Can anyone summarize the new rules that are going into effect in 2005? I've heard rumors that the 2m rule is gone... I have read the new pdga tour standards and saw the "Pros playing Am" rules changes.

there is an entire thread on here regarding both rules

I'm not sure the final wording of the changes is completed and approved yet so a summary could be posted. Perhaps Theo or office staffer will consider posting it when it's ready.

Read Bruck Brakel's post in this (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=265189&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) thread. It hints at many of the proposed changes.

All I can say is if you keep your drive in-bounds, in the fairway, under two meters, somewhere where you can play it from, somewhere you can find it, and you can tell all that from the tee, you won't need the new rule book right away, even if you are a pro playing in an amateur division, unless someone is challenging the legality of the 40 foot tape measure your caddy is carrying.

now that is funny! nice synopsis. :D

Can anyone summarize the new rules that are going into effect in 2005? I've heard rumors that the 2m rule is gone... I have read the new pdga tour standards and saw the "Pros playing Am" rules changes.



The 2m rule is NOT GONE. It is now optional. Please be careful, everyone seems to take what is said here on the Discussion Board as fact. ;)

From what I know there is no vast and huge rewrite of our rules underway. It is more of a natural ongoing maintanence process of fixing gaps and tightening up existing rules.

Relax! Disc golf will still be about true winners having the most fun while throwing the least amount of times to complete the course.

Folks, I'll try and post a summary when we get the update finished. There's not many earth-shattering changes besides making the 2-meter penalty optional for TDs and changing the lost disc penalty to stroke and distance. We're in the process of cleaning up the update and submitting it for BoD approval. Writing a rules update is not an easy process, and there's been quite a bit of debate on how to word each of the issues. Bruce did hint at some of them, so that may give you some clue.

John Chapman
PDGA Competition Director and Rules Committee-person

...and changing the lost disc penalty to stroke and distance.



Ooooo. I like it. :)

Begin debate now. ;)

Slows play additionally in a scenario that already involves slow play due to searching for a lost disc. I'd like to get LOP (line of play) relief included as an option for our penalty or relief situations, which works so well for ball golf.

What is this stroke and distance? I do not understand, please explain.

I think it is where you throw from original lie, not last place seen IB's

Yes, line of play (as I understand) beats the pants off stroke and distance. After waiting five minutes for the people in the woods, one will reemerege to walk all the way back to the tee.

Girlie, I think stoke and distance means rethrowing from the previous lie with a penalty stroke while line of play allows you to throw anywhere on the line of your last shot while still taking a stroke.

What is this stroke and distance?



It's actually 'throw and distance' but our media folks like DGWN and PDGA Radio perpetuate use of the improper term, 'stroke.' The word 'stroke' doesn't show up anywhere in the rules. Throw and distance means you get a penalty then rethrow from the original lie. So, the revised lost disc rule would mean you have to go back and retee if you can't find your disc, or to wherever you launched the lost disc from, if it wasn't a tee shot.

Apologies if I missed this elsewhere. Is this rule optional or mandatory?

<crossed fingers> Please be optional, please be optional!!

no, that would not be consistant!!!

Chuck,

What is the only certifiably known lie when a disc goes OB or is lost?

Line Of Play, Last Place Seen and Last Place In Bounds are all total guesswork; where buds in the same group can provide huge advantages by giving better lies.

No, the only way to take the guess work, and nice guy factor, out of these rules and be 100% consistent is the throw and distance option.

No more fudging lies to help out a bud. Besides how much time is really involved in walking back to your previous lie? A minute at most; a small price for 100% consistency.

Further kudos to the Rules Committee!

Regards,
Nick Kight
(Having no say in the rules changes.)

I can see this one being a real problem. You don't think your disc is lost so you pick up your mini and walk up the fairway and can't find the disc. Where was you old mark? You always have to go back and pick up the mini you left in case the disc was lost...

James,
LOP means from the basket through the mark (spot) and beyond, not along the flight path.

Actually, there's a difference between "line of play" and "line of flight", and it makes a big difference when specifying relief for shots that are OB or lost. :o

For lost disc, "line of play" as currently defined would have you backing up from, apparently, the last place you saw your disc, keeping that spot between you and the basket. "Line of flight" would have you dropping anywhere along the flight of the disc, and this term is not currently defined in our rule book.

For OB, "line of flight" would have you dropping on the "near side" of the OB, where your disc entered the OB. "Line of play" would mandate that you drop on the "far side" of the OB, if any is available.

I think I prefer "line of play", and require a rethrow from previous spot if there is no "far side" available.

Also, if the RC has the forsight to include "provisionals" as they are in ball golf, then we can quell (a little bit) this silly talk about slowness of play. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

But I'm certain the RC has thought ALL of this through, or else they wouldn't be doing their, albeit unpaid, job. :D:D

We agree that we don't 'play it where it lies' the same as ball golf. But we do attempt to mark and play from 'where it lies' to the best of our ability. 'Line of play' is closer to the spirit of this fundamental golf precept that I believe most would feel trumps the higher certainty but slower play and more penalizing option of returning to a prior lie. One need only look at the scoring travesty of the 'throw and distance' penalty on holes like #13 at USDGC to see how poor this option can be for game integrity. Ball golf in its history has likely never had that kind of scoring distribution on a par 5 hole even in wind worse than the USDCG.

Would it be permissibel under the rules to take a provisionel throw if your shot went in the woods or in a place where it could be difficult to look for it?

That would speed up play, unless the provisional shot went in the same place the original shot did, then another prov. shot could be taken, and so on, but that won't happen :o

Of course now if a disc gets stuck in a tree, the argument about identity of the disc becomes much more important if the penalty for lost disc is throw and distance (seeing that the delta between disc-in-tree and lost disc will probably be the equivalent of 1.75 throws./msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

that raises an interesting possibility i never thought of before - the concept of nested provisionals! ie, cant make a firm ruling one first shot, so throw a provisional. the provisional results in a shot that cannot find a firm ruling... and so on and so forth :) sounds like fun - i cant wait to try this one at a tournament near me! :D

We agree that we don't 'play it where it lies' the same as ball golf. But we do attempt to mark and play from 'where it lies' to the best of our ability.



LOP is not a "better" approximation of the true lie. It often has nothing to do with where the disc actually came to rest. Same with LPS. The only lie that has been established and actually used on the hole is the last lie. Overly punitive or not, it is the only way to be 100% consistent.

As Bush would say,"In Oklahoma, I mean Texas, we say a saying, throw a bad shot once shame on you, me, you. Throw a bad shot a second time, shame on you...WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN!!!!"

There are also, many many many, (more than not) where going back to the last lie is a big help. Just about any wooded course...

Gary, Hank, Chuck. I'm a little confused (and I guess I have been cheating in ball golf probably), but if you are using the line of play rule, does that mean you can take the penalty and throw from a point that is in between the pre-throw lie and the basket as long as that point is no closer to the hole than where your throw went OB.

Sorry for the confusion. In ball golf, I always drop somewhere on the line between my previous lie and where I went OB, not between the previous lie and the hole.

You currently have three options (unless the TD declares otherwise)for an OB shot, none of which involve line of play.

1) Take the next shot from where your disc was last inbounds allowing 1 meter relief from the OB line with a 1 throw penalty.

2) Throw from last lie (the tee box counts as a lie) with a 1 throw penalty.

3) Throw from the drop zone if one is provided.

"Line of play" is used in marking a lie only when taking casual relief or relief from large solid obstacles that prevent taking a stance directly behind your marker disc.

Only the unsafe lie rules allow the mark to be placed "no closer to the hole" without restriction to "line of play".
With a one throw penalty, you are allowed anywhere within 5 meters but no closer to the hole, with a 2 throw penalty you are allowed to move anywhere on the course but no closer to the hole.

Okay, I thought Chuck was talking talking about possible future rules allowing a 4th option that was being called "line of play" and that this option was similar to ball golf.

Just to ease my curiousity, if that was an option, do you anticipate that the rule would allow you to drop on the line from your pre-throw lie to the basket or on the line from the pre-throw lie to the point you entered OB?

Also, if the RC has the forsight to include "provisionals" as they are in ball golf, then we can quell (a little bit) this silly talk about slowness of play. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



You mean something this?

A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory, Once the status of the original throw is determined by an official or the majority of the group, the hole shall be completed from the lie of the original throw if permitted under the rules, or otherwise from the lie of the provisional throw.

Okay, I thought Chuck was talking talking about possible future rules allowing a 4th option that was being called "line of play" and that this option was similar to ball golf.



I don't know the rules of Ball Golf very well, but I thought the Line Of Play was only allowed when the ball was in a Hazard. Of course in Ball Golf, water is generally a Hazard, and not OB (OB penalty is stroke & distance). Where we get up to 1m from the spot where it last crossed the OB plane (or the other options mentioned above), Ball golf gets a drop on the line of play from where the ball crossed into the hazard.

I think Line of Play on a lost disc is a really bad idea. If it's lost, where do you draw your line from? Where you think you saw it?

A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory, Once the status of the original throw is determined by an official or the majority of the group, the hole shall be completed from the lie of the original throw if permitted under the rules, or otherwise from the lie of the provisional throw.

That may be the intent, but it will require re-writing the rule governing provisional throws since the current rule does not allow a provisional or the original throw to be abandoned mid-hole (see 803.00.C(3); Glossary).

Right.

I'm suggesting that this new wording may be added in the new book.

Also, if the RC has the forsight to include "provisionals" as they are in ball golf, then we can quell (a little bit) this silly talk about slowness of play. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



You mean something this?

A player may declare a provisional throw any time (a) the status of a disc cannot immediately be determined, and (b) the majority of the group agrees that playing a provisional throw may save time, and (c) the original throw may be out of bounds, lost, or have missed a mandatory, Once the status of the original throw is determined by an official or the majority of the group, the hole shall be completed from the lie of the original throw if permitted under the rules, or otherwise from the lie of the provisional throw.

Wow, reading that was like deja vu! I was thinking "man that is written so much better than the wording we're kicking around" and Diana is reading over my shoulder saying "is that guy on the rules committee because that is easy to read and understand." And then were both saying, "and it looks so familiar."

If we adopt the provisional rule eventually it will become common to mock the guy who takes a provisional, the way mockers mock any moron. Think game theory here:

Lost disc. Big downhill hole and you throw your drive into the Deep Schule of Dismal Hopelessness. You're lazy and stupid so you throw a provisional. Best case scenario is that you find your disc, throw out of the schule and remember to pick up the provisional. Worst case scenario is now you have two lost discs and still have to walk up the hill. Consider the guy who does not throw the provisional: worst case scenario: he only has one lost disc and three spotters for his second drive and no one calling him for a foot fault because no one is going to climb back up that hill!

O.b. disc. Throw the provisional and you eliminate the possibility of taking lateral relief with one stroke. I think you want to at least look at the lie on the lateral relief given that the provisional is stroke and distance.

Missed mando. Throw the provisional and forfeit the opportunity to use the mando drop zone. On most mandos I've seen, the drop zone is way up there next to the mando where it is impossible to miss the mando on your next try. Maybe USDGC is different, but I'm thinking Earl Brewer, Lemon Lake, Mando City in Joliet [Shorewood?] and that other mando I'm forgetting. [Peoria? C-bus?] No way you want to throw a provisional on any of those.

Moreover, if you don't throw the provisional, and under the rules you do have to take the lonliest walk, there is now no one potentially hawking your foot fault. Your opponents are almost always going to say, "How about if we spot it this time from down here?" :D

So, you are playing with Slow Joe and he tosses a possible candidate for a provisional. Do you say, "Dude, maybe you should throw a provisional." Or is that just too low? I know that I'd do it playing for tags with Brett or Dan, only because they'd do it to me!

Once we go down the slippery slope of provisionals, the practice throw penalty looks a little silly. Of course, practicing is allowed in ball golf, even during events, if the group behind isn't right on yours.

That wording for a provisional throw kills its current purpose.

Currently it is used for cases when the card and the player can not reach a mutually agreeable conclusion on a rules call. The hole is finished from both possible rulings and the scores recorded for the TD to decide later.

With the suggested wording, it is just a time saving device when the status of the disc is uncertain after a drive.

Once we go down the slippery slope of provisionals, the practice throw penalty looks a little silly. Of course, practicing is allowed in ball golf, even during events, if the group behind isn't right on yours.

Based on something posted by a rules committee member elsewhere, I don't even know what's in the proposed provisional rule anymore, but at one time someone was arguing that we have to make it a group decision whether you can throw the provisional or otherwise it would be an invitation to throw practice throws. That did not make sense to me at first, but then I thought of the guy who blows into town late and is playing round 1 blind. If it is a three or four rounder on one course like the BHM, maybe you would do that if you could get away with it. So if it comes out requiring group permission, that would be why.

I still think, once smart players work it through, they won't take provisionals except on mountain courses. And most dumb players are smart enough to follow the smart players even if they can't work it through. The rule may be stillborn if people think it through.

That wording for a provisional throw kills its current purpose.

Currently it is used for cases when the card and the player can not reach a mutually agreeable conclusion on a rules call. The hole is finished from both possible rulings and the scores recorded for the TD to decide later.

With the suggested wording, it is just a time saving device when the status of the disc is uncertain after a drive.

That wording is the wording for someone's comment on a draft of a proposal which might be in a new draft of a revised proposal. The entire draft of the proposal retains the old provisional that comes into play when there is a rules dispute, and proposes a new provisional when it the group agrees that it would save time and the thrower wants to throw it. So no one is proposing junking the old rule which is very useful. They are merely proposing adding another species of provisional.

But thanks for noticing. Your comments on these rules threads have generally been insightful.

Sorry, I still want to clarify this. If I throw into the cr@p, and can't find it in 3 minutes, I would no longer be able to play from "last seen as agreed by group", but would have to re-tee?

Fortunately, it seems that most people think LOP is better, which I'd have to agree with...

The rule may be stillborn if people think it through.

rules that are stillborn if they are thought through should not be rules!

Sorry, I still want to clarify this. If I throw into the cr@p, and can't find it in 3 minutes, I would no longer be able to play from "last seen as agreed by group", but would have to re-tee?

Fortunately, it seems that most people think LOP is better, which I'd have to agree with...



Just wondering what point the LOP would be drawn from sice the disc is lost?

LOP(line of play) is from the target through the mark and beyond, with no disc nor last seen IB point (line of flight) how would a LOP be determined ?

Just wondering what point the LOP would be drawn from sice the disc is lost?

LOP(line of play) is from the target through the mark and beyond, with no disc nor last seen IB point (line of flight) how would a LOP be determined ?



I'd assumed it would be from last seen IB, directly away from the target. I'd see the rules being something like:
a) Lost drive, 1 stroke penalty, play shot 3 from last seen IB
b) Lost drive, 1 stroke penalty, play shot 3 from tee
c) Lost drive, 2 stroke penalty, play shot 4 from LOP away from the target from the LSIB

This way, b) and c) result in you playing shot 4 from somewhere on the fairway (assuming your redrive is good and that LOP goes up the fairway), but a) allows you to scramble with shot 3, potentially getting a better 4th shot.

WDYT?

The idea with LOP as an option is to prevent double penalties in cases where the standard marking of the lie is in schule after taking a lost disc or OB penalty. In the case of a lost disc, the group would still need to determine the last point seen as the rule reads currently. If it's in the middle of the woods, or a tree, the player may move back on the LOP if feasible or go back and throw from the prior lie like the default option in the current OB rule. I've seen situations like at Worlds this year where a fence line was OB and a bush was growing right along the fence line on the IB side. The player had to take up to a 1-meter IB in the bush or could go back and rethrow from the previous lie. For speed and reducing double penalties, this player would have been able to take LOP relief behind the bush as far as desired to get enough room to throw.

For speed and reducing double penalties, this player would have been able to take LOP relief behind the bush as far as desired to get enough room to throw.


That would work if LOP was parallel to the fence line or away, but if LOP is toward the OB area, there is no relief from the bush.

The above mentioned 2 stroke penalty is already allowed in the rules without the LOP restriction by marking the lie and deciding that it unsafe and using the 1 throw option of unsafe lie.

That would work if LOP was parallel to the fence line or away, but if LOP is toward the OB area, there is no relief from the bush.



Not necessarily. I could argue that I preferred the lie say 10 meters on the LOP back into OB area. Since I can't play from OB, I mark within 1 meter from that position projected out to the IB area. I know what you're saying but that technicality would need to be resolved in the wording.

O.b. disc. Throw the provisional and you eliminate the possibility of taking lateral relief with one stroke. I think you want to at least look at the lie on the lateral relief given that the provisional is stroke and distance.



Provisional is not stroke & distance.


Missed mando. Throw the provisional and forfeit the opportunity to use the mando drop zone.



Again, Provisional is not stroke & distance. It got left out of the wording I quoted above, but it should say something like "the provisional throw will be played with the assumption the the original throw is OB, Lost, or has missed a mando."

So, if you assume OB, it's player's choice, where it last crossed, DZ if provided or re-throw. If it's missed Mando, it's Drop Zone. etc.

That would work if LOP was parallel to the fence line or away, but if LOP is toward the OB area, there is no relief from the bush.



Not necessarily. I could argue that I preferred the lie say 10 meters on the LOP back into OB area. Since I can't play from OB, I mark within 1 meter from that position projected out to the IB area. I know what you're saying but that technicality would need to be resolved in the wording.



http://www.madisc.org/happy/LOP.gif

So Chuck, let me get this straight. You are saying that Line of Play would allow you to take the full distance traveled for an OB disc and mov it anywhere on the IB fairway no closer to the target? If so, this is overly kind in my opinion.

Last Place In Bounds is slightly less kind, but remains a guessing game.

Again, IMO the only way to be 100% uniform in application is with a Drop Zone or Throw and Distance. Without the use of a known lie the application of the rules will be questionable as buds try to give buds better lies and clowns try to work each other with worse lies.

No, I much prefer: "OB go to the Drop Zone." or "OB go back to your last lie." No more "I think it was last inbounds here.""Well I think it was back 20 feet" or for LOP "I'll say that according to the distance traveled to that OB 12 foot by 60 foot thorn bush 200 feet away, I say that you can mark your lie right here, under the basket..."

I'm pretty sure that is not what you are saying, could you clarify? Thanks.

Clarification: Chuck is correct. "Throw and Distance would be the correct term" We won't actually use that term verbatim in the rules book, but I just wanted y'all to know what's up with the update, and that's the simplistic term used to describe the concept.

LOP: The USGA uses this sort of idea for balls lying inside a hazard. I think this would have worked really well with the 2m rule...as a matter of fact I proposed it for the 2002 update, but got shot down.

Here's the way the option works:

The player would draw an imaginary line through his disc and the target. The player could then go back on this line as far as he wants AWAY from the hole, and play from anywhere along that imaginary line, with a 1 throw penalty.

So this option would not allow a player to get closer to the hole than where the disc lies. It MAY allow a player to get closer to the hole than where the disc was last IB. And in some instances (such as the illustration above), the option would not be usable, as the line of play would keep the player OB no matter what, so since you can't play from OB, that option would not be available.

Chap

you guys are all misusing the LOP piece from ball golf. In ball golf hazards are defined as either forward hazards (yellow stakes) or lateral hazards (red stakes) of you go into a lateral hazard then you get a 2 club length drop from the last point the ball was in play...similar to our 1 meter drop rule. LOP come in for forward hazards, IE when there is a lake in front of the green. LOP allows you to back up as far as you want from the hazard to take your shot in this case. Professional ball golfers back up far enough to be able to take a full swing with their favorite wedge (usually to a point where they have a shot of about 110 yards)

I say we keep the 1M drop from the last place the disc was thought to be in play.

The only time ball golf uses stroke and distance is in cases where OB is marked by stakes.

Our problem with these situations is that we define every one of these instances as OB. If we rewrite the rules to define hazards (as they are becomming used more and more in course design) then we can use throw and distance for OB and still use 1M drops for hazards.

This would also allow TD's to determine how they want such situations handled. They could define a particularly dense disc eating area as a hazard rather than OB by use of a different colored rope or stake.

This sounds reasonable. But aren't casual OBs similar to what you are talking about. The thing about throw and distance that really makes me lean in its direction is the absoluteness of it. We do not have course officials roaming our courses or tv viewers calling in with infractions, so when we, as members of a group, are left to decide where something was "last seen" or "last IB" it is only natural to want to give your buddy a break on the placement, and it leaves open the possibility of working someone you don't like. Throw and distance removes all of that judgment call. If that is too harsh then TDs should provide drop zones for situations where that would be too extreme.

I'm not livid about this, but it seems like it could save a bunch of hassles as far as knowing and following the rules.

Maybe top level DG in the US has gone the same way as top level Ultimate, but over here we still abide by something called the "Spirit of the Game"!
Giving your buddies breaks and making bad calls on people you don't like is despicable and known as "cheating". It should never be the basis for writing rules.

IMO

Maybe top level DG in the US has gone the same way as top level Ultimate, but over here we still abide by something called the "Spirit of the Game"!
Giving your buddies breaks and making bad calls on people you don't like is despicable and known as "cheating". It should never be the basis for writing rules.

IMO



I agree about the behavior being terrible, I do think though, when possible, our rules should make it as difficult as possible for those few unscrupulous cads to even attempt. Very few of the kinder gentler disc golfers are willing to confront such behavior, now they won�t have to�

I agree with mommy. This just happened to me last tournament on my drive, and I didnt want to argue so I took a drop 70 feet from pin, when I thought it should have been 10 feet. I was so mad about it, I took a five on the hole, and then even more mad and another five folowed. I`m still peeved to think of it. I dont think there should be room for judgement and something needs to be done about it. My $.02.

Nihon ni sundeimasu ka? Yokatta ne.

You do realize that with throw and distance you wouldn't get to play from 10 feet from the basket either though, right? Back to your previous lie you go, if the result of your throw is OB.

Hai, Nihon ni sundeimasu. Watashi wa Nihonga suki desu.
Yeah I know Id be reteeing again, but at least it wouldn`t be open to judgement.

So desu ne. Ee da na. Amerika ni oishi ramen ga arimasen yo! Yada ka na.

Slow_mo: LOP is an option also for all water hazards, including red-staked lateral hazards in USGA (USGA Rule 26-1)

The BoD voted 5-1 (I voted no, Steve Wertz was absent) last night to leave the 2m rule in place for 2005, with the following caviat: TDs that want to remove the penalty can do so without applying for an exemption from the Competition Director, but they need to explicitly state that the penalty is removed as a special condition under Rule 804.01.

The Board also voted to not change any rules (again, I was the lone dissenter) for the 2005 season. It was felt that we got too late a start to properly get all the changes codified and in place before the end of the year. There will be a rules update that will go into effect for the 2006 season.

John Chapman
PDGA Competition Director

Wow, that is some major flip-flopping. Just to clarify. Come January 1st, the 2 meter rule is in effect, unless the TD says it ain't?

I wonder why. Is it the ole "to penalize bad shots" argument?

Wow, that is some major flip-flopping. Just to clarify. Come January 1st, the 2 meter rule is in effect, unless the TD says it ain't?

I wonder why. Is it the ole "to penalize bad shots" argument?



I'd have to guess it's more the ole "the rule is there already and has been for some time, let's take baby steps before we just get rid of it"

John,

Thanks for the update.

Too bad. Not just for the 2 meter revision, but all of the other improvements that were due out. But I know how crazy this time of the year is for organizers. Perhaps you guys should start a time table now, that will finish this up well before December 15th 2005? I'm not reading anything into this more than some of you guys felt it was too big a step and too rushed.

I'd like to get a full report of the rules revisions proposed; I will run an event with them all in effect to see if they work or not.

I hope that this does not mark the beginning of another dark ages of inactivity and timidity by the BOD.

Sincerely,
Nick Kight

PS: Hope the Rules Committee members are taking this seeming total rejection of their hard work better than I would be.

Maybe that's the reason. Maybe the time frame was the reason. However, both of those reasons existed back in September (I think) when they voted on it the first time, so neither is very persuasive.

It seemed like one member mentioned something akin to being duped into the vote. Maybe that was the reason. Maybe it was just another waffling under pressure ala the CT disciplinary matter. Whatever the reason, the BOD's timidity in backing either a committee's decision or their own decision (in this case) hardly inspires confidence in their leadership. It's just mixed signals again.

I think it's more akin to the "pros can't play c-tiers" thing last year. It sounded good at the time, but after hearing a lot of feedback they reconsidered.

I think this makes the most sense. People that are vehemently anti-2-meter-penalty can dispose of the penalty at their tourneys. People that are vehemently pro-2-meter-penalty can leave it in their tourneys. And the other 98% of sanctioned tourney players will play as they always have unless a TD specifically gets rid of the penalty. At that point, the 98%-ers can think about whether they like it or not.

I'd say it's going to be more than 2% that don't use the balnket 2m rule. I don't expect to see it at most majors for example. Just a prediction (Is Ski for or agin it?). The only insider info I have is we're running the new Mid-Nationals major. I think we might not rescind it (or use OB instead) on a few holes just to demonstrate its purpose where appropriate for course design.

This latest Board decision isn't about the 2-meter rule which took up most of the rules discussion bandwidth here. There were at least a dozen or more changes approved at the Summit meeting in September. The only reason they didn't get the special exception status of the 2m rule is they didn't get the publicity that rule got. Many of them are just as important as the 2m rule. But note that only the 2m rule did get the exception for 2005. So to specifically say the 2m rule was behind the Board decision discounts the importance of all the other changes that are now delayed.

I was saying that 98% don't really care one way or the other, not that 98% will be unaffected.

You should read what I write. :)

You should read what I write.



So what about Ski for Master Nationals which was what I wrote? :)

So what about Ski for Master Nationals...?


That should say, "What about Ske for Golden State and U.S. Masters?" :)

I don't know. I plan on being official "Assistant TD" for GSC again, so we'll see what happens there. :D

It wouldn't surprise me that a recommended policy will be provided for the NT, but it's anyone's guess which way that will go.

It wouldn't surprise me that a recommended policy will be provided for the NT, but it's anyone's guess which way that will go.



Perhaps the Rules Committee can come up with a recommendation...

If you keep throwing it, eventually it will stick! ;)

Wow, that is some major flip-flopping. Just to clarify. Come January 1st, the 2 meter rule is in effect, unless the TD says it ain't?

I wonder why. Is it the ole "to penalize bad shots" argument?

It is more like delaying than flip-flopping. More like a fillibuster than a rejection. More like taking a vacation than quitting your job.

What we voted on was last night was how to implement the new rule given that we had run past our deadline for getting it in a new rule book for the 2005 membership renewal mailing. So the 5-1 vote did not represent five votes for the two meter rule change, but five votes for that means of implementing the rule change. The rule change itself was voted on almost two months ago.

Since we could not get a new rules book produced in time for the new year and the big membership renewal mailing, we decided to implement the new 2-meter rule as a TD optional permitted rule. This way, if the TD says nothing, what is in your rule book is the rule. This seemed like the safest way to implement a new rules change on short official notice without an accompanying new rule book.

Because we could not get the rulebook produced on time, we decided to delay adopting most of the rest of the rules changes that have been mentioned, leaked, announced or hinted. This was not a failure of planning. Theo laid out the time frames clearly. It was more a matter of indigestion. There were so many new rules proposed by the rules committee that we simply did not have the time to do a proper job of considering them carefully before voting on them.

Pros playing am and the TD optional waiver of the 2-meter rule will be in effect. The R-tier format and Pro 2 are gone.

The other proposed rules changes, like the new lost disc rule, new provisional rule, new caddy rule, the new o.b. line definition rule, etc. will wait for the new rule book and probably provide fodder for message board debaters through out 2005.

I'm a little confused here. I understood everything until this:


There were so many new rules proposed by the rules committee that we simply did not have the time to do a proper job of considering them carefully before voting on them.



So, was the reason these rules are not being implemented in 2005 because

1) It is impossible to print new rulebooks in time;

2) Notifying the members through their renewals is no longer considered acceptable;

3) The BOD is second guessing their decision;

4) The BOD never voted on all the rules, just some of them, and therefore are delaying a rule change until everything is voted on; or

5) Another reason.

The first part of the post hints at the first two options, but the quoted statement hints at the third or fourth reason.

Having been at the meeting, there wasn't any confusion over the proposed rules changes that were approved. However, as we've found out here, it's one thing to understand a rules concept. It's another thing to actually write it up properly in 'rules speak' and get a committee to go back and forth tweaking it to get it right.

For the number of rules changes that were being proposed and were adopted in principle, a new rules book really is necessary. To just make the 2-meter rule optional, that can be done without a new rules book.

Thanks Bruce,

You get a "Get Out of a Punch In the Mouth" card for this month, or is it too late for that...

Debate or meaningless squabble, can we hear the approved rules that are on hold. Consider it a Christmas Gift.

Nick

I think it's more akin to the "pros can't play c-tiers" thing last year. It sounded good at the time, but after hearing a lot of feedback they reconsidered.



I think Rhett hit the nail on the head here.

I get the impression that the BoD and the PDGA executive committees try their best to come up with new ideas and implement new changes, but aren't able to consult with a diverse enough audience to fully judge their feasibility. And since most are volunteers, they are also likely limited in the amount of time they can spend researching these things out fully.

Deep down I suspect that the higher-ups in the PDGA read a lot of what is written on this message board and can be swayed by the reasonings brought up here. And why shouldn't they be? We have a diverse nationwide audience of all ages and abilities with an interest in the sport and extra time on their hands to think out the consequences and extrapolate some of these proposed changes. I know other reasons were given, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the "pros can't play c-tiers" and the abolition of the 2m rule were abandoned after public outcry here.

While this message board should never be used as a decision making tool, it's a valuable resource and should be utilized as such. I wish all proposed rule changes and especially competitive structure changes were floated here first before being voted on. It's too bad that the elimination of the Pro 2 and ratings-based competition were not given equal consideration and attention as the elimination of the 2m rule was; we might have been able to keep ratings-based play alive.

Jeff,

I don't think Bruce has the aptitude to be evasive or deceitful (he�s been a straight shooter) and as the primary user of this discussion board (now that Atwood has retired, actually more if you count the old board) I can tell you unequivocally that not only is this a terrible forum for discussing serious issues but it is the worst mechanism of all for building consensus or meaningful decisions. It is what it is and we should all just be thankful for that if we like it and chill out if we think too much into it.

Perhaps you really get this too and are just yankin�, in any case, I hope that the rules revisions that have been put on the slow track are shared so the usual suspects can scream bloody murder, some of us can discuss them to pass time, and still others can possibly just be informed.

Regards,
Nick

Jeff,

I don't think Bruce has the aptitude to be evasive or deceitful (he�s been a straight shooter) and as the primary user of this discussion board (now that Atwood has retired, actually more if you count the old board) I can tell you unequivocally that not only is this a terrible forum for discussing serious issues but it is the worst mechanism of all for building consensus or meaningful decisions. It is what it is and we should all just be thankful for that if we like it and chill out if we think too much into it.

* * *
Regards,
Nick

I never intended to be a straight shooter. Sometime in law school I had a profound spiritual experience that crippled my potential as a future lawyer that way.

It may very well be that some board members were secretly persuaded by the debate here. Many read the message board. All are intelligent, thoughtful people who are persuaded by well reasoned opinions. However no one has said anything that would lead me to believe that the debate out here changed their mind.

The whole 2004/2005 rules process was predicated on the belief that we could timely produce a rules book reflecting the proposed changes, and that for 2005 we would only go forward with noncontroversial rules changes that did not require extensive debate. This is reflected in the Augusta meeting minutes which are published on this website. There was some mission creep on the scope of the amendments for this year. When the absolute deadline arrived for sending the draft to the publisher, there were a couple of unresolved items.

The decision to make the 2-meter rule optional if so declared, pending publication of the new rules book, has precedent in prior rules changes. The confusion that can be created by changing rules without publishing a new rules book has been made evident by past examples.

This way the informed TD can make a decision an inform his players. Where the TD is uninformed or forgets to tell the players, the rule book has the rule plainly stated.

There were so many new rules proposed by the rules committee that we simply did not have the time to do a proper job of considering them carefully before voting on them.



soooooooooo, why do you have a Rules Committee if the BOD has to take excessive time to consider the rules changes carefully? :o And if you really DO need that long then why didn't the RC present the recommendations sooner? :eek: I mean really, what has the RC done in the last, ohhhhhhhh, 5 years?

I consider this board a useful tool. Tools themselves are neither good or bad, useful or unuseful it is all in the usage. I would think that discussions here are an important tool, you of all people nick should agree with that.

I consider this board a useful tool. Tools themselves are neither good or bad, useful or unuseful it is all in the usage. I would think that discussions here are an important tool, you of all people nick should agree with that.



Mark,

I would "hope" rather than "agree". But I have watched carefully through the years and not once has an important decision ever been made or a sincere consensus been reached via this message board or any forum for that matter. Part of it has to do with the medium and part of it has to do with the personality types that make decisions in disc golf; they just prefer nearly every other form of communication; reasons for which are self-evident if you have ever approached the level of responsibilities they have (talking TDs, Local, Regional, National or Worldwide Organizers). Public Message Boards often do not represent a step forward in getting things done.

A Forum to Make Final Judgments - H. No.
A Forum for the Truth - No.
Better than a Phone Call - No.
Better than an Instant Message - No.
Better than a Face to Face Chat - No.
Better than a Meeting - No.
Entertaining - Maybe.
Frustrating - Maybe.
Fun - Maybe (though obviously everyone that visits here comes for some reason or another)
Informational - Yes.

Regards,
Nick

Indispensable as a democratic forum for discers around this country and to a lesser extent discers from all over the world to share disc golf experiences, expertise, and opinions. Yes

Nick, remember that perception is reality.

Pat is 2 for 2 using the message board to get talk going.

Yes, in both cases there was communication taking place that did not go through the message board and the same results may have been reached without the message board, but the argument can be made by message board people that the message board caused those decisions to be revised.

The following is exactly why we have empowered the BoD and executive committees.



A Forum to Make Final Judgments - H. No.
A Forum for the Truth - No.
Better than a Phone Call - No.
Better than an Instant Message - No.
Better than a Face to Face Chat - No.
Better than a Meeting - No.




The following is exactly what I believe they lack and why this is the most important resource.


Informational - Yes.

Jeff,

I don't think Bruce has the aptitude to be evasive or deceitful (he�s been a straight shooter) and as the primary user of this discussion board (now that Atwood has retired, actually more if you count the old board) I can tell you unequivocally that not only is this a terrible forum for discussing serious issues but it is the worst mechanism of all for building consensus or meaningful decisions. It is what it is and we should all just be thankful for that if we like it and chill out if we think too much into it.

Perhaps you really get this too and are just yankin�, in any case, I hope that the rules revisions that have been put on the slow track are shared so the usual suspects can scream bloody murder, some of us can discuss them to pass time, and still others can possibly just be informed.

Regards,
Nick



I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as you are could really believe this. The BOD acts on information, as do most people � O.K., not our current President, Congress or Senate but hey, no one is perfect � and this area is currently the primary place to gather opinion and information. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't take facts from this site but I would definitely take opinion and perspective from this site.

The various threads that provide point and counter point on different issues are an excellent way to help understand and consider all possible sides of an issue. Take the 2-meter rule. In the past two months every possible point on this topic has been discussed here. From who it might or might not favor to how it might affect course design. From the frequency that the violation might occur to it�s true impact on the sport. The presence of that information source essentially takes the BOD and RC from a situation where the information they have is from a handful of people to a situation where the information they have is from anyone who chooses to post.

I have said this before, open communication on a topic is good, it doesn't mean that the BOD or RC should base their decisions on said communication, but it does give them information that they can use as a tool. My impression is that the BOD and RC are smart enough to recognize that and use what they think is relevant. I may not agree with all their decisions, and in fact if they remove the 2-meter rule without addressing tree shots within 10 meters I certainly won�t, but I will know they had plenty of information on which to make an informed decision.

The whole 2004/2005 rules process was predicated on the belief that we could timely produce a rules book reflecting the proposed changes, and that for 2005 we would only go forward with noncontroversial rules changes that did not require extensive debate.



Does this mean that a delay in a scheduled printing of the new rule book is what caused the problems? Or, did someone against the 2 meter removal find a way to filibuster the default status of the removal of the 2 meter penalty? I hope it is recognized that a few vocal and persistent opponents to the change don't tell you much if anything about the way in which the majority feel about an issue. Some people are always going to latch onto the potential problems any rule change entails and present them as if they are a 500 pound elephant. (to them they are)

I also hope the PDGA will not judge what TD's do next year as indicative of whether most people would prefer to eliminate the 2 meter rule. The default status of a rule is going to be the most implemented simply becasue it is easier that way for all involved. Hopefully the PDGA will consider recommending that TD's waive the 2 meter rule in 2005 as a means of preparing players for the future. Here's to hoping the disc gods in the sky send the discs of everyone who opposed the new change sticking in a tree in a way which enlightens them on the reasons the old rule should be eliminated.

While I agree with all the points about the discussion board being a good thing, please keep in mind that a pathetically small percentage of PDGA members actually post here. You can get some good discussion occasionally and you can also see proposals taken to extremes and torn apart quite well from a variety of angles. If you dig through the chaff you even some good ideas about stuff.

But you can't make any kind of leap of logic about what the membership as a whole likes or dislikes because the message board population is so small and non-representative as a cross section.

Actually, I don't think you ever get an idea about what the membership actually wants because even expensive mailed ballots don't get much more than about a 6% return.

Good point. There is almost always resistance to change. Many huge steps forward are railed against as if they will cause nothing but chaos. Why the Rules Committee decision isn't being implemented after announcing it on a PDGA radio segment is beyond me. TD's could be asked to go over the 2 meter rule and whether it is in effect or not for their tournament. After the recent on again off again status of the elimination of the rule -- it might be a good idea for the PDGA to require TD's to do that anyway.

Actually, I don't think you ever get an idea about what the membership actually wants because even expensive mailed ballots don't get much more than about a 6% return.




Yet another fantastic reason to have an Executive Board. Without it nada would get done. That is besides the ususal jabber jawing...

Waaaahhh. Get over it. Sometimes there is resistance to change because something didn't need changing. Those of you against the rule got your carrot, feel free to waive the rule at your tournaments. Not implementing a major rule change without the rule book available to support it makes a lot of sense to me.

If 3% of the tournaments across the country waive the rule, and 97% keep it do you think that would signify anything? I sure do. Let's see what the numbers show before jumping to conclusions.

And believe me, if I get stuck above 2 meters 12 times a round for the next 13 months my opinion on the rule won't change. I won't ***** about anything other than my lack of golfing skillz.

I'll accept that the non-implementation is practical rather than wavering and therefore my comments are not directed at the board, but the subtext of some posters.

My problem is with the idea that the BOD simply serves to be a reflection of the members. They are elected representatives who shouldn't stick their finger to the wind, but make policy and provide direction. Then they convince everyone that their direction is the right one.

I'm not sure why I wanted to express this; but it probably results from hearing "The BOD's position is not the majority's" used in debate as a definitive point that trumps all others. I find it weak and unpersuasive. In fact, I suspect in a hundred years, historians will note that many of the important and successful PDGA decisions were not popular with the membership of the time.

While I agree with all the points about the discussion board being a good thing, please keep in mind that a pathetically small percentage of PDGA members actually post here. You can get some good discussion occasionally and you can also see proposals taken to extremes and torn apart quite well from a variety of angles. If you dig through the chaff you even some good ideas about stuff.

But you can't make any kind of leap of logic about what the membership as a whole likes or dislikes because the message board population is so small and non-representative as a cross section.

Actually, I don't think you ever get an idea about what the membership actually wants because even expensive mailed ballots don't get much more than about a 6% return.



I absolutely agree with you! That is why I didn't say they could get a feel for what the membership thinks or get opinions from all members . Instead, I said they could get information from those who post. That is also why I don't feel the information at this site should be the determining factor. Ultimately it is just one more infromation source, a good one in many cases but also a bad one in some. That is why in the end the BOD and RC have to make the call.

I'll accept that the non-implementation is practical rather than wavering and therefore my comments are not directed at the board, but the subtext of some posters.

My problem is with the idea that the BOD simply serves to be a reflection of the members. They are elected representatives who shouldn't stick their finger to the wind, but make policy and provide direction. Then they convince everyone that their direction is the right one.

I'm not sure why I wanted to express this; but it probably results from hearing "The BOD's position is not the majority's" used in debate as a definitive point that trumps all others. I find it weak and unpersuasive. In fact, I suspect in a hundred years, historians will note that many of the important and successful PDGA decisions were not popular with the membership of the time.



This issue has come up a number of times. How does the BOD or the RC make its decisions? To think that they rely totally on this site or the opinions of PDGA members is naive. Similarly, the idea that they ignore this site or the opinions of PDGA members is naive. I'm guessing they amass information and make a decision. If with time new information comes to light they modify their decision based on that; it's called good governance. It does not mean to sway with the wind as many Republicans now think, rather it means to use your judgment based on the best information you have available. We used to think that people who made decisions in such a fashion were smart and when they could admit they didn't have all the information and modified their course of action we thought they had character or wisdom. Now-a-days we think they are weak.

Of course nothing suggests that the BOD has changed their course of action. For all purposes they are still going to eliminate the 2-meter rule. They just aren't going to do it until 2006. Gee, perhaps they are giving the idea a year cooling period to see how it goes over in tournaments where the rule is removed or perhaps they are thinking about ways to deal with the problems that arise when you completely remove the rule... Naw, they could never be that smart. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

but the subtext of some posters

hopefully thats not directed at me.

actually, i am grateful for the reprieve even though the intent is to make the change in 2006. this gives us time to work on the specific issue of >2m within the putting area - which is my only real concern with killing off the 2m rule.

i believe it to be coincidental that the action taken is exactly what i initially wanted (make the 2m rule the default) but that outcome is certainly not based on this discussion.

its too bad that other rules have to wait, but that is not a result of this discussion, its a result of not being able to get a rulebook printed in time. the BOD's reasoning and decision about no rulebook change = potential for chaos is right on, IMO.

if anything, the conclusions of the BOD at this point indicate that they are very aware of what really happens at tourneys and wants to make sure things operate as smoothly as possible. they're also sensitive to the work of the RC and they found a way to allow the new rule to be applied, so thats very good work.

the RC sometimes seems subject to the whims of a small number of uber-enthusiastics, just like the US House of Reps. fortunately, as in the legislature, we have the BOD to act as Senate, aka the wise older brother.

there's no need to read anything other than the BOD's stated reasons for holding back this year. perhaps the discussions made it easier for some of the BOD to agree to the delay, but even that is conjecture. the BOD got it right, and the sport and its rules will most likely be the better for it.

Not directed at anyone in any conscious way. I sure I have used it as much as anyone.