Love your title Zach, especially since I just likened sandalman's thread to Fox "News" myself :D

Your second question could be imo worded better.
For example -- one could say OB is the same at each event, but that it should be up to the TD. There is also consistency in allowing a TD to decide whetehr certain OB's apply or not for certain courses. Letting the TD declare which trees have a 2 meter rule in effect (say the cedar trees on hole 1, 7, and 18 at Idlewild) or letting him/her declare no trees will use the 2 meter rule makes sense to me. In fact I think gettign rid of 2 meters and just declaring the whole perimeter of certain trees OB is a better and more consistent way to write our rules. If people want strict consistency I say we get rid of the nostalgic attachment to the 2 meter rule and let it go the way of the dinosaurs. Trees are obstacles and hitting them is a bad shot. Mark the disc and play on for Pete's sake.

I tried to solicit unbiased Q & As about this topic on the moderated thread but no one sent in or even posted any alternatives.

Perhaps we could work on that here.

Though it is mildly entertaining to watch certain folks chase their tails because they can't bring themselves to comprehend a NEW idea, it would be nice, for our sport, to get to the heart of what is going on. If we then disagree from there so be it, but let's not continue comparing Apples to Oranges and say we have some definitive and conclusive understanding of the rules issue.

10 bad shots are thrown into a tree, only 2 of them stick, does that mean only 2 of them were bad and 8 of them were good or does it mean 10 bad shots were thrown and 8 of them got lucky. We as disc golfers can not control everything, it's part of the game. Some golfers throw into trees more, they are more likely to go OB, if you take away the rule they will not get punished for there bad shots.

If the wind picks up when you throw, your unlucky too. Getting rid of the two meter rule completely is like saying we can't control the wind so lets just play indoors now.

The wind is another factor we can not control, like whether or not a tree will catch consitently. Just because we can not control it doesn't mean we should change it completely.

rob, without the 2MR trees can also be huge backstops. it is amazing that you fail to understand this simple concept.

rob, without the 2MR trees can also be huge backstops. it is amazing that you fail to understand this simple concept.



If you have the accuracy to throw and hit that tree on purpose then be my guest and use it as a backstop. I have done it before and i will do it many more time even if we still have the 2 meter rule. Sometimes your only shot at a basket involves hitting a tree on purpose and falling straight down.

true. but sometimes its a whole lot easier to hit the tree as a backstop than it is to take a well architected disc golf shot. i am not saying every tree shot is a good or bad shot. i'm just saying that removing the 2MR has the potential to cheapen the game.

Though it is mildly entertaining to watch certain folks chase their tails because they can't bring themselves to comprehend a NEW idea, ...

In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is a [*****]. That's m-0-r-0-n, if we can't say "[*****]" anymore.

ok, i've been meaning to ask this for a long time - but just WTF is with trying to paint pro-2MR folks as either "unable to handle new ideas" or "afraid of change" or both???

having and expressing valid, organized, and thoughtful reasons for opposing the one-size-fits-all elimination of the 2MR does NOT mean either of these things.

the fact that the anti-2MR zealots are so driven to attack the character and intelligence of the pro-2MR folks is an indication that they are trying to deflect the argument away from a weak position. they are attacking the people, instead of the reasoning.

i mean the last time we saw a movement like this we unilaterally invaded a non-threatening country, lost a ton of civil rights, and labelled anyone who didnt agree as "unamerican" and "unpatriotic"

does Karl Rove manage their campaign???

my mama taught me that smart people talk about concepts, average people about things, and stupid people about people.

the pro-2MR people are talking about concepts. i would be nice to have a worthy opposition on this topic. but it appears only 2 posters want to kill the rule completely, and at this point those two have clearly indicated in which of the three sets described above they reside.

I'm just saying that anyone that hits a tree on purpose and gets a favorable result (drops straight down or without 2mr sticks where they hit) got lucky. More often than not, there is an unfavorable bounce.

You take the shot that removes the greatest number of obstacles until you get close to the basket. If that is over the top, then the shot is over the top. Generally you drop, sometimes you don't.

I'm just saying that anyone that hits a tree on purpose and gets a favorable result (drops straight down or without 2mr sticks where they hit) got lucky. More often than not, there is an unfavorable bounce.

You take the shot that removes the greatest number of obstacles until you get close to the basket. If that is over the top, then the shot is over the top. Generally you drop, sometimes you don't.



Wouldn't it be nice if we could agree on this seemingly common sense point? I mean Gary isn't saying "THIS IS THE SILVER BULLET TO KILL THE 2MR." He's just saying that this is the way it generally goes. Is that so egregious?

Does the 2MR enter into folk�s minds as they prepare to throw over the top? Perhaps. But if that is the best way to get a good score on that hole and the shot is well within your skills, in my opinion, you are going to go for it. Penalizing the 1 in 1000 shots that sticks in a tree above 2MR is, in my opinion, not necessary. If you think that it is, and are a course designer or TD, then I encourage you to make that tree Out of Bounds. A blanket aerial hazard is just not consistent within our rules of play. While it might solve a few projected (yet to be proven) challenges, it is not the only method available, and it definitely is not the BEST method available.

rob, without the 2MR trees can also be huge backstops. it is amazing that you fail to understand this simple concept.



It's amazing that you fail to understand that they work as backstops *with* the 2 meter rule. Do you seriously think the PDGA Rules Committee didn't think this through?

Go throw into a tree 100 times, attempting to use it as a back-stop and report back on how it's working for you. Some will be under the tree. Some will kick left; some will kick right. To use a tree and all its tricky angled branches favorably as a backstop takes a lot more skill than missing the tree altogether does. I suggest you give the no 2 meter rule a chance and see if the sky falls as you think it will. If it does, the RC will be the first to re-insert it. Although isn't OB a better way to handle discs suspended in trees near the pin?

10 bad shots are thrown into a tree, only 2 of them stick, does that mean only 2 of them were bad and 8 of them were good or does it mean 10 bad shots were thrown and 8 of them got lucky. We as disc golfers can not control everything, it's part of the game. Some golfers throw into trees more, they are more likely to go OB, if you take away the rule they will not get punished for there bad shots.

<font color="blue"> Matt, you are already admitting 80% of such 'bad' shots aren't penalized anyways. Why invoke a rule that only works like it should 20% of the time? </font>


If the wind picks up when you throw, your unlucky too. Getting rid of the two meter rule completely is like saying we can't control the wind so lets just play indoors now

<font color="blue"> Wind is not something we write into the rules. The rule now rewards anyone who wants to throw low line drives into cedar trees provided they have the skill to hit them in the right place and to make their next shot or putt despite an obstructed lie </font> .

The wind is another factor we can not control, like whether or not a tree will catch consitently. Just because we can not control it doesn't mean we should change it completely.



<font color="blue"> but we didn't write wind into the rules, it was already there. Trees as obstacles are already there. The arbitrary heighth of 2 meters isn't. If you are in a playoff for a NT title and one of you skip off the ground near the pin and end up suspended 2.1 meters in a tree and then the other guy hits 4 meters high in that tree but drops out and to the ground right below your disc, you both play on from the same spot. You, however, have to add a stroke and get no relief -- is that really how you want the end decided? </font>

one of you skip off the ground near the pin and end up suspended 2.1 meters in a tree and then the other guy hits 4 meters high in that tree but drops out and to the ground right below your disc



One hits 40 feet above the basket and drops down and leans against the basket pole, the other hits at 2.1 meters above the basket and sticks. Is the one that hit 40 feet up in the tree a better shot?

Do bad shots stick in trees?
Do good shots stick in trees?
Does this have anything to do with keeping or dumping the 2MR?

Seems like it must for how many times we revisit it...

It's amazing that you fail to understand that they work as backstops *with* the 2 meter rule. Do you seriously think the PDGA Rules Committee didn't think this through?

yes, i seriously believe that the RC did not think this through! how dense are you? i am the one with the "Fules Committee" avatar - remember it???


Go throw into a tree 100 times, attempting to use it as a back-stop and report back on how it's working for you. Some will be under the tree. Some will kick left; some will kick right. To use a tree and all its tricky angled branches favorably as a backstop takes a lot more skill than missing the tree altogether does.

if it were only that simple. maybe your courses have just one tree... i dunno... i've almost given up any hope of understanding you. around here though it is not uncommon to PLAY DISC IN FORESTS! we have trees all over the place. baskets are completely unders treeS. thats MULTIPLE trees. its beyond easy to use them as backstops! i have one hole on my home course that i have doing exactly that for the last six months - since now i dont need to execute a good golf shot anymore. results so far: a lot more birdies than i got before!


I suggest you give the no 2 meter rule a chance and see if the sky falls as you think it will.

i've said a lot about hte 2MR, but i have never said the sky will fall. i know a cheap pharmacy in mexico that can refill your valium script... i'll email ya the URL if you wish.


If it does, the RC will be the first to re-insert it. Although isn't OB a better way to handle discs suspended in trees near the pin?

yeah right.

all they had to do in the first place is provide LOP relief from the tree. i seriously doubt they will have the brains to reinstate something they killed off.

oh btw, did you know that the 2MR change was not even supposed to be a part of the rules changes? it got slipped in by the anti-2MR zealots.

Pat Brenner,

I really am having a hard time understanding why you feel, or act like, all of this is some kind of personal attack on you?

You as much as admitted yourself that the 2MR is overly punitive; outside the putting area.

If PDGA Rules Committee is so clearly mistaken about this, and you are so very right, then don�t you think tournament directors will discover pretty quickly who is right? So isn�t it right to say that if you are right, and this �no 2MR around the pin situation� you keep talking about is the huge problem you say it will be, that the Tournament Directors will certainly take note of it quickly? Or are they, like the PDGA Rules Committee, lacking in the common sense apparently that only you possess and need to be �FORCED� to have the 2MR on their entire course?

That is basically what you are saying, as are Bruce, Craig, Rhett and Paul. That you have no confidence in our Tournament Directors to know when and where to create hazards or restricted areas on their own courses, that somehow you guys know better.

That is what this comes down to at is simplest level, your lack of trust in others to make the right decisions.

Regards,
Nick Kight

labelled anyone who didnt agree as "unamerican" and "unpatriotic"




Dont forget "communist" :p

Pat Brenner,

I really am having a hard time understanding why you feel, or act like, all of this is some kind of personal attack on you?

You as much as admitted yourself that the 2MR is overly punitive; outside the putting area.

If PDGA Rules Committee is so clearly mistaken about this, and you are so very right, then don�t you think tournament directors will discover pretty quickly who is right? So isn�t it right to say that if you are right, and this �no 2MR around the pin situation� you keep talking about is the huge problem you say it will be, that the Tournament Directors will certainly take note of it quickly? Or are they, like the PDGA Rules Committee, lacking in the common sense apparently that only you possess and need to be �FORCED� to have the 2MR on their entire course?

That is basically what you are saying, as are Bruce, Craig, Rhett and Paul. That you have no confidence in our Tournament Directors to know when and where to create hazards or restricted areas on their own courses, that somehow you guys know better.

That is what this comes down to at is simplest level, your lack of trust in others to make the right decisions.

Regards,
Nick Kight



As a long standing TD and Coordinator for NorCal..I can confidently say that ALL DISCS ABOVE 2 METERS WILL BE OB at least in our half of the state (which coincidenlty is a Large prtion of the PDGA membership)

I have not yet talked to 1 (thats ONE) TD who thinks the removal of the 2MR is even close to being a "good idea"

Im not going to argue with those who for some reason think that sticking in a tree is pure luck. Well that luck doesnt come into play IF YOU DONT THROW AT THE TREE. Holes are designed with farways and greens NOT trees to use a "Backstopps"
Im sure that the rules committee didnt talk to the environmenatal committee on the possible impact this could have on some courses...
With more and more parks taking action to limit tree damage why would the PDGA want to eliminate a rule that could increase the chances of damage being done to trees?
It just doesnt make sense to me.....We could be in Korea where the Japanese have already cut down all the trees in previous invasions, since they are sacred in Japan :p

yeah right.

all they had to do in the first place is provide LOP relief from the tree. i seriously doubt they will have the brains to reinstate something they killed off.

oh btw, did you know that the 2MR change was not even supposed to be a part of the rules changes? it got slipped in by the anti-2MR zealots.




Smugness is particularly funny on you Pat. Considering you were wrong, are wrong, and likely will remain wrong on just about every possible point contained within this discussion. The one I find particularly enjoyable is your open disrespect for folks you hardly know (not even their substanative online persona).

And oh, btw, did you know that the 2MR change was supposed to be a part of the rules changes? It was discussed at length by the PDGA Rules Committee (who, believe me, have enough 2MR Lovers and Haters in there to make us all look like neutral parties).
Don't take my word for it hear it straight from the horses a... I mean mouth ( ;)Just loosening you up for the VTI Carlton...): PDGA Radio (http://www.pdga.com/pdgaradio/rn2004-10-11.wma) .

Well, at least you have an open mind about it... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

As a long standing TD and Coordinator for NorCal..I can confidently say that ALL DISCS ABOVE 2 METERS WILL BE OB at least in our half of the state (which coincidenlty is a Large prtion of the PDGA membership)

I have not yet talked to 1 (thats ONE) TD who thinks the removal of the 2MR is even close to being a "good idea"



Perhaps to be expected from an old school area with stagnant course growth. Seems like the more progressive areas aren't as trapped in the past. Haven't heard of any 2m rule being used in 'little' Minnesota with currently one less course listed than California. :)

It hasn't been in effect for the sanctioned events I've been to this year.

I still haven't seen a disc over 2MR on any of my cards this year.

you wereent on my card at PIO? on the sharp dogleg left on hole 11 ( i think) i got caught in the vines to the right of the basket.

As a long standing TD and Coordinator for NorCal..I can confidently say that ALL DISCS ABOVE 2 METERS WILL BE OB at least in our half of the state (which coincidenlty is a Large prtion of the PDGA membership)

I have not yet talked to 1 (thats ONE) TD who thinks the removal of the 2MR is even close to being a "good idea"



Perhaps to be expected from an old school area with stagnant course growth. Seems like the more progressive areas aren't as trapped in the past. Haven't heard of any 2m rule being used in 'little' Minnesota with currently one less course listed than California. :)


Stagnant course growth? You mean well-established? Experienced?

Ohio isn't exactly tearing it up on course growth. Having grown up in Ohio, Cincinnati is old school in more ways than disc golf. Texas and Iowa are also smoking on course growth. Sounds like Texas has gone no 2m and Iowa events aren't underway yet to see where they're headed. Not sure where the Carolinas are headed but 'old school' Harold already went without it at the USDGC and they're another fast growth area apparently with some progressive old schoolers. Minnesota has the oldest statewide club and continuously published newsletter so the roots are strong here, too.

Ohio isn't exactly tearing it up on course growth. Having grown up in Ohio, Cincinnati is old school in more ways than disc golf.



Hold on now Chuck. Courses are approved for 3 suburbs of Cincinnati this year alone. Another 'burb has included 2 courses in their master plan. I could probably name 6 or 7 other courses that have been approved & should be completed this year in Ohio. I'm sure there are some ones I don't know about.

I think we added 10 courses to the course directory last year.

Ohio's alive & well.

As a long standing TD and Coordinator for NorCal..I can confidently say that ALL DISCS ABOVE 2 METERS WILL BE OB at least in our half of the state (which coincidenlty is a Large prtion of the PDGA membership)

I have not yet talked to 1 (thats ONE) TD who thinks the removal of the 2MR is even close to being a "good idea"



Perhaps to be expected from an old school area with stagnant course growth. Seems like the more progressive areas aren't as trapped in the past. Haven't heard of any 2m rule being used in 'little' Minnesota with currently one less course listed than California. :)



Never did I mention course growth...I believe it was PDGA Membership that I mentioned. Besides its kinda hard to "grow" when enough land to install a credible course would run you 7 figures. (stafford was a stroke of luck) Places like Texas have loads of land that not even the "critters" would live on. Not a bag on Texas, I lived there for 2 1/2 years in the late 80's. But they have the land to grow...We dont.

How does course growth affect the way any one should feel about the 2MR anyway. If you dont want the OB stroke (or the chance of one) then DONT THROW IN THE TREE. The basket isnt in the tree, the hole most likly wasnt designed for us to use the tree as a "backstop" as has been mentioned.
It always seems that the Anti's bring up something else "why 2 Meters and not 3 or 1" :p Why is the speed limit 55?? Who thought up that one. Probably in the same manner.."Hey that looks just about fast enough, Bo. How fast is we goin....Well, says Luke, thing says 55. Sounds good to me lets right that down" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Im quite sure the 2 meters had something to do with being in reach or not (except for John Houck :D) to try to use that as a reason to abolish it is lame.

Oh and by the way if I throw 10 discs at the basket of Hole #1 at Stafford, 3 might stick and the other 7 might roll away. Thats not fair I want ALL golf courses put on Treeless, terrainless courses that only nick and his buddys can play :D

As a Buckeye backer, I'm glad to finally see the growth but it's still moderate compared with some other areas either on percent or actual count per population. Ohio does not yet have a member of the 70-person Course Designers group, for example. I'd like to think it's a sleeping giant ready to break out on growth (and perhaps old ideas like the 2m rule :))

How does course growth affect the way any one should feel about the 2MR anyway.



Stagnant course growth in some areas, stagnant ideas, inactive designers (except Reese?) likely go together. The 2m rule shouldn't go away but become a course design feature specific to where it makes sense. I agree those entrenched Cali courses may have had holes designed with the 2m rule in mind. It's simply just not all holes need it nor should use it as a blanket rule.

I would kind of like a ball golf type interpertation....you go OB it is a stroke penalty....how ever you can play anywhere on that line as long as it is further from the hole......so you can draw a straight line to the tee and take your third on that line....sometimes you can get stuck in a huge manzanita and it takes you 2 or more to get out after already taking a stroke it is like you are double penalized....
just my 2 cents

wow, that sounds really unfair. sure is gonna be hard to explain on espn! what are they thinking???

hey thanks magilla for going on the record.

now, chuck, lets not say TX has gone one way or the other. MaceMan has had a bunch of events so far, and has dropped the 2MR for all of them. saved me at least one stroke, too.

but most minis around here use the rule. and many (havent done the study nick and rob will demand if i say "most") will tell you they support the rule.

it will nice to play in events with the 2MR. i will say this: when mace announces that the 2MR is suspended, i DO feel one less thing to worry about. the downside of certain risky shots on morethan one hole is removed.

so far the sky hasnt fallen. most discs did fall. scores definitely fell!

Am I the only person wondering if the can says in big letters, "USE ADEQUATE VENTILATION," and Chuck isn't?
:D

I am 1 td who will still uses the 2 meter rule until it is dropped from the rulebook. (then I kinda have to you know)

It's simply just not all holes need it nor should use it as a blanket rule.

i'm inclined to agree with this statement, chuck. so the question becomes how to easily allow/encourage designers to specify when to apply the rule. simpler is better.

is the best way to remove it then ask designer, or at worst case, TDs, to reinstate it?

some (two i can think of) will say eliminate it and force td;s to reinstate. there are some problems with that approach that dont need rehashing here.

a big question: on the holes that do not need the 2MR (or some substitute), would they be harmed if the 2MR is in place? obviously a hole with no trees that uses a stream or contours in the terrain to create challenge wont care one way or the other.

somehow i am still lead back to offering relief and moving on. at least for now that seems the simplest solution.

one of the arguments for ridding ourselves of the rule is the lack of consistancy since sweden already eliminated it. isnt consistancy best served by having rules uiniversally appplied - instead of invoked or revoked at the whim of the TD?

isnt consistancy best served by having rules uiniversally appplied - instead of invoked or revoked at the whim of the TD?



Consistancy, IMO, is best served by having ONE rule for hazard areas that involve a one throw penalty and relief; that ONE rule is Out of Bounds. And it has been functioning perfectly at the "whim" of TDs since before disc golf event existed.

I was just pent up and had to post a few on one of the multiplying 2m threads since being mostly off the board in AZ. I feel better now. Back to your fun.

Let it out Chuck, let it all out, it's good for you...

Just a second, Chuck. 'sandalman' thinks that because i am against the 2 meter rule, i must not play courses with trees. Can you help him out by telling him where Idlewild ranks in terms of foliation density compared to some of the courses nearest him? :eek: :D :D

The fact is I play in one of the most wooded courses there is and the course is 18 holes and pro-par 72 disc golf. I throw over-the-top everytime i play hole 5 and have never stuck above 2 meters in a tree on that hole. Thats thousands of throws over and into trees without one stick. Now, it is a high risk shot and i can and do deflect right, left, backwards (sometimes into the creek). On highly wooded courses, hitting trees is its own penalty. To add the 2 meter penalty is almost crazy, considering the resulting lie. There are a few holes where you could make the cedar trees near the pin (on say hole1, 7, and 18) OB -- but even when you do get stuck above 2 meters in the cedars near 1 or 18 you are usually looking at a two putt -- especially given the normally obstructed lie with which you're left.

Eliminating the 2 meter rule is a good thing; hitting trees should be encouraged, because as the saying goes: a fool who persists in his folly becomes wise. Hitting a tree more often than not leads to poorer results than would missing the tree altogether. So hit them all you want Pat. Sooner or later you'll probably realize there is a natural penalty for hitting a tree except perhaps on those courses which lean on the 2 meter rule like a crutch. (a crutch that works less than ten percent of the time, mind you)

Ohio isn't exactly tearing it up on course growth. Having grown up in Ohio, Cincinnati is old school in more ways than disc golf. Texas and Iowa are also smoking on course growth. Sounds like Texas has gone no 2m and Iowa events aren't underway yet to see where they're headed. Not sure where the Carolinas are headed but 'old school' Harold already went without it at the USDGC and they're another fast growth area apparently with some progressive old schoolers. Minnesota has the oldest statewide club and continuously published newsletter so the roots are strong here, too.


What is your friggin' problem with Ohio? 19 courses in the Cincinnati area alone doesn't impress you? With 3 more on the way?

Listen, math wiz, when the denominator gets large, as it would when there's a large number of disc golf courses, that does make it difficult to show a large percentage growth in courses.

So I guess you simply meant to insult an area which has put a lot of past resources into disc golf. I'm sorry Cincinnati can't grow as quickly, percentage-wise, as an area that's growing from one course to two courses -- after all, to achieve the same 100% growth, Cincinnati would have to add 19 more courses!

And you're the guy who's developing the SSA numbers to set course and hole pars??? Wow, I'm really beginning to wonder what value there is in being a PDGA member if at the top of the organization, there are people such as you who show such disdain for an area obviously committed to disc golf.

How does course growth affect the way any one should feel about the 2MR anyway.



Stagnant course growth in some areas, stagnant ideas, inactive designers (except Reese?) likely go together. The 2m rule shouldn't go away but become a course design feature specific to where it makes sense. I agree those entrenched Cali courses may have had holes designed with the 2m rule in mind. It's simply just not all holes need it nor should use it as a blanket rule.


Stagnant, inactive, entrenched ... ye gods, Chuck. Again, those are nice loaded words to throw around. I'd rather be thankful those "entrenched" courses in "stagnant" areas are still being maintained by all those "inactive" disc golfers, whose opinions you apparently despise.

This is going to let me vote for a second time guys...

disc golfers, whose opinions you apparently despise



Though I agree Chuck perhaps went a little far in his indictment

You want to talk about loaded words, Paul?

We all need to take a deep breath here. I know Chuck a little; I don't know Pat, other than one amiable phone call, never met Rhett or Paul, and know Craiger more than I�d like to (LOL! See now that is funny on more than a mess bored level). I am sure that Pat, Rhett and Paul are all great for their disc golf communities, as I know that Rhett, Craig, Chuck and hopefully myself are for ours.

If you don�t have me set on ignore, then hear my appeal to please have this discussion on a more civil level and manner. As we all know, we can all dance the dance, but it doesn�t get us anywhere and probably doesn�t help us to really know each other either.

I know this is a sore spot, but Paul, I really would like to understand your idea about �lost disc� being a challenge to the removal of the 2MR, and Pat, I would like to understand why you feel certain hazards should be made mandatory (i.e. within 10 meters of the target having the 2MR in effect, what happens when there is a tree folks love to target 12 or 20M from the pin?

My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M? And if this is not the basis for your want to add penalty throw, then is it based on Out of Bounds; and if that then why not just use Out of Bounds; and if not that then what is the nature of the 2MR?

Looking forward to a more civil and productive conversation on this topic.

Regards,
Nick Kight

If you can't handle the rhetorical techniques used on this board without taking it personally, it's the wrong place to be. I didn't comment on places that couldn't or did not need to defend themselves. And, Magilla is a regular and able sparring partner which is where this all started. It was course one upsmanship like any other thread talking smack about courses in their area versus others.

I'm from Ohio and family is still there. I almost worked for P&G there after college. I played '98 Cincy Worlds. I've used the DGA testimonial info from Cincy courses to help get courses in. I helped with Idlewild design and sponsored tee sign on hole #3. Data from Cincy Worlds is the starting point for the whole ratings system.

So, I have no beef with Cincinnati or Ohio. Obviously, my comments tweaked those involved so it worked on that level. Get in the debate game and stop taking it so personal, for it is a game. Debating the 2m rule isn't like resolving a Mideast crisis (pick one). It's still possible that entrenched areas might have entrenched ideas, which was the point. Certainly using the word 'despise' is a rhetorical stretch on your part. :)

If you can't handle the rhetorical techniques used on this board without taking it personally, it's the wrong place to be. I didn't comment on places that couldn't or did not need to defend themselves. And, Magilla is a regular and able sparring partner which is where this all started. It was course one upsmanship like any other thread talking smack about courses in their area versus others.

I'm from Ohio and family is still there. I almost worked for P&G there after college. I played '98 Cincy Worlds. I've used the DGA testimonial info from Cincy courses to help get courses in. I helped with Idlewild design and sponsored tee sign on hole #3. Data from Cincy Worlds is the starting point for the whole ratings system.

So, I have no beef with Cincinnati or Ohio. Obviously, my comments tweaked those involved so it worked on that level. Get in the debate game and stop taking it so personal, for it is a game. Debating the 2m rule isn't like resolving a Mideast crisis (pick one). It's still possible that entrenched areas might have entrenched ideas, which was the point. Certainly using the word 'despise' is a rhetorical stretch on your part. :)



So Chuck, am I to take that as a "No, I won't play nice." (to put it mildly)?

Smack is one thing; making slighting remarks to folks you hardly know is quite another. I think Terry is trying to get us to stick to the sorts of things we'd likely say on the fairways during PDGA events.

On second thought, I think we are far more nurturing on here than there... ;)

Smack can certainly be fun, but when it is all smack and used to avoid facing the actual context or content of the discussion you get what we have here, folks all ignoring one another.

Sure it's fun, but...

If you can't handle the rhetorical techniques used on this board without taking it personally, it's the wrong place to be. I didn't comment on places that couldn't or did not need to defend themselves. And, Magilla is a regular and able sparring partner which is where this all started. It was course one upsmanship like any other thread talking smack about courses in their area versus others.

I'm from Ohio and family is still there. I almost worked for P&G there after college. I played '98 Cincy Worlds. I've used the DGA testimonial info from Cincy courses to help get courses in. I helped with Idlewild design and sponsored tee sign on hole #3. Data from Cincy Worlds is the starting point for the whole ratings system.

So, I have no beef with Cincinnati or Ohio. Obviously, my comments tweaked those involved so it worked on that level. Get in the debate game and stop taking it so personal, for it is a game. Debating the 2m rule isn't like resolving a Mideast crisis (pick one). It's still possible that entrenched areas might have entrenched ideas, which was the point. Certainly using the word 'despise' is a rhetorical stretch on your part. :)


I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. You want me to stop saying "despise", then you should stop saying "stagnant" and "entrenched" and "inactive", describing courses and people's opinions where you find fault.

And because I hit back hard, after you hit hard first, you want to chastise me?

You were responding to my post, Chuck, not Magilla's when you commented on Ohio. How is it course one-upmanship on Magilla to slam Ohio when he's from Northern California? And since I'm from Ohio and Magilla ain't, I'm guessing you're talkin' to me. So you want me not to take a comment personally, don't make personal comments to me.

I'm always amazed when someone who insults someone else gets surprised when the someone else strikes back. Seems Nick doesn't understand that, and Rob doesn't, and now Chuck seems to think attacking someone's state for what he calls their stagnated thinking is reason enough to ignore their opinion with regard to a rules discussion, and then he wonders why anyone would take offense at such a comment. Makes me laugh.

No attacks is best. And remember - don't post anything in text that would not be appropriate during play at a sanctioned event, folks.

If you can't handle the rhetorical techniques used on this board without taking it personally, it's the wrong place to be. I didn't comment on places that couldn't or did not need to defend themselves. And, Magilla is a regular and able sparring partner which is where this all started. It was course one upsmanship like any other thread talking smack about courses in their area versus others.

I'm from Ohio and family is still there. I almost worked for P&G there after college. I played '98 Cincy Worlds. I've used the DGA testimonial info from Cincy courses to help get courses in. I helped with Idlewild design and sponsored tee sign on hole #3. Data from Cincy Worlds is the starting point for the whole ratings system.

So, I have no beef with Cincinnati or Ohio. Obviously, my comments tweaked those involved so it worked on that level. Get in the debate game and stop taking it so personal, for it is a game. Debating the 2m rule isn't like resolving a Mideast crisis (pick one). It's still possible that entrenched areas might have entrenched ideas, which was the point. Certainly using the word 'despise' is a rhetorical stretch on your part. :)


I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. You want me to stop saying "despise", then you should stop saying "stagnant" and "entrenched" and "inactive", describing courses and people's opinions where you find fault.

And because I hit back hard, after you hit hard first, you want to chastise me?

You were responding to my post, Chuck, not Magilla's when you commented on Ohio. How is it course one-upmanship on Magilla to slam Ohio when he's from Northern California? And since I'm from Ohio and Magilla ain't, I'm guessing you're talkin' to me. So you want me not to take a comment personally, don't make personal comments to me.

I'm always amazed when someone who insults someone else gets surprised when the someone else strikes back. Seems Nick doesn't understand that, and Rob doesn't, and now Chuck seems to think attacking someone's state for what he calls their stagnated thinking is reason enough to ignore their opinion with regard to a rules discussion, and then he wonders why anyone would take offense at such a comment. Makes me laugh.



Well, at least laughing is a good thing. You are a quintessential reactionary though Paul. Would be interesting to read what you yourself think from time to time and not just what you think about what other people think. You do have your own thoughts, right?

No attacks is best. And remember - don't post anything in text that would not be appropriate during play at a sanctioned event, folks.


Agreed. But would you have posted this if I had just taken my lumps from Chuck and not said anything? That would just leave me bruised but the board supposedly at peace, because Chuck's first strike wasn't followed by an angry response from me. (I said he appears to despise us, but Chuck took exception to that, so I gather he doesn't really. He just thinks we're stagnant, entrenched and inactive.)

So if I'm attacked, and I don't respond, that's not peace -- that's just submission, right? Can we do something to get rid of the original attacks, too?

If you monitors would please tell the leaders around here to stop hitting the rest of us so hard for having a differing opinion, that would help the rest of us out tremendously. In the meantime, I will do my part not to scream out so loudly the next time I'm hit.

My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M?




Okay, I realize I was not specificly addressed in your question,but I would like to reiterate my position in regards to the logic of the difference between >2m vs <2m.

Rules need to be able to be easily discernable and the determination of a ruling fairly clear cut. For this reason it would be unwise to penalize everything above the playing surface ie. If a disc is resting on a twig or other small protrusion from the ground it would only cause controversy as players try to determine whether any part of the disc is resting on the ground. Besides it strikes me as overly punitive.
As with many things regarding rules there are standards and tolerances.
Supporting point 25cm behind marked lie= good, no warning or penalty
Supporting point 45cm behind marked lie= bad, warning and penalty stroke for subsequent foot faults

The same could be said about the tolerance we must abide by when teeing off and making sure our supporting point is within the required distance from the front of the tee pad. The same with the 10 m jump putt rule. Since I haven't heard you raising a stink over these rules, apparently you have accepted the tolerances given within them.

I fail to understand why having a 2m tolerance is any different.

My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M?

well, its relief like the relief you get from an OB line or from a casual obstacle. but its not relief from your lie - your lie is where you mark it - not up in the tree.

My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M? And if this is not the basis for your want to add penalty throw, then is it based on Out of Bounds; and if that then why not just use Out of Bounds; and if not that then what is the nature of the 2MR?

Under the rules that is not relief. Under the rules that is marking in accordance with the rules.

In common parlance, our rules allow a lot of relief without a penalty because we are throwing an object rather than hitting an object. After it lands on the ground I can pick it up and throw it from as high above the ground as I can reach. I can step back about a foot from where it landed and step one foot out laterally as far as I can reach. Our rules define an envelope of free relief, partly defined by objective measurements and partly defined by the size and agility of the player.

Because the nature of throwing rather than striking requires that we get relief from where we landed for every throw, we have to come up with limits. Our rules have lots of limits on how much relief we can take from where it landed without a penalty and every single one of them is in some sense arbitrary.

Lifting a disc up from the ground to throwing height is free relief, as is stepping out laterally one step, backing your lead foot up a foot from where you landed, or backing up as much as five meters if you landed in a puddle.

At some point in every direction or dimension it seems logical to say that if you want relief from THAT, you should take a penalty.

I think calling it an unplayable lie per se makes more sense than calling it out of bounds. We are not going to let you attempt to climb up and play it from there, and it is too crappy of a throw to treat like my good throw the same distance away from the basket, so take your penalty and don't throw it up on the pavillion roof next time.

I think if you look at the actual posts, I never disparaged Ohio. My first post baited Magilla (who I actually know) in post #333932 on page 3 and said nothing about Ohio or to Paul. He first jumped on my back in post 333978 when he wasn't even involved. The worst thing I said in any post about Ohio was they weren't 'tearing it up on course growth' which is an accurate statement which I checked before posting. Every other statement I made about Ohio was accurate and never used the words stagnant or entrenched in reference to Ohio, just California to mess with Magilla who seemed to take it in stride as expected. All the defensive vitriol is coming from Ohio backers who weren't even impugned.

I think if you look at the actual posts, I never disparaged Ohio. My first post baited Magilla (who I actually know) in post #333932 on page 3 and said nothing about Ohio or to Paul. He first jumped on my back in post 333978 when he wasn't even involved. The worst thing I said in any post about Ohio was they weren't 'tearing it up on course growth' which is an accurate statement which I checked before posting. Every other statement I made about Ohio was accurate and never used the words stagnant or entrenched in reference to Ohio, just California to mess with Magilla who seemed to take it in stride as expected. All the defensive vitriol is coming from Ohio backers who weren't even impugned.



You:
"Perhaps to be expected from an old school area with stagnant course growth. Seems like the more progressive areas aren't as trapped in the past. Haven't heard of any 2m rule being used in 'little' Minnesota with currently one less course listed than California."

Me:
"Stagnant course growth? You mean well-established? Experienced?" (that's the full text of my 333978 post)

You, responding to me:
"Ohio isn't exactly tearing it up on course growth. Having grown up in Ohio, Cincinnati is old school in more ways than disc golf..."

NEngle, responding to you:
"Hold on now Chuck. Courses are approved for 3 suburbs of Cincinnati this year alone..."

You, responding to NEngle:
"As a Buckeye backer, I'm glad to finally see the growth but it's still moderate compared with some other areas either on percent or actual count per population. Ohio does not yet have a member of the 70-person Course Designers group, for example. I'd like to think it's a sleeping giant ready to break out on growth (and perhaps old ideas like the 2m rule)."

Magilla, to you:
"How does course growth affect the way any one should feel about the 2MR anyway."

You, responding to Magilla:
"Stagnant course growth in some areas, stagnant ideas, inactive designers (except Reese?) likely go together...I agree those entrenched Cali courses may have had holes designed with the 2m rule in mind."

After that, I started writing longer posts.

My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M?

well, its relief like the relief you get from an OB line or from a casual obstacle. but its not relief from your lie - your lie is where you mark it - not up in the tree.



Pat, there we have it! This is the basis of our disagreement. I do not believe it is, nor do the rules support the idea that it is relief of any kind. It is simply how we mark our lie, since we do not mark them anywhere above the playing surface, no matter the height. If it were relief then, similar to else where in our rules it would use the word "relief", right? Relief is a horizontal movement of you lie, not the act of marking your lie itself. At least that's the way I interpret it.

Not sure where that leaves us, just a note. I think Bruce with his soon to be "Undesirable Lie" idea is the biggest proponent of the idea that marking your disc is some kind of "relief". Perhaps he will share with us why he thinks it is based on the rules?

I understand your idea about it Pat, and it does seem like it in the case of it seeming to move the disc (not the lie) closer to the pin (though I suppose in certain situations it could actually end up moving it further away from the pin (pin on a cliff, disc suspended 40 feet up in a tree but 6 feet from the basket, lie 40 feet away and below). But I think we would need a rule change concerning marking our lie if we wanted to consider marking our lie on the playing surface as "relief", and I greatly prefer the elegance of the way it is now.

It would be sort of cool if we could get the thoughts of at least a couple PDGA Rules Committee folk on here. JimG! You're on it right? What are your thoughts. I know Carlton doesn't touch this place with a 4000 mile long modem cable. Joe Garcia, perhaps the biggest proponent of the 2MR on the committee I have never seen post here, and none of the others. Is Conrad still on it? I've emailed with them some about it, but it does mainly seem to come down to the think Chuck and Rob are talking about, the flukey nature of it, or what you guys are mainly saying, that it answers these odd questions and just IS and should remain just is.

We're all pretty confident in our positions, it would be interesting to hear more than Carlton's interview on PDGA Radio. I think I'll be playing head to head with him at the VTI, so I'll try to distract, I mean ask him about it just before a big putt there... :p

The biggest concern I have is the PDGA BoD getting overly involved in this. The Rules Committee has always done a great job before and I think they should be trusted to get it right again. Any major flaws will quickly become apparent and be corrected (though in truth I have never in 25 years ever seen a major flaw result from their work, other than the initial institution of the 2MR (big wink wink nudge nudge)).

Thanks Bruce. This is basically the "if you can reach it then it should not be considered relief, if you can't then it is a penalty throw worthy relief". I mean if Bruce's example is indisputable, then why on earth would Scott Stokely at 6'7" with a reach wll above 8' need to be penalized for a disc at rest at eye level? Clearly reach is not an issue for him.

I'd be kind of ok with this if:
1) You could word a rule to make climbing "course objects"(something not even planned to be defined in the upcoming updated rules) illegal.
2) There were no 2M stipulation. Either you can reach it with a supporting point on your lie (on the playing surface)(No Stroke) or you can't (Stroke). This would not always be an advantage to taller players as everyone thinks it would be. I can't readily find any substantiation for penalizing advantagious physical attributes in any other major sports, can you?

I'm not sure about the use of the new "Undesirable lie". But if you can't reach it, and that is the criteria for this new rule, then we don't need it to fit the "Undesirable Lie", it could stand on its own.

I wonder if there are other considerations that would take perhaps the rules committee to figure out, that would make this difficult to word and insert in our rules? So I am not opposed entirely to this idea, though I do believe it would basically change the way we play disc golf (but not in an entirely bad way, so I'm not dead set against it).

The Reach Rule, hmmm?

PS: I would definitely be opposed to setting some generic height for it that makes no sense for some players and certainly for any observers. I think everyone could fathom the "Reach Rule" however.

Oh come on guys! Quit it already!

Paul, I'll vouch for Chuck. He's ok, really! Just think of slightly older thinner better looking Chris Hysell and you should have some idea of what he's like... Oh and don't forget smarter, sorry Chuck.

(Not sure if Chuck is particularly looking for a voucher from me, but Paul ignores me anyway so no foul... I vouch for Chris as well... Now I know that had to hurt his street cred.)

[QUOTE]
My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M?

I think the way we treat relief in disc golf is by means of horizontal movement only.

It's not marking the lie that invokes the penalty -- it's getting the disc stuck up in the tree in the first place. (Likewise, it's not marking the lie that invokes the penalty for the lost disc. It's losing the disc in the first place.)

The true horizontal relief others want to add to the 2MR is away from the tree, along the playing surface.

[QUOTE]
My question to Paul, Pat and Bruce, if you want to answer it is, is marking your lie on the playing surface when the disc is at rest above 2M is �relief�, and if it is then what about when the disc is above the playing surface but below 2M?

I think the way we treat relief in disc golf is by means of horizontal movement only.

It's not marking the lie that invokes the penalty -- it's getting the disc stuck up in the tree in the first place. (Likewise, it's not marking the lie that invokes the penalty for the lost disc. It's losing the disc in the first place.)

The true horizontal relief others want to add to the 2MR is away from the tree, along the playing surface.



So is there a penalty for being above the playing surface but less than 2M up? If not why? And if you don't want the horizontal relief from the tree does that negate the need for the penalty (since one penalty is enough I'm guessing)?

Can someone please quote me so Paul can see this? Mild chest chuckle!

I think if you look at the actual posts, I never disparaged Ohio. My first post baited Magilla (who I actually know) in post #333932 on page 3 and said nothing about Ohio or to Paul. He first jumped on my back in post 333978 when he wasn't even involved. The worst thing I said in any post about Ohio was they weren't 'tearing it up on course growth' which is an accurate statement which I checked before posting. Every other statement I made about Ohio was accurate and never used the words stagnant or entrenched in reference to Ohio, just California to mess with Magilla who seemed to take it in stride as expected. All the defensive vitriol is coming from Ohio backers who weren't even impugned.



:p
:D

I think we don't penalize being one meter off the ground because you could play it from there. You could play it from the ground, but we let you pick it up, back up a few inches, stretch out to either side. Same with one meter. Since we are not going to let you climb the tree, you really can't play a disc that is 3 meters above the ground whee it lies. Somewhere between 2 meters and 3 meters it becomes unplayable for everyone if we are going to disallow tree climbing.

It might have made more sense to allow as much free vertical relief as we allow free horizontal lateral relief giving taller players the advantage, or to have fixed the amount of free lateral relief to a constant, so that the two rules were consistant that way. They are not. That inconsistency does not make a shot stuck 15 feet high at the top of vine covered honeysuckle bush as good as a shot at the base of the bush 15 feet from the basket.

Suppose two players drive. One player is 15 feet from the base of the basket where he came to rest and the other is 52.2 feet from the base of the basket. Before they putt for birdie the player who is 52.2 feet from the basket picks up his disc and walks it in 37.2 feet so that now they are both 15 feet away. And, he gets to do so without a penalty.

When you mark a disc on the ground 15 feet from the basket that was 50 feet up in a tree you do just this.

Even if we were to allow tree climbing, you could never have made that putt from 50 feet up in the tree, 52.2 feet from the basket.

I think wanting free relief in this situation is no different from wanting a disc that flies farther, baskets that catch more putts, and less head wind. Since everyone is getting the same break, this is no break at all. It just makes the game silly when you get 37.2 feet of free relief and a 15 foot putt for birdie when your drive did not put you anywhere near 15 feet from the basket with a birdie putt.

So, a disc stuck 52 feet high is worse than one stuck at 15 feet high, which is worse than one stuck at 8 feet high, which is worse than one stuck at 2 feet high. If that is y'alls value judgement, then how does the current 2m rule mirror these values? Y'all should should be advocating a new rule that proportionally penalizes discs based on the height they are stuck. Why this discontinuity at 2 meters?

james, i doubt you'll like this answer, but the simple reason is that you have to pick some place to draw the line.

if i throw all out and land 200 feet OB my mark is the same as someone who landed IB but slid on the wet grass and ended up 6" OB. but there's no cry to penalize my shot to a greater extent

So, a disc stuck 52 feet high is worse than one stuck at 15 feet high, which is worse than one stuck at 8 feet high, which is worse than one stuck at 2 feet high. If that is y'alls value judgement, then how does the current 2m rule mirror these values? Y'all should should be advocating a new rule that proportionally penalizes discs based on the height they are stuck. Why this discontinuity at 2 meters?



I don't know for sure, but maybe because 2 meters is fairly easy for most people to judge--because most people can reach 2 meters. When you are OB, you are OB. There isn't a 1xOB penalty and then a 2xOB penalty when you are "even more" OB. Why? I'm not sure but its not how golf is played. We don't make the penalty worse for being even further OB and we don't make the penalty more for being more above 2 meters.

Bruce,

It is not like I don�t understand the underlying first impression (particularly married to any foreknowledge of the 2MR) reasoning behind your �Reach� and �Relief� ideas concerning discs �well� above the playing surface, I do. And I think there would be ways of making those ideas fit within our rules of play. Here are my thoughts on it if you are interested.


I think we don't penalize being one meter off the ground because you could play it from there. You could play it from the ground, but we let you pick it up, back up a few inches, stretch out to either side. Same with one meter. Since we are not going to let you climb the tree, you really can't play a disc that is 3 meters above the ground whee it lies. Somewhere between 2 meters and 3 meters it becomes unplayable for everyone if we are going to disallow tree climbing.


So if you can release a shot above 2.8 meters, then a disc that comes to rest at 2.8 meters should be considered �playable�, right? Essentially you are saying that being able to reach a disc at rest above the playing surface should be the criteria for �playability�. However if a child or particularly short person cannot reach a disc below 2 meters you say that it should still be considered �playable� for them, correct?


It might have made more sense to allow as much free vertical relief as we allow free horizontal lateral relief giving taller players the advantage, or to have fixed the amount of free lateral relief to a constant, so that the two rules were consistant that way.They are not. That inconsistency does not make a shot stuck 15 feet high at the top of vine covered honeysuckle bush as good as a shot at the base of the bush 15 feet from the basket.


How is being able to reach (or not reach actually) equate to horizontal relief. If what you are suggesting were true, and a part of our rules, then if someone could reach their disc with one supporting point in bounds when their disc is at rest Out of Bounds then they would be allowed to move their lie in bounds with no penalty. Or with the 2 meter horizontal restriction, so as to not penalize children or short folk who can�t physically reach the disc in OB, they can still avoid a penalty like the people that are taller than 5�4�, correct?

Neither of these are elegant solutions in my opinion. What do other folks think?


Suppose two players drive. One player is 15 feet from the base of the basket where he came to rest and the other is 52.2 feet from the base of the basket. Before they putt for birdie the player who is 52.2 feet from the basket picks up his disc and walks it in 37.2 feet so that now they are both 15 feet away. And, he gets to do so without a penalty.


You are avoiding the fundamental PDGA rule of play known as your �Lie�. Here it is for your review. It is true no matter how far off the playing surface your disc is at rest. <font color="blue">806 GLOSSARY Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.</font> So when you mark you lie on the playing surface you are not really changing anything, according to our rules your lie was always right there on the playing surface below the disc at rest.


When you mark a disc on the ground 15 feet from the basket that was 50 feet up in a tree you do just this.


Again, you are ignoring a fundamental, extremely elegant and well thought out and long utilized rule called �Lie�. Besides, Bruce, what if you mark your lie on the ground 50 feet away from the basket that was 15 feet up in a tree right next to the basket? Is that fair or even the main issue here?


Even if we were to allow tree climbing, you could never have made that putt from 50 feet up in the tree, 52.2 feet from the basket.


I�m not sure why you are harping on this when our rules, concerning how to mark your lie on the playing surface when your disc is above the playing surface, are clear as day and not even a point of contention between even 2 meter rule supporters and detractors.

Marking your lie is not taking relief. If it were, I would be all for the �Reach Rule� and using Pythagorean Theory to move discs above the playing surface or Out of Bounds to �playable� playing surfaces. But it is not. I would be interested in hearing the exact (or as close as you can manage) wording that would need to be added to the rules to accomplish this though.

Do you want to make the definition of lie a point of contention? Do you want to change the definition? Seems to me that would actually encourage folks to start climbing trees rather than keep them out of it. That or you�d need another newer rule to try and keep them from climbing trees or reaching OB to move their lie IB seems to me.


I think wanting free relief in this situation is no different from wanting a disc that flies farther, baskets that catch more putts, and less head wind. Since everyone is getting the same break, this is no break at all. It just makes the game silly when you get 37.2 feet of free relief and a 15 foot putt for birdie when your drive did not put you anywhere near 15 feet from the basket with a birdie putt.


Now, you seem to be not only purposefully ignoring our rules concerning �Lie�, but also the rules we have for what constitutes relief and how we take it. Do you really think those need to be completely rewritten; or that the result if rewritten will be more elegant than what we currently have, even with or without the 2 meter rule? In addition you didn�t deal with the scenarios in which marking your lie actually moves you further from the pin.

Your conception of a new �Reach Rule� would involve (if the limit were 2 meters, horizontal or vertical):
A: A redefinition of Lie within our rules to be where the disc comes to rest rather than where on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest you mark your lie and proceed to play on.
B: If a disc is less than 2 meters from the Out of Bounds line then it can be marked in bounds with no penalty throw.
C: Even though anyone over 5�4� can reach a disc more than 2 meters OB or above the playing surface, it is still by Bruce�s rule �unreachable� or �unplayable�.
D: Potentially, discs at rest closer to the pin could be moved further away, just as likely as be moved closer.
E: Ignores the crystal clear difference between the location of a disc at rest and the actual, by rule, Lie of the disc. The �Lie� does not move closer or further from the pin.

I understand what you and Pat are saying. And it does seem, immediately, to make some sort of common sense. Where it fails, in my opinion, is in how it overly complicates our rules when our existing, understandable and elegant definition of �Lie� leaves no gaps for abuse.

And if in the opinion of certain TDs, Bruce, Craig, Magilla, etc it does leave gaps, or they agree with your concepts of �reach� and �relief�, then even without the 2 meter rule and within existing PDGA Rules of Play, they have a variety of methods to deal with their �personal take� on the situations and enforce penalties for what �they deem� penalty worthy restricted areas on �their courses� during �their events�.

I have not seen convincing arguments presented for why this �thought process� and �personal preference� needs to be forced, by rule, on ALL TDs and Course Designers. Do we force all sidewalks to be handled in a certain way? How about roads? Buildings? Areas of tall grass? Tee areas?

First you need to establish how vertical relief is identical to horizontal relief, or that vertical relief even exists, within our rules. I don't envey you this challenge. The leap involved, even though you think it common sense, is not so elegant to write down and enforce. But my issue is not with enforcement of it if you believe as Bruce, Pat, Paul and Craig do; it is with enforcement of it, when you believe as the PDGA Rules Committee, Chuck, Rob, Paul, James and I do that it is not warranted. This perhaps is the ultimate point of contention. One from which any "real" compromise will have to be made. I am willing to try, but it isn't going to be easy (obviously).

We don't make the penalty worse for being even further OB



I understand, but then why make arguments that a disc stuck at 52 feet is worse than one at 2 feet. It all boils down to this "convention" that 2m is the magic threshold. Fine, I think it is a completely unnecessary threshold, others don't. However, if someone admits that it is merely "convention," it's somewhat disingenuous to also maintain/justify the rule by saying it is necessary because discs stuck at 52 feet are worse than ones stuck at 2 feet.

I'm not trying to be a debater turd, I'm just trying to get the pro 2m crowd to clearly flesh out and communicate the need for the rule, mainly as a starting point for a useful discussion. Most of what I read seems to boil down to "cause we need to punish bad shots." That reason is clear and understandable. Are there others?

Most of what I read seems to boil down to "cause we need to punish bad shots." That reason is clear and understandable. Are there others?

actually, that about sums it up.

Most of what I read seems to boil down to "cause we need to punish bad shots." That reason is clear and understandable. Are there others?

actually, that about sums it up.



So what is a bad shot then Pat?
One that hits a tree 2.01 meters up and sticks?
One that hits 50 feet up and doesn't stick?
One that completely avoids all trees and skips up into a bush 5 feet from the pin and sticks 2 meters up?
One 2.01 meters above the playing surface?
1.99 meters above the playing surface?
Or are elevation concerns irrelevant according to our rule that defines lie and marking your lie?

Bad shot simply is not the domain of the 2 meter rule, it is the singular domain of Out of Bounds. And the 2 meter rule is clearly a very different animal than Out of Bounds.

If it weren't, we would have nothing left to discuss on this topic would we?

Well, if that is the sole reason, and the rules committee says something like this: "we believe most of those shots are already "penalized," the application of the rule (ie sticking above 2m) is too random to warrant such a penalty, and the threshold appears arbitrary. While we understand the need to punish bad shots, the reasons listed above outweigh this rule's usefulness to achieve the end of punishing bad shots."

IMO, the rebuttal above certainly has enough substance and weight to counteract the need for the 2m rule. Short of being a convincing rebuttal, it seems like a viable view at least; one with enough substance to at least temper the outrage that emanates from many of the 2M supporters.

Since the outrage continues, I conclude that the supporters must have other reasons for retention of the 2m rule.

we don't penalize being one meter off the ground because you could play it from there. You could play it from the ground, but we let you pick it up, back up a few inches, stretch out to either side. Same with one meter.



okay, so your discs drops in a small hole and is 1 meter below the ground upon where you are standing and looking down from at a 45 degree angle. Do you get a penalty because you can't play it from the lie?

it seems to me the 2 meter rule is awkward and what issues it seeks to address would be better addressed in the OB section of the rule book

Well, if that is the sole reason, and the rules committee says something like this: "we believe most of those shots are already "penalized,"...

no need to go any further than that, because the premise that sticking in a tree is "penalty enough" is incorrect. sometimes its true, but just as frequently its not! and you are trying to get rid of inconsistancy, right?

now if they say "we believe a onestroke penalty is enough, and a drop below the disc frequently results in a double penalty therefore we henceforth shall provide relief from the tree..." then you would be on to something.

Most of what I read seems to boil down to "cause we need to punish bad shots." That reason is clear and understandable. Are there others?

actually, that about sums it up.



So what is a bad shot then Pat?
One that hits a tree 2.01 meters up and sticks?
One that hits 50 feet up and doesn't stick?
One that completely avoids all trees and skips up into a bush 5 feet from the pin and sticks 2 meters up?
One 2.01 meters above the playing surface?
1.99 meters above the playing surface?
Or are elevation concerns irrelevant according to our rule that defines lie and marking your lie?

Bad shot simply is not the domain of the 2 meter rule, it is the singular domain of Out of Bounds. And the 2 meter rule is clearly a very different animal than Out of Bounds.

If it weren't, we would have nothing left to discuss on this topic would we?



excellent questions.

Bad shot simply is not the domain of the 2 meter rule, it is the singular domain of Out of Bounds. And the 2 meter rule is clearly a very different animal than Out of Bounds.

If it weren't, we would have nothing left to discuss on this topic would we?



Pat, Craig, Bruce, Paul (via Rob's quote)? Well?

I'm also wondering if you guys would be fine if our rules were changed to make everything more than 2 meter above the playing surface Out of Bounds? And relief were added that you mark it below (so long as that is in bounds), add a throw, get a meters relief from that point on the playing surface and play on?

Now except for it's mandatory nature and the type of relief allowed, what is the difference between that and what I propose?

The difference being the situation I described above.
Using OB, 3 people saw the same thing but came up with 3 different places that the disc could be marked. (please read paragraph 1 again)
2MR leaves no doubt on where the disc is to be marked and played from.

Another gray area for aerial OB above 2m would be this.
Dogleg left 400' hole. 3 players toss down the middle of the fairway with their discs coming to rest right at the corner (approximately 275' from the tee). The 4th cuts the corner going up and over the trees and looks like it's headed toward the direction of the basket. When the group arrives to where the discs are located they find the players disc who cut the corner on the other side of the fairway stuck 15' up in a tree but only 30' closer to the basket than the 3 in the fairway. Not only are they asking themself how did it get there but "where to mark the disc perpendicular to the OB line?"
Aerial OB's especially at long distances from where the throw originated leave too much room for error.
2MR does not.

Hey Nick, you like the idea of a penalty for anything above 2m? just add some relief ? I do too. Let's add it to the 2MR.

Mike

Maybe it should say "we need to punish bad results." Some bad shots get lucky and you end up with a good result. And some good shots get unlucky and you end up with a bad result. If where your disc ends up real bad, it may require a penalty to get it to where it should next be played from. IMHO

i think that sounds better. i think bruce has it right too and if i ever vote in a pdga election you can bet he'll get my vote for his views on this profoundly important issue. i think the 2mr adds an added dimension to our game...extra flavor...that's it. i think that's enough reason to keep it.

Aerial OB's especially at long distances from where the throw originated leave too much room for error.




They don't, actually. At least, not the way Nick is suggesting. By enforcing throw and distance penalty, there is no gray area. You just walk your happy arse back to the tee, hopefully having learned something.

The difference being the situation I described above.
Using OB, 3 people saw the same thing but came up with 3 different places that the disc could be marked. (please read paragraph 1 again)


Same thing happens all the time with regular OB Mike. The group decides with the benefit of the doubt going in the throwers favor. It�s not like this is something new.


2MR leaves no doubt on where the disc is to be marked and played from.


True, but the 2MR is NOT Out of Bounds, so the comparison between how they deal with marking lies is not valid and this is why: If the disc were out of bounds and the correct next lie is 100 feet back down the fairway, then marking it directly below would be A LOT LESS, not more, accurate. Do you see how this is apples and oranges to compare now? You are saying it is more accurate according to the 2MR does not make it less accurate according to the Out of Bounds Rule, they are not comparable in that way.


Another gray area for aerial OB above 2m would be this.


I�m not conceding that the first point proves a gray area, and it looks at a glance to be identical to your first idea, but I�ll play ball.


Dogleg left 400' hole. 3 players toss down the middle of the fairway with their discs coming to rest right at the corner (approximately 275' from the tee). The 4th cuts the corner going up and over the trees and looks like it's headed toward the direction of the basket. When the group arrives to where the discs are located they find the players disc who cut the corner on the other side of the fairway stuck 15' up in a tree but only 30' closer to the basket than the 3 in the fairway. Not only are they asking themself how did it get there but "where to mark the disc perpendicular to the OB line?"
Aerial OB's especially at long distances from where the throw originated leave too much room for error. 2MR does not.


First, give me a collect call the next time this happens. Secondly they do it the same way as if they found the disc 8 feet from the shore of an Out of Bounds Pond. And as I pointed out in another post, if a TD or Course Designer knows that there is a very strong likelihood of something like this happening often, then they would do well (whether aerial OB or surface) to provide a drop zone (or like hole 11 at Seneca have about 8 spotters down there).
And again, comparing the accuracy of marking a lie under the 2MR verses under the Out of Bounds is a nonsequator.


Hey Nick, you like the idea of a penalty for anything above 2m? just add some relief ? I do too. Let's add it to the 2MR.


I am fine with the idea of a TD or Course Designer being able to designate their course or part as OB above 2 meters. They then have the choice of 3 (get that THREE) different kinds of relief to offer. What I am not fine with is you, Craig, Paul, Pat, Bruce, Rhett or anyone else telling EVERY other TD or Course Designer where they should put their Out of Bounds. And that is what the mandatory 2MR does. And that just isn�t cool, irregardless of the other problems with the 2MR (which are plentiful).


i think that sounds better. i think bruce has it right too and if i ever vote in a pdga election you can bet he'll get my vote for his views on this profoundly important issue. i think the 2mr adds an added dimension to our game...extra flavor...that's it. i think that's enough reason to keep it.



Good one Kev. Almost had me there.

I like the stroke and distance for OB, even if it is the only option. As it is there are 3 options. There is a gray area in determining where a disc passed over and into an OB area at long distances from where the throw originated.

Mike

because the premise that sticking in a tree is "penalty enough" is incorrect. sometimes its true, but just as frequently its not!


I'm way too tired to argue this point. Suffice it to say, that has hardly been my experience. Anyways, it seems viable to me and certainly as viable as the alternative "premise." Therefore, all this outrage and indignation seems way out of proportion to the weight of each argument. Couple their double penalty argument with the inequity created by the apparent randomness of when the rule is applied and the complete elimination seems reasonable.

I like the stroke and distance for OB, even if it is the only option. As it is there are 3 options. There is a gray area in determining where a disc passed over and into an OB area at long distances from where the throw originated.

Mike



Perhaps Mike, but that is not a gray area that the 2MR has anything to do with or resolves FOR the Out of Bounds. I agree that "last place in bounds" should go (too ;) ).

Nick

too crappy of a throw to treat like my good throw the same distance away from the basket


If you freaking hit a tree at five feet and stick or a twenty feet and dribble down to five feet, it is just as crappy as the one that stuck at twenty. With a few exceptions that can easily be covered by the TD, NO ONE throws at a freaking tree. If they hit it, it was crappy, no matter what height!

unless you use it as a backstop without fear because there is no negative consequence to sticking.

yes, it will (already does) happen.

The point is that it did happen when the 2MR rule was in effect and will continue to happen without the 2MR rule in effect.

Trees are 80% air and there is a newrly equal chance that the trees will not serve as a perfect backstop whether the disc hangs above 2MR or not.

Risking a bad kick or the loss of the disc for the rest of the round should be enough risk to calculate against the rewards.

The rare occasion that can easily be addressed by the TD saying "the 2m rule is in effect on holes such and such.

By the way, in 2005, I have witnessed four 2+ meter sticks. Three of them were off the tee and in the shiite way closer to the tee than the basket. The forth was probably 25 feet from the basket in the middle of a gigantic shrub and stuck at 6' 9". The team ended up one stroke out of the money and the thrower was hardly throwing to land his shot in the middle of the shrub, but I'm sure his throw was more crappy than all the ones that hit the same shrub and tumbled down to the ground. :p

gary, you should know better than that.

look people, unless a tree consists of one branch, then a tree hit will results in lots of impacts. if the directional change is random, as you all claim and i agree, then the resulting lie will not be much different! in other words the pinball effect of smashing into trees tends to cancel itself out in terms of where the disc ends up.

the most important thing y'all are forgetting is that the ramifications of the no-2MR change with the position of the lie relative to the pin!

the one-size-fits-all solution of eliminating the rule does NOT work and prostletizing for it indicates an unwillingness to recognize that basic FACT.

You say,

the one-size-fits-all solution of eliminating the rule does NOT work and prostletizing for it indicates an unwillingness to recognize that basic FACT.



We say, the one-size-fits-all nature of the existing rule is unnecessary and overly punitive. I don't think the small percentage of shots that you're talking about justifies the continuation of the rule. It definitely justifies some discussion on how to handle those situations, but I find it inadequate to penalize players across the board.

I appreciate your input Nick.
I was just trying to show how the OB has its own flaws. I may have been comparing apples to oranges only because earlier in this thread others were trying to justify how oranges taste better when the recipe calls for apples. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And by the way I'm not telling any TD or Course Designer where to put their OB's. The mandatory 2MR doesn't either. That is comparing apples to oranges. :D

i think that sounds better. i think bruce has it right too and if i ever vote in a pdga election you can bet he'll get my vote for his views on this profoundly important issue. i think the 2mr adds an added dimension to our game...extra flavor...that's it. i think that's enough reason to keep it.

Of course, I won't be on the ballot, but I will appreciate the nod. :D

I appreciate your input Nick.
I was just trying to show how the OB has its own flaws. I may have been comparing apples to oranges only because earlier in this thread others were trying to justify how oranges taste better when the recipe calls for apples. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And by the way I'm not telling any TD or Course Designer where to put their OB's. The mandatory 2MR doesn't either. That is comparing apples to oranges. :D



Fair enough Mike. And pretty quick. But I get the gist of what you are saying as I'm guessing you get what I am saying.

So as to be clear, you are saying that you prefer the mandatory nature of the 2MR to the option TD's or Course Designer Designated OB (if that were used specifically to replace the 2MR), right?

Just to further answer your questions about how to mark a lie when there are stacked surfaces of differing in bounds/out of bounds, check out this link Select Bridge Over OB (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php)

the most important thing y'all are forgetting is that the ramifications of the no-2MR change with the position of the lie relative to the pin!



C'mon Pat, we're doing better here, don't say something like this! I have specifically addressed your concern multiple times and dealt with the ramification at length, probably in more detail than you have even offered so far. You just disagree with my conclusion. Which doesn't mean that I am "forgetting" the ramifications; it means I have a different solution in mind in dealing with them than you do.

I'll go as far as saying that you could be right about areas around the pin needing aerial protection, I just am not ready to say that that protection should be mandatory and further that the 2MR is not the best rule to use in creating this aerial protection.

If it is, if you Pat Brenner are correct, I believe that it will become clear to TDs and Course Designers very very quickly, and I trust them to take appropriate action. If not in that very event, certainly within the next couple events. I doubt that this situation you speak of is more widespread than a couple holes per course average, and if that is true, OB should be a greater deterent to aiming at those trees than the 2MR (I hope that you can agree with me on that, separate from the rest of this discussion).

look people, unless a tree consists of one branch, then a tree hit will results in lots of impacts. if the directional change is random, as you all claim and i agree, then the resulting lie will not be much different! in other words the pinball effect of smashing into trees tends to cancel itself out in terms of where the disc ends up.



<font color="blue"> You may have done the math, but apparently you've misunderstood it: even though the sum total of infinite shots distributed randomly is zero, the individual deflection distance for any single disc is much larger than zero and completely variable as to which direction the disc gets deflected -- iow, it's a crap shoot </font>


the one-size-fits-all solution of eliminating the rule does NOT work and prostletizing for it indicates an unwillingness to recognize that basic FACT.



<font color="blue"> You've jumped to a false conclusion regarding the ramifications of the elimination of the 2 meter rule. There are plenty of options left to address the scenario which the 2 meter rule formerly attempted to address and only worked successfully less than ten percent of the time. It's the 2 meter rule that was a one-size-unnecessarily-forced-upon-all solution -- hence the PDGA Rules Committee recommendation to eliminate it as normal play. </font>

i think that sounds better. i think bruce has it right too and if i ever vote in a pdga election you can bet he'll get my vote for his views on this profoundly important issue. i think the 2mr adds an added dimension to our game...extra flavor...that's it. i think that's enough reason to keep it.

Of course, I won't be on the ballot, but I will appreciate the nod. :D



Oh mercy! Is that the sun setting or Bruces dome on the horizon? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

Bruce's sun set three weeks ago.

Golly, Gee, Mr. Wizard! I seem to have stumbled upon yet another thread on the 2MR! Must be alot of y'all stickin' yer plastic in the trees! :D

What's the problem :confused: If yer 2 meters above the surface, it will cost you a "throw" (that's for you,Nick) :) Stay outta the trees and you don't get a penalty! It's that simple! :cool:

Now, it's gonna be a sunny 78 degrees here in good ol' Texas today, so I'm gonna play discgolf and let you "snowbounders" hash this out. :D:D

*So as to be clear, you are saying that you prefer the mandatory nature of the 2MR to the option TD's or Course Designer Designated OB (if that were used specifically to replace the 2MR), right?*

Yes Nick you are correct.
My problem with using OB instead of 2MR is that OB has too much room for error when trying to determine where a disc entered the OB area. OB requires one to make a judgement call on where a disc entered an OB area which then starts the process of where the mark the approximate starting point to take 1m relief "perpendicular" to entering that area. Taking relief perpendicular to where the disc entered OB above 2m could place a player behind, beside or in front of a tree the disc was found in.
Did a disc enter the tree from behind, beside or bounce off something backwards to its current resting area? Could it have rolled up the tree to its resting area?

2MR doesn't care how the disc made it to the resting place above 2m. Just find it and mark directly below. It is far more accurate and leaves no judgement call on where ones next lie will be. It does not require one to see the entire flight of a disc from release to resting area.

Boundry lines don't care if a disc is one millimeter inside the safe area (no added stroke) or one millimeter outside the safe area (added stroke). It does not matter if we are talking about OB or 2MR. Boundry lines care little about 2 throws at rest seperated by one inch. They don't judge what is a good or bad throw. They don't care about luck. They are used as reference to determine where the next throw will be played from, is there any relief and if any penalty throws are added to the score.

Mike

Thanks for the word of advice, but I have only stuck in a tree above 2M once in a year and 3 months.

And the 2MR had been waived by the TD that one time I did... :o;) :D

Hi Mike,

Hope you got to get out and play some golf today. I won my first Masters event ever today!

I hear and understand your concern Mike, though I do not share it (yet).

OBs and certainly 2MR violations are extremely rare really; and I would openly contend that any hole design were they were regular features (where folks went OB or stuck 2M up in trees and bushes) are very poorly designed holes. (Hmmm, I guess that throws a monkey wrench in my contention that Hole 11 at Seneca is one of the best designed holes ever. OB concern not 2MR...)

In any case, a TD or Course Designer can certainly handle any situation within existing rules (and without the 2MR) and here briefly is why:

If there is a very high probability that a disc will log in a tree or group of trees on a hole (at any height), and those trees were designated OB (but the area beneath them not), and that it would be difficult to determine where the disc first entered the Out of Bounds during competitive play, this would very quickly come to the attention of the players and the tournament director, don�t you think?

So how could the TD deal with it? What are the existing possibilities?
A) Redesign the hole so it is not as difficult to judge, or happens next to never.
B) Remove the OB designation, so that just being stopped by the trees is penalty enough.
C) Limit options for this rare type of hole to a drop zone or throw and distance so that all that need be determined is the status of the disc as OB or not.

Something for you to consider in recollection is this: Consider your home course. Think of a typical round there. Count in your head the number of OBs there. Count the number of high potential areas for a 2MR violation. Count the number of OBs for which you take careful note before you throw. Now Count the number of times you take careful note of 2MR hazards before you throw. Also count how many times you throw the same shot even with the high 2MR violation chance looming. I am confident that not only is the OB more present in you thinking and strategy, but that the highly likely 2MR hazard spots are far fewer than you think. Moreover that if those elevated risk areas were designated as OB areas that you would think about them far more often and included them in your strategizing far more than you ever have nearly ANY 2MR hazard you can think of.

Not trying to be clever here.

Regards,
Nick

Pat I see that you are starting to draw correlations and conclusions based on your poll. No problem there. But you do seem to be confusing the words �mandatory� with � consistently applied�. Good course design addresses protection of course obstacles and fair play although supported by our rules of play really can only be protected by conscientious application of them by TD and player. Our rules of play are better when they allow some leeway in application to course design to assure �fairness� is possible. You can�t mandate fairness through a rule such as the 2MR; in fact I think just the opposite has been made very clear; that the 2MR potentially creates more unfair situations than it avoids, and this primarily due to its mandatory nature and not even necessarily to it�s individual application on a per situation basis.

So if I were to answer your poll question I would say that I want consistently applied rules too, but that does not mean that I want mandatory designations of hazards at all courses (such as all paths are OB, all bridges are OB, all tee pads are OB, all water is OB, or that everything everywhere more than 2M above the playing surface is a one throw penalty with no relief). Polls are tough to write, conclusions and correlations are even harder to draw from them. Still they are interesting.

Man! Pat, do you really believe the garbage you are defending in your Poll thread? Amazing what some folks can convince themselves of when properly motivated...

"The 2MR is based on the sweetspot of a basket."

PULL EAZE!!! :p

Hmm.

I've come up with an interesting amalgamation of concepts by reading this thread while approximately half conscious and partly watching TV. I'm not saying these ideas are held by the same groups of people; I honestly can't remember. But it seems an interesting combination to me.

The concept has been discussed, although I'm not sure anyone ever actually seriously advocated it, of letting people climb trees and throw from in them rather than marking underneath and taking a penalty.

It has been suggested that a stroke penalty plus the penalty of taking the next shot from stuck in a tree with thick low branches is unfair.

It has also been suggested that it is also unfair to consider a disc way up in a tree to be as good a shot as one at the base (the examples of this sort are often followed by discussions regarding whether the shot at the base hit the tree and fell or just landed therewithout arboreal collisions or arguments revolving around the arbitrary nature of the two meter cutoff).

At least one person has advocated a stroke penalty and relief, more or less as a solution to the dilemma presented by the two preceding problems.

I think it could be argued that it is USUALLY not entirely safe to climb into a tree and throw from it (not that I am suggesting this as a viable alternative necessarily, merely as a comparative one).


803.05 UNSAFE LIE
A. A player may, by adding one penalty throw, declare his or her lie to be an unsafe lie and relocate to a new lie that is no closer to the hole and within five meters of the unsafe lie. Or, if the player cannot find a lie that suits him or her within five meters of the unsafe lie, the player may, with two penalty throws, relocate to any new lie on the fairway of the hole in play that is no closer to the hole than the unsafe lie.



Got me thinking about making a disc two meters above the playing surface a mandatorily unsafe lie.

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a good idea, although I think it is an interesting perspective to consider. It's a little more lenient than two meters plus LOP relief, though still harsh enough that I don't think it would encourage using trees as backstops much more than the 2m+LOP version. Depending on how you look at it, it could be considered to have the Trees-As-OB solution's benefit of not adding a separate rule...or it could be considered more complicated than adding a separate rule because it adds an arbitrary condition to an existing one.

I think now I'll go try to find that thread I vaguely recollect regarding the "Unsafe vs. Undesirable" question or whatever it was and see if that's any less muddled. I have a tendency to believe I can make decent progress from anywhere, but it would be interesting to know how that discussion wound up regardless.

Hi Bob,

I think you have a good handle on the issue and your idea is better than most I've seen, though I would make it 3M since likely no one could reach it, where as 2M can be reached by anyone over the height of 5'4". Besides, what keeps us out of the trees is not the 2MR, it is our definition of "Lie".

The thing is that there is already a well established, written and understood rule that permits TDs and Course Designers to penalize folks for having a disc come to rest in a restricted area; Out of Bounds.

There are no "Blanket" Out of Bounds course objects (paths, water, roads, buildings, etc), they must be designated OB by the TD or Course Designer in order to be OB. I find no compelling substantiation for a separate "blanket" rule to restrict a specific area because as discussed in detail, such a rule does not make "blanket" sense in every situation (same with OB).

Who is in the best position to know when and how much protection and penalty a restricted area should have?

The TD or Course Designer is in that position.

If it makes sense for the entire course, then they can. If just for 2 trees, great. If not at all, there you have it. Any situation, such as trees around the pin, can easily and quickly be identified and addressed.

The 2M rule is like using a Grenade Launcher to punish your dog, when a stern word would do.

Best Regards,
Nick Kight

sandalman
Shule Tool
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 2958
Loc: arlington, tx Re: 2 Meter for 2006 [Re: Chuck Kennedy]
#296426 - 01/14/05 09:54 PM Edit Reply Quote
thanks for the option of voting Yes AND No... i did because i am totally opposed to removing it for within 10M, but totally support removing it for outside of that range.




sandalman
Shule Tool
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 2958
Loc: arlington, tx Re: Does getting rid of the two meter rule help big arms? [Re: robj]
#276618 - 12/11/04 09:48 PM Edit Reply Quote
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.




sandalman
Shule Tool
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 2958
Loc: arlington, tx Re: Does getting rid of the two meter rule help big arms? [Re: Chuck Kennedy]
#276458 - 12/10/04 09:17 PM Edit Reply Quote
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.

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 fairway stick is not excessively penalized, and the over basket stick is not unnecessarily rewarded. it does not obsolete any course designs.



I�d just like to thank Pat Brenner �Sandalman� for his agreeing with me, at least in part, well 95% of the course, that the 2 Meter Rule is excessively penalizing, double jeopardy, being under the tree is penalty enough, and that Pat �totally support removing it for outside of that range (10M)�.

Thanks Pat, for admitting when you are wrong and being able to work towards the greater good.

The 2MR will not be eliminated in 2006. It will become a hazard option listed in the definitions section of the new rulebook which TDs and Course Designers can "choose" to use for their entire course, individual holes or course objects.

It is not being eliminated. It will be an option.

If (and when) the 2MR is actually eliminated, TDs and Course Designers will still have the superior (IMO) Out of Bounds Rule to employ here and there to more effectively(IMO) discourage players from throwing into certain areas on their course.

This is better than the PDGA telling ALL TDs and Course Designers EVERYWHERE how to design their courses.

DD:

This might have been said before but: We could have a compromise position and say that the 2M rule only applies in the 10 meter putting circle. This is where the lie tends to be moved toward the target instead of mostly laterally on the fairway. Fairway trees are double penalties, and 10 meter trees are not. The canopy could be included as part of the penalty area so that the call is easy. In other words, if the trunk is in the 10 meter circle, the whole tree is ob. To make it even harsher around the basket, there could be a drop zone plus a penalty.



Yes, this has been discussed in detail. The question I have is this:

If sticking above 2 meters within 10 meters of a certain pin placement ACTUALLY IS an issue on specific holes, then doesn't it make sense to allow the TD or Course Designer to designate that (OR ANY) area as having the 2MR in effect or better yet that the area above 2M (or 1M) as Out of Bounds?

Why have a mandatory hazard for every hole everywhere, when it may or may not be necessary and some folks feel certain that it is not necessary at all anytime anywhere.

Are all sidewalks OB?
All streams?
All standing water?
All bridges?
Why should all things above 2M be a hazard then?

To completely leave the option up to the TD doesn't work for me. Players need to make certain assumptions about the rules of play. If a TD decides to call any random tree OB, each player would have to know ahead of time which trees are or are not OB. If instead, the 10 meter trees would be assumed OB, and the only other trees that could be optional OB trees would be those with canopies extending over the 10 meter circle that have trunks outside the circle. Further, those "extra" OB trees would have to be marked. Players would then only have to assume that sticking in trees in or next to the green are extra hazardous.



I disagree. Do players need to know random OB areas around the course? Absolutely! Knowing whether a certain tree was OB or not would be no different?

Nor would the time tested and honored method of TDs and Course Designers determining which areas should be restricted and which ones not? There is nothing "Random" about it. They are quite "Careful" and "Deliberate" and have "Good Reasons" for the areas they mark as restricted (OB or Casual).

If any restricted area is controversial or confusing it will not remain so for long by virtue of complaint/customer service process.

Basically, I do not accept the premise that it is an advantage to stick above 2M within 10M of the pin. If you do, and you are a course designer or tournament director, then by all means make the area above it restricted, just don't FORCE your opinion on every other course designer and td everywhere else around the world. It's swatting a fly with a WMD.

tk:

I happen to disagree with RobJ here. I don't want to encourage anyone, be it opponent, friend, aquaintance, or otherwise, to throw into trees. They are one of the few effective obstacles that we have, and IMO, promoting any level of increased damage to them is detrimental to the overall health and beauty of the course.



Then why has the 2MR been such an abysmal failure at protecting one of the few effective obstacles that we have?

Now forcing Designers and Course Designers (as well as Players) to consciously demark and recognize those obstacles worth REALLY protecting as restricted areas? Saying all of them are, is the same as saying none of them are in the minds of strategizing players; instead of being a flashing red light of warning, they just blend in with the rest of the course and turn into FUBAR trees. And you know this is 100% true and accurate.

This is all THEORETICAL though. Why don�t you play a couple tournaments or practice rounds without it, or with just key trees with 2MR or OB, and then tell us your ACTUAL experience with it?

But, if you really want to protect trees, the 2 meter rule is ineffective since it applies to a very small percentage of throws which strike trees.


The 2MR discourages the thrower from throwing recklessly into trees. It doesn't matter if the disc sticks in the tree or not -- the threat of a penalty is enough to make a thrower think twice.


Prove it. The bounty of FUBAR trees around the world on disc golf courses should attest to the contrary. I have never given a tree a second thought as concerns the 2MR until that very rare instance where my disc sticks above 2 meters.


If you truly care about trees you will prefer to make them OB as opposed to having a 2 meter rule.


You just disagreed the 2MR protects trees because only a few discs stick above 2 meters, but you think OB will somehow do a better job than 2MR in protecting trees? How? The discs aren't going to stick in trees to a greater degree just because the OB rule replaces the 2MR. So how is it that you think the OB rule is more protective?


I always take OB into account, particularly when it has been specifically pointed out to me by the Tournament Director and on the Tee Sign, this in direct contrast to the 2MR. OB simply IS more protective, don�t take my word for it, next time you play pick a particularly crucial tree on a fairway, one that forces you to go around it above 2M, and imagine it and the area immediately below it is Out of Bounds.

Now tell me you are not more likely to try to avoid it or that it is not more centered in your mind and approach to the hole, and that therefore it is not BETTER protected?

Tell me truthfully.

PB:
so a shot that traverses a tight narrow fairway, lands 10' from the basket and slides another 10' to come to rest under a tree that is declared OB is a crappy shot worthy of a penalty???


(look both ways, shrug) Yes.

well, i guess if your logic allows you to thing a shot stuck 40' up is as good as one skillfully placed on the ground, then you can believe that also.


It's not a matter of equating a shot that comes to rest 2.01M up is as �good� as one that comes to rest one centimeter lower; it is a matter of one being �Out of Bounds� and the other �Not Being Out of Bounds�.
It would be encouraging if you could acknowledge that marking your lie on the playing surface below a disc at rest is not by rule or reality relief, but that would essentially put an end to your endless squirmings and gyrations.

you crack me up.


I like to see you can enjoy yourself; it's a good sign. Maybe some semblance of thoughtfulness will be next. One can hope...