule you think we can't do without? </font>

btw, whats the J stand for? Joke ?



<font color="blue"> it's the first letter of my last name </font>

...should i also take it that you appreciate the work the RC does and that you just think they lost it on this one rule...

actually, yes, that is a very accurate representation of my appreciate and feelings towards the RC as a group.

...should i also take it that you appreciate the work the RC does and that you just think they lost it on this one rule...

actually, yes, that is a very accurate representation of my appreciate and feelings towards the RC as a group.


second. Definitely greatly appreciative. Definitely think they are blowing it on this one. Same goes for the PDGA BOD who has to approve the RC recomendation.

...should i also take it that you appreciate the work the RC does and that you just think they lost it on this one rule...

actually, yes, that is a very accurate representation of my appreciate and feelings towards the RC as a group.



wow! we stopped arguing :D

wow! you came over to our side and now agree that the RC is gagging on this one?!?

...should i also take it that you appreciate the work the RC does and that you just think they lost it on this one rule...


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

actually, yes, that is a very accurate representation of my appreciate and feelings towards the RC as a group.


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



wow! we stopped arguing

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

wow! you came over to our side and now agree that the RC is gagging on this one?!?



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

<font color="blue"> not even close. i was just surprised we found something to agree upon (your belief that the RC should not have decided to eliminate the 2 meter rule as a blanket condition notwithstanding -- we both appreciate the often thankless work the people on the RC do) </font>

Thinking really simple on this one.

Disc lands in tree, why can't I climb tree to throw. In golf you throw where it lies. With 2 meter rule, this prohibits climbing. Thus incurring other penalties as in breaking limbs on purpose to reach the disc. Penalty stroke.

Or
How about I walk up to the tree with my disc stuck 20 ft up. Decide hmm unsafe lie, penalty stroke. move lie down nearby on the ground. Staying within the other rules of course.

I think the oppurtunity should be given to throw from a position exceeding 2 meters. Without breaking any of the other rules, i.e. can't move limbs in order to throw.

If it's dangerous take the penalty, if not try to throw it and I bet it will lead to more excitment and hospital visits. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

We don't need a 2 meter rule.
:D

We don't penalize discs caught up 1 meter so there's nothing inconsistent in having one caught 2.5 meters up marked and played the same way.

If you wish to deter climbing trees, make that a penalty, but people will still climb them after the round to retrieve their favorite discs.

If people are allowed to climb trees, this could lead to other arguments, some trees are easy to climb without breaking anything, including your own limbs. Someone might want to climb a tree in anger, while muttering curses to their disc, just a reminder about breaking course property.

Trees aren't the only obstacles over 2 meters.

Trees are not considered "playing surface" so you can no more play from a tree 2 feet up than 40 feet up. Read the rules governing "lie".

See, we have other rules in place to take care of discs above the playing surface. There is a penalty problem with the two meter rule.
Kill 807.03 B,C,D leave 807.03 A.
Why must we bring units of measurement into this? :)

I am still convinced that the 2 meter rule isn't needed.

I took a 2 meter penalty at a PDGA tourney this past weekend. I ended up with fairly crappy lie, too. There was a design element called "a wall of trees" defining the approach to the hole. There was a wide open clearing past the wall, with the basket to the left behind a smaller set of trees. The smart play was a stright Roc shot to the clearing, an easy approach, and a simple 3. I tried to power past the line of trees and then fade left in hopes of landing near/past the smaller set of trees and maybe a look at the basket. I didn't quite power down far enough and got stuck in the last tree in the line.

Risk. Reward.

I took a 4p.

Woulda been a 3 without the penalty. Same score as playing safe to the clearing. No 2 meter penalty means no risk on that risk/reward deal.

Ne reason to cry about the penalty. I had every opportunity to throw the Roc, but opted for taking a chance for a birdie.

So you are saying that the 2MR did absolutely nothing to affect your approach to this hole.

I appreciate the honesty.

I wonder if you had stuck in the tree at 1.99 centimeters, what then?
Or what would have happened if the trees had been OB?
Would that exact same shot have been a better or worse shot?
Would it have been less or more deserving of an additional throw?

So you are saying that the 2MR did absolutely nothing to affect your approach to this hole.


Nick,

I was pretty clear in stating that I chose to take the risky route over the safe shot to the opening. If I were nursing a 5 stroke lead I would've taken the safe shot. If I was 1 stroke out of first but only 1 stroke ahead of 3rd, then I would've really had to think about it.

Without a 2 meter rule there is no thinking about it. Just gun it for the turn because there is no risk, only possible reward.

Again, where is the 2MR in any of this:

I was pretty clear in stating that I chose to take the risky route over the safe shot to the opening. If I were nursing a 5 stroke lead I would've taken the safe shot. If I was 1 stroke out of first but only 1 stroke ahead of 3rd, then I would've really had to think about it.



The risk reward is unchanged, all that is changed is that there is a penalty throw added for a completely random and unlikely result.

Now if those trees were OB, a reasonable and more clear "Risk/Reward" would be presented. Similar to over water shots...

Whenever I think about a shot with a high chance of hitting a tree, I consider the risk of sticking. That's called "golf" and "course management".

The risk reward is unchanged

sometimes i wonder if you even have the slightest concept of golf, nick. the risk reward changes immensely from a 5 stroke lead to a 1 stroke lead to trying to hang on to cash. with a 5 stroke lead, the risk is minimal, cuz even a 2MR stroke against a bird there's still a 3 stroke lead - and a smack down bird may easily make it a 6 stroke lead, which prolly ices ythe whole show. not much risk, but huge reward. in the other situations, screwing up carries a much larger penalty relative to the field. (i know rhett was playing it the opposite way, and thats ok too - just a different style of play)

risk-reward is contextual and goes far beyond the score you record on the card.

I still think that eliminating the two meter rule is like eliminating the rule that pitchers have to take their turn batting. It dumbs down the game. And I also think that if sticky trees are not on the courses you play, you can't get this.

I also think there has not been an original or new idea on these 18 various 2-meter threads in about a year, and nobody is listening to anything anybody is saying anymore. Someone stirs up the thread and we all just rush in and type the same old stuff.

So here is an original or new idea, maybe. Feel free to cite where you brought this up earlier if you did:

The decision to change the rule does highlight the importance of stare decisis. Just as the common law loses legitimacy when it is changed based on changing political tides on the highest courts, the seriousness of a sport suffers if the rules change based only on changing majorities on the rules committee or governing board. Eventually it becomes Calvinball.

Things have changed. The game has gotten a whole lot easier with the development of wide rimmed, beadless, overstable discs with lots of glide. For kicks try playing the game with Frisbees, like we did in the 70s and 80s [some of us] or even with old school stuff that is still available like Eclipses. The game getting easier would support making the rules harder.

I agree with Bruce's point that the policy of changing rules to suit the loudest could lead to a lack of respect/legitimacy for the game.

Plus I like the "Calvinball" reference.

sounds original to me! and right on point. you'd make a good lawyer.

I can agree with:

I also think there has not been an original or new idea on these 18 various 2-meter threads in about a year, and nobody is listening to anything anybody is saying anymore. Someone stirs up the thread and we all just rush in and type the same old stuff.


and�

The decision to change the rule does highlight the importance of stare decisis. Just as the common law loses legitimacy when it is changed based on changing political tides on the highest courts, the seriousness of a sport suffers if the rules change based only on changing majorities on the rules committee or governing board. Eventually it becomes Calvinball.


and even�

Things have changed.



Where you are in error is:

I still think that eliminating the two meter rule is like eliminating the rule that pitchers have to take their turn batting. It dumbs down the game. And I also think that if sticky trees are not on the courses you play, you can't get this.


and

The game has gotten a whole lot easier with the development of wide rimmed, beadless, overstable discs with lots of glide. For kicks try playing the game with Frisbees, like we did in the 70s and 80s [some of us] or even with old school stuff that is still available like Eclipses. The game getting easier would support making the rules harder.



Eliminating the 2 meter �sentences�(it is not a rule per se) is more like eliminating a rule that makes all manmade materials on a course out of bounds (including random garbage). The 2 meter �sentences� dumb down the game by their random and unpredictable nature, as well as being superfluous in light of casual areas and out of bounds rules. And I doubt that there are any courses anywhere that have more �sticky trees� than Seneca Creek State Park in Maryland, so I get it, just not the way you do.

If the game has gotten easier then why aren�t you winning Open every week Bruce? Do you think you would beat Barry or Ken if everyone had to use Eclipses or Lids? Hail no! You�d still get your arsenal handed to you on a forklift. And adding arbitrary and random penalty throws based on a strategically and statistically unfathomable challenge is not making the game �harder� or �smarter�, it is making it �less fair� and �dumber�.

50% of PDGA Members have always felt this way, just because you do not, don�t go quoting �the importance of stare decisis�. We have matured to a point where we are free to give the logic of treating the 2 meter �sentences� like any other hazard; where the Course Designer and Tournament Director get to decide where and when to use it OR NOT. You can choose to play what you consider �harder�/�smarter� golf at your event, and I the same at mine; you with the 2 meter sentences on, me with them off, just like we might disagree on the use or overuse of Out of Bounds�

I can agree with:

I also think there has not been an original or new idea on these 18 various 2-meter threads in about a year, and nobody is listening to anything anybody is saying anymore. Someone stirs up the thread and we all just rush in and type the same old stuff.




Yes Nick, that you agree with that is painfully obvious.

Huh? So, a rule change is now unwise if it is changed "based only on changing majorities on the rules committee or governing board." Well, isn't that a loaded premise. Could there actually be reasons for the "changing majority" decision? or is "changing old ways" always unwise?

LOL! :)

Huh? So, a rule change is now unwise if it is changed "based only on changing majorities on the rules committee or governing board." Well, isn't that a loaded premise. Could there actually be reasons for the "changing majority" decision? or is "changing old ways" always unwise?

No one on the Board won a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule. No one on the rules committee was elected.

Huh? So, a rule change is now unwise if it is changed "based only on changing majorities on the rules committee or governing board." Well, isn't that a loaded premise. Could there actually be reasons for the "changing majority" decision? or is "changing old ways" always unwise?

No one on the Board won a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule. No one on the rules committee was elected.



So how does this undermine their stated responsibilities or right to take action on those responsibilities.

Speaking of old arguments being rehashed again and again, didn't we already cover this one a few times? That:

The 2 meter sentences are somehow right and substantiated simply because they already exist.

Yeah, I seem to recall that coming up a time or two...

No one on the Board won a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule.



Likewise, no one running for the Board lost a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule.

Anyways, if the standard for making decisions is that "it had to be a debated position" in a contested election," then virtually no decisions could ever be made by the Board.

No one on the Board won a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule.


Likewise, no one running for the Board lost a contested election based on having a position on the 2-meter rule.

Anyways, if the standard for making decisions is that "it had to be a debated position" in a contested election," then virtually no decisions could ever be made by the Board.

When should a longstanding rule be changed, in your opinion?

When should a longstanding rule be changed, in your opinion?



As an opinionated person with an opinion, my answer is whenever I conclude/realize that the rule can be approved, either through modification or elimination.

But as a PDGA member, my answer is whenever the process for rule-changing is completed. I assume that the process affords ample opportunity for hearing the pros and cons, both by the RC and the Board. What more can we ask for?

Anyways, IMO, the length of time a rule or practice has existed does not necessarily imply that the rule or practice makes sense or cannot be improved. The argument is stronger if the rule or practice has continually achieved a desired end. Then it probably fits into the "If it ain't broke" category.

My suspicion is that for a long period of time, no one ever thought about the 2-meter rule, and it was therefore never debated. Everyone just accepted it without reflection. That is my personal situation at least. Once the debate began, some views were modified. But that is the nature of every change in practice or rule. Once we notice it, we debate it and the matter possibly runs through the rule making/changing process. The 2-meter rule is no different.

A lot of words for: at the whim of the majority governing body.

A lot of words for: at the whim of the majority governing body.



If they decided against the changes, then by your definition Bruce, would that not also be a "whimsical" decision?

On further consideration I suppose you have come up with a new angle here: That the PDGA Board of Directors and PDGA Rules Committee are doing no more than acting on a whim when they approve rules updates.

(Some might say that such a characterization of their duties and actions is obviously uninformed, naive and based on a whim. I might be one of those people.)

The 2 meter sentences were in effect at the 2005 PDGA Pro Worlds; did anyone there incur an above 2 meter penalty throw?

The closest I saw was Nate Doss in the Final 9 on the combined 17 and 18 hole hit a tree some 40 feet up and 20 below the tee pad 850 feet from the pin. It trickled to the ground. If it had stuck, I fail to see how this accomplished any of what 2 meter sentence supporters say the 2 meter sentences accomplish. Then again, admittedly, I fail to see any situation where an addition penalty throw for landing above the playing surface in bounds is warranted...

What is it again that these sentences add to the game?

What is it again that this rule adds to the game?


It adds a penalty for landing your disc in an irretrievable and unplayable position.

Why did you take the bait Rhett?

I couldn't resist. :D

nick, you could trip over a two dimensional line and you wouldnt still even consider that it might possibly exist.

i'm willing to bet that a LOT of rules never were applied over the week. by your logic (?!?) they should all be unwritten.

What is it again that this rule adds to the game?


It adds a penalty for landing your disc in an irretrievable and unplayable position.



A) How do you know that it is irratrievable?
B) Is it any less playable than a disc landing 3 inches or 1.8 meters above the playing surface?

These are irrelevant points as discussed at length already. What I'm asking is what do these 2 meter sentences add to the game itself? Do they make disc golf more disc golf like? Are they somehow a factor in the spirit of the game; like out of bounds, courtesy or stance rules?

All it seems to do in my estimation is tack on an overly punitive penalty throw for something as random (and as important to the spirit of the game) as a disc landing upside down...

nick, you could trip over a two dimensional line and you wouldnt still even consider that it might possibly exist.

i'm willing to bet that a LOT of rules never were applied over the week. by your logic (?!?) they should all be unwritten.



Tell you what Pat, you present me with an absolutely 2 dimensional line and I will never argue against the 2 meter sentences again. How's that for a deal?

Remember 2 dimensions can only have 2 of the following, no more:

Depth
Width
Height

Also remember that in order for an object to exist (perceptibly) in 3 dimensions it must have all three elements, hence three dimensions. I eagerly await your 2 dimensional line in the mail�

My logic in questioning the rules use does not have to do with it�s frequency of use (or utter lack of) rather as to the effect or lack of effect on our game played at it�s highest level. I know that the only time I even gave it a second thought was on Doss�s throw in the finals, and that thought was how dumb it would be for him to get an additional penalty for simply sticking in a tree, when being 800 feet plus away from the pin and behind that tree is ample penalty enough.

Why did you take the bait, Rhett?
I couldn't resist. :D



You are so weak. :D

Here's a 2 dimensional f.....
<FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=7>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT>

How bout them apples?...

Q. Why is the 2 meter rule in effect at Am Worlds?




A. Because its a good rule.

Q. Why is the 2 meter rule in effect at Am Worlds?



Historical inertia.
Lack of vision.
Masochism.
For a Lotto fix? ;)

yawn.

Tell you what Pat, you present me with an absolutely 2 dimensional line and I will never argue against the 2 meter sentences again. How's that for a deal?


Ok, when you get a chance, on a sunny day, look down at your shadow on the ground. The line between light and dark is 2-dimensional.

nick, you could trip over a two dimensional line and you wouldnt still even consider that it might possibly exist.

i'm willing to bet that a LOT of rules never were applied over the week. by your logic (?!?) they should all be unwritten.



Tell you what Pat, you present me with an absolutely 2 dimensional line and I will never argue against the 2 meter sentences again. How's that for a deal?

Remember 2 dimensions can only have 2 of the following, no more:

Depth
Width
Height

Also remember that in order for an object to exist (perceptibly) in 3 dimensions it must have all three elements, hence three dimensions. I eagerly await your 2 dimensional line in the mail�

My logic in questioning the rules use does not have to do with it�s frequency of use (or utter lack of) rather as to the effect or lack of effect on our game played at it�s highest level. I know that the only time I even gave it a second thought was on Doss�s throw in the finals, and that thought was how dumb it would be for him to get an additional penalty for simply sticking in a tree, when being 800 feet plus away from the pin and behind that tree is ample penalty enough.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket. and that has precisely nothing to do with what happens close in.

beyond that, look up the definition of a "line"

you may now excuse yourself forever from further discussion of this topic, as per your word. unless you open up an anonymous account, i spose we'll be hearing only from your flunkies fron here on out.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket.


Not unanimous.

yeah i know. sometimes i forget that everytime i think it completely thru, i realize anew that the 2MR represents a fundamental enforcement of the basic concept of all of golf - play it where it is. and if you cant, then pay the price.

now, i can obviously admit my mistake.

can nick?

My logic in questioning the rules use does not have to do with it�s frequency of use (or utter lack of) rather as to the effect or lack of effect on our game played at it�s highest level. I know that the only time I even gave it a second thought was on Doss�s throw in the finals, and that thought was how dumb it would be for him to get an additional penalty for simply sticking in a tree, when being 800 feet plus away from the pin and behind that tree is ample penalty enough.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket. and that has precisely nothing to do with what happens close in.

[/QUOTE]

what about 450 feet from the basket? what about 40 feet off fairwaiy in a very densely wooded area? If you would go back to your original compromise (wisdom) and suggest the 2 meter rule should only apply within 10 meters of the pin it would be a much more reasonable position. (though why you wouldn't drop it down to 1 meter is beyond me -- although it would count a DROT as a penalty unless we write a better DROT rule).

according to some of the 'wisdom' supplied previously by those on the "keep the 2 meter rule" camp -- Nathan's shot was good, but if it hadn't trickled down it was bad (aka: "good shots don't stick in trees") -- what a crock of defecation that is!

signed,
the guy Pat likes to recklessly call Nick's flunkie

according to some of the 'wisdom' supplied previously by those on the "keep the 2 meter rule" camp -- Nathan's shot was good, but if it hadn't trickled down it was bad (aka: "good shots don't stick in trees") -- what a crock of defecation that is!




Must be those Kentucky reading comprehension scores showing. :D

That was most likely a bad shot if it hit 40 feet up in a tree. He got lucky that it fell out. Must have been having a good day or something. :D

"good shots don't stick in trees"


You need to take a course in logic. Shots that stick in trees are by definition bad. My test for this? If I ever throw a shot into a tree, I don't smile afterwards and think to myself "what a good shot!" And no one ever compliments me on such a shot. Cuz it's a bad shot, see.

But that doesn't mean all other shots are good. That just means those that stick in trees are bad. Those that fall out of trees are most likely bad shots, as well (why did they hit the tree?), but they were lucky shots, too -- lucky enough to avoid the penalty. (There's that risk/reward thing again.)

So there are lots and lots of types of shots that are still bad that fall into the camp of shots-that-didn't-get-stuck-in-a-tree. Just as there are bad shots that don't go OB, and bad shots that do go OB.

But, Rob, you know all this, and you're just picking a fight again. So for those who are reading this who are still open-minded, please don't let Rob's or Nick's flame-broiled rhetoric get in the way of actual thinking. No one's calling a shot that fell out of a tree suddenly a good shot. And it is not the job of any rule, 2MR or not, to penalize all bad shots. Just certain bad shots are penalized, following a kind of play-it-where-it-lies philosophy. Which is what I thought golf was about.

yes but you also believe lines exist in two dimensions. :D its no wonder that those who dont share that belief come up with the dumbest rules revisions.

btw, they define the "lie" as "where you mark the disc", not where it ended up. they actually do not have a word for "where it ended up"!

seems to me that a very simple modification of the definition of "lie" (to support the concept of golf as playing it where it ended up) would have made the entire issue go away.

that, combined with the retention of the 2MR as the default scenario and complete freedom to the TD to suspend it for all/part of the course, would have been a vastly more well-reasoned course to steer.

Here's a 2 dimensional f.....
<FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=7>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT>

How bout them apples?...



How about them. Atoms and photons exist in 3 dimensions. So your example is incorrect. Small though it might be even those lines have 3 dimensions.

Q. Why is the 2 meter rule in effect at Am Worlds?
The TD has made a decision to use this retro rule. Though I disagree with any application of it on logical grounds or on grounds of improving play, I respect the TDs decision as they deserve to determing restricted areas on their courses during their events. This in unison with all other restricted area rules. (Well similarly at least.)

Tell you what Pat, you present me with an absolutely 2 dimensional line and I will never argue against the 2 meter sentences again. How's that for a deal?


Ok, when you get a chance, on a sunny day, look down at your shadow on the ground. The line between light and dark is 2-dimensional.



A) Great! Mail it to me and I'll believe you.
B) Does that entire line between shadow and light exist in the same 2 dimensions, if not it is not 2 dimensional is it?

This is enjoyable.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket.


Not unanimous.

Not even close. 70% of the players at our tournaments [we average 150 players per tournament] favor retaining the 2-meter rule. When we say, "The 2-meter rule is in effect," during player meetings we always hear, "HeII yeah!"

nick, you could trip over a two dimensional line and you wouldnt still even consider that it might possibly exist.

i'm willing to bet that a LOT of rules never were applied over the week. by your logic (?!?) they should all be unwritten.



Tell you what Pat, you present me with an absolutely 2 dimensional line and I will never argue against the 2 meter sentences again. How's that for a deal?

Remember 2 dimensions can only have 2 of the following, no more:

Depth
Width
Height

Also remember that in order for an object to exist (perceptibly) in 3 dimensions it must have all three elements, hence three dimensions. I eagerly await your 2 dimensional line in the mail�

My logic in questioning the rules use does not have to do with it�s frequency of use (or utter lack of) rather as to the effect or lack of effect on our game played at it�s highest level. I know that the only time I even gave it a second thought was on Doss�s throw in the finals, and that thought was how dumb it would be for him to get an additional penalty for simply sticking in a tree, when being 800 feet plus away from the pin and behind that tree is ample penalty enough.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket. and that has precisely nothing to do with what happens close in.

beyond that, look up the definition of a "line"

you may now excuse yourself forever from further discussion of this topic, as per your word. unless you open up an anonymous account, i spose we'll be hearing only from your flunkies fron here on out.



Did I miss something? Where did you prove that I could trip over a 2 dimensional line? Can a perfectly straight line exist in two dimensions? Certainly. But we do not live in a perfect world, as your super weak arguments illustrate; so a line lacking any 3rd dimension is not possible within anything but theory. And even if you could manage to prove that a 2 dimensional line exists within 3 dimensions (an impossibility) lacking one of height, width or depth tripping over said line would be (equally) impossible.

So don't expect any slowing of posts on this "important" topic.

yeah i know. sometimes i forget that everytime i think it completely thru, i realize anew that the 2MR represents a fundamental enforcement of the basic concept of all of golf - play it where it is. and if you cant, then pay the price.

now, i can obviously admit my mistake.

can nick?



Sure, if we want to move to a "play it were it lies" style of rules and play I am all for it. Of course that would mean taking a penalty throw for a disc at rest 1.99 meters above the playing surface as well as 2 centimeters above the playing surface. You seem to want it both ways, when it is patently unfair, inconsistant and against the spirit of the game.

I suspect that you, Pat, will start "playing it where it lies" about the same time you can mail me a 2 dimensional line.

well i believe it is unanimous that it is acceptable to relax the rule 800 feet from the basket.


Not unanimous.

Not even close. 70% of the players at our tournaments [we average 150 players per tournament] favor retaining the 2-meter rule. When we say, "The 2-meter rule is in effect," during player meetings we always hear, "HeII yeah!"



Science at it's best. The cave wall grows dimmer...

...when it is patently unfair, inconsistant and against the spirit of the game.


That's a pretty bold statement.

Complete and utter crap, but bold.

There is nothing more consistent than the 2 meter rule. It's application is completely fair. And there is nothing in the "spirit of the game" that it it contradicts. I guess Nick wil say anything to try and get his way. But then we already knew that.

can you mail me a thought? no. does that mean thoughts dont exist? no.

can you mail me a pi? no. does that mean pi doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me a socialism? no. does that mean socialism doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me a trade imbalance? no. does that mean a trade imbalance doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me your brain? no. does that mean your brain does not exist? ooops, ya got me on that one :D

I've never seen a million dollars. It must not exist either.

Don't back off Nick. :D

These folks just refuse to see a brighter, fairer and more rational future. The brilliance of killing an unneccessay, arbitrary and unfair rule scares them. ;) :D

That Subject Line does not speak to an open mind, nor a particularly bright one, in light of all that has been discussed here and elsewhere. The flaws of the 2 meter sentences within our rules are undeniable to anyone taking a balanced view of this issue. To deny any flaws is to essentially be "non-thinking".



...when it is patently unfair, inconsistant and against the spirit of the game.


That's a pretty bold statement.

Complete and utter crap, but bold.

<font color="blue"> I know you�ll likely fall back on your �I�m so tired of explaining this.� Or �You never listen to me.� So why bother crap, but do you have any argument that proves that it is �complete and utter crap�?

Surprise me!</font>

There is nothing more consistent than the 2 meter rule. <font color="blue"> You mean �within itself� and not in the context of all of our other rules; for which it sticks out like a sore thumb.</font> It's application is completely fair. <font color="blue"> Application, nicely worded but again meaningless within the context of the actual topic at hand. The application is not the question of fairness, it is the action leading up to the application and the resulting �over-penalization� that is patently �unfair�.</font> And there is nothing in the "spirit of the game" that it it contradicts. <font color="blue"> It contradicts fairness as relates to a foreseeable challenge. Just as we do not have rules like a disc that lands upside-down should be penalized, neither should we have rules that depend on the strange behavior of a disc tumbling through a tree and getting stuck or not. </font> I guess Nick wil say anything to try and get his way. But then we already knew that.



Perhaps persistence will pay off, perhaps not, so long as these couple of sentences within our rules is relegated to the whim of a few retro TDs sense of nostalgia I will be satisfied.

yikes i think the summer heat has finally pushed James over the edge. :eek:

can you mail me a thought? no. does that mean thoughts dont exist? no.

can you mail me a pi? no. does that mean pi doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me a socialism? no. does that mean socialism doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me a trade imbalance? no. does that mean a trade imbalance doesnt exist? no.

can you mail me your brain? no. does that mean your brain does not exist? ooops, ya got me on that one :D



Still doesn't provide me with a 2 dimensional line with which to trip over does it?

Your persistent ignorance is admirable on some strange level.

Don't back off Nick. :D

These folks just refuse to see a brighter, fairer and more rational future. The brilliance of killing an unneccessay, arbitrary and unfair rule scares them. ;) :D



you can see them getting more vocal as the retro version of this rule nears its impending meeting with the grim reaper. history is littered with outspoken resistance to beneficial change.

it is overly reactive and even absurd that the opponents of the change fail to see that come 2006 the rule will be pro-choice and any TD who decides to implement the 2 meter rule will be free to do so. The difference will be that it will no longer be a force fed rule, and TD's will be free to declare it in effect in the way they find best fits their course or any particular hole.

Don't back off Nick. :D

These folks just refuse to see a brighter, fairer and more rational future. The brilliance of killing an unneccessay, arbitrary and unfair rule scares them. ;) :D



you can see them getting more vocal as the retro version of this rule nears its impending meeting with the grim reaper. history is littered with outspoken resistance to beneficial change.

it is overly reactive and even absurd that the opponents of the change fail to see that come 2006 the rule will be pro-choice and any TD who decides to implement the 2 meter rule will be free to do so. The difference will be that it will no longer be a force fed rule, and TD's will be free to declare it in effect in the way they find best fits their course or any particular hole.



And it was good.

history is littered with outspoken resistance to beneficial change.

its also littered with the masses who fell victim to changes forced upon them by the tyranny of the few.

Here's a 2 dimensional f.....
<FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=7>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT>

How bout them apples?...



How about them. Atoms and photons exist in 3 dimensions. So your example is incorrect. Small though it might be even those lines have 3 dimensions.

Q. Why is the 2 meter rule in effect at Am Worlds?
The TD has made a decision to use this retro rule. Though I disagree with any application of it on logical grounds or on grounds of improving play, I respect the TDs decision as they deserve to determing restricted areas on their courses during their events. This in unison with all other restricted area rules. (Well similarly at least.)



Nick maybe you didn't understand me...<FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT>F<FONT SIZE=7>|</FONT>U<FONT SIZE=5>|</FONT><FONT SIZE=3>|</FONT> and your asphyxiating circumlocutory argument.

That's not a good way to make friend Dave. Tsk Tsk

Don't back off Nick. :D

These folks just refuse to see a brighter, fairer and more rational future. The brilliance of killing an unneccessay, arbitrary and unfair rule scares them. ;) :D



you can see them getting more vocal as the retro version of this rule nears its impending meeting with the grim reaper. history is littered with outspoken resistance to beneficial change.

it is overly reactive and even absurd that the opponents of the change fail to see that come 2006 the rule will be pro-choice and any TD who decides to implement the 2 meter rule will be free to do so. The difference will be that it will no longer be a force fed rule, and TD's will be free to declare it in effect in the way they find best fits their course or any particular hole.



I am not sure you all grasped what Bruce was trying to say. Most players at local tournaments want the 2 meter rule to be in effect. These are the local players that do not frequent this message board. These are the people that pay their PDGA dues because it makes the tournaments cheaper by avoiding the three day membership fee.

There are many, many more members that are part-time members than are message board addicts. THEY are the membership. I am under the distinct impression that you all are forgetting about them.

I believe that the PDGA is separating themselves from the membership by instituting this particular rules change. Eventually (I am assuming here so watch out) it seems to me that the 2 meter rule will be completely gone. TDs will eventually have to figure out a way to individually mark trees as OB if they are to use trees as a hazard or design element.

If you are throwing at trees you deserve to stick and pick up a stroke. Period. Learn to throw around the trees.

If you are throwing at trees you deserve to stick and pick up a stroke. Period. Learn to throw around the trees.



Sometimes the best shot is to throw at a tree and get knocked down :eek:

history is littered with outspoken resistance to beneficial change.

its also littered with the masses who fell victim to changes forced upon them by the tyranny of the few.



LOL! Removing the 2 meter sentences, or making them optional equals "tyranny". LOL! That is rich.

This is a new level of hilarity in the futile retreatist demagoguery of the small minded.

I am not sure you all grasped what Bruce was trying to say. Most players at local tournaments want the 2 meter rule to be in effect. These are the local players that do not frequent this message board. These are the people that pay their PDGA dues because it makes the tournaments cheaper by avoiding the three day membership fee.




The Live Oak Summer Open was played without the 2 meter rule. I didn't hear many complaints.

Good one Dave. How clever of you.

Classic.

Retreatist demagoguery sounds like an oxymoron to my simple brain.

Perhaps, but it is precisely what it was. Simple mind or not.

The Live Oak Summer Open was played without the 2 meter rule. I didn't hear many complaints.



Ask Laura Coffey about it. Finished 5 back while Danielle was above 2m 6 times... :o :)

what's next " in the water will be call a safe play so wear your wet suit :D

I am not sure you all grasped what Bruce was trying to say. Most players at local tournaments want the 2 meter rule to be in effect. These are the local players that do not frequent this message board. These are the people that pay their PDGA dues because it makes the tournaments cheaper by avoiding the three day membership fee.




The Live Oak Summer Open was played without the 2 meter rule. I didn't hear many complaints.




Lou by the way you throw I knew you were blind but I had no clue your were deaf too :o:D

I think the water or OB idea is what I fear most.

I say it was unlucky that my disc skipped onto the paved walking path at league last week. I have thrown the same throw hundreds of times and this was the first time I have landed on that walkway. It must have been a freak bad luck incident. I don't think the rules should penalize such "freak incidents".

Or on the same hole when my disc then subsequently skipped into the creek. Obviously a freak incident. It could not have been a bad shot because I was so close to hitting the chains. I think the creek should no longer have a penalty stroke either.

Man, under this logic I got a three, not the five I had to card. Good riddiance to risk reward. Throw your disc without fear of penalty!! Sounds great to me.

The Live Oak Summer Open was played without the 2 meter rule. I didn't hear many complaints.



Ask Laura Coffey about it. Finished 5 back while Danielle was above 2m 6 times... :o :)



I'm more inclined to listen to someone that had concerns before play started, when the rules were handed out, instead of after when that opinion is influenced by the outcome.

Nice analogy. 2M in the trees in just like OB. I always think that when I throw in the middle of the pond that 99% of the time I will end up safely on the edge. When I shank it OB, I can bet with confidence that it will suddenly end up safe.

Next argument.

Can someone give me the "We are just more macho" argument otherwise known as the "you are wusses" argument.

How about the "play it where it lies" argument. This is like the theory of relativity: someone might actually be able to express this argument in layman's terms, it just hasn't been done yet.

That's just it Lou. Most people are not going to argue about the 2 meter rule being lifted before the round. Everyone will think, 'hey it could happen to me getting stuck in a tree. I don't want the rule.' They go out, throw a solid round of golf without throwing at trees, get a good score, lose to a person erratically throwing at the trees by one or two strokes. Now they seem like a bad loser because they now wish the 2 meter rule had been in effect.

But hang on a minute. When the course was designed, was the 2 meter rule a consideration on every hole? I think a resounding yes is in order. The guy who now lost because of the 2 meter rule played the course better as the designer intended. Is it fair that he lost because he played the course as designed?

The courses were designed to have an element of risk and reward when throwing near trees. It is a simple fact. I know, I know. The 2 meter rule still can be used by the TDs instruction. But, the path the rule seems to be on is for eventual elimination. That's why I am personally fired up about the change. Are the people that want the 2 meter rule eliminated going to go around and redesign and reinstall all the courses in the PDGA directory before a PDGA sanctioned tourney is played on them?

Also, how do you think Parks Departments are going to feel about the change? Has anyone asked them? When the parks people agreed to have courses built, it was under the auspice that trees would not be destroyed once the course was in place. Having a bunch of hacks not worried about throwing at trees is not a direction the parks departments would appreciate. And don't tell me that people won't hit more trees as the 2 meter penalty is relaxed. You will not convince me. Period.

Ok here we go.

Ill throw 10 discs into a tree above 2 meters and for everyone that sticks Ill give the 2 Meter advocates 10 bucks but for every discs that falls below 2 meters they have to give me 500 dollars.

I just want to see who is willing to take that bet??? Any 2 meter advocates willing to take that bet???

How is 2 M that different than OB? If I throw near OB because it is a better line I am risking going OB. If I throw high through the trees because it is a better line, I am risking gettting a 2 M stroke.

Both are risk reward. Idiots who throw into the middle of a pond or into the tops of pine trees should not expect a free pass. Getting rid of the 2M rule eliminates a valid risk reward design element to every course in my part of the world.

Would you take the opposite bet? $500 for every disc that sticks. $10 for the ones that fall. Oh, and I get to pick the tree.

How about an even money bet where I get to pick the tree?

You are so confident that they will fall you should be willing to take the even money bet right?

Also, how do you think Parks Departments are going to feel about the change? Has anyone asked them? When the parks people agreed to have courses built, it was under the auspice that trees would not be destroyed once the course was in place. Having a bunch of hacks not worried about throwing at trees is not a direction the parks departments would appreciate. And don't tell me that people won't hit more trees as the 2 meter penalty is relaxed. You will not convince me. Period.



This is ludacris. HACKS are always going to hit trees because they are HACKS!!! No one in their right mind is going to just change their game and say hey now that there is no 2 meter rule why dont I just hit every freakin tree on the course and besides during casual rounds it doesnt matter at all. Who cares about OB and hitting trees during casual rounds. I mean sure im trying to play well but I could care less if I hit trees or go OB. People arent just going to start hitting more trees because the rule isnt there. If you truely think that then you have more to worry about then the 2 meter rule.

Thats not what I asked. Are you going to take my bet or not???

The Play It Where It Lies Argument

the game of golf is played by completing a series of small objectives. these objectives are called "holes". each objective is completed by projecting your ball/disc toward a designated target until it comes to rest in the target. in ball golf the target is a hole in the ground. in disc golf the target is a basket structure above the ground.

like the overall game, each objective is (usually) met by making a series of attempts. each attempt gets the player closer to meeting the objective, and each subsequent attempt begins from where the previous attempt ended.

so the fundamental concept of the game is to make contiguous progress towards an objective until that objective is met.

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.

thats it, wrapped up real simplelike for ya.

if you cannot play its where it ended, a penalty is assessed. why? because you have violated the single most important tenet of the game - contiguous play towards an objective.

The difference is that idiots that throw into a pond are all treated the same. Idiots that throw into trees are not. Almost all those idiots get a reprieve, except for the rare unlucky sap that gets stuck. Besides, as I have asked a million times here, Isn't hitting a tree almost always bad. It is still punishment, just not the crapshoot it is now.

Pimp, you illustrate a great point, but the obvious point of your offer will be lost on most of the 2M advocates.

The Play It Where It Lies Argument

the game of golf is played by completing a series of small objectives. these objectives are called "holes". each objective is completed by projecting your ball/disc toward a designated target until it comes to rest in the target. in ball golf the target is a hole in the ground. in disc golf the target is a basket structure above the ground.

like the overall game, each objective is (usually) met by making a series of attempts. each attempt gets the player closer to meeting the objective, and each subsequent attempt begins from where the previous attempt ended.

so the fundamental concept of the game is to make contiguous progress towards an objective until that objective is met.

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.

thats it, wrapped up real simplelike for ya.

if you cannot play its where it ended, a penalty is assessed. why? because you have violated the single most important tenet of the game - contiguous play towards an objective.


Cue Nick: "But then a disc 1 cm above the playin surface should get penalized."

No Nick, this is where the "spirit of the game" comes in, and where you conveniently drop that part of your argument.

Pimp, alternatively make this bet. Film 100 shots thrown into a pond; 100 shots thrown hard at the OB line; and 100 shots thrown at a tree. Stop the film in midflight and bet on the outcome. You take the lake and OB line shots and get $1 for every one you call right and give them $2 for every tree shot they call right.

Pimp, you illustrate a great point, but the obvious point of your offer will be lost on most of the 2M advocates.




They just dont want to admit that they are wrong. Thats all there is to it.

Both are risk reward. Idiots who throw into the middle of a pond or into the tops of pine trees should not expect a free pass. Getting rid of the 2M rule eliminates a valid risk reward design element to every course in my part of the world.



How many times have you seen a player throw into the middle of a pond and end up in bounds??? How many times have you seen a player throw into the middle of a tree and end up under 2 meters. Compare the 2 and you will see where the 2 meter rule is nothing like OB and where it is flawed and just plaing irrational.

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.




As discussed ad naseum on here, we do not play it where it lies, we freaking pick it up and throw it. Additionally, what about the .5 and 1.5 meter sticks, are we playing those from where they lie. Of course not. Why? Because we never actually play it where it lies. We simply are required to plant our feet on the ground in designated areas and not violate some other rules, all of which are the same whether the disc lies on the ground, 1.5 meters up, or 100 feet up. No fundamental concepts are being violated by killing the 2m rule.

The odds of sticking a ball in a tree are far less than a disc. I've only seen a ball stuck in a tree once. The player took his penalty and drop under the unplayable lie rule and did not see any great injustice in that.

The randomness argument argues for disallowing aces, fairway deuces and every element of tree luv in your favor. Trees are fickle. So what? So are chains.

Why do we keep improving our targets? Because the randomness is undesirable and if it can be eliminated, then it should be. I'm all for improving the basket design to catch all discs that hit the chains in near-identical manners. It only makes the sport more fair.

Pimp, alternatively make this bet. Film 100 shots thrown into a pond; 100 shots thrown hard at the OB line; and 100 shots thrown at a tree. Stop the film in midflight and bet on the outcome. You take the lake and OB line shots and get $1 for every one you call right and give them $2 for every tree shot they call right.



Beautiful!

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.




As discussed ad naseum on here, we do not play it where it lies, we freaking pick it up and throw it. Additionally, what about the .5 and 1.5 meter sticks, are we playing those from where they lie. Of course not. Why? Because we never actually play it where it lies. We simply are required to plant our feet on the ground in designated areas and not violate some other rules, all of which are the same whether the disc lies on the ground, 1.5 meters up, or 100 feet up. No fundamental concepts are being violated by killing the 2m rule.



Precise, undeniable and familiar.

Wanting to discourage certain kinds of disc flight [using OB, mandatories, obstacles] is not a fundamental concept? :confused:

Wanting to discourage certain kinds of disc flight [using OB, mandatories, obstacles] is not a fundamental concept? :confused:



trees serve this purpose without the 2 meter rule.

Some of the people here call missing a mandatory "going OB". The 2-meter rule was tantamount to making 2+ "OB". Albeit small, the risk was there.

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.




As discussed ad naseum on here, we do not play it where it lies, we freaking pick it up and throw it. Additionally, what about the .5 and 1.5 meter sticks, are we playing those from where they lie. Of course not. Why? Because we never actually play it where it lies. We simply are required to plant our feet on the ground in designated areas and not violate some other rules, all of which are the same whether the disc lies on the ground, 1.5 meters up, or 100 feet up. No fundamental concepts are being violated by killing the 2m rule.



Precise, undeniable and familiar.


We throw the disc from between 0 meters and 2 meters above the playing surface. (Think about where the disc is in relation to the ground when you let go.) Therefore it makes perfect sense to penalize a disc that comes to rest above that zone.

I know a Grand, an overhand is actually a distance throw for him, but he throws over the zone of Humans and Targets to a landing area back on the playing surface. I don't like the idea of a throw going up, and missing [hitting an object] as being considered a good shot, level or descending, nor without risk if descending--not only was the 'mission' [to return to the playing zone] a failure, 'dumb bombing' can be messy and time consuming! http://themooneysuzuki.com/media/common/emoticons/eek.gif

We throw the disc from between 0 meters and 2 meters above the playing surface. (Think about where the disc is in relation to the ground when you let go.) Therefore it makes perfect sense to penalize a disc that comes to rest above that zone.



All I can say to this is. Are you really serious??? :confused: We may release the disc between those heights but it rarely stays there.

if for some reason progress cannot be contiguous, ie, the ball/disc is lost, becomes irretrievable, or simply cannot be played from where the previous attempt ended, then a penalty stroke is assessed against failure to maintain contiguity of play.




As discussed ad naseum on here, we do not play it where it lies, we freaking pick it up and throw it. Additionally, what about the .5 and 1.5 meter sticks, are we playing those from where they lie. Of course not. Why? Because we never actually play it where it lies. We simply are required to plant our feet on the ground in designated areas and not violate some other rules, all of which are the same whether the disc lies on the ground, 1.5 meters up, or 100 feet up. No fundamental concepts are being violated by killing the 2m rule.



Precise, undeniable and familiar.


We throw the disc from between 0 meters and 2 meters above the playing surface. (Think about where the disc is in relation to the ground when you let go.) Therefore it makes perfect sense to penalize a disc that comes to rest above that zone.



Rhett, believe it or not I am not just being contrary.

I could accept your definition of "Playing Zone" if, and this is a huge "IF", the rule was once you mark your lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface, that you must be able to retrieve the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

I could support such a rule. The "Playing Zone" would actually be the reach of the player while having a supporting point on the playing surface behind the marked lie.

The drawback for such a rule of play is that it would penalize height challenged players; but aren't they already penalized already due to that same lack of "reach" when making the throw?

This is a definition of "Playing Zone" that I would be willing to support over just setting some "unreal", "irrational" and "unintuitive" height that penalizes those who have a greater �reach� span.

This, though a more elegant solution than the 2 meter mess is still not as elegant as just removing the 2 meter sentences and allowing play to resume exactly as it always has throughout our history of play (minus the penalty throw of course).

How is 2 M that different than OB? If I throw near OB because it is a better line I am risking going OB. If I throw high through the trees because it is a better line, I am risking gettting a 2 M stroke.

Both are risk reward. Idiots who throw into the middle of a pond or into the tops of pine trees should not expect a free pass. Getting rid of the 2M rule eliminates a valid risk reward design element to every course in my part of the world.



Alex, I want you to consider carefully, just to yourself if you'd rather, how often you "really" think about the 2 meter rule when you play a round of disc golf when the risk is even high? Does it really affect your approach or shot to the hole?

Now how about with high risk Out of Bounds?

I won't question your honesty, but I can honestly report that in 7 rounds + practice at the Worlds I never gave the 2 meter rule a thought. The only time I considered it was at the Players Meeting where it was announced that it would be in effect and then again in the Final 9 when Nate hit a tree 20 feet below the tee and 40 feet above the playing surface below 850 feet from the pin and what a farce it would be for him to take a penalty stroke for tumbling down through the tree and sticking just over 6 feet.

I play on a course that has got to be one of the biggest risk of 2 meter penalties in the world, Seneca Creek State Park, and I can honestly report that it effects my strategy nearly not at all, and on all other courses in our densely wooded NE courses not at all.

In other words, I don't take the risk/reward argument for keeping the 2 meter sentences seriously anymore. If you really want to add risk/reward to specific areas then make them OB with drop zones. THAT will get into folks heads far far more than a blanket (and ignored) 2 meter penalty.

The best argument for keeping a rule similar to the 2 meter rule is the play it where it lies principle; and even here the 2 meter measurement is ill advised and a weak substitute when compared to the reality of the situations where discs come to rest above the playing surface. (Reach when supporting point on marked lie...)

They go out, throw a solid round of golf without throwing at trees, get a good score, lose to a person erratically throwing at the trees by one or two strokes.



So Alex, you can honestly report that you "never" throw with a trajectory that if the disc continues on straight it would not hit a tree or other obstacle? Wouldn't that involve a perfectly flat course lacking any obstacles at all? Well, unless you throw every shot with a trajectory from release point to playing surface (otherwise known as a worm burner).

Disc golf is about negotiating obstacles, often this means starting a shot out directly at a tree or group of trees or other obstacles.

Show me a course where you can avoid ever aiming at a tree and I will show you a course that should not be used for practice or competition.

They go out, throw a solid round of golf without throwing at trees, get a good score, lose to a person erratically throwing at the trees by one or two strokes.



There is no way that someone throwing erratically at trees all day is going to beat someone of the same skill level that didnt hit any trees. If you are erratically throwing at trees im not worried about you beating me in the first place. You obviously s<font color="orange">u</font>ck if you are throwing erratically in the first place so why should I be concerned that your not getting 2 meter penalties??? Do you honestly think someone throwing erractically into the trees is going to beat you by any amount of strokes???

I could accept your definition of "Playing Zone" if, and this is a huge "IF", the rule was once you mark your lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface, that you must be able to retrieve the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

I could support such a rule. The "Playing Zone" would actually be the reach of the player while having a supporting point on the playing surface behind the marked lie.

The drawback for such a rule of play is that it would penalize height challenged players; but aren't they already penalized already due to that same lack of "reach" when making the throw?

This is a definition of "Playing Zone" that I would be willing to support over just setting some "unreal", "irrational" and "unintuitive" height that penalizes those who have a greater �reach� span.


Nick, this has been discussed ad naseum. All of our measures have been set at some value. 30 cm, 3 meters, 1 meter, and even 2 meters.

You have just stated that your only opposition to the 2MR is that it is 2 meters. You say you would support that rule if it were based on the throwers height, (???) thus giving Stork an advantage over Wisecup.

Now why would you support the rule if it wasn't "2 meters" if the rule is such a lucky crapshoot and full of unfair luck and is so contrary to the "spirit of the game"???

I could accept your definition of "Playing Zone" if, and this is a huge "IF", the rule was once you mark your lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface, that you must be able to retrieve the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

so change the rules to use this approach. thats easier than the proposed change.


I could support such a rule. The "Playing Zone" would actually be the reach of the player while having a supporting point on the playing surface behind the marked lie.

The drawback for such a rule of play is that it would penalize height challenged players; but aren't they already penalized already due to that same lack of "reach" when making the throw?

hence, we choose some value that is within the reach of everyone. lets say.... ummmm.... 2 meters. yep, that should work.

nick just concluded that the 2MR is perfect! :D

My middle name is Thomas

I could accept your definition of "Playing Zone" if, and this is a huge "IF", the rule was once you mark your lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface, that you must be able to retrieve the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

I could support such a rule. The "Playing Zone" would actually be the reach of the player while having a supporting point on the playing surface behind the marked lie.

The drawback for such a rule of play is that it would penalize height challenged players; but aren't they already penalized already due to that same lack of "reach" when making the throw?

This is a definition of "Playing Zone" that I would be willing to support over just setting some "unreal", "irrational" and "unintuitive" height that penalizes those who have a greater �reach� span.


Nick, this has been discussed ad naseum. All of our measures have been set at some value. 30 cm, 3 meters, 1 meter, and even 2 meters.

<font color="blue"> No, the 2 meter measurement was not set according to the same reasons as the horizontal measurements related to a marked lie. That 2 meters is easily within some folks reach, all those over 5�5�, and not others is not a convincing argument for it�s mandatory use. </font>

You have just stated that your only opposition to the 2MR is that it is 2 meters. You say you would support that rule if it were based on the throwers height, (???) thus giving Stork an advantage over Wisecup.
<font color="blue"> This illustrates as clearly as anything that you read only what you want to read Rhett. I didn�t ever say that I support the continued mandatory use of the 2MR. What I said is that I am open to discussing using the �Reach� criteria in determining a �playable lie�, but that it be based on �actual reach� and not some half-arsed substitute (otherwise known as the 2MR). Furthermore, I said that such a rule would be less elegant than just removing the 2 meter sentences.

By the way, not to bust your bubble but since when do sports handicap players for having outstanding physical attributes. Greater reach IS already an advantage in many situations, sometimes being vertically challenged is an advantage (low ceiling). Basing the 2 meter rules existence on negating height advantage is silly at best. What are we going to do next? Limit how far tall players can extend to throw their disc?</font>


Now why would you support the rule if it wasn't "2 meters" if the rule is such a lucky crapshoot and full of unfair luck and is so contrary to the "spirit of the game"???



<font color="blue"> I support the complete removal of the 2 meter sentences from our rulebook, as the most logical, fair and elegant solution to a minor but nagging challenge within our rules of play. What I have some interest in exploring is how elegant a rule could be that allows a player to continue without penalty if they can mark their lie on the playing surface below the disc at rest and retrieve it with a supporting point in contact with their marked lie; and if they can not then they would receive some penalty throw or another. Such a rule would avoid the loose logic and patently unfair use of a random measurement above the playing surface; however I suspect that it is as untenable as the existing 2 meter rule because it would complicate our rules rather than clarify.

Hope this gets through� </font>

I could accept your definition of "Playing Zone" if, and this is a huge "IF", the rule was once you mark your lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest above the playing surface, that you must be able to retrieve the disc with a supporting point on the ground.

so change the rules to use this approach. thats easier than the proposed change.


I could support such a rule. The "Playing Zone" would actually be the reach of the player while having a supporting point on the playing surface behind the marked lie.

The drawback for such a rule of play is that it would penalize height challenged players; but aren't they already penalized already due to that same lack of "reach" when making the throw?

hence, we choose some value that is within the reach of everyone. lets say.... ummmm.... 2 meters. yep, that should work.

nick just concluded that the 2MR is perfect! :D



No, pat, surprise of all surprises, can't read what nick just wrote...

As concerns the "Reach" argument (which is not a new one), I am only interested in exploring it as an "alternative" to the quantitatively weak, unfair and bizarre 2 meter sentences. In other words the "Reach" argument does not support the continued mandatory use of the 2 meter sentence, but rather undermines them and the loose whishy washy logic behind them.

If you want a real reach rule, then I am willing to discuss it; but any 2 meter standard of measurement is meaningless.

Is this still being discussed?

Hey I found myself in a tree during the Jam. About 2.1 meters. Had no problem reaching it. Too bad it wasn't 20 cm lower. But....hey I was the only guy in my group who knew his 2 meters.....


Get rid of it already.

no, its not being discussed. we would like to , but all nick can do is belittle those who do not share his opinion.

no, its not being discussed. we would like to , but all nick can do is belittle those who do not share his opinion.



That is ironic coming from you Pat. I am always ready to discuss this topic on the merits of the points being made. Can I help it that arguments in support of the mandatory use of the 2 meter sentences do not stand up to logic, common sense or any sense of fair play? When and if one is made, I will be the first to cheer it and offer support, until then it seems to me that it is just a piling on of excellent reasons for the complete deletion of the sentences.

You have a point to make? Great! Then make it. But don't expect us to just let it pass without some scrutiny...

PS: I love the hurt feelings tactic, something is missing when you use it, still nice try...

Go away Nick. You don't make good points, only enemies. You constantly belittle people, which leads me to believe that you have a hard time getting up in the morning.

I think a better rule would be to make the "lie" where your disc came to rest. Then require the player to have one supporting point on the lie and at least one supporting point on the playing surface. This would prevent tree climbing while honoring the first rule of goff.

Except that it would require a complete reworking of the marking rules. :cool:

Go away Nick. You don't make good points, only enemies. You constantly belittle people, which leads me to believe that you have a hard time getting up in the morning.



Pat. How're those for discussion points? No belittling there, right?

Dave, I feel for you. Hope you get well soon.

Except that it would require a complete reworking of the marking rules. :cool:



As well as make our sport look more like twister than disc golf... :D

Bruce, you're a reasonable sort, what are your thoughts on marking your lie same as we do now, on the playing surface, and if you can reach your disc while being in contact with your lie, then you can play it, if not some sort of penalty applies? Of course the playing surface below the disc at rest would have to be in bounds.

I'm not sure of this or it's further implications, but outwardly it would seem to be at least some form of compromise on my part towards the 2MRZealots. (I can hear the pitter patter comin' already...)

My Pop's said that you could hang someone from 2 meter tree . :eek:

Go away Nick. You don't make good points, only enemies. You constantly belittle people, which leads me to believe that you have a hard time getting up in the morning.



Pat. How're those for discussion points? No belittling there, right?

Dave, I feel for you. Hope you get well soon.



Some things never change! After making new friends at Pro Worlds last week, Nick is right back to making enemies on the Discussion Board. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

My Pop's said that you could hang someone from 2 meter tree . :eek:



Rock it !!!:http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

Hope you folks make it out to Flagstaff ....................

Cause , CALI is going to ROCK the HOUSE !!!!!!!http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

My Pop's said that you could hang someone from 2 meter tree . :eek:



Rock it !!!:http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif



Rock what Don? Hanging someone from a 2 meter tree?

Hope you folks make it out to Flagstaff ....................

Cause , CALI is going to ROCK the HOUSE !!!!!!!http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif



This is what I'm talk'n about !!!!!!!

CAli is comming !!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

*** You are ignoring this user ***



I'm sure Jeff had something constructive to add there. Funny how he never has anything to say to me in person...

My Pop's said that you could hang someone from 2 meter tree . :eek:



Rock it !!!:http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif



Rock what Don? Hanging someone from a 2 meter tree?



That may have come out differently than intended.
I personally do not hang folks from 2 meter trees.

I'm not a Hateful or spitefull person. No Reason to be.

I was told , hate is for the Government to control ? :eek:

Just like Playing Good Disc Golf with the rest of the World.

Rock on !!!!!http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

I'm sure Jeff had something constructive to add there. Funny how he never has anything to say to me in person...



I thought I was being nice. If you really want me to interrupt your round of golf next time with some constructive criticism, I'll happily oblige you.

Hey,

another 2m thread that is going nowhere...

Quotes everywhere, long monologues.

Nick, I still want an answer from you regarding my deleted post on the MADC site.

How can you tell 199cm from 201cm apart. Do you carry your 2m stick?

Jeff, PM me with your e-mail. We'll open up a few cold ones soon to celebrate ;)

What post was that? I never saw your question.

I know that 2 meters is 10 centimeters above my height. Seneca has 2 meter measuring sticks all over the course. Folks have figured out all sorts of methods.

Generally, if it is close and no exact measuring device is at hand the benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

Unlike today's political scene, the 2 meter discussion, is not served well with one-liners. Folks keep lobbing them up there though, and I am only too happy to shoot them down.

Things like:

Good shots don't hit trees...
Landing above 2 meters is an unplayable lie...
We chose a height that most folks can reach...
It changes the way a player thinks about a hole...
Stop whining and play...

or my favorite

It is just another sign of the tyranny of the few over the many...

Cool.

I think. :confused:

Are you playing in the Am Worlds?

What post was that? I never saw your question.

I know that 2 meters is 10 centimeters above my height.





As far as I remember, I am taller than you.

If you are 6'3".....your statement is close to being correct.

But since I am 6'2" and 2m is 12 cm over my head (10cm with shoes on). Well, I don't believe that you are 190cm tall.

So, are you claiming to be 6'3"? Or did you "estimate" wrong all those years?

You estimated wrong. I am 6'3".

Though I might be shrinking now that I have crossed the great divide that is 40.

2m = 78.7 inches = almost 6'7"

10 cm shorter (~4inches)
1.9m = 74.8 inches = almost 6'3"

For those who missed the Worlds, Nick received the PDGA 2004 Volunteer of the Year award. No mention was made of his lobbying for removal of the 2m rule either by presenter or Nick. Whether you agree with some of his positions or not, we should take a minute to thank Nick for his volunteer efforts...

........................

OK, now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

(Thanks, Nick)

congrats nick.

you should have also received one for I[/B]diot of the Year for your work in the field of geometry! :D

I assume the PDGA Volunteer of the Year award was won mostly for his work on the Course Evaluation Program. The program will indeed be very valuable when it's populated with more data, as there are currently only 21 courses in the system. Of course, arriving at the final product happened in typical Nick Kight fashion, with the bully leading the way. Notice that his favorite two courses are at the top of the list. He challenged any data from other courses that seemed too high, even though he had never seen or played these courses himself. At one point he even threatened to leave the group if the evaluation specifications didn't agree with him and scores didn't come down. As is typical, he got his way.

Congrats Nick.

Good luck in AZ Pat. May you stick at 6' 5".

and......oh yeah, the 2M rule blows. :D

congrats nick.

you should have also received one for I[/B]diot of the Year for your work in the field of geometry! :D



And you for perception of reality. LOL!

Thanks! It was nice to win the award, but my wife still asks, "So how much are they paying you for this...." LOL!

And I don't talk about the 2 meter rule anywhere but here because it really isn't that big a deal, more of a mild annoyance that should just go away. I love the passion of the posters here though. I just wish they didn't get so bent that they drop out of the discussion just when it is getting good each time.

Congrats, Nick!

...how about above 2 meters is largely an unreachable lie; does that sit well with all?

Well, perhaps 'lie' is not correct. But it's "unreachable" to most, eh? That seems like a significant distinction.

No, just kill the rule entirely. After that, cut its head and limbs off and hang them up all around the planet, for everyone to see. This will serve as a reminder that we can vanquish lunacy bit by bit. :D

By the way, this whole "lie" train of thought is quite esoteric. What is a lie again?

I assume the PDGA Volunteer of the Year award was won mostly for his work on the Course Evaluation Program. The program will indeed be very valuable when it's populated with more data, as there are currently only 21 courses in the system. Of course, arriving at the final product happened in typical Nick Kight fashion, with the bully leading the way. Notice that his favorite two courses are at the top of the list. He challenged any data from other courses that seemed too high, even though he had never seen or played these courses himself. At one point he even threatened to leave the group if the evaluation specifications didn't agree with him and scores didn't come down. As is typical, he got his way.



Dohhhhhhhh !!!!!! Does this always happen ? :(

What is a lie again?




Whatever Nick Kight posts /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

What is a lie again?




Whatever Nick Kight posts /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



:D................!!!!:http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

What is a lie again?

...you can't "lie" down in the street [or a gutter ]; shouldn't it be called a "lay"?!?

No, everyone knows what a lay is?

I am not going to dignify Jeff�s accusations, of which he is in no position to know any truth about, with a response.

To others here wondering what the sam hill is going on I will provide the following:

As you may know, I no longer read Jeff�s posts, but I suspect that they are not complementary since Jeff�s grudge against me is not a secret.

I hope that at some point he can get over it. I know that he likes to review courses and is for the most part a help to his local clubs. The PDGA Course Evaluation Program should be a perfect fit for you, Jeff, but so long as you are so spiteful I can find no reason to subject myself to having to work with you. I've got too much to do to spend any energy on dealing with your accusations and spitefulness. Nobody involved in any undertaking, particularly voluntary ones, wants, deserves or is likely to be inclined to work with such a distraction.

Without going into extended detail, Jeff is angry with me because I removed him as message board monitor at the MADC website. He disagreed with my policy concerning what was permitted and what was not permitted to be posted. Regrettable things were said (via dreaded email and PMs), and Jeff doesn�t like me any more. He would be working with me in the Course Evaluations Program, however when I asked him if he would be able to do so without confrontation he said he could not. I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones, but he seems to cling to his ill will like it will someday result in something good.

At any rate, life goes on, his spite amounts to a hill of beans really, as it seems to be limited to this message board and the limited number of disc golfers he comes in contact with, being that he rarely plays any events. I hope that someday he can let it go, because he does bring certain energies to disc golf related tasks that are along the lines I too work on, but until that time I will lose no sleep nor slow my efforts to do what I can. I also hope that he can let it go for his own piece of mind as well.

I�ve always found it particularly sad when folks, especially volunteers and organizers, don�t get along in disc golf. Seems like they have lost sight of the primary function of disc golf, which is to be a part of the greater disc golf family and have fun doing what they can do. As great as the folks in disc golf are, and there is no other community as great, in my opinion, we are all just people; people with the same hang ups and quirks as everyone else. We�re just a little better off because, at least, we have disc golf�

And Jeff, if you want your wish of me being displaced from �power� (LMMFAO!) feel free to join the MADC, run for office (elections are coming up) and then get the other Board of Directors to fire me from my MADC duties. My wife would likely thank you for your efforts to free me up to make some money. Likewise with the PDGA. Seriously!

Wouldn't a coup d'etat be faster?

Back to 2.00M: I know they have wood in Norway [:D], but do they even have trees on Swedish courses? Seriously. Maybe that's why they didn't NEED the rule.

[quote . . .. Notice that his favorite two courses are at the top of the list. . . .

[/QUOTE]

Not accurate -- Brandywine's at 13 on the list. If Nick had his way I'm sure he would have it way higher on the list!!

Got's to let it Go !!!!!!!!!!! Like a GOOD driver !!!!!

OH.............and by the Way ....................ROCK THAT AM WORLD HOUSE !!!!!!!!http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif
http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

[/QUOTE]

Nick, seriously...get your head checked (I don't mean no disrespect, but you pi$$ed off a lot of people, and you're still doing it...so I don't know why you have to write this whole long explanation regarding Jeff...especially since you're not reading his posts).

Your Madc message board is not what it used to be. There used to be good discussions on the board, but it is ruined now - it's dead as a doornail. You hijacked most of the threads, and then you started to abuse your power as a moderator and deleted posts you didn't agree with to "clean" up the confrontational messages...or some bologna like that.

And if you say that your message board will make a comeback...good luck. The fact is that a lot of the clubs in the area have their own yahoo group now to communicate with each other. It used to be a good site....madc.org

WHAT HAPPENED?

I always wondered what happened to Prompton, a MADC area course...would have been a good topic to post on the board...but since the volume is down...why bother.

If I have something to post regarding Rutgers, it's on the yahoo group first, nefa second, and madc last....that's just the way it is....

And if you say that your message board will make a comeback...good luck. The fact is that a lot of the clubs in the area have their own yahoo group now to communicate with each other. It used to be a good site....madc.org




Robert, yours was a good effort but he's in denial and won't accept that the MADC Message Board is dead because of him. I don't play in any events where I know he'll be present because he takes the joy away from disc golf, and you and I both know one particular 975-rated golfer from NJ who feels the exact same way.

What's particularly sad is that most everyone in our sport just puts up with him because "he was the only one willing to do anything." Until he learns that you win more flies with honey than vinegar, we'll continue to have things rammed down our throats in the typical Nick Kight bully way.

Nick, seriously...get your head checked (I don't mean no disrespect, but you pi$$ed off a lot of people, and you're still doing it...so I don't know why you have to write this whole long explanation regarding Jeff...especially since you're not reading his posts).

<font color="blue"> Robert, I�ve met you what? About twice. With all due respect you don�t know me from Adam. Jeff knows me about as well. The PDGA Message Board made a decision to allow folks to flame at them on the PDGA Message Board. Fine that is their right as masters of their domain. I, the MADC Webmaster and Secretary made a decision not to allow folks to flame at the MADC or any individual player or tournament director, and was and am willing to monitor the board to make sure that it doesn�t happen. If this decision upsets certain people I am more than willing to live with the consequences (them posting less), if it keeps witch-hunts, innuendo and straight up flaming off of the MADC Message Board. There has been and never will be a guarantee of free speech on the MADC Message Board, nor here on the PDGA DISCussion Board. </font>

Your Madc message board is not what it used to be. There used to be good discussions on the board, but it is ruined now - it's dead as a doornail. You hijacked most of the threads, and then you started to abuse your power as a moderator and deleted posts you didn't agree with to "clean" up the confrontational messages...or some bologna like that.

<font color="blue"> That is your read on it, and likely the read of the other folks who flamed out and had their posts deleted. I can accept and live with that. As explained I was not going to allow the MADC Message Board to be a forum for the same sort of shenanigans that has recently visited the PDGA Board. I know that it makes folks angry to have their posts deleted having had those emotions myself when one of my posts was deleted. But similar to playing at a tournament, though I may disagree with the TD on things done at an event I respect his right to make those decisions and, if at all, express my concerns later, at a more quiet time, and in as positive and appreciative a manner as I am able.

I mean, if you were running an event Rob (have you?), and there was this one or two players that constantly were harassing you, yelling out slighting remarks and questioning your methods, and you had the power to remove them from the event, would you?</font>

And if you say that your message board will make a comeback...good luck. The fact is that a lot of the clubs in the area have their own yahoo group now to communicate with each other. It used to be a good site....madc.org

<font color="blue"> Rob, have you ever been a webmaster or even assisted in running a website? I appreciate your (finally) telling me your opinions on this; however I would point out two things:
1) When Jeff refused to support my directions on moderation policies and actually (and repeatedly) publicly attacked them and myself on the very board he was charged with monitoring, even after repeated warnings to cease, I believe that his (essentially) temper tantrums did more to poison the message board than my actions to remove flaming posts.
2) The MADC Website and Message Board have recently gone through a major redesign. The last 2 times I initiated a new message board it took months, perhaps even a year for users to get used to it and return. It was foreseeable and expected. If the disgruntled folks do not return it is really a blessing for me because I will not have to waste valuable time warning and deleting their bile. As a communications person I am more than glad to share or even bow to other communications outlets. The more the merrier!

No one, and that would be 0 people, have ever directly complained to me about my active cleaning up of the MADC Message Board, other than Jeff and now you. And doing so publicly, full of hurt feelings and partial to no truth accusations, is not likely to yield any positive results. If you or anyone has anything to say to me, then say it! I�m not hiding away anywhere, I played in EVERY MADC Series event last year and about 6 other PDGAs, not to mention tons of minis; my contact information is readily available (email, phone, etc.), bring it on! Anyone who really has made any effort at all to know me knows that I will listen and consider what you have to say. Now, I�ll likely ask for your direct assistance in making your suggestions a reality, perhaps even put full responsibility on you, being that I have my own fish to fry; but I am here for anyone to discuss anything with (within reason).

If your sole reason for disliking the site is because you want me to just let folks fire off insults at organizers, events or myself, then your dislike is likely to continue, because I just will not allow such rude and unappreciative behavior. This is a rather simple decision for me.</font>

WHAT HAPPENED?

I always wondered what happened to Prompton, a MADC area course...would have been a good topic to post on the board...but since the volume is down...why bother.

If I have something to post regarding Rutgers, it's on the yahoo group first, nefa second, and madc last....that's just the way it is....



<font color="blue"> Each person must decide for themselves such priorities. I am more than willing to accept such a reality. Are you?

This board along with the MADC board is a lot of fun for me as I hope they are for you. 99% of what goes on here is healthy and good-natured. The 1% that is not, that is vindictive and mean spirited and is based primarily upon lack of perspective, knowledge or familiarity has no place on either board. And yes, as a volunteer moderator, charged with some level of responsibility for removing that 1% (according to stated rules of the boards and the direction of the Webmasters and underlying organizations) I will exercise that right as I see fit. That is yours to accept or not, as you see fit.

In the end, we are all just doing the best we can Rob. </font>

*** You are ignoring this user ***



Suffice it to say Jeff, I am more than willing to let folks experience with me out on the course and in working together speak for itself.

I don�t claim to be friends with everyone. Some relationships just were not meant to be; you and I for example. I can accept that without having to publicly attack you or the things you do, or use every opportunity to do so.

What exactly do you hope to get from any of this? Seriously? What do you need to satiate your apparent fury and what will it accomplish that will benefit disc golf?

At any rate, I am done with this. If you have anything to say to me, then say them to me when you see me next.

Seriously,

you don't see it as a problem when the moderator is the same person that is the #1 poster on a site hijacking the threads?

IMHO, a moderator should moderate and keep posts to a minimum. If he is unable (and yes, you can't shut up) then don't be the moderator. Simple as that.

Do I run tourneys? I run tags every now and then, help out at Rutgers where I can. Invite people once a year to a big bash where I live and set up a course to introduce non-golfers to the game as well, and it is well received. I, unlike you, work, go to school, have a 6-year old son...

Nick, go to Netflix and rent "Some kind of Monster", and see how Metallica dealt with their Ego problem.

I know you do a lot for the sport, but hey, I don't like it when someone drags out the bs they have with someone (Jeff) onto the PDGA message board. And btw, nice shot at the Worlds Lehigh course where you cleared the water and put it into the basket on top of the hill. How do I know that....ask yourself who told me, and then trash that person a little more for saying something nice about you behind your back.

I believe that his (essentially) temper tantrums did more to poison the message board than my actions to remove flaming posts.



You weren't removing flaming posts - you were removing people's opinions on the 2-meter rule! :mad:

Keep sailing up Denial river, Nick, and maybe someday you'll find the source. :D

...and what is this stuff you are

***ignoring this user***

when it is clear that you are not?

Can't you do what you say?

Rob, you seem like a nice enough sort, so I am going to try and clarify a few things for you.

Seriously,

you don't see it as a problem when the moderator is the same person that is the #1 poster on a site hijacking the threads?<font color="blue"> First of all, when a moderator does their stated and intended work it is not hijacking it is �moderating�. Secondly, yes, I do see a problem with being a moderator and a user, and that is why I have tried to secure volunteers to take on those moderation duties. Bob Graham agreed to take over the duties but has not yet stepped up. I believe he will, but it has not happened yet. Make no mistake about it though, flaming at individuals or events STILL will not be permitted while I am Webmaster of the MADC site. It just won�t, so get used to it. </font>

IMHO, a moderator should moderate and keep posts to a minimum. If he is unable (and yes, you can't shut up) then don't be the moderator. Simple as that.

<font color="blue"> I respect your opinion and agree with aspects of it. But it is your opinion and not mine, so strange as it may seem I have a tendency to follow my own opinion and act accordingly. If you would like for your opinion to be utilized then you need to do what I do. Are you saying that you would like to be the moderator of the MADC Website or the PDGA Website? If so great! Send a request to the PDGA Board of Directors. </font>

Do I run tourneys? I run tags every now and then, help out at Rutgers where I can. Invite people once a year to a big bash where I live and set up a course to introduce non-golfers to the game as well, and it is well received. I, unlike you, work, go to school, have a 6-year old son...

<font color="blue"> I�m still trying to figure out where you get the idea that you know me so well. The things you do for disc golf sound admirable and I support you 100% in those efforts. Like I said, we do what we can. Not sure if you are saying what I do for the sport is not well received or that I don�t work, go to school or have a 6 year old son. Whether what I do for the sport is well received or not is for others to decide. Being a behind the scenes organizer, popularity is not one of my priorities, I am more concerned with planning, doing and results. I assure you that I do work. I am not currently going to school nor do I have a 6 year old son. </font>

Nick, go to Netflix and rent "Some kind of Monster", and see how Metallica dealt with their Ego problem.

<font color="blue"> I�ll accept your suggestion as an honest attempt to offer well meaning advice if you accept this as the same: What I do has little if anything to do with ego, it has to do with a desire to see our sport move steadily forward. In my experience, ego more often than not �prevents� people from taking significant or meaningful action or holding strong convictions because they are overly fearful that they will come out the other end looking bad. This is a fear clearly I lack. </font>

I know you do a lot for the sport, but hey, I don't like it when someone drags out the bs they have with someone (Jeff) onto the PDGA message board.
<font color="blue"> Rob, the only reason I described what was going on is because Jeff has not missed a single opportunity to attack me in the months (almost a year now) since I told him his services were no longer required at the MADC website and I thought folks here had a right to know one possible reason for his intense spitefulness. Generally speaking, I don�t like kangaroo courts being in session on a message board either because it rarely if ever results in any worthwhile resolution.</font>

And btw, nice shot at the Worlds Lehigh course where you cleared the water and put it into the basket on top of the hill. How do I know that....ask yourself who told me, and then trash that person a little more for saying something nice about you behind your back. <font color="blue"> I do not wish to trash anyone; I am simply trying to explain what is going on. I purposefully and consciously been careful not to attack or provide more than the surface facts. Again, I am more than willing to let bygones be bygones and move on. It is something I am very accustomed to doing, because it is often a prerequisite to getting certain things done and comes with the territory of organizer. I didn�t see Jeff there at hole 7, I saw him twice all week, and that was it. I don�t consider Jeff an enemy. Heck I don�t consider anyone I barely know an enemy. If they consider me one then that is all on them and I can only hope that someday they are able to pierce that dark veil and see that I am just another guy doing my best with what I got and not some monster out to get them or rule the world. LOL! (Sorry, that really is funny.) </font>

...and what is this stuff you are

***ignoring this user***

when it is clear that you are not?

Can't you do what you say?



As well as the next guy I suppose Rob.

IMHO, a moderator should moderate and keep posts to a minimum. If he is unable (and yes, you can't shut up) then don't be the moderator. Simple as that.

I respect your opinion and agree with aspects of it. But it is your opinion and not mine, so strange as it may seem I have a tendency to follow my own opinion and act accordingly. If you would like for your opinion to be utilized then you need to do what I do. Are you saying that you would like to be the moderator of the MADC Website or the PDGA Website? If so great! Send a request to the PDGA Board of Directors.




Dude....your answer makes no sense. You agree with aspects of my statement, then you tell me it's my opinion and not yours. Which is the part that we agree on? If my opinion is different from yours...

Maybe it's a language thing, you know English is my second language, and maybe I don't understand you all that well. What can I say? You posted thousands of posts, and I have this crazy idea that I know where you're coming from, but you're right - I have no clue. I just think you're out there trying to tell people that they are wrong when their opinion differs from yours, when this is obviously not what you're trying to do. Is a heated discussion bad? Is flamming really so bad? I don't know Jack, I mean "Nick". Maybe in the future you can phrase your upcoming posts so that all the people who don't know you personally, can get to know you a little better.

Maybe you are just misunderstood by a lot of people? Maybe you could make a better case, so we know what you really want. And then we're all on the same page again.

I'll shut up now, since this is already taking up too much time.

Nick, take a deep breath...











Keep holding it...












Don't exhale yet...






We read what you write, and when you say "I can let bygones be bygones" and in the same breath bring up old issues in a condescending manner it really erodes any credibility you may have had. I suggest you re-read the last few posts, it clearly shows that you are a complete joke.

Hurry, switch identities and delete me

... a great number of disc golf competitions have been played this year with no 2 meter rule ...

NEWSFLASH: the sky has not fallen.

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

the naysaying doomsdayers who said the end of the 2 meter rule would be much worse than the year 2K problems have not had their case bolstered...

but they still are very vocal about the absolute necessity for us to retain this awkward penalty as the default scenario mandated at all tournaments... even though the new approach in no way disables the 2 meter rule from being in effect for retro TD's and retro tournaments :D

ps: maybe there should be a separate thread entitled: "let's do a test to see if Nick is a witch" in which proposals such as -- <font color="blue"> throw Nick in water, if he floats, he's a WITCH! </font> -- can be expoused.

[sarcasm mode disengage]

Rob,

I agree that I should not moderate and post, but I am not going to give up posting so I just have to do my best as a moderator until someone else steps up and takes over. Can you see where I agree with you and where I don't now?

English as a second language could be part of it, but I have a special kind of patience where that is concerned, so don't get frustrated.

What it essentially comes down to is that with the sort of work I do I am required to make executive decisions all of the time and I don't have time to take them to committee or check if every Tom, Dick and Harry is ok with it. I do hear the complaints and consider them, but I can't simply stop what I am doing. In someways this is not a good thing, I realize, in others it frees me up to get a lot more done.

Again, I am very willing to work with others on this (if they intend to actually take on the responsibilities they want to see happen and not just toss another job on top of ones I already have). I would very much like to find a moderator for the MADC site who can be nearly completely responsible for the content therein. Still, as Webmaster, they would need to accept that when I make a call, that is more or less it, they need to follow it while discussing it with me privately to see if they can convince me otherwise. And if they can't to continue on with the boundaries I have provided.

This is not some tyranny, it is simply the way things work. Ask a TD, organizer or any manager. This is nothing new. If you don't like it then the choice to avoid it is within your rights to make.

This seems incredibly straight forward to me.

Anyhow, yes, we should return this thread to the 2 meter rule. Pardon the interruption.

And if they can't to continue on with the boundaries I have provided.

This is not some tyranny, it is simply the way things work.




Your boundaries are unrealistic. You want to stifle opinion and interpretations of the 2-meter rule that you don't agree with. You abuse the moderator role and delete that which doesn't suit you. The "tyranny" label is not too much of an exaggeration.

You built this reputation for yourself. The MADC Message Board, and now the PDGA Message Board, are tainted because of your association with it. This seems incredibly straight forward to me.

Anyhow, yes, we should return this thread to the 2 meter rule. Pardon the interruption.

Question: Should "retro TDs" put a disclaimer on the entry, in the way one might announce 'mixed' first rounds?

Would somebody REALLY stay away from an event due to the observance of a 'retro' rule?

Depends. If the two meter sentences, as proposed are just an option, similar to OB within our rulebook, then no, I don't think the PDGA could require a preannouncement about it's use or lack of. I would not say away from an event solely based on whether it had the 2 meter sentences in effect or not.

If the 2 meter sentences are completely removed and a retro TD adds some kind of OB situation for all discs coming to rest above 2 meters, then I would hope that such an oddity would be added to announcements. Even at courses where there are tons of catching trees, the 2 meter rule rarely ever comes up, so I wouldn't stay away solely because of the 2 meter rule.

I'd really like to see Course Pros and TDs use greater imagination than the blanket 2 meter sentences allow in course design that promotes protection of sensitive and critical obstacles. As we like to say, that love our courses, it only takes a moment to break a branch off, it takes years for it to grow back.

(This is part of the reason I am interested in exploring the possibilities of contiguous OB surfaces that do not have OB lines that extend up and down, but where if the disc (or any part of the player) is in contact with the OB surface, then it is OB and you must take relief and a penalty throw, or not be in contact with it at all upon release of the disc. Seems like a great way to further protect important folliage.)

Rule 802.something

Flaming on the board is a courtesy violation. Any player flaming will receive a warning for the first flame. Every flame thereafter will receive a one stroke penalty to be applied at the next tournament played. Repeated offences may result in censure and removal from the PDGA.

Flame on!

Except that it would require a complete reworking of the marking rules. :cool:



As well as make our sport look more like twister than disc golf... :D

Bruce, you're a reasonable sort, what are your thoughts on marking your lie same as we do now, on the playing surface, and if you can reach your disc while being in contact with your lie, then you can play it, if not some sort of penalty applies? Of course the playing surface below the disc at rest would have to be in bounds.

I'm not sure of this or it's further implications, but outwardly it would seem to be at least some form of compromise on my part towards the 2MRZealots. (I can hear the pitter patter comin' already...)

The last time I told you that this was our rule in the early days, you called me a liar. It was not a PDGA rule, it was a Hampton Terrace rule.

There are two problems we had with that sort of rule: what does "reach it" mean, and is it fair to the short people? The first problem you cannot appreciate until you actually try to play a few rounds in an environment with lots and lots of sticky trees. The plum trees at the International Harvester grounds in Libertyville were very sticky, and the security people did not mind us playing on their grounds if we stayed out of the plum trees [and out of the secured storage lots, but that is a different story!] Mr. Aaron's and the Lashbrooks' hedges were also very sticky and sometimes were pretty tall. And our Frisbees were a lot more sticky than modern golf discs.

Frequently the act of proving you can reach it will knock it down. Or it will be hard to tell if you can reach it or if you are jumping a little, just like a jump-putt. Does reach it mean touch it or grasp it? Touch it without moving any part of the obstacle? There are some discs you can't reach three feet off the ground if they are on a mess of wild roses.

Soon our rule became that it was o.b. if it was over the top of my head standing flat footed, which then was probably 66 inches or so. Later the "pros" at Adler told us the rule was six feet, and since by then I was 5' 11", that was easy to measure too.

The Twister rule is cool. It affords increasing penalties for discs higher and higher above the ground. If you are standing on your tip-toes to touch a spot seven feet up in the tree, you are not going to be able to throw very far.

The fairness issue never bothered me because life is always unfair to short people and they just need to deal with it. It's not people with short legs only have to run 90 yards in the 100 yard dash! But I was the tallest kid and I won most of the time anyway, so I was fine with picking a standardized height.

Our bottom line was that you should play it from where it landed, and that meant having a part of your body where it landed. At some point a frisbee above the ground is unplayable. We had the prior experience with Billy Piest falling out of the tree, and a stanardized height was easier to apply than anything else.

5'11" and the tallest one around usually??? That is the FIRST comment on this topic that has been totally unbelievable. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The two meter rule should be removed altogether. Two players are both stuck in a tree. One player is 2inches above the 2 meter mark, the other is 2 inches below, but only one is penalized and the diference is 4 inches. Take the rule out of the book for good.

The two meter rule should be removed altogether. Two players are both stuck in a tree. One player is 2inches above the 2 meter mark, the other is 2 inches below, but only one is penalized and the diference is 4 inches. Take the rule out of the book for good.



Wow, Your still Alive :D

Last time I saw you was at Master Cup and you were having a VERY BAD Hole 2 :( (at least it was Hole 2 then now its 26)

For those who dont know...Bobby can throw an Aviar further than MOST of you can throw ANY Disc :eek:
:D

5'11" and the tallest one around usually??? That is the FIRST comment on this topic that has been totally unbelievable. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

When we started playing frisbee golf I was early teens, Mike Poehler was a few years younger, And Jon was a few years younger too. I had to have been in 7th or 8th grade. Jon liked playing catch or frisbee hotbox more than frisbee golf. I think I liked playing frisbee golf because of the trespassing!

When I was about 19 we started playing at Adler so Jon, Dave, the other Mike, Blakely if he played and that other totally spastic kid [John Raymond?] all had to be 12 or 13. That was our main group of players back then.

For no-talent hacks Jon and I have really been playing for a long time.

The last time I told you that this was our rule in the early days, you called me a liar.



While I am quite sure that is the way you see it, it is not actually what I did. I said that your experience was different than mine when deciding what to do when a disc came to rest above the playing surface; that you thought it "common sense" to incur a penalty throw, while I did (and do) not think it is "common sense".

That you formulated the idea of an average height in which folks could reach a disc (prior to the 2 meter sentences in our PDGA Rule Book) I find highly suspicious at best and nearly impossible to believe that you thought it up on your own based on a sense of natural rightness.

Though extremely unlikely in my opinion, it does not make you a liar, nor would it make me call you a liar. You are a strange dude and may well have come to such a strange conclusion way back when...

All I can say is that in every instance, I've ever witnessed, of a newbie finding out about the 2 meter sentences is that the first words out of their mouth are, "That is really $tupid." To which I reply, "Yeah, it is one of our rules you wouldn't just get on your own without someone telling you about it."

Admittedly there are other vital rules like that; where they are not just something that would seem natural to the game (marking your disc, stance, holing out, etc).

At any rate, I didn't call you a liar Bruce.

Now I have to consider whether it is worth my time to search 10,000 posts on 18 2-meter threads to show you where you called me a liar. Hmmm, I think if I word search Billy Piest I could find it...

If you word search Billy Piest or the Lashbrook's hedge you can find the second time Nick called me a liar on this issue. I think if you are telling a factual account about your life and the response is that that is an "unsubstantiated story" that everyone tells, i.e., a disc golf urban legend, you've been told you're lying or delusional.

I'll keep looking for the first time.

The two meter rule should be removed altogether. Two players are both stuck in a tree. One player is 2inches above the 2 meter mark, the other is 2 inches below, but only one is penalized and the diference is 4 inches. Take the rule out of the book for good.



Wow, Your still Alive :D

Last time I saw you was at Master Cup and you were having a VERY BAD Hole 2 :( (at least it was Hole 2 then now its 26)

For those who dont know...Bobby can throw an Aviar further than MOST of you can throw ANY Disc :eek:
:D


Hey Mike, how have you been. Yes, I am still alive. That was a really bad hole two, and one. Was third place with two holes to go and took a 5 on #1, and an 8 on #2. Back playing though and look froward to redemption. Hope to see you soon. I can only throw an Aviar about 420 now, need to work on that.

[quote
Hope to see you soon. I can only throw an Aviar about 420 now, need to work on that.

[/QUOTE]

:D

Now I have to consider whether it is worth my time to search 10,000 posts on 18 2-meter threads to show you where you called me a liar. Hmmm, I think if I word search Billy Piest I could find it...

If you word search Billy Piest or the Lashbrook's hedge you can find the second time Nick called me a liar on this issue. I think if you are telling a factual account about your life and the response is that that is an "unsubstantiated story" that everyone tells, i.e., a disc golf urban legend, you've been told you're lying or delusional.

I'll keep looking for the first time.



Bruce, save your efforts. Nick probably beat you to it, and used his moderator privileges to go back and delete it out before you could find it.

Dang Mike , The kid can still Blast the cRAP out of the Discs.

Good to see Bobby Crushing again !!!!! :Dhttp://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/halm.gif

[/QUOTE]

this entire 2MR thread can be summed up (except for the sensible pro 2MR stuff of course) as follows:

Nick needs therapy
robj needs a friend
:D

Glad to see we are back to serious discussions concerning the 3 meter rule.

Jeff, get a life, would you?

70% of the players at our tournaments [we average 150 players per tournament] favor retaining the 2-meter rule. When we say, "The 2-meter rule is in effect," during player meetings we always hear, "HeII yeah!"



Where are you getting this 70% figure? At our local Cincinnati monthly course challenges the TD of the month gets to decide. When the decision is that the 2 meter rule is in effect there are several people who say "yes," "good!" etc.
But when the decision is no 2 meter rule in effect just as many players say "yes," "good!" etc. None or very few are disrespectful and say "that sucks" whatever the case may be. (and whether the rule is 2 meter: yes or 2 meter: no, the majority silently abides by the decision. Today at Harbin park the rule was no 2 meter penalty because at the upcoming Flying Pig Open (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=505&posts=27) B tier event at Mt. Airy and Harbin Parks the 2 meter rule will not be in effect. I heard many people saying "yes!"

I also hit trees where there was a good chance of sticking 3 times -- and none stuck. It was almost like the tree caught the disc, realized the 2 meter rule was not in effect, and then let the disc drop down all the way to the playing surface below. In each case the tree acted like the obstacle it was.

I don't have the time to go through 170 pages of scintilating discussion on this rule, but I have one question - do any of you know when the 2-meter rule was added to the official rules?

I believe this rule , has been in effect for over 20 years.

I became a member in 82 and OB was in effect.
Sweet..........Check out this picture from Cinci !!!!!Picture it as a sidewalk and not water -- what's the difference to our game? (http://cincinnatidiscgolf.com/images/CoursePics/Idlewild/Idlewild3b.jpg)

I believe this rule , has been in effect for over 20 years.

I became a member in 82 and OB was in effect.




I became a PDGA member in 1979, and played in tournaments before that. I remember early on that in tournaments we played the disc "where it lied (lay?)," and that you had to put your leading foot at the point of the lie.

That meant that if your disc ended up in a bush, 2 feet off the ground, you had to put your foot in the bush where the disc ended up. If your disc was stuck 5 feet off the ground in a tree, it would cause you to become a contortionist. Of course, players who were taller or more limber had an advantage.

I think the 2-meter rule grew out of a desire for safety and faster game play, as well as a way of creating standard cut-off height to enforce unplayable lies. Why two meters? It was a distance that most people could reach, and it was an "even" distance. It was metric probably because we were following the "metric wave" of those times (disc weights measured in grams...).

The first time I remember the 2-meter rule being seriously discussed at a tournament was the '83 Worlds in Huntsville. At the player's meeting the night before play began, a piece of tape was stretched across the doorway to the room, and players were told to reach up as they left the room to see how high they needed to reach to find two meters. For me, if I reasted the heel of my hand on the top of my head, my middle finger hit right at two meters. I remember that the course marshalls were given two-meter sticks to use in enforcing the rule - they walked around that week looking like they had extra-long walking staffs..

Dang contortionist-hating Alabamations...and their dang conformity-loving conformity conformations. :mad:

Allen,

That is an interesting account. I don't doubt its authenticity. It is similar to Bruce's account and makes perfect sense if you start from the position that:

A) We don't want folks climbing obstacles on the course, particularly trees; this to protect the trees and the players from injury.
B) We don't want to penalize short or stiff folks because they can't "reach" the exact location the disc came to rest.
C) We need a rule to accomplish A & B.

I understand that they thought the 2 meter sentences solved those perceived challenges.

What I, and I think others, not to mention the PDGA Rules Committee and the PDGA Board of Directors, is saying is that there is a "better", "more congruous" and �reasonable� alternative to the 2 meter sentences to solve those two challenges. Namely that because we already have a perfectly functioning rule governing the marking of a lie on the playing surface, regardless of the where the disc came to rest above the playing surface and that this rule covers all scenarios, that there is no need for the 2 meter sentences nor the more often than not overly punitive nature of those sentences when applied to actual play.

You see, when a player marks their lie on the playing surface, according to existing rules, they already have avoided the first challenge (keeping folks out of trees, bushes, etc.) and it also makes play exactly the same for short and tall/stiff and limber folks, thereby solving the second challenge. (We actually do this even with the 2 meter sentences in effect, we just toss another penalty throw on top for it.)

Now, if a TD or Course Pro wants to add that penalty throw for such situations, our updated rules in 2006 will allow them to do so; course wide, individual holes or even for specific course obstacles. This similar to how they currently create Out of Bounds and Casual areas.

I have said, and support discussion of; the pure �Play It Where It Lies� concept as worth looking carefully at. The truth is, that the addition of the 2 meter sentences are part of the challenge to truly �Playing It Where It Lies� not part of the solution. As you point out we didn�t want to penalize short/stiff players and at a logical level I�m not sure that I agree that there should be no (or that our rules should attempt to negate) advantageous physical athletic attributes; specifically height and limberness. I can think of no other physically active sport that does this. (NASCAR restrictor plates?) Furthermore, the only reason for negating such advantage in our rules is found in the 2 meter sentences. (Well there and the within 10 meters stance rules to a degree.)

What I pose to you is that removal of the 2 meter sentences is actually a superior and more elegant resolution to the 2 primary challenges they originally attempted to resolve (and that you site). Moreover that the removal resolves additional challenges that are a direct result of a mandatory 2 meter sentence application).

Regards,
Nick

70% of the players at our tournaments [we average 150 players per tournament] favor retaining the 2-meter rule. When we say, "The 2-meter rule is in effect," during player meetings we always hear, "HeII yeah!"



Where are you getting this 70% figure?

From our on-line poll on our message board. I have not looked at it in the last couple of months. I'll go check where it stands.

[Interlude music: theme from Jeopardy]

I think the TD should keep the one-stroke penalty for being two meters above the playing surface. [ 23 ] [62.16%]
I think there should be no penalty for being two meters above the playing surface. [ 8 ] [21.62%]

There were three null vote silly answers, like, "It should apply only to the surfeit of players named Brakel." Of the people who wanted to express an opinion 26% favored abolishing the 2-meter rule.

We did not ask about the some trees yes some trees no position because that was never going to be an option.

What we have discovered is that if you offer well run tournaments with good amateur payouts, pick your own prizes, lots of merch inventory, and some rain at every single event during one of the worst droughts in Illinois history, you get 150 players every weekend and the two-meter rule is irrelevant to tournament attendance.

Should the Two Meter Rule remain in the PDGA Rulebook?
Users may choose only one (115 total votes)
Yes, unaltered.
42 36%
Yes, but slightly altered.
30 26%
No, it needs to be removed completely.
43 37%


Does the fequency of the Two Meter Rule occurring have anything to do with its necessity within our rules or for its removal from our rules?
Users may choose only one (112 total votes)
Yes
27 24%
No
85 75%


Does the Two Meter Rule add more fairness to the competition than Out of Bound?
Users may choose only one (113 total votes)
A lot
14 12%
Some
14 12%
No change
40 35%
Less so
20 17%
A lot less
25 22%

This poll and nearly every PDGA Survey indicates a 50/50 split. A 50/50 split for a long established rule seems like a clear indication that it is time to give the other side a chance.

Besides, if it becomes gigantically obvious that the 2 meter rule is so desperately missed, can't we just reinstitute it? And like you said Bruce, it doesn't really make any difference in player participation...

Oh my Carl Sagan, lets not have a 2 meter rule because not everyone is 6 feet tall? What a tragedy that one of the rule's intents is that if you can't reach your disc you should be penalized because you are delaying play. I'm sorry but what a crock (can you say nitpick). Look, life's not fair, I'm on the short side of 5'8 and I can live with this. Nick doesn't like the 2 meter 'cause it's not fair; on the other hand, I accept a rule that says if you can't reach your disc without climbing you should be stroked, or even if it takes you longer than 2 minutes to get it out of the tree you get a delay of play penalty, but if Nick doesn't like this inequality then fine.

However, all of that is irrelevant. The best use of the 2 meter rule is not tree protection or delay of game interpretations, it is as a tool that the TD can use to effect play and make a course more challenging. I know Nick doesn't believe this but I've seen it (Conroe here in Texas) and I know it can be effective. Nick you can deny until you are blue in the face but that doesn't change this fact. Nick can call it supposition, but as long as I can come on here and say that when the 2 meter rule is in effect at Conroe I play a different game, then his theory that it has no impact is incorrect. From there it is just his personal belief that the rule is inconsequential; I've already proven him wrong. This is the problem with fervent belief based on your own feelings. It often has no relevance to the real world.

Whether the 2 meter is universal or at a TDs discretion doesn't matter to me, that it exists as a tool does. Now, you might ask yourself is the real impact sufficient enough to keep the rule or some form of it. That discussion has merit but all the data is purely anecdotal. Nonetheless, you can't deny that numerous people have stated clearly that the 2 meter rule affects how they play when trees are present.

I like the idea (I think proposed here) that if your disc comes to rest upside down, then you are penalized one stroke. It will make the game more difficult and challenging.

Lyle,

The 2 meter sentences probably do sneak into many players� heads during play, I don't deny that at all. But in light of possible Out of Bounds uses or limited use of above the playing surface out of bounds areas (casual or not), its continued existence and usefulness is very questionable.

It does not solve the "Play It Where It Lies" challenge, nor does it solve the "Reach Challenge", nor does it keep us from "Climbing Trees" (our lie rule does that).

When it comes right down to it, at its most simple level, all the 2 meter sentences do is add a penalty throw, in an attempt to solve a challenge that is already solved by the lie rule. In this, as well as other reasons, it is superfluous.

Regards,
Nick

PS: All debate is "nitpicking" otherwise there would be no reason to debate, it would be obvious.

I like the idea (I think proposed here) that if your disc comes to rest upside down, then you are penalized one stroke. It will make the game more difficult and challenging.



So what you're saying is that there is a player out there who has the ability to keep their discs from falling to the ground. Wow! I want to meet this guy. You see, good players (and I admit that I'm not one of them) don't throw their discs into trees thus avoiding penalization. In order to keep your discs from occasionally and randomly flipping upside down you simply have to not allow them to hit the ground, sort of like not throwing into trees. So who is this player that can control their discs so well that they never come down to earth thus defeating gravity?

70% of the players at our tournaments [we average 150 players per tournament] favor retaining the 2-meter rule. When we say, "The 2-meter rule is in effect," during player meetings we always hear, "HeII yeah!"



Where are you getting this 70% figure?

From our on-line poll on our message board. I have not looked at it in the last couple of months. I'll go check where it stands.

[Interlude music: theme from Jeopardy]

I think the TD should keep the one-stroke penalty for being two meters above the playing surface. [ 23 ] [62.16%]
I think there should be no penalty for being two meters above the playing surface. [ 8 ] [21.62%]

There were three null vote silly answers, like, "It should apply only to the surfeit of players named Brakel." Of the people who wanted to express an opinion 26% favored abolishing the 2-meter rule.

We did not ask about the some trees yes some trees no position because that was never going to be an option.

What we have discovered is that if you offer well run tournaments with good amateur payouts, pick your own prizes, lots of merch inventory, and some rain at every single event during one of the worst droughts in Illinois history, you get 150 players every weekend and the two-meter rule is irrelevant to tournament attendance.



70 % of the 150 players at your tournament equals 105. Yet your poll was online and only 23 people favored the TD keeping the penalty for being 2 meters above the playing surface. So, to be fair you might revise your statement to read "62 percent of the online respondents to a 2 meter poll at out tournament website favored retention of the 2 meter rule"

And as for your "hell yeah" -- i already pointed out you get that response regardless of whether you announce 2 meters NO or 2 meters YES. the majority keep their feelings to themselves and reconcile themselves with the fact that everyone will be subject to the same rule. The memebership remains about evenly split on this issue and i suspect about half of the people in the "retain-the 2-meter-penalty" camp are only in it merely because that has been the status quo. Let's see what polls show 2 years after the 2 meter rule is truly pro choice

Lyle,

The 2 meter sentences probably do sneak into many players� heads during play, I don't deny that at all. But in light of possible Out of Bounds uses or limited use of above the playing surface out of bounds areas (casual or not), its continued existence and usefulness is very questionable.

It does not solve the "Play It Where It Lies" challenge, nor does it solve the "Reach Challenge", nor does it keep us from "Climbing Trees" (our lie rule does that).

When it comes right down to it, at its most simple level, all the 2 meter sentences do is add a penalty throw, in an attempt to solve a challenge that is already solved by the lie rule. In this, as well as other reasons, it is superfluous.

Regards,
Nick

PS: All debate is "nitpicking" otherwise there would be no reason to debate, it would be obvious.



I agree with you Nick (especially about the nitpicking). However, the only point I was trying to make is that as a tool it is useful for effecting play; and that I don't like the notion that everything has to equal, one of the apparent topics of the post I responded to. Taller players have an advantage� that�s genetics. If a primary motivation for removing the two meter rule is that it was only established to create a fair environment for short players then, and I quote, "that is crock." You can make a better argument and you have. I fully support a rule that says if you can reach your disc play on, if not then take your stroke. If that gives Yao Ming an advantage... so be it. However, that should not be used one way or the other as an argument for or against the two meter rule. It is, at best, a weak argument.

Now if you are trying to say that OB can be used just as effectively as the two meter rule, yes but with more work for the TD. However, there has been a good solution offered. Play the disc where it lies. If you can get a foot behind the disc (LOP and 30cm intact) then you are good to go; if not, move the disc and take your stroke, simple enough rule. It is the exceptions to this rule that make the 2 meter or some such necessary. Simplify the rules to make this always the rule and the problem goes away. Keep in mind that I fully support the addendum that one foot has to be on terra firma and I admit someone is going to try and use that to their advantage.

Over the past years there have been many discussions of LOP and verticality etc. Just make it simple. If you can get your foot behind your disc then play on. If the disc is on a cliff same thing, that is, I don't like verticality. Your foot should be "within" 30 cm of your disc not "within" 30 cm of a vertical line that goes up (or down, say from a position in a tree) from the edge of your disc. Furthermore, terrain is not an obstacle. That is, if the LOP goes into a hill then you have to play up the hill (this eliminates that stoopid verticality clause). Soooooo, if you can't get your foot behind your disc, then take your stroke. All of this garbage about being able to move your disc or being on a vertical line just makes more things to keep in mind and to try and manipulate to the players advantage.

30cm "from" your disc, in the LOP, given terrain, is a rule I can live with.

The best use of the 2 meter rule is not tree protection or delay of game interpretations, it is as a tool that the TD can use to effect play and make a course more challenging.



That may be the intent of the 2 meter rule, but as a majority of discs hitting trees do not stick it doesn't work as well in actuality as it does in theory. What works more effectively is painting an OB circle beneathe trees near the pin and thus penalizing all discs that hit and stick or hit and trickle down. It also affords a player the typical up to 1 meter of relief that OB entails.

The tree 60 feet from the tee and 500 feet short of the pin isn't generally intended to get in a player's head via the 2 meter rule -- it is designed there as the natural object it is -- to deflect and/or deny errant shots and create natural (not added on) penalties.

I expected a response like this, but from my viewpoint, this analogy is pretty much spot on. Sure, it is a ludicrous rule, but it pretty much follows the 2M rule all the way since it is essentially an absurd penalty of a random event (other than rollers or slide shots).

People would hit the basket, roll down the hill and pray that their disc fell right-side up. If it fell upside-down, some people would say "well, good players don't hit the basket and roll down the hill, thus leaving theselves susceptible to the penalty." They might be right. However, that statement does little to change the fact that falling upside down or right-side up is basically random and outside the player's control, and to penalize the occurence seems highly questionable.

deleted by me if it was not quoted yet!

Lyle,

The 2 meter sentences probably do sneak into many players� heads during play, I don't deny that at all. But in light of possible Out of Bounds uses or limited use of above the playing surface out of bounds areas (casual or not), its continued existence and usefulness is very questionable.

It does not solve the "Play It Where It Lies" challenge, nor does it solve the "Reach Challenge", nor does it keep us from "Climbing Trees" (our lie rule does that).

When it comes right down to it, at its most simple level, all the 2 meter sentences do is add a penalty throw, in an attempt to solve a challenge that is already solved by the lie rule. In this, as well as other reasons, it is superfluous.

Regards,
Nick

PS: All debate is "nitpicking" otherwise there would be no reason to debate, it would be obvious.


<font color="blue"> </font>
I agree with you Nick (especially about the nitpicking). However, the only point I was trying to make is that as a tool it is useful for effecting play; and that I don't like the notion that everything has to equal, one of the apparent topics of the post I responded to. Taller players have an advantage� that�s genetics. If a primary motivation for removing the two meter rule is that it was only established to create a fair environment for short players then, and I quote, "that is crock." <font color="blue"> Actually, I am not saying it is or it isn�t, I am merely commenting on Bruce and Allen�s contention that it was a primary factor in the creation of the 2 meter sentences. I agree with you that it is a tenuous basis at best for a rule that can add a substantial penalty throw to your score. </font> You can make a better argument and you have. I fully support a rule that says if you can reach your disc play on, if not then take your stroke. If that gives Yao Ming an advantage... so be it. However, that should not be used one way or the other as an argument for or against the two meter rule. It is, at best, a weak argument. <font color="blue"> It was only used in context of the argument provided by supporters of the continued mandatory use of the 2 meter sentences. As I have said several times, I think that it is fascinating to consider the �play it where it lies� as an actual ruling; where you have to have some point of support in contact with where the disc actually came to rest. But this would necessarily entail a discussion of whether we want all play from the playing surface still. This is another topic however, interesting that it might be, it is not an argument for or against the 2 meter rule. </font>

Now if you are trying to say that OB can be used just as effectively as the two meter rule, yes but with more work for the TD. <font color="blue"> Not necessarily. I�ve already heard of TDs and Course Designers marking a tree or two as having the 2 meter rule in effect. I�ll admit that it could possibly be a lot of work, but only (and similarly to OB) the TD or Designer wants all sorts of complicated 2 meter situations. Areas that are judged by the TD or Designer worthy of a penalty throw are, IMO worthy of taking the time to demarcate and announce. </font> However, there has been a good solution offered. Play the disc where it lies. If you can get a foot behind the disc (LOP and 30cm intact) then you are good to go; if not, move the disc and take your stroke, simple enough rule. It is the exceptions to this rule that make the 2 meter or some such necessary. Simplify the rules to make this always the rule and the problem goes away. Keep in mind that I fully support the addendum that one foot has to be on terra firma and I admit someone is going to try and use that to their advantage. <font color="blue"> I thought that we agreed that the �Reach Rule� had nothing to do with the 2 meter rule one way or the other? However, we already have a rule that deals with all such situations: Lie and Marking Your Lie as well as the first couple paragraphs of Disc Above the Playing Surface. The 2 meter deals with nothing more than some folks pre-disposition to adding penalty throws to increase challenge rather than actually doing the design work to increase challenge. </font>

Over the past years there have been many discussions of LOP and verticality etc. Just make it simple. If you can get your foot behind your disc then play on. If the disc is on a cliff same thing, that is, I don't like verticality. Your foot should be "within" 30 cm of your disc not "within" 30 cm of a vertical line that goes up (or down, say from a position in a tree) from the edge of your disc. Furthermore, terrain is not an obstacle. That is, if the LOP goes into a hill then you have to play up the hill (this eliminates that stoopid verticality clause). Soooooo, if you can't get your foot behind your disc, then take your stroke. All of this garbage about being able to move your disc or being on a vertical line just makes more things to keep in mind and to try and manipulate to the players advantage.
<font color="blue"> Rule of Verticality does not allow you to stand at the top of a cliff while your mark is 10 feet below. The Rule of Verticality is only for determining if a disc is OB or not, not for marking your lie. You must mark your lie touching the front edge of your disc, etc, etc.</font>

30cm "from" your disc, in the LOP, given terrain, is a rule I can live with. <font color="blue"> That is the rule we have. If you do not want us to mark our lie on the playing surface below the disc at rest, then your issue is with the �Lie� or �Marking Your Lie� rules not with the 2 meter sentences. They do not resolve any of the above challenges, they only add a penalty throw for challenges already resolved by other rules. </font>

I expected a response like this, but from my viewpoint, this analogy is pretty much spot on. Sure, it is a ludicrous rule, but it pretty much follows the 2M rule all the way since it is essentially an absurd penalty of a random event (other than rollers or slide shots).

People would hit the basket, roll down the hill and pray that their disc fell right-side up. If it fell upside-down, some people would say "well, good players don't hit the basket and roll down the hill, thus leaving theselves susceptible to the penalty." They might be right. However, that statement does little to change the fact that falling upside down or right-side up is basically random and outside the player's control, and to penalize the occurence seems highly questionable.



You gotta admit Lyle, that is pretty convincing logic...

FYI, I jumped into this conversation not because I have a preference one way or the other, but because I had some recollection of the history and intent of the rule. Judicial/legal scholars often base their interpretation of laws (rules) on what they think the intent of the Framers of the Constitution were, and I thought that might be helpful here. I can see by the continuing debate that we have a lot of "judicial activists" on the message board, and not many "strict constructionists."

Nice Call !!!!!! It is true , unfortunately.

What happen to the Original Constitution ?

Was that not written to balance the playing field and put all Issues on the level ? :confused:

The Reason , real reason , I joined the PDGA , was , I had played a PDGA tournament , pre 1982 , Got a Hole in one.
I was not a PDGA member then. I received a hand shake.

Another guy , I was playing with , also got a Hole in one , was a PDGA member , and got a Brand New Mach 1 basket , for his efforts , in the same tournament.

Right away , I signed up , to become a PDGA member.

Know what...................The year after , I aced a hole , in a PDGA tournament.

PDGA said they stopped doing that anymore. :mad:

No hand shake or money given !!!!! :confused:

What happened..........................

Must have gotten too expensive , I guess.

Back to the Constitution :

It was written for the players , by the players.

If any new rules , need to be adopted , the players should vote on them !!!!!!!

If folks don't like the rules , Tough. Write your PDGA Congressman.............Regional Dude. :D

Slight drift here for a second...

Funny you should bring up the free polehole for an ace - mine is planted in my back yard - I won it for an ace during a tournament in Huntsville in '83. Of course, that was a DGA promotion, not a PDGA prize (although the two were inextricably intertwined at that time). I can understand your frustration on that issue, I would have been [I'm a potty-mouth!] as well.

Why did I join the PDGA? Because Ed deducted my (lifetime) membership fee from my winnings in the Wham-O $50K tournament qualifier that was held in Rockledge, FL. Left to my own motivations, my number would probably be a few thousand higher.

Very Cool !!!!!! Only Old School players can Appreciate that !!!!!! There was a transitioning going on in 82 , I believe.
DGA is a Cool company. They have produced some of the best Pole Holes ( Baskets ) ever.

Like your Shuttle Puppy by the way. I have only 1 left.
174 grams, White. Not for sale though !!! :D

That is an interesting account. I don't doubt its authenticity. It is similar to Bruce's account and makes perfect sense if you start from the position that:

A) We don't want folks climbing obstacles on the course, particularly trees; this to protect the trees and the players from injury.
B) We don't want to penalize short or stiff folks because they can't "reach" the exact location the disc came to rest.
C) We need a rule to accomplish A & B.

typically, niuck has left : it penalizes situations where the player cannot play it where it lies.

if you have a problem with the word "lie" then change the definition to whwere the discs wends up rather than where you place your markert. much easier. much faster. much saner.

I expected a response like this, but from my viewpoint, this analogy is pretty much spot on. Sure, it is a ludicrous rule, but it pretty much follows the 2M rule all the way since it is essentially an absurd penalty of a random event (other than rollers or slide shots).


Are you saying that from a teepad, a disc that you throw travels randomly through the air, hitting trees and missing trees with equal probability?

If you truly find your analogy apt, then all I can say is I hope you yell "fore" when you throw.

Like your Shuttle Puppy by the way. I have only 1 left.
174 grams, White. Not for sale though !!! :D



I putt with a white Shuttle Puppy (or at least I try). I have several more on hand - enough for the next 20-30 years... ;)

Are you saying that from a teepad, a disc that you throw travels randomly through the air, hitting trees and missing trees with equal probability?




It kind of feels that way sometimes. :D

However, I'm talking about the inevitable shots that hit a tree above two meters, and the inevitable shots that catch an edge and roll. Both happen quite often, to good players and bad players alike. The difference is no one dreams of penalizing one, yet y'all sit here and argue the justness of the other for months. You seem to cherish it, like a badge of honor or something. Give it up, it is an old worn-out relic that is no longer useful.

I expected a response like this, but from my viewpoint, this analogy is pretty much spot on. Sure, it is a ludicrous rule, but it pretty much follows the 2M rule all the way since it is essentially an absurd penalty of a random event (other than rollers or slide shots).

People would hit the basket, roll down the hill and pray that their disc fell right-side up. If it fell upside-down, some people would say "well, good players don't hit the basket and roll down the hill, thus leaving theselves susceptible to the penalty." They might be right. However, that statement does little to change the fact that falling upside down or right-side up is basically random and outside the player's control, and to penalize the occurence seems highly questionable.



You gotta admit Lyle, that is pretty convincing logic...



I love how an argument, no matter how weak, is convincing if it supports our point of view. :D

First, this argument suggests that it is inevitable that a disc will wind up in the tree, thus resulting in an arbitrary outcome. Discs wind up in trees only when players make bad throws. A similar argument can be made in basketball. If I hit the rim of the hoop, the ball will not go in but will instead bounce randomly off the rim. I think we should eliminate rims from the sport... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif The secret, don't hit the rim. Now let's cross apply. If you don't want your disc to bounce randomly out of trees, then develop a skill set that keeps you from throwing into trees. It is not inevitable that a basketball player will hit the rim, nor is it inevitable that a disc will hit a tree. Both events result from a lack of skill.

As I've already said, unless you are Harry Potter, you are never going to have a skill set that stops your disc from hitting the ground, unless, of course, you throw into trees. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Thus comparing the two scenarious requires one to have flawed, not convincing logic.

The disc bounce off the basket is a similarly bad argument. As an aside, if you don't want your disc to roll away from the basket after a bad throw, then make a good throw. If you can't get it in, lay up.

See, the secret to good disc golf is skill and planning. You see the Pros do this all the time. "Well, I could take a lob from 150 feet out at that basket but since there is a water hazzard 4 feet behind it there is a good chance I'll be swimming. Better lay up..."

Back to James; his point would be a good one if the rules were:

"all throws must go through the canopy of a tree to be considered legitimate (sort of like a mando). Then his argument makes sense. To stroke a player for getting stuck in a tree when it's fairly random would be silly. Although... a good player would still find more gaps through the foliage than a bad one.

And BTW, before you come back with it James, if you're allowed to make a ludicrous argument... so am I. :D

However, I'm talking about the inevitable shots that hit a tree above two meters, and the inevitable shots that catch an edge and roll. Both happen quite often, to good players and bad players alike. The difference is no one dreams of penalizing one, yet y'all sit here and argue the justness of the other for months. You seem to cherish it, like a badge of honor or something. Give it up, it is an old worn-out relic that is no longer useful.



You bring up an unfair analogy. You make it sound like hitting a tree above 2M is penalized the same way an accidental roll-away is. The disc has to get stuck above 2M, not just hit the tree.

You would be more honest to compare the frequency of a disc hitting a tree and then sticking above 2M with catching an unfortunate roll that goes OB. When you do a fair comparison, suddenly your arguement here becomes moot.

Depends upon which courses you play. I can think of courses where the roll away o.b. is just as common as the 2 meter stick and both are fairly common. Saw a lot of both at the Brent Hambrick last year.

Depends upon the flora and the terrain.

Lets make this bet then.

We will videotape 100 shots that are thrown into trees and then 100 shots that are thrown into a lake. We will pause the shot halfway threw its flight and you tell me wether it will stick over 2Meter or not. For every one you get right Ill give you 100 dollars. Then we will do the same with the lake shot and for every one I get right you have to give me 100 dollars. Sound like a fair bet???

Shall we avoid the Tourrette�s syndrome this thread periodically wonders into?

The disc coming to rest upside-down being worthy of a penalty throw is the closest example to date of what in essence the 2 meter rule penalty throw does.

Lyle, you act as if an average tournament disc golfer, can avoid ever throwing into, at or near a tree, when, though possible, I�d like to hear testament to that fact here. I didn�t know we had a course on the moon? Are you saying that �good shots� never have trajectories that take them through, near or around trees; or more importantly that start out with a trajectory �DIRECTLY� and �STRAIGHT� at a tree that are intended to just miss them? If so, I�d say that your experience of disc golf is very different than mine and all the disc golfers I have ever known.

Is there skill in avoiding striking such obstacles? Certainly, but as per your example, I have noticed in basketball that they do not take away 2 points when the basketball strikes the rim. Do they? Or for a ball getting stuck on top of the backboard? That would be silly and overly punitive, wouldn�t it?

You act as though some player can develop a skill set that will result in them �never� hitting a tree (or landing their disc upside-down). Though theoretically viable, realistically it is so unlikely as to be ridiculous. You say that good planning and execution can result in good players avoiding all chance of 2 meter infractions; yes, you are correct, if they shoot a 219 on a 7000� course by throwing no more than 2 meters above the playing surface and no more than 32� in distance a shot. (And even then some freak kick or skip could result in a 2 meter violation� same for a disc flopping upside-down). That is not a realistic way to expect a highly skilled tournament (let alone any) player to play disc golf. It certainly does not adhere to any spirit of the game I have ever played on a disc golf course.

At its simplest level this discussion comes down to the following: Is landing at or above 2 meters above the playing surface an egregious enough offense against the spirit of our game to deserve the same penalty throw as a second (not even first) courtesy violation, second stance or falling putt violation? In your opinion, and that of Rhett and Bruce, it is. In the 50% or more that see the rule as a singular aberation within our rules of play, it is a clear violation of the spirit of the game and our sports sense of �fair play�.

If it is an OB type rule; fine then remove the 2 meter sentences and add an Aerial OB to our OB rules.

If it is an "Unplayable Lie" type rule; fine then remove the 2 meter sentences and alter our Stance, Marking the Lie, Disc Above the Playing Surface and Lie rules to make it so.

As a rule based on a quantifiable act that should be urged to avoid it is clearly a farce.

In essence it is baseless no matter how you slice it.

PS: If a TD feels otherwise, then I support their right to enforce it, or something similar. I do not support it being a blanket mandatory rule.

Depends upon which courses you play. I can think of courses where the roll away o.b. is just as common as the 2 meter stick and both are fairly common. Saw a lot of both at the Brent Hambrick last year.

Depends upon the flora and the terrain.



Which proves what? That poor course design is as inane as the 2 meter rule?

I did not intend to compare hitting trees to roll aways, I just intended to compare the happenstance of sticking above two meters to the happenstance of a roll-away landing upside down. They are both arbitrary, and it is equally as absurd to penalize the occurence of each.

Lyle, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if every shot that hit a tree above two meters stuck, then I would stop my blathering on this topic. I would still think it is an unnecessary double penalty, but it would not appear unjust.

Additionally, the old-tired argument that good players don't hit trees is really not my concern (even though I think this is a bogus premise based on my experience). I'll accept the false premise that good players don't hit trees, and the question still remains:

"how do you justify the fact that all the bad shots by bad players are not penalized the same" or better yet

"why on earth would you want to justify the fact that they are not penalized the same" or more positively

"why not try to create a system where they are treated the same."

the fact this rule will be available (as an option) in the future at pdga tourneys makes this whole thread sort of a waste of time doesnt it? people lobbying for removal of this rule completely, havent played on a course where trees are the rule, not the exception. im talking about a course where trees are obstacles on every hole and the challenge is to MISS them, not to play through them. an example would be a mountain course where you are playing above, below, and along the tree line on any given hole.....this summer ive played in four different mountain course sanctioned tourneys and every time the td was adamant about maintaining the 2 meter rule, and i have to agree with them because it makes you play differently.....(imho, smarter and better, or else).

As you might surmise, I think the 2M rule makes less sense on courses with lots of grippy trees. The typical scenario is a hole with a fairway and a "rough" that is grippy live oaks and grippy schule. If you throw into the schule or the tree, you are already burning 1+ strokes getting out. Going off the fairway on the holes is disincentive enough. No amount of penalties will increase my desire to stay in the fairway.

In fact, similar to what has been said before on here, the 2M rule has never once been a factor in my mind before I throw. I always pick a line that doesn't have trees and therefore, one of my goals is to always miss trees because despite what some 2m advocates claim, throwing at trees is almost always a poor strategy, regardless of whether the 2M rule is on or off.

I'll accept the false premise that good players don't hit trees, and the question still remains:

"how do you justify the fact that all the bad shots by bad players are not penalized the same" or better yet

"why on earth would you want to justify the fact that they are not penalized the same" or more positively

"why not try to create a system where they are treated the same."



In a well designed and well thought out course, the answer to all your questions is "to maximize the risk/reward trade-offs"

IMO, TD�s should respectfully defer to the course designer when deciding on whether or not to use the 2M rule. If the course designer had intentionality in how he used the shule and trees in his course design, the 2MR should be kept. If not, the TD should decide based on his preference.

I TD one PDGA tournament a year. It is at Renaissance. There are lots of Velcro trees (aka cedars) and therefore lots of opportunity for the 2MR to come into play. If Stan McDaniel did not want the high risk/reward element involved with all the cedars and the 2MR, he would have cut lots more of them down.

Watch this video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_13G.mpg) (Renny Gold #13 - aka 'Cedar Hell') and decide your disc selection, ideal shot placement and risk/reward for each throw. The 2MR makes this hole a �thinking man�s� hole rather than a �tin cup� sort of hole. Without the 2MR, the intrigue of this hole is vastly diminished. IMO, there should be lots of �thinking man�s� holes out there for tournament play.

you know, if i think about it, i dont really care one way or the other about this 2 meter rule. i do know that when in effect it changes the way i may play a hole to minimize/maximize the risk/reward factor especially when in a money oriented round. james, i understand you and other peoples concern about double penalty issues, i just dont think many of the td's out there want to get rid of the rule. at least out west anyway. i watched one td get red in the face when asked if the 2 meter rule was in effect, and replied that as long he was td'ing there would be a 2 meter rule. ive got to admit this is one rule that directly affects how a person may play disc golf, in relation to how a course may be designed with trees in play. whatever, its all good......

Ever consider asking the redfaced TD why they feel so strongly about it?

1. Is it because she/he thinks it is a rule like stance, OB or courtesy and that without it the spirit of our game will change?
2. Is it because she�d/he�d worried that the foliage on her/his course will be damaged at a greater rate than with it?
3. Is it because she/he believes that it should be a penalty because the player is not playing from their lie?
4. Is it because she/he thinks penalty throws from 2 meter violations make her/his course more challenging or add to the risk reward and players that don�t like the 2 meter rule are just looking for an easy way out of additional strokes?
5. Is it because bad shots hit trees, or good shots don�t hit trees? Or good shots don�t stick in trees and bad ones do?
6. Is it because the 2 meter rule just makes common sense?
7. Is it because we need a universal mandatory PDGA Rule Book Restricted Area out of TD and Course Designers Hands?
8. Or is it just that she�s/he�s always had it in effect and it makes her/him really agitated to change anything at all �cause she/he has no idea what the results will be from it?

1) All that will change is that it will no longer be mandatory that you get a penalty throw for landing a certain distance from the playing surface.
2) If she/he really is worried about the foliage on her/his course, then advise him/her that Out of Bounds is a far more effective method with which to get folks to avoid certain areas, and VOLUNTEER to rope it off, update the tee signs and hole by hole details. Show him/her that even with the 2 meter rules in effect how totally FUBARed some trees and areas were becoming anyway (you know your course has these, if it is a well played course�).
3) Explain to her/him that even with the 2 meter sentences in effect we still do not play from where the disc actually came to rest, we all play from our lie, as described by our rules of play, on the playing surface.
4) Point out that if the design is overly dependent on the 2 meter rule to add challenge, then isn�t it also overburdening her/his courses obstacles and putting them in harms way. That these key obstacles would certainly be better off protected by Out of Bounds. Isn�t Disc Golf as a sport based on a disc in flight at whatever speed, trajectory, angle or path we can imagine and execute and not limited to the region of playing area below 2 meters?
5) Good shots often start out at trees and curve to just miss them, particularly on wooded holes. To imagine that any player, however skilled, can at the same time play to miss every tree and throw the fewest shots to complete the course(play well) is not realistic. The fine line between the two is what makes our sport interesting, in this regard the 2 meter penalty adds nothing, it only piles on insult for an extremely rare and random outcome that CAN NOT BE reasonably factored into the strategy of a realistic disc golfer (since the only way to guarantee no 2 meter penalties is to not throw any shots over 2 meters or in the direction of any trees).
6) The 2 meter rule is not common sense, it is an outdated contrivance in an attempt to answer challenges that have already been solved by our other more basic rules (Lie and Marking Your Lie). It is superfluous.
7) The PDGA Rule Book governs fair play, it is not in the business of designing your course for you, nor should it be, nor should you ever rely on it to do so.
8) Change is inevitable, get used to it or step aside.

If Stan McDaniel did not want the high risk/reward element involved with all the cedars and the 2MR, he would have cut lots more of them down.



Why would you want to eliminate obstacles that make holes interesting? Whose planning on using those trees to help them. Not me. I don't want to be stuck in any of those cedars. I will lose distance, probably have a funky uncomfortable stance and be making a pitchout and thus burning a stroke. Why should I also have to worry with the crapshoot of the exact height I stick?

Trees offer their own risk/reward (actually, they are all risk and little reward). They are obstacles that if hit, almost always hurt your score. We don't need any absurd rules to increase their effectiveness.

A disc golfer worth their salt is still going to approach the hole and select shots that give them the best chance of completing it in the fewest shots. They are as likely to worry about the 2 meter penalty as they are the stance violation penalty, and the latter has a greater likelihood of happening by a factor of 10,000.

Neither enter the "good" players mind other than superficially. They have practiced missing trees and hitting their mark. That is disc golf, not taking a penalty throw for something as random as landing upside-down...

If Stan McDaniel did not want the high risk/reward element involved with all the cedars and the 2MR, he would have cut lots more of them down.



Why would you want to eliminate obstacles that make holes interesting? Whose planning on using those trees to help them. Not me. I don't want to be stuck in any of those cedars. I will lose distance, probably have a funky uncomfortable stance and be making a pitchout and thus burning a stroke. Why should I also have to worry with the crapshoot of the exact height I stick?

Trees offer their own risk/reward (actually, they are all risk and little reward). They are obstacles that if hit, almost always hurt your score. We don't need any absurd rules to increase their effectiveness.



Need I say that you have been particularly dead on lately James? Very refreshing.

since some here have claimed to know what players run through their minds before a particular shot... and those who make such claims further hold that players do not change shot selection based on the 2MR, allow me to reprice a very real, honest discussion that was held prior to teeing on a hole here in flagstaff this afternoon.

player 1: finally a nice lefty hole !
player 2: i saw some righties taking a big hyzer line in warmup
player 3: yeah most of em parked it if they got up over that one on the far right
player 4: i would do it, but i'm afraid of getting stuck on the inbound flight
player 2: yep.. if the 2MR was not in effect i would do it, but i think i'm gonna take a two finger instead
player 3: me too.
player 4: i'm gonna go for it anyway.
player 1: good luck. i'm finally glad i'm lefty.

yes folks, admit it or not, the 2MR can and does determine shot selection!

disclaimer: i was the lefty on the card.
further disclaimer: i cant remember the word for word, but i swear from the depths of my soul that this is an accurate representation of the conversation.

Whose planning on using those trees to help them. Not me. I don't want to be stuck in any of those cedars. I will lose distance, probably have a funky uncomfortable stance and be making a pitchout and thus burning a stroke. Why should I also have to worry with the crapshoot of the exact height I stick?

Trees offer their own risk/reward (actually, they are all risk and little reward). They are obstacles that if hit, almost always hurt your score. We don't need any absurd rules to increase their effectiveness.



hence the PDGA RC recommendation and BoD vote to implement the elimination of the 2 meter rule as a default scenario for 2006. unfortunately resistance to change often kicks in even when it is the right thing to do.

Watch this video (http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/renaissance/Renny_13G.mpg) (Renny Gold #13 - aka 'Cedar Hell') and decide your disc selection, ideal shot placement and risk/reward for each throw. The 2MR makes this hole a �thinking man�s� hole rather than a �tin cup� sort of hole. Without the 2MR, the intrigue of this hole is vastly diminished. IMO, there should be lots of �thinking man�s� holes out there for tournament play.



I have played this hole many many times.

Similar to what James said in the post just prior to the quoted one, the 2m rule doesn't change my shot selection on this hole *at* *all*. I'm trying to *avoid* the trees, regardless of whether the rule is there or not. Really, without the rule, I wouldn't change a single shot.

I will say, however, that on the 2nd shot on Hole 4 at Winthrop Gold, I *do* consider the 2m rule. Without it, I'm throwing forehand flick hyzer over the top; but with it, I'm throwing something that never gets above 2m. (Note that *good* players throw a soft little helicopter putter over the top, whether the rule is in effect or not. And slightly less good players throw UD Thumber over the top. So it's only the fact that I'm not so good that the 2m rule impacts my shot selection here.) Of the 101 courses I've played, this is the only hole I can think of where the rule truly impacts my shot selection.

But that's just me. Every person has a different story.

yes folks, admit it or not, the 2MR can and does determine shot selection!



I think I qualified my statement with "good players" thus rendering your example moot. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[I'm a potty-mouth!] you nick. btw, how'd you do at worlds again?

[I'm a potty-mouth!] you nick. btw, how'd you do at worlds again?



LOL! Better than you Patty Cakes.

[I'm a potty-mouth!] you nick. btw, how'd you do at worlds again?



LOL! Better than you Patty Cakes.



Maybe that's the answer! Maybe that's why Nick is such a [I'm a potty-mouth!] to everyone - he only respects those who are better disc golfers than him. And of course, both Pat's and my player rating are less than Nick's. Oh no, his player rating dropped from 968 to 963 in the last update! I guess the opinion of another 200 more disc golfers is now worthless.

Who is this "everyone" you speak of? I realize you have a substantially high opinion of yourself, but even you do not qualify as "everyone". And even with you I don't recall ever having a cross word. eCommunications doesn't qualify as diddly. If you are find yourself seeing red from an email or post it is high time you took a little rest from it for a while.

Try to do a little catching up on what really matters in your life... hopefully that will not be some message board nemisis... (which I don't consider you or anyone for that matter).