I've seen it posted quite a few times lately on the 2-meter threads, but I didn't want to distract from someone who was making excellent counter-points to Nick.

<font size=3>You do not get 3 minutes to retrieve a disc stuck in a tree!</font>

You get three minutes to find a lost disc. If your disc is right there, 50 feet up in a tree, it is not lost. 3 minutes does not apply to this situation.

Thank you for your time.

You have until it's time for you to throw again, and you can not cause a distraction for any of the players around you.

If you believe the disc is yours but can not positively identify it then under rules you may be allowed the 3 minutes to identify it. The risk you run is that if you don't id it you take a lost disc and mark your lie where it was "last seen".

The difference is one is just a difficult retrieval location the other a lost disc situation.

If everyone agrees that it is your disc, when it is your turn, you must mark and throw prior to getting it down and no time limit other than your next shot is involved (as Gary said).

803.10 LOST DISC
A. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three-minute time limit.


So, even if seen, it's considered 'lost' until identified, is that it? And, depending upon eyesight, I can take up to 180 seconds to IDENTIFY my disc?

Then, another UNCLOCKED interval to mark the lie, beneath? Don't rush; I'm careful!
...once marked properly, BOOM! The 30-seconds start.

Each turn in this manner could take roughly 4 minutes. :eek:

People didn't get 3min to get them down when there was a penalty involved but they still retrieved their disc anyway. Must people that play disc golf will allow another golfer to retrieve their disc with out stroking them for taking to long.

Am I correct in interpreting the rule for lost disc as follows:

If you know where to legally mark your lie, then you do not have 3 minutes to find your disc. You only have the time to look until it is your turn to throw.

For example, you throw a disc definately deep in OB and don't know where it is. You know where it was last IB, so you don't get the 3 minutes to look for your disc. You just have to mark, throw your next shot and then if you have time without distracting others you can look then until it is your turn to throw again.

You are allotted three minutes to find a lost disc with all players assisting by rule. If the other players on your card think it is in their best interest to find your hopelessly lost disc, they can use the full three minutes to find your lost disc and you must throw from there. If someone finds your lost disc after it is declared lost, and before you make your next throw, you must take the lost disc penalty and use the previously lost disc to mark your next lie.

So, if you throw it into the woods so badly that you are sure it will never be found and think you can just walk up and say it is lost and mark it on the edge of the fairway where you last saw it, you better hope that it is lost where no one can find it.

You get three minutes to find a lost disc. If your disc is right there, 50 feet up in a tree, it is not lost. 3 minutes does not apply to this situation.

Retrieving the disc has nothing to do with marking your lie, correct? If you have positively identified your disc in the tree then you simply mark the lie (under the disc) and throw your next shot under the normal rules of play. When you choose to retrieve your disc is up to you. I guess if there is a question about identifying the disc (and thus proper lie) then the disc is considered 'lost'.

Is this correct?

Unidentified <font size=3>=</font> Lost?

I guess if there is a question about identifying the disc (and thus proper lie) then the disc is considered 'lost'.



I guess you guessed correctly. :eek:


O.K., I've declared a lost disc, and fortunately, somebody [the same guy who insisted on carrying the scorecard 18 holes; the one with the pencil with the eraser making notes in a journal] whips out his 3-minute eggtimer, and, after but two minutes of search [by eyeball-ness], I'm looking up at this tree [by the way I wasn't aiming at this tree], and I see two [!!] discs up there; both appear like the one I last saw heading this way... but I can't tell FOR SURE... do I have but a minute of sand remaining to 'find' <font color="red">my </font> disc?!?

If you do get your disc stuck in a tree, get a quic-stic to get it out! You can buy the 10 foot stic or buy two for tweenty feet! It only takes a few seconds to unfold and setup. Go to cotscreations.com and check it out! You even get $5.00 off if you are a pdga member! :)

http://www.spam.com/assets/hp/GoodGone3_animation.gif

Are you kidding me here? What are the chances going to be of two identical discs being caught in a tree? And then of them being so close to entry point and stuck point that you cant tell them apart? If they are that close, you can mark under either one anyway. You guys are being way to anal on this.

Actual scenario:

Player throws drive, and it disappears into the trees. The group arrives and the correct color (and possibly model) of disc is apparent to the group stuck way the hell up in a tree. Unretievable. He takes the 2m penalty, throws his next shot. Later someone in the group says "hey, isn't this you disc over here in this bush?

Now he has to add two more strokes for playing the wrong disc.

Happened to me at Morley, hole 1 in the "C" position. I throw over the top and draw some wood. We see a red candy disc way the heck up there. Crap. I mark my lie and throw to the basket.

When we get up there to putt, there's my disc 5 feet from the basket.

Since that disc I threw from wasn't in play, just an abandoned disc, I guess i should've gotten a 3 on that hole instead of the 4 I took, eh? (2 throws and a practice throw penalty versus three throws plus a 2 meter penalty.)

Nice try Rhett, but intent says otherwise. Since you thought it was in play, that's no practice throw, that's an actual throw from the wrong lie.

A practice throw is, by definition, a throw from the wrong lie.

Check the wording of the 2-stroke rule you are trying to apply. :)

<font color="red">803.09 THROWING FROM ANOTHER PLAYER'S LIE

A. A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were his or her own. No throws shall be replayed. </font>

Right. The disc I played from was not another player's lie! It was an abandoned disc. No one stuck it there from hole 14, and no one was playing hole 1. The disc was not in play, therefore it wasn't "another player's lie". It was no lie.

Hence my throw from there was a practice throw.

<font color="red">804.05 DISQUALIFICATION & SUSPENSION

A. A player may be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:
...
(3) Cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play. </font>

There was a whole thread on this before. I used to believe any disc on the course would qualify for the "wrong lie" rule, but after that discussion I was swayed that the wording was pretty purposeful and was intended for exactly what it said: another player's lie.

An abandoned disc doesn't count as another player's lie.

A player gets 3 min to find a lost disc. If you can't id a disc up in a tree, then the disc is still lost, and the 3 minutes still is in effect, and you can use that time to knock the disc down to verify that it is your disc.

The player has the right to do that, but in the great majority of cases, the player/group agrees that the disc in question is the disc thrown by the player, but don't come down on the player who wants to use 3 min to knock down a disc that is in a tree or in a viturally unreachable position.,

If the player believes he has located the disc in the tree, then no lost disc is declared. No three minute timer started. Can another player declare someone's disc as lost even if they don't think it is?

If the player says that the disc up in the tree is his, how can the other player show that it is not? So, I would not say that another player can challenge the thrower's assertion that the disc in question is indeed the throwers disc.

So if the thrower says "that's my disc", then benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower and the disc is not lost and no 3 minute timer is started.

That is why I started this thread. The rules do not give you 3 minutes to retrieve a stuck disc. They give you 3 minutes to search for a disc when you can't find it.

--------------------
Good shots don't hit trees, and they certainly don't stick in them over 2 meters.



Some would say they don't "Ace" either... Good thing "good shots" is not a consideration, nor is it mentioned once in our rules. Rules are more concerned with fairness than quality of execution (which all washes out in the score anyway).

Some would say they don't "Ace" either... Good thing "good shots" is not a consideration, nor is it mentioned once in our rules. Rules are more concerned with fairness than quality of execution (which all washes out in the score anyway).



Sure Nick - whether or not a shot is considered "good" never comes into consideration in our rules does it? That's why there are no rules that concern penalizing a player as a result of their shot right?

I'll be honest - I haven't read this whole thread - and really have no interest in doing so. I have noted that some consider that OB might be better applied to lies above ground than the current 2 meter rule - to which I would reply - maybe so. There are certain elements that could be used very effectively. Relief could be granted from where you were "last in bounds" which could be argued as the drip line of the tree. This could provide the relief so many 2meter detractors scream about as a necessity.

What I have not seen is any concern from those same detractors of a lie an inch off the ground deserving a penalty stroke. The issue of "shot quality" is indeed inherent in our rules Nick - and is at the heart of the 2 meter debate. Good shots are never punished by penalty (you might have thought it was a good shot.....) With the removal of the 2meter rule - now we can look forward to more bad shots not being punished either.

So if the thrower says "that's my disc", then benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower and the disc is not lost and no 3 minute timer is started.

That is why I started this thread. The rules do not give you 3 minutes to retrieve a stuck disc. They give you 3 minutes to search for a disc when you can't find it.



Correct. The rules "give you 3 minutes to search for a disc when you can't find it."

So, you come to the tree and see a disc up in it, and it is the same color as yours, but you want to make sure that it is yours. So, the "found" part is satisfied, but not the "it", with the "it" being your disc, not a disc. So I would argue that the player has a right to identify the disc, and that might mean that the disc has to be removed from the tree (knocked down, shaken, etc.) in order to do that. Of course, the disc should be marked before it is moved, in case it is the player's disc.

It was too easy. You have willingly walked into my little trap... :)

So you decide to say that your stuck disc is not yours, and refuse to accept that it is your disc until it is positively ID'd. Okay, let's start the 3-minute timer while you "search" for your disc. Thing is, if you don't knock it down within three minutes, it's a lost disc and you get stroke penalty.

And no changing your mind at 2:59 and deciding that it probably really is your disc. That's attempting to intentionally circumvent the rules.

So under the new "no 2 meter penalty" you are better off just admitting it's your disc and taking no penalty.

It was too easy. You have willingly walked into my little trap... :)

So you decide to say that your stuck disc is not yours, and refuse to accept that it is your disc until it is positively ID'd. Okay, let's start the 3-minute timer while you "search" for your disc. Thing is, if you don't knock it down within three minutes, it's a lost disc and you get stroke penalty.

And no changing your mind at 2:59 and deciding that it probably really is your disc. That's attempting to intentionally circumvent the rules.

So under the new "no 2 meter penalty" you are better off just admitting it's your disc and taking no penalty.

Unless he is already out of the prizes in this tournament, in which case he might as well take his three minutes to "find" his disc.

But the notion that he cannot take some time to retreive his disc seems half-baked to me. He could take his throw and then take a reasonable amount of time to get to his next lie, and spend that reasonable amount of time throwing his water bottle at the disc. The rules allow a reasonable amount of time to get to your disc when it is your turn. We've all given someone a reasonable amount of time to go back for a disc they left behind, or to get a beverage from the car, or to stop at the bathroom. This is no different.

but would he be WISE to do so? if the disc finally drops and someone else's name is on it, uh-oh! better to move quickly on to the next hole and go fetch it later.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't give someone some reasonable amount of time to retrieve a disc. It's just that I keep hearing people on the course say "you have 3 minutes to get that disc." Which isn't true.

If your group is holding up half the tourney and the disc appears to be hopelessly stuck, then move on fairly quickly. If you can see a 5 group backup on your next tee, then take your time. But there is no set time for this in the rules.

That's all I'm trying to say. :)

It was too easy. You have willingly walked into my little trap... :)

So you decide to say that your stuck disc is not yours, and refuse to accept that it is your disc until it is positively ID'd. Okay, let's start the 3-minute timer while you "search" for your disc. Thing is, if you don't knock it down within three minutes, it's a lost disc and you get stroke penalty.

And no changing your mind at 2:59 and deciding that it probably really is your disc. That's attempting to intentionally circumvent the rules.

So under the new "no 2 meter penalty" you are better off just admitting it's your disc and taking no penalty.



If someone started to give me crap about trying to retrieve my disc beyond a reasonable amount of time I think I would give them a courtesy violation. Just try me Richard.

You are just wrong Criag. But that is to be expected at this point. You are dealing with the loss of your beloved 2 meter rule.

Good shots don't get penalized? How about hitting dead center sweet spot cutting around the pole through all of the chains out the other side and roll down the hill into OB water? That a good shot being penalized? Sure sounds like one. The examples are limitless of good shots having bad results, just ask Jim Myers... ;) :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If IF rules were involved in penalizing bad shots we would have penalty throws for missing putts or not getting approach shots or drives within certain ranges of the target. That would be stupid.

Course design is what introduces risk and reward according to quality of the shot, not the rules. Again, they are to ensure fairness, not to work less skilled players.

hahaha! nice avatar sandalman!!

Nick, why do you try so hard to back up a "stupid" rule change? Obviously it was a bad decision by the board and plenty of disc golfers agree. You don't need to try and make it look like it was a smart decision, you guys made the mistake, now live with it.

Nick, why do you try so hard to back up a "stupid" rule change?

you know the saying: "stupid" is as "stupid" does. :D

You are just wrong Criag. But that is to be expected at this point. You are dealing with the loss of your beloved 2 meter rule.

Good shots don't get penalized? How about hitting dead center sweet spot cutting around the pole through all of the chains out the other side and roll down the hill into OB water? That a good shot being penalized? Sure sounds like one. The examples are limitless of good shots having bad results, just ask Jim Myers... ;) :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



OK Nick - you have absolutely convinced me that you never read anything that anyone writes to you. You ignore basically everything and then go off on some unrelated tangent.

Here is a basic definition of a bad shot - oh wait you provided an excellent example. One where a player hits the sweet spot so hard that it goes right through 2 sets of chains TWICE (front and back) and rolls away OB. A perfect example of a good line plainly thrown too hard. That is not a good shot punished by the rules, that is a decent shot thrown too hard. Like it or not, our rules are set up to reward good shots, and punish bad ones. Good shots don't go OB (even though it may have "felt" good when you let it go, they don't hit trees, they don't get stuck over 2 meters. Every penalty in the rule book that is associated with the result of a throw is punishing a bad shot. Most other penalties are associated with behavior(courtesy violations) or stupidity(adding your score incorrectly).

I am not pining for the 2 meter rule Nick - just look at the number of posts on how many? 3-4 different threads on the subject? You must have 2-300 posts arguing this BS. I think I have less than 10 - and most of those are calling you out on absurd or extreme statements. Geez - I even offered up support for use of the OB rule as a substitute - but like others - have noted that it causes more problems than it solves. Did you even notice? No you want to argue that the rules aren't in place to punish bad shots!! Sorry Nick - some of them are specifically for that purpose - and it has nothing to do with greater or lesser skilled players.

Bottom line - the 2m rule was for a special condition, a lie above ground, similar to an OB condition in that it cannot be played where it came to rest. The proponents that wish to eliminate the rule want to make it a design issue. CK wants to claim that a player should have every option for throwing available on every shot (over the top/crashing trees is just as legitimate as any other shot - anytime). Personally - I think that goes against a basic design principle.

Designers are limited by the nature of obstacles presented to them, or that can be added to a course. Generally - trees are the most common and significant obstacles we have to deal with. Hole design by nature means that flight paths between point A and point B are finite (seems to me that's why certain mandatories are in place - to dictate a path to the hole) not infinite. And this is specifically what makes any hole challenging and fun - is overcoming the challenge of specific obstacles. Eliminating the 2 meter rule decreases the challenge by eliminating the obstacle - and subsequent penalty for not overcoming that obstacle - period.

On courses with trees such as Seneca the trees will still be significant obstacles about 98% of the time. Loss of distance and a likey difficult lie are punishment enough.

While I support the return of the two-meter rule I'm not sure I agree with your argument Craig.


Designers are limited by the nature of obstacles presented to them, or that can be added to a course. Generally - trees are the most common and significant obstacles we have to deal with. Hole design by nature means that flight paths between point A and point B are finite (seems to me that's why certain mandatories are in place - to dictate a path to the hole) not infinite. And this is specifically what makes any hole challenging and fun - is overcoming the challenge of specific obstacles. Eliminating the 2 meter rule decreases the challenge by eliminating the obstacle - and subsequent penalty for not overcoming that obstacle - period.



Here is the counter argument that you are going to get: the obstacle is still there. A tree can't be thrown through (except in extremely lucky cases) so it still acts as a practical tool in course design. The removal of the two-meter rule simply skews the usefulness of trees away from the designer. That is, they aren't quite as effective as they used to be... so to speak. I personally think this will have some effect on course design and that it does take away from the course architect but that isn't why I am against the rule change.

For me it comes down to "what is the goal in playing?" This sport is about accuracy and distance. The best players can throw far, but mostly, they can throw accurately. Take two throwers, player one has a massively good drive, is accurate to a T and putts lights out. Player two also has a very good drive, is slightly less accurate and can also putt well. Under the old rules player one wins the majority of the time. His ability to stay out of trees under all conditions pays for him. Under the new rules, player two, who mostly stays out of trees, in now on par with player one. The rare instances where he hits trees are now only minor inconveniences. He can take more risks now on long drives with guarding trees because he won't be punished. The end result, you are no longer awarding the prize to the best player in the majority of cases, you have simply moved the second best player up to par with the best. It should come as no surprise that one of the people who most support this change has a big arm with less accuracy. This rule change moves him up a level.

The two-meter rule acts as a reward for accuracy. It is a delimiter between the very best and the next level down. It should come as no surprise that the biggest supporters of removing it are not top tier players, but indeed very good second level players. This is going to help their game.

The rare instances where he hits trees are now only minor inconveniences. He can take more risks now on long drives with guarding trees because he won't be punished. The end result, you are no longer awarding the prize to the best player in the majority of cases, you have simply moved the second best player up to par with the best.



Every week or so, I must come to this thread and reiterate the same point. I have no distance, throw low, and am mildly accurate and I can only hope for my own little selfish reasons that this rule will encourage the more powerful throwers to aim at trees, but I'm sure that even the long arms can figure this one out. ;)

This logic reminds me of that politician a while back that was complaining about handicapped parking spaces or something and said something like "Well, they're encouraging people to be handicapped." ........... "Well, they're encouraging people to throw at trees" makes about as much sense.

Nick, why do you try so hard to back up a "stupid" rule change? Obviously it was a bad decision by the board and plenty of disc golfers agree. You don't need to try and make it look like it was a smart decision, you guys made the mistake, now live with it.



Chris,

I truly wonder if there was as much "stupid" fingerpointing and condescending attitude toward the Board and Rules Committee when the 2 meter rule was first introduced? :mad:

hmmmmmmm????

From what I hear, the membership has been pretty well split 50/50 on this rule all along, so it's time for the other 50% to have their turn at it. If you were one of the people that is just now discovering the sport, you wouldn't know any different. You'd play without the 2 meter rule. :eek: Oh, my!!!!

Live with it. It's a GAME for Pete's sake. Now, if I only knew who Pete was. :confused:

If you were one of the people that is just now discovering the sport, you wouldn't know any different. You'd play without the 2 meter rule. :eek: Oh, my!!!!


I discovered the game long before I ever heard of the PDGA, and we played that if you couldn't put your foot where the disc was at, you had to take a stroke to knock it down. After all, you were supposed to "play it where it lies", which meant you picked up your one disc and jammed a foot exactly where it had been. In the case of a disc 4 feet above the ground, the "ice skater stance" was always good for a laugh. But since we could throw it farther than knocking it down would put it, we put that leg up and tried to throw. We did indeed have the 2 meter rule in spirit, so when learning about the actual rule later it made sense.

So I say people just discovering the game with no knowledge of the PDGA will probably do the same.

I will always enforce the 2 meter rule at any tournament I run.

I hate to sound like sour grapes, but how can you change a rule that shaped how courses were designed? :confused:

As a Recreation manager I'm disturbed that it's open season on trees. Trees get hit enough when trying to avoid them, with this new rule the trees on our courses will die out faster than they currently do.

Jon, my question is, who did the PDGA survey? Certainly NOT ALL MEMBERS. :mad:

So I say people just discovering the game with no knowledge of the PDGA will probably do the same.




Stick their leg in the air and throw?

:D

I discovered the game long before I ever heard of the PDGA, and we played that if you couldn't put your foot where the disc was at, you had to take a stroke to knock it down. After all, you were supposed to "play it where it lies", which meant you picked up your one disc and jammed a foot exactly where it had been. In the case of a disc 4 feet above the ground, the "ice skater stance" was always good for a laugh. But since we could throw it farther than knocking it down would put it, we put that leg up and tried to throw. We did indeed have the 2 meter rule in spirit, so when learning about the actual rule later it made sense.

So I say people just discovering the game with no knowledge of the PDGA will probably do the same.



I and my friends also played well before any knowledge of the PDGA or formal rules. We always assumed that a disc stuck in a tree was a free drop to directly below. So this argument goes both ways.

Stick their leg in the air and throw?

:D



sounds like something my dog does :o:D

If you were one of the people that is just now discovering the sport, you wouldn't know any different. You'd play without the 2 meter rule. :eek: Oh, my!!!!

Live with it. It's a GAME for Pete's sake. Now, if I only knew who Pete was. :confused:

This has been quite the week on pdga.com for etymologists! Etymology Online and other etymological resources hold that Pete is St. Peter, and he is substituting in for "Christ" or "God" in this minced oath. In other words you are not blaspheming if you say, "For Pete's sake!"

Meanwhile, I'm not certain that a person just discovering this game would be none the wiser for the absence of the two-meter rule. He might be aware that in golf it would cost you a stroke to get relief from being stuck in the tree. He might be surprised that we give free relief, since he and his buddies always played golf rules by analogy.

Although it is a freak occurrence in golf, I have heard of it happening. The basic rule in golf is you play it where it lies. It is stated just like that in the rule book. If you want to take relief from where it lies, or if the rules require you to take relief from where it lies, you take a penalty. In golf not only do you take a stroke penalty for removing the ball from the tree, but you also then get free relief from the tree, up to 2 club lengths, no closer to the hole, or infinite relief straight back from the hole. In ball golf there is no 2-meter rule per se, it is simply a discretionary unplayable lie. If the course has not forbidden playing from trees, in golf you are free to attempt that instead.

FWIW

Every week or so, I must come to this thread and reiterate the same point. I have no distance, throw low, and am mildly accurate and I can only hope for my own little selfish reasons that this rule will encourage the more powerful throwers to aim at trees, but I'm sure that even the long arms can figure this one out. ;)

This logic reminds me of that politician a while back that was complaining about handicapped parking spaces or something and said something like "Well, they're encouraging people to be handicapped." ........... "Well, they're encouraging people to throw at trees" makes about as much sense.



I'm with James. This 'throwing at trees' stuff is hilarious. You studs go ahead and throw at your trees. I'll take your money every time. :cool:

If there really are top players who like the fact that the 2m rule is going away, I think it's probably because they know that the 2m rule doesn't impact their throwing anyway, since NOT throwing at trees is always better than throwing at them anyway. So the only time the 2m rule actually impacts them is when they HAPPEN to throw a bad shot and it HAPPENS to stick in a tree.

Now that the 2m rule is gone, all the lesser players will soon enough find out that throwing at trees is not an advantage. Sandals is going to get back to us with those stats once his leaves grow back in. :)

Jon, my question is, who did the PDGA survey? Certainly NOT ALL MEMBERS.



From what I understand, before there was a 2 meter rule, there was a survey. The results were just about 50/50. Whether ALL MEMBERS were surveyed is irrelevant. As long as a valid, significantly sized sample was taken, the survey would be valid. Maybe someone with more tenure than me can enlighten us on the time frame. Terry, Stork??

Also, Matt, Rule 803.04 F prohibits players damaging anything on the course, which would include trees, under a 2 stroke/no warning penalty. Terry Calhoun has developed a flyer that can be posted on courses to enlighten players about the penalty for damaging flora. Parks should also have their own rules and regulations regarding damaging trees and shrubs, since disc golfers aren't the only ones that use the parks.

Elimination of a penalty for being above 2 meters in a tree is NOT going to prevent people from ending up there and it's also not going to prevent those that are so irresponsible that they damage the flora while retrieving thier disc or playing their next shot.

The key to the whole situation, good shot or bad, 2 meter rule or not, penalty or not, is to keep your disc out of the tree. With or without the penalty, discs end up in trees, and damage can be done getting discs out. The most productive flight of a disc is THROUGH THE AIR. No one in their right mind would risk getting stuck, just because there is no penalty.

He might be surprised that we give free relief, since he and his buddies always played golf rules by analogy.




Well, since I was never a golfer, I don't have that memory to work from. I always thought it seemed pointless to hit a little ball with a stick and chase it around, trying to keep track of how many times you hit it, especially after paying $30 for the privilege. Now I spend my waning years throwing sophisticated ice cream bucket lids around city parks, trying to keep track of how many times I did it. At least I don't pay $30 for the privilege (unless I let Rhett talk me into it.) :D

From visiting many wooded courses, I would estimate there's more overall damage to trees from shots whacking the trunks, especially some species, in a relatively focused area than from overhead shots. In that regard, removing the 2-meter rule might help trees on average if in fact more players take routes over the top where available. Soil compaction from concentrated walking probably does more damage than anything so holes where shots can be dispersed in more routes could also reduce tree damage.

The most productive flight of a disc is THROUGH THE AIR.

plainly and simply this is NOT true. y'all can stay in denial or you can deal with it!

chuck, with all due respect, your skill with real statistics should preclude you from spouting such unsubstantiated "conclusions" as that those statements about spreading the walking around, flight path impact on total damage, etc. btw, did you know that on some holes in texas we are forbidden by the parks dept from walking off of a certain path?

I personally have no problem with having a rule that penalizes a disc suspended in a tree. But I have always thought that the 2-meter length was arbitrary.

Was it ever considered to change the rule so that ANY disc at rest and not on the ground gets a penalty? That would be more fair. Ruling that the disc 1.6 meters above the ground is fine and the one 2.1 meters is not, is arbitrary.

The most productive flight of a disc is THROUGH THE AIR.

plainly and simply this is NOT true. y'all can stay in denial or you can deal with it!



And where would it be, then, oh wise one? When you make a challenge, let's have the info to back it up. Or do you throw your discs through trees purposely, because you get more distance and accuracy that way?

Well, since we now have 2 board members on the thread, would it be too much to ask what the reasoning was for removal of the rule? Is it just because "it's been split 50/50 for a number of years, so let's let the other half have it their way for a change"? (excuse me if I didn't nail your quote exactly, Jon, but I think I got the gist of it).

The 50/50 logic, "try it without for a while" has been promoted by Carlton Howard since the Rules Committee proposed removing the rule completely two Boards ago. While many on the Board agreed, the alternative making it a design element like OB was considered even better. I'm not positive, but it looked like a majority of votes were there to completely remove the rule if the optional version wasn't suggested instead.

Dan,

I didn't say that as "reasoning for the removal of the rule." I was using it as logic to support those in favor of removing it. A rule is a rule. Any rule can be changed. People will come down on one side or the other. It's been what, 30 years or more since the designated hitter rule came to the National League. They get along fine with it, the American League does fine without it. If I'm not mistaken, there was a time long ago, in a galaxy far away, when the forward pass was not allowed in football. Where would the game be without it today.

My understanding of the history of the 2 meter rule is that it was introduced a number of years ago after much consideration by the Rules Committee and the Board of Directors at that time. The Rules Committee has, on at least one occasion prior to my service on the Board, brought it to the Board to remove the 2 meter rule. At that time, the Board felt it should stay in place. The current Board is accepting the Rules Committee's suggestion to remove the rule and put in place a mechanism whereby Tournament Directors may use it as a special condition, without having to petition the Competition Director.

I'm neither here nor there about the rule. It works, it doesn't. I think in a lot of ways it is arbitrary. In a tree is in a tree. How many players can accurately measure 2 meters? On the other hand, it's generally not possible to "play it where it lies" when the disc is stuck in a tree, so some sort of solution is needed. I almost like the parallel to ball golf, now that it's been posed. If you are suspended above the line of play (at any height), take a stroke and take relief back along the line of play (2 meters, 5 meters, infinitely?).

Regardless, the Committee brought the recommendation to the Board and the Board agrees that it is time to make the change. The Board was elected to govern the Association. That's what we do. A Board in the past didn't feel it was time to change, but this one does. Maybe in the future, another Rules Committee and another Board will put in a 5 meter rule, or a rule that says you must putt from your knees, or a rule that says all green grass is OB. Some members will love it, some will hate it, and we'll move on.

Maybe I need a thicker skin, but it seems to me that you can disagree with decisions, policies, rules, etc. and can discuss your differences with respect. Too much of the talk on here and on other threads is disrespectful and condescending of the person, and doesn't revolve around the true issue being discussed.

Just my two cents as a member. Not Board opinion.

yes, oh antagonistic one ;) , i do throw discs through trees now that the 2m rule has gone byebye.

since you are coming to these threads late, i'll restate that i totally support the elimination of the 2m rule - except for sticks within 10m of the basket.

if you would like one or more detailed cases of where it makes sense to aim at trees and dont feel like wading thru the volumes that are these threads, let me know and i will be happy to write them one more time.

and jon, could you please explain why it is good for the game to deliberately introduce the insanity depicted by my avatar? no one else has had any success on that one so far.

You're not doing any TDing at the upcoming Worlds are you

chuck, with all due respect, your skill with real statistics should preclude you from spouting such unsubstantiated "conclusions" as that those statements about spreading the walking around, flight path impact on total damage, etc.



Show me the actual data or study we can all refer to and I'll defer to that information. Beyond that, myself and others in the design group have discussed these issues beyond this message board and our experience is what we have until proven otherwise. The southeastern players know that dogwood trunks hold up poorly against the pounding of discs, That was coaching I received as we worked on the course designs at the NDGC.

Poplars are not valued around here by Park Depts but still are useful in several ways for disc golf. Their bark also takes a pounding. Many trees look diseased after several years from the scars. We have joked about removing the baskets and bringing arborealists around to ask them if they could determine what 'disease' was aflicting these trees. I've seen the difference between fairways with wood chips that reduce soil compaction versus the dying oak trees along dirt trails packed from disc golfers walking the same route. I doubt there are more than one or two people posting (haven't seen Hosfeld on here) that have played and studied as many courses as I have (over 300 in over 30 states/provinces). So, sorry the comments aren't based on hard stats but I haven't seen any grad studies to cite.

You're not doing any TDing at the upcoming Worlds are you



I am.

If the argument is against thumber/tomahawks going over the top instead of flying flat, the reason is that the disc was probably falling nearly straight down when it hit the tree and stuck.

In the case of a hyzer/anhyzer shot, it hit a tree and would have fallen pretty much where it was had it not gotten snagged. All you are really arguing is that the disc did or did not hang in the tree. There are lots of good lines that hit a tree and end up in very bad spots. There are also many really bad lines that hit trees and are kicked into the fairway.

You can't argue along the good shots deserve good results and bad shots deserve bad results unless you resolve the good kick/bad kick side of the equation.

That's all this really amounts to. I go over the top a lot of the time, if I feel that I have a better shot at hitting something closer to the basket over the top than through the obstacles. Either way, the disc will be traveling at a height of more than 2m when it is passing the trees. The odd part is that the lower shot traveling horizontal to the ground has a higher probability of sticking above 2m than the shot crashing down from above. Mainly because the lower shot is likely to be slowing as it hits the trees, while the overhead will be gaining speed as it comes down.

and jon, could you please explain why it is good for the game to deliberately introduce the insanity depicted by my avatar? no one else has had any success on that one so far.



Why can't everyone be as logical and reasoned as Jon?

Sandalman, your avatar is a silly attempt at an argument. The stuck disc is not a good shot, it's a shot that happened to get lucky.

And you best put away your "I'll show you a case where it makes sense to aim at trees" silliness until you get back to us with stats. Save yourself some face that way when you find out you're wrong.

Dan, Chuck's answer is pretty much it. A majority of the rules committee preferred the rule change and a majority of the board voted for it. They each had their own reasons, I suppose. They did not vote on a rationale. They voted yes or no.

And you best put away your "I'll show you a case where it makes sense to aim at trees" silliness until you get back to us with stats. Save yourself some face that way when you find out you're wrong.

thanks for the lecture daddy, i imagine you'll be taking over nick's previous handle any day now :)

meanwhile, what kind of "stats" do you want? we all have experiences. mine indicate a measurably better chance of a 2 on certain holes and measurably reduced chance of a 4 as a direct result of the elemination of the 2 meter rule.

thats as good as any stat chuck has submitted on this topic, and he's the stat god.

Thanks, Jon and Bruce. It would be nice to know who voted yes and who voted no, especially before I submit my election ballot. :D


From what I hear, the membership has been pretty well split 50/50 on this rule all along, so it's time for the other 50% to have their turn at it.



That's your quote Jon, and, IMO, that's the only logical reason I've heard so far in defense of removing it.

I've seen the difference between fairways with wood chips that reduce soil compaction versus the dying oak trees along dirt trails packed from disc golfers walking the same route.



Chuck, I don't doubt that you have noticed some correlation as listed above. However, I would be very surprised if soil compaction alone was responsible unless the oak trees were very young. If you can imagine, there is actually more tree underground than there is aboveground and an oak tree's roots go very deep into the earth. I would wager disease to be the more probable cause of oak tree death.
If soil compaction was such a blight on trees, there would be no walking trails in our state parks and nature preserves.

John Cavaletto
Teaching Coordinator
Botany and Plant Pathlogy
Purdue University

meanwhile, what kind of "stats" do you want? we all have experiences. mine indicate a measurably better chance of a 2 on certain holes and measurably reduced chance of a 4 as a direct result of the elemination of the 2 meter rule.




Go back and read. Hole 9, Veteran's. Throw it 100 times on the lefty hyzer and calculate your score both ways, with and without the 2m rule. Obviously, you'll get stuck a few times, so your score will be better without the 2m rule.

Now throw it 100 times on the lefty anhyzer gapper and calculate your score.

Talking average scores --

-- If 2mH < ag, then you should have been throwing hyzer all along, and the rule hasn't changed anything.

-- If n2mH > ag, then throwing hyzer still isn't as good as the gapper route, so the rule hasn't changed anything.

-- Only if n2mH < ag < 2mH has anything changed.

Where of course, n2mH = no 2m Hyzer, ag = anhyzer gapper, 2mH = 2m Hyzer.

Follow? :cool:

Chuck, I don't doubt that you have noticed some correlation as listed above. However, I would be very surprised if soil compaction alone was responsible unless the oak trees were very young. If you can imagine, there is actually more tree underground than there is above ground and an oak tree's roots go very deep into the earth. I would wager disease to be the more probable cause of oak tree death.



I'll defer to your expertise but the tree death is/was oak trees and some others. We do have issues with oak wilt and are careful to not prune after April and before October (at least that's what we've been advised). Perhaps soil erosion from the heavy walking has exposed an easier route for the wilt to attack these red and burr oak trees lining the fairways. The results are undeniable. The only trees dying are along a compacted fairway and those around them are doing well. I would assume these trees are not young with some trunks over 18 inches in diameter. Another park has a similar problem. In contrast, a park with similar wooded fairways has been in about as long and is the only one that's been regularly using the wood chips. It may not be scientific but so far the oaks are hanging in there. Seems like the park departments feel the wood chips help reduce erosion and compaction even though they need to be replenished every few years, but most have an excess every year anyway.

The rare instances where he hits trees are now only minor inconveniences. He can take more risks now on long drives with guarding trees because he won't be punished. The end result, you are no longer awarding the prize to the best player in the majority of cases, you have simply moved the second best player up to par with the best.



Every week or so, I must come to this thread and reiterate the same point. I have no distance, throw low, and am mildly accurate and I can only hope for my own little selfish reasons that this rule will encourage the more powerful throwers to aim at trees, but I'm sure that even the long arms can figure this one out. ;)

This logic reminds me of that politician a while back that was complaining about handicapped parking spaces or something and said something like "Well, they're encouraging people to be handicapped." ........... "Well, they're encouraging people to throw at trees" makes about as much sense.



Interesting James,

Did you read my post? I don't recall writing a dissertation on people throwing at trees; I did say that a player with less accuracy can now take a chance that he might not of. The main gist of my argument is that you have moved a less accurate player up to the level of a more accurate player with a rule change. And even though I didn't wax upon the topic of players throwing at trees there have been a number of cases cited and a number of posters who have claimed this to be true. So your argument, based on personal opinion, has no basis in what is really happening.

Now some smart guy like chuck is going to come back and say give me numbers. Let me make it easy for that poster. I don't care if it is one. If you have changed one shot from a skill shot to a luck shot I'm not for it. I've been surprised all along that Nick who strongly supports a rule that has the intent of making everything as level as possible would support a rule that immediately rewards bad throws.

I like Sandalman's take on this. If I stick a disk 50 feet up in a tree directly overhanging a basket, is that equal to my card partner parking his disk under the basket? Again, don't ask me for numbers. If it happens once in any tournament to Cam Todd you are going to get an ear full :D. Even if it happens to a rational player like Ken or Barry you are likely to hear about it, and rightly so, especially if it is the difference between a win and a tie. I fully understand that the number of cases involved is going to be miniscule. However, since we are using allegories: �should we really kick him out of office, I mean he only (choice one: had sex in the Whitehouse) (choice two: lied about weapons of mass destruction to the American public).� I�d like to think that disc golf has a little more integrity than the average American President�

BTW � I think you misunderstood the politician. Here in Houston we have about 10,000 handicapped permits out, only about 1,000 of them are legitimate, anyone who has an in gets one. That is, they are encouraged to cheat because the handicapped parking spaces are available and well placed. Some have argued that the parking spaces should be eliminated because their presence encourages people to play at being handicapped. Of course the solution isn�t to eliminate handicapped parking, it�s to enforce the rules� kind of like in disc golf.

The only trees dying are along a compacted fairway and those around them are doing well.

could it be from what the dg'ers are ummm "watering" the trees with?

Are you implying the watering is different at the one park with the wood chips?

Thanks, Jon and Bruce. It would be nice to know who voted yes and who voted no, especially before I submit my election ballot.



Chyah!?! Like there are any offices with two candidates running. Perhaps you should run Dan... :p

-- If 2mH < ag, then you should have been throwing hyzer all along, and the rule hasn't changed anything.

-- If n2mH > ag, then throwing hyzer still isn't as good as the gapper route, so the rule hasn't changed anything.

-- Only if n2mH < ag < 2mH has anything changed.

Where of course, n2mH = no 2m Hyzer, ag = anhyzer gapper, 2mH = 2m Hyzer.


si, comprende.

n2mH < ag for sure, without a doubt, with empirical evidence.

ag ? 2mH, due to not throwing it very often on a regular basis... however the data points i do have show that ag < 2mH with leaves on the trees.

however, if ag = 2mH or slightly > 2mH something still has changed. and that is that i am throwing a less skilled shot.

further, put it in the context of a tourney situation with the 2m in place. regardless of popular opinion, golf is NOT an "n out of m" game. it is a "1 out of 1" game. the only shot with any meaning involves the disc in my hand that i am about to throw. with this in mind, i am NOT going to throw the H and put my 1 of 1 opportunity in the hands of luck. i am gonna throw the more skillful shot and take what my talent gives me.

therefore i respecfully submit that the only real consideration, at least for this particular hole, is if n2mH < ag or not. and for that one we do have real numbers. n2mH is < ag!

there's no vote for rules committee anyway. and regardless of the lunatic nature of this particular decision, i doubt that it is an overriding issue for voting out some hardworking and otherwise rational volunteers

Lyle, I think Pat and I agree with you at least inside the 10 meter line. That's why we propose the 10m drop zone for discs suspended above 2 meters inside the circle.

Part of this is a math issue. The benefit from from free vertical relief is greater percentagewise closer to the basket. A disc suspended 3 meters that's 50 meters from the basket at ground level is actually only 50.09 meters from the basket in a straight line, 3.5 inches farther. However, a disc suspended 3 meters and 4 meters from the basket on the ground is actually 5 meters from it on a direct line. That's 39 inches versus 3.5 inches extra relief.

Carry this farther and use 10m suspended at 50m from the basket versus 10m suspended at 4m away and it's more dramatic. At 50m the disc is still only one meter farther when 10m in the tree so the free relief still isn't much. However, the disc 4m from the basket on the ground is actually 10.8m away in the tree so the free relief down actually moves the lie 6.8m closer. By placing the lie at the 10m drop line, the new lie without penalty is about the same distance the disc actually was from the basket.

So you guys are saying if your suspended inside the circle you will then be put in a drop zone that is 33 ft from the basket and then you get to putt from there??? A wide open clear 33 ft putt???

maybe open and clear, maybe not. depends on whether people go for the LOP 10m drop or the drop zone approach.

Hopefully the designer (if not then TD) would mark the drop points. I suspect many would be open and many holes wouldn't even need one. I think it would be fair to have some challenge perhaps with an elevation change or set it so the drop off is behind the pin. If there are any obstacles, it would only be fair if it/they were dead center so lefties and righties had the same challenge. Or, at least balance it from hole-to-hole. The idea is not to make it brutal or impossible or in prickers or poison ivy.

The main gist of my argument is that you have moved a less accurate player up to the level of a more accurate player with a rule change.



No you have not. The less accurate player is still less accurate NO MATTER WHAT LINE HE THROWS. If you lose to him becaue of one shot during a round then your really not that much better of a golfer then he is now are you??? Good players will still be good and bad players will still be bad. This rule change isnt going to give ANYONE an advantage EVER. EVERYONE plays the same holes with the same routes with the same RULES. Whether you choose to use the rules to your advantage or not is up to you. All you guys complaining about someone taking the hyzer route now that there is no penalty. TAKE THE FREAKIN HYZER ROUTE YOURSELF and quit crying about it. The route is not just open to some people now. Its open to EVERYONE WHO CAN HIT IT. If you cant hit it then thats too bad. You dont have that skill in your bag. Dont be mad and blame a rule just because someone else can throw that line and you cant. 1 time out of 5070 throws this year was i above 2 meters AND closer then 10 meters to the basket. 1 out of 5070 and i played all over the country and at worlds so dont try and tell me i didnt have any chances to do it. That doesnt make 1 freakin bit off difference. Wow i would have shot 3 over at Big Creek instead of 4 over. Big freakin deal.

It doesnt happen that often and its not a big deal. The rule is optional this year so TDs use it if you want but i hope they just get rid of it entirely because its a blanket rule and punishes only shots that are thrown over 6.6ft in the air.

I did say that a player with less accuracy can now take a chance that he might not of.



Can't a player with more accuracy also take a chance that they might not of? If you believe this opens up more routes, than an accurate player still has a statistical advantage since they can always succeed more often with any route.


The main gist of my argument is that you have moved a less accurate player up to the level of a more accurate player with a rule change.



So the assumption goes. I've never noticed that "inaccurate" players get stuck in trees any more than "accurate" players. First, the rule was suggested to help long arms. Now, it is suggested to help accurate throwers. I'm sure that people figure it will help overhand throwers. Some feel that it will help the intelligent players that previously precisely weighed the odds of one route's 97% not-sticking versus another route's 99% not-sticking.

I suspect it will help noone, encourage noone to throw at trees, encourage noone to throw high routes that they were not already throwing, not change the ecology of courses in any measurable way, etc. etc.

It has always been an infrequent happenstance that simply screwed someone randomly. Everyone hit trees during the tournament, but this poor sapp got penalized. The fact that the statistically accurate, low, smart thrower will marginally fair better over 100,000 throws is cold comfort when that one penalty stroke happens at a critical time.

Dont be mad and blame a rule just because someone else can throw that line and you cant.

you've got it backwards. the lines that are open now are easier, not harder.

1 time out of 5070 throws this year was i above 2 meters AND closer then 10 meters to the basket.

arguing from the very specific to the very general is not relevant.


because its a blanket rule and punishes only shots that are thrown over 6.6ft in the air.

including crappy shots that are 50 or 100 feet in the air. actually should read "punishes only shots that are more than 2m in a tree within the putting circle"

Hey Chuck,

O.K., so I should have read all the posts. I have to admit that goes a long way towards addressing the issue.

Now we get to argue whether a disc 50' up in a tree is inside or outside the unmarked 10m circle.

Can't a player with more accuracy also take a chance that they might not of? If you beleive this opens up more routes, than an accurate player still has a statistical advantage since they can always succeed more often with any route.




Very good point and I won't try to argue it. Please see Chuck's earlier comment on the 10 meter issue. That problem cleared up solves much of the issue I have with this rule change. I do think there is the potential to move the game on the bell curve from one based on accuracy to one based ever so slightly more on chance, but that is a minor issue (to some).

By the way, 2003 Memorial, Kevin McCoy on hole 5 or 6 (I think) gets a stroke for a 2 meter violation. He ends up losing by one stroke to (can you name that player?) who played a masterful final round draining several putts from greater than 40 feet.

Steve Rico.

I thought it was Brian McRee. I remember seeing his awesome putting exhibition on the NT video but maybe he didn't win it.

For argument's sake, suppose McRee and McCoy both hit trees above 2 meters the same number of times during that tourney but McCoy got stroked once and McRee didn't. Supposing they did, it seems like the penalty stroke was more misfortune than lower quality play. Why have that in the game?

Nevermind, I see that Shultz won handily and McRee beat Rico and McCoy by 1 so my thought experiment is shot, but just imagine the scenario anyway. :p

Now we get to argue whether a disc 50' up in a tree is inside or outside the unmarked 10m circle.

not necessarily, becuz if its that close to 10m then taking a drop at 10m really doesnt make much of a diff does it. especially if the mark is at LOP 10m. granted, a drop at a drop zone could make it either easier or harder, but deciding if a disc is straight above a point is a lot easier than deciding where a disc went OB - a point that i have seen affirmed just about every time i've played with open masters :) (some of them guys really know how to bend a rule!)

I've never noticed that "inaccurate" players get stuck in trees any more than "accurate" players.


Forget about players. I bet you've never seen an accurate THROW result in a disc stuck in a tree. By definition, the throw wasn't accurate if the disc is now stuck.

The fact that the statistically accurate, low, smart thrower will marginally fair better over 100,000 throws is cold comfort when that one penalty stroke happens at a critical time.


I see. But we're not supposed to feel sorry for the poor guy who DIDN'T get his disc stuck in a tree but lost the tournament by a single throw due to the fact the 2m rule was not in effect?

Lyle, I think Pat and I agree with you at least inside the 10 meter line. That's why we propose the 10m drop zone for discs suspended above 2 meters inside the circle.

Part of this is a math issue. The benefit from from free vertical relief is greater percentagewise closer to the basket. A disc suspended 3 meters that's 50 meters from the basket at ground level is actually only 50.09 meters from the basket in a straight line, 3.5 inches farther. However, a disc suspended 3 meters and 4 meters from the basket on the ground is actually 5 meters from it on a direct line. That's 39 inches versus 3.5 inches extra relief.

Carry this farther and use 10m suspended at 50m from the basket versus 10m suspended at 4m away and it's more dramatic. At 50m the disc is still only one meter farther when 10m in the tree so the free relief still isn't much. However, the disc 4m from the basket on the ground is actually 10.8m away in the tree so the free relief down actually moves the lie 6.8m closer. By placing the lie at the 10m drop line, the new lie without penalty is about the same distance the disc actually was from the basket.



I just want to make sure I am hearing you guys right. You are cool with giving someone a 1 throw penalty and up to 10 meter additional distance to the pin for a disc 6'8" up when it is withing 10 meters of the pin, but one that is 10.01 meters away from the pin but 200' up just gets marked on the ground with no penalty?

Was someone talking about "insanity" around here?

April fools is still 4 months off or I'd have my answer.

I'm going to make a 10 meter wide OB circle with the pin at the center, with a drop zone 10 feet from the pin; so if you miss a putt it is instantly 2 strokes. C'mon, this is just as good as your idea...

no, you got it a tad wrong there.

first and foremost, there is NO penalty! just a drop at 10m. whether its 0.00001 mm from the pin's vertical axis or 9.999999m.

so basically your 2.01m stick at 9.99m and your 200' stick at 10.01m are gonna be putting from within .01 m of each other. both will be sitting the same number of strokes.

you get what you want - no 2m penalty for errant/stuck drives. we get what we want - no dropin reward for over the pin gambling, but a fair and reasonable chance to make the putt anyway.

sheer beauty and logical elegance, imo.

Declare anything not in contact with the playing surface within 10 meters Out of Bounds and completely remove the arbitrary nature at the center of the "2 meter rule". No one can argue the clean and clear logic and application of OB. Can they? Please fill us in on why if you think OB doesn't work. I know that puts you in a bit of a bind, but you need to face it sometime or another...

See subject line.

Aren't 10 or 15 other threads about the 2 meter revision enough? Y'all all post on all those threads, too. :)

Declare anything not in contact with the playing surface within 10 meters Out of Bounds and completely remove the arbitrary nature at the center of the "2 meter rule". No one can argue the clean and clear logic and application of OB. Can they? Please fill us in on why if you think OB doesn't work. I know that puts you in a bit of a bind, but you need to face it sometime or another...

be careful with your rhetoric, nicki, you're also debasing chuck on this one!

yes, it is relatively easy to argue the point.

a) too difficult to actually measure the playing surface. does touching one blade of grass count? (it does not count when surrounded by water that has been declared OB. i want to hear you explain to a player that altho the disc is touching grass it is not touching the ground, so it is OB. or do you plan on being inconsistent?) the terrible thing is its not possible to play a provisional and playing on in this case, because the TD/official will have no way of kowing the actual situation afterward

b) is the top of the basket the playing surface? if so, why is a DROT resting 6' from the pole IB but a grounded disc that is 6' away from the pole but on a small cactus OB?

c) the whole concept of trees, bushes, etc as an OB surface seems convoluted. calling all vegetation OB will make many courses completely unplayable.

there are many arbitrary aspects to every sport. the distance of the free throw and 3-point lines. 10 yards for a first down. 90' per side of the diamond. 10m as the putting area. height of nets. on and on and on. 2m OB line. (oops, i started to make sense with that last one :) )

from your post on the other thread - i have NO problem with eliminating the penalty for above 2m! your position regarding fairway 2m's makes sense - there is no need to hit the player with an extra stroke when they've just gotten snagged by a tree and (presumably) lost some distance already. thats fine and dandy.

as i explained on one of these threads, and as i remember it was thoughtful and respectful, chuck (re)introduction of the 10m proposal allowed me to see that there are two aspects of the problem. one is fairway type shots; the other is within putting range. to treat them identically is (should be) obviously flawed.

bottom line: you can call the 2m line the OB line if that is necessary for you to accept this proposal. but there is no argument that there are two general areas that discs can stick "up", and those two situations deserve different treatment. the 2m OB line works as well or better than any other line.

you get what you want - no 2m penalty for errant/stuck drives. we get what we want - no dropin reward for over the pin gambling, but a fair and reasonable chance to make the putt anyway.

sheer beauty and logical elegance, imo.



Not true because you still have those over the pin gambles that hit the same tree 50 ft up and dont stick that have drop in putts. You cant treat 2 throws that are essentially the same in different ways. Since its impossible to have the EXACT same shot we have to go down to the next level and not treat similiar shots in 2 totally different ways. Its just not fair. How do you explain to someone just starting our sport that Kenny Climo just threw and hit that tree over there and his dropped to the ground but then Cam Todd threw a drive that LOOKED exactly the same he hit the same tree but stuck 6ft6inchs off the ground. How do you explain to that player in a logical manner that Cam has to now take a penalty stroke and Kenny doesnt. That person is going to look at you and say "are you freakin crazy??? They just threw essentially the same shot and now because Cam Stuck in the tree he has to take a penalty and Kenny doesnt because his kicked out :confused:"

Then if we change to this crazyness you guys are talking about now. How are you going to explain to that same person that Schweby just threw a thumber that hit a tree 40 ft up in the air and it bounced to 10 ft from the pin but then Billy Crump throws a thumber that hits the same tree 40 ft up but sticks that Billy doesnt have to take a penalty but he does have to put his mini down in a pre picked out spot and make a putt from there. That same person is going to look at you again and say "Are you freakin INSANE??? His disc landed in that tree 40 ft above the ground. Why doesnt he just mark it below that and play from there??? Then youll say "Well because we decided to make up this rule one day because we dont want people to throw shots high in the air that crash straight down on the pin" Then that person is going to walk away saying. "Man my parents were right when they said this game was made up by a bunch of dope smoking MORONS who have no common scence what so ever"

The 2 meter rule makes no scence. Thats all there is to it. There is no logic behind the rule other then to penalize ONLY shots that rise above 6ft6in in the air. There is not real logic or basis for the rule at all.

Once the 2m rule is not being used, how to handle suspended discs becomes a marking issue NOT a penalty issue. Using OB involves a penalty so it�s not even part of this dialog. Marking a lie requires a fair rule to take a disc located in 3D space and locate its lie on a topographical 2D playing surface.

For simplicity, assume the possible locations a disc may land are in a 3D hemisphere with the basket at the center. The closer the disc gets to the basket, no matter where it�s located vertically in that hemisphere, the more benefit a player receives when the disc is marked straight down on the playing surface. I already showed those calculations upthread or in the other one.

At some point as you approach the basket, the straight down mark appears patently �unfair� as indicated by Sandalman�s avatar. All my proposed 10m drop spot rule does is specify a more fair mark for the problem inherent in projecting 3D lies on a 2D surface when you get close to the center of the hemisphere so the distance a disc is marked from the pin is more fair on average. I�m not locked to the 2m height. But since the top of the basket is about 1.5m, it seems reasonable for the line to be drawn higher than that and 2m is convenient and traditional.

I went thru some interesting calculations on this. Assume there�s a giant cylindrical space centered above the basket that�s 20m in diameter and starts 2m above it. Let�s figure out how far away any discs would be on average if they were suspended in that space. First, their average distance from the basket when their marks are projected down to the ground would be 7m away. That�s because half the cylinder volume is an inner cylinder 7m from the basket. The outer cylindrical ring is 3m wide and holds the same volume as the inner cylinder.

The average suspended height will be at least 2m and let�s say the highest suspended disc is no more than 20m which is over 60 feet. Due to gravity and the height discs are thrown on average, there will be more discs suspended over time closer to 2m than 20m. Eleven meters is halfway between 2 and 20 so the weighted average will be lower than that. How about using 7m for the weighted average height.

So the average distance away from the basket for a disc suspended above 2m within the 10m circle is 7m away horizontally and 7m above ground vertically. The straight line distance works out to, amazingly, 10 meters away (Square root of the sum of 7m squared plus 7m squared). So, if we use a 10m drop spot for discs suspended above 2m near the basket, on average, that�s about how far away suspended discs will be. There�s no real penalty or bonus involved. It�s just fairly marking discs so a player is throwing from where it lies like any other place on the fairway.

And Steve, if there�s a big ole pine tree near the basket, that�s a design flaw. The design guidelines indicate that players should have some air route to the basket within 10m. It might involve stretching left or right for a forehand flick or throwing over something or throwing from your knee, but there should be an air route even if it�s blind toss. I won the playoff to get in the semifinals at Worlds because a pine tree was inappropriately too close to Big Creek #1 pin, so I know the guide is not always followed. It�s just that you can�t use poor design as an example for rules discussions.

I thought it was Brian McRee. I remember seeing his awesome putting exhibition on the NT video but maybe he didn't win it.

For argument's sake, suppose McRee and McCoy both hit trees above 2 meters the same number of times during that tourney but McCoy got stroked once and McRee didn't. Supposing they did, it seems like the penalty stroke was more misfortune than lower quality play. Why have that in the game?

Nevermind, I see that Shultz won handily and McRee beat Rico and McCoy by 1 so my thought experiment is shot, but just imagine the scenario anyway. :p



Go back and look at the video again, McRee was amazing. He beat Rico and McCoy on a 40 or 50 foot putt on the last hole. He also had a 150 foot upshot that bounced off the top of the basket. Of course Barry was about 10 strokes up but all the fun was in 2-4.

BTW - Nice call on McRee! And, I tend to agree with you, the call on McCoy was more misfortune than skill IMO. See, I can be reasonable. :D

The argument is that we remove the two-meter rule because it arbitrarily punishes an unlucky shot. But if a disc is over two-meters inside a 10 meter radius cylinder we create an even more arbitrary rule and mark the lie outside 10 meters.

Is it just me or is this idea whacky?

While I can see the rationale for such a rule the implementation would be a nightmare. I am definately in favor of the KISS formula, drop the 2 meter penalty, period.

The current 2-meter rule is an arbitrary PENALTY rule. In its absence, we need a fair way to mark suspended lies without penalty. Because both use 2m, they may seem the same but are completely different rule categories. It's strictly geometry. Outside 10m, the distance from the basket on the ground, on average, is about the same distance as the suspended disc from the basket. Within 10m, it's not. Directly down is not a 'fair' mark on average. Placing the lie at 10m is fair on average and results in the same shot for everyone, without penalty.

Is it just me or is this idea whacky?

its you AND nick, but no the idea is not whacky. as chuck has shown, the disc was very likely 10m away from payspace anyway. what would be whacky would be placing that disc on the ground closer to the pin that where its flight ended!

Dear Pat,

In response to your post:



Declare anything not in contact with the playing surface within 10 meters Out of Bounds and completely remove the arbitrary nature at the center of the "2 meter rule". No one can argue the clean and clear logic and application of OB. Can they? Please fill us in on why if you think OB doesn't work. I know that puts you in a bit of a bind, but you need to face it sometime or another...

be careful with your rhetoric, nicki, you're also debasing chuck on this one!



I�m not debasing anyone. I am simply and concisely stating that the OB rule is superior in every way to the 2 meter rule and therefore the 2 meter rule is superfluous.

As far as defining �playing surface� in relation to OB/IB surfaces, doesn�t the 2 meter rule face the same challenge? Say the 2 meter rule is in effect, a disc sticks 7� up in a tree, but there is a blade of grass directly below it that is 2 feet tall. Is the disc 6�7�(2 meters) above the playing surface?

I trust most folks to come up with the answer to this; still, greater clarification of �playing surface� is needed whether the 2 meter rule is completely done away with or not; and your argument and logic does not support the continued use of the 2 meter rule over the use of our OB rule.


yes, it is relatively easy to argue the point.



Yes, you have proven quite nicely that arguing is �easy�.


a) too difficult to actually measure the playing surface. does touching one blade of grass count?



Yes, it does. The blade of grass is part of the contiguous playing surface. The grass was not declared OB, therefore a disc in contact with it is IB. No need for provisional, if the disc is touching any surface that is IB the disc is IB (PERIOD). This is no different than any other IB/OB situation. This is at the crux of the stacked OB/IB playing surface ruling imo.

The following is irrelevant:
(it does not count when surrounded by water that has been declared OB. i want to hear you explain to a player that altho the disc is touching grass it is not touching the ground, so it is OB. or do you plan on being inconsistent?) the terrible thing is its not possible to play a provisional and playing on in this case, because the TD/official will have no way of kowing the actual situation afterward




b) is the top of the basket the playing surface? if so, why is a DROT resting 6' from the pole IB but a grounded disc that is 6' away from the pole but on a small cactus OB?



Within our current rules baskets behave similarly to the playing surface. If a disc is at rest in them and then subsequently moved you return it to where it was, same as with discs that get moved on the playing surface. (Note: If a disc is at rest in an OB area and gets moved, it too should be returned to where it had come to rest according to group decision. This would be true of aerial Obs too.)

My declared OB area was �trees and bushes� not cacti; but if I did declare cacti OB, certainly any disc resting completely on the cacti would be OB.


c) the whole concept of trees, bushes, etc as an OB surface seems convoluted. calling all vegetation OB will make many courses completely unplayable.



Again, Pat, I did not say �All vegetation.� I said �trees and bushes�. There is a huge difference. What questions would I face at the players meeting?

Q: �Hey, is a blade of grass a tree or bush?�
A: �I think you just answered your own question.�

Q: �Hey, is a thorn bush a tree or bush?�
A: �I think you just answered your own question.�

Q: �Hey, is a cactus a tree or bush?�
A: �I think you just answered your own question.�

Moreover, at any PDGA event worth its salt, the organizers will provide a program detailing all course rules and special conditions.


there are many arbitrary aspects to every sport. the distance of the free throw and 3-point lines. 10 yards for a first down. 90' per side of the diamond. 10m as the putting area. height of nets. on and on and on. 2m OB line. (oops, i started to make sense with that last one :) )



No and yes. No other sport, other than golf, involves aerial hazards as does disc golf. If you want to make an �OB line 2 meters up� on your entire course, or on certain holes, or just for specific objects on your course, then be my guest! But that is not the same thing as having all courses everywhere �have to� enforce the �2 meter Rule�.


from your post on the other thread - i have NO problem with eliminating the penalty for above 2m! your position regarding fairway 2m's makes sense - there is no need to hit the player with an extra stroke when they've just gotten snagged by a tree and (presumably) lost some distance already. thats fine and dandy.



Great! Wonderful! Eureka! We are in agreement on that at least.


as i explained on one of these threads, and as i remember it was thoughtful and respectful, chuck (re)introduction of the 10m proposal allowed me to see that there are two aspects of the problem. one is fairway type shots; the other is within putting range. to treat them identically is (should be) obviously flawed.


Pat, I said that the idea was intriguing. I liked the idea of using the Pythagorean theorem to mark your lie on the playing surface exactly as far away from the target as it was at rest above the playing surface from the target. There are obvious challenges with that in practical terms though. (I still think it might be workable, but it would definitely be open to group decision bias.) This would be for the entire course though and not just within 10 meters.

I am as adamantly opposed to that 10 meter designation as I am to the 2 meter penalty. There is nothing even near it in ball golf (not that we have to just copy them), but it is unnecessarily arbitrary and overly restrictive. I realize it is an attempt to create a �disc golf green�, but what exactly is wrong with actually �CREATING A GREEN� if you want one? I mean create a defined area, with line or seam, where inside the boundary certain rules apply? TDs and Course Designers would be free to make those any shape or size they want.

Again, this is a �blanket rule� where none should be mandated or is really needed.


bottom line: you can call the 2m line the OB line if that is necessary for you to accept this proposal. but there is no argument that there are two general areas that discs can stick "up", and those two situations deserve different treatment. the 2m OB line works as well or better than any other line.



You are just trying to confuse the issue here Pat. OB is OB. The 2 Meter Rule IS NOT OB. If it were, then it would CEASE TO BE THE 2 METER RULE.

If a TD decided to make everything 2 meters above the playing surface Out of Bounds, I would have no problem with it. I might not like the design or fairness aspects of it, but that would be on me. If that TD wanted that rule in effect everywhere and at every PDGA event, then I would have some serious problems with it.

Bottom line: If you and Chuck want to declare everything 2 meters above the playing surface within 10 meters of the pins OB at your events, and even provide a drop zone for those Obs 10 meters away from the pin, I would have no problem with it. If you didn�t want the OB penalty throw, then make that area a casual OB with drop zone. That is ALL fine with me. Just don�t make every other TD and Designer �HAVE TO� do the same thing. Then market forces will have a chance to demonstrate which preference is better and for whom.

This makes sense I believe.

Sincerely,
Nick Kight

At some point as you approach the basket, the straight down mark appears patently �unfair� as indicated by Sandalman�s avatar.



Chuck,

I'm not sure I can agree with that one. So long as the rule that governs what happens in such instances is the same and as close as possible to our other fundamental rules it is as fair as we can make it. If we can make it fairer then let's do it.

What I would propose, and this stems from your earlier thoughts on the topic is this:

Consider the elevated location of the lie (any elevation) as being under this rule. (I inserted the phrase that pays within it.)

803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF
C. Casual Obstacles: A player may obtain relief only from the following obstacles: casual water, loose leaves or debris, broken branches no longer connected to a tree, motor vehicles, harmful insects or animals, players' equipment, spectators, lies above the playing surface or any item or area specifically designated by the director before the round. The type of relief a player may obtain is based on the location of the obstacle and is limited as follows:
(1) Casual obstacles between the lie and the hole: No relief is granted except for obstacles which became a factor during the round as described by 803.04 B.
(2) Casual obstacles to stance or throwing motion: The player must first attempt to remove the obstacle. If this is impractical, the player's lie may be relocated to the nearest lie which is no closer to the hole; is on the line of play; and not more than five meters from the original lie, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official (unless greater casual relief is announced by the director). Alternatively, the player may declare an unsafe lie and proceed in accordance with 803.05.
(3) Casual obstacles to a run up: The player may move the obstacle. No other relief is provided.

D. In situations where it is unclear if an object may be moved or other relief obtained, it shall be determined by a majority of the group or an official.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.

F. A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

I suppose a player could try to play it from where it is up there, but if they broke any branches on the way up or down, BAM! 2 stroke penalty!

Regards,
Nick Kight

Nick, get off the OB kick. It doesn't pertain to this discussion on marking the lie. Because 2m is potentially involved, it's easy to get brain lock. This is a discussion similar to marking a lie when your disc is IB within 1m of OB where you get to move the lie to 1m from OB with no penalty.

Sharky implies that marking straight down inside 10m is simpler (but it's less fair). Marking at the 10m drop spot isn't that tough and provides the same shot for all players. What isn't fair is for some to benefit and others get the shaft due to poor putting area design similar to Pimp's comment about a pine tree by the basket. All discs above 2m (or whatever is height is determined) get treated the same for marking when inside 10m. Why is that tough? Shouldn't we mark discs as fairly as possible? No one needs Pythagoras for this.

BTW, using this rule, on the LOP and no closer would make the person 100 feet up and 8 feet from the pin mark their lie (with relief) 116 (Provided by our pal Pythagoras.) feet away on the LOP.

If I can do the math, perhaps there is hope.

Bottom line: If you and Chuck want to declare everything 2 meters above the playing surface within 10 meters of the pins OB at your events, and even provide a drop zone for those Obs 10 meters away from the pin, I would have no problem with it. If you didn�t want the OB penalty throw, then make that area a casual OB with drop zone. That is ALL fine with me. Just don�t make every other TD and Designer �HAVE TO� do the same thing. Then market forces will have a chance to demonstrate which preference is better and for whom.

wow, you're almost there, nick!

just to be clear where we are now: you endorse the 10m drop (LOP or zone) as a device that has merit for certain holes and believe that TDs should be encouraged to use it whenever it makes sense for their particular situation.

Nick, get off the OB kick. It doesn't pertain to this discussion on marking the lie. Because 2m is potentially involved, it's easy to get brain lock. This is a discussion similar to marking a lie when your disc is IB within 1m of OB where you get to move the lie to 1m from OB with no penalty.

Sharky implies that marking straight down inside 10m is simpler (but it's less fair). Marking at the 10m drop spot isn't that tough and provides the same shot for all players. What isn't fair is for some to benefit and others get the shaft due to poor putting area design similar to Pimp's comment about a pine tree by the basket. All discs above 2m (or whatever is height is determined) get treated the same for marking when inside 10m. Why is that tough? Shouldn't we mark discs as fairly as possible? No one needs Pythagoras for this.



Read the post to you. I think that I both got off the OB kick and perhaps found a more fair solution without having to rewrite our rulebook and within existing rules.

Besides someone 100 feet up marking their lie the same as someone 10 feet up would be "unfair" by your own standard.

If folks can't do math, which is pretty easy I must say in this case, I think I can go with eyeing it up.

I'm not 100% sure this would all work properly and it does still seem to really penalize a disc randomly sticking up in a tree or bush. It also assumes that distance is the major factor to maintain to remain "fair", when moving back might actually provide a significant advantage.

Better safe than sorry perhaps. Just mark it on the playing surface and play on should be the default for now. But by all means keep working on it.

Bottom line: If you and Chuck want to declare everything 2 meters above the playing surface within 10 meters of the pins OB at your events, and even provide a drop zone for those Obs 10 meters away from the pin, I would have no problem with it. If you didn�t want the OB penalty throw, then make that area a casual OB with drop zone. That is ALL fine with me. Just don�t make every other TD and Designer �HAVE TO� do the same thing. Then market forces will have a chance to demonstrate which preference is better and for whom.

wow, you're almost there, nick!

just to be clear where we are now: you endorse the 10m drop (LOP or zone) as a device that has merit for certain holes and believe that TDs should be encouraged to use it whenever it makes sense for their particular situation.



I don't know if "encourage" is the word I would use. Allow them the freedom to do so within our rules, yes definitely.

Did you read the idea about putting this under the Obstacle & Relief rule? I think it might answer the question your avatar poses...

Sharky implies that marking straight down inside 10m is simpler (but it's less fair).



Less fair to whom??? EVERYONE would play the shots the same if we marked it directly below. My situation at Big Creek at worlds is a situation where your new rule would be UNFAIR. I was suspended 6ft 8inches off the groun and about 8 ft behind the basket. No way in hell my disc was anymore then 10 ft away from the basket and it was prolly still about 8 ft away. With your new illogical rule i would have had to move it back to 33ft then make a putt from there with no penalty. Not really fair now is it???

If everyone marks directly below then EVERYONE plays it the same. Its not fair to put disc that was 5 ft from the basket and a disc that was 32 ft from the basket on the same lie. No matter if they are 7ft or 50 ft in the air thats not fair at all. If EVERYONE marks directly below THEN its fair The rule applys to EVERYONE. Just like you think that 2 meter rule was fair with a penalty (which it wasnt) its is fair to mark your disc directly below and play from there. EVERYONE will be doing it so NO ONE will have an advantage.

just to be clear where we are now: you endorse the 10m drop (LOP or zone) as a device that has merit for certain holes and believe that TDs should be encouraged to use it whenever it makes sense for their particular situation.



I don't know if "encourage" is the word I would use. Allow them the freedom to do so within our rules, yes definitely.

Did you read the idea about putting this under the Obstacle & Relief rule? I think it might answer the question your avatar poses...



i did read it, but quite frankly rules quotes always get me confused about what is current and what is proposed as a change so i dont think too much about posts in that format.

well, i believe we should really try to finalize a wording for the 10m drop proposal. especially in light of the fact that the 2m rule will by default be in effect in 2005. (the suspension will be the option, not the default.) i will begin work on a new avatar this afternoon :)

i will work to encourage TD's to suspend 2m rule except within 10m, and to develop and experiment with 10m drop points during 2005, so that when 2006 rolls around we have something that will make sense and work for everyone.

The only difference is that I added "lies above the playing surface" to the list of casual obstacles, the rest is exactly the same and unaltered.

You don't need to propose anything to the PDGA if you use OB rather than the 2 meter rule; OB allows drop zones already.

And again, I would not support it if it were a blanket rule. The O & R revision maybe, but not something as seemingly new and strange as this ( I didn't say stupid or bad, just new and strange, which it would be...).

You need to propose it to TDs and Course Designers and I would suggest one thing; if you are doing this to generate a "disc golf green" as it were, encourage them to make them different shapes and sizes. Courses are getting better and better, more in line with the game of golf, our greens deserve no less consideration.

I�m not sure I would use it, certainly not on every hole. I�d be more likely to just make the trees around the hole OB and leave the playing surface below IB. But I�d possibly give it a try on some tunnel hole with lots of trees very near the basket.

OK then. Let's use your example of top pros playing for money. If Kevin Mcoy throws the big hyzer bomb that just misses the basket and sticks 24 inches up in a pine tree 10' behind the basket, and then Ron Russell tries to throw the same shot but puts too much heat on it, and it goes way too high. But wait, it sticks in the same pine tree, only 50 feet up. Why shouldn't Russell have to account for his obvious bad shot?

OK then. Let's use your example of top pros playing for money. If Kevin Mcoy throws the big hyzer bomb that just misses the basket and sticks 24 inches up in a pine tree 10' behind the basket, and then Ron Russell tries to throw the same shot but puts too much heat on it, and it goes way too high. But wait, it sticks in the same pine tree, only 50 feet up. Why shouldn't Russell have to account for his obvious bad shot?



Because in Disc Golf we mark the lie on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest.

What if Kev's shot landed 6'8" up in the tree and Ron's 50' up above it. Is it fair to penalize them both equally?

If disc above the playing surface fell under casual obstacle, then relief would put the lie no closer to the pin on the line of play away from the target.

If that tree were designated OB, then both would take an OB penalty throw and take their lie accordingly.

Both options are better than the 2 meter option in my opinion.

i guess we can argue this all again at this time of the year in 2005 because the RULE IS NOT CHANGING FOR 2005!!!!

alot of valuable time was wasted going back and forth....but maybe some good will come out of it and people will research the rules and know them better :D

But the rule did change in 2005. It is still at the TDs discretion to use the rule or not. This may not look like much, but it is a major change to the rule.

There goes Keith's world famous reading skills again... LOL! Even the revision was not completely to my liking so dropping back to opt out for the 2 meter is still a considerable victory for those of us wanting it completely gone.

I am still very VERY interested to hear the other rules the Rules Committee Approved (and the BOD for that matter) that all got dropped. Maybe we can beat them to death too, so that when they come out we have no more room to lay into them...

But the rule did change in 2005. It is still at the TDs discretion to use the rule or not. This may not look like much, but it is a major change to the rule.


The BOD is saying TDs should use rule 804.01 to opt out of the 2m rule as a special condition. This could have always been done, right? If so, then no change.

I haven't seen the wording yet, but to opt out of the 2m rule in the past would require permission from the Competition Director.

and given some of the discussions here, some TD's may experiment with suspending the rule in general, but providing a penalty-free drop zone within 10m.

But the rule did change in 2005. It is still at the TDs discretion to use the rule or not. This may not look like much, but it is a major change to the rule.


The BOD is saying TDs should use rule 804.01 to opt out of the 2m rule as a special condition. This could have always been done, right? If so, then no change.



No, it couldn't, certainly not without the approval of the Competition Director. Now you should just include it in your event flyer, program and players meeting.

�NO 2 METER RULE� (Makes me glow just thinking of it�)

Kind of like what 2 meter lovers will have to do in 2006, if the 2 meter rule is even an option in 2006.

Pat, I have to hand it to you, you are nearly as stubborn as I am. That option is good in 2005, but check with the PDGA RC and the Competitions director to be sure. But you don't need to limit it to a 10 meter circle, drop zones or to 2 meters above the playing surface, when any defined shape, relief and area is possible. I am intrigued by the design possibilities involved.

Here�s my plug: Even if you still want to use the 2 meter rule, don�t; just declare everything above 2 meters on your course as OB. Then at least the unfortunate sods that get stick up there at least get some relief (not to mention the tree or bush it was stuck in).

Happy B Day Pat. You 40 yet?

Happy birthday Pat, from me and my entourage :D

Pat, I have to hand it to you, you are nearly as stubborn as I am.

yes, and i frequently make more sense :)


That option is good in 2005, but check with the PDGA RC and the Competitions director to be sure. But you don't need to limit it to a 10 meter circle, drop zones or to 2 meters above the playing surface, when any defined shape, relief and area is possible. I am intrigued by the design possibilities involved.

true on the shape. ideally, usage of the 10m proposal (whether circular or other shape) should at least be pre-approved by the comp. committee. from recent posts its obviousthat Chuck thinks it has merit, and it seemed that the esteemed Mr Houck found some merit in it also (i am reading tween the lines there tho). regardless, i supposed it would be possible to declare <2m as a "mando" for final disc position, which (sort of) legitimizes the drop zone concept. just a thought tho.

thanks nick... geez, i'm almost grand master status!

thanks david, and thanks, thanks, thanks and thanks ;)

Happy B-day. Eat lots of cake.

and given some of the discussions here, some TD's may experiment with suspending the rule in general, but providing a penalty-free drop zone within 10m.



I'm guessing they won't be able to do that without consent of the Competition Director.

Sounds like suspending the rule will be okay without consent, but any other wack-job solutions will still need approving.

BTW, using this rule, on the LOP and no closer would make the person 100 feet up and 8 feet from the pin mark their lie (with relief) 116 (Provided by our pal Pythagoras.) feet away on the LOP.




100.32'



If I can do the math, perhaps there is hope.



If...

The only thing that surprizes me is that Rhett didn't catch it first.

100.31948 feet, right?

This is looking like something other than an elegant solution though...

HAPPY B-DAY PAT!

I haven't seen the wording yet, but to opt out of the 2m rule in the past would require permission from the Competition Director.



Right. And the Competition Director is on the Board of Directors. And the Board of Directors gave permission. So the Competition Director has already given permission. And so rule 804.01 has been followed with no change to the rulebook to allow the 2m rule to be waived by the TD, if he chooses.

The BOD is saying TDs should use rule 804.01 to opt out of the 2m rule as a special condition. This could have always been done, right? If so, then no change.



No, it couldn't, certainly not without the approval of the Competition Director. Now you should just include it in your event flyer, program and players meeting.


Well, as I just wrote responding to gnduke, the entire BoD gave their approval, and the BoD includes the Competition Director, so it looks like rule 804.01 is being strictly followed to me.

The BOD is saying TDs should use rule 804.01 to opt out of the 2m rule as a special condition. This could have always been done, right? If so, then no change.



No, it couldn't, certainly not without the approval of the Competition Director. Now you should just include it in your event flyer, program and players meeting.


Well, as I just wrote responding to gnduke, the entire BoD gave their approval, and the BoD includes the Competition Director, so it looks like rule 804.01 is being strictly followed to me.



What are you talking about Paul? That you do not need to get special permission from the PDGA Competition Director "IS" the change. You could not just ignore it in the past...

What are you talking about Paul? That you do not need to get special permission from the PDGA Competition Director "IS" the change. You could not just ignore it in the past...



Here's the part of the 804.01 rule we're talking about: "No rules may be stipulated which conflict with the PDGA Rules of Play, unless approved by the Competition Director of the PDGA."

And hey, you've been approved by the Competition Director of the PDGA when the entire Board of Directors, of whom the Competition Director is one, says you've been approved.

Nothing there in the rules about the process of getting "special permission", as you put it, Nick. So yes, the process of getting permission from the Competition Director has changed -- it's already provided up-front -- but no change has been made to the 804.01 rule itself.

And my original point is still valid: you could have always requested permission from the Competition Director earlier to waive the 2m rule if you wanted to, and it looks like you probably would have gotten it. I seem to recall that this was done at least once in the past successfully. So there has been no rule change (yet).

100.31948 feet, right?



Much better.


This is looking like something other than an elegant solution though...



Agreed. While I feel it is the "best" theoretical solution, it's entirely impractical.

from gnduke:

But the rule did change in 2005. It is still at the TDs discretion to use the rule or not. This may not look like much, but it is a major change to the rule.



from Nick_Kight:

There goes Keith's world famous reading skills again... LOL! Even the revision was not completely to my liking so dropping back to opt out for the 2 meter is still a considerable victory for those of us wanting it completely gone.

from keith:
JESUS F'ING CHRIST ARE BOTH OF YOU ON DRUGS OR WHAT!!!

it is NOT a rule change any more than the 804.05 (a) add on was a rule change....
it is a "policy change"
it MAY be a rule change NEXT YEAR...maybe not....we'll see,BUT....
in the mean time things stay the same UNLESS the td opts out.....the way it should be....not the other way around...

when YOU BOTH learn to read what people write instead of reading what you want it to say then MAYBE you'll know what is going on.....until then i'll just keep reading nick's drivel and laughing out loud :D

That a TD may opt out of the 2 meter rule without asking the PDGA Competition Director is, in fact, a rule change. It changes the following rule "DIRECTLY":


804.01 SPECIAL CONDITIONS
C. No rules may be stipulated which conflict with the PDGA Rules of Play, unless approved by the Competition Director of the PDGA.



That the Competition Director Carte blanche now approves this option does in fact represent a change from the past, a change to our existing rules. A change to the rules we may play under at PDGA events in 2005.

I understand that you are saying that it was already in the rules that the PDGA Competition Director already had that power, but that is not the point of discussion. The point of discussion is whether there is a �new approved rule� or not, and to that there clearly is.

(Leave it to Keith to further muddy the waters�)

Keith I always read what you write. I don't always understand it, but I do read it. :cool:And my comment was in line with what you meant to say (as I understood it).

There is a major change in the implementation of the 2m rule. It will be setup as an opt-out rule that does not require a acknowledgement from the competition director. While that is not a change in the rule itself, it amounts to a major shift in how people will be thinking about the rule.

exactly.....
and what I wrote was there was NO change in the rule...and there is NO change in the rule.....
pretty simple no more and no less


it is an idea,policy change,whatever label anyone wants to give it, BUT not a rule change!


and gary ....i'm not mad at you at all,you just got caught up in all the nick hype....it's not your fault :D

While that is not a change in the rule itself, it amounts to a major shift in how people will be thinking about the rule.




and therein lies ALL of the problems....people thinking about it DOESN'T make it a rule.....
there are enough urban legend "rules" out in disc golf land already without INVENTING new ones....


happy holidays

keith

That a TD may opt out of the 2 meter rule without asking the PDGA Competition Director is, in fact, a rule change. It changes the following rule "DIRECTLY":


Nope.


That the Competition Director Carte blanche now approves this option does in fact represent a change from the past,


Yep.

a change to our existing rules. A change to the rules we may play under at PDGA events in 2005.


Nope.

I understand that you are saying that it was already in the rules that the PDGA Competition Director already had that power,


Yep.

but that is not the point of discussion. The point of discussion is whether there is a �new approved rule� or not, and to that there clearly is.


Nope.

Look, if there had been a new rule, there'd have to be a new rulebook. The BoD didn't have time to craft new rules and issue a new rulebook, so they kept the rules as they are and changed the method of getting approval for the 2m rule by providing it up-front. All rule 804.01 says is get approval from the Competition Director. All the BoD is advertising up-front to everyone is, for the 2m rule, you already have approval from the Competition Director to waive it, so waive it if you want to. That's how they've avoided issuing a new rulebook, because they haven't changed the rules, they've simply issued a blanket approval for this special condition request. Saves them and us a lot of work (assuming there really is a pressing need to waive this rule).

So, in summary, no rule change, no new rulebook, but a process change whereby they've made it easier to waive the 2m rule for those who find it offensive or useless.

The BoD may have been forced to this decision by time constraints, but I think it worked out to be the best decision overall.

One thing is for certain. Y'all need a life.



BTW there is no rule change. bwaaahhhhhh!

So, in summary, no rule change, no new rulebook, but a process change whereby they've made it easier to waive the 2m rule for those who find it offensive or useless.

exact-f-ing-ly!

nick is confusing "rules" with "rulings". in this case, the rule is the same, and the ruling is different in that it is pre-granted.

I don't know about all the static here, but when I am out at a PDGA this year and there is no 2 meter rule, it sure will seem like there has been a huge rule change, regardless of the sophestry.

whats that you say? didnt catch it... some sort of interference :D :D

Better watch what you say, Pat. The monitor is lurking and might deem any questioning of PDGA policy offensive. I mean, how dare we question the organization we pay for!!

Better watch what you say, Pat. The monitor is lurking and might deem any questioning of PDGA policy offensive. I mean, how dare we question the organization we pay for!!



Question all you want, but follow the rules.

Better watch what you say, Pat. The monitor is lurking and might deem any questioning of PDGA policy offensive. I mean, how dare we question the organization we pay for!!



Question all you want, but follow the rules.



You first:


The PDGA does not monitor the message board.

I don't know about all the static here, but when I am out at a PDGA this year and there is no 2 meter rule, it sure will seem like there has been a huge rule change, regardless of the sophestry.


Big word. Had to look it up. First found out it was spelled sophistry. And its definition is "A deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone."

Interesting how Nick knew this word.

whats that you say? didnt catch it... some sort of interference :D :D


More word-play:

Did you say interference? Can we make the interference rule apply here? (Actually, I think Nick's sophistry comment was OB.)

I don't know about all the static here, but when I am out at a PDGA this year and there is no 2 meter rule, it sure will seem like there has been a huge rule change, regardless of the sophestry.

first, the rule will still be there, it will just be suspended at some tourneys.

second, "seem like" does not equal reality. a review of some uses of "seems like" in the last couple years can be illuminating.

look, there's trucks at a warehouse ! "seems like" iraq has WMDs. ooops.

"seems like" we'll be greeted with flowers. dang it!

"seems like" this is gonna be a short war. gosh!

"seems like" mission accomplished. well, golly gee, this is downright difficult!

ok, here's a couple more that might work:

"seems like" the BOD made a good decision to wait, and serendipitously created the very best possible scenario for 2005.

"seems like" i've made my point

:D

also seems like nick didn't agree that i was right and HE WAS WRONG!!!!!! :D

also seems like nick didn't agree that i was right and HE WAS WRONG!!!!!! :D



That's cool, when you are at an event in 2005 and the TD has opted out of the 2 meter rule, on principle you guys should take the penalty throw anyway. Cause the rules HAVE NOT CHANGED, right? :D

"seems like" the BOD made a good decision to wait, and serendipitously created the very best possible scenario for 2005. :D



seems like the BoD caved in to the myopic outcries of a few vocal opponents of change and failed to give the Rules Committee the respect and consideration which the significant time and thought the RC put into their recommendation deserved. .

As much as those myopic or conspiracy folks would like to believe such self-importance, I suspect that what Bruce and other BoD members reported here is closer to the truth:

That there was not enough time to get the new rule book printed up and moving forward with so many rules updates without a coinciding rule book would not be advisable for what are obvious and practical reasons.

If there are backroom calisthenics and deals going on that undermine the careful hard work of the PDGA Rules Committee, it will be know certainly by the printing of the next rulebook.

The question I have is this: Are we out of PDGA Rule Books, what is stopping us from pushing back the print date until the work on it is done?

Also, what specifically is the work that needs to be done and what is the time table for doing it?

Nick, I believe the issue is the powers-that-be, wanted the new rule book printed for the Calendar year. While I agree with your implication that it doesn't matter, and we could just continue with the old rule book until March or April, they probably want to keep the rules consistant throughout the year. It makes sense because Points and USDGC qualifying are done on the calendar year, but Disc Golf is not really like Football or baseball where we have a fixed season...

Somehow help me out on the process. I think Chuck mentioned that the problem was translating the proposed ideas into actual rule language and that difficulty was causing a delay.

Does the Rules Committee first propose general ideas to the board, get feedback, and then go back and hammer out the actual language? Or alternatively, does the Rules Committee come to the board with actual rule language.

Curiously, the proposal to have a default of no penalty for 2 meters seems simple from a rule language standpoint (at least at my first glance). Therefore, I am having trouble envisioning why the debate over actual rule language would result in a long delay.

Does the Rules Committee first propose general ideas to the board, get feedback, and then go back and hammer out the actual language? Or alternatively, does the Rules Committee come to the board with actual rule language.




My understanding is the former is what happened. Actually, it's more of an interative process. I think the BOD approved the initial feedback, but rejected the "final language" several times, and eventually the deadline was passed to get new rules books printed for January mailings.


Curiously, the proposal to have a default of no penalty for 2 meters seems simple from a rule language standpoint (at least at my first glance). Therefore, I am having trouble envisioning why the debate over actual rule language would result in a long delay.



There were several other proposed changes. This one just got the most press because of Carlton's interview on PDGA radio, and it was probably the most controversial change.

Bruces hints at some of the other proposed changes here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=267573&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

also seems like nick didn't agree that i was right and HE WAS WRONG!!!!!! :D



That's cool, when you are at an event in 2005 and the TD has opted out of the 2 meter rule, on principle you guys should take the penalty throw anyway. Cause the rules HAVE NOT CHANGED, right? :D



incorrect nick....when I'M at an event in 2005(which should be about 30 events around the country)
i'll listen at the players meeting to what the td says and play by that....there is lots of local,and not "really" pdga type rules and disclaimers that sometimes come out at meetings as well as stuff they wanted to say but DON'T that come out at meetings and i've called several people(including top caliber touring pros) on things that they were too "busy" to listen to the td say .....

that's the difference with us nick.....i know what i like to have happen when i'm a td so i give others respect and listen at their meetings....and i also know what it's like as a td to have people ignore or not listen at meetings and then get ****** off when they find out something they should have heard cost them strokes...and i have no mercy for people like that....


you just like to talk about it on a message board,and then say you should have called this or should have done that AFTER the event.....

it's too late then...so just take the NON rule change for now and when it does get put into the rule book it will be something else for me to memorize....until then....
if the td doesn't say it at the meeting,people are going to get strokes for being above 2 meters


keith

Keith, you must really have to put in real effort to be so wrong all of the time, there's just no way this could happen by accident...

The only part of that that is a joke is the part about "real effort" I know Keith is a "natural"...

The MSDGC thread cured me of ever using smiley faces again, you'll just have to guess from now on...sorry.