Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Nov 01 2004, 02:42 AM
I am looking for clarification on the 2 meter rule. The PDGA radio announcement for Oct. 11 had a segment titled: "the end of the 2 meter rule," but after listening it sounds to me like the following is true:

The 2 meter rule is still in effect but TD's can send a request to the Competition Director of the PDGA that the 2 meter rule be waived for any given tournament.

Absent special permission by the Competition Director, the 2 meter OB rule remains in effect for all PDGA play.

The Kentucky State Championships (doubles on Saturday; singles on Sunday) are being held next weekend at the pro-par 72 course at Idlewild near Cincinnati and the TD wanted me to find out what the situation is regarding this. (The course has a lot of tight fairways and dense foliage). Thanks for your help.

ck34
Nov 01 2004, 07:50 AM
The 2 meter rule is still in effect but TD's can send a request to the Competition Director of the PDGA that the 2 meter rule be waived for any given tournament.



This is correct for the remainder of 2004.

Starting in 2005, the 2 meter rule will be optional and applied only where the course pro/TD wishes to apply it on specific tree(s), specific hole(s) or on the whole course.

johnrock
Nov 01 2004, 11:41 AM
Is there somewhere I can print-out this information? Some of the hardcore older players who haven't kept up with all of the rules changes over the years are never going to believe this one, but I think if I post it on the map board at the course, it will help ease the shock ;)

ck34
Nov 01 2004, 12:52 PM
You will likely get something printed in your renewal packet and election ballot coming later this month to all current members.

chappyfade
Nov 01 2004, 04:07 PM
You will be getting some information on this in your 2005 renewal packet.

Essentially, starting in 2005, the default rule will be that a lie over 2 meters will not be assessed a penalty throw. TDs may still choose to keep the 2m penalty if they wish, as they would choose their OBs and mandos and such.

Right now, the 2m penalty is still in effect. TDs that wish to be exempted from the rule for a 2004 tourney should email me at chappyfade@kc.rr.com

I have been granting exemptions for any TD that wants one, and I will continue to do so through the end of the year until the rule change occurs. I feel this is a good way to test the new rule for next year.

John Chapman
PDGA Competition Director

neonnoodle
Nov 01 2004, 04:52 PM
John,

What has been the general impression of folks playing in events with the 2 meter rule not in effect?

Thanks,
Nick

gnduke
Nov 01 2004, 05:06 PM
relaxed /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

chappyfade
Nov 02 2004, 11:54 AM
Nick,

So far the reaction has been very positive. It was very well received at USDGC and a tournament in Maine this weekend.

Chap

daveoh
Nov 02 2004, 02:56 PM
Can someone please explain just how this new "non-rule" will be applied? In a tournament where the 2-meter rule is NOT applied, does this mean that you just mark your lie directly below your treed disc and proceed with no penalty? Even if it is 10, 15, 20 meters high? Or will it mean that any disc that is reachable (up to 10-15 ft) can be played without a penalty? Or is this all still to be determined or at the discretion of the TD?
Confused :confused:

neonnoodle
Nov 02 2004, 03:03 PM
Dave,

Read our current rules.

By default the 2 meter rule will NOT be in effect at all PDGA events in 2005.

TDs wanting to still use it will have to announce at the players meeting where it is in effect (the whole course, this hole, a group of trees or just a single tree).

If it is not in effect, then you follow all of our rules short of taking a penalty throw for your disc being above 2 meters. Our rules describe EXACTLY how to handle it (i.e. mark your lie on the playing surface below and play on...).

There is nothing complicated about it other than you are accustomed to taking a penalty throw and now you don't.

Hope that helped.

Nick

daveoh
Nov 02 2004, 03:14 PM
OK then-
What if everyone in the group saw it go into the top of a tree, but it can't be seen from below. Is this played as a lost disc? And what if the disc cant be retreived within a reasonable time, with the help of every one in the group- wouldn't that also fall into the lost disc category if you can't get it?
I don't think its as clear cut as you are saying, at least to average golfers like me, as opposed to rule zealots like you. :D
Sorry you think its a stupid question - I don't.
Thanks for your assistance.

Sharky
Nov 02 2004, 03:28 PM
There is a discussion of all that somewhere out in DISCussion land. My opinion is that if the disc cannot be seen then you need to take a 1 stroke lost disc penalty and play it that way. If it can be seen and identified to the satisfaction of a majority of the group then no penalty. This will add another important element to consider, with the current 2 meter penalty either that or the lost disc penalty work out the same, not anymore.

neonnoodle
Nov 02 2004, 03:52 PM
Not a stupid question Dave, just one where our rules already cover all that needs to be covered. Check'em out.

A lost disc is a lost disc, doesn't matter where it disappeared, it is lost. If you can't identify a disc then it is lost, if you can then, well, you can. Individuals and groups make judgment decisions all the time about rules.

It is not a valid reason to keep a dumb rule.

Regards,
Nick

daveoh
Nov 02 2004, 04:13 PM
Thanks,
But I wasn't advocating keeping the 2M rule. Just looking for clarification. Group concensus is great and all, but don't you think there needs to be some kind of ruling on a un-retreivable, but visible disc?

For example - a disc goes into deep OB water about 10 feet from shore. Everyone can see it, but the thrower won't go swimming. There is no need for a lost disc ruling, because the player takes a penalty for going OB.

If, on the other hand, this was declared casual water by the TD, the player would have the option of swimming or taking a penalty for an unplayable lie, and throwing from the appropriate playable lie.

Now that the 2M rule will no longer be used, isn't the 100ft high treed disc kind of like the in-bounds but unplayable water shot? You can see it, but you can't retreive it. As I understand the ruling now, if I were in the group ruling on this, I would call that an unplayable lie, resulting in a penalty!

I am not just trying to be difficult - and I HAVE read the appropriate sections of the rule book. I just think this needs more discussion.

PS - thanks for the insight Nick - I appreciate your expertise, as I'm sure does the rest of our happy community :D

(Just trying to be difficult)
Dave

rhett
Nov 02 2004, 04:19 PM
There is no unplayable lie rule in disc golf.

The unsafe lie rule allows the thrower to declare any lie unsafe without needing a reason. Only the thrower can invoke the unsafe lie rule, so you cannot "call it" on someone else.

neonnoodle
Nov 02 2004, 04:35 PM
Group concensus is great and all, but don't you think there needs to be some kind of ruling on a un-retreivable, but visible disc?



No more than there was before the 2 meter became optional. But yes, in general, I agree that this could be tightened up a bit. Still, if it is right there and it is exactly where everyone saw it go and you can identify it, but can not retrieve it, then a judgment call is necessary, and our rules already "benefit of the doubt" goes to the thrower.

There is no grand gap in this that some unscrupulous lout is going to take advantage of us over. (Unlike stance violations and whacking down obstacles to throwing motion or flight path...)

johnrock
Nov 02 2004, 04:41 PM
If you can see your disc 100ft. up in the tree, mark it with your mini directly below, take a legal stance, make your next throw, and move on! No penalties, no sweat, and 1 less disc to carry through that round!

neonnoodle
Nov 02 2004, 04:57 PM
How many 10 story trees do you guys have? I didn't know you lived with the Ewoks... ;)

johnrock
Nov 02 2004, 05:02 PM
It's hard to tell how tall the trees around here actually are. This FREAKING wind has them all bent over so you can just grab your disc right out of the top :D And then with this snow today (8 inches plus), they are probably going to break in half :eek:

Znash
Nov 02 2004, 07:03 PM
What if your disc is on the ground so you mark it make your throw and then forget to pick it up. Does this count a lost disc? You know where it is but you left it there so it may be a lost disc, but you don't take a lost disc penalty for it. So, why would you have to take a lost disc penalty for a disc left in a tree.

Nov 03 2004, 03:53 AM
For example - a disc goes into deep OB water about 10 feet from shore. Everyone can see it, but the thrower won't go swimming. There is no need for a lost disc ruling, because the player takes a penalty for going OB.



Only if the water was designated as OB right. if the water was not designated at the beginning of the round or on the map as OB then there is no reason the disc golfer cannot wade in and throw from where his/her disc is at rest. If the disc is in water to deep to throw from, just mark the lie directly above it and throw while treading water.

This would not only bring a slew of interesting shots into the game, but leeches and watermoccasins as well. :D

neonnoodle
Nov 03 2004, 09:51 AM
For example - a disc goes into deep OB water about 10 feet from shore. Everyone can see it, but the thrower won't go swimming. There is no need for a lost disc ruling, because the player takes a penalty for going OB.



Only if the water was designated as OB right. if the water was not designated at the beginning of the round or on the map as OB then there is no reason the disc golfer cannot wade in and throw from where his/her disc is at rest. If the disc is in water to deep to throw from, just mark the lie directly above it and throw while treading water.

This would not only bring a slew of interesting shots into the game, but leeches and watermoccasins as well. :D



In order for the disc to be OB, it must be reasonably decided by the group or player that the disc came to rest in an OB area (for water OBs that means that the moment it stops moving of it's own power and starts moving by the motion of the water it is at rest and is OB). Scenarios could go on until the end of time, but it comes down to the judgment of the player (group, official or TD) as to whether the disc is OB AND also in identifying discs that are irretrievable. Which are not always the same thing: a disc that is seen to disappear into an deep OB water hazard IS OB regardless of whether or not it can be found or identified; when it is not �seen� is where �Lost Disc� comes into play. Either way our rules currently cover what action is appropriate.

Taken to the example of flying into a tree 100 feet up (?) and the same conclusion as seeing it fly into the surface of an OB water hazard IS NOT APPROPRIATE. If the disc can not be found in this case, regardless of whether it was seen to hit a tree or not, it can not be judged to have come to rest above 2 meters. It is a lost disc and must be played that way. If it is found in a tree 100 feet up (?) then it is played according to the rules that way. Now, if in the judgment of the player it is identifiable as his disc, but in the judgment of the group or an official it is not identifiable, the player can either accept their ruling and play it as a lost disc (where they all last saw it), and play a �Provisional Throw� from under the disc in question and let the TD decide later. Again, either way our rules currently cover what action is appropriate.

Please buy and read your rule book.

terrilldisc
Nov 09 2004, 02:14 PM
Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under. Lets just see who can jack the longest shot. Lets just forget about the rest of the game.
Why not just go out and remove all the trees. Whats next .....

Nov 09 2004, 05:05 PM
If you can see your disc 100ft. up in the tree, mark it with your mini directly below, take a legal stance, make your next throw, and move on! No penalties, no sweat, and 1 less disc to carry through that round!



You can get away with that once, but I'll stroke you the 2nd time for littering.

james_mccaine
Nov 09 2004, 05:11 PM
The best way to have this questioned answered is to send Nick Kight a private message and ask him. :p Just kidding.

You may want to listen to the PDGA Radio broadcast where they interviewed Carlton Howard. He gave a good synopsis of the pros and cons and why the decision was made. I think the broadcast was the week before the USDGC or maybe two weeks.

sandalman
Nov 09 2004, 05:56 PM
Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under.


a) that would force players to develop and use their SKILZ!,
b) that makes too much sense,
c) that wouldnt make nick happy.

so now you can forget about skils, just honk the hyzer up and over the trees and who cares if it gets caught up 25' directly over the basket.

welcome to the world of DRAT (discs resting above top)!

Nov 10 2004, 01:18 AM
Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out?



the reason Carlton Howard said he changed his mind on this rule was first -- hitting a tree is usually a bad shot to begin with and penalty enough and second -- two discs thrown into the same tree are not likely to do the same thing and so a stroke or not comes down to random luck, unlike a lake or a street or mando where two discs thrown into the same area are likely to end up with the same result.

Resistance to change is natural but let's give this new rule a chance. There are still drawbacks of hitting and sticking up in a tree. That disc may be unavailable to you till after the round. Also you have to mark verticly below where you are so you may not get a great lie. Has anyone heard how the top pros on the NT felt about the new rule when it was auditioned this year at the USDGC?

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 09:38 AM
And remember, it's still up to the TD/course pro to apply the 2-meter rule where it makes sense. Some courses may play no different next year from the way they do now if the course pro prefers. Imagine if we changed the rule such that water wasn't OB any more but it's only water that the TD calls OB. Oh wait! That IS our current rule (just like the revised 2-meter rule).

sandalman
Nov 10 2004, 09:49 AM
the reason Carlton Howard said he changed his mind on this rule was first -- hitting a tree is usually a bad shot to begin with and penalty enough...

this part of the reasoning is so incredibly wrong i am surprised it held up during any discussion.

case a) a couple of trees frame the sides of a short fairway, and for the most part define the route to the pin. a disc that clears might yield a birdie, but only if thrown just about perfectly. a disc that hits and hangs in a tree will rarely if ever yield a birdie, but will also rarely if ever yield a bogie (in 2005). net result of hanging in tree : a more demanding upshot - not really any penalty at all.

case b) tree'd fairway, basket surrounded by trees, options at the tee are an open but demanding low line to basket, probably a three is well executed, or a high air shot over the trees designed to come down somewhere close to basket. this is one of the classic risk-reward scenarios in disc golf. do i keep the disc down, avoid disc eating trees, and rely on one brilliant drive or two well-executed low shots to get there, or do i throw caution to the wind and bust a big air shot, hoping that the trees let me drop and i get a birdie putt. removing the penalty potential from the airshot destroys the risk-reward balance of the hole.

granted, some shots that stick in trees are just plain bad luck. but so what? the goal is not to eliminate all luck is it? how do you eliminate good luck?

with all of the recent emphasis on hole design and accentuating risk-reward scenarios, it is amazing that the default ruling now eliminates one of the most frequently considered risk scenarios.

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 10:11 AM
Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under. Lets just see who can jack the longest shot. Lets just forget about the rest of the game.
Why not just go out and remove all the trees. Whats next .....



Annie,

You are being a little over alarmist here. None of what you said will change, other than the fact that the TD can decide not to give a penalty for it.

But if you think it will ruin what disc golf "IS", then by all means I suggest, for your own piece of mind, that you continue to stroke yourself for your discs that come to rest 2 meters above the playing surface. I'm sure noone will mind.

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 10:16 AM
Just an opinion on the 2 meter rule.
Trees have been an obstacle that have plaqued many golfer. Why take the penality out. Why not take out the roller . Why not take out the finesse. Why not just take out the rest of skills of shooting around trees and under.


a) that would force players to develop and use their SKILZ!,
b) that makes too much sense,
c) that wouldnt make nick happy.

so now you can forget about skils, just honk the hyzer up and over the trees and who cares if it gets caught up 25' directly over the basket.

welcome to the world of DRAT (discs resting above top)!



Ah, Genius, the TD can still designate any area he wants as having the 2 meter crutch in effect. So trees around the basket could be designated such an area.

Furthermore, players will throw that shot regardless of whether the 2 meter stool is in effect or not, because it has the best chance of scoring well.

There is no method of developing a skill of not sticking in a tree above 2 meters, and that is why the rule is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 10:26 AM
There is also no method for developing a shot that rolls OB and then back in. Or any lucky roll, bounce, kick, etc. So should we consider those shots OB?

Eliminate all luck, good and bad.

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 11:04 AM
There is also no method for developing a shot that rolls OB and then back in.



Apparently, you haven't played the USDGC with yellow rope or any course with OB (and across) asphalt paths.

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 11:11 AM
There is also no method for developing a shot that rolls OB and then back in. Or any lucky roll, bounce, kick, etc. So should we consider those shots OB?

Eliminate all luck, good and bad.



Or to further this logic: There is also no method for developing a shot that flies over OB and then back in. So should we consider those shots OB? :p

Look, discs do not randomly tumble down towards inbounds when they come to rest in OB areas. They do in trees. Usually the result of hitting a tree is not desired. If it is desired, then the hole, in my opinion, is a) poorly designed and b) could utilize OB to far more effectively keep people from consciously trying to hit that tree. Either way, the 2 meter rule is of no significant use. It is essentially a crutch for poorly designed holes.

sandalman
Nov 10 2004, 11:22 AM
Either way, the 2 meter rule is of no significant use. It is essentially a crutch for poorly designed holes.

or for holes on courses in the woods.

HAVE YOU ANTI-2METER FOLKS EVER FOUND YOURSELF THINKING:

"well, i could take a low straight shot and hit that 5meter gap 150 feet in front of me, or i could bust a hyzer (thumber, whatever) over top and hope like hades i dont get stuck in the trees"

if you have had such a thought, then you can appreciate the 2-meter rule. if you havent, then may i repsectfully suggest you go find a REAL, challenging disc golf course.

either way, congratulations - YOU JUST TOOK ALL OF THE RISK AND 75% OF THE SKILL OUT OF SUCH HOLES!

the DEFAULT rules condition should be with the 2-meter rule in effect. the EXCEPTION should be no 2-meter rule, on a course/hole/area/tree basis. you all got it backwards.

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 11:35 AM
Either way, the 2 meter rule is of no significant use. It is essentially a crutch for poorly designed holes.

or for holes on courses in the woods.

HAVE YOU ANTI-2METER FOLKS EVER FOUND YOURSELF THINKING:

"well, i could take a low straight shot and hit that 5meter gap 150 feet in front of me, or i could bust a hyzer (thumber, whatever) over top and hope like hades i dont get stuck in the trees"

if you have had such a thought, then you can appreciate the 2-meter rule. if you havent, then may i repsectfully suggest you go find a REAL, challenging disc golf course.

either way, congratulations - YOU JUST TOOK ALL OF THE RISK AND 75% OF THE SKILL OUT OF SUCH HOLES!

the DEFAULT rules condition should be with the 2-meter rule in effect. the EXCEPTION should be no 2-meter rule, on a course/hole/area/tree basis. you all got it backwards.



Pat,

You ever played Seneca? I have. One word: Cedars. When I get up on 14 of 18 tee pads and look at the fairways, I never think about sticking above 2 meters, I think about how my roller is going to make it through the biggest available gap (usually about 150 feet out and about 2 feet wide).

Better players than me might throw more air shots, feeling that they can reach those 380 foot holes through a tiny air gap between the Cedars, they go for it. Are they thinking about sticking above two meters? I'm not sure, but I doubt it, otherwise they'd be throwing rollers. The thing about Seneca is that it is no longer a premiere course, it peaked about 13 years ago and has grown in way too much. It still has 3 or 4 awesome holes, but many of the holes really need a redesign (which I recall Craig promising 4 or 5 years ago). The 2 meter rule has not protected key Cedars there either. The one just in front of the tee on hole 18 is so f ed up it is sad, and other key ones around the course have sticks and stones stuck up in them with branches broken off, etc.. The only areas that have survived the traffic through the years are the ones marked OB (the �Jails�). You would think there would be a clear lesson in there�

I know you have a thing for me Pat, but stop and think for a moment.

Nick

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 11:44 AM
Chuck, I'm refering to the lucky rolls, etc.

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 12:04 PM
I think a more constructive direction for this thread might be to determine where the 2-meter penalty should still apply on courses in your area starting in 2005. The rule has changed so we need to systematically go thru our courses, decide where it will apply and communicate in some way to our local players (not that rec players always call penalties anyway). I've just started this process in Minnesota. Perhaps noting where the penalty applies in the Course Directory Description is something that should be done if the specs aren't too long. For example, on one of our courses I'm proposing that the cedar tree on #6 be the only 2-meter penalty.

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 12:24 PM
More constructive yes.
More confusing yes. (This tree, but not that one or that one or that one, those two over there....)
A overhand specialist's delight yes. Why consider the skillful shot when you can now bludgeon the course to death?

On a course that is heavily wooded, selective designation will not work effectively, even with a Player's Program eight pages long with GPS maps of which trees are OB and which are not.

This could have been fixed by declaring >2m as OB, either play direct under the disc or from the last point, with a 1 shot penalty. Avoids the double jeopardy scenario of a bad lie from under the tree, which is the reason (or part of the reason) that a change was considered in the first place, right?

Isn't the goal to make the rules easier to understand so they can be enforced better? As a certified official, I can see where this is going to create problems with rulings, especially if the trees selectively designated are marked on a map or in the program only (and not on the course proper).

gnduke
Nov 10 2004, 12:29 PM
Here's an idea, Plant OB flower beds or shrubbery beds around the trees that you think should be protected. Much better protection than the possibility that the disk might stick in a tree. If the ground is OB, it either must penetrate the tree, or it is OB whether it hangs or drops into the flower bed.

Plus we get better looking courses.

Nov 10 2004, 12:31 PM
Nick sez:

There is no method of developing a skill of not sticking in a tree above 2 meters, and that is why the rule is, for lack of a better word, stupid.



Hmm...I thought that 'skill' was called 'accuracy'. :o

james_mccaine
Nov 10 2004, 12:33 PM
That's a good point Tony. You mentioned this earlier Chuck, but a clearer way that would avoid Tony's concern is to designate the rule in play by hole, rather than by specific tree. This would eliminate the need for maps.


Why consider the skillful shot when you can now bludgeon the course to death?




I agree with the sentiment, but in my experience, those people are not going to be deterred by the threat of a penalty.

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 12:41 PM
It may be hard to determine what common sense is (as a regular poster on this board) but specific trees should only be identified for penalty if they are easily identified. I assume TX has holes where there's only one tree so identifying the tree or hole would mean the same thing /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

In many cases, identifying specifying holes or the whole course would be more appropriate than individual trees.

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 12:46 PM
Here's an idea, Plant OB flower beds or shrubbery beds around the trees that you think should be protected. Much better protection than the possibility that the disk might stick in a tree. If the ground is OB, it either must penetrate the tree, or it is OB whether it hangs or drops into the flower bed.

Plus we get better looking courses.



(sarcasm on)
I'm sure HPRD and Harris County would be more than willing to consider this...
(sarcasm off)

gnduke
Nov 10 2004, 01:03 PM
I think you should have a pretty good chance of getting a parks department to accept free plants and labor.

sandalman
Nov 10 2004, 01:09 PM
not many holes in texas have only one tree! the difference is that once you get past east texas the trees are predominantly shorter (20-40 foot). therefore, it is extremely common to hear the competing voices, one saying "crash the top and risk the OB", the other saying "throw the straight shot". i submit that every course in DFW, with the possible exception of Grand Prairie, elicits such decisions at some point in virtually every round.

nick, i am not out to get you, and i certainly dont have a "thing" for you. your responses are yet another case of you internalizing an argument to the degree that you attack the person whenever someone disagrees with your position.

chuck has the right solution - apply the rule specifically by hole or course. it all would have been easier if the rule stayed in place by default and the TD could suspend the rule at his/her discretion. but i guess what is good for seneca is good for everyone.

Znash
Nov 10 2004, 01:35 PM
How can you argue that not being OB in a tree is a bad thing? Maybe you can only throw >300 or maybe you can�t throw your disc over the 40ft trees in texas. I think it is a great ideal to get reed of the 2m rule because it is all based on luck. If my disc got stuck in a tree I would take 2-3min. to get to my disc and hope that a strong wind would blow it out of the tree, if not I took the stroke and played the hole but if it did fall yippee!!! The other problem with the rule was how could you know a disc was 2m above play especially if it was close.

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 01:43 PM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this is the fact that Sweden had already suspended the 2-meter rule for I believe 2 years. By making the 2-meter rule optional starting in 2005, it automatically brings the Swedes in line (having no 2-meter penalty anywhere is the same as having the option and not using it) so the new rule can be internationally consistent.

I'm interested if there are any Swedes reading this whether you've had any problems dealing with some of the disc identification in high places/lost disc issues discussed here. I haven't heard of any or you would have thought they would have commented to the Rules Committee regarding problems they might have encountered in this area when they removed the penalty.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 10 2004, 02:20 PM
"well, i could take a low straight shot and hit that 5meter gap 150 feet in front of me, or i could bust a hyzer (thumber, whatever) over top and hope like hades i dont get stuck in the trees"

if you have had such a thought, then you can appreciate the 2-meter rule. if you havent, then may i repsectfully suggest you go find a REAL, challenging disc golf course.

either way, congratulations - YOU JUST TOOK ALL OF THE RISK AND 75% OF THE SKILL OUT OF SUCH HOLES!




Are saying that a Spike Hyzer over high trees thats crashes back in directly above the basket doesnt take skill. Or throwing a Thumber that drops right on top of the pin doesnt take skill. Those shots take just as much skill as throwing down the pipe. Not everyone throws the same shots unless they are forced too. The thing is if i throw the spike hyzer and get stuck in a tree directly above the basket i take a circle 3 for sure. You shoot the gap and hit a tree 100 ft off the tee and kick deep in the woods. Then you pitch back to the fairway make your upshot and make 4. I would have to say that the smarter shot was going over the top because before now even if you got stuck in the top you still are putting for your 3. Now i am simply putting for a 2 which is how it should be. Because i could throw 10 spike hyzers all on the same line over the top of the trees and 6 would get threw and 4 would get stuck. Then i could throw 10 more and 9 could get threw and 1 could get stuck. Then 10 more and 3 could get threw and 7 get stuck. A penalty stroke should not be a matter of luck. At worlds this year on # 1 at Big Creek i threw a perfect thumber that would have landed no more then 10 ft from the basket for an easy 2. Instead i get a penalty for being over 6ft 6in on branches that arent even half as wide as my pinky finger. I mean seriously i threw a GREAT shot that would have been PARKED but this TINY tree kept me OB so i had to take a circle 3 instead of my easy 2. How fair is that??? Never in a MILLION years did i think this tree could EVER grab a disc and keep it 2 meters above the ground :mad: Now that is just BAD LUCK and that should not result in a penalty stroke. Now if you throw in the water thats not bad luck. If you throw OB thats not bad luck. If you get stuck in a tree 2 meters above the ground THAT IS BAD LUCK!!!!!!!!!

Thank god the 2 meter rule is optional :D

rhett
Nov 10 2004, 03:54 PM
It seems like the opinion on this topic is polarized based on where you live. So in the interests on not acting like Nick, I will not call anyone who disagrees with me (this one time) a stupid moron. Nick has called people that enough in this thread.

It seems like it is the "cedar tree people" versus "not-cedar tree people". Out here in SoCal, and from the arguments from most of the Texans, the trees are more sparse. Hitting a tree and falling to the playing surface below it is rarely disastrous. It is typically a very easy par save, unless you hit a tree near the pin where it is a birdie chance. The risk of hitting the trees is the penalty stroke. Remove that risk around here and there is very little reason to not just aim for trees as backstops. If you stick or not, you are fine. Go for the risky tree lined shot because even if you stick if will be an easy par save if not a birdie. That's why I hate eliminating the 2-meter penalty. Skillful players don't hit the trees around here. They go for the "miss the tree" route. Sometimes they hit one, but they generally go for the route that is more open. Unless it is one of those backstop holes where they drill the line of trees and know that they get an easy three if they stick or a two if they don't.

It seems like in cedar country, if you get stuck in a tree you end up with an 'orrible lie and saving par is dicey at best even without a penalty stroke. It sounds to me like a lot 5s are taken when a tree-stroke is issued. I don't know what the deal is out there, but that sounds like a great reason to not risk the tree lined route to me. (I don't know why it's such a huge issue unless people don't like to play golf, which includes course management and risk/reward evaluations.) So.....I hear this "double jeopardy" mixed in with all the "it's just nor FAIR" stuff about how one disc sticks and one doesn't.

So it sounds like the big difference in people's stance on this issue is what kind of lie you have when you get a 2-meter penalty. Out here it is usually an easy 4, and people seem to generally want the 2-meter rule to remain in tact. In Nick-ville it sounds like a 5 is a more standard score if you get a cedar-induced 2-meter penalty, and those people hate that penalty.

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 04:02 PM
So it sounds like the big difference in people's stance on this issue is what kind of lie you have when you get a 2-meter penalty. Out here it is usually an easy 4, and people seem to generally want the 2-meter rule to remain in tact. In Nick-ville it sounds like a 5 is a more standard score if you get a cedar-induced 2-meter penalty, and those people hate that penalty.



So why not give the option of playing below the lie OR throwing from the previous lie, each with the 1 shot penalty? Then we could accurately describe >2m as being OB. :)

terrilldisc
Nov 10 2004, 04:05 PM
This is America, if you need to change things according to other countries then leave.
What a stupid reason I ever heard of.
I cant believed I served my country for blanks like you

rhett
Nov 10 2004, 04:08 PM
I didn't mention other countries. You sure you replied to the right message in this thread???

Nov 10 2004, 04:12 PM
At worlds this year on # 1 at Big Creek i threw a perfect thumber that would have landed no more then 10 ft from the basket for an easy 2. Instead i get a penalty for being over 6ft 6in on branches that arent even half as wide as my pinky finger. I mean seriously i threw a GREAT shot that would have been PARKED but this TINY tree kept me OB so i had to take a circle 3 instead of my easy 2. How fair is that??? Never in a MILLION years did i think this tree could EVER grab a disc and keep it 2 meters above the ground Now that is just BAD LUCK and that should not result in a penalty stroke.



How is throwing a thumber there a GREAT shot? Most everyone else that got a 2 threw a big hyzer around the trees and landed near or skipped up to the pin. Not to take away from your thumber, cause that is a lot of D to carry, but when you take the chance of going into the trees you might not get lucky. Notice that I didn't say you were unlucky by sticking. If you are going to throw into the trees then you need to figure you'll probably stick. If you don't that's GOOD luck. It's not BAD luck if you do.

Look at it another way. You won't get stroked for being 2m up by hitting nothing but air. Unless you're in SoCal maybe. :D

Rhett, you might be right about the Nick-ville theory. The only problem is, while Nick-ville might be a town somewhere in the North East, it's not as populated as some think. :D

sandalman
Nov 10 2004, 04:41 PM
i was gonna refrain from any more posting on this thread, but Dan, that last sentence was just tooooo funny :D

and rhett, the okie was referring to the stated reason that removing the 2meter rule was due in part to making the US rules just like the swedish rules. while i dont share the okie's venom, i do admit to scratching my head overthat particular answer also.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 10 2004, 04:44 PM
How is throwing a thumber there a GREAT shot? Most everyone else that got a 2 threw a big hyzer around the trees and landed near or skipped up to the pin. Not to take away from your thumber, cause that is a lot of D to carry, but when you take the chance of going into the trees you might not get lucky. Notice that I didn't say you were unlucky by sticking. If you are going to throw into the trees then you need to figure you'll probably stick. If you don't that's GOOD luck. It's not BAD luck if you do.



Maybe it was hole 10. There was no risk in throwing the thumber. Its a dead straight hole a little uphill with 2 trees with tiny branches behind the pin maybe 8 or 10 feet. :confused: Plus ANY shot from the tee pad that would land 10 feet from the pin is a GREAT shot. :D

ck34
Nov 10 2004, 04:53 PM
The World Flying Disc Federation (WFDF) and PDGA rules have been the same for a long time. The optional 2-meter rule is a solution that allows all designers (countries) to remain within the same rules everywhere. No one has to eliminate it. It's a course by course decision. I don't have a vote on the Rules Committee or the PDGA Board so there's no reason to get ticked at me, and for that matter anyone, since the rule is still around.

james_mccaine
Nov 10 2004, 04:55 PM
As evidenced by this thread. Some people hate the rule and some don't. That leads me to believe the rules committee did a good job because all of us now will sometimes have to put up with a rule we think stinks.

Equal suffering equals fairness. ;)

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 06:37 PM
This is America, if you need to change things according to other countries then leave.
What a stupid reason I ever heard of.
I cant believed I served my country for blanks like you



Hey, if you don't like your country-men then maybe YOU SHOULD MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY!

neonnoodle
Nov 10 2004, 06:46 PM
Nick sez:

There is no method of developing a skill of not sticking in a tree above 2 meters, and that is why the rule is, for lack of a better word, stupid.



Hmm...I thought that 'skill' was called 'accuracy'. :o



So once your throw is tumbling through a tree how is "accuracy" going to help you?

And if you are going to say not hitting trees is the accuracy, then you quite obviously have never played the game of disc golf before...

I can go a whole round without going OB, I have never, to my knowledge, ever, myself or observing other players, ever seen a round where not one tree was hit.

And for the genius' out there that see the sky falling, "Hello" the rule is still available for weak courses and weak designs... ;)

tbender
Nov 10 2004, 06:50 PM
And for the genius' out there that see the sky falling, "Hello" the rule is still available for weak courses and weak designs... ;)



Nick, please come play Veteran's, Cameron East, Live Oak, San Saba, Wimberley (among others) and tell me then that the designs are weak.

rhett
Nov 10 2004, 07:21 PM
I can go a whole round without going OB, I have never, to my knowledge, ever, myself or observing other players, ever seen a round where not one tree was hit.


Come and play Emerald Isle and go a whole round without going OB.

Nick, your logic is twisted. "Nick has never gone a whole round without hitting a tree, therefore 'not hitting trees' is not a skill."

Hey Nick, I have never gone a whole without missing a putt. Therefore hitting putts is not a skill. It's all luck. The same putt, hitting the same outside chain, sometimes it tumbles in and sometimes it tumbles out. That just isn't fair! We should eliminate putting. Get your putter inside the circle and pick up.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

bruce_brakel
Nov 10 2004, 09:13 PM
Millz: if you want to promote some true-am events next year [or undermine them, depending upon how one views your role in the process ;)] I'll call the two-meter rule however you want. We should look at the draft schedule on Saturday if the concept is working for you.

Nov 11 2004, 08:20 PM
It seems to me the Rules Committee should be given more credit for having thought this thing through. There are pros and cons to keeping or getting rid of the rule and I'm willing to give the rule a chance. My home course has tons of trees and offers plenty of risk reward shots involving a lot of trees. If you hit a tree you often kick left or right off line. Or, even if you stick in a tree and don't take a penalty, you still are often left with a bad lie. There are some cedar trees that guard pins on 1, 7, and 18 -- but if you're caught in them on the tee side of the basket your resulting lie is very tough (although less so on hole 7).

I think what the rules committe decision did was eliminate the luck involved if a foursome all hit the same tree in the same place -- because often only 1 of 4 will stay up. Go throw at some trees and see how repeatable 'sticking' is. If you have one of those net trees that catch anything the TD can declare it OB, 2m and above... if he or she likes.

At the USDGC this year the top pros all played the new rule. If the USDGC planners decided to play without it, maybe we should give it a chance. I think there are some people who really care about the sport of disc golf involved in the USDGC...

sandalman
Nov 11 2004, 09:40 PM
Either way, the 2 meter rule is of no significant use. It is essentially a crutch for poorly designed holes.

i just cant let this one go.
i know the disc golf varies dramatically from region to region. in the six years i've been playing i lived in santa cruz, arlington, scottsdale and austin, and played most of the courses within striking range of those cities. anyone who has played these courses could state with confidence that the 2-meter is not just "a crutch for poorly designed holes".

like most soundbites, that one has just enough unreasoned truth to seduce the uninformed. yes, it might salvage some crappy holes, but allow me to offer a few examples of the 2-meter rule offering a very real element of risk-reward.

for starters, lets look at I-5 at DeLaveaga. its a long dogleg left. the first section is prolly 300 at least of wide open fairway. you then turn left and face another 150-200 of a narrow left curve to the basket. the line to the basket does not let you rise above about 10-12 feet max. it is a very challenging hole - you need a well placed first shot to set up what needs to be an outstanding shot for the 3. a mediocre second shot can yield a 4 with a decent third. the second shot can be a nice low line, or a roller. now, there is a third option - a huge hyzer (annie for righties) over those nasty trees. there are essentially three risks associated with this approach: 1) you wont clear the trees in the first place (beggin for a 5 if that happens), 2) you'll drop deep into the ravine to the left of the basket (begging for a 5 again), and 3) you'll get stuck in a tree on the way down. if we assume your big air is on the proper line when it gets caught in the tree, you'll be left with a demanding putt for the circle4. a little short, left, or right will realistically end up a circle6. BUT - the air shot from mid fairway offers a very real chance at the eleusive three! take away the 2meter penalty and the air shot is almost guaranteed to be as good as all but the very best second shots down the approach lane. no 2meter rule dramatically changes this hole and removes the risk from its most dramatic risk-reward scenario.

now lets head west to #9 at the Vet. in short position it is 200 straight, with large oaks to left and right, and thick high shule halfway down the fairway. the long position is rucked left of the short, underneath a few large oaks and many smaller trees under the oak canopy. for righties the basic approach is a low shot, straight or with a fade, depending on pin position. if you hit the line there really is not much risk. the lefty needs a well executed turnover or two finger. the righty alternative is a hyzer - not really much risk in the short position, but much more so in long. there was not really any hyzer available for the lefty - UNTIL the 2meter rule went bye bye. now all you need to do is crash the trees and who cares if it sticks or not - i can get it within 30 feet probably 90% of the time, since i dont need to hit any specific openings and dont care how high it sticks. the removal of the 2meter rule destroys what was a very nice balance in the hole design.

from veterans we'll go south to the capital - in fact, we'll look at Peace Park's signature hole #14 - from the teepad the capital spire bursts above the tree line, and makes a spectacular scene in any light. the hole is maybe 300 (?). from the teepad you face a thick jail on the right and serious trouble on the left maybe a 8 meter window from 50-70 feet that bends from left to right. after a clearing at the halfway mark you face a picket fence of oak and other trees. theres a nice low rightie line to the right, or a couple very tight ( < one meter) hole and lanes through the trees. it is a difficult three that requires a well placed drive and solid up. the low lane will yield a two in only the most rare cases - and would be pure luck. BUT there's a air ball by busting an annie straight at the capital dome. while many players can reach it most declined to take the chance because 1) you need to hit an upper window off the tee that is made smaller because of the speed you need to reach the pin over the trees, and 2) the trees are 100% certified, mean-spirited disc munchers. they've got more grip than jerry rice. you have to really throw caution to the wind to take a shot at the drop-in shot. with no 2 meter rule, the most significant risk to the air shot is simply erased.

all three of these holes are well designed holes. with no 2 meter rule golfers are encouraged to forego a more technical approach to the hole in favor of a power shot that most any player has.

the removal of the 2 meter rule has discouraged the development of disc golf skills and removed a lot of the thinking process on holes like these.

courses that do NOT require such thinking and analysis are in much more need of a design quality assessment than any of these three courses.

ck34
Nov 11 2004, 09:59 PM
All you've done is made the case that some holes might benefit from retaining the 2-meter penalty. It doesn't make the generalized case that it should be retained as a blanket rule as before. I suggest lobbying the course pros/TDs to consider your rationale for retaining it on these holes next year. Again, it's little different from properly applying OB as a risk/reward design element, as Harold has demonstrated on the high profile Winthrop Gold.

neonnoodle
Nov 11 2004, 11:33 PM
You are just being reactionary Rhett. Try formulating an original thought please. If you can...

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 08:54 AM
chuck, i dont dispute your first sentence, although i feel its a bit more than "all". i'm not even gonna attempt to make a generalized case for retaining the rule, as it has already been decided, and TDs have the option of reinstating it.

i do feel it would have been better to keep the rule and allow TDs to suspend it than to remove it and let TDs re-implement it. the primary reason is that theres less potential for confusion in tournament situations when the exception is the new ruling as opposed to the exception being the reinstatement of the previous standard. i have no doubt there WILL be cases of TDs forgetting to reinstate the rule even though though they intended to. allowing the TDs to exempt something is much less dramatic than requiring them to reinstate something that was always there.

such an approach would have served those who wanted to repeal the 2 meter rule just as well, and would have had NO impact on those who wish to retain it. i'm not arguing that suspending the rule might make sense in certain regions or on certain courses. i just feel the pdga got the rollout backwards.

hey, we'll get used to it i'm sure. because the easiest and least confusing thing to do is to let the rule die, i suspect that in a year or so not many holes/courses will use it at all. and many well designed holes will be the worse for that.

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 09:12 AM
and many well designed holes will be the worse for that.



Care to explain why? Particularly in light of TDs being able to still use it around trees that might be advantagious to hit? Thought so... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 09:53 AM
i did explain why, nick, in detail using three holes on three seperate courses as examples. maybe the east coast is different, but around here we usually dont use trees as backstops. you need to read and think a little bit more and attempt to come up with subtle putdowns a little less.

Nov 12 2004, 10:03 AM
I still don't think you are addressing what seems to me to have been a deciding factor in the Rules Committee's decision. If three throws go into the same tree -- it is very unlikely even one will stick, but sometimes it will. When it does it is more a case of bad luck than anything else. (cedar trees may be an exception, in which case the TD can decide what s/he wants to do -- and as someone suggested an OB area underneathe a tree can always be created which will penalize lucky throws that don't stick as well as unlucky ones that do) Everyone will play with the same rule, so it won't really give anyone an advantage.

I suggest you try out the holes using the over the top method you think will now be more of a gimme. See how often your disc gets stuck . See how good a lie you get after hitting a tree whether it does or doesn't stick. I think you might be surprised.

At the USDGC they didn't use the 2m rule this year. Are you saying the holes there are poorly designed? :D

tbender
Nov 12 2004, 10:08 AM
At the USDGC they didn't use the 2m rule this year. Are you saying the holes there are poorly designed? :D


::cough:: ::cough:: Fencing, haybales, clown's mouth... ::cough:: ::cough::

Poor may not be the word, gimmicky might be better.

Nov 12 2004, 10:27 AM
You would probably like Idlewild better. No yellow string but plenty of challenge.

www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com) -- click on the "courses" tab and check it out online

That said, it is funny that Barry Schultz and a lot of other top pros -- with the game to play the course well -- give a lot of praise to what you describe as a "gimmicky" course

Lyle O Ross
Nov 12 2004, 10:52 AM
I still don't think you are addressing what seems to me to have been a deciding factor in the Rules Committee's decision. If three throws go into the same tree -- it is very unlikely even one will stick, but sometimes it will. When it does it is more a case of bad luck than anything else. (cedar trees may be an exception, in which case the TD can decide what s/he wants to do -- and as someone suggested an OB area underneathe a tree can always be created which will penalize lucky throws that don't stick as well as unlucky ones that do) Everyone will play with the same rule, so it won't really give anyone an advantage.

I suggest you try out the holes using the over the top method you think will now be more of a gimme. See how often your disc gets stuck . See how good a lie you get after hitting a tree whether it does or doesn't stick. I think you might be surprised.

At the USDGC they didn't use the 2m rule this year. Are you saying the holes there are poorly designed? :D



Here's the argument against Rob.

Three throwers approach the T-box. All three make identical throws on a dogleg left fairway. Thrower one throws straight down the fairway with a drive that would have gone 301 feet but a gust of wind kicks it down so it only goes 300 and it falls lying just inside the OB line at the bend in the dogleg. Player two throws the same identical line, no wind, and it goes 301 feet just past the OB line but his disc hits a clump of grass and kicks back so that it's edge is just IB. Player three throws the same identical line and also goes 301 feet, however, the grass clump has not straightened back up so that he does not have the identical field as players one and two (yes Nick?) so his disc doesn't kick off the grass and therefore stays OB. The point is that the differences here are luck, it's part of the game. As has been said before, if you don't want to take a chance that your disc will hang in the tree, don't throw in the tree. It's risk reward. I like the risk part of it, and as Stokely would say, know the numbers of your risk.

The goal of the two-meter rule is/was to eliminate people taking advantage and to keep people from deliberately throwing into trees (and in theory we support protecting the environment, at least it says that in our charter). Luck has nothing to do with the issue.

BTW - being an abominably bad thrower, I spend a lot of time in trees, my stick rate is about 30-40% depending on the tree (usually live oak) for me that represents a lot of risk.

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 10:58 AM
allow me to offer a few examples of the 2-meter rule offering a very real element of risk-reward.

1) I-5 at DeLaveaga Example Hole: the 2 meter rule does not enhance the design or play of this hole. And even if it did, and I don�t think it does, marking the area below that high risk area as OB would work fair more effectively and not penalize poor sods whose discs happen to stick up in the tree above 2 meters and not those who took the exact same line and fell below 2 meters.

2) #9 I would argue that this either �IS� a poorly designed hole or that that specific area that allows Lefties to hyser in and try to hit the trees needs to be made OB. That or move the tee pad slightly so that it is not an option.

3) Peace Park's signature hole #14 � It�s not really clear what your point is here, but it seems safe to say that hitting those trees, regardless of the 2 meter rule being in effect, is penalty enough. If it is not, then mark the area immediately below them as OB. They are not right next to the basket are they?


all three of these holes are well designed holes. with no 2 meter rule golfers are encouraged to forego a more technical approach to the hole in favor of a power shot that most any player has.



There may well be holes out there that rely on the 2 meter rule to add appropriate challenge, these do not appear to be them. In all honesty, I can think of none that do. And when OB is employed, or proper design, the need is nearly if not completely eliminated.


the removal of the 2 meter rule has discouraged the development of disc golf skills and removed a lot of the thinking process on holes like these.



So you, Pat, say. But you have not proven it, nor are you likely to in a discussion forum. The truth is we will all see how much or how little the removal of the 2 meter rule will effect the game of disc golf. My suspicion, based on over 20 years of playing the game is that it will not be significant, and may actually result in better course design and certainly more fair competition.

Besides, in all of your examples, none of the holes are made 'worse', they simply do not provide a stroke for coming to rest 2 meters above the playing surface...

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 11:12 AM
Lyle,

The problem with your analogy between OB and the 2 meter rule is that OB behaves far more consistently than does the 2 meter rule. When players hit trees the chances of tumbling back to an un-penalized area are way way better. In fact they are so much better, it is really just dumb random luck that they don't all tumble to the ground. This phenomenon is drastically different than the way OB behaves, where only shots thrown near the line will likely have any chance whatsoever of coming back in bounds. Yes there are rollers that go across unobstructed OB areas and back out, but that too is significantly different than navigating trees or bushes between 60 feet and 7 feet up.

The plain truth is this: Whether or not the 2 meter rule is necessary will now be discovered in a very real and indisputable way, out on the courses, during competitive play; and this will settle the dispute once and for all.

Nick

Nov 12 2004, 11:17 AM
Lyle, imo wind gusts are not a good comparison because good players can throw in ways that compensate for wind. Likewise, a well-thrown roller can go out of bounce and come back in by design. Occasionally wind gusts do affect a throw or a putt, but it seems to me we should try to cut down on intrusions of luck where we can.

Play a course trying to gain an advantage by using the 2 meter rule without penalty and see how much it helps. I think you'll be surprised by the bad lies and defelctions you end up with and you may even lose or harm one of your favorite discs

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 11:35 AM
And even if it did, and I don�t think it does, marking the area below that high risk area as OB would work fair more effectively and not penalize poor sods whose discs happen to stick up in the tree above 2 meters and not those who took the exact same line and fell below 2 meters.

ok, TD's, rope off about an acre of trees! nick, the trees you are suggesting be roped off are the same trees you must throw under on the low line.


that that specific area that allows Lefties to hyser in and try to hit the trees needs to be made OB. That or move the tee pad slightly so that it is not an option.p

ummm... nobody is hyzering trying to hit the trees. with the hyzer, hitting trees is INEVITABLE. unless we rope off a 50 foot circle (minimum) around the basket as OB. if you cant make the 50' putt, then add a stroke and try again? puhlease!


It�s not really clear what your point is here, but it seems safe to say that hitting those trees, regardless of the 2 meter rule being in effect, is penalty enough. If it is not, then mark the area immediately below them as OB.

wrong again. taking a low line requires the player to skillfully navigate the disc throw or around (or both) the trees. with that approach hitting the trees is a problem. with the bomber shot, hitting the trees is inevitable - there are prolly 20 trees within 8 meters of the basket, and they surround the basket for a minimum of 30 meters in every direction, and infinitely for all practical purposes for about 300 degrees. (so rope wont work in this case either.) but with the bomber shot getting STUCK in the trees now doesnt matter, so there's no risk involved with hitting them. since hitting them is inevitable, the risk is gone. pooof. vanished. i reckon most every time i have played that hole someone on the card has said out loud "well i could take the air shot, but what if i get caught in the trees?" so they went for the more skillful shot (or chanced it, many times to their demise) now the conversation if even voiced will be "cool, i'm gonna blast over the top cuz who cares if i caught caught!"



The plain truth is this: Whether or not the 2 meter rule is necessary will now be discovered in a very real and indisputable way, out on the courses, during competitive play; and this will settle the dispute once and for all.

whether or not its the truth, who knows. but its certainly not plain. the dispute wont be settled, it will die a quiet death simply because the rule has been changed and it will prove too confusing to have different rules for different holes/courses/whatever. i can easily see the situation where the same tree could be OB for hole X but safe for hole Z. thats nuts.

one more thing about the "Swede" argument. stating that a driver for this change was to bring the swedes in line with international rules (ie make rules consistant internationally) is pretty silly when now we have rules that change from hole to hole!

look, i am not saying the 2meter rule must stay. my main point, and one that i have made at least four times on this thread but which has yet to be acknowledged, is simply that it would have yielded the same result but been a far less radical change to simply allow the rule to be suspended at the TD's discretion.

Lyle O Ross
Nov 12 2004, 11:47 AM
Very good points Rob and Nick, although I do think you are over simplifying. For example, with a $1,000 prize on the line a pro is not going to worry about damaging his disc if he can gain an advantage. Furthermore, an ideal throw to gain advantage out of a tree is not a burner that will kick out hard, it's a big hyzer or annie that floats into the tree to gain maximum advantage of being held up by the tree. Go back and read Pat's post again about how you can use this to your advantage. If I am trying to gain advantage I'm going to throw something that comes down into the tree in a soft manner (more likely to get stuck). I don't disagree with you that whether the disc sticks or not is random in nature, but I don't want a situation where you can take a calculated advantage.

I will concede the point that for the accidental miss-throw the penalty is unfair, there is double punishment, but I don't like the end result of the rule change. I think I would rather punish the guy for his miss-throw i.e. stay out of trees if you don't want to be punished, than create a situation where a player can take advantage.

Also, you haven't taken into account the extra damage to trees caused by purposeful throws into trees. If you don't think this is happening let me dissuade you. I myself am looking for ways to use this rule and I am hearing others discuss it in the same way. That means people are going to be throwing into trees for a perceived benefit. That means more damage, due to hits and climbing.

Nov 12 2004, 11:48 AM
look, i am not saying the 2meter rule must stay. my main point, and one that i have made at least four times on this thread but which has yet to be acknowledged, is simply that it would have yielded the same result but been a far less radical change to simply allow the rule to be suspended at the TD's discretion.



I get the feeling that this is kind of an experiment. Take it out for a few years (with the option of putting it back in) and see how things go. If it was done as you suggest, maybe only 10% of the tournaments would eliminate it. As is, it'll probably be at least 50/50, if not more NOT using the rule. Think about the change to OB rules a few years ago. How many people are using Stroke and Distance as the primary penalty? Almost none since by default where-it-last-crossed is still an option, which leaves all the judgement problems associated with that rule.

ck34
Nov 12 2004, 11:49 AM
Water is not OB by default. It has to be specified OB. Mandos don't exist by default. They must be indicated. In the same way, the 2-meter will now have to be specified. All of these are design elements to be chosen by the designer/course pro/TD. That's where the consistency comes in.

Once the rules are reviewed for a more thorough update during 2005. I think the relief issue will be reviewed that might result in allowing players to choose moving back on the line of play after a penalty is taken. This would remove the double jeopardy inherent with some 2-meter situations. As a designer, I might be more likely to use the 2-meter penalty in a hole design when I know the player will get the option to move back as needed (like ball golf) behind a big pine tree after taking a 2-meter penalty.

ck34
Nov 12 2004, 11:54 AM
Timmy Gill, one of the top pros who played USDGC, has stated that all of the leagues and events he runs next year around here (and that's a bunch) will not have any 2-meter penalties regardless of the local course rules. We may try to persaude him otherwise but that's his stance at the moment.

Nov 12 2004, 12:02 PM
one more thing about the "Swede" argument. stating that a driver for this change was to bring the swedes in line with international rules (ie make rules consistant internationally) is pretty silly when now we have rules that change from hole to hole!



it seems to me that the Sweden example was brought in to point out that there is a locale that already uses the rule the way it will be next year and that they may have perspective to share on how it works.




look, i am not saying the 2meter rule must stay. my main point, and one that i have made at least four times on this thread but which has yet to be acknowledged, is simply that it would have yielded the same result but been a far less radical change to simply allow the rule to be suspended at the TD's discretion.



I am sure that was considered. But, unnecessary rules should be eliminated. The rules are made for PDGA play. How many pros rated 980 or above are weighing in against the new rule change?

Nov 12 2004, 12:11 PM
Very good points Rob and Nick, although I do think you are over simplifying. For example, with a $1,000 prize on the line a pro is not going to worry about damaging his disc if he can gain an advantage. Furthermore, an ideal throw to gain advantage out of a tree is not a burner that will kick out hard, it's a big hyzer or annie that floats into the tree to gain maximum advantage of being held up by the tree. Go back and read Pat's post again about how you can use this to your advantage. If I am trying to gain advantage I'm going to throw something that comes down into the tree in a soft manner (more likely to get stuck). I don't disagree with you that whether the disc sticks or not is random in nature, but I don't want a situation where you can take a calculated advantage.

I will concede the point that for the accidental miss-throw the penalty is unfair, there is double punishment, but I don't like the end result of the rule change. I think I would rather punish the guy for his miss-throw i.e. stay out of trees if you don't want to be punished, than create a situation where a player can take advantage.

Also, you haven't taken into account the extra damage to trees caused by purposeful throws into trees. If you don't think this is happening let me dissuade you. I myself am looking for ways to use this rule and I am hearing others discuss it in the same way. That means people are going to be throwing into trees for a perceived benefit. That means more damage, due to hits and climbing.



I don't think a top pro with a $1000 on the line lacks the finesse game to bother worrying about it. Are you talking about top pros or am.s when you say players will see throwing into trees as a perceived benefit? I suggest you go try it on a course and see how much it helps you . I haven't seen much harm done to trees by discs. They may prune off a twig but it will grow back thicker. Also, how big are the trees you have in mind? I am something of a tree hugger so it's not like I don't respect trees...

Znash
Nov 12 2004, 12:35 PM
I love how some people talk about a huge hyzer or anhyzer as not being a skilled shot, it takes plenty of skill to throw a 330-400 air shot. If you don't think so then why don't more people use them? Maybe I will throw a disc over trees with less of a care if it gets stoke in a tree but I still have to get it near the pin or I'm stock in the woods probably with out a shot to get to the basket any way.
I think it's a good ideal and am thinking of what trees will remain OB on my local courses.

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 12:35 PM
for the record, i look forward to not having a 2 meter penalty weighing on my decisions. the renegade part of me loves the new rule because i can play with more reckless abandon. the 926 rated hack in me loves the new rule also - it will make the game easier.

Znash
Nov 12 2004, 12:43 PM
It's not that it makes the game easier it's that it opens up new shots that where not the smart shot because you could get stock OB in a tree. These shots may still be a bad shot even with out the OB because most of the shots over trees can still fall short and leave the thrower in the woods.

haroldoftherocs
Nov 12 2004, 01:38 PM
"I think what the rules committe decision did was eliminate the luck involved if a foursome all hit the same tree in the same place -- because often only 1 of 4 will stay up. Go throw at some trees and see how repeatable 'sticking' is."

At Seneca Creek in MD, if all 4 discs go in a Cedar tree, MAYBE 1 will come out, maybe. Odds are, all 4 are going to stay in. But say 2 come out and 2 stay in.... is "luck" all we attribute to the two that fell out?

How about the OVERRIDING concern that those are 2 discs that no longer have to be retrieved? You know how much time that saves? Wasn't that the original intent of the 2-meter rule? To act as a deterrent to PREVENT people from throwing in the trees so they wouldn't have to be retrieved?

I haven't seen the deterrent aspect of rule discussed enough. With the deterrent gone, people won't think twice about throwing into the cedars at Seneca. Talk about slowing play down.

And clarification is necessary here... as someone who plays Seneca 4-5 per week, I can tell you with 100% certainty that our Cedars are protected by the rule. Our cedars aren't filled with sticks and trash. And there's not a single regular player at Seneca who is in favor of this.

Leaving this up to the TDs is a nightmare waiting to happen. At Seneca, we have more than 2 people who run tournaments. Thankfully, we are all on the same page, but if the Soiree kept the rule and the MAAC relaxed it, that's going to carry over into casual play.

Like it or not, precedents set during tournament play almost ALWAYS carry over into casual play. Now that there is no precedent, now that it's up the mood of the TD, this will cause a lot of arguments during casual play. I can just see where at the beginning of every round, this will now have be "ironed out" depending on which whiners have decided to play.

Folks who never play courses where tree fouls routinely occur aren't going to understand why a TD wouldn't choose relax the rule. Yet another reason for the whiner player to not play a tournament. "I'm not playing there because they won't relax the 2-meter rule." You don't get it... we CAN'T relax it! It protects our trees!

The 2-meter rule is a MUST at Seneca Creek. Our trees wouldn't survive without it, regardless of the opinions of those who only play it maybe twice a year. Our tourney rounds would suffer because groups routinely skirt the 2-minute rule and this would just add numerous more occasions of discs up in the trees.

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 01:44 PM
look, i am not saying the 2meter rule must stay. my main point, and one that i have made at least four times on this thread but which has yet to be acknowledged, is simply that it would have yielded the same result but been a far less radical change to simply allow the rule to be suspended at the TD's discretion.



Pat,

You are not only wrong about 2 meters not being a crutch for bad hole design, you are completely wrong about the proper way of implimenting it. As the PDGA Rules Committee advised and the PDGA BOD approved, it is completely in the hands of the TDs now. With options to have it on the whole course, certain holes, or just certain areas of the course (no different from OB, Casual OB, or Special Conditions), or NOT AT ALL. You're proposed release would have made TD's have to designate where it wasn't in effect, or worse need to get PDGA Competition Director approval not to use the rule.

The solution we currently have is far more eloquent.

Nick

PS: Your follow-ups on those three holes are not convincing, but I tire of trying to point out something you are obviously blind about.

Nov 12 2004, 01:49 PM
Good throws should be rewarded and bad shots should be punished. This is a feature I like in course design. Hard but not impossible routes. Of course this is bad for beginners or most AM players.

Perhaps if the board is really discussing getting rid of the 2 meter rule maybe they can think about this. Play a stuck disc in a tree like a lost disc. If the player cannot locate, (put hand on disc), and set up his next shot within the 2 minutes alloted for lost discs, then the player must forego retrieving the disc and take a penalty stroke. So if you are only stuck 7ft in the tree, a penalty by old rule, you could just reach up and grab it with out penalty.

I would say either adopt something like this or keep the 2 meter rule. Skill and accuracy is the point of this competitive game, not luck, although luck does happen quite frequently. But once we keep getting lucky time after time, wouldn't that be considered skill?

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 01:58 PM
We're going in circles here now. Many of these arguments in support of the 2 meter rule have long since been debunked.

Thankfully, we have a new rule, so rather than hypotheticals we can now see if any of these are real concerns or the phantoms I suspect they are.

This is the right way to proceed.

One note though, FUBARed trees are more the result of poor course design than anything else, and no 2 meter rule is going to save them. If you really care about a tree that is getting destroyed then FIX THE HOLE, or do something that penalizes anyone who hits the tree and not just the ones that hit it and stick 6'7" up in it; USE OB.

pterodactyl
Nov 12 2004, 02:09 PM
I personally think the 2m rule is ridiculous. I think that any disc caught in a tree or bush should be an automatic OB. I don't care how high it's stuck. Take the guesswork out of the equation, but keep the penalty.

Nov 12 2004, 02:32 PM
It's much simplier than al that.

Obviously basket are placed near tres and vice-versa. A course without tree's is pretty dull. The question is more of, will some one use sticking a disc in a tree next tto the basket be an advantage without a penalty? The answer is yes. Does that mena the hole is porly desgined? No.

All that matter is that everyone plays the same rule. If some one has the ability to strick a disc ina tree next to the basket without penalty for a par, more power to tehm. Let's see you do it? I can't throw a roller 500 + feet, does that mean people should not be allowed to do it? No.

All that matters is that you play the course in a unifrom manner.

Persoanally- given that courses without tree's basically suck, why they should be OB, makes little sense to me.

Most holes in disc golf entail avoiding at least one tree, that's kind of the point isn't it? So if you hit the primary obstacle tee, or stick in it, your porgress to ward the basket has been sufficienlty impeded to please the course desginer.
Leave the extra storkes for getting out of more logical hazards like water, or over fences, where it actually would take you another stroke to get back in the filed of play.

My 4 cents

haroldoftherocs
Nov 12 2004, 03:29 PM
"Most holes in disc golf entail avoiding at least one tree, that's kind of the point isn't it?"

According to your own example of a tree right next to a basket, avoiding that tree no longer becomes a priority. Assuming it's a cedar tree.....if that basket and the cedar tree next to it are on a hill, the safe shot is now to aim at the cedar and get stuck in it to avoid rolling down the hill. If there's no penalty, then clearly aiming at the tree and getting stuck 15 from the basket is now a good shot. Much better than going for it, and then ending up 100 feet down the hill because you missed.

I guess all baskets near trees are now considered "poor design".

Wasn't the reason for the rule DETERRENT???! Retrieving a stuck disc dramatically slows play down. Without the deterrent, there's no reason to worry about getting stuck in the trees. Even with strict adherence to 2 minutes (a fallacy at best), all these discs going into the cedar trees is going to slow play down.

Yeah, I know, we can still keep the rule at Seneca. I just think it's so wishy washy to have it at one course and not the other. I sure hope the powers that be at Keriakes decide to keep the rule too.

I realize no one is concerned about how this will transfer down to casual play... but I am. Argument, argument, arguement. Without a precedent, you end up with arguments.

neonnoodle
Nov 12 2004, 03:45 PM
Argument, argument, arguement. Without a precedent, you end up with arguments.



We are creating a new precident, one that is more likely than not to fit most casual players natural understanding of playing the game, and certainly less contrived than the "2 meter precedent".

haroldoftherocs
Nov 12 2004, 04:10 PM
I would argue that there is no such thing as a "natural understanding". There is no instinct when it comes to the rules. Before people learn the rules at Seneca, they play from the Creek bed, even though the OB lines are clearly marked. It's only after playing with locals and learning the rules do they understand WHY playing from the Creek is bad.

Your accusation of 2-meters being a "contrived" rule is an opinion. I see the utility in the 2-meter rule. Retrieving stuck discs is a time intensive process. When you remove the penalty, you encourage people to take routes they previously wouldn't take because of the chance of getting penalized (not stuck). Now, who cares! Get stuck all you like. A disc on the ground takes 2 seconds to mark. A disc 50 feet up in a tree takes significantly more time to mark the correct lie because you usually have to find it first.

Even with strict adherence to the 2 minute rule, you still have SO MANY NEW INSTANCES where a group now needs to give this player 2 minutes, and that player 2 minutes, repeated ad infinitum.

Whether you like the 2-meter rule or not is fair game for discussion. But don't discount it's utility. Don't make it sound like it was some arbitrary idea that just didn't work. The 2-meter rule was there for a reason and it worked to both protect trees and keep play moving along.

And the new precedent we're creating? Who knows... in 2005 we played the trees OB but in 2006 we played the trees casual. Oh yeah, and when Billy was the TD, we played the trees OB but when Steve was the TD, we played the trees casual.

I fail to see how this arbitrary approach can be used to establish precedent at a course, for either casual play or tournament play.

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 05:06 PM
znash, i'm not belittling the big hyzer. however, that shot has a lot going for it because it is the natural flight of the disc rather than the more architected flight path some other shot might require. i have a lot of respect for someone who can throw a 400 foot hyzer bomb, especially to within 30' of a basket sized target! but most of the cases i'm talking about require a hyzer in the neighborhood of 200-325, which is attainable by a high percentage of am players.

that being said, i do believe that a hyzer line requires less overall skill than just about any other shot, regardless of distance (unless we're talking like 30' or sumpin)

Nov 12 2004, 05:34 PM
Even with strict adherence to 2 minutes (a fallacy at best)...



Three minutes.

Nov 12 2004, 05:37 PM
We are creating a new precident, one that is more likely than not to fit most casual players natural understanding of playing the game.



Only those casual players who don't have a natural understanding of Play It Where It Lies.

Nov 12 2004, 07:20 PM
The cedar trees at my home course are huge and sticking in them usually means a terrible lie with a very fat cedar tree blocking your angle to the basket. And with the rule as it was, you could still just throw into a cedar tree 2 meters and below if that leads to an advantage. If you throw twenty-five feet and above into the cedar trees I know of you probably won't find it anyways so it's not a good move.

If people are really concerned about how this impacts particular holes -- just relocate the pins with the new rule in mind or make the area below the tree OB with mulch. Be creative. Working on a course is a very rewarding experience.

sandalman
Nov 12 2004, 08:19 PM
your parks dept must be extremely accepting of anything you propose! even if ours gave us carte blanche to do as we would, with the number of trees in ours parks moving the pins does not change the equation.

Nov 12 2004, 08:27 PM
I was very interested in this topic when I first started reading, but then it started going in circles. So, I stopped reading about the fourth page. My reply is not necessarily to the guy that posted before me but a general comment.

I was not privy to the decision making process of any of the rules in the PDGA (why should I be, I have been playing for almost a year now). However, I am going to give in good faith the benefit of the doubt to the rules committee. I am willing to be that the change in the rule was not a knee jerk reaction, but was a well thought out process. I do think, as Rhett said earlier, that this rule as different implications in different areas. I could have told you that just by looking at my home course.

My home course hass a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees. The latter of which I am assuming you all are calling cedars. The evergreen trees I know to stay away from. The deciduous trees I do not fear as much because I know that 9 times out of 10 the disc will fall. This rule change will not effect how I throw those holes. However, hole number nine of our course has three evergreens that are not very far off the teebox. The course designer intended these trees to be a hazard, but all the local flingers detest them. They are true disc eaters. Lately I have been experimenting with different way to get around these trees (rollers, thumbers, etc.), however, with this rule change I will just try and throw over the tops of them. If my drive sticks, oh well, I will be throwing two not three after I retrieve my disc.

Now maybe this is just an argument for making some trees still have the 2 meter rule, but it also illustrates how at least one disc golfer will change their approach on the course.

That make sense? I hope so.

neonnoodle
Nov 13 2004, 06:24 PM
Whether you like the 2-meter rule or not is fair game for discussion. But don't discount it's utility. Don't make it sound like it was some arbitrary idea that just didn't work. The 2-meter rule was there for a reason and it worked to both protect trees and keep play moving along.



What was it's purpose? To keep people from throwing at trees. Did it work? No.

Did it protect trees? No. Evidence is clear, particularly at Seneca where there are trees that are poster children for pulling courses (hole 18).

Does it keep play moving along? How can you claim that it does? Mark it on the playing surface and play on. That is the same whether the rule is in effect or not.

You are taking things for granted that are not granted.

The fact is the rule has failed to accomplish it's purpose, certainly when compared to the success of casual OBs (at Seneca) and actual OBs, there is no comparison in effectiveness. The rule has fail also in it's primary purpose, the purpose all rules must attempt to serve, and that is to promote as fair and even a competitive environment as possible, which it clearly does not.

I understand that some folks simply can not bring themselves to understand this by discussion, and they will likely fight what their eyes and common sense tells them out on the course over the next few years; but eventually it will be clear that competitive disc golf will be much better off utilizing OB and OB surfaces rather than the arbitrary nature of whether a disc tumbles out of a tree to below 2 meters or not.

Here comes Craig, I can hear him,"But we need to penalize a bad shot!".

A bad shot IS PENALTY ENOUGH! It's not like the guy was knocking down obstacles to his stance or throwing motion... That would be cheating, and would be completely worthy of penalty strokes and even disqualification... Whether his disc tumbles through a tree to below 2 meters is not. Experience will make this apparent. and now we will have a real opportunity to experience it and know it first hand.

Nov 13 2004, 10:10 PM
This whole no two meter rule is going to be a wierd thing to get ahold of...I am so used to playing with,"if the disc is out of reach it's OB."

Once, have i remembered that the 2 meter rule is no longer in effect. I was about 60 feet into a deciduois tree, and it took me and a friend about 15 throws each with a softball to get it down. After i got it down the drop was about 90 feet from the basket but about pin high, and slightly downhill. I sank the putt with a XD and boy, it felt good having that be a two rather than a three. That round which i made this looong putt was a tag match round, and even though i didnt get the low tag, it was definitly a remembered 2 that was spose to be a three.

I think that having no OB in trees is going to be a little odd. Making that putt proved it because even though it felt good for it to be a 2 and not a 3 i didnt feel like i really deserved it even with the huge putt. But i guess thats the way things are going to be now...unless 2 months into next season the PDGA decides to change it back lmao

Nov 13 2004, 10:36 PM
Here comes Craig, I can hear him,"But we need to penalize a bad shot!".

A bad shot IS PENALTY ENOUGH!



Here comes Jim:

A bad shot is usually penalty enough, but not when the bad shot is rewarded by marking it closer to the pin that where the disc came to rest. If a disc is in a tree 50' up in the air, directly above the basket, the new rule rewards the player by giving him a drop-in, instead of a shot from 50' away (the distance from the basket that the disc came to rest). Rewarding players for bad shots is worse than double-penalizing them for bad shots.

sandalman
Nov 13 2004, 10:51 PM
a disc in a tree 50' up directly over the pin is no longer as bad shot - its a dammn fine shot :confused:

but hey thats progress :mad:

Nov 13 2004, 10:52 PM
Oh right, sorry 'bout that.

Nov 13 2004, 11:09 PM
your parks dept must be extremely accepting of anything you propose! even if ours gave us carte blanche to do as we would, with the number of trees in ours parks moving the pins does not change the equation.



It isn't the number of trees. Go look at the pictures of my home course Idlewild by going to www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com) and clicking on the "courses" tab and then on Idlewild. I doubt your course has more trees than Idlewild -- I doubt it very much!

If you are stuck in a tree 200 feet down the fairway from a 600 foot hole (or even a 300 foot hole) you still have a tough shot with no penalty -- probably the tree you were in is now in the way of your upshot. If you are talking about trees right by the pin -- move the pin back 30 feet. Now a disc in the tree leaves a long putt with the tree still in your way. If there are no low branches left to be in the way plant a honeysuckle bush next to the trunk -- they grow like crazy and can be trimmed to order. then an up in the tree shot no longer looks so good.

as for cedar trees the old rule still allowed you to slam into them with low line drives (below 2 meters) and use them as stoppers. good pin placement would not reward such a shot with an easy putt.

Nov 13 2004, 11:16 PM
The two most recent tournaments I played in were TD'ed by Fred Salaz and Dave Greenwell, respectively. These two guys have about 50 years of professional disc golf experience between them -- and each of them waived the 2 meter rule in their tournaments. Both courses involved are *very* heavily wooded. Salaz is a Disc Golf Hall of Fame Nominee and Greenwell is a World Champion and has been inducted into the disc golf Hall of Fame. The USDGC earlier this year likewise waived the 2 meter rule. Sounds to me like experienced pros are embracing the decision by the rules committee to do away with the 2 meter rule. Resistance to change is natural but I think we all ought to give the new rule a chance.

sandalman
Nov 13 2004, 11:23 PM
If you are talking about trees right by the pin -- move the pin back 30 feet.

that would put the pin deeper into the forest. i guess i am not making myself clear. i checked out the idlewood pics - thats a lot of trees, no doubt! and tight fairways. very nice looking course! but not too much different than the tree'd holes at zboas and waco east.

i wanna know if there are courses that do NOT use trees as the PRIMARY definer of holes. i know elevation and contours contribute, and there is the occasional pond/lake/stream... but trees are the primary definer. without the 2meter rule they will continue to things to avoid down the fairway (altho without near as much trouble if you do hit them) and they will become backstops around the basket. no bueno.

ck34
Nov 13 2004, 11:44 PM
Just out of curiosity, I mentally reviewed the four new 18-hole courses and one 9-hole course I designed at Highbridge, WI. With additional pin placements, it includes about 150 hole placements. Course terrain ranges from wide open to heavily wooded. There's just one big hemlock tree with a spreading canopy over a basket where it might make sense to retain the 2-meter penalty. Not that folks are really going to want to throw high into this tree to plan on a drop by the basket because losing the disc is also possible.

As a designer, I'm averse to giving players anything they don't reasonably 'earn' so I naturally don't place pins too close to trees where the high shot, 'trickle thru tree' is the best percentage option for a drop in. In the other 149 pin placements, there's not a single place where I would feel the player 'got away with something' if they stuck high in a tree and didn't get a penalty shot. In most cases, the lie they would have to play from would be penalty enough.

It seems like this is going to come down to a design assessment. I have to believe Houck also doesn't place pins too near trees, especially in Texas where there are more situations where high shots over shorter scrub trees are possible. It seems like the situations I'll look for to impose the 2-meter penalty will likely be fir or other trees (pepper?) that have both a high probability for shots to stick in them, the ground and free space up to the first branches is pretty open underneath them, and they're pretty close to the basket. Trees like this are the only ones I believe I'd maybe be ticked if a player got a 'no penalty' drop from more than 2 meters up. Otherwise, I haven't figured out any other common scenarios where retaining it would be needed or fair.

Nov 14 2004, 02:02 PM
Great points Chuck. I think the arguments against the rule change so far are based more on imagination than actuality. Throw ten shots intending to get stuck in a tree in a particular spot from a couple hundred feet out -- and then note : how many actually stick; how many drop out; and how many are deflected off course; then check out the shot you are left with for the ones that did get stuck -- and you'll find the results aren't as predictable nor as helpful as some seem to expect.

sandalman
Nov 14 2004, 03:35 PM
thats a nice theory robj except for one thing - no one is TRYING to get stuck in the tree. they KNOW they are gonna HIT the tree and dont CARE if they stick or not. big difference - because before they had to consider the risk of sticking.

today at veterans we talked about the new ruling and we agreed unanimously - the new rule removes a significant risk and encourages players to take less skillful shots!

we also agree that suspending the rule may make sense in certain courses/regions/etc. however, we feel that it would have made much more sense to keep the rule as the default and allow suspending it at the TD's descretion.

if the rule committee is a voted position (havent checked yet), i will be voting against ony member who supported changing the default to no 2meter rule.

again, we totally support permiting the suspension of the 2 meter rule at the TD's descretion - but want the default to remain a penalty for sticking. this approach represents minimal change and is has much less potential for confusion.

ck34
Nov 14 2004, 05:02 PM
I'm guessing Houck and other qualified course designers were not part of that Veteran's 'vote'. If not having the 2-meter penalty is a problem on a hole, just keep it. No big deal. Otherwise, it's a design issue. There are a few pin placements I recall at Vets where the 2-meter penalty might make sense, short of redesigning the placement.

sandalman
Nov 14 2004, 05:39 PM
"Just keep it"..."No big deal"..."Its a design issue". thats the consideration we are getting from the powers that be.

well it wasnt a design issue before they took away the rule!

hole 1: easy now to crash the top on the second shot - no risk. much better than hitting a 6-8 foot tall, 8-12 foot wide window with a two finger or annie.

hole 3: no risk now in top-dropping onto the pin rather than trying to place your flight through one of a couple 1-1.5 meter lanes to the basket.

hole 9 long: i can gaurantee that i can be within 30' more than 90% of the time with a hyzer bomb. cant say the same about a well-crafted low line.

hole 14 long: any risk that existed with coming over the top on the second shot is totally gone. again, a hyzer bomb is far easier to execute than any approach shot from a distance from which the hyzer is available.

cases can be also be made for hole 2 short, hole 6 long, holes 15, 16 and short 17. these cases are less compelling to various degrees, and i'm not sure i agree with all of them so i'll skip the details.

for the record, it wasnt a vote, it was a discussion. which apparently is more than the pdga is willing to engage in at this point.

what john houck has to do with this is beyond me, except perhaps for those who need further proof that the pdga is becoming more and more inbred, less willing to listen to any who is not one of their self annointed experts, and increasingly open to charges of conflict of interest.

ck34
Nov 14 2004, 06:02 PM
This has been hashed for years with much more online discussion effort by non 'powers that be' than 'powers that be'. I would say half the Board didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other but were persuaded that the 2-meter should be a design choice the same as OB. Even 2 meters is an arbitrary height. We should probably just make it suspended at all in the few trees where it will make sense rather than even worry about measuring.

You've just made your case that the 2 meter penalty should be a design choice by selectively identifying holes where you think it makes sense. If the penalty should be retained as a blanket rule like today, you would have said it should be applied everywhere on the course, not just those holes you specified. Make your case to the local 'powers that be' to retain it on those holes. It's now a local decision. If the 'inbred cabalists' wanted to retain omnipotent power, they would have retained it as a blanket rule wouldn't they? They've now given up control of that call to local TDs and designers with the change for 2005. That's not exactly a power play.

sandalman
Nov 14 2004, 06:26 PM
like i said before i am not suggesting that it be retained with no relief. just that it would have made more sense to allow the suspension of the rule at the descretion of rthe TD, rather than require the TD to selectively and explicitly reinstate that which was the standard.

a few posts ago you made a decent case that standardizing selective application makes sense, but you have not overcome the argument that it would be less confusing if the new inverse of the new policy was in effect.

'inbred cabalists' is your term, not mine. but i like it! :D

"We should probably just make it suspended at all in the few trees where it will make sense rather than even worry about measuring."

i really hope that was written at least somewhat in jest. to do so would pretty much effect any hole with a shrub or bush taller than 1". not to mention the controversies that would result when playing in thick grass. unless of course the TD could exempt grasses but leave it in place for more sturdy vegetation.

ck34
Nov 14 2004, 06:39 PM
It's a matter whether more places should have the 2-meter penalty or not as to which default option is better. The decision is that, overall, few places really need the 2-meter penalty. So the default of no penalty is more efficient than the current default of a penalty and then selectively rejecting it as you propose.

sandalman
Nov 14 2004, 07:20 PM
its easy to state that now, but i'm willing to wager that that line of reasoning never occured. its more likely that one, maybe two, adamant and vocal folks (not you chuck) "persuaded" the board members who didnt really care either way to go along with them.

but anyway... lets focu on legalizing the jump putt :p

ck34
Nov 14 2004, 07:32 PM
I think if you research one of the 2 meter threads, I proposed a compromise along the lines of the 2005 plan at least a year or two ago as a way to break the logjam between the entrenched 'keep it' vs 'drop it' camps. The Rules Committee provided at least three options to the Board including the compromise that was adopted. Several on the Board were willing to drop it completely as a test for a period of time. But then the group eventually thought the compromise was an even better choice and in line with how OB and mandos are specified by design and not automatic. It wasn't a very heated discussion, just deliberate and thoughtful. It was also among several rule changes and tweaks being proposed.

neonnoodle
Nov 14 2004, 07:43 PM
Pat and Jim disagree with the PDGA Rules Committee, PDGA Board of Directors, Harold Duvall, Dave Greenwell and me about this rule adjustment is not a point of concern for me.

I'll side with Carlton and Theo anyday of the week.

PS: Your contention that you are moving your lie is incorrect. Unless marking your lie on the playing surface for all discs above the playing surface is doing the same thing, you hqve no leg upon which to stand. It would be like saying that because the dies was resting 2 inches up on the grass, you could not plant your front foot but had to rest it 2 inches up on the grass, which would be a lot of fun for a 300 foot plus approach shot...

Again, opponents of the change continue to throw out completely "DEBUNKED" theories, when the bottom line is just that they've grown accustomed to "the" rules face, right or wrong...

Nov 15 2004, 01:41 AM
My thought is if the rule can still be applied at the TDs discretion, has there really been any change other than to add confusion and inconsistency?

(This post is not a direct reply to any one post; it is merely a general thought. A not well thought out thought I might add.)

Nov 15 2004, 09:20 AM
My thought is if the rule can still be applied at the TDs discretion, has there really been any change other than to add confusion and inconsistency?



The default rule will be consistent and clear. No longer will a disc up 1.8 meters be IB and a disc 2.1 meters OB. For the short-term there may be added confusion for the uninformed, but in the long run this change makes the rules more logical and clear.

Nov 15 2004, 09:31 AM
In 2005 and beyond, with the TD having the discretion to declare certain trees (or all trees) as OB when a disc is suspended above 2 meters (or maybe 1 meter?) -- won't that in effect work like a Mando rule? With the new rule change, perhaps it could be categorized as a Vertical Mandatory in order to keep the rulebook categorically concise.

gnduke
Nov 15 2004, 09:38 AM
Not really since Mandos restrict flight path, and OB and suspension only come into play once a disc is at rest.

sandalman
Nov 15 2004, 09:54 AM
No longer will a disc up 1.8 meters be IB and a disc 2.1 meters OB.

not true. the TD can keep the rule, making discs usspended >= 2.0 meters OB. as they should be!

Nov 15 2004, 10:15 AM
Pat and Jim disagree with the PDGA Rules Committee, PDGA Board of Directors, Harold Duvall, Dave Greenwell and me about this rule adjustment is not a point of concern for me.


Not sure about the BOD, but I guarantee you that the rules committee is not unanimous in this decision. Actually, I don't have much of a problem with this compromise. As a TD, I can still invoke the 2m rule. When you're a TD can can choose not to invoke it. Everyone is happy.



I'll side with Carlton and Theo anyday of the week.



:D
Only because they happen to agree with you on this issue.

Lyle O Ross
Nov 15 2004, 10:43 AM
This is my problem with the rule, I don't like the inconsistency, one TD calls it one way, another calls it a different way. However, the same argument can be made for any OB during any tournament. The fact is that in the end, with a large enough field, your rating will accurately reflect the difficulty of the course. So the argument only has merit for your own scores on the course, from round to round and tournament to tournament.

gnduke
Nov 15 2004, 10:50 AM
I think we need a rule where sidewalks or creeks and beyond are always OB instead of letting the individual TD's decide how a course will be played at each event. :D

cbdiscpimp
Nov 15 2004, 10:53 AM
I say everything UNDER 2 Meters should be OB :eek: :p

I mean if luck isnt involved when getting stuck in a tree you should be able to throw into one and get stuck every time :eek:

Lyle O Ross
Nov 15 2004, 11:07 AM
Again, opponents of the change continue to throw out completely "DEBUNKED" theories, when the bottom line is just that they've grown accustomed to "the" rules face, right or wrong...



Why does any argument that you disagree with always come down to I've debunked it and you're afraid of change? Many of the posters who disagree with you here have argued for change in the sport on other issues so that doesn't fit. You disagree with their arguments but you haven't debunked them. If for no other reason than several of them have given testimonials that they or players they know are now throwing more frequently at trees. The rule change may not have changed your play or that of robj (i.e. the risk reward of throwing into a tree has not changed for you) but for others it has. Given that you haven't debunked the idea that people will throw more frequently into trees. You are just ignoring what is being written here. Now, take the following. If 50% of players felt the risk reward of throwing into trees was worth it prior to this rule change than you still had 50% of the players trying to avoid trees. Now you've changed that dynamic. No matter if it was only the 10 posters here who say it has changed their play then you've changed the dynamic.

Sandalman's argument that it changes some holes can't be denied. Chuck argues that is consistent with TDs making those trees affected OB or 2 meters active (?) and is still consistent with the rule change. Yes, except that requires an active roll on the part of the TD. Sometimes it will happen, sometimes it won't. I've already played a round with a TD who said I'm not using it; it makes this hole easier for me. Get over the notion that the rule removal changes nothing except for unfairly penalizing miss-throws. You're wrong in at least a handful of cases listed here.

In the end does it matter? Well some holes will be less challenging than they would be and in the end that won't really hurt the sport.

On the other hand, wanna bet course design changes? Again, is that important? Probably not, all you've done is taken away a tool that a course designer could use to make the course tougher.

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 11:08 AM
Where is Rhett with our monthly reminder that Above 2 Meters IS NOT OB!!!

It IS NOT. OB is a completely different rule. A far better one.

If and when we finally define, within our rulebook, what a "Playing Surface" is, then we will be able to designate All trees, some trees, a certain tree, or no trees as an OB surface with all related rules in effect.

A) Then if a tree is not designated OB and your disc comes to rest in it, you will be required to play from where it came to rest or on the playing surface within 30 centimeters on the line of play. (Which could mean 30 feet up in a tree, or declaring an unsafe lie.)
B) A tree is designated an OB Playing Surface and a disc comes to rest 2 feet off the ground in the tree. An OB Penalty Throw is enforced, the player may mark it on the IB Playing Surface immediately below it with the 1 meter relief inherent in an OB ruling and play on.

This is where our rules should go. OB and IB are superior rules in every way than the 2 meter rule. Where the 2 meter rule is vague, random and a matter of luck, the OB rule is definite, precise and far more fair.

sandalman
Nov 15 2004, 11:31 AM
Lyle, thanks for the reasoned support. its nice to know that texas golfers can think things through and face facts!

dont bother trying to have a discussion with nick. otherwise you may become the target of one or more of the following derisions to which he has subjected posters on this thread alone:

referred to the "dumb rule" in such as way as to suggest anyone who wants it is dumb;

called anyone who attempted to make a case against the new rule a "genius" in a demeaning manner;

accused one person of having a "thing for [him]" simply because the person is not afraid of taking a stand on the other side of discussions;

denigrated courses that are negatively affected by the new rules as "weak";

insulted some very good course designers by stating that only "weak designs" ever benefit from the old 2meter rule;

attacked one respondant by demanding he "formulate an original thought";

labelled one poster who dared to project the reasoning behind the new rule to its logical endpoint as "reactionary".

and thats all before i FINALLY got some sense and took back my message board by using the ignore button! (btw, pages load much faster now :D)

this isnt the first thread that nick has bullied by being a condescending arrogant holier-than-thou punk. his mind is made up and no amount of reasoning will get through.

ck34
Nov 15 2004, 11:47 AM
If the 2-meter rule change causes courses to be redesigned, that should be a good thing although not all locations will have that luxury. I don't think it will change my design process since I was already not locating pins by trees for easy drop ins. But other designers who may not have located pins far enough from trees might change their approach. What's weird is that now I'll be looking for situations where specifically using the 2-meter penalty (or OB) would make sense as a risk/reward design feature. Of course, up to now I've had that opportunity but I can't say I was specifically looking for it.

I hope to be heading to our new Augusta facility within the next two months for further work on the courses. We'll have to see how the rule change might impact what we've designed so far. Since all courses are pretty much under a tall tree canopy with few low limbs overall, it's likely not going to change anything.

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 12:15 PM
No Pat, you don't have a thing for me, your last post certainly makes that clear...LOL! ;)

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 12:21 PM
Chuck,

My advice would be not to start designing holes with the 2 meter rule in mind, because:

A) It means that you have trees that are in places that will likely result in them becoming FUBAR.
B) The 2 meter rule may go the way of the dinosaurs in the next revision. Remember this new option will precede the actual reprinting of the rules by a year or two from what I hear.

BTW, what do you think about the idea of being able to designate the surface of trees or bushes as OB, so that a disc completely supported by the tree or bush is OB (take your penalty throw, relief and play on)? Some courses could say all trees and bushes are OB surfaces, others could designate only certain ones, and some none. It would eliminate all need of a 2 meter designation.

ck34
Nov 15 2004, 12:46 PM
I don't think the 2-meter rule option will go away but I think a future revision will allow players to mark their lie back along line of play so they don't have to play from under a fir tree with branches to the ground.

I think that having OB in 3D volumes not touching a playing surface will be a problem. In the case where a basket is under the canopy of a hemlock with branches starting about 8 feet above ground, the 2-meter penalty will be more effective than projecting OB to the ground where the basket itself and the area around it would become OB. The aerial OB concept might work there also but as a general concept, I think you would run into 'stupid' applications of that option such as going OB in grass because the disc was just above the ground. So I'm not sure how well that rule would work in practice.

james_mccaine
Nov 15 2004, 01:07 PM
Nick, I don't understand you at all. Wasn't the "elimination of the luck factor" one of the reasons you give to support the removal of the two meter rule? If so, doesn't that same argument apply to your proposal of making the "surface of trees or bushes as OB?"

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 01:38 PM
James,

What it does is provide an option for accomplishing a far more consistent and clear ruling than does the 2 meter rule? OB is already a concept most everyone is familiar and comfortable with. And with the newer understanding (see PDGA Rules Q & A about the Bridge) of "playing surfaces" an entire tree could be marked ob (you don't even need to mark it really; the OB line would be where the tree and earth meet), so that if a disc comes to rest anywhere in it's branches, and is not touching an IB playing surface (the ground, etc.) then it is OB and will play proceeds accordingly. It doesn't matter if the disc is 100 feet up in a Red Wood or 2 inches up in a bush, it is OB. If the tree or bush are not OB and there is a point on the line of play within 30 centimeters where the player can take a legal stance and play on, then there is no penalty stroke. The down side is that if the tree is solid and there only point on that line of play is 2 or 50 feet up, the player will either have to have a point of support on that line or declare an unsafe lie and play on.

Is the aspect of randomly tumbling through a tree or bush completely negated in this new understanding of OB Playing Surfaces? No, it is not. But it is very much decreased and it eliminates a designation, that in my opinion, is unfounded and makes the whole situation far more "luck" based.

OB is a proven winner. It is crystal clear and it's consistency well-documented. Is it 100% consistent? No, but it is nearly as well as we can do. The 2 meter designation is clearly not the best we can do.

By the way, though it might not hurt to clarify it a little, no rewrite is necessary to make trees OB Playing Surfaces.

Nick

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 01:48 PM
I don't think the 2-meter rule option will go away but I think a future revision will allow players to mark their lie back along line of play so they don't have to play from under a fir tree with branches to the ground.

I think that having OB in 3D volumes not touching a playing surface will be a problem. In the case where a basket is under the canopy of a hemlock with branches starting about 8 feet above ground, the 2-meter penalty will be more effective than projecting OB to the ground where the basket itself and the area around it would become OB. The aerial OB concept might work there also but as a general concept, I think you would run into 'stupid' applications of that option such as going OB in grass because the disc was just above the ground. So I'm not sure how well that rule would work in practice.



Chuck,

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am afraid you do not understand the clarified nature of playing surfaces and OBs. I know that you can, so please go to the Rules Q & A and reread the bridge scenario. Also please revisit the thread on playing surfaces and OB/IB status.

OB can now be precluded by playing surfaces of different designations above or below the one on upon which the disc comes to rest. Allowing discs under an embankment under water to be designated OB, even though the "old" OB line extends up and down, it now, essentially ends when it meets another surface.

Therefore, the area beneath a tree that is marked as an OB surface is not OB, it is completely IB and so are all surfaces all the way up until it is at rest upon the OB tree surface. What you get releif from is 1 meter from any of the OB Surface (essentially any branch or even continuous root; I really like this not so much because it results in a less encumbered throw but because it "should" protect our trees and bushes from getting FUBAR).

I am fairly sure that I am correct in my interpretation of this.

Nick

ck34
Nov 15 2004, 01:53 PM
Unless there's a designated drop zone or the TD requires 'throw and distance' for a tree OB, there will be problems determining where to mark the lie. You can't always mark straight down if the tree branches go to the ground. The last point a disc was IB will be unclear. The rule will need to change to allow LOP relief going back from last point IB for this to work in practice.

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 02:01 PM
On the other hand, wanna bet course design changes? Again, is that important? Probably not, all you've done is taken away a tool that a course designer could use to make the course tougher.



First, Lyle, I will admit that removal of the 2 meter rule may well change the way a player approaches a throw on a certain hole. It does not change the execution of the shot though. And if you make that entire tree OB rather than just the parts that are (some non-OB rule) above 2 meters as penalty worthy, then wouldn't you say that we have a more consistent and effective tool for course designers? That the level of fairness and clarity has been elevated? (Even that the lower branches of such trees and bushes may stick (pun intended) a little longer?)

And even without the new understanding of OB Playing Surfaces, don't course designers have greater control over their design by being able to designate where these hazards are and are not.

Lastly, I do not, and have not claimed that everyone who does not agree with me is dumb or that I have debunked every aspect of every point they bring up, I only do that with the arguments that "are dumb" and "have been debunked". The difference may be subtle, but it is real.

We are debating here; have you noticed Pat agreeing with even the tiniest aspect of my arguments? It's ok to disagree, he's not an idiot, I don't think he is dumb, I don't take what he says personally, he is arguing his point as best he can. Just as I am.

My arguments are just better! :D;)

rhett
Nov 15 2004, 04:16 PM
Care to explain why? Particularly in light of TDs being able to still use it around trees that might be advantagious to hit? Thought so... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


49 replies in 3 days. Excuse me if this has been covered already.

Since a lot of TDs seem to be unaware of the 2 year old move to ratings caps on am divisions and don't check the ams ratings, I am predicting that a majority of PDGA TDs are going to be unaware of this rule change in 2005 and will consequently fail to specifically put the 2 meter back in play for their tourneys, effectively eliminating the 2-meter rule without the TD even realizing it.

I further predict even more controversy when someone gets stuck in a tree and rightly refuses to take a 2-meter stroke because the TD didn't specifically re-instate the rule.

I guess I believe that if the 2 meter rule had to be made optional, a better course of action would have been to make the "default status" of the rule "enabled". That is, the 2-meter rule would be in effect unless specifically waived by the TD for the event.

sandalman
Nov 15 2004, 04:28 PM
and california joins the side of reason!

thanks rhett for thinking it through - now IF we could just get the powers that be (or inbred cabalists as chuck calls them :D) to consider this approach it would absolutely make for a better experience with the JUSTIFIABLY changed 2 meter rules.

however, given that Nick's apparent goal is the complete elimination of the rule, i suspect he will fight this tooth and nail and render any consideration impossible.

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 04:36 PM
Care to explain why? Particularly in light of TDs being able to still use it around trees that might be advantagious to hit? Thought so... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


49 replies in 3 days. Excuse me if this has been covered already.

Since a lot of TDs seem to be unaware of the 2 year old move to ratings caps on am divisions and don't check the ams ratings, I am predicting that a majority of PDGA TDs are going to be unaware of this rule change in 2005 and will consequently fail to specifically put the 2 meter back in play for their tourneys, effectively eliminating the 2-meter rule without the TD even realizing it.

I further predict even more controversy when someone gets stuck in a tree and rightly refuses to take a 2-meter stroke because the TD didn't specifically re-instate the rule.

I guess I believe that if the 2 meter rule had to be made optional, a better course of action would have been to make the "default status" of the rule "enabled". That is, the 2-meter rule would be in effect unless specifically waived by the TD for the event.



What is your prediction on the number of times a TD will forget to specify the 2 meter rule is in effect if any of which you predict above happens?

Once?

Yes, there will be a learning curve Rhett. As there is with EVERYTHING NEW. Should this stop us from doing anything new? Hail no!

But as Bush says, "Fool me once, shame on you, me, fool me twice, ...., YOU WON'T FOOL ME TWICE!!!"

rhett
Nov 15 2004, 04:41 PM
Care to comment on the "default enabled" proposal, Nick?

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 04:45 PM
Yes, my goal is the elimination of this rule. Do you want me to go through all of the reasons why again? Thought not.

I�ll leave it to say that OB is superior in every way to this longwinded and strange rule: OB surfaces allow for trees (anything definable) to be designated OB by the TD. The 2 meter designation is unnecessary and superfluous.

The only way to know, for certain, that the 2 meter rule is unnecessary and superfluous is to make it an opt in rule. If it were opt out then the �majority� Rhett speaks of would possibly never know about it, rather than learning about it in the first event they run. The method chosen was the best possible.

rhett
Nov 15 2004, 04:50 PM
The method chosen was the best possible.


No it wasn't.

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 04:52 PM
The method chosen was the best possible.


No it wasn't.



Yes IT WAS! LOL!

ck34
Nov 15 2004, 05:24 PM
If we wanted make sure the rule was uniformly applied but followed the average wishes of the masses, the Board might have dictated that the 2-meter penalty was in force on all odd numbered holes. That way we could make it easier on those TDs who might not pay attention. :eek:

rhett
Nov 15 2004, 05:32 PM
...but followed the average wishes of the masses...


What is the basis of your made up stat that half the members wanted the 2 meter rule taken away? A survey of 3.6% of the membership? Asking around your local course? A flat out guess?

james_mccaine
Nov 15 2004, 05:52 PM
My recollection is that a majority of golfers were in favor of keeping the rule intact (I have selective memory though). Thank goodness the PDGA saw fit to ignore the majority's wishes. :D

On a sidenote, I suspect if the 2 meter rule had never existed, a huge majority would have been against a proposed 2 meter rule. People are naturally uncomfortable with change.

Personally, based on the radio interview, I'm glad the debate revolved around the substantive issues and not merely around mere loyalty to the status quo.

ck34
Nov 15 2004, 05:58 PM
It's been noted that the member surveys have been pretty evenly split over the years regarding this issue. I'm even throwing a bone to those who want to retain it since there are a few more odd number holes than even number...

cbdiscpimp
Nov 15 2004, 06:01 PM
This is prolly the worst rule that we have in disc golf. I wish they would just get rid of in entirely and not even make it an option. It is a purely luck based rule and there is reallly no benefit to having it in our sport.

Im glad that it is now optional but i hope some day it will just be gone for good :D

sandalman
Nov 15 2004, 06:01 PM
first, thanks to David for telling me about this insane statement so i could unignore nick long enough to read it for myself!

If it were opt out then the �majority� Rhett speaks of would possibly never know about it, rather than learning about it in the first event they run.

yes, we all agree it is sooooooo very much better to FORCE td's to comply by unilaterally requiring them to reinstate that which was the standard!

it is also far superior to create the most confusion possible rather than the least, especially when the perceived change would be extremely slight - AND BOTH SIDES COULD HAVE AGREED THE CHANGE WAS A WIN! - if the path of least confusion had been chosen.

gosh this force it down their throats approach, which has an longer term ulterior motive already acknowledged by its single most vocal proponent, is so very successful just imagine what it might do if agressively applied to the foreign policy of the world's only superpower by an either non- or barely- elected "leader".

D'OH!

neonnoodle
Nov 15 2004, 10:18 PM
first, thanks to David for telling me about this insane statement so i could unignore nick long enough to read it for myself!

If it were opt out then the �majority� Rhett speaks of would possibly never know about it, rather than learning about it in the first event they run.

yes, we all agree it is sooooooo very much better to FORCE td's to comply by unilaterally requiring them to reinstate that which was the standard!

it is also far superior to create the most confusion possible rather than the least, especially when the perceived change would be extremely slight - AND BOTH SIDES COULD HAVE AGREED THE CHANGE WAS A WIN! - if the path of least confusion had been chosen.

gosh this force it down their throats approach, which has an longer term ulterior motive already acknowledged by its single most vocal proponent, is so very successful just imagine what it might do if agressively applied to the foreign policy of the world's only superpower by an either non- or barely- elected "leader".

D'OH!



Let me help you out here Pat:

All in your opinion.

Don't say I never give you anything...

tbender
Nov 15 2004, 10:51 PM
The method chosen was the best possible.


No it wasn't.


Yes IT WAS! LOL!



No it wasn't. Two better choices:
1. >2m in effect by default (with the option of waiving it). This covers the TDs/Certified Officials who don't keep up with the rules (yes, they exist in larger numbers than you think).
2. Moving >2m to the OB section of the rules, avoiding any double jeopardy situations involving 2m and unplayable (or should have been called unplayable to save shots/skin/clothing). Then there is the option of playing it under the current location OR at the last IB mark.

gnduke
Nov 16 2004, 12:09 AM
If your drive on a odd numbered hole gets stuck above 2 meters in a tree on the fairway of an even numbered hole, is it still a penalty stroke ?

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 12:46 AM
The method chosen was the best possible.


No it wasn't.


Yes IT WAS! LOL!



No it wasn't. Two better choices:
1. >2m in effect by default (with the option of waiving it). This covers the TDs/Certified Officials who don't keep up with the rules (yes, they exist in larger numbers than you think).
2. Moving >2m to the OB section of the rules, avoiding any double jeopardy situations involving 2m and unplayable (or should have been called unplayable to save shots/skin/clothing). Then there is the option of playing it under the current location OR at the last IB mark.



1) You are wrong for the reasons already discussed about the best way to make everyone aware of the change faster.
2) Rhett won't say it now, because it would entail agreeing with me, BUT ABOVE 2 METERS IS NOT OB. If you want it to behave like OB, then USE OB.

ck34
Nov 16 2004, 12:48 AM
Ya know the sad thing about this is sometime around next July a player is going to post on here asking if it's true you have to take a 2-meter penalty on odd number holes because a person in their group insisted he got a penalty on hole #7 during league.

gnduke
Nov 16 2004, 01:04 AM
And they'll say they saw a post by Chuck Kennedy talking about it on the rules thread.

rhett
Nov 16 2004, 01:40 AM
The sadder thing is that a touring pro is going to raise holy hell when stuck in a tree because a long-time TD didn't know about the rule change, didn't announce that the 2 meter rule was in effect, and gives the touring pro a stroke because the TD thinks it's stupid to revoke that rule.

And you know that scenario is going to play out.

Yes, of course TDs should know the rules. And the rules they know should also be the current ones. But this is the real world and that isn't the case. And no matter how much it "should" be the case, it isn't and it won't be.

Nov 16 2004, 02:26 AM
you have to take a 2-meter penalty on odd number holes .



look what a creative edit has left Chuck on record as having said ^ :D

ck34
Nov 16 2004, 09:36 AM
Fortunately, I've designed enough courses that the mis-interpretation might happen on one of mine, and who's to say that isn't the intended rule on that course? :p

ck34
Nov 16 2004, 09:45 AM
and gives the touring pro a stroke because the TD thinks it's stupid to revoke that rule.



Now that the USDGC set the penalty aside this year, the touring pros will be able to invoke the 'if it's good enough for the USDGC, it's good enough anywhere' line for a TD who forgets to specify any 2-meter penalty areas. I suspect it's a C-tier without touring pros where a mis-interpretation may occur. (A TD can't apply 'stroke' penalties anyway, just 'throw penalties)

tbender
Nov 16 2004, 09:54 AM
Nick, reread #2 in my post again. I am well aware that currently >2m is not OB. However, to avoid the double jeopardy situations, I believe that it could be moved to being OB. This way the player has options of where to play his next shot with the one stroke penalty.

It's only not OB now because of where the rule is placed in our rulebook and the way we handle the situation.

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 10:45 AM
Nick, reread #2 in my post again. I am well aware that currently >2m is not OB. However, to avoid the double jeopardy situations, I believe that it could be moved to being OB. This way the player has options of where to play his next shot with the one stroke penalty.

It's only not OB now because of where the rule is placed in our rulebook and the way we handle the situation.



Tony,

I agree with you that this type of thing (trying to make an aerial hazard, OB) is a worthy cause; where we disagree is that I think that the 2 meter rule is a horrible attempt at it, particularly when far superior ones are already available within our rules IN our OB rules section.

With a little clarification, either within our rules or in the Q & A section, concerning �Playing Surfaces� and IB/OB behaviors of these surfaces, Course Designers can make coming to rest completely supported by anything (regardless of elevation) on the course as OB, but retain the IB status of playing surfaces that might be above or below that OB.

What does that mean?

It means that a TD if they wanted could declare all tree surfaces 2 meters above where that surface meets the ground surface as OB.

Why do this when the 2 meter rule does the same thing?

Because you get all of the other benefits and clarity of the OB rule with it (a more clear and flexible boundary and relief being the main ones). And you also get far greater benefits for course designers because now they can designate sensitive or important course obstacles that are below 2 meters as OB surfaces as well.

It is, yes IMO, a far superior and elegant solution than keeping the �2 meter� designation anywhere within our rules.

Nick

Nov 16 2004, 11:26 AM
I came across the Jan/feb 1994 Disc Golfer mag and just had to share the survey in it with you all. (I obviously didn't submit my survey, cause the page is still in my mag) <font color="red"> I would like to point out that not much changes...</font>

1. The PDGA should standardize a system for calculating handicaps for amateurs, for use by individual clubs and local tournaments.
2. The PDGA World Championship should be limited to 144-180 players to allow a city with only two courses to hold the event.
3. If there were a week long disc golf conference and "trade show" apart form the PDGA Worlds, would you attend (if farther than a few hours drive away)? Various competitions would be included.
4. Smoking should NOT be allowed during tournament play at "A" tier events. <font color="red">HMMMMM? </font>
5. Smoking by competitors should not be allowed during ANY PDGA tournament. <font color="red">Double HMMMMM? </font>
6. The PDGA should be content with the design of the Mach 3 pole hole and should not actively seek to improve it or change it in any way. <font color="red">Hope the Mach V isn't looking </font>
7. The Pole hole should be made smaller and more difficult. <font color="red">Triple HMMMMM! </font>
8. The Disc Golfer should continue to publish minutes of the Board meetings (rather than a brief summary of the issues) <font color="red"> What magazine? </font>
9. A player should be allowed to compete at the amateur level as long as he or she wishes. <font color="red">We have a word for that... </font>
10. Collared shirts should be required at "A" tier tournaments. <font color="red"> Well?????? </font>
11. Players from all divisions should pay the same PDGA dues.
12. PDGA tournaments should be played only on sanctioned courses adhering to strict PDGA course standards (phase-in over several years, starting with "A" tier). <font color="red"> pay no attention to those Grange baskets.</font>
13. Repeat question from two years ago: Should the 2-meter above ground penalty be eliminated? <font color="red">Note: in 1994 this was already a REPEAT question....Quadruple HMMMMMM!!!!! </font>
14. Regional coordinators should play a more active role in running the PDGA and should vote on certain issues currently decided solely by the Board.
15. Each Tier should have a standardized payout scheme stating percent of field paid and percent of purse given to each place.


I just thought this was appropriate after watching this thread evolve as with all the other continuing issues.

Enjoy...

MS

Nov 16 2004, 11:37 AM
I13. Repeat question from two years ago: Should the 2-meter above ground penalty be eliminated? <font color="red">Note: in 1994 this was already a REPEAT question....Quadruple HMMMMMM!!!!! </font>



It just goes to show, if you want a bad rule eliminated you just have to wait about 11 years :D

sandalman
Nov 16 2004, 11:47 AM
I13. Repeat question from two years ago: Should the 2-meter above ground penalty be eliminated? <font color="red">Note: in 1994 this was already a REPEAT question....Quadruple HMMMMMM!!!!! </font>



It just goes to show, a rule that makes total sense in many situations can come under attack by a few narrow-minded zealots, and given enough time they can hijack the rules in order to force their way upon the rest of us. :D

james_mccaine
Nov 16 2004, 11:59 AM
Interesting post.

I wonder if they ever considered "no beer" before they considered "no smoking." The historians may one day note that that smoking was on the radar long before beer, but in an effort to spite Seewhere, The Man tackled beer first. :D

Nick, you appear to be teetering on the edge of sanity with this newfangled idea of OB. Just kiss 2m-OB-goodbye and move on.

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 12:44 PM
What it shows is that we have finally matured enough as an organization to tackle some of these long time issues.

James, the boundary of 2 meters above where the tree meets the earth is a little strange, not impossible to use, but strange. Imagine a TD saying at the the players meeting, "If you are more than 2 meters from the OB line you are OB, inside 2 meters of the OB line you are fine and may move it to inbounds with no penalty.

I like nice clean clear lines between OB and IB, the earth meeting the tree is as good as any, but if we are going to say "above something" then the OB should be continuous and be marked on a clearly defined and apparent surface (like the ground).

Nov 16 2004, 01:30 PM
A little Perspective... in Jan 1994

Point leaders for PRO were:

Larry Leonard 493
Crazy John Brooks 492
Scott Stokley 463
Craig Gangloff 421

Kenny was 7th with 397

Masters Point leaders were:

Dave Greenwell 178
Fred Salaz 170
Terry Batten 165

and I can't seem to find June Bug on any list. (he wasn't eligible for masters until 1996 or 1997)


Women Pro:

Rebecca Powell 32
Lynne Rothstein 30
Nina Neville 29
(Does anyone know what became of Naughty Nina?)


And Chris Hysell was an AM with 32 Points. He he!

thanks for walking with me down the disc golf memory lane.

MS

haroldoftherocs
Nov 16 2004, 02:09 PM
I'm glad I came back to this post and read the whole thing. I now understand Nick's argument that there are better ways to write a "2 meter above ground" rule than the way the current rule is written. Fair enough. As someone looking to protect our trees and keep the pace of play moving, I don't care HOW it's written. Just write it so it can be wholly adopted and not left up to the discretion of a TD. Establish a precedent! Because allowing one TD to say "yay" while another TD at the same course says "nay" is NOT a precedent. It's total confusion.

Bottom line: Something is needed. Removing the penalty will encourage people to throw routes they would not previously have considered. I don't know how this point can be argued. No penalty, no fear, and folks will go for it.

That means a LOT more discs stuck in trees. That means a lot more retrieval actions. More retrieval actions means more tree damage. More retrieval actions will require giving more players their "three minutes". The more and more "three minutes" you're forced to give out, the longer the delays.

I do need to respond to these Nick:

"What was it's purpose? To keep people from throwing at trees. Did it work? No." Your opinion is no. It CLEARLY works at Seneca every single day. You're the only person who would disagree with this, and that's because you play Seneca 1-2 time a year. I don't know anyone willing to gamble with the cedars. Why do you think we got the reputation of being a roller course? To avoid the tree penalty!

"Did it protect trees? No. Evidence is clear, particularly at Seneca where there are trees that are poster children for pulling courses (hole 18)" Nick, which Seneca are you talking about? You are obviously not talking about the one in Gaithersburg, MD (you know, the course you only play once a year). Our trees would be in horrible shape if they were subject to the countless retrieval actions that would occur if there was no penalty. How can you possibly say our trees are in bad shape? Oh, that's right, you only play the course once a year and clearly only remember 1 cedar tree out of HUNDREDS. You pick the one tree that's in horrible shape and then characterize the entire course by it? I guess I should expect nothing less from someone whose experience at our course is somewhere around once or twice per year.

When I hear your rendition and recollections of the course I play every day, my jaw drops to the ground in dismay. You couldn't possibly be more incorrect in the things you say about Seneca's cedar trees and how removal of the 2-meter rule would (or wouldn't) affect them.

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 03:01 PM
John,


I'm glad I came back to this post and read the whole thing. I now understand Nick's argument that there are better ways to write a "2 meter above ground" rule than the way the current rule is written. Fair enough. As someone looking to protect our trees and keep the pace of play moving, I don't care HOW it's written. Just write it so it can be wholly adopted and not left up to the discretion of a TD.



Sounds like you are calling for all trees and bushes to be defined as OB within our rules. While not totally opposed to such an idea (I also being very interested in the protection of our courses), OB by definition is at the discretion of the TD or Course Pro.

I�d much prefer the complete deletion of all reference to the 2 meters above the playing surface from our rules, but it is very apparent that there is a large part of our membership that does not fully understand the situation, and long to hold on to this less effective and more random rule than to move on and replace it with a more effective fair rule (OB).

I am not so much critical of Seneca as a whole, but critical of, and if, it has an over dependence of on a rule that has been proven ineffective in protecting trees and foliage, and whose design is therefore lacking. Particularly when, from the beginning of the course, it has utilized a many times more effective method of protecting trees and foliage, the �jail� or casual OB, not to mention OB areas.

John, if at your players meeting you could announce that all trees and bushes during the round are to be considered OB, so that a disc whether it is 25 feet up or 3 feet up is OB and play must proceed under that ruling, would you really miss the 2 meter rule? Do you think that the new rule would be more effective in protecting those trees and bushes than the 2 meter rule? Do you think such a rule would be less random and fairer than the 2 meter rule? Would play be speedier when all you need to judge is if the disc is hitting any IB surface rather than if it is 2 meters above any IB surface?

Now combine that with OB areas being marked around the base of those trees that come into play �all of the time� so not only discs that stick in the tree are OB, but a big majority of the ones that even hit the tree will be OB, and do you think you have a more effective method of protecting your course obstacles?

This is what I am talking about. Not like and dislike, but what is the most effective way to protect our course obstacles AND have as consistent behaving rules as we can manage.

And by the way, Seneca does need a redesign. Desperately. Craig is aware of this, I hope that he can get the support he needs to get it done. There is HUGE upside in doing it, and I have full confidence that he would do it right, considering he did it the first time way back when with Timber and JP.

Regards,
Nick

james_mccaine
Nov 16 2004, 03:13 PM
Removing the penalty will encourage people to throw routes they would not previously have considered. I don't know how this point can be argued.



I've heard this stated before and I'm not sure I really buy it. I try to avoid trees mostly because they are barriers, not because I'm afraid of sticking above two meters. In other words, even without the threat of a penalty, I'm going to avoid trees.

I'll admit that it could be something about the trees I'm used to and I might have evolved a different mindset if I played in another area, but other than the "canopy over the basket" example, I don't imagine too many people will take a sudden liking to trees.

sandalman
Nov 16 2004, 03:21 PM
its not that they take a sudden liking to them, its that the intense hatred of them is removed. i'm a fairly careful golfer, sometimes prolly too much so, but i can state with certainty that there are at least four holes at my home course where i am now actively experiementing with shots that were previously reserved for moments of frivolty (ie games of Wolf /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif )

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 03:23 PM
its not that they take a sudden liking to them, its that the intense hatred of them is removed. i'm a fairly careful golfer, sometimes prolly too much so, but i can state with certainty that there are at least four holes at my home course where i am now actively experiementing with shots that were previously reserved for moments of frivolty (ie games of Wolf /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif )



Are you saying "the fun is back"?

No wonder you are so miserable...

james_mccaine
Nov 16 2004, 03:42 PM
Pat, in my game, I can think of no holes where I will change my shot. Kicks off of trees are just too unpredictable if there are other more predictable options. There are holes where the best option may be to hit the canopy above the basket, but with the 2M rule in effect, I would already roll the dice on those holes and hope I was not unlucky enough to stick.

sandalman
Nov 16 2004, 03:49 PM
james, i honestly do not disagree with you. suffice it to say we are in different regions with different vegetation and contours to the land. i have no doubt whatsoever that many course exist where the 2 meter rule is absolutely worthless. i believe our point all along has been that even tho the previous sentence is true, there are also many courses where the 2 meter makes a very very valuable contribution. thats why we SUPPORT a change to the rules that would make the rule optional - the option being to opt out of the rule. the logic behind this approach rather than the reverse, which apparently is about to codified, is stable, regardless of what nick says.

neonnoodle
Nov 16 2004, 04:01 PM
james, i honestly do not disagree with you. suffice it to say we are in different regions with different vegetation and contours to the land. i have no doubt whatsoever that many course exist where the 2 meter rule is absolutely worthless. i believe our point all along has been that even tho the previous sentence is true, there are also many courses where the 2 meter makes a very very valuable contribution. thats why we SUPPORT a change to the rules that would make the rule optional - the option being to opt out of the rule. the logic behind this approach rather than the reverse, which apparently is about to codified, is stable, regardless of what nick says.



Actually I say that there should be no 2 meter rule "at all", "anywhere" or at "anytime". Replace them all with OB, which is and should be an opt in option for TDs and Course Designers...

haroldoftherocs
Nov 18 2004, 02:10 PM
Okay Nick, time to give you your due (at least partially).

<font color="red"> John, if at your players meeting you could announce that all trees and bushes during the round are to be considered OB, so that a disc whether it is 25 feet up or 3 feet up is OB and play must proceed under that ruling, would you really miss the 2 meter rule? </font>

While I think this is a heavy handed approach, I understand the consistency argument and would have to agree with you. Intuitevly, a disc stuck only 3 feet in a tree is easily retrievable so it would suck that this is OB. But taking it one step further, how is this different from a disc that lands at the very edge of a lake but wholly surrounded by water? Obviously there's no difference. It's still easily retrievable and doesn't slow play down, but it's also OB. Sounds like I'm buying your argument Nick.

<font color="red"> Do you think that the new rule would be more effective in protecting those trees and bushes than the 2 meter rule? </font>

I would contend that a retrieval action for a disc 20 feet up is far more damaging to a tree than the retrieval action for a disc under 2 meters. In my experience, trees aren't damaged when discs can be reached in for and grabbed. So I don't believe "better protection" would be offered.

<font color="red"> Do you think such a rule would be less random and fairer than the 2 meter rule? </font>

Yes, it's less random. I hear the 1.9 versus 2.1 argument. Obviously for the 6' 6" player, a disc 2.75 meters in a tree isn't going to take any time to retrieve. And for the 5' 4" player, that same disc could present a longer retrieval time.

<font color="red"> Would play be speedier when all you need to judge is if the disc is hitting any IB surface rather than if it is 2 meters above any IB surface? </font>

Absolutely.

<font color="red"> And by the way, Seneca does need a redesign. Desperately. Craig is aware of this, I hope that he can get the support he needs to get it done </font>

Craig is the leading voice out at Seneca for a complete redesign. I can't speak for all the homies, but from the folks I've talked to, it's not a very popular idea. Everyone is down for redesigning 16 and 18. Very few are into a complete change. Homies love their course, and they'll fight Craig tooth and nail should he try to completely redesign their home course.

I'm not sure what to think. I would like to put our efforts into improving what we got before throwing in the towel and opting for the complete re-design. I honestly believe that fewer than 70-80 small and medium sized trees would need to come out (nearly all of them choke cherry and cedars) to open the airshot on all 18 holes to the point where no one throws rollers anymore.

My bottom line: Don't bag out on a ruling that protects trees and promotes fast play. Re-write it if you have to, but don't bag on the idea. I understand only a small percentage of courses need this ruling, but the courses that do need it will suffer without it. I agree that allowing TDs to unenforce the ruling is a better solution than making TDs reinforce it.

sandalman
Nov 18 2004, 02:49 PM
John, if at your players meeting you could announce that all trees and bushes during the round are to be considered OB, so that a disc whether it is 25 feet up or 3 feet up is OB and play must proceed under that ruling, would you really miss the 2 meter rule?

is this really an option that is being considered??? if so, then new heights of lunacy have been reached.

Do you think such a rule would be less random and fairer than the 2 meter rule?

no, not at all. what is more random than being hung up 3 inches (or cm's or even mm's) in a low shrub? thats a lot more random than one throw getting stuck in a tree and the other one not!

Would play be speedier when all you need to judge is if the disc is hitting any IB surface rather than if it is 2 meters above any IB surface?

no, because the fights that would result from arguing about whether or not that thick blade of grass that is holding the disc off the ground is part of the "IB surface".

come people, get on the same planet as the rest of us. haroldo'therocs, i dont mean you - i mean whoever came up with these questions in the first place. the fact that they were conceived is scary enough. that fact that it made it from a notion to a publicly poised question makes me fear for our game!

Schoenhopper
Nov 29 2004, 02:03 AM
Hello all,

I have just heard about this decision so I decided to check here. I've read this thread and I noticed some good points made. It seems that some people are putting some good thought into this issue.

Though it may not be ok to insult someone for their opinion on this matter, I think it's ok to have a strong opinion about it, as I do myself.

When I first heard of what had happened I asked "why"? I've read the entire thread, listened to the announcement via PDGA radio, and still haven't found a satisfactory answer. Much effort was expended explaining the qualifications of those that helped make the decision, but little with their logic for doing so.

Is it because whether or not a disc lands in a tree is due to luck, and eliminating this luck will make tournaments more fair? I understand this line of reasoning, but I don't think this is a matter of just luck. What kind of shot (annhyzer stall will stick, low beam will not, hyzer depends on speed), what kind of tree, where at on the tree... all account for whether a discs sticks or not. How close a player is playing his shot to a tree or how big the gap is between the trees that he aiming for have a lot to do with whether the player hits the tree in the first place. These are calculations that the player can attempt to perform before he throws his shot.

The main reason I am against abolishing the 2m rule is because it changes the strategy of the hole. Most courses are fairly short and offer hyzer routes for the righty on a good majority of the holes. The holes that this isn't the case for are usually short enough to give the righty other options for his birdie. I know this is quite a generalization. I've only played about 100 courses. As courses become better (which they are), I'm sure this will become less and less so. Never-the-less there are a great number of holes/ course that are righty friendly and many holes have the option of throwing a hyzer above the trouble. The problem with this is that in a lot of cases, it's too easy of a shot. The mechanics of a hyzer release are solid enough to withstand small errors and give close to expected results. There is much more that can go wrong with other types of throws, such as annhyzers, and I believe that they require a more exact touch. My point is that most of these hyzers that hit trees (on the way down) fall to the ground with good results. By taking the penalty away, the more interesting shots down below aren't even considered, and the rare punishment that keeps players respecting the trees isn't dealt.

It seems like people differ greatly as to what holes need the 2m rule. It has been said that the only good example is that in which the tree is being used as a backstop. Certainly this is probably the best example. Another example that easily comes to mind is where a player has trouble that is closer to the tee than the basket. He can easily hyzer or tomahawk over to quite possibly land in some other trees located closer to the basket. If he plays it clean he has the bird, if not... he could get stuck. If there is no penalty, than there is no reason to play the low shot through the trees than gives a much harder upshot if the shot doesn't miss the trees. There is no encouragement to throw skillful shots such as low and straight, or rollers. The new disc design, the Epic, has been shown to DRAMATICALLY increase the distance for tomahawk throws. It seems that with the new rules, the tee boxes would have to be put right underneath a tree to discourage players from circumventing the hole by hucking it skyward.

I thought Sandalman gave some good examples. I've played those holes and what you say is true. To eleminate the 2m rule also eliminates the risk/ reward balance of the holes. Those are some of the greatest holes in disc golf, not poorly designed.

I'd like to hear about course designs or locations where the 2m rule does not help with giving the hole an extra element of strategy. It seems that they would be courses that gave very poor lies below those discs caught above 2 meters. These would be trees that had low, thick branches like cedars. It would be in conditions where these trees with rough lies were a long way from the basket. Anything else?....

I'm looking at where courses are headed. Lengthening courses and adding trouble with multiple routes to the pin will add excitement to the game of disc golf. (Ted's Dread in KC is the most difficult I've played). It will be so much more than the pitch and putt game we often play now. Some of the best courses I've played have had options of throwing above and below the tree canopy. By taking away the 2m rule, these holes will be lessened and it will result in more lost discs. This will also play into the changing concept of "fairway". With longer holes, a player will elect to aim up and over at trees that will yield a cleaner 2nd shot to the pin. These big trees are some of the best in disc golf and don't usually give poor lies when marking caught discs. This is a another example of how it is not just those trees next to pins that should use the 2m rule. I agree with the person who stated that no penalty for a bad shot is worse than a double penalty.

On another note, "Mommy and Daddy" mentioned that trees could be made OB for the sake of clarification. This would include lies below 2m. It sounds like for this person, it is not the double penalty that is the problem with the 2m rule, but something unclear about the 2m rule. I'm not sure what this is. It seems like there is something I'm not informed about. I've never had a problem determining whether or not a disc is above 2m. As noted in the PDGA radio announcement, 2m is not an arbitrary height. Certainly making the surface of a tree OB sounds like an interesting possibility, but Chuck's question regarding "where did it go OB?" on this 3d surface and where to play it from was never answered. It seems that this would be highly more subjective, unclear, and confusing than the simply 2m rule we have now.

Confusion is another thing to address here. By taking away the 2m except for if and how the TD wishes to enforce it, confusion will be created. As with all change, this is to be expected. But did it have to be this way? TD's follow the rules, they don't take the time to create them. They take the path of mental conservation. They are not going to use the 2m rule at all, because they will feel like it will be unclear to players as to whether or not it is in effect. The attitude will be "those guys in charge changed the rules, it will be them that have to deal with it". They won't want to deal with the complaining due to flip-flopping the rules back and forth. It was mentioned that it would have been much better to leave the 2m rule as default while giving TD's permission to release it at there discretion. I HIGHLY AGREE. This would have made more sense and led to less confusion.

I have heard other suggestions that would have made more sense than the decision that has been made. A list of better alternatives...

1) As mentioned above. Set the 2m rule as default with TD's option to release.

2) Allow player to play discs above 2m as an unsafe lie. They can't play it where is lies, so a 1 stroke could be taken with the player having the ability to releave his lie by playing it on a line straight back from the hole. 2 strokes may be taken for lateral relief.

3) Give 2m penalty. Allow player to play from current lie or previous lie.

These could be combined or tweaked to be very useful.


Trees are the most critically defining element of strategy for disc golf shots. Though the 2m rule doesn't change a great majority of shot selection, it does serve a useful purpose in adding the risk/ reward factor that encourages both skillful shots and the golfer's ability to use his head. I think we need to seriously consider our process for making the rules for our game. I'm not at all satified that this decision was the best one that could be made for the future of our sport.

Nov 29 2004, 02:05 AM
A bad shot IS PENALTY ENOUGH! It's not like the guy was knocking down obstacles to his stance or throwing motion... That would be cheating, and would be completely worthy of penalty strokes and even disqualification... Whether his disc tumbles through a tree to below 2 meters is not. Experience will make this apparent. and now we will have a real opportunity to experience it and know it first hand.



So, It IS a bad shot and not just BAD LUCK. Oops, I guess I am setting myself up for the NEXT of a consistent line of insults.

OB or not OB. Those that sell discs will let you know if that was a profitable.. I mean... good decision.

Another scenario (true) - I throw this BAD shot that hits the rim from seventy feet out on Lewisville 17. It lands on edge and rolls the 30 feet or so out of bounds. Bummer huh? That would only happen ... oh lets be pessimistic and say 1 out of 50 times someone hit the basket without sticking. Now, was that a bad shot or bad luck. Sorry folks, but you will have to find a better way to support dropping the two meter rule than the luck vs. skill thing. Bad luck can come into play on any OB.

Well, I guess if I was better at my 70 foot puts it would have went in the bucket. 2 inches higher (kind of like the 1 or 2 in four that that were two inches to one side so they fell out of the tree instead of sticking) and it would have been a great shot!

Personally. I look forward to the 2 meter rule going out. I don't agree with the change, but man I sure have a lot of good shots that, unluckily, get stuck in trees.

If everyone is thinking the same, someone is not thinking. - Patton

Sharky
Nov 29 2004, 08:12 AM
The get up and roll away scenerio IS set up by going for it. YOU have the choice from any distance on running for the chains risking an over run and/or hitting the rim and perhaps rolling away or laying up under the basket with less risk of a doink roll away.

Nov 29 2004, 09:30 AM
Schoenhopper, great job illustrating the use of logic and reason in this discussion. You summed up the points that many of us have made in a clear and succinct manner. Unfortunately, it will be wasted on most of those that want the rule abolished.

Thanks for trying, though.

tkieffer
Nov 29 2004, 10:29 AM
We can 'vote' to show our dissatisfaction, though. I am disappointed by this rule change with minimal if any involvement from the PDGA membership, and the direction taken to change a rule that a survey supported a couple of years ago. What can I do as an individual? Well, to start, the PDGA lost a Birdie Club member this year, as I will not be making this donation in 2005. Second, the person running unopposed for the Rules Committee won't be getting my vote as I will withhold voting, or enter a 'anybody but' type write-in for the position.

I suppose in the whole scheme of things, this is not a big deal. But as an individual, it�s all I got. Perhaps if enough other individuals express the same in this year's membership renewal, it will have an effect.

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 10:33 AM
You could also volunteer to run tournaments and apply the 2-meter rule on all holes.

james_mccaine
Nov 29 2004, 10:54 AM
As someone who used to favor this rule and now agree with the change, I see just as little persuasive logic in those that wish to retain the rule.

Their main argument seems to be the "but people will just aim for trees with no risk of penalty" argument. I find this argument unpersuasive for the following reasons:

1) Throwing at trees is stupid. If people wish to throw at trees, let them. Throwing into canopies creates alot of uncertainty and is usually not the shot of choice if a more predictable low route is available.

2) If there is no predictable low route, then people will drop bombs on the canopy and play the lottery even if the 2m rule is in effect . Therefore, the argument that the 2 meter rule prevents these shots is weak.

3) If there is a hole that really fits this description, the rulemakers are allowing a TD to use the 2 meter rule. Therefore, even if people were gaining an advantage by throwing into canopies, it can be rectified under the new rule.

In sum, throwing into trees is still a bad strategy, even under the new rules and if it becomes a good strategy on certain holes, the TD can fix it.

I'm not trying to be an *** here, but what were the other reasons for keeping the rule.

tkieffer
Nov 29 2004, 10:57 AM
Non-sanctioned, of course, and on a private DG course.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 11:07 AM
(annhyzer stall will stick, low beam will not, hyzer depends on speed



This is UNTRUE. I have seen High Anhyzer stalls fall out and I have thrown LAZER BEAMS into trees that got stuck . No ONE shot is going to stick or not stick. ITS ALL LUCK and that is why the 2 Meter rule was stupid IMO. Plus with the 2 Meter rule most of the time you are stuck in a PINE TREE which has a HUGE base so you then take the penalty and STILL have to throw from INSIDE the tree which in fact is a 2 stroke penalty instead of one. This way if you are stuck in a pine tree you can mark below it and have a CRAPPY lie there fore pretty much giving yourself a 1 stroke penalty for throwing it into the tree in the first place.

The thing is the 2 Meter rule is not GONE. TDs can use the 2 Meter rule whenever and wherever they see fit. This will be a better topic after we have played some tournaments where the 2 meter rule is not used or where the TD designates certains areas to have the 2 meter rule.

This rule not being in affect helps EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many people out there have NEVER been stuck in a tree??? I would say if you have been playing long enough EVERYONE has gotten stuck in a tree during a tournament walked up to the tree and said #$%^IN 2 meter rule why did MY disc have to get stuck when Billy Jo Bobs came out 2 holes ago????????? This way no one will say that. They may say #$%^ why did i hit this tree but they will mark the lie underneath and play on with no penalty. I dont understand why everyone doesnt like this rule change. You people who dont like the fact that they got rid of it would be the same people that if there wasnt a rule about it before would be mad that there is a rule about it now.

I SAY KILL THE 2 METER RULE TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DONT EVEN MAKE IT AN OPTION :D

That way i can throw all the spike hyzer routes i want just like i did before but this time if i get caught i can still make my putt for 2 :eek:

The courses with the spike hyzer routes doesnt give any more of an advantage to a righty then the course with tons of lefty hyzers gives to a lefty. I welcome those courses because I LOVE throwing turnovers and forehands :p

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 11:24 AM
We can 'vote' to show our dissatisfaction, though....Second, the person running unopposed for the Rules Committee won't be getting my vote as I will withhold voting, or enter a 'anybody but' type write-in for the position.


did you get a different ballot? mine only has three votes, one is for "competition" committee. maybe thats the rules committee? before you withhold your vote though, we should find out which members voted for what! where are the votes results posted????????????? if you want to vote for someone else, you can write in Pat "Sandalman" Brenner. :)



You could also volunteer to run tournaments and apply the 2-meter rule on all holes.

thank you chuck for proving DanHoward's point :confused: :mad::confused:



Throwing at trees is stupid. If people wish to throw at trees, let them. Throwing into canopies creates alot of uncertainty and is usually not the shot of choice if a more predictable low route is available.

the first part of this is categorically false, especially with no 2m rule. the second part is false on many many holes.


I'm not trying to be an *** here, but what were the other reasons for keeping the rule.

one more time, in unison - WE DO NOT PROTEST ELIMINATING THE RULE!!! what we protest is the 100% switch - it would have been FAR BETTER, MORE SIMPLE, LESS CONFUSING to allow the TD to rescind the rule on given courses/holes/trees.

This distinction is even more critical, because the most vocla proponent of killing the rule - Mommy and Daddy aka Nick Kight - is already on record as stating his ultimate goal is to completely eliminate the rule and NOT ALLOW TD's to re-instate it! in other words, this year's move is a ground-laying tactic designed to achieve a longer term goal of no 2m rule at all.

note to whomever: WHY is it not acceptable to make the lifting of the rule optional??? WHY does it have to be the way you chose??? the objective of lifting the rule where it makes sense to be lifted could still have been accomplished, and you would have had 100% support of all members - instead of creating the perception that a few zealots are forcing their way on everyone - and are really hoping to reach an even more restrictive longer term agenda.

We all could have won! Instead we have confusion, obsfucation, and the perception og personal agendas at the expense of courses that are not local to the decision makers.

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 11:54 AM
Seems like the vote was unanimous for those Board members in attendance. Steve Wertz wasn't there and Brakel wasn't there but was on a conference call at one point but I can't remember if it was when this was voted on. I'm not sure there's a single strong backer of retaining the blanket 2-meter rule on the Board, staff or Rules Committee except for I believe Joe Garcia. The rule has apparently been gone in all other countries, not just Sweden as I originally posted. Retaining it as an option, like OB, is perceived as a suitable compromise so it can be used where appropriate or desired. It appears most top pros support the change (based on lack of dissent after the change was tested at USDGC) with the only vocal exception being Gangloff based on his perceived need to retain it at Seneca. I suspect this top pro support is partly based on economics, where a fluky one-shot penalty can mean several hundred dollars.

james_mccaine
Nov 29 2004, 11:54 AM
After January 1st, as a token of good sportsmanship, I'm going to encourage all my opponents to throw at trees. :p

tkieffer
Nov 29 2004, 11:57 AM
My ballot is the same as yours with three votes, but I coudn't remember the position off the top of my head. I believe you are correct in the title of "Competition Director' being one possibility.

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 11:59 AM
well its good we're like sweden! now if we could just follow their lead in foreign policy :D

was the option on making opting out of the rule (the obverse of the new policy) ever considered?

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 12:04 PM
was the option on making opting out of the rule (the obverse of the new policy) ever considered?



Not that I recall. Of course to be consistent, then we would have had to make all water and asphalt OB unless specified by TD and every tree a mando unless rescinded by the TD. Seems a lot less compicated to actually specify places where peanlties are applied rather than eliminate them where they are not.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 12:04 PM
I still cant understand where this would be a GOOD rule??? I have yet to read a situation in which the 2 meter rule would be a GOOD thing. Getting stuck in a tree 2 meters up is ALL LUCK and then they say if it get blow down before it your turn to throw then its IB which makes it EVEN MORE LUCK.

I think the 2 meter rule is terrible in general. I guess if you wanted to designate some trees as OB then you could paint a ring around the widest part of the tree and then say ANYTHING inside this ring either on the ground OR stuck in the tree above is OB. That would be much better then the 2 meter rule. That way if you throw you know ANYTHING in or UNDER that tree is OB so you would plan your shot so that you didnt risk being there but to say hey IF your disc happens to get stuck in this tree you are going to get a penalty really doesnt deter as many people as it would if the tree and EVERYTHING UNDER it was OB.

Just my opinion.

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 12:39 PM
Not that I recall. Of course to be consistent, then we would have had to make all water and asphalt OB unless specified by TD and every tree a mando unless rescinded by the TD. Seems a lot less compicated to actually specify places where peanlties are applied rather than eliminate them where they are not.

except that the 2m rule was not an OB rule. i'd like to see NIck's idea of making all discs above the surface OB - let him tell us how to throw, because the disc would be starting its flight OB! unless of course we all get on our knees, place the disc vertically on the ground, and do a push roller :)

CK - visualize a 270 hole, with 90 degree dogleg left at 260-270 feet. grow thick, ground shule and 40-50 foot trees on the left side of the fairway. on the right, grow the shule, but place a clump of 40' trees at the 220 mark, and on one tall but thin tree at exactly pin high. grow both left and right in so that the fairway is 25 feet at its widest. now completely surround the basket (which is left of the tee if you're following this) with those 40-50 trees - except for one spot that opens up the dogleg. just for kicks, add a 20-25' ravine perpindicular to the fairway at 300' from the tee. populate generously with 2-5 inch diameter trees, and add enough water so that disc can get OB wet.

ok, now weve got the hole built, lets look for routes. for the RHBH, there is a straight, flat hook left. the challenges are a) keep it straight on the narrow fairway, b) fade left within about a 20' margin of error, c) dont go too far. there's also the hyzer bomb. advantages: a) takes fairway out of play, b) a 900 rated player can place a 270 hyzer +/- 20-30 feet at least 60% of the time, c) the ravine/creek is out of the picture because the hyzer will be running parallel, not at it like the flat shot.

for the LHBH the only routes are a low annie that has an extremely low margin of error on every scalar imaginable (all directions, speed, angle of attack and hyzer angle). OR the lefty can throw a 270 (well, more like 300 cuz of the tree height) and drop (or stick!!!) within 30' of the pin - again at least 60% of the time. i can guarantee that a mid-rated advanced player cannot execute the annie to within 30' more than 25%, and less if the wind picks up. they'll scramble for the three!

without the 2m rule both hyzers are FAR more likely to result in birdies.

does that help?

chris
Nov 29 2004, 12:47 PM
I haven't read any of the posts on here yet but I personally think getting rid of the 2 meter rule is a bad decision. Yes, there is some luck involved, but it's also for the best. How many times have you seen a disc skip on a road and then skip inbounce again, that's also luck, will we get rid of that rule too? I think that if someone is stuck in a tree, there should be a penalty! If you get stuck 25' up and can't get your disc back, how should that be a legal shot? Besides, why are you throwing into a tree in the first place, if you don't want to risk getting stuck in it, throw "away" from the tree! Just the fact that you can throw your disc to an unretrievable spot should make it a penalty. However it does suck when you get stuck 7' up and have to take an OB shot when it's easily reachable, but where do you draw the line? I think the PDGA made a good decision at 2 meters.

gnduke
Nov 29 2004, 12:53 PM
Pat, the hyzer spike for the rightie has always been the best shot for that hole. You have to get high enough to clear the first row of trees, and dive in behind the trees on the left. This line puts the disc in the clear alley coming in on the basket almost all the time. The only time the 2m rule comes into play is if you go too long, short, or take the low hyzer line.

The next hole is a much better example of why the rule should be done away with. All of the 15' tall scrub both before and right of the basket. No one aims at this stuff, but a lot of discs end up in it. If you don't make the turn properly, you are in scrub tree jail. If you are unlucky, the disc gets hung and you are in jail.

Another spot where the rule proves that players do not avoid the trees just because the 2M rule might cost them a stroke is hole 4. The fairway is littered of disc catching trees right, lefet, short, and loing. Both pin locations are circled on three sides by trees. Does anybody take the low route to either pin location?

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 12:57 PM
If retrievability is the standard, then we should also penalize situations that are currently casual relief like a marsh with ill-defined boundaries that can't be marked well enough to make it OB. If anything, casual relief with no penalty is less fair than a suspended disc because your shot was already penalized by losing distance and perhaps a poor lie underneath the tree. With casual relief, you usually have gotten full distance on your throw and a reasonably decent lie for your next toss. As James says, the proper thing to do will be to encourage your competitors to throw at trees and take advantage of the rule change.

ANHYZER
Nov 29 2004, 12:59 PM
Getting rid of the penalty for throwing a bad shot is lame...This is only going to dilute the scores, ratings, etc... :mad: Make the game harder, not easier /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 01:05 PM
As James says, the proper thing to do will be to encourage your competitors to throw at trees and take advantage of the rule change.

please tell us you forgot the smiley!

chris
Nov 29 2004, 01:09 PM
As James says, the proper thing to do will be to encourage your competitors to throw at trees and take advantage of the rule change.


I tried doing that at usdgc and couldn't even get stuck when I wanted to, maybe that's why I'm very against the rule change.

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 01:15 PM
Of course, I encouraged competitors to throw at trees before the rule change but it was more likely in my mind or under my breath :D

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 01:29 PM
Yes, there is some luck involved, but it's also for the best. How many times have you seen a disc skip on a road and then skip inbounce again, that's also luck, will we get rid of that rule too?



That disc was on its way back in bounds anyway. There are some holes that i have played where the road is OB but the best shot is to SKIP one off the OB road on PURPOSE. If there was no road to skip off of less people would take that route. The difference is a hitting that road at the same spot will always skip back in where as a disc entering a tree in the same spot may stick one time but not another. Its not luck they are trying to eliminate it is the RANDOM luck they are trying to get rid of. You throw 10 discs on a hyzer line over an OB road and all of them land on the road 10 out of 10 are going to skip back inbounds. You throw 10 shots into a tree on a hyzer line and 2 out of 10 make stick or maybe 5 out of ten. You do it again. The road shots come back in bounds. You throw at the tree again. Maybe 10 discs stick. Maybe NONE. The fact is it is pure random dumb luck.

The jump putt that hits the cage and rolls 30 to OB is not a bad shot but maybe you shouldnt have been trying to make a jump putt from 70 if there is OB so close to the pin.

I know i know you going to say why were you throwing at that tree if your disc could get caught it in. Well thats different because not EVERY disc that goes in the tree will end up in a penalty. EVERY discs that hits that cage and rolls OB WILL end in a penalty stroke :mad:

Nov 29 2004, 02:22 PM
Well, there's one top pro that doesn't like the rule change. Thanks Chris!!

The unretrieveable disc comment is another good one. The ability to get a disc stuck 25 feet up in a cedar, play from underneath and leave the disc there without penalty just boggles the mind.

How do you explain to a newbie to the sport that a situation like the one above is perfectly acceptable? Imagine the look that will accompany a comment like, "So I can leave it there and don't get penalized? Really? Are you sure?"

I think it's a bit ironic that Dave Dunipace has commented in favor of removing the rule, yet has also said he doesn't care for discs like the Epic that are meant to fly as ballistic (overhand thrown) objects. The removal of the rule will almost certainly lead to more overhands.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 02:44 PM
I think it's a bit ironic that Dave Dunipace has commented in favor of removing the rule, yet has also said he doesn't care for discs like the Epic that are meant to fly as ballistic (overhand thrown) objects. The removal of the rule will almost certainly lead to more overhands.



Im not sure but he was prolly refering the the STUPID CRAZY barrel roll flight and unpredictablity of the Epic. Its is a STUPID disc. I doubt he was refering to overhands in general. I myself dont think this will change a thing except for maybe a few strokes over the course of a tournament. I dont think people are going to change their game just because there is no 2 meter rule. I myself have never stood up on a tee pad and asked myself "where can i throw this so the 2 meter rule doesnt come into play???" I find it hard to believe there are that many people whos game will drasticly change because there is no 2 meter rule. If your good your good if your not your not whether there is a 2 meter rule or not. Thats the bottom line. The better player is going to win. Not the player who got a couple strokes because he didnt get a penalty for being 2 meters up. Its not like people get stuck in trees 6 times a round or anything. Its 1 or 2 times MAYBE 3 if your really UNLUCKY. I dont really see how a player thats not as good is going to win now just because there is no 2 meter rule :confused:

Nov 29 2004, 03:20 PM
You must not have too many cedar trees where you are, Steve.

And Dave was talking about the use of overhands in general, while commenting on the alleged unpredictability of the Epic. I know a couple of guys that are anything BUT unpredictable with them, so it's not the tool, but the craftsman. You can grip lock anything and have it go where you don't want it to.

For what it's worth (ok, I know, not much), I haven't lost a stroke to the 2 meter rule in a LONG time, maybe 2 years or so. I play on courses that have plenty of opportunity to get stuck in trees, and it's not like I'm all that good to begin with, so I don't see it as a luck thing. I know that if the rule is not in place it will change my strategery on a few holes for sure, since I do have a pretty accurate thumber up to 250' or so. I'll just need to stock some more DX Eagles for those 'unlucky' shots. :D

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 03:21 PM
Of course, I encouraged competitors to throw at trees before the rule change but it was more likely in my mind or under my breath :D



Classic CK! LOL!

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 03:22 PM
...I myself dont think this will change a thing except for maybe a few strokes over the course of a tournament.

how many tourneys are won by more than that?


I dont think people are going to change their game just because there is no 2 meter rule.

i already have on my home course (on holes 1, 2, 9, 15, 16) in preparation for some TD forgetting to announce the re-institution of the inconsistantly changed rule (!)


I myself have never stood up on a tee pad and asked myself "where can i throw this so the 2 meter rule doesnt come into play???"

you dont need to. you do need to ask the question "what routes does this open up now that i dont need to throw an accurate shot and can simply bomb in on the basket?


If your good your good if your not your not whether there is a 2 meter rule or not.

the 2m rule forced players to be better. w/o it they are allowed to be weaker.

Nov 29 2004, 03:46 PM
BTW, here is a link to the Dave D/Epic question:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=42323&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=27&vc=1

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 03:51 PM
how many tourneys are won by more than that?



Not that many but i think the 2 meter rule was a LUCK issue and it goes both ways. NONE of the players that would have had 2 meter strokes will have them in the future so the playing field will essentialy be leveled because no one will be able to say "well if it wasnt for those 2 strokes that i got for being over 2 meters i would have won." That person essentially lost the tournament because of bad LUCK. That in my opinion is STUPID.


i already have on my home course (on holes 1, 2, 9, 15, 16) in preparation for some TD forgetting to announce the re-institution of the inconsistantly changed rule (!)



You should have thrown those routes before because you are more likely to get threw and get the 2 then you are to get caught and still be putting for 3 with a well placed but UNLUCKY shot.


you dont need to. you do need to ask the question "what routes does this open up now that i dont need to throw an accurate shot and can simply bomb in on the basket?



I looked for those routes before and those are the ones i throw if there is no OTHER trouble then getting caught up in the canopy. Sometimes people dont throw the spike HYZER because even if they do get to the ground a crappy shot can land you in JAIL looking at a 4 or a 5.


the 2m rule forced players to be better. w/o it they are allowed to be weaker.



This is not true. MAYBE and MAYBE it forced them to be SAFER but not BETTER. Even if you can throw a spike hyzer over something right at the basket you still have to be able to throw a GOOD spike hyzer. You can throw a BAD one and just because its an easier route expect to still have a good shot. Either way you look at it you have to throw a GOOD shot to be under the basket. Plus i throw alot of spike hyzer routes that other people wouldnt even consider because they CANT throw that route. Am i the weaker golfer because i CAN throw that spike hyzer or are THEY the weaker golfer because they cant??? :eek:

chris
Nov 29 2004, 05:22 PM
the 2m rule forced players to be better. w/o it they are allowed to be weaker.


I know Barry's going to be ****** when I'm playing against him and he throws a perfect drive right at the basket, hits it, then rolls 35' away and misses his putt. Then I step up, shank my drive way to hard and too high and gets stuck 20' up in a tree above the basket, and have a drop-in for a 2 :)

How did this rule change come up anyway? I really can't see why the pdga would even think of changing it!!

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 06:09 PM
from what i can tell from this thread, and previous attempts to change it, Nick Kight found a way to make it an issue and to convince the Rule Committee to accept his theory. this is strictly my perception, and may or may not be reality. but you know what they say about perceptions.

chris
Nov 29 2004, 06:45 PM
Well I hope I get stuck in every tree possible next year /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Maybe if they just cut down all the trees and bushes, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Whoever can throw closer to the basket on a hyzer shot and putt should win. Why have obsticals to throw around? People might hit them and come up short, that wouldn't be good.

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 08:04 PM
How often do people get stuck in trees??? That should be something that we find out. Then we can say if it will REALLY be a big deal or not. I have only gotten a 2 meter rule stroke 5 times out of 29 tournaments 64 rounds and 5070 strokes so i really dont think its that big of a deal to get rid of a rule that doesnt even come into play that much. With just my figure it comes into play about 1 out of a 1000 shots :eek: Really not a big deal guys. I think its good. You guys think it sucks but in all reality IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER Maybe that 1 shot out of 1000 will help me or one of you WIN a tournament this year :D

By the way i still throw spike hyzers and thumbers and over the top shots if the 2 meter rule is the ONLY thing i have to worry about :D

Add up your scores and figure out how many times you have been stroked for being over 2 meters and i bet you will find that IT DOESNT MATTER THAT MUCH AT ALL :eek:

gnduke
Nov 29 2004, 08:15 PM
It's not that it adds a lot of strokes to the current scores that is being argued, it is that the lack of the penalty stroke will change how players choose to attack some holes that are difficult to get to without coming in over the top and risking getting stuck. I can think of several holes where the basket is much easier to attack from above, but being under live oaks it is likely that the disc won't fall through.

If I can get the distance over the canopy, it becomes a question of do I risk losing the disc for the rest of the round.

magilla
Nov 29 2004, 08:26 PM
If I can get the distance over the canopy, it becomes a question of do I risk losing the disc for the rest of the round.



The change in rule is STUPID...............

But if you cant get your disc down...How do you know that it is yours??
I can remember Cam taking strokes for playing someone elses lie when the disc he thought was his was later found NOT to be after a spotter got it down. :p

In NorCal the 2 METER RULE WILL ALWAYS BE IN EFFECT. :D
This will be added to our bylaws..Let those idiots with NO TREES play how they like.

My favorite excuse/reason for dropping the rule.
If 2 people throw 30 feet into a tree and 1 falls out and the other one doesnt, thats LUCK

Well Ive NEVER seen a basket 30 feet up in a tree, so why would someone want to throw there??

The skill is AVOIDING the tree not allowing us to BOMB THEM TO DEATH without risk of OB

cbdiscpimp
Nov 29 2004, 08:54 PM
My favorite excuse/reason for dropping the rule.
If 2 people throw 30 feet into a tree and 1 falls out and the other one doesnt, thats LUCK

Well Ive NEVER seen a basket 30 feet up in a tree, so why would someone want to throw there??

The skill is AVOIDING the tree not allowing us to BOMB THEM TO DEATH without risk of OB




First off have you ever played a course that has severe elevation change and TALL trees. # 3 at Cass Benton comes to mind. I can throw a drive straight out off that tree and end up 60 ft up in the air :eek: And 60ft in the air would be lower then where the cement for the pad sits. Or 15 at cass benton. You tee off about 50 ft above the basket. Your disc starts out 50 ft above the basket. How about hole 1 at Carol Marty in IOWA. Your tee shot has goes threw a window then the hole drops about 50 or so feet down to the basket so if you get caught 30ft up in a tree there that must have been a horrible shot why would anyone throw a disc 30 ft in the air.

Second off DISTANCE and some shots require HEIGHT. Do you always throw your discs lower then 6 ft in the air??? I dont think so.

Third off 2 meter rule IS NOT OB. Its stroke and place directly below which usually results in another penalty. Now if you could take lie and stance outside the tree it would be one thing but you cant so 2 meters is STUPID:mad:

ANHYZER
Nov 29 2004, 09:01 PM
:mad:I agree that they should change the 2 meter rule...And make it 2 strokes for getting stuck in a tree! :mad:

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 09:05 PM
Easy there Mike and Steve...

I don't recall giving anyone permission to use "my" word here.

There is only one way to find out which is really .... and thank the PDGA Rules Committee and the PDGA Board of Directors for providing us the opportunity to discover the truth.

ANHYZER
Nov 29 2004, 09:09 PM
:mad:I agree that they should change the 2 meter rule...And make it 2 strokes for getting stuck in a tree :mad:

bruce_brakel
Nov 29 2004, 09:30 PM
Seems like the vote was unanimous for those Board members in attendance. Steve Wertz wasn't there and Brakel wasn't there but was on a conference call at one point but I can't remember if it was when this was voted on. I'm not sure there's a single strong backer of retaining the blanket 2-meter rule on the Board, staff or Rules Committee except for I believe Joe Garcia.

This is the actual history: At the teleconference before the Augusta meeting Theo stated that we would be dealing with non-controversial rules changes at a particular point in the Augusta meeting. He then vetted some non-controversial rules changes which we all agreed were non-controversial. When he got to the 2-meter rule Stork [a non-voting adviser to the Board] and I both argued for the traditional rule. Wertz was not pursuaded that the rule needed to be changed. So Theo said that the 2-meter rule would have to wait for the later rules update.

I was pre-committed to volunteering at USWDGC and could not take off two more consecutive days from my work, so I could not go to Augusta. I sought leave from the USWDGC commitment, but the girls said, "You promised..."

I skipped the part about non-controversial rules changes. Since Steve and I were not there, changing the 2-meter rule became non-controversial and it passed unamimously.

The 2005 rules will have about 20 rule changes. Some are necessary, some are non-controversial, but a few are intrusive, by which I mean that you will need to know a few new rules to play tournament disc golf.

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 09:31 PM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 09:33 PM
For a lawyer, you sure are ... :D

(easy to fool, I was going to say...)

bruce_brakel
Nov 29 2004, 09:38 PM
For a lawyer, you sure are easy to fool

I get up in the morning assuming that everyone is going to treat me honestly and fairly, except for those who have given me reason to know better. Enough people have given me reason to know better, that I should know better by now.

Nov 29 2004, 09:43 PM
This is the actual history:
...
When he got to the 2-meter rule Stork [a non-voting adviser to the Board] and I both argued for the traditional rule. Wertz was not pursuaded that the rule needed to be changed. So Theo said that the 2-meter rule would have to wait for the later rules update.
...
I skipped the part about non-controversial rules changes. Since Steve and I were not there, changing the 2-meter rule became non-controversial and it passed unamimously.




Interesting, when were these meetings? I was under the impression that the Rules Committee was mandated by the BOD to make the 2m rule optional. It was left in the Rules Committee's hands exactly how to word the recommended changes, and pass those back to the board. This original mandate would have been sometime before the end of October. When Carlton spoke to Sully on PDGA Radio, it was already a done-deal (that it would become optional, not the specific implementation).

rhett
Nov 29 2004, 09:58 PM
It sounds as if this change was rammed through without due process. Our duly appointed Champion of Reason, aka Bruce Brakel, was conveniently out of the way so the decision was quickly made.

Unless Bruce is embellishing the story.....I fail to see how anyone on any side of this issue could think that any change to the 2 meter rule could ever be "non-controversial". :confused:

bruce_brakel
Nov 29 2004, 09:58 PM
This is the actual history:
...
When he got to the 2-meter rule Stork [a non-voting adviser to the Board] and I both argued for the traditional rule. Wertz was not pursuaded that the rule needed to be changed. So Theo said that the 2-meter rule would have to wait for the later rules update.
...
I skipped the part about non-controversial rules changes. Since Steve and I were not there, changing the 2-meter rule became non-controversial and it passed unamimously.




Interesting, when were these meetings? I was under the impression that the Rules Committee was mandated by the BOD to make the 2m rule optional. It was left in the Rules Committee's hands exactly how to word the recommended changes, and pass those back to the board. This original mandate would have been sometime before the end of October. When Carlton spoke to Sully on PDGA Radio, it was already a done-deal (that it would become optional, not the specific implementation).

The time frame was in my post, and is consistant with everything you just posted. When you were reading my post perhaps you misread USWDGC?

ck34
Nov 29 2004, 10:11 PM
The change is non-controversial because the rule isn't supposed to be gone. Other than being optional, the wording of how the rule is implemented wasn't going to change. All the controversy is over where it should or shouldn't be applied. These are course design not rules controversies which is where they should be.

bruce_brakel
Nov 29 2004, 10:21 PM
The change is non-controversial because the rule isn't supposed to be gone. Other than being optional, the wording of how the rule is implemented wasn't going to change. All the controversy is over where it should or shouldn't be applied. These are course design not rules controversies which is where they should be.

You heard it here folks: the change is non-controversial! Move along. Nothing to see here. :D

ANHYZER
Nov 29 2004, 10:27 PM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 10:34 PM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Just like the 2 meater rule this wouldn't be OB either...

rhett
Nov 29 2004, 10:37 PM
Back on track, please....

Why was the rule change rammed through so quickly? And how "okay" is it to ram the decision through when the opponents of said change aren't present?

It doesn't sound kosher to me.

ANHYZER
Nov 29 2004, 10:40 PM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Just like the 2 meater rule this wouldn't be OB either...


Semantics...Shmemantics. Excuse me...If it is announced that there would be a penalty for landing on your "string", then fine...

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 11:01 PM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Just like the 2 meater rule this wouldn't be OB either...


Semantics...Shmemantics. Excuse me...If it is announced that there would be a penalty for landing on your "string", then fine...But don't go whining to change the rule because you get stuck in trees too often



More than semantics, as Rhett would explain if it didn't involve agreeing with me. If it were OB, then it would all be IB, because touching IB is IB according to our rules, so unless it was standing on edge touching only the string, it would be IB.

No, this would be "the String" rule. Just having your disc in contact with the string would be an automatic penalty stroke. Heck! This is a kinder and gentler rule than the 2 meter rule, at least you're not stuck under or next to a tree on your next throw.

This is exactly like the 2 meet her penalty.

I'm not sure, but I can't remember taking a 2 mitre rule penalty in over 20 PDGAs played last year. I do remember a few other unlucky souls getting them though, and I didn't think one time, "Man! What a horrible shot!" One I remember was on hole 7 at Seneca and a top player threw the preferred flight path, a hyzer over cedars and vanished in a cedar 380 feet, 40 feet from the pin. This is Craig Gangloff's prefered flight path, in case your second guessing me. If you miss the 3 guardian trees you are parked. That shot is something I haven't even had the arm to attempt since 1990. It is a pure power sweetness. But all you guys are saying it was a "bad shot" because it didn't drop out of the tree, or even just below 2 meters, making it what? A "good shot"?

Logic is not on your side and I strongly suspect that after this year, when we get to find out first hand, reality won't be either.

Don't be mad. Be thankful. It's a smallish thing, but getting it right is still a good thing.

neonnoodle
Nov 29 2004, 11:06 PM
LOL!


Why was the rule change rammed through so quickly?



Good one Rhett. How many years has it taken? My guess it has taken since the weak thing made it into the rules; and for what!?! To marry Cinderella? No, we'll still have to date her 2 ugly step sisters periodically....

You are a real jokester... :D

chris
Nov 29 2004, 11:43 PM
What is the exact ruling? I think a good rule would be to have the 2 meter rule in effect unless the TD says different before the tournament. Is that what the new ruling will be? or close?

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 11:57 PM
The change is non-controversial because the rule isn't supposed to be gone. Other than being optional, the wording of how the rule is implemented wasn't going to change. All the controversy is over where it should or shouldn't be applied. These are course design not rules controversies which is where they should be.

Chuck, you are obviously a very intelligent man, and there is no doubt at all that you have keep the interests of the game and the PDGA foremost in your thinking.

therefore, i am having a tremendous amount of difficulty understanding why you do not recognize that with the new wording, the rule is for all practical purposes gone. making the use of the rule the option makes it very easy to forget to announce it, decide to minimize confusion by not using it, and lots of other courses of action that result in its non-application. not to mention the inevitable confusion resulting from players not attending/not paying attention to the players meeting. true, they should be there, and awake, but we live in reality and the PDGA should strive to eliminate potential points of confusion.

it would be a baby step instead of a giant leap. if the baby step is so perfect as some believe, then in a year or so there would be no problems in eliminating it more completely.
further, there was no course design controversy before! no there is both a rules controversy AND a course design controversy!

but the most odd aspect to this entire thing is that
we all could have won. easily. simply allowing TDs the option to suspend the rule would have accomplished 100% of the official objectives and none of the controversy!

it's not too late! no one who wants the rule to go away can complain if they are provided that option. and no one who wants it to stay can complain if they do not have to proactively re-instate that which was a given for the last, what, 20 years. no courses will suddenly develop design flaws.

this really should/could be so simple and non-controversial. i hope you could find a way to support a simple re-wording.

bruce_brakel
Nov 29 2004, 11:57 PM
Back on track, please....

Why was the rule change rammed through so quickly? And how "okay" is it to ram the decision through when the opponents of said change aren't present?

It doesn't sound kosher to me.

Nothing in the Tora or in any of the important rabbinical commentaries suggests that anything more than a majority of the quorum is necessary for a rule change. ;) The Constitution provides that the Commissioner must here from all sides before putting an issue to a vote of the Board. I said what I had to say at the meeting before the vote. I took some time saying what I had to say. I exhausted the topic. I was nonpersuasive. So be it. The new rule is fully consumable by persons of all faiths.

I only explained how the rule got changed so that no one would be left with a misimpression that I did not care or was in agreement with the change.

You need to fight the 2-meter fight with the people you team up with when you run tournaments, if you think it is a fight worth fighting. I think I'll just go along with whatever Jon wants, unless he and Brett disagree, in which case I'll try to fashion a tie-breaking compromise, unless one of them has already stuffed the ballot box with five votes.

sandalman
Nov 29 2004, 11:58 PM
What is the exact ruling? I think a good rule would be to have the 2 meter rule in effect unless the TD says different before the tournament. Is that what the new ruling will be? or close?

its the opposite - the TD must proactively re-instate the current ruling, otherwise there is no 2m rule. do you see any potential for confusion? :confused:

bruce_brakel
Nov 30 2004, 12:08 AM
What is the exact ruling? I think a good rule would be to have the 2 meter rule in effect unless the TD says different before the tournament. Is that what the new ruling will be? or close?

Technically there is no official wording yet, but we are expecting a wording of the rule that merely states that if you are above the playing surface, mark under your disc, like the marking rule already provides.

Then somewhere in the rules, either right there or maybe somewhere else, will be mentioned something to the effect that the TD in his discretion may declare that some or all lies over two meters above the playing incur a one-throw penalty, similar to how the rule currently reads, but now discretionary with the TD.

So if the TD says nothing, there is no penalty. In this way it is just like the lake, river or road. If the TD does not declare it a penalty, it is not a penalty.

ANHYZER
Nov 30 2004, 12:14 AM
I'm going to put a piece of string down the center of the preferred fairway; if you land on it, you get a penalty stroke.

That to me is the essense of the 2 meter penalty and why it is so dam ....



If it is announced that it is "OB" I'm fine with that. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Just like the 2 meater rule this wouldn't be OB either...


Semantics...Shmemantics. Excuse me...If it is announced that there would be a penalty for landing on your "string", then fine...But don't go whining to change the rule because you get stuck in trees too often



I'm not sure, but I can't remember taking a 2 mitre rule penalty in over 20 PDGAs played last year <font color="red">That's a great feat...now that the rule is changed you'll never take a penalty stroke, and your streak will last forever </font> . I do remember a few other unlucky souls getting them though, and I didn't think one time, "Man! What a horrible shot! <font color="red">Wow...You are an idiot then </font> " One I remember was on hole 7 at Seneca and a top player threw the preferred flight path, a hyzer over <font color="red">Keyword OVER </font> cedars and vanished in a cedar 380 feet, 40 feet from the pin. <font color="red">Nice try...Bad shot </font> This is Craig Gangloff's prefered flight path, in case your second guessing me <font color="red">I don't need to second guess you, you a blatantly wrong </font> . If you miss <font color="red">Keyword MISS </font> the 3 guardian trees you are parked <font color="red">Because you successfully negotiated the obstacles </font> . That shot is something I haven't even had the arm to attempt since 1990 <font color="red">Well now you can just throw at the trees and say they are good shots </font> . It is a pure power sweetness <font color="red">If you have the arm </font> . But all you guys are saying it was a "bad shot" because it didn't drop out of the tree <font color="red">No a good shot would have made it OVER the cedars or MISSED the cedars </font> , or even just below 2 meters, making it what? A "good shot"?

Logic is not on your side <font color="red">It is not on your side either, what is on your side is inane ramblings of a senile schizofrenic with a multiple personality disorder(mommy_and_daddy) </font> and I strongly suspect that after this year, when we get to find out first hand, reality won't be either.

Don't be mad. Be thankful. It's a smallish thing, but getting it right is still a good thing.



And I'm out-

ck34
Nov 30 2004, 12:51 AM
I've always been on the side for eliminating the 2-meter rule. But to assume I'm satisfied with this compromise option is not accurate. I think we can do better.

Nick's assertion that OB is a better way to penalize suspended lies, where desired, has merit. However, there are still some lie marking issues to be clarified. I've always had concerns about disc identification with suspended discs and no 2-meter rule, and 'lost' discs in casual relief areas. Since situations like this will come up more often with the rule change, I'm hopeful we'll get some more ideas for dealing with it when the major rules overhaul discussions occur in 2005.

Nov 30 2004, 01:11 AM
I think I'll just go along with whatever Jon wants, unless he and Brett disagree, in which case I'll try to fashion a tie-breaking compromise, unless one of them has already stuffed the ballot box with five votes.



I think I'll vote to not use the 2 meter rule. It has always seemed like a spin of the roulette wheel to me. But then Bruce might crack out his "but its no more a spin of the roulette wheel than throwing down a drive and bouncing off 18 tree trunks on your way to the basket!" And then maybe I'll be convinced and go with the 2 meter rule. I don't know right now...check the flyer for the 2005 IOS and it'll probably say which way I'm going. ;)

Nov 30 2004, 01:17 AM
I think I am on the side of eliminating the rule as well....I just got done playing a round and those darn trees grabbed my disc three times on one hole....grrr...thats six strokes before the putt for those of you keeping track at home....stupid rule, penalizes people that throw out of control...can't wait until the 1st of Jan. I am sure it was just unlucky that I threw into those darn trees and it stuck. I mean, what are the chances that a Blue Spruce would make a disc stick in it? Pure luck.

bruce_brakel
Nov 30 2004, 01:35 AM
I think I'll just go along with whatever Jon wants, unless he and Brett disagree, in which case I'll try to fashion a tie-breaking compromise, unless one of them has already stuffed the ballot box with five votes.


I think I'll vote to not use the 2 meter rule. It has always seemed like a spin of the roulette wheel to me. But then Bruce might crack out his "but its no more a spin of the roulette wheel than throwing down a drive and bouncing off 18 tree trunks on your way to the basket!" And then maybe I'll be convinced and go with the 2 meter rule. I don't know right now...check the flyer for the 2005 IOS and it'll probably say which way I'm going. ;)

When entrusted with the responsibility to vote on a rule for everyone everyPDGAwhere, my reaction was to vote for no change unless there is some demonstrated need to change the rule, especially since only a couple of years ago the membership voted to retain the rule. But now that that is past, I seem to hit more freaky sticky trees than anyone I know, so now it is time for self-interest to take over!

Brett, there's no point in voting unless you got 3 votes!