I was just wandering if people think that if by getting rid of the two meter rule, will give big arms an advatage over in lack of a better words little arms.

I think that by getting rid of the two meter rule big arms like myself will look at other options that where once closed to us because of the penalty that could be acquired if the disc did not make the gap. I also know that when I didn't make the gap it was more like a two stroke penalty since I was normally in the shoul any way.

"rid" Zack, not "read"

i was gonna vote, but i guess i'll hafta wait til tomorrow

But I like to read not rid

i was gonna vote, but i guess i'll hafta wait til tomorrow


Sorry, I goofed.

"rid" Zack, not "read"


I don't know what your talking about Nick. :confused: :confused: :D

Don't make me point out the other error! :p

Keriakes (sp?) isn't as intimidating anymore that's for sure.

I think your poll wording encourages dismissal of the results as "big arm envy" if people vote yes.

Keriakes (sp?) isn't as intimidating anymore that's for sure.



I sucked back when i played that course and i didnt get any 2 meter strokes :confused:

I think your poll wording encourages dismissal of the results as "big arm envy" if people vote yes.



Sorry, if it sounds like big arm envy all I was trying to ask was if people thought that big arms would gain some or any time of an advantage with out the two meter rule in effect. I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous. This should show that big arms are not the only ones that will befit from the change. But from most of the post in the 2 meter rule question (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Rules&Number=257783&fpart=&PHPSESSID=) that are opposed to the change it sounds like they think that big arms will have some sort of an advantage over less capable players.

Big arms will ALWAYS have an advantage over little arms. THEY CAN THROW FARTHER. Doesnt matter if we have a 2 meter rule or not the BIG ARMS will always have an ADVANTAGE :D

Big arms will ALWAYS have an advantage over little arms. THEY CAN THROW FARTHER. Doesnt matter if we have a 2 meter rule or not the BIG ARMS will always have an ADVANTAGE :D



I know but it sounds like most of the complaints about the new two meter rule are that big arms will have more of an advantage than when the rule was in place.

I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous.



You said it right there...Eliminating the difficulty of routes is RETARDED...The sport is being watered down by weak as$ ******** :o

The difficulty of the routes has not been changed, the risk/reward values assigned to the routes have changed.

Many players would take the same line whether the the rule existed or not, and just count on luck that the disc would drop. Normally it would, ocaissionally it wouldn't. It never really kept players from throwing those routes (unless the course is covered with cedars).

Either way, it's diluted disc golf :(

I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous.



You said it right there...Eliminating the difficulty of routes is RETARDED...The sport is being watered down by weak as$ ******** :o



I never said that the difficulty was going down, only that people will try new shot, shots that may have had too much risk involved in them and still might.

The over the top routes were there and were TAKEN when the 2 meter rule was in affect and they are there and will be TAKEN in 05 when its OPTIONAL.

It wont chane my routes ONE BIT. If getting stuck in a tree was the ONLY risk i was taking by throwing a thumber or spike hyzer then i would throw the shot ANYWAY. Its other factors that make a shot more dangerous. NOT the 2 meter rule.

OB is better anyway

The only time during a round of golf that I think about my disc hitting some thing is when I'm putting, I general I try to stay away from trees since that normally stop or defect my disc from the line that I original intended it to be on.

Many players would take the same line whether the the rule existed or not

"many" might, but not all. i've already chosen to take new lines 100% of the time on one hole, and am experimenting with new lines on 2 others.

znash is correct!

and the argument the new wording is NOT that "big arms" will gain some sort of advantage. it is that CRAPPY GOLF will gain an advantage :)

I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous.



You said it right there...Eliminating the difficulty of routes is RETARDED...The sport is being watered down by weak as$ ******** :o



I never said that the difficulty was going down, only that people will try new shot, shots that may have had too much risk involved in them and still might.


Look Znash, if you are not penalized for getting stuck in a tree, then it has gotten easier

The over the top routes were there and were TAKEN when the 2 meter rule was in affect and they are there and will be TAKEN in 05 when its OPTIONAL.

It wont chane my routes ONE BIT. If getting stuck in a tree was the ONLY risk i was taking by throwing a thumber or spike hyzer then i would throw the shot ANYWAY. Its other factors that make a shot more dangerous. NOT the 2 meter rule.

OB is better anyway



CB, I throw plenty of thumbers and tommys without worrying about the penalty stroke but took them when I did get stuck...Now when I get stuck I get rewarded...The rule change is RETARDED :o

So you are saying the new lines are so simple that any no talent golfer can hit them?

Or are you just using different skills to do it. There will still be holes that do not work for the overhead or big hyzer. Where will the poor golfers that haven't been forced to use those shots be then?

Sounds like you have the advantage because you can use either line, but will play the one that gives you the best chance at a low score in competition.

The over the top routes were there and were TAKEN when the 2 meter rule was in affect and they are there and will be TAKEN in 05 when its OPTIONAL.

It wont chane my routes ONE BIT. If getting stuck in a tree was the ONLY risk i was taking by throwing a thumber or spike hyzer then i would throw the shot ANYWAY. Its other factors that make a shot more dangerous. NOT the 2 meter rule.

OB is better anyway



If I thought that my disc was not going to get stuck in a the trees I through the shot but if they were pines I stayed away from them.

yes gary, thats true. and now the line most likely to result in a lower score is the line that also requires the least talent to hit. thank you for allowing me to sum this up so clearly :)

you playing ZBoas this weekend? any MM1's from over there playing?

I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous.



You said it right there...Eliminating the difficulty of routes is RETARDED...The sport is being watered down by weak as$ ******** :o



I never said that the difficulty was going down, only that people will try new shot, shots that may have had too much risk involved in them and still might.


Look Znash, if you are not penalized for getting stuck in a tree, then it has gotten easier


The game has not become any easier if I get stuck in at tree 30ft from the basket I still have to make the putt, I just don't have to take a stroke for being in the tree, no less skill just less luck.

yes gary, thats true. and now the line most likely to result in a lower score is the line that also requires the least talent to hit. thank you for allowing me to sum this up so clearly :)


Maybe in your part of the country the hyzer line is easier but that is not always the case in the mid-west were I'm from.

No, I'm not playing anywhere this weekend. I couldn't get a kitchen pass for this weekend. I haven't been able to get anyone from this neck of the woods to admit they were going either. I need someone to carry stuff over to Mace for the event.

CB, I throw plenty of thumbers and tommys without worrying about the penalty stroke but took them when I did get stuck...Now when I get stuck I get rewarded...The rule change is RETARDED



The rule change isnt retarted. What IS retarded is the fact that we had such a STUPID luck based rule in the first place.

Everyone on here is just afraid of change and wants everything to be the way it was before.

Whoever keeps saying CRAPPY GOLF is getting an advantage is just being IGNORANT. If there is a spike hyzer or thumber or tommy line and someone throws it and is 5 feet from the basket thats GOOD GOLF and a GREAT SHOT. Are you trying to say that thumbers and tommys and Spike hyzers are CRAPPY shots??? You still have to have SKILL to hit ANY line weather it be a tight tunnel turnover or a spike hyzer. I would have to say SMART GOLF will get an advantage now if anything. You have a tight wooded gap to the pin or you have a big spike hyzer to the pin AROUND or OVER all the trees. The spike isnt the CRAPPY shot it is the SMART shot. Just because hittin the tunnel and being parked LOOKS BETTER doesnt mean that it IS better. I throw the spike hyzer and im parked and you throw the tunnel and get knocked down half way who looks BETTER then???

Spikes and overhand shots take SKILL to perfect too. Not just anyone can throw a 350 ft SPIKE hyzer over 30 ft trees.

Maybe when we show up to tournaments everyone should get a Z Pred a Wasp and a Challenger at reg all the same weight so that EVERYONE has to play with the same discs. I mean that would make it more fair right??? Maybe we should ALL have to throw the same route to the basket too because that would make it more fair right??? Or maybe we should all have to throw with the same grip and the same run up and the same hand. That would make things more fair wouldnt it???

I think the spikes and overhands are BETTER shots. You may not but it has NOTHING to do with the 2 meter rule. Make hot spots and areas where hitting trees can be an advantage OB and forget about the 2 meter rule because its STUPID and solely based on LUCK.

I don't need to read an essay that makes no sense. It's real simple Steve...If your disc gets stuck out of reach...You should be penalized-Regardless of how, or what you threw /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The only time during a round of golf that I think about my disc hitting some thing is when I'm putting, I general I try to stay away from trees since that normally stop or defect my disc from the line that I original intended it to be on.


I try to stay away from trees, too. But when there is a sticky tree/trees in the considered flight path I will go to another shot, like the generally hated turnover. If the sticky tree is in position to be hit with a reasonably on target shot, then that route isn't a good choice. Now it is.

People will do anything to avoid throwing the turnover. Rollers, forehands, thumbers. Now they've gone to changing the rules to avoid it!

When you choose Nick's tactic of calling everything you don't agree with STUPID, then your posts lose credibility.

The rule change isnt retarted. What IS retarded is the fact that we had such a STUPID luck based rule in the first place.




No, what's 'retarted' is the fact that you can't even spell 'retarded'!! :D :D :D

Also is the line that results in the most damage to the trees in question. Nice ........

Let's just put all courses on abandoned soccer fields.

I don't think the rule change helps big arms. I don't think they were as affected by the 2m rule in the first place since they typically throw heavier plastic with more speed they didn't get stuck in trees as often. It will help wimpy arms throwing light plastic since lighter discs thrown softly are more likely to stay in a tree.

I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that it takes an equal amount of skill to throw an overhand approach as it does to hit a narrow tunnel shot with a backhand.

Guys at the 970+ level will be able to park most 150-200' tight tunnel shots with a traditional backhand, but guys at 870 won't be able to as often. However, the risk free ability to chuck an overhand or even a spike the same distance is a much easier shot for the average to below average golfer with the 2m rule waived.

I'll play Jeane Dixon and predict that lower rated golfer's ratings will improve with the 2m rule waived, and not just by the amount of penalty strokes saved. I'll also predict that their skills will NOT improve as rapidly as they could have if they were forced to learn how to throw an accurate, straight approach.

Man Dan! This is really important to you isn't it?

Do you really see the end of the 2 meter rule as such a major change?

Next time you are out playing take a moment on each shot to see exactly how often it even comes up in your thinking or in actual play. Like I said, I don't think I took even 1 2 meter penalty in 2004 (knock on wood) and I would by no means say that every shot was a "good" one. That's in over 20 pdgas on some of the hardest courses in the country.

don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that it takes an equal amount of skill to throw an overhand approach as it does to hit a narrow tunnel shot with a backhand.

Guys at the 970+ level will be able to park most 150-200' tight tunnel shots with a traditional backhand, but guys at 870 won't be able to as often. However, the risk free ability to chuck an overhand or even a spike the same distance is a much easier shot for the average to below average golfer with the 2m rule waived.

I'll play Jeane Dixon and predict that lower rated golfer's ratings will improve with the 2m rule waived, and not just by the amount of penalty strokes saved. I'll also predict that their skills will NOT improve as rapidly as they could have if they were forced to learn how to throw an accurate, straight approach.



Next time you see Schweby tell him that a thumber takes no skill and it is a CRAPPY shot. I mean hes 1000 and when he played the BHMO on the shorts i belive his remark before the final nine was "I think i have only thrown like 3 backhand shots ALL ROUND". He must suck though if hes throwing lots of thumbers. I mean its a crappy shot and it doesnt take any skill to execute. Golf isnt about what route you take to the basket its about how many shots it takes to get IN the basket. If i think there is an easier way to get to the basket then straight down a tight dangerous tunnel even if im 1000 rated im going to take the easier shot with more room for error. Its called COURSE MANAGEMENT :D

Crappy players arent going to get better ratings now that there is no 2 meter rule. Just because the hyzers are open doesnt mean people can USE them properly. If you suck you suck. If your good your good. 2 meter rule or no 2 meter rule.

Plus if i got 5 2 meter penalties out of 5070 shots this year and i was throwing the routes where you could get stuck then how in the WORLD is my rating going to go up. 1 less shot per 1000. Yeah HUGE ratings gain there. Man i might become a 960 golfer now that the 2 meter rule is gone cuz i can just throw over EVERYTHING and ill be fine. WRONG the 2 meter rule is the LAST thing i think about when im throwing OVER something.

Just use Out of Bounds. Its cut and dry and a way better rule. That will cause people like me to think twice alot more often then the 2 meter rule EVER did.

I love it when people try to call any shot that is not an anhyzer or a roller a bad shot (what, no I don't); the thumber in a great shot so is the spike hyzer why can't you guys get it. I can throw an anhyzer and a roller and I enjoy doing so but I also like to break out an huge hyzer when people are watching or it the better shot, I like this shot because most people can't throw a 380-410 hyzer, and it make people go "holy crap did you see that". Just because the hyzer is normally the first shot people learn does not mean it's a bad or unskillful shot.

<font size=5> <font color="red"> AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! </font>

Getting Rid of the two meter rule helps the people who have trouble throwing low. It hurts the people that can throw low relatively well.

Overall I think the rule change is good at some courses but not others.

E-White Park for now there are only few trees on the course, and if you get stuck in one you deserve a penalty in my opinion at least.

Keriakes On the otherhand might be a good course for the rule not to come in to play on, due to the high amount trees that catch.

I'm not saying this is how it should be, I'm just pointing out like many other things, that some rules work well for some but not others. You can't please everyone!

no one is dissingthe hyzer. we are just saying it is the natural flight of the disc, and therefore the easiest to throw. i'm not saying bombing 400' hyzers accurate to a radius of 30' is easy or is something to belittle. just the opposite. but i'll tell ya what... i'd rather have to throw a 300' ft hyzer than a 300' foor anything else, given the choice!

I can throw 400 ft hyzers but i can also throw 300 ft turnovers with my challengers and those are just as fun as throwing 400 ft hyzers and they are just as challenging.

ALL SHOTS TAKE SKILL 10ft putts are EASY put they still take skill. Not everyone can make them. Just cuz hyzers are easy to throw doesnt mean they are easy to throw WELL.

Make the trees that matter OB then we wont have a problem. I say all easy pitch putt courses should use artificial OB or yellow rope during tournaments to make them a little more challenging.

Forget about the 2 meter rule and USE Out of Bounds as much as you want :D

Man, you guys need to work on the reading comprehension skillz. I never said an overhand was a crappy shot. I just said it's easier to throw than a tight 150-200' tunnel shot.

I throw thumbers all the time. In the Open. Now I can throw them in the woods, better for me. Won't make me a better golfer, tho. I'm pretty sure Schweb will agree with me on that one.

To be accurate with any shot(anhyzer, straight, hyzer, roller, overhand, forehand) takes a lot of skill!

However, when you live in an area that is predominately Ash Juniper (Cedar)and Live Oak, not too many errant shots that go into these types of trees get lucky and fall to the ground.

The 2m rule will stay in place at my groups tournament when I'm TDing to make the risk of going over the trees and just missing your route a penalty unless your lucky and get through the trees. The odds are an errant shot will be penalized not rewarded with a shorter putt and no risk of a penalty. That is my option as the TD ;)

Schweb can pure just about any fairway he wants to, he just throws thumbers b/c they are easier and as he says "no thought needed"

My experience leads me to the conclusion that so many people around here decry: getting stuck in trees happens to everyone in an apparently random manner . Therefore, this rule change will hurt nor benefit noone. It will simply take unnecessary randomness out of the game.

by the way OB is a better rule. Start using that and forget about the 2 meter rule :D

So James said it completely random luck whether or not you get stuck OB.

Lets say two people go to a course one consitently throws shots 15 feet or higher than the other. If this course has trees along any of the flight paths, the guy that throws higher has a much more likely chance of sticking OB above two meters than the other guy.

So it does help some and therefore hurt some.

I think that for the most part I agree with the rule change. Never have I ever thought "If I hit that tree and drop...". Sure once the disc is in the air, I've chanted it, but thats different.

We have a course here in Omaha that is not ness. wooded, but has enough trees to make you cry sometimes. Add in a few dumb [*****] placements, and you can see why it doesn't get played often enough. (We are working on all this...its GREAT golf when mowed and everything). Back to my point. There is a hole that requires a blind tee shot-HUGE HYZER. The green area is crowded, and features a big sticky pine hanging near by. I think its really [*****] that 2 identical shots, where both snag the pine can result in one falling out and the other staying OB. That is a [*****] way to card a stroke. Chance should never determine the winner...not that way at least. SO in situations like that, the 2M rule shouldn't be applied.

As someone posted earlier, if you get caught in the tree thats 200' out, and on the wrong side of the fairway, you are a ******* and a penalty should MAYBE be issued.

Overall, I aprove the change....use OB (Hows that Pimp :D)

I think that by eliminating the rule all disc golfers will start to explore different routes that where once to dangerous.



You said it right there...Eliminating the difficulty of routes is RETARDED...The sport is being watered down by weak as$ ******** :o



I never said that the difficulty was going down, only that people will try new shot, shots that may have had too much risk involved in them and still might.


Look Znash, if you are not penalized for getting stuck in a tree, then it has gotten easier


The game has not become any easier if I get stuck in at tree 30ft from the basket I still have to make the putt, I just don't have to take a stroke for being in the tree, no less skill just less luck.



Are you serious???If you are stuck in a tree, you threw a lame shot. If you don't get penalized, you don't HAVE to make the shot-you can lay up for par when you should be running a long putt to SAVE par. You guys are proponents for watering down our sport...How is an outsider going to view this new rule? "OH don't worry about that crappy shot in the tree, there's no real consequences in this sport, we just throw frisbees"-yea!!!frisbees yea!!!

You guys are retarded...

Matthew, I can't argue with your logic. It's obviously sound. I also could not argue if you had used a predominantly overhand thrower in your example. If you did a computer simulation, those types of throwers would surely get stuck more often.

However, I still don't see this phenomenon out on the course. I tried to think back over the year and remember people getting stuck in trees and to see what my observations were. My observations are:

1) Relative to the total discs that hit trees, very few stuck;

2) Most that did stick were just barely above 2 meters. Some of those were thrown higher and tumbled down to their sticky death, but most were relatively low shots that stuck near the height they were thrown at;

3) I saw barely any shots that were stuck near the basket where someone got a putt out of it. Almost every one was far from the basket, and in most of these cases, the player already was punished for their bad shot, either by reduced distance or bad lie or both.

4) My most memorable observation was one player (I think it was Jay Reading who does not throw real high shots) getting stuck 3 times in one round at Wimberly. The memorable point was that his shots that stuck were really no different from the rest of the groups who never stuck. It just seemed like really bad luck to me.

To conclude this ramble, your assertion makes perfect sense, but my experience still leads me to believe that the rule change will help or hurt no type of player and I like the rule change because getting stuck in trees seems pretty random in my experience and in most cases, people are already being punished for hitting those trees.

Matthew, I can't argue with your logic. It's obviously sound. I also could not argue if you had used a predominantly overhand thrower in your example. If you did a computer simulation, those types of throwers would surely get stuck more often.

therefore a particular skillset is more likely to get caught in trees. it fairly easily follows that with no consequences the player with that skillset is not encouraged to develop alternative skills.


However, I still don't see this phenomenon out on the course. I tried to think back over the year and remember people getting stuck in trees and to see what my observations were.

basing your entire opinion on this introduces the two common mistakes of generalizing from the specific and deriving theories/rules based solely on a narrow set of anecdotal evidence.


My observations are:

1) Relative to the total discs that hit trees, very few stuck;

change the tree type, and the results would likely be different. besides, which ones were the lucky ones?




2) Most that did stick were just barely above 2 meters. Some of those were thrown higher and tumbled down to their sticky death, but most were relatively low shots that stuck near the height they were thrown at;

this is very anecdotal and could easily vary in areas with different tree types.




3) I saw barely any shots that were stuck near the basket where someone got a putt out of it. Almost every one was far from the basket, and in most of these cases, the player already was punished for their bad shot, either by reduced distance or bad lie or both.

highly anecdotal. holes with trees close to, or surrounding in 3D, the basket are widespread. i could easily and truthfully state that while i have seen innumerable crappy shots get caught in trees far from the pin, i have seen many get stuck close enough to convert the par. that does not make my observations more correct than yours. but it does negate the decisioning-making weight you are assigning yours.




4) My most memorable observation was one player (I think it was Jay Reading who does not throw real high shots) getting stuck 3 times in one round at Wimberly. The memorable point was that his shots that stuck were really no different from the rest of the groups who never stuck. It just seemed like really bad luck to me.

remind me again - which shots were the lucky shots?


To conclude this ramble, your assertion makes perfect sense, but my experience still leads me to believe that the rule change will help or hurt no type of player and I like the rule change because getting stuck in trees seems pretty random in my experience and in most cases, people are already being punished for hitting those trees.

in a reasonable portion of tree sticks the player has NOT been punished for just hitting a tree. according to your own observations a lot of tree hits are far from the pin. ie, requiring an upshot. without a penalty, and with an ok upshot, the hole is a three. same as the guy who landed 40' out and missed. face it: stuck in tree with no penalty stroke = no penalty at all for a crappy shot that hits a tree.

why does a shot that goes 9' past the basket on this 300' Hole A yield a circle-3, but another shot that gets stuck 50' up on Hole B yield a 2 ???

http://www.earthoffice.net/holeA.jpg http://www.earthoffice.net/holeB.jpg

Though I favor the complete removal of the 2 meter rule from our rules of play, that is not what has happened. It is still in effect where and when a TD or course pro makes it so. So that "if", as you say, that the sport is getting watered down, then it will be the TDs, course designers and course pros that will be doing it, not the rules of play.

Rules are to ensure fair play, not to add challenge to course designs that do not naturally have enough challenge in them. You want more challenge, then design a better course, don't rely on our rules to bail you out (even though they still can since the 2 meter rule can be optionally used).

And none of you, not one, has addressed the stone cold fact that OB can replace the 2 meter rule and function more effectively in every way, shape and form; short of appeasing the melancholy yearnings for a by-gone era.

Znash,
Don't hate the players, hate the game. Everyone has the same chance of going OB whether they can throw 200ft of 1000ft. I don't understand why they are getting rid of this rule, if you stick in a tree, yeah it sucks, but you should still get a penalty stroke. next thing they are going to do is get rid of the OB in water rule.

Then they will probably vote on cutting all the trees down after that. Even though you don't get penalized for sticking in them, they still reduce the distance you went (oh no, boo hoo) plus some times people throw right through trees, othertimes they hit a branch and fall straight down (how unlucky) We better cut them all down so everyone has an equal chance at making it to the basket.

exactly! looks like finally they've found the path to flat payouts! we'll all shot the same score, and since it wont be worth playing in events anymore, we'll all finally be TRUE AMS. the heavens will open, the followers of allah and jesus will forgive each other for their transgressions, and the rightful order of the universe will be restored!
:D

Then they will probably vote on cutting all the trees down after that. Even though you don't get penalized for sticking in them, they still reduce the distance you went (oh no, boo hoo) plus some times people throw right through trees, othertimes they hit a branch and fall straight down (how unlucky) We better cut them all down so everyone has an equal chance at making it to the basket.



Utter nonsense. And not even funny. C'mon Chris. I met you, you are naturally funny, what's the deal? Winter got you down...?

Rules are to ensure fair play, not to add challenge to course designs that do not naturally have enough challenge in them. You want more challenge, then design a better course, don't rely on our rules to bail you out (even though they still can since the 2 meter rule can be optionally used).

And none of you, not one, has addressed the stone cold fact that OB can replace the 2 meter rule and function more effectively in every way, shape and form; short of appeasing the melancholy yearnings for a by-gone era.



I'll be sure to pass that on to guys like Dan Doyle and let him know his course design at Warwick must suck because there isn't enough challenge without the 2 meter rule in effect.

I like the OB idea too. What's wrong with treating the existing 2 meter rule as OB instead, with relief from the tree? This way the 'bad luck' whiners can get some relief, while the rest of us get to keep some common sense in the rules of the game.

dan's right. in fact, one of the funny things about this whole thread(s) is that the most common thing ya hear when walking towards a disc that is stuck at what looks to be close to the 2m mark is "is it OB?"

the simple truth is that the 2m rule has always been treated by the players as an OB situation. the relief they got was being allowed to play it from the ground rather than a limb or something even less substantial.

ah well, i guess we'll have to get used to inconsistency as the standard.

Pat, I think you missed my point which admittedly was purely anecdotal. My point is that based on experience, I see is that the rule change will favor noone, simply because getting stuck in a tree seems to be purely random, lucky, bad karma, blah, blah, blah.

I hear your argument that sticking in trees is not a matter of luck, but I don't buy it. At all. Everytime I see someone get stuck, I think they are simply unlucky, because most discs that hit the same spot fall down. Y'all are comfortable with that and see it as just. I see it as pure luck and should obviously be eleminated from a game of skill.

For people comparing water or streets to trees. That's disingenuous to say the least. Most discs thrown into the water are OB. It's pretty predictable. Most shots thrown into streets are predictable given the surface and angle the disc hits. Comparing these to trees is apples and oranges.

Rules are to ensure fair play, not to add challenge to course designs that do not naturally have enough challenge in them. You want more challenge, then design a better course, don't rely on our rules to bail you out (even though they still can since the 2 meter rule can be optionally used).

And none of you, not one, has addressed the stone cold fact that OB can replace the 2 meter rule and function more effectively in every way, shape and form; short of appeasing the melancholy yearnings for a by-gone era.



I'll be sure to pass that on to guys like Dan Doyle and let him know his course design at Warwick must suck because there isn't enough challenge without the 2 meter rule in effect.

I like the OB idea too. What's wrong with treating the existing 2 meter rule as OB instead, with relief from the tree? This way the 'bad luck' whiners can get some relief, while the rest of us get to keep some common sense in the rules of the game.



I�ll wait to hear from Dan myself that he feels the 2 meter rule is necessary at Warwick to increase the challenge of the design. Designs are what they are. That is all that they are. The 2 meter rule does not in my opinion increase or decrease the challenge in any noticeable way. Certainly no more than OB can. Consider hole 12. When it is inside the trees at the bottom of the hill, how many good players do you know who do not bomb away on the top of the canopy trying to drop in for a birdie? How many times have you seen a disc stick up there? What percent of the time? 2 meter rules do not make a course design better or worse, they just increase the level of random luck during play, when really there is no need.

The 2 meter rule IS NOT AN OB RULE. It does not function like one and never will, because as soon as it does it ceases being a 2 meter rule and becomes an OB rule. We would no more make the entire course OB than we would make the whole course a 2 meter hazard, at least now we won�t. Anywhere a 2 meter rule could be used for the purpose of course design feature the Out of Bounds rule can be used more effectively. It gives TDs and Course Pros �TOTAL AND COMPLETE� control over what is to be protected or a penalty feature and what is not. This will increase, not decrease the level of �FREEDOM� they have in designing their course the way they want it to be designed and played. This will likely cause courses to be �more� challenging, not less.

i totally agree with you regarding the water comparison. for streets, there may be more predictibility on what happens when the disc hits the pavement (speed, pitch, etc etc) than when a disc hits a tree.

interestingly, deliberately using a street prolly requires more precision and skill than deliberately using a tree. too flat, too sharp, too fast, all those can yield a result that differ from the intended. but smacking the tree a little off is not going to have a repeatable effect on the result.

so when you decide to use the street its "ok, better get this just right or else i'm OB" and when you decide to bang the tree its "bust it up there and hope".

ie, the elimination of the 2m rule waters down the skills required - and thats the true source of the resistance to the new wording.

I�ll wait to hear from Dan myself that he feels the 2 meter rule is necessary at Warwick to increase the challenge of the design. Designs are what they are. That is all that they are. The 2 meter rule does not in my opinion increase or decrease the challenge in any noticeable way. Certainly no more than OB can. Consider hole 12. When it is inside the trees at the bottom of the hill, how many good players do you know who do not bomb away on the top of the canopy trying to drop in for a birdie? How many times have you seen a disc stick up there? What percent of the time? 2 meter rules do not make a course design better or worse, they just increase the level of random luck during play, when really there is no need.




If you come up short on hole 12 and want to try and bomb your way out, you deserve what you get. Risk/reward couldn't be defined much better than in a situation like that. Bomb over the top? Ok, you might get out, but you might get stuck and lose another stroke. Genius design if you ask me. If you don't want to risk that, then try avoiding the trees by throwing around them in the first place.

What about the long basket on hole 9? A tough pin to get to because you have a steep sloping green towards the OB parking lot behind it, and the Japanese Maple blocking the front. Your only safe shot is to come in from the side. Without 2m then you can just fire into the tree and it won't matter whether or not you drop down, it's still a 20' putt.

Hole 16 is similar, in that you have to put enough on your drive to make sure you get around the cedars in front of the pin, but too much can put you behind the rock wall or one of the trees along it. Risk/reward once again diminished by the removal of the 2m rule.

I can give you a whole list of local courses that lose some risk/reward factor without the rule. Rutgers has a few, Wickham Park, FDR, etc...

it sure is sounding like when reasonable people consider holes objectively the 2m rule has a fairly significant place in many courses. certainly more than warrants it for the purpose of "consistancy" - especially since it seems like many TDs will have to keep it in place.

no one, not one of the proponents of the change, have made any compelling argument for changing the rule so drastically. and it IS drastic when the chief instigator is so adamant about working to kill it off completely. we have blanket rules covering many many situations from disc weights to lost discs to adding your score correctly. whats so wrong with a rule that says if your disc does not come to rest less than 2m above the playing surface, then it is OB ? thats simple and does not reward crappy shots. allow the TD to overturn it if he wishes - BUT according to some here overturning it should not be necessary since good course design means no trees anywhere near the basket.

the majority of the players would prefer to keep the rule and make the suspension of it the optional part - or else just keep it entirely.

but the PDGA does not seem to be listening! why not ???

but the PDGA does not seem to be listening! why not ???



if you read any other threads on the board you would know they are on vacation :D

Pat, I think you missed my point which admittedly was purely anecdotal. My point is that based on experience, I see is that the rule change will favor noone, simply because getting stuck in a tree seems to be purely random, lucky, bad karma, blah, blah, blah.

I hear your argument that sticking in trees is not a matter of luck, but I don't buy it. At all. Everytime I see someone get stuck, I think they are simply unlucky, because most discs that hit the same spot fall down. Y'all are comfortable with that and see it as just. I see it as pure luck and should obviously be eleminated from a game of skill.

For people comparing water or streets to trees. That's disingenuous to say the least. Most discs thrown into the water are OB. It's pretty predictable. Most shots thrown into streets are predictable given the surface and angle the disc hits. Comparing these to trees is apples and oranges.



good post

[quote}The 2 meter rule IS NOT AN OB RULE. It does not function like one and never will [QUOTE]


Exactly what planet do you play DG on Nick? Everybody I know commonly refers to over 2m as "OB". Whether or not it is specifically and semantically called OB in the rule book is hardly a point on which to base an argument such as yours.

Congratulate yourself all you want Nick - you have somehow succeeded in convincing the Rules Committee that trying it another way is worthwhile. It is obvious from this thread that there are still a large # of people who feel the rule is fine the way it is - or should be kept in some similar incarnation of what we already have. I hope that will be the case.

Last thing for you Nick - do you have ANY clue about how offensive your most recent screen name is? Could you POSSIBLY be any more condescending? Or is your goal to invite disdain of your person? If it is - I'm sure "mommy and daddy" will help you on your way.

It is more than a matter of semantics Craig; if it were then there would be no need to name the 2 meter rule separately within our rule book, it would just be lumped in with so many other unmentioned OB rules TDs and Course Pros can declare. Therein is the biggest difference: That it is now in the hands, properly so, of TDs, Course Pros and Course Designers.

I appreciate your vote of confidence as to what you believe is my awesome influence over the PDGA Rules Committee, but that doesn�t jibe with my impression of how they perceive me. We all presented our ideas to the Rules Committee, give them a little credit for looking it all over and working together to come out with a proposal that they could for the most part feel good about. I have no clear idea about the inner workings of the PDGA Rules Committee, but I know that this rule has been a thorn in their side for a number of years. I think Carlton detailed its history in the interview and how it was resolved and I don�t recall hearing my name one time in there.

You should be happy that you can still have it in effect for the Seneca events you run if you want. Other TDs may want to use it selectively and then others not at all. It is up to them.

As for my display name, you need to lighten up. It was a gift from another user, similar to �Mr. PDGA� and �Ramifications�. I think it is funny, sorry if you don�t get the humor. It is within the rules of this discussion board as are my comments.

But enough about me. What point do you have to make about the new rule?

While I have always had to restate the obvious many times on the course, above 2M is not OB, is not treated as OB, and should not be referred to as OB, you are correct that most players still think it is OB.

This is a bad thing because OB allows options on the next throw that above 2M doesn't.

I haven't seen what I would call a large number of people on this thread for keeping the rule the way it is, or a great number in favor of the upcoming change. Just a lot of repeated points by the same few on both sides.

I personally don't like the rule, not because it prevents me from going over the top, but because it penalizes otherwise good shots because the have the bad luck to hang. As I have said before, it's more often the shots I throw 10' above the ground that stick, not the ones that are 50' above the ground.

It seems the current lean of the powers that be is to make the entire course playable in tournament play unless otherwise designated otherwise by the TD, and this is a required step in that process. Maybe not the one that some would like to see, but how many players meetings are going to be held without some player asking about the 2M rule ?

I don't think there will be many events that get started without the TD having to announce his decision for or against before the first round.

It is more than a matter of semantics Craig; if it were then there would be no need to name the 2 meter rule separately within our rule book[QUOTE]

It is only separate by one paragraph Nick. It is identified as a special condition because "above the playing surface" differs from any other form of OB found on DGC's.


[QUOTE]
You should be happy that you can still have it in effect for the Seneca events you run if you want.


I could have it as a course rule regardless if it was in the rules Nick. The problem with that is just what you say is a benefit.....

Other TDs may want to use it selectively and then others not at all. It is up to them.



So much for promoting consistency :(

As for my display name, you need to lighten up. It was a gift from another user, similar to �Mr. PDGA� and �Ramifications�. I think it is funny, sorry if you don�t get the humor. It is within the rules of this discussion board as are my comments.



I get the humor just fine Nick. I just think it's incredibly not funny. Those other screen names insult no one, yours insults basically everyone. I guess in the context of taking in stride all the other negative comments you inspire - poking back by condescension might have an inkling of humor. But you know what - some things we think are funny - we just chuckle to ourselves about, your choice of screen name fits that category.

But enough about me. What point do you have to make about the new rule?



I think I have made it plain. Good shots don't hit trees, and they certainly don't stick in them over 2 meters. Removing this rule rewards poor shots, period.

I think I have made it plain. Good shots don't hit trees, and they certainly don't stick in them over 2 meters.



I like that.

Think back this ENTIRE season and add up all the tournament throws you had and then see if you can remember how many of those strokes were from being stuck 2 meters up. Mine was 5 out of 5070. Thats 1 out of a 1000 times i threw i got stuck in a tree. NOT a big deal. Do it for yourself and then see how big of a deal it is going to be. It wont be a big deal. Plus the TD can instate the rule if he is so in love with it anyway. I still say just put up yellow rope where you think its needed and then the disc is out of bounds and there is no luck involved. You KNEW it was OB you shouldnt have thrown there. Not you accidently hit that tree and happend to get stuck but the next guy on the tee hits the tree but doesnt get stuck. Now your getting a penalty and hes not, when you guys both did the same thing. Threw a bad shot and hit the tree. With OB and yellow rope both people get an OB stoke and have to play from the last place their disc was in bounds. THAT is fair the 2 meter rule IS NOT.

Now your getting a penalty and hes not, when you guys both did the same thing.



Bzzzt! You both did not do the same thing. If you had, you would have acheived the same result. The laws of physics dictate that.

I haven't had a 2m penalty in probably a couple of years. Am I really that lucky?

Bzzzt! You both did not do the same thing. If you had, you would have acheived the same result. The laws of physics dictate that.

I haven't had a 2m penalty in probably a couple of years. Am I really that lucky?




WRONG. I never said the EXACT same thing because that is next to impossible. They both threw a crappy shot and hit the same tree. One stuck because it hit in one spot and one fell out because it hit in another. If the ENTIRE tree and the ground beneath it were OUT OF BOUNDS then this kinda of random luck wouldnt happen. Both players would be penalized for throwing bad shots hittin the tree and being OUT OF BOUNDS.

If you havent had a 2 meter stoke in a few years then why do you give a RATS ARSE if we keep it or not???

If you havent had a 2 meter stoke in a few years then why do you give a RATS ARSE if we keep it or not???



Ummm....because he chooses the safer route that requires a different type shot when there are sticky trees around?

You aren't really so dense that you couldn't figure that out, are you?

I think I have made it plain. Good shots don't hit trees, and they certainly don't stick in them over 2 meters. Removing this rule rewards poor shots, period.



Good shots I suppose stick in trees 1.99 meters up.

I view the good/bad shot argument concerning this rule as completely debunked and irrelevant.

What is relevant is that our rules already provide a ready to use rule; with more continuity to the rest of our rules; a far greater degree of fairness and consistency; which needs no mental calisthenics but is as straight forward as they come; that puts course management of hazards 100% in the hands of TDs, Course Pros and Course Designers.

In case you are unfamiliar with it here it is:

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.

B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from: (1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or (3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

C. The Rule of Verticality- The out-of-bounds line represents a vertical plane. Where a player's lie is marked from a particular point within one meter of the out-of-bounds line pursuant to the rules, the one-meter relief may be taken from the particular point upward or downward along the vertical plane.

D. If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination. If the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered out-of-bounds, and he or she shall proceed in accordance with 803.08 B. If a player other than the thrower moves the disc before a determination has been made, the disc shall be considered in-bounds, and play for the thrower and the mover of the disc shall proceed under the rules of interference, 803.06 B and C.

E. A throw that misses a mandatory shall be penalized and the lie marked according to the mandatory rule (803.11). It will not be further penalized for any other reason, such as out-of-bounds or above two meters.

Matched with: Rule Question: Bridge Over OB (Multiple Playing Surfaces)
Question: My throw landed on a bridge that spans an OB creek. The TD has not said anything about playing from the bridge. Do I play from the bridge, or is my disc OB since it's above the creek? What if I'm on the bridge but over land? Does it matter if the bridge is more than two meters above the ground below?
Response: The answers to these questions revolve around the definition of OB. In the glossary section of the rules, it states that the OB line "extends a vertical plane upward and downward". Where does that plane end? The rules do not address that directly. There seem to be two reasonable choices:

A: The vertical plane extends indefinitely up and down.
B: The vertical plane ends when it reaches another playing surface.

Option A requires less interpretation, and option B makes more sense intuitively. The Rules Committee has discussed the issue and has decided that option B is preferable.

Although the term "playing surface" is not defined in the rules, it is used frequently and it is unlikely to be a source of confusion. Something is either a playing surface or an object on the course. A bridge, though man-made, is intended for foot traffic and clearly qualifies as a playing surface. Since it is not an object on the course, the two-meter rules does not come into play.

The IB/OB status of a playing surface is not affected by the OB status of another playing surface above or below it. OB applies only to the playing surface that contains it. Otherwise, a number of non-intuitive rulings result:


In the bridge example, the part of the bridge that is above the OB creek would be OB. A perfectly playable lie on the bridge could be OB, a foot away from a lie that is IB, when there is no direct reason for it to be OB. Players will have difficulty extrapolating where the OB part of the bridge is, especially if the OB line below is uneven (if it follows the creek's edge). Even if the TD uses paint or string to mark OB on the bridge, those lines will see a lot of foot traffic and may not last.
At least one course has an OB culvert that runs under and opens into a fairway. If the vertical plane of the OB line extends indefinitely, then there is a strip of OB on the fairway over the culvert.
If an OB creek undercuts a bank, then the top of the bank is OB even if it is obviously playable. Someone would have to determine how far the creek undercuts the bank to figure out just where the OB line on the bank is.
There is an overpass with a street high above a section of the course. The street, of course, is OB. If the plane extends downward, then a street-wide chunk of the course below is also OB.
If you interpret the vertical plane to end when it reaches another playing surface. you get much more intuitive rulings in the above scenarios. The bridge is IB, the fairway above the culvert is IB, the bank that overhangs the creek is IB, and the ground below the steet overpass is IB. All of the playing surfaces above are easily distinguished from those above or below which contain OB.

Conclusion: You play a disc on a bridge as you would play it anywhere else on the course. Assuming the bridge is not OB, you mark your lie on the bridge and proceed with the hole. If your disc lands under the bridge, you play it from under the bridge, taking any OB into consideration as you normally would. Of course, the TD or course designer is free to make any or all of the bridge OB, in addition to the creek below.

Yours Sincerely,
The PDGA Rules Committee

Dr. Rick Voakes
Harold Duvall
Joe Garcia
John Chapman
Conrad Damon
Carlton Howard

A little tightening up may be warranted; that is under way as well I am sure.

Ummm....because he chooses the safer route that requires a different type shot when there are sticky trees around?

You aren't really so dense that you couldn't figure that out, are you?



Well thats too bad now isnt it??? Now he can throw the other routes just like EVERYONE else can. This is getting annoying that people are now upset because you can throw DIFFERENT routes then you could before. Its rediculous. EVERYONE can throw the routes now. Not just some people. No one has an advantage because the routes are now open to ANYONE without a penalty. It sounds to me like people who like to throw low shots and rollers are the people who want to keep this rule in affect.

Why are you guys so against using yellow rope around trees where it would help the design of the course. Like around the basket or on a specific tree in the fairway. Is it because your low shots and rollers could now happen to go into the same OB or is it just because you are jealous that other people can throw huge spike hyzers and 350 ft thumbers OVER the trouble that you have to go threw because you cant throw those shots. Sorry some people developed or have some skills that help them AVOID tight tunnels or fairways when possible. Its a skill just like anything else. Those arent bad shots they are good shots and SMARTER shots if you ask me.

Pure and simple. OB is a better rule then the 2 meter rule.

Why are you guys so against using yellow rope around trees where it would help the design of the course.



I'm against anything that causes more work for TDs or causes more confusion at tournaments.

I have a question.

Do you think having a Big Arm provides an advantage the Big Arms ? :o

If you havent had a 2 meter stoke in a few years then why do you give a RATS ARSE if we keep it or not???



Ummm....because he chooses the safer route that requires a different type shot when there are sticky trees around?

You aren't really so dense that you couldn't figure that out, are you?



Another reason: we're interested in the rule change because the rule as it was didn't affect us very much, because no one cared how the penalty was applied, either via lost disc or 2-meter. Now eliminating the 2m rule affects us more because now there's an advantage to avoiding the lost disc rule, because without the 2m rule there's no penalty.

And if the next change is to try to make all the trees OB, as well as the ground under them, then you're going to affect us all even more.

Why are you guys so against using yellow rope around trees where it would help the design of the course.



I'm against anything that causes more work for TDs or causes more confusion at tournaments.



Amen to that, Rhett!!

As far as using yellow rope as Millz has described: there is likely just as much LUCK involved in this scenario as with the 2m rule as to who will take a penalty stroke. Say you and I throw the same hole and we both hit the same tree which has been yellow-roped as described. Now, your disc catches some leaves as it hits the tree and falls straight down into the OB area. However, my shot makes contact with a branch thus kicking it some 35' to the right and out of the OB circle. Lucky me!
Personally, I am more than willing to give the rule change a chance and see how it works.

Why are you guys so against using yellow rope around trees where it would help the design of the course.



I'm against anything that causes more work for TDs or causes more confusion at tournaments.



Great! So then you support the simplification of our rules to a more consistent and logical end.

You heard it here first! Rhett supports doing away with the 2 meter rule! ;)

Why are you guys so against using yellow rope around trees where it would help the design of the course.



I'm against anything that causes more work for TDs or causes more confusion at tournaments.



Great! So then you support the simplification of our rules to a more consistent and logical end.

You heard it here first! Rhett supports doing away with the 2 meter rule! ;)



Readink comprehunshun must have bin yore majer in colledge. :D

I am against the yellow rope idea because I think it is tacky and looks like crap. It's also a helluva lot more 'luck induced' (for those that believe in luck) than the eloquent 2 meter rule. As Chuck said, the 2m rule only punishes shots thrown above 2 meters (of course, we'll ignore the fact the he also mentions that discs can roll up trees and stick), but crop circles of yellow rope strewn about the course would punish many more 'good' shots than the existing 2 meter penalty does (since, as well already know, the 2 meter penalty does a fine job of only punishing bad shots).

I am against the yellow rope idea because I think it is tacky and looks like crap. It's also a helluva lot more 'luck induced' (for those that believe in luck) than the eloquent 2 meter rule. As Chuck said, the 2m rule only punishes shots thrown above 2 meters (of course, we'll ignore the fact the he also mentions that discs can roll up trees and stick), but crop circles of yellow rope strewn about the course would punish many more 'good' shots than the existing 2 meter penalty does (since, as well already know, the 2 meter penalty does a fine job of only punishing bad shots).



Well ponds and creeks and all other obs must punish 'good' shots then too. If you know the yellow rope is there then dont throw toward it. If you throw in the yellow rope then it was a 'bad' shot just like you say a disc stuck in a tree 2 meters up is a 'bad' shot (even though 1 that is 1.9999999meter up isnt :confused:). Your logic is all off. Yellow rope becomes OB. If you throw in the OB knowing its there it couldnt have been a 'good' shot as you say. You must think that alot of 'good' shots get thrown into ponds and roads and creeks then too because those are all OB just like the yellow rope would be OB.

You cant possibly think that yellow rope OB is any different then lakes and ponds and creeks and roads. OB is OB if you go OB it couldnt have been a 'good' shot as you say.

Well ponds and creeks and all other obs must punish 'good' shots then too. If you know the yellow rope is there then dont throw toward it. If you throw in the yellow rope then it was a 'bad' shot just like you say a disc stuck in a tree 2 meters up is a 'bad' shot (even though 1 that is 1.9999999meter up isnt :confused:). Your logic is all off. Yellow rope becomes OB. If you throw in the OB knowing its there it couldnt have been a 'good' shot as you say. You must think that alot of 'good' shots get thrown into ponds and roads and creeks then too because those are all OB just like the yellow rope would be OB.

You cant possibly think that yellow rope OB is any different then lakes and ponds and creeks and roads. OB is OB if you go OB it couldnt have been a 'good' shot as you say.



Thanks for making my point for me, Steve. Just replace OB in that last sentence of yours with 'above 2 meters' and we'll have a nice rule. One that already exists, actually. :D

And yellow rope is different from lakes, creeks and roads because it is not a natural feature of the terrain, and looks like crap.

Thanks for making my point for me, Steve. Just replace OB in that last sentence of yours with 'above 2 meters' and we'll have a nice rule. One that already exists, actually.

And yellow rope is different from lakes, creeks and roads because it is not a natural feature of the terrain, and looks like crap.



I didnt make your point first off. Second off 2 meters isnt even CLOSE to Out of bounds. Not even close to the same rule. You get 1 meter from OB with the 2 meter rule you get a strokes AND have to play from INSIDE whatever your stuck above 2 meters in.

This thread really doesnt matter though cuz now the 2 meter rule is gone unless the TD decides to use it. Hopefully in the future it wont even be an option.

This thread really doesnt matter though cuz now the 2 meter rule is gone unless the TD decides to use it.


This thread seems to matter quite a bit to you since you post here more than anyone.

Steve, I've offered the option of adding relief to the 2m penalty that would easily solve the 'double penalty' gripe, although in the case you mention (being inside a pine tree, for example), even 1 meter wouldn't be enough relief sometimes. That's why I suggested giving a full 5 meters as we currently do with casual obstacles.

Steve, I've offered the option of adding relief to the 2m penalty that would easily solve the 'double penalty' gripe, although in the case you mention (being inside a pine tree, for example), even 1 meter wouldn't be enough relief sometimes. That's why I suggested giving a full 5 meters as we currently do with casual obstacles.



Then wouldnt that be the same thing as making the the tree OB??? Stroke and relief. If so then make ANYTHING stuck in a tree whether is it 1 meter or 5 meters a penalty stroke, because you say that ANYTHING that hits a tree is a BAD shot. Why not penalize EVERYONE that gets stuck not just the people whos disc is over 6 ft 6in??? I still say OB is a better rule and the 2 meter rule being gone really isnt going to affect much. Maybe it will open up some more routes but then everyone can throw those routes without worrying about getting stuck above 2 meters, but i doubt anyone will just start WINNING or all the sudden become a better player because there is no 2 meter rule. Like is said before. If your good your good if your not your not. No matter if there is a 2 meter rule or not.

Steve, I've offered the option of adding relief to the 2m penalty that would easily solve the 'double penalty' gripe, although in the case you mention (being inside a pine tree, for example), even 1 meter wouldn't be enough relief sometimes. That's why I suggested giving a full 5 meters as we currently do with casual obstacles.



Then wouldnt that be the same thing as making the the tree OB??? Stroke and relief. If so then make ANYTHING stuck in a tree whether is it 1 meter or 5 meters a penalty stroke, because you say that ANYTHING that hits a tree is a BAD shot. Why not penalize EVERYONE that gets stuck not just the people whos disc is over 6 ft 6in??? I still say OB is a better rule and the 2 meter rule being gone really isnt going to affect much. Maybe it will open up some more routes but then everyone can throw those routes without worrying about getting stuck above 2 meters, but i doubt anyone will just start WINNING or all the sudden become a better player because there is no 2 meter rule. Like is said before. If your good your good if your not your not. No matter if there is a 2 meter rule or not.


Excellent points Steve.

Excellent points Steve.



Thanks Nick

Excellent points Steve.



Thanks Nick



You are welcome Steve.

Penalty stroke for over 2 meters with 5 meter relief no closer to the hole sounds like an excellent compromise.

Make it a special case of the unsafe lie. If your disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface it is an unsafe lie. Mark the disc directly below on the playing surface, and then proceed to use the unsafe lie rule. You take one stroke and get 5 meter relief no closer to the hole, but if a satifactory lie can't be found within 5 meters you can take 2 strokes and relocate anywhere on the fairway no clsoer to the hole.

What would be wrong with language like that? It eliminates the biggest complaint of the people in cedar tree country, that being the "double jeopardy" of a stroke and a bad lie.

rhett, you are making too much sense. that is a good wording, and does in fact satisfy the folks from PA who have trouble with cedars.

but dont expect it to work - in less than an hours they'll be on here with a new explanation about why the 2m rule must go. instead of WMD its W2M :)

Penalty stroke for over 2 meters with 5 meter relief no closer to the hole sounds like an excellent compromise.

Make it a special case of the unsafe lie. If your disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface it is an unsafe lie. Mark the disc directly below on the playing surface, and then proceed to use the unsafe lie rule. You take one stroke and get 5 meter relief no closer to the hole, but if a satifactory lie can't be found within 5 meters you can take 2 strokes and relocate anywhere on the fairway no clsoer to the hole.

What would be wrong with language like that? It eliminates the biggest complaint of the people in cedar tree country, that being the "double jeopardy" of a stroke and a bad lie.




If you make the ENTIRE tree OB that takes care of BOTH worlds. If your in a tree you are OB and you take your stroke and meter of relief and play on. No need for 5 meters or anything like that. If your in the tree AT ALL your OB and you have to take your stroke. No if and or buts about it.

Just make certain trees OB. If you say all shots that hit trees are bad then why not make EVERY part of the tree and the area beneath it OB???

I love your avatar. Next time I see someone 8 feet from a target through it 50' up into a tree I will agree with you that the 2 meter rule is vital to the survival of our sport... :p

Gimme a break, pimp. Are you serious? "Some trees OB, some trees not." "Gold rope". "Painted circles."

I hate to bring this up, but have you ever actually TD'd an event? Going with any of your options will put even more work on the TD. Adding relief to the 2m rule is no extra work. Heck, most TDs would rather get those 10m circles painted around the baskets if they had time to do it, and most don't.

Plus the "sometimes 2meters is in effect, sometimes it isn't" thing is going to cause hate and discontent during the rounds. Yes, players should be at the player meeting. No, a lot of them don't. Yes that is the player's fault. But it will still end up with irate ****** off players arguing their cases to the TDs, when the TDs have more important stuff to do, like get the next round out.

because the one meter is not enuf for big cedars. and what td is gonna go circle every tree with yellow rope??? to do so on our course, where the 2m rule is extremely applicable, would require miles of rope!

it would be silly to say that every tree is OB, because on some holes there would be NO IB !

now to a real question : why is it more simple to lay down 1000's of meters of yellow rope when before we could simply say: "if you're hanging over 2m, take a stroke and move on". no rope necessary!

rhett's solution is still the most sensible if people really want relief from the 2m penalty. if they want no 2m penalty at all (see my avatar to understand how STOOOOPID that is! ) then allow the TD to rescind it.

Gimme a break, pimp. Are you serious? "Some trees OB, some trees not." "Gold rope". "Painted circles."



Rhett, you of all people should know that OB need not use paint or rope, particularly when dealing with such clearly defined areas or surfaces as trees. All you need is a seam between two surfaces or a visual guide for a vertical OB line plain. It is not difficult to judge if a disc is under the outside edge of a tree or not, particularly with the benefit of the doubt going to the thrower, plus anything stuck in the tree is OB without any doubt what so ever. (Add to this using just the surface of the tree as an OB surface and any disc not in contact with the tree solely is not OB.)


I hate to bring this up, but have you ever actually TD'd an event? Going with any of your options will put even more work on the TD. Adding relief to the 2m rule is no extra work. Heck, most TDs would rather get those 10m circles painted around the baskets if they had time to do it, and most don't.



Yes, I have, and this is no more work than any other hazard on the course. If you are in or on that OB area/surface, you are OB, play it accordingly. Period.


Plus the "sometimes 2meters is in effect, sometimes it isn't" thing is going to cause hate and discontent during the rounds. Yes, players should be at the player meeting. No, a lot of them don't. Yes that is the player's fault. But it will still end up with irate ****** off players arguing their cases to the TDs, when the TDs have more important stuff to do, like get the next round out.



To some degree I agree with you, to eliminate the confusion we should simply do away with the superfluous and bizarre rule all together and go with OB. But if we do keep it as a hazard option then your predictions of arguing and confusion are no more accurate for this than they are for any other TD declared special condition or hazard.

�Irrated� �pissed off� players in this situation are usually ignorant lazy players who don�t pay attention to anything at the players meeting. If you didn�t listen up at the players meeting then it is ENTIRELY on you if you mess up.

Again, if anyone should understand that logic it should be you as a TD.

Gimme a break, pimp. Are you serious? "Some trees OB, some trees not." "Gold rope". "Painted circles." <font color="red"> Yes Rhett im serious. Its a way better rule then the 2 meter rule. </font>

I hate to bring this up, but have you ever actually TD'd an event? <font color="red"> No i havent and i thank you for doing so. I can tell you this though. If and when i do TD an event if i have the option of a 2 meter rule or no 2 meter rule i would say NO 2 METERS because it is a STUPID RULE. </font> Going with any of your options will put even more work on the TD. <font color="red"> Your right and no 2 meter rule doesnt put ANY work on the TD </font> Adding relief to the 2m rule is no extra work. <font color="red"> Yes it does you will have to explain it at the players meeting and then some people wont hear it like you said before and youll still have people that are PIZZED off because they didnt know they could have relief </font> Heck, most TDs would rather get those 10m circles painted around the baskets if they had time to do it, and most don't. <font color="red"> The 10 meter circles painted around the baskets are DOPE and i agree are more worth it then the OB circles </font>

Plus the "sometimes 2meters is in effect, sometimes it isn't" thing is going to cause hate and discontent during the rounds. Yes, players should be at the player meeting. No, a lot of them don't. Yes that is the player's fault. But it will still end up with irate ****** off players arguing their cases to the TDs, when the TDs have more important stuff to do, like get the next round out. <font color="red"> Its easy to take care of that. People who didnt know that there wasnt a penalty just get to take 1 stroke off their score because you play it the same way whether there is a penalty or not. </font>

Its easy to take care of that. People who didnt know that there wasnt a penalty just get to take 1 stroke off their score because you play it the same way whether there is a penalty or not.



<font color="red"> Oyet! Oyet! </font>

How can you argue with that? Boyeeeeeee! <Straight Face>

Pimp, are you just Nick in disguise?

I guess all the "stupids" you throw in when "discussing" this made me have to ask.

Pimp, are you just Nick in disguise?

I guess all the "stupids" you throw in when "discussing" this made me have to ask.



No Rhett i am not. You may have seen me out in AZ for the Memorial earlier this year. If so you would know that im not Nick :D

Pimp, are you just Nick in disguise?

I guess all the "stupids" you throw in when "discussing" this made me have to ask.



No, I don't call people stupid anymore, I let them speak for themselves... ;)

Perhaps you need a refresher on the concept of "play it where it lies", Nick.

I like the avatar, too. Cool. I am glad the two meter rule is optional because it totaly depends on luck. I think the idea of the rope is bad and would look tacky. It would also penalize someone who didnt hit the tree but skipped into the circle. Once again luck involved. And the five meter rule is bad also because it leaves judgement involved. "I think I should throw from here." I believe removing the two meter rule makes the rules more uniform. Besides I really hate it when Im putting from ten feet, skip off the top of the basket and stick in a tree 6'7" above the ground. No big arm involved in that, just bad luck, (and putting).

Perhaps you need a refresher on the concept of "play it where it lies", Nick.



Perhaps so does the "Above the Playing Surface Rule" then as well, Jim.

When you start playing a lie 1.99 meters above the playing surface with a supporting point on the spot where the disc came to rest, I'll start playing ones 2.01 meters up the same way. To bad the June Bug will not be able to...

But feel free to educate us if we are mistaken. Or do you expect us to be Bushies and just disregard reality because you say so...

Nick, when are you going to put forth a legitimate argument against the existing 2 meter rule? Do you have one? I'll reiterate what you've said so far, and then point out the flaws in your (and Carlton's) thinking. Let's see if we can follow along using logic for a minute, shall we?

2.00 meters is an arbitrary height

The world is full of arbitrary numbers. You can't step past your lie within 10.00 meters. I guess that's not fair to those that put their approaches at 9.85 meters? So does that mean we are rewarding people who don't approach as well? Try arguing the 'arbitrary' number thing the next time you get pulled over for speeding and see how far that gets you. Or maybe you can argue with the IRS over the 'arbitrary' tax rate. You aren't allowed to legally drink until you're 21 (in NY), is that fair to people that are 20 yrs, 11 months, 29 days old?

There is too much luck involved

First off, luck is (according to dictionary.com) The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune. I personally don't believe in luck as it pertains to disc golf. We play a game of physics, not chance. Propel a disc in the proper direction, with the proper force, and the proper environmental conditions and it will go to the proper place. The adage that '2 people hit the same tree, but only one sticks, so it was just bad luck' is simply foolish. The only thing their shots have in common is the tree that they hit. They are not the
'same' shot, so you can't expect them to do the same thing. As Craiger pointed out so eloquently, good shots don't hit trees, and they certainly don't stick in them above 2 meters. The lottery is a game of luck. Roulette is a game of luck. Disc golf is a game of physics, in it's purest and simplest form. If you must believe in luck, for some strange reason, then use the definition above and you'll recognize that the shot that falls out of the tree is the lucky one.

The rule enforces a 'double penalty' because you lose a stroke and oftentimes have a bad lie for the follow-up shot

I have already said that this is the one place that I almost agree with the proponents of the rule's removal. You still are the one that put your disc in the tree in the first place, so blame for your situation rest solely on your shoulders. However, in the interest of fairness, I'd advocate treating it as casual relief or an unsafe lie and allowing up to 5 meters straight back. This would extricate you from the thickest of evergreen and cedars and the like. It's even better than allowing only 1m for OB, since that doesn't help enough in the thick trees that have branches all the way to the base.

It makes our rule book closer in conformity to those of ball golf

Yes, in ball golf you can climb a tree and hit from there. But that is where the similarities end, of course, because we don't 'play it where it lies' in the same way. Ball golfers can step forward after they putt. They can't use a tee on the fairway (but we can run up). Ball golfers are only allowed a limited number of clubs. Ball golfers have to adhere to a strict dress code, where we are allowed to dress however we ..... oh wait, scratch that one. :D

If ball golf courses ran through the woods as often as DG courses do, then you could use their rules regarding lies suspended above the ground as a comparison. But we are talking about 2 different sports played in different locations. Do you think they would still allow players to climb trees in BG if they played on our courses? The fact that a golf ball sticks in a tree 1/1000th of the number of times a disc does might have something to do with their rules as well.

It promotes consistency in the rule book

That depends on your point of view, doesn't it? I would think a disc suspended 2 meters or more in a tree is closer to an unsafe lie than it is to out of bounds. Even if it's not, there is nothing wrong with a rule that treats a specific situation in a specific manner. No different than the 'falling putt' rule, which is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the rule regarding stance and or the act of throwing.

We should let course TDs/designers/pros determine what is or isn't OB

Once again, 2m above the playing surface is not OB. And we also have to potential of opening up a can o' worms regarding different heights used as OB, different determinations of which tree is which, etc. It also trades one sort of alleged consistency for a whole, broader range of inconsistencies.

Top pros don't like the rule

That is my favorite of all of them. In fact, for that reason alone I'd recommend keeping the rule. Top pros don't like losing strokes because strokes equal cash. But, if anyone should be able to safely navigate around trees it would be the best in the sport, wouldn't it? I'm sure they'd prefer it if the USDGC didn't have as much yellow rope either, since all those OB strokes cost them as well.

Ok, your turn. Do you have anything else?

It would also penalize someone who didnt hit the tree but skipped into the circle. Once again luck involved



How is luck involved if you SKIP OB. So your saying your unlucky when you threw your disc into the OB road and you were unlucky when your disc SKIPPED on the pond or the creek. Or you were unlucky when your disc SKIPPED into the parking lot. Going OUT OF BOUNDS has nothing to do with LUCK. If you throw OUT OF BOUNDS it was a 'bad' shot. It wasnt an unlucky one. You KNEW the OB was there so it was a bad shot NOT bad luck that you went into the OB. 2 meters involves random bad luck, OB does not.

Steve, yellow roping areas under trees would involve just as much or more luck as to who would take a penatly throw. A shot that hits a tree could drop straight down into the OB area. Another shot hitting the same tree could just as easily get kicked off a branch and land safe. Actually, I think luck would have a greater impact with the yellow rope than with 2-meters. You already mentioned that you RARELY took a 2M penalty this year - so the likelihood of sticking up in a tree is pretty low. However, I would say maybe half the time your disc would drop straight down to OB while the other half would ricochet off part of the tree to a safe area. Of course, I am not talking about evergreen trees.

2 meters involves random bad luck, OB does not.

if there is "random" luck, then is there also "calculated" or "predictable" luck? OB most certainly can involve luck (of any variety). throw a skip line off the road. watch the disc's turn edge hit a small stone or slick, wet leaf that you didnt see from the lie. follow the disc as its hyzer turns flat and it proceed another 150' parallel to the OB line, staying OB. thats luck.

discs can skim water like jesus and then somehow get some air under the rim and fly on into safety. thats luck.

discs can catch an edge for a million different reasons and some weeble for quite a ways before they finally fall down.

and yes, discs can stick in trees.

but there is hope! for everyone of these scenarios there is a remedy that can be taken! lets take a look:

The Flattened Road: take a higher route, a different route - anything at all - if the risk of staying OB outweighs the likelihood that it will happen.

The Jesus Disc: throw a higher line and dont touch the water in the first place.

The Weeble: there's lots of different remedies depending on the situation. shots that land on the disc top rarely stand up and roll. super soft discs roll less often than hard edgy discs. discs that helicoptor in at slow speeds roll less often than fast flying hyzers. and on and on...

The Sticky Tree: discs that do not hit trees do not stick in trees. ie, find a different line.

now that it is clearly established that while luck in its many forms is everywhere, bad luck is fairly avoidable, lets reword your post to something that contains some sense:

How is luck involved if you STICK IN A TREE. ... Getting STUCK IN A TREE has nothing to do with LUCK. If you throw INTO A TREE it was a 'bad' shot. It wasnt an unlucky one. You KNEW the TREE was there so it was a bad shot NOT bad luck that you went into the TREE.

How is luck involved if you STICK IN A TREE. ... Getting STUCK IN A TREE has nothing to do with LUCK. If you throw INTO A TREE it was a 'bad' shot. It wasnt an unlucky one. You KNEW the TREE was there so it was a bad shot NOT bad luck that you went into the TREE.



Some of y'all seem uncomfortable with the usage of the word "luck." It's all semantics. I'll try to express the same idea with different terms.

How about "inequity." The current rule creates inequities between those that hit a tree and drop and those that hit a tree and stick. This inequity is not like the normal inequities between players such as those based on skill, hard work, or performance; instead, it is purely a function of a poorly written rule. The rule change will correct this inequity.

How can one be against ending this type of inequity? ;)

How is luck involved if you STICK IN A TREE. ... Getting STUCK IN A TREE has nothing to do with LUCK. If you throw INTO A TREE it was a 'bad' shot. It wasnt an unlucky one. You KNEW the TREE was there so it was a bad shot NOT bad luck that you went into the TREE.




The same thing can be said for OB but without the stupidity of your disc is 2.0000000000000000000000001 meters high so you get a penalty but mine is 1.9999999999999999999 meters high so i dont get one. That is rediculous. If you throw OB it was a BAD shot no matter what height it was. Pure and simple OB is a better rule.

Some of y'all seem uncomfortable with the usage of the word "luck." It's all semantics. I'll try to express the same idea with different terms.

How about "inequity." The current rule creates inequities between those that hit a tree and drop and those that hit a tree and stick. This inequity is not like the normal inequities between players such as those based on skill, hard work, or performance; instead, it is purely a function of a poorly written rule. The rule change will correct this inequity.

How can one be against ending this type of inequity? ;)



It's hard to be against something that (read further above) logic clearly states does not exist. Inequity implies that the shot that stuck was an equal shot to the one that didn't stick to begin with. There are no equal shots, therefore no inequity.

Saying that 'my shot hit the tree and didn't fall, but yours did, so that's not fair' is like saying 'my shot hit the basket and spit out but yours stayed in' so it must not be a fair basket. Not the same shot, not the same result.

Has anyone really done the math so see how this will even affect the game. Im a 929 rated player and i play courses in MI where you can get stuck in trees on just about EVERY course that i play on a regular basis. I played 31 sanctioned tournaments this year and threw over 5000 shots in tournament play. This year i only had 5 penalty strokes due to the 2 meter rule. Thats 1 out of 1000. Thats NOTHING. Doesnt make me a better player. Doesnt help me win any tournaments. Doesnt help me with ANYTHING. Im pretty sure it wont help anyone else either.

Everyone reading this thread needs to go back threw their tournament rounds this year and figure out how many penalties they got for being stuck in a tree over to meters. Then figure out how many shots you threw ALL YEAR and then tell me how big of a deal this rule change is going to be.

Im sure youll find out that IT DOESNT MATTER.

Within the realm of the player's control, there are definately "equal shots." Midway through the flight, neither the thrower nor the gallery could distinguish between them, nor would they predict different outcomes.

These shots often hit the same spot in the tree with different results. They rarely hit the same spot in the water with different results. They rarely hit OB with different results.

By the way, I'm all for chains that treat "equal putts" equally.

So if it doesn't matter why remove it? Enquiring minds want to know... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Steve, I've never been stroked for having submitted an incorrect scorecard either, does that mean we can dump that rule too?

Logic, folks, just show me some argument that withstands the logic test and I'll agree with you.

You say all shots that hit trees are 'bad' shots. Then you say if they dont stick they are 'good' shots. How is that logical at all. They both hit the SAME tree and one kicked out and the other did not. Whats the logic in that. Your essentialy penalizing the person for WHERE they hit the tree not because they hit it in the first place. Thats not logical at all. You hit the tree on the right side 15 ft off the ground and stuck. That must have been a worse shot then the one that hit the left side 12 feet up just because it got stuck. Thats not logical at all. They were both BAD shots and they both hit the SAME tree. Why penalize the one that hit 15 ft up on the right side and not the one that hit 12 ft up on the left side??? Where is the logic in that???

You cannot refute the unequal treatment of throws and routes at different heights. No justification for adding a potential additional penalty for throws whose trajectory is above 2 meters for part of the flight. Should players be allowed to throw shots where part of the flight is over 2 meters? If yes, then the 2-meter rule is discriminatory against that air space. If the answer is no, then something more effective than the 2-meter rule is necessary. It's arbitrary discrimination that has no competitive benefit as a blanket rule.

Steve, I never said a shot that hits a tree but doesn't stick is a good one. Not once. Because it isn't.

Your 'same tree' analogy is no different than my 'same basket' analogy. Where it hits isn't the important part, it's where it ends up.

Your 'same tree' analogy is no different than my 'same basket' analogy. Where it hits isn't the important part, it's where it ends up.



Not hardly because you can hit a tree ANYWHERE and you have no clue what the result will be. Trees arent uniform like baskets are. On a basket there are places you will stick and places where you will spit. Then the occasional spit when you hit dead center. Trees dont have a SWEET spot or a place you are more likely to stick if you hit one. Also some trees are 20 ft wide and 60 feet tall. Baskets are 2 feet wide and 2.5 feet tall from top of cage to chain hangers. (not sure of the exact size. 90% of the time you putt you can tell whether the disc will stick or not depending on where you hit the chains. When you hit a tree you have NO CLUE if your going to stick or not. None what so ever. You may stick one time but then not the next.

where you draw the OB line is arbitrary also. whats wrong with an OB line that is 2m off the ground?

face it, the 2m rule WAS one of the more consistant rules.

as has been mentioned, rule 803.01C is arbitrary. 803.02 has an arbitrary distance of 1m. 803.03 has an arbitrary distance of 30cm. 803.03H is not only arbitrary, but also inconsistant!

sheesh!

OB as it's conventionally used does not arbitrarily discriminate against different types of air throws and air routes. The penalty affects throws of all heights and trajectories that land in the OB area. There's no justification for incurring a potential additional penalty purely because part of a flight path is above 2 meters. There's no rationale for that blanket discrimination, whatever height was chosen.

Nick, when are you going to put forth a legitimate argument against the existing 2 meter rule? Do you have one? I'll reiterate what you've said so far, and then point out the flaws in your (and Carlton's) thinking. Let's see if we can follow along using logic for a minute, shall we?



What you are discussing is a difference of opinion, logic does not change, it may be flawed but not something that can go in 2 directions at the same time. It is not a familiar sight here on the discussion board.


2.00 meters is an arbitrary height



This is without context. I fully understand the logic that went into the rules creation. Without rehashing the entire thing, it had to do with a reasonable height, which most people can reach. The rest I am pretty sure was tacked on later.

What is �arbitrary� is the nature with which a disc tumbles down through a tree and penalizing one and not another even though the difference in inception and execution of the throw were indiscernible, one tumbled to 2.01 meters while the other tumbled to 1.99 meters.

Solution: Change it from a height, to a definite line. What line could serve this purpose?

Out of Bounds


There is too much luck involved



Again without contest anyone would immediately follow this with, �Everything involves luck of some kind or level.� Right?

The logic concerning the 2 meter rule and luck is not that we �REMOVE ALL LUCK� but that we remove what we are easily capable of removing from our rules of play. In other words to do what we can to make competition more about skill and execution and less about luck. Yes, luck will still be a part of the game, but at least it won�t be institutionalized within our rules of play.


The rule enforces a 'double penalty' because you lose a stroke and oftentimes have a bad lie for the follow-up shot



This is not of primary concern to me. It is logical to me that if you throw into a bad situation that you must deal with that situation. This is true whether there is a double penalty or not.


It makes our rule book closer in conformity to those of ball golf



I�m not sure where you got that, but it wasn�t from me. Although I have no inhibitions about using or stealing good ideas from any source, I don�t need to cite bg rules to discuss why the 2 meter rule is such a bad rule in disc golf.

I�d be happy if it we could make our rule book closer in conformity to the other rules in our own rule book! (i.e. why do we need this when we have an OB rule and why do we need 3 or more stance rules, 3 or more relief rules all for what are essentially identical situations)

I suspect you are addressing Carlton with that one.


It promotes consistency in the rule book



Absolutely it does. Without the 2 meter rule all hazards are within the domain and control of course pros and TDs. This is as it should be. It also clarifies and simplifies what players and officials need to know, do and when a call is needed or not.


We should let course TDs/designers/pros determine what is or isn't OB



Absolutely. This doesn�t even need defending it is so right.


Top pros don't like the rule



That is not one of my favorites. Like I�ve said, rules should not be created or updated to satisfy public opinion. To enter into that game we might end up with a sport looking like miniature golf, with clowns, windmills and bars and tea houses lining our fairways�

You have generally mischaracterized the arguments and logic I have tried to champion here, but that is not unexpected considering your opinions and underlying philosophic predisposition.

Considering the brick wall I face in trying to get you to understand my points I think I will let the �light of day� inform you out on the course over the coming years. I have a pretty good idea of the revelations folks will have and others will blind themselves to, but I am even more sure that it will be different than any of us imagine, and likely far less of a big deal that we are making of it.

Yes, I hear you, so then why do it at all? Read above.

But there is justification in having a rule that helps define fairways and protect trees, and provide a potential penalty for deciding not to follow a fairway and possibly inflict damage to the area of the trees that is most susceptable. Without it, the 250 foot dogleg hole with a 25' wide fairway formed by 30 foot trees becomes a 200 foot straight shot over the top with no regards to anything besides hucking it over. Combined with the higher durability plastics (i.e. harder) we have now, I think its pretty easy to deduce that anything that increases the frequency of people taking the 'over' route will also increase the damage to the barriers that make the hole what it is. If the tree is not very duable to begin with (birch, cedar, maple and others whose cuts attract pests), oh well I guess. Even if the tree isn't on the 'fairway', it will be fair game if it happens to sit along the straight line between pin and basket.

I think there is justification to provide incentive to follow the fairway as designed. If you miss the fairway and get stuck, well then you missed. If you take an 'alternate' route, take your chances and don't cry if it doesn't work out. Doesn't sound like blanket discrimination to me.

If the route is there by making the toss overhead, it should not have the potential for additional penalty. If you don't want that route as a designer, then you'll have to do a better job of tee and/or pin positioning. The 2-meter rule is ineffective at preventing the use of these routes.

If we really don't want players throwing certain routes over the top to theoretically protect trees, then a better way is needed to do this. One option would be using more horizontal mandos similar to the famous clown's mouth at USDGC. That's been an effective way to keep throws below about 10 feet.

Or build rain shelters over the tee boxes to protect players from bad weather.

But there is justification in having a rule that helps define fairways and protect trees, and provide a potential penalty for deciding not to follow a fairway and possibly inflict damage to the area of the trees that is most susceptable. Without it, the 250 foot dogleg hole with a 25' wide fairway formed by 30 foot trees becomes a 200 foot straight shot over the top with no regards to anything besides hucking it over. Combined with the higher durability plastics (i.e. harder) we have now, I think its pretty easy to deduce that anything that increases the frequency of people taking the 'over' route will also increase the damage to the barriers that make the hole what it is. If the tree is not very duable to begin with (birch, cedar, maple and others whose cuts attract pests), oh well I guess. Even if the tree isn't on the 'fairway', it will be fair game if it happens to sit along the straight line between pin and basket.

I think there is justification to provide incentive to follow the fairway as designed. If you miss the fairway and get stuck, well then you missed. If you take an 'alternate' route, take your chances and don't cry if it doesn't work out. Doesn't sound like blanket discrimination to me.



I would have to say people would hit less trees going OVER the top then they would when throwing DOWN the fairway as you say. If its a tight fairway you are more likely to hit a tree there then you are if you go OVER the top. So if your argument to keep the 2 meter rule is to protect the trees then its not a very strong one.

Plus OB would protect trees alot more then the 2 meter rule does now. Either way im sure people will change their minds once they realize that this rule doesnt matter at all anyway. People who are 950 will still be better players then people who are 920. Barry and Kenny and Cam and Schweby and Brinster and everyone else who is a SUPER PRO will still be a SUPER PRO. No one is going to gain an advantage on anyone and the game will be played in the same manner you just wont get penalized for throwing your disc over 2 meters and getting stuck in a tree. It doesnt happen that often anyway so it really doesnt matter.

If the route is there by making the toss overhead, it should not have the potential for additional penalty. If you don't want that route as a designer, then you'll have to do a better job of tee and/or pin positioning. The 2-meter rule is ineffective at preventing the use of these routes.

nothing is further from the truth (well, maybe the existance of WMDs in iraq, but thats another thread :) ) first, that statement about tee/pin positioning belies your skills as a designer. you know well that in many regions the vegetation do not provide a whole lot of options. not to mention your statements complete disregard for the reality of park dept input and direction. the statement that the 2m rule is ineffective at preventing those routes is purely and blatantly false. talk to the golfers at courses that are most adversely affected byt the removal of the rule. this is not anecdotal, but evidential support to the fact that the 2m rule DID in face prevent those routes. to believe or state otherwise can only be due to faultless ignorance, delusional denial, or deliberate deception.

If we really don't want players throwing certain routes over the top to theoretically protect trees, then a better way is needed to do this. One option would be using more horizontal mandos similar to the famous clown's mouth at USDGC. That's been an effective way to keep throws below about 10 feet.



Effective, yes, but in some eyes it's too similar to putt-putt mini golf.

I personally would rather not see any mandos on a course unless they are there for safety reasons. I have the same reservations against 'yellow rope', but I can handle that when used in the context of the USDGC.

The 2 meter rule punishes shots thrown above 2 meters a lot less than an OB lake punishes people who throw rollers or low skips. If we stroked everyone for throwing above 2 meters it would be different, but we are just stroking them for being suspended there. It's not that much different than a shot that is in bounds for it's entire flight and then at the very end tumbles an inch past the ob line. How it got there isn't the issue, it's where it ended up. I really don't see a 'fairness' issue here.

The 2 meter rule in and of itself never prevented the use of any one route, but it added a significant risk factor to shots that wished to 'tempt fate'. That risk factor is considerably lessened when the penalty is removed.

There may be one or two other people in the world who have dealt with more park departments including many outside MN on course design issues so you can't go there. If you start from the position of building rules for the game before the 2-meter rule existed, I doubt it would be selected among options if protecting trees were the primary goal. It is simply a weak, unfair option as a blanket rule. It may be semantics but it does not 'prevent' higher aerial routes but might 'discourage' a few. Unless it discourages the majority of those who might choose that route, it would not seem effective.

The core issue that seems to bug people the most is why should a lie you can't reach NOT be penalized? If it's lost, it should be treated like, and is, a lost disc. If it's visible, it's little different from accidentally landing by a bee hive or in poison ivy where you get (usually) relief with no penalty. The odds of suspension are about the same as those other casual relief fluky scenarios where you may not be able to get at your disc, at least within the time constraints.

I would like to see some a rule where an official/spotter or at least two other players in your group must confirm sight of your disc, not just for suspended discs but casual relief situations like those mentioned. That is something missing currently that will be needed even more.

Sorry Pat,

I had to add to the commentary of your avatar.

"Unless it discourages the majority of those who might choose that route, it would not seem effective."

hmmm... i can think of many holes where most players take a route over water or other OB areas regardless of the potential penalty. by your logic, therefore, the OB rules are ineffective. further, by your logic we should rid ourselves of those rules.

"If it's visible, it's little different from accidentally landing by a bee hive or in poison ivy where you get (usually) relief with no penalty."

accidently landing by a beehive is worlds apart from deliberately taking a hyzer over the trees. not many people say "hey, i'm gonna throw caution to the wind and dang it i'm running for that beehive!" !

"The odds of suspension are about the same as those other casual relief fluky scenarios where you may not be able to get at your disc, at least within the time constraints."

first, those odds are suspect. second, they could vary widely from event to event.

here's a thought - the odds of getting an ace are FAR LESS than getting stuck 2m up, but we reward an ace (which the majority of the time a fairly bad shot that got lucky). the removal of the 2m penalty "rewards" a crappy shot by "penalizing" it less. perhaps THIS is the "consistancy" of which you speak :)

The core issue that seems to bug people the most is why should a lie you can't reach NOT be penalized? If it's lost, it should be treated like, and is, a lost disc. If it's visible, it's little different from accidentally landing by a bee hive or in poison ivy where you get (usually) relief with no penalty. The odds of suspension are about the same as those other casual relief fluky scenarios where you may not be able to get at your disc, at least within the time constraints.

I would like to see some a rule where an official/spotter or at least two other players in your group must confirm sight of your disc, not just for suspended discs but casual relief situations like those mentioned. That is something missing currently that will be needed even more.



This is an excellent point.

The core issue that seems to bug people the most is why should a lie you can't reach NOT be penalized?



What bugs me the most is not that we're not penalizing it, but we're rewarding it by moving it closer to the basket. A shot that comes to rest 50' over the top of the basket, and 10' laterally away from the basket, is nearly 51' away from the basket in a straight line, but it will be played at 10' away.

Sorry Pat,

I had to add to the commentary of your avatar.

hey, thats a pretty nice addition :)

hmmm... i can think of many holes where most players take a route over water or other OB areas regardless of the potential penalty. by your logic, therefore, the OB rules are ineffective. further, by your logic we should rid ourselves of those rules. <font color="red"> That is completely wrong because of the simple fact that ANY shot that doesnt make it clearly over the OB will remain OB Every single shot thrown OVER a line of trees could make it over and still get stuck above 2 meters </font>

accidently landing by a beehive is worlds apart from deliberately taking a hyzer over the trees. not many people say "hey, i'm gonna throw caution to the wind and dang it i'm running for that beehive!" <font color="red"> This is true but has nothing to do with the fact that the 2 meter rule can ONLY penalize shots that are thrown over 2 meters </font>

first, those odds are suspect. second, they could vary widely from event to event. <font color="red"> Maybe but both occur a small small small percentage of the time.</font>

here's a thought - the odds of getting an ace are FAR LESS than getting stuck 2m up, but we reward an ace (which the majority of the time a fairly bad shot that got lucky). the removal of the 2m penalty "rewards" a crappy shot by "penalizing" it less. perhaps THIS is the "consistancy" of which you speak <font color="red"> Throwing an ACE and getting stuck 2 meters high in a tree have NOTHING to do with eachother, NOTHING what so ever. Not even a valid point </font>

If there were a reasonable way to do it, it would be fair to have players mark their suspended lies no closer to the basket instead of straight down (no penalty). Once pocket laser measuring devices drop below maybe $20, it might be worth considering (artificial measuring devices would have to be allowed).

With no automatic 2-meter penalty, I will lobby for a rule modification, when the revamp that will take place later in 2005 is done, that prevents players from marking a suspended lie above maybe 1 meter any closer than 10 meters to the basket. Make players have to at least sink a 10 meter putt if they don't get a penalty for a suspended disc.

that may be approaching a workable compromise. because i understand the reasons for removing the 2m rule, but only disagree with the universal nature of its demise, i think i could support a condition like the one you propose. especially if it includeed a line of play clause, ie, dont let the player pick the most wide open 10m path, but give him the line he ended up with.

The LOP was my intent. What this rule could do is also allow putting/approaching to be made a little more challenging with designers using foliage like bushes that are easier to grow than trees in many places. The risk/reward choices to risk getting stuck would be more definable since players can see their options more clearly, mostly from a closer distance than the blanket 2-meter rule is currently.

But that is where I would have to argue. If I came in front of the basket, skipped just short of the chains, and ended hanging in the bush 6' from the basket (#2, 4, 5... at Veterans) I would have to go 10m back into the woods to make my next shot ?

So now you guys are saying if i throw a spike hyzer or a thumber and get within 33 ft of the basket and im more then 3 ft off the ground im going to have to back up to 33 ft and make a putt from there??? :confused:

gary, yes, and i think its easy to argue that such a lie is justified.

pimp, yes, thats right. the shot 8' away hanging 50' up (see my avatar) will now be a 10m putt on the LOP. seems fair, since you really were 50.64 feet away and now you're putting from approx 33'. think of the tree that might (or might not) be in your way as the price you pay for your CRAPPY shot that ended up stuck 50' up :)

BTW, this 10m LOP "drop point" IMMEDIATELY removes the advantages i gained by the elimination of the rule. in fact, for the holes here that are protected by thick canopy, this new adjustment is at least as bad, and potentially worse, than a simple 1-stroke penalty! i like it! if it is so enacted, i would immediately suspend my experiments with the bomb lines :)

I dont even know what to say about this.

This is rediculous. Absolutely rediculous. If we are going to do this we might as well estimate how far you disc is from the basket when it is stuck in the tree and then make you shoot from that distance away. This is by far the WORST alternative i have heard yet. HORRIBLE :mad:

If there were a reasonable way to do it, it would be fair to have players mark their suspended lies no closer to the basket instead of straight down (no penalty). Once pocket laser measuring devices drop below maybe $20, it might be worth considering (artificial measuring devices would have to be allowed).



Even with cheap laser distance finders, I don't think it's feasable.
1st: you'd have to have a clear line-of-sight from the playing surface to your disc, 2nd, you'd need a clear line of sight from that same spot to the basket, and third have to trust that the average disc golfer knows the Pythagorean Theorem.

I disagree because most putts that miss are going to be above 1m when they encounter bushes near the basket. If the bushes are placed around the basket as hazards, then most putts will have to go over those bushes. A very painful option, but not very feasible.

It's not much different from casual relief with no penalty. If you're going to take the overhead bomb shot, the few times you might stick above 1 meter, it wouldn't be that bad to have to make a 10-meter putt. Seems much better and more fair than an immediate 1-shot penalty as it is now.

Upon thinking about it, using LOP might not be feasible because of OB closer than 10 meters on some holes which would make an LOP mark 10m away a problem. Even worse would be landing on the roof of a building close to the basket. And as Pat has pointed out, not everyone has the option to clear a putting area back to 10 meters so the player gets a reasonable look. The best thing might be a single marked drop point 10m away which could be made somewhat challenging or have the default be on the fairway line between tee and pin if none is marked.

The best thing might be a single marked drop point 10m away ... etc.



The best thing might be to keep the 2m rule and avoid all this circumlocution.

The best thing might be to keep the 2m rule and avoid all this circumlocution.



Or get rid of the penalty and mark it below where its stuck and play on :)

it seems like there are two general places that discs can get caught over 2m. the first is somewhere on the fairway, not particularly close to the pin. i could agree that marking the lie under the disc is probably penalty enough this shot. the second is within putting range, and 10m seems like a reasonable radius for the definition of putting range. i cannot agree that it is "fair" to spot a disc directly under a lie that is 8' on the x axis and 50' on the y axis away from the pin. the yield is an 8' putt, which is certainly NOT the result of the throw.

this is why chuck's idea of a drop point, whether it ends up being LOP or a single point for all drops, make a ton of sense. now that 8' bad shot (and it was) is placed a challenging, but entirely doable, distance away.

it really does seem like a perfect evolution to the 2m rule. during this discussion most of the objections to the new rule have been regarding near-basket situations. at least a decent amount of the cries to eliminate the rule have been regarding its double jeapordy when suspended in thick trees or the excessive penalty for being stuck in a fairway shot (or the triple jeapordy for being stuck in a thick fairway tree 200' from the pin!) the problem is that both sides are correct, but the solution so far addresses the fairway adequately while significantly altering the dynamics of play around the basket.

the drop point for suspensions within 10m seems to address all of these concerns. it says that suspensions in the fairway are "drop and throw", and in spittin distance of the basket are "go ahead and take a putt, but you're not getting a drop-in for a crappy shot".

true, a thumber type throw that gets caught 50' up was likely a pretty good shot until it stuck - because it was likely coming almost straight down at the time. to the people who will make that point, there are two responses: 1) why are you crashing stright down thru the canapoy in the first place?, and 2) how many times did it happen to you in last year? (1 in 5000 comes to mind :) )

i would favor keeping the vertical definer at 2m, for the reason gary stated. but that is a detail to be worked out, not the spirit of the proposal!

to all who have lobbied one way or the other: please think this proposal through, and weigh it against your specific reasonings for rescinding or keeping the rule. in my opinion it appears to meet the legitimate needs of both camps. the fairway stick is not excessively penalized, and the over basket stick is not unnecessarily rewarded. it does not obsolete any course designs. in fact, all it requires is the determination of a drop point for suspensions within 10m. this point could be marked and would easily become part of the local lore, eliminating any serious confusion. it also eliminates the need for a TD to announce all kinds of inclusions, exemptions, whatevers, during the players meeting. in short, it works for everyone on every course, is consistent from hole to hole, course to course, region to region, and best of all requires next to no work to implement. it deserves your honest consideration!

Ha Ha, the no is winning on should we kept the rule. :)

unless 52 is less than 48, you're wrong on that count! besides, its soooo easy to vote as often as you wish.

Chuck,

That is an intreguing idea. Jim points out a decent point though, can we really expect folks to do the calculations in a near consistent manner. More to the point are we setting up yet another rule to bring in the "buddy" system of consciously or subconsciously trying to cut our friends a break with a good lie or work our not so friends with a worse lie. Something I think our rules update is trying to minimize or even eliminate.

One way in which it might work is this (I'm not saying this is the best way, just one): The group or an official agree on just how high it is from the playing surface, say 14 feet (which is really pretty high). Using a tape measurer, the point on the ground directly below the disc and the line of play 14 feet is marked off and the lie established. If OB or Casual OB precludes the full distance then use the first available lie prior to the OB.

What this seems to indicate is that trees really are a part of the playing surface though. And if that is the case, then why not make the tree surface capable of being designated OB?

In all honesty, though I do not like the 2 meter rule as a blanket rule, for many stated reasons of consistancy and fairness, I would not be at all against making all trees and bushes capable of holding a disc OB. I'd see this as a substantial step in further protecting our course resources as well as the challenge of our courses. This would involve defining "playing surface" and possibly "tree-bush" within our rules (2 worthwhile, though not easy, things anyway...)

The 'suspended lie above 2 meters inside 10 meters being marked 10 meters away' proposal would not deny the option for TDs to specify trees or other items OB if it made sense. It would just be a default that prevents the free drop in when suspended above/near the basket. I agree that we should propose it remain at suspended above 2 meters instead of 1 meter, not just for tradition but also so DROTs don't have to be marked 10 meters away :eek: (talk about salt in the wound if that happened)

right now i'm thinking that a single drop point at 10m for each hole would be best (as opposed to LOP lie), since it eliminates the very real possibility of placing the lie in an unsafe place (double jeopardy), in extremely unplayable spots (thick thick bushes, etc), or in the middle of established casual relief areas (poison ivy, oak, beehives, etc). it would also prevent wear and tear on those thick bushes on the LOP.

having a TD or official measure anything prolly wont work in real life, given the trek to outlying holes and the relative shortage of officials/TDs to cards.

having the players measure vertical distance (and 14 is a very average height around here - a substantial sticks are well over 20') is both impractical (measuring devices, etc) and imprecise (lets face it - 20' up is hard to get to for an accurate measurement). perofrming pythegorean calculations is a bit much to ask (probably no argument there :) ).

which leaves us with the nice tidy drop point solution! i envision such point to be at the 10m line, if possible with some sort of challenge (terrain, tree trunk or branch in path, etc) to make it something other than a 10m straight in wide open putt.

this really could work! it would allow the complete removal of the current 2m rule, except for in putting range (10m, as defined in our current rules). it elegantly addresses the issues that are raised by my current avatar.

(it MIGHT also open up the option of use for those holes where an OB line is within 10m of the basket. rather than a 12' gimme for the 3 now its a 10m tester. but perhaps that usage is best left alone for now?)

I'm not sure if you are aware (or care) that I am just as against our 3 different stance rules as I am against the aberant (imo) 2 meter rule, so this inside 10 meter rule stuff does not appeal to me in the least.

Yes yes yes, I know, but ball golf deals with different stance areas differently. This, like many other areas is a case where ball golf rules are not appropriate. Why?

A) We do not play the projectile exactly where it lies.
B) We do not need to protect the surface of the green.

more later

I'm not sure if you are aware (or care) that I am just as against our 3 different stance rules as I am against the aberant (imo) 2 meter rule, so this inside 10 meter rule stuff does not appeal to me in the least.

but calling a disc 50' up 8' to the left of the pin the same as a shot on the ground 8' from the pin appeals to you?

like it or not, that is one of the real outcomes from eliminating the 2m rule completely.

chuck's proposal recognizes and deal with this, while addressing all of the concerns you have put forward in support of eliminating the rule.

and we DO care about protecting the surface - maybe not of the "green", but certainly of the leaves, bushes and so on - and maybe its not the case for all course, but on a great many this foliage will suffer, particularly around the pin (ie "green") when the 2m rule is lifted.

What bugs me the most is not that we're not penalizing it, but we're rewarding it by moving it closer to the basket. A shot that comes to rest 50' over the top of the basket, and 10' laterally away from the basket, is nearly 51' away from the basket in a straight line, but it will be played at 10' away.



Comparing a shot hitting a tree (and sticking) 50 feet above the basket to one landing 8 feet beneathe it is but one fragment of the whole gamut of possibilities which the 2 meter rule and its elimination address. If we were strictly considering whether a shot 50 feet off course and headed even farther off course should be rewarded then it would be a no-brainer. But that over-simplifies the problem and also misses the point that there are *many* alternative possibilities that the elimination of the 2 meter rule simultaneously addresses.

The possibilities are endless but a shot hitting a tree 50 feet above the basket can also get deflected into the basket for an ace. Or, such a shot can result in a lie with a thick tree blocking a putt at the pin. Such a shot can get deflected 50 feet right into an OB parking lot (where if it had gone straight it would have landed past the pin, but in bounds). Of ten throws thrown such that they hit 50 feet high in a tree near the pin, a majority will not stick. Given the greater possiblity of errant deflections, aiming at the tree is not playing the percentages. If the tree is velcro then the TD should implement an alternative pin location, or the course pro should make a border surrounding the tree which designates an OB area (regardless of an arbitrary heighth like 2 meters).

Furthermore, trees are not just near baskets. A shot hitting the top and sticking in a tree 100 feet short of the basket obviously is not rewarded by the elimination of the 2 meter rule.

The passing of the elimination of the rule involved far more thought than a simple argument that a shot 50 feet off course should not be rewarded sees. It seems to me such an argument is far more myopic than would serve the future of the sport. I commend the Rules Committee for their decision.
Let's see how it plays out in reality and not on the message board.

robj, all of your concerns are dealt with via chuck's 10m drop spot proposal.

if it hits 50' above the bucket, then ok its a 8' gimme. if it sticks it's a tough putt, as it should be.

a fairway stick will be a mark-n-throw, and most of us agree with that.

single ricochets when attacking thru the canopy is virtually unheard of around here. its usually more of a pinball sequence, and obviously gets pretty random. with so many hits, the typical result is not much movement in a single direction, and a landing (if it lands) reasonably close to the impact spot. in other words, errant deflections are usually followed by more errant deflections, and therefore crashing the canpopy IS playing the odds. standard disclaimer: results will vary with type of trees.

OB rope surrounding the "tree" is unworkable, on texas courses at least. treeS surround many baskets, so OB rope makes no sense in this case.

it would be good to hear specific points against chuck's proposal, if there are any. his proposal really moves this away from "should we eliminate the 2m rule" and towards "how can we prevent shots that stick above the basket from being rewarded as if they were brilliant shots". (which they arent)

i was one of the most vocal critics of removing the rule. but my objections were definitely because of the near-to-problem. i can easily agree that fairway sticks, as many have already said, are penalized enuf simply by being stopped. chuck's proposal treats fairway shots the way the no-2m-rule folks want it, and the near-pin situations how the keep-the-rule folks want it.

Actually I previously suggested that the two meter rule could possibly be retained for trees closer than 10 meters to the basket. But I think maybe it should be more like 1 meter -- it is just too easy to nail a thick cedar tree below 2 meters and use it as a brake.

The drop zone idea makes some sense -- maybe it could be likened to a mando that is in effect when closer than 10 meters to the basket. However maybe the measurement should involve anything suspended higher than would be a DROT. That would fit it into the mando category of the rules and would also eliminate the arbitrariness of 2 meters and introduce the DROT problem :D

Why not leave the drop zone for discs suspended above 2 meters within 10 meters of the basket up to the TD or course pro (or foursome playing a rec round) and give the elimination of the 2 meter rule a chance as it is presently written for 2005? I think it would be cool though to have all holes circled by a 10 meter line as a sort of putting circle / green.
Maybe we could say the disc suspended above 2 meters within that circle (excluding DROT's?) has to be located on the LOP from the point verticly below the suspended disc to the pin where it intersects the 10 meter circle. That would bring in the luck element that all shots hitting trees engender. The circles might be a lot of work though,,,

yeah, i agree in an ideal world a 10m drop on LOP would be best. but a serious percentage of the holes i can think of that have trees that could results in a 2m stick within 10m would have some big problems with the LOP approach. thick woods & shule and extreme terrain features make the 10m circle pretty tough to lay down. (i loved my arizona golf, where i was exposed to the 10m circle for the first time. i've missed it back in texas ever since)

as far as leaving the whole thing up to the TD, i dunno. i would certainly lobby for making the 10m drop the standard. i just cant support the complete elimination of the 2m rule without something to mitigate the resulting absurdity as illustrated in my avatar. {allowing a choice between LOP 10m and a 10m drop spot be OK though.}

Your avatar would make a good argument if a sizeable percentage of those hitting 50 feet high stuck -- but it seems to me they don't.

As for the circles in AZ -- I didn't know they exist. I think it's a great idea though. Do they chalk 'em, paint em', dig and gravel them in, or ...what ? In thick foliage it could still work. You aren't getting a penalty stroke so at least you have a chance for some wizardy to save par. some kind of paint, string, etc. along the tree trunks could work. I'm used to courses with a lot of foliage and if you are stuck above 2 meters you get a penalty and a tough lie (however getting stuck is so rare it never deters me from an over-the-top shot if I think I can get close to the pin by using it).

Acutally when I posted it was 34 to 32. And once it again the nos are winning. Majority rules. And no you cant vote more than once unless you make new screen names, Its a stupid rule and I for one am glad of its change. And the 10 meter drop zone is just more work for the TD. Elimination makes the game simpler, period. Besides how many people stick a disc 50 feet above the basket, that would be a horrible shot. Most are stuck 100 feet away and out. Penalty enough to be that far away IMHO :p.

Yes you can. The stupid poll cares about your IP address, not your screen name. I've got about 10 different computers that I use, and could (if I really cared) vote from each of them.

sorry disctracted, i was looking at the other pool about whether to keep it or not.

"Besides how many people stick a disc 50 feet above the basket, that would be a horrible shot."

i'm glad you agree such a shot would be horrible. keeping the 2m rule in effect within 10m is designed to make sure there is no reward for such horrible shots - shots that the elimination of the rule encourages.

I think a '2m but only within 10m' rule would be worse than what we have. So much for consistency.

I don't see how those that want to remove the 2m rule could back this proposal, since it goes against all that they say is wrong with the existing 2m rule. A 'drop zone' for putts?

By acknowledging that not penalzing people stuck 2m up is wrong, haven't you just validated our arguments that the existing 2m rule is right? Whether it's in the middle of the fairway or around the basket, it's a shot that should be penalized. Whether it's called an Unsafe Lie or a 2m penalty does not matter to me, but the 'penalty zone' should include the entire course.

sorry disctracted, i was looking at the other pool about whether to keep it or not.

"Besides how many people stick a disc 50 feet above the basket, that would be a horrible shot."

i'm glad you agree such a shot would be horrible. keeping the 2m rule in effect within 10m is designed to make sure there is no reward for such horrible shots - shots that the elimination of the rule encourages.



This is nonsense. A shot hitting 50 feet up in a tree can also fall out and drop into the basket. That won't happen often -- but neither does getting stuck. What happens far more often is a deflection or drop out. If you want to find exceptions to the sense of doing away with the 2 meter rule by citing a flat shot hitting 50 feet above the basket and staying stuck, then you should be logically consistent and also factor in the disc that hits the ground 8 feet from the basket and skips into a tree and sticks suspended at a heighth of 6 feet 11 inches and gets a penalty stroke under the old rule whereas a shot hitting 50 feet up and dropping two feet from the pin was rewarded. To base a rule on the low percentage occurrence of sticking in a tree above the arbitrary heighth of 2 meters is a reach, and it will be nice to go at least a year without such a rule as the default scenario.

The 2 meter rule isn't designed to penalize such shots. Disc golfers with the kind of game that entails hitting 50 feet above the pin are going to be penalized more often than rewarded anyways.

The rule will be gone in many places for 2005 so we will see what happens. I suspect that there will be a few high profile situations, perhaps at an NT, Major or A-tier where a player suspended above 2 meters will get a drop next to the basket without penalty. That will violate enough people's sense of 'fair play' that finding an alternative such as the 10m drop will make more sense. I guess we'll see.

What a great plan!

Let's change the rule such that it will be perceived to be so unfair that we will be required to change it again.

Brilliant.

Anytime not having the 2-meter rule is perceived as being unfair, the TD can just have the two meter rule.

My prediction for the high profile case: a busy TD forgets to state that the 2-meter rule is in effect for the whole course at an NT event, even though s/he meant to say it. Some one will get stuck 2-meters up and (rightly) argue that it's not a penalty. All the locals will be up in arms because they always play with a 2-meter penalty and "everybody knows this." The argument will be heated because the 2-meter thrower will know s/he's right, and the locals will be ****** because the potential out-of-towner "is just trying to get over". Hate and discontent will prevail, and somebody will be really ****** off no matter what happens.

If the 2-meter penalty is so horrible, then just get rid of it and avoid the potential confusion. If you really can't tell if it should stay or go, then leave it alone.

Come on Rhett, that's not persuasive. Those things happen too frequently anyway. The little puddle that is played as casual, across the creek being OB, the sidewalk in the fairway that is called OB by the locals. The TD must account for everything; this is no different.

ps. I'm all for a rule that TDs must provide a handout at the players meeting of all OB. If they forget something, it's not OB. It would prevent the controversies you speak of.

I'm not trying to borrow trouble. I truly believe the above scenario will play out in 05.

If the 2-meter penalty is so stupid and so dang lame, get rid of it. Then the answer is, "the 2-meter penalty was removed by a rule change this year" and the reply is "Oh."

I'm all for a rule that TDs must provide a handout at the players meeting of all OB. If they forget something, it's not OB. It would prevent the controversies you speak of.



Unless TDs can't write effectively. How many of our rules are open to interpretation? After years of revisions, it's still not 100% perfectly worded. Do you think a TD will be able to be clear in what he writes. The same scenario that Rhett posted about will happen again. Here's one from Hole 6 at The Memorial last year:

"Sidewalk Left, Right, Rocks, Railroad Ties & Curb O.B."

Anyone wanna explain what that means?

"Sidewalk Left, Right, Rocks, Railroad Ties & Curb O.B."

Anyone wanna explain what that means?




Yes, the TD.

Writing out the OBs is part of every well prepared event program. If you are not doing if for your events then any fall out is rightly on you.

Rhett,

This is not new or specific to the 2 meter rule. Identifying discs is EXACTLY THE SAME. Say it with me...

If you want to clarify the identify/recover rule, go for it, but don't try to draw some parallel between it and the 2 meter rule when there is none.

Jim,

I suspect that TDs that want to use the 2 meter rule will likely use it for their entire course, those who do not will not have it anywhere. Only a rare few will use it in some cases and not in others. I know I wouldn't use it at all. I might make all trees and bushes OB surfaces however... :eek:

making all trees and bushes OB is TRUE IDIOCY and 100% opposite of your stated reasons for abolishing the 2m rule to begin with!!! you said you wanted to get away from "double jeoppardy" of a shortened drive PLUS the 2m stroke. if its OB you'll still get both! plus you will be seeing situations like a disc is 3mm off the "ground" on a small bush, cactus, whatever, and you're gonna assess an OB stroke! that is quite likely the most absurd thing ever. talk about introducing randomness!

One overarcing goal should be to keep the rules as simple as possible. If a disc is stuck above the ground, the obviouus lie shoud be on the ground below it. No LOP, no 10m. The lie should be directly under the disc.

This is the case regardless of wherether the TD declares a 2m penalyt. I argree with what Rhett said. Some TD is going to forget to announce the 2m penalty. Actually, this meeting is not very productive usually, so the course rules should be printed out on a sheet for every player to pick up, and the TD should state the status of disc that are at aor above 2m on this sheet. this way he doesntn have to worry about announcing it, just announcing "all course rules are on the sheet" should be enough.

making all trees and bushes OB is TRUE IDIOCY and 100% opposite of your stated reasons for abolishing the 2m rule to begin with!!! you said you wanted to get away from "double jeoppardy" of a shortened drive PLUS the 2m stroke. if its OB you'll still get both! plus you will be seeing situations like a disc is 3mm off the "ground" on a small bush, cactus, whatever, and you're gonna assess an OB stroke! that is quite likely the most absurd thing ever. talk about introducing randomness!



Not in the least. It is 100% in concert with the position I have held for some time now. I think that you are still confusing OB with the 2 meter rule. Let me explain:

Making all trees and bushes OB would be a TD decision (my decision in this example); it would not be a blanket rule within our rulebook. I would do it because I want all of the trees and bushes as protected as possible, not just the ones where a disc can stick above 2 meters. For really fragile areas, I�d likely make casual Obs on the ground beneath the OB trees and bushes so folks would have to take relief, and move away from them even if they were not OB.

OB is not a �double jeopardy� situation (like the 2 meter rule), it is an OB situation, with all that that entails.

Again, OB is OB, if you are 3mm OB you are still completely OB. If I declare a bush OB, then even if the disc comes to rest 1 inch off the ground, completely supported by the OB bush, then I as a TD and protector of the course and challenge that all of the obstacles present, don�t want players jamming their foot into those lower branches and slowly breaking them off until they are sad vestiges of their former selves and no longer function as obstacles to discs in flight or motion. Now if they are touching the ground in there you can still take 1 meter relief away from the OB, which should move you out and away from the branches somewhat. If not it is up to you to take a legal stance in accord with our rules of play.

How is a disc being completely OB more random than having a disc come to rest 2 meters above the playing surface? Certainly the degree of randomness has been decreased equal to the area between the 2 meters above the playing surface down to just above the playing surface.

It involves no new rules, just clarification of stacked IB/OB surfaces, which in my opinion has already happened in the PDGA Rules Committee�s Q & A section.

I don�t want the rulebook to declare all trees and bushes OB any more than I want it to declare all water, walk paths, platforms or objects of a specified kind OB (and certainly not all surfaces 2 meters above the playing surface as such), I want TDs and Course Pros to have complete and total freedom to declare surfaces as OB or IB. Whether stacked OR side by side.

Hope that clarifies my view a little for you.

OB is really only an effective deterent to shots when there is a safe route that avoids the OB territory. When there is no shot that avoids the OB, and the player just throws and hopes it doesn't end up OB, the OB has lost it's ability to protect fragile areas.

If I declare a bush OB, then even if the disc comes to rest 1 inch off the ground, completely supported by the OB bush, then I as a TD and protector of the course and challenge that all of the obstacles present, don�t want players jamming their foot into those lower branches and slowly breaking them off until they are sad vestiges of their former selves...

a) if your course is this incredibly fragile, then please move it ot a more sturdy environment!

and no longer function as obstacles to discs in flight or motion.

b) so you DID intend for the trees, bushes, etc to get hit by discs when you put the course there in the first place!!! so WHY are you complaining now that they get hit ???


well, anyway, good luck with this approach. it wont work in texas, and not many TDs down here are gonna get involved in arguments over whether a disc is "suspended" above some hypothetical grass/soil,ground line.

it wont work in texas, and not many TDs down here are gonna get involved in arguments over whether a disc is "suspended" above some hypothetical grass/soil,ground line.



Interesting. Then how do they decide things like OB or the old 2 meter rule? Just wondering...

Interesting. Then how do they decide things like OB or the old 2 meter rule? Just wondering...


My guess is they take the sane approach.

Interesting. Then how do they decide things like OB or the old 2 meter rule? Just wondering...


My guess is they take the sane approach.

exactly. which certainly does NOT include letting a disc 50' high go with no penalty, but giving an OB stroke for one suspended a whopping 1cm high (and maybe even touching a blade or two of grass!)

hahaha - the depiction in my avatar is OK in Nicks world, but hey we're gonna stroke the mofo who plays such crappy golf that he got caught on the 6" inch cactus there 12' from the bucket!

Interesting. Then how do they decide things like OB or the old 2 meter rule? Just wondering...


My guess is they take the sane approach.

exactly. which certainly does NOT include letting a disc 50' high go with no penalty, but giving an OB stroke for one suspended a whopping 1cm high (and maybe even touching a blade or two of grass!)

hahaha - the depiction in my avatar is OK in Nicks world, but hey we're gonna stroke the mofo who plays such crappy golf that he got caught on the 6" inch cactus there 12' from the bucket!



So in Pat and Pauls's sane world you stroke someone for a disc 6'7" up but not 6'6" and OB is not as clear a rule as we think?

Give it up! Height is a horrible measure for giving out penalty strokes, it just is. Particularly with an OB rule that works like magic.

You guys will essentially need to discredit the OB rule to make your point. Good luck. I guess being sane should help you come up with some real convincing arguments...

You guys will essentially need to discredit the OB rule to make your point.


My point's been made... more than once. In fact, every time you post, you keeping making it for me.

You guys will essentially need to discredit the OB rule to make your point.

no in fact we dont. until you explain where exactly sanity is applied to the situation in my avatar, then you are the one with the burden of proof to shoulder. you are the one who is trying to change the existing rule.

You guys will essentially need to discredit the OB rule to make your point.

no in fact we dont. until you explain where exactly sanity is applied to the situation in my avatar, then you are the one with the burden of proof to shoulder. you are the one who is trying to change the existing rule.



Not anymore I'm not. LOL! WEE! Yeehah! :D

You can take the sock out now Pat. :D

d00d, i have no idea what you're talking about really.

d00d, i have no idea what you're talking about really.




the existing rule



Ring a bell?

My work is already done... Yay! Whoopee! Yeah! :D

On the other hand, for you to prove any need for the continued partial existence of the 2 meter rule you have to prove that OB "cannot" do the same thing or not do it better.

So far there has not been a single convincing argument against the use of OB and for the use of the 2 meter rule.

Your flip flopping with this within 10 meters idea just proves that you know 2 meters is an illogical and bad rule.

You want rules to penalize bad shots? Then we might as well have rules for any shot that hits a tree, doesn't get within a certain distance of the target or fails to hole out.

But that would be as stupid as declaring be default, with no approval of the TD or Course Pro, a huge portion of their course as some strange quirky penalty throw area (Not OB).

You guys will essentially need to discredit the OB rule to make your point.

no in fact we dont. until you explain where exactly sanity is applied to the situation in my avatar, then you are the one with the burden of proof to shoulder. you are the one who is trying to change the existing rule.



Not anymore I'm not. LOL! WEE! Yeehah! :D



LMFAO

PS: Dave Greenwell ran a (non-pdga) tournament this Fall and waived the 2 meter rule (at a highly foliated course) when he was asked (by me) about it at the player's meeting. He figured we may as well embrace the future. If the new no 2 meter penalty rule is good enough for a Disc Golf Hall of Famer -- can't you guys give it a chance? :D

Dave has always been a smart guy.

I wonder if he remembers the time I called him for a foot fault in Japan? He handled as well as anyone. (This was back in the day where I warned them prior to their actual throw, putt in this case.) I remember him and Climo discussing who would be the next big thing, who would be the next Climo; this was in 1992.

We're still waiting! :o/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;) :) :D :cool::D

Well, enough discussion, back to the squabbling...

Well, I know a convicted felon that also doesn't like the 2 meter penalty, so is that reason enough to keep it?

Nick, you claimed that there was not one convincing argument against the current revision. Please read the thread again and you'll find several, as well as quite a few that logically support the 2 meter rule as it was originally written.

Or you could take the easy way out and ignore them and continue your ramblings.

Carry on.

Dan,

I have read and considered each of them very carefully.

My conclusion is that either they are not convincing, or that if any of them are, that the OB Rule better handles each of those specific situations.

Consider: If a TD had the freedom to declare anything above 2 meters as OB at his event, would they not have the power to basically perpetuate the spirit of the 2 meter rule? Wouldn�t this usage be more fundamental and complete? Not to mention fully understood and appreciated? OB is a fair rule by most folks reckoning, don�t you agree?

If that is possible, then supporters of the 2 meter rule are left to argue that the 2 meter rule is superior to OB because it is a �blanket� rule; that TDs and Course Designers should not be permitted to create hazards where and when they like on �THEIR� courses and at �THEIR� events. I suspect that most TDs and Course Designers would prefer to have freedom in this area, I know I would.

It�s not about penalizing �bad� shots. None of our rules are about that, and rightfully so. If they were there would certainly be a penalty throw for missed 10 foot putts� It is about fairness and clarity.

If ever someone presents a reason why the 2 meter rule is needed and should reintroduced as the �only option� that meets my standards I will be the first one to champion it. But that has not happened thus far.

Nick

no in fact we dont. until you explain where exactly sanity is applied to the situation in my avatar, then you are the one with the burden of proof to shoulder. you are the one who is trying to change the existing rule.



Well first off if there is a disc catching tree within 8 ft of the basket. Say like an EVERGREEN tree. Then the branches of that tree are going to exstend out from it and make for a very difficult putt in the first place. This happend to me in OHIO. I was actually 10 ft from the basket ON THE GROUND but inside one of these disc catching trees. Good shot you would think but no putt from 10 ft because of the evergreen branches. This would be the same putt for the person stuck 50 ft up in the tree. Putting from the middle of a evergreen is not an easy thing to do. First off i would LOVE to see where you have a 50ft tree that is 8 ft from the basket. Could you show me a picture of this please??? Your saying the disc that gets stuck should have to go to 30 ft but if the person hits that tree 50 ft up and falls say to 3 ft from the basket then that should be ok??? Both were obviously in your opinion BAD shots but one gets to have a drop in and the other has to go to 33 ft and make a putt. A putt from a spot with the TD has picked out before hand??? That is almost as rediculous as the 2 meter rule. 2 people throw essentialy the same shot and one has a drop in but the other has to go back to a pre picked spot and hit a 33 footer. I dont see the logic in that at all. Can you explain it to me???

It�s not about penalizing �bad� shots. None of our rules are about that, and rightfully so. If they were there would certainly be a penalty throw for missed 10 foot putts�



There is, it's called a 'comebacker'. :D

Well, I know a convicted felon that also doesn't like the 2 meter penalty, so is that reason enough to keep it?



Depends, does this convicted felon have as much tournament experience as Dave Greenwell and is this convicted felon in the Disc Golf Hall of Fame? If either answer is no, then it looks like dropping the rule has a better endorsement. :D

It�s not about penalizing �bad� shots. None of our rules are about that, and rightfully so. If they were there would certainly be a penalty throw for missed 10 foot putts�



There is, it's called a 'comebacker'. :D



Though some might consider that penalty enough, for you and I it's just one more of too many throws. :( :o;)

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



Thank you to the Board members for making this (IMO) excellent decision.

Baby steps, Nick. If it turns out that a majority of TDs elect to rescind the rule over the next year or 2 then recommendations for it's banishment will certainly carry more weight.


Boo ya!!

If it turns out that a majority of TDs elect to rescind the rule over the next year or 2 then recommendations for it's banishment will certainly carry more weight.



This is not the impression I got from the post Dan. It had to do with feeling in a rush and that it might be too big of a step despite all of the careful consideration.

These rules did not suddenly "stop" needing revision and updating. They will continue to need them. I really wasn't expecting any movement on them in 2005 anyway. I had heard that the next major rules revision was set for 2007. So though I am disappointed, it doesn't worry me any.

The 2 meter rule is at least one step closer to the scrap heap it so deserves. And that is no baby step...

I certainly will be looking for many new Q & As to be published in 2005 that will prepare the way for rules needing to be tightened up or with holes in them. I can think of one in particular that needs attention immediately (not the 2 meter).

Looks like even a Fall Summit meeting in late September is too late to get things done in time for the next year. Maybe the Board will have to schedule a Labor Day or Summer Summit from now on. Looks like a good percentage, and perhaps all MN events, will not have the blanket 2-meter rule in 2005.

You can take the sock out now Pat. :D

hmmmm... perchance it is after all you who would like to enlighten the rest of us as to the taste of sweated sock?

You can take the sock out now Pat. :D

hmmmm... perchance it is after all you who would like to enlighten the rest of us as to the taste of sweated sock?



Well, with the opt out still available, we both have a slightly bad taste in our mouths from this.

The aerial 2 meter (casual) OB hazard with drop zone is still legal under current rules though, as far as I can tell. And it would be interesting to play them as casual relief situations at events opting out of the 2 meter rule.

I have to laugh a little at all of this, considering that I don't recall taking ANY 2 meter strokes in 2004. Still, that time I do I'll look like Ricardo Montabon in Star Trek II where his ship is going critical, but instead of yelling "Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrk! I'll yell, "Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooooooooooo!" ;) :D

Just to add my two cents into this whole arguement. I don't like the two meter rule as I don't like any of the "fake" ob rules/lines/ropes etc. My opinion aside (as I know I'm in the minority on the ob part of it) why don't we just put a question on pdga renewal forms about how people feel about the rule or any others they feel should be changed. Putting a similiar question on Tournament registration forms could also be a good solution and a way to get more input on the subject then just the few who send back survey's and those few that post on here regularily.

It's a good idea and it has been done (the "on the ballot" part 2 times). The thing is that only a small percentage ever sends in the ballots. But more importantly, there is a difference between democracy and mob rule. We elected these guys to make the hard decisions for us and to provide leadership. In the end we are still at the controls, in that we can vote them out every 2 or 4 years. The other thing to consider is that the most vocal among us do not necessarily reflect the majority opinion.

I am generally pleased with the activity of our PDGA BOD over the last 5 to 6 years. In spite of the usual whiners and stick in the muds saying we�re never gonna make it, they have pushed on, and I 100% know for certain that it is at a serious price to them in many ways. More serious than most pretenders here and on the course could EVER know. If only you guys had been around during the early years, where decisions came like comets and organizers were separate kingdoms (sure there were great things too), you might understand just how very lucky we are to have the skilled and motivated bunch of guys we have leading us.

I have no lack of confidence in our PDGA RC or BoD to get things done and done as best as can be managed. Or I should say, �in THIS PDGA RC or BoD�.

I'm not sure. I'll put them all on top an count them...