So, I am going to raise a hypothetical question to see if I can start a little discourse about the possible change in the 2 meter rule. Let us say that Johnny Parplay throws a thumber that ends up in a tree, about 60 feet up. Too high to reach with an extension pole, embedded enough that no water bottle, rock or limb can knock it down. Johnny, says, "Oh well, TD said no 2 meter rule." Johnny marks his lie and putts the disc.

When the scores are called, one of the players argues, "He did not retrieve his disc, therefore it is lost", a penalty is called. Technically, the definition of lost includes the inability to retrieve. For instance "Johnny saw the disc up in the tree, but he lost it from his bag during the rest of the round." The rule for a lost disc states that if a disc cannot be 'located' it is lost. My next question would then be, how do you know that you have 'located' your disc? At sixty feet it looks like your Starfire, it has the right stamp, but unless you can see your unique mark, you don't KNOW it is your disc. We know that people can get confused about their disc, even when it is on the ground and they have picked it up. There is a rule for playing from the wrong lie, because it happens.

Now before anyone says that a lost disc was not called for the current 2M rule, that is true because they are already being penalized. The same is true if a disc lands in a murky pond. It may be lost, but there is already a penalty.

Just asking a question, but if you can't get your disc down, within the time limit, should it be considered a lost disc? Please don't argue that you saw the disc the whole time and that you saw it get lodged in the tree. I have seen someone throw a disc into an open fairway and they played from the wrong lie. It happens.

lost disc. stroke. next.

: ) :

The question was already discussed on a previous 2M thread. I don't recall that a concensus was ever acheived. Without being able to retrieve the disc, positive identification is basically impossible.

Does benefit of doubt come into play in this case ?

if the guy threw an orange disc, and theres an orange disc up there, i'd give benefit of the doubt. if the color thrown and the color up there were not certainly a match, i'd be less inclined to quickly say "oh thats yours".

but wait - remember, discs almost NEVER get stuck in trees. so the likelihood of more than one disc being stuck in a tree, or even in the same sector of the forest, at the same time, is so low this is not worth worrying about. RIGHT??? :eek:

Pat I would tend to agree and would give the benefit of the doubt, but I have seen people walk up to discs on the farway, same color, same type of disc, mark it and play and discover that it was not their disc. They had even picked it up and stuck it into their bag. If people make mistakes with the disc in hand, how can we assure the player doesn't make the mistake with a disc in the tree?

I have also seen discs stuck in trees, same color, same make, the location was marked the player putted out and then he went back and knocked the disc out of the tree. It was not his. Later, he went back and found his disc on the other side of the tree in some bushes. Since he knocked it out of the tree, he was penalized with wrong lie. If he had left it alone, he would not have been, according to the rule change.

It was a whole lot easier to give the benefit of doubt when the player is being stroked already. Next, if the disc color "changed" once a disc was spotted in the tree, who is to say the player is not cheating?


if the guy threw an orange disc, and theres an orange disc up there, i'd give benefit of the doubt. if the color thrown and the color up there were not certainly a match, i'd be less inclined to quickly say "oh thats yours".

but wait - remember, discs almost NEVER get stuck in trees. so the likelihood of more than one disc being stuck in a tree, or even in the same sector of the forest, at the same time, is so low this is not worth worrying about. RIGHT??? :eek:

i'm with ya one this.

my point was just that the anti-2MR zealots that brought you this ill-conceived rules change claim rather vehemently that disc do not really stick in trees. well, hardly ever. like REALLY REALLY rarely, dude. :D so if they're right, and they know they are, then the extreme rarity of one disc sticking would make it downright unfathomable that TWO discs would stick anywhere close together. which leads directly to the conclusion that if you see a disc in a tree, it's the one you threw!

If the tree is declared OB by the TD, there's no penalty for a lost disc. If the tree is IB and no 2 meter rule is in effect, and the player is confident s/he sees the disc thrown stuck high up in the tree -- benefit of the doubt goes to the player and they mark the disc below and play on without penalty (except for the natural penalty of being without one of the discs they planned on using).

if you're worried this player will beat you because they will repeat this on every hole, here are a couple of things to consider:

in one round they will lose 18 discs.

if they can beat you by throwing 60 feet off target then you might want to practice rather than lobby for the retention of the 2 meter rule

Robj,

I am not concerned with the player beating me with a disc stuck in a tree. I am only asking a question. If I saw the player throw the disc, which by rule I should be watching, and I feel relatively confident it is their disc, I would tend to lean toward benefit of the doubt. However, the point I made is still valid, how come I can see a disc and the player does not get stroked, by the rule change, even though we are not sure it is their disc, but if we cannot find the disc they are stroked? By rule, if the disc cannot be identified it must be LOST.

I will repeat myself; it is a whole lot easier to give a benefit of the doubt if the player is already penalized. Case in point, two players throw knife hyzers, at 180 feet both discs move out of sight and neither disc is seen coming down. I have played enough golf that I can guess about where the discs will be. I go walking up to the basket and look up. There is a disc 40 feet above the basket, stuck in the tree. We cannot dislodge the disc, but white discs were thrown by both players and there is a white disc in the tree. Player A marks below the disc and putts. By the old rule, he is stroked for being above 2M, but since he could not determine if the disc was his, he gets the benefit of the doubt and marks the disc under the disc in the tree. By the rule change, he gets an advantage. What does Player B do? I have seen a similar situation before. Since it was a stroke for lost disc or for being 2 M, the benefit went to both players. I would argue that since the disc is unidentified that both players would get benefit of the doubt and both would take a stroke and putt out. Without benefit of the doubt, both players would have to have considered their discs lost, they backup 120 feet from the pin to the last place seen, which is in some serious rough, they take a penalty stroke and try to fight their way back to the basket.

Granted this would be a rarity, but the fact is, if the ownership of the disc cannot be determined, it is technically a lost disc.

Lastly, before you get your panties in a wad, I just asked a question. Is it your intent to exploit a rule for cheating purposes? This foolish and unfair question was made to point out that discourse is the best way to hammer this out, not ranting.



If the tree is declared OB by the TD, there's no penalty for a lost disc. If the tree is IB and no 2 meter rule is in effect, and the player is confident s/he sees the disc thrown stuck high up in the tree -- benefit of the doubt goes to the player and they mark the disc below and play on without penalty (except for the natural penalty of being without one of the discs they planned on using).

if you're worried this player will beat you because they will repeat this on every hole, here are a couple of things to consider:

in one round they will lose 18 discs.

if they can beat you by throwing 60 feet off target then you might want to practice rather than lobby for the retention of the 2 meter rule

With the new rule change, what is to stop a player from throwing only green discs in the spring and summer and yellow in the fall and winter. Or even better, transparent discs all the time! Surely that splash of green in the top of the tree is my disc! Guess what, since 2 M in not considered "OB" I don't even have to get it verified. If you argue that it is not their disc, what rule are you going to bring into play? Lost disc? This just takes me back to my original point.

Once again, I am not fighting to keep the 2M rule, I am just pointing out some questions and concerns that will be brought up.

So far I have seen a stroke for lost disc, benefit of the doubt, and quit lobbying to keep the 2M rule!

Is it your intent to exploit a rule for cheating purposes?



not sure what you mean? exploiting the rules for cheating purposes warrants suspension from PDGA. the spirit of the rules should never be trumped by the letter of the rules imo. calling a suspended disc lost because it is irretrievable seems to me to go against the spirit of the elimination of the 2 meter rule -- it is certainly something the RC would do well to address prior to the printing of the 2006 Rules Book.


This foolish and unfair question was made to point out that discourse is the best way to hammer this out, not ranting.



i am so used to being hammered upon by sandalman because i agree with the Rules Committee that eliminating the 2 meter rule is best for our sport, i was not only addressing your question but was also trying to speak to those opposed to the elimination of the 2 meter rule. Do you favor or oppose its elimination?

Nick's suggestion that aerial OB replace the 2 meter rule option makes sense to me. It makes the rules more consistent to call it OB. It also gives the TD and course designer the same liberty they have with OB -- they can declare it where they want and not declare it where they don't.
(that way the disc that hits and sticks in a tree 400 feet away from the pin doesn't have to be double penalized -- hitting the tree is penalty enough).

i want my competition to feel free to throw at or above all the trees they want, and not only at a height of 1.99 meters or lower where they're nowhere near as likely to get deflected far off course :D

I don't have problems with keeping the 2M rule, but I can be convinced otherwise. I can see benefits and problems with or without the 2M rule. I mainly enjoy discussing.

I can see people misusing this rule. Just like other rules. Really, my question only applies if the disc cannot be retrieved. If it can be retrieved then I don't see an issue, but if you cannot retrieve the disc, how can it be identified? If it cannot be identified, how can it be anything else but lost?

I guess as a TD I might state that the 2M rule would not be enforced, unless you could not retrieve the disc. Then it would be either considered lost or the 2M rule would have to come into play.


i am so used to being hammered upon by sandalman because i agree with the Rules Committee that eliminating the 2 meter rule is best for our sport, i was not only addressing your question but was also trying to speak to those opposed to the elimination of the 2 meter rule. Do you favor or oppose its elimination?

Nick's suggestion that aerial OB replace the 2 meter rule option makes sense to me. It makes the rules more consistent to call it OB. It also gives the TD and course designer the same liberty they have with OB -- they can declare it where they want and not declare it where they don't.
(that way the disc that hits and sticks in a tree 400 feet away from the pin doesn't have to be double penalized -- hitting the tree is penalty enough).

i want my competition to feel free to throw at or above all the trees they want, and not only at a height of 1.99 meters or lower where they're nowhere near as likely to get deflected far off course :D

So, I am going to raise a hypothetical question to see if I can start a little discourse about the possible change in the 2 meter rule. Let us say that Johnny Parplay throws a thumber that ends up in a tree, about 60 feet up. Too high to reach with an extension pole, embedded enough that no water bottle, rock or limb can knock it down. Johnny, says, "Oh well, TD said no 2 meter rule." Johnny marks his lie and putts the disc.

When the scores are called, one of the players argues, "He did not retrieve his disc, therefore it is lost", a penalty is called.



<font color="blue"> Hi Jerry. Can you show me where in the Lost Disc rule it says that a disc must be �retrieved� in order not to be ruled a lost disc?


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

B. A player whose disc is declared lost, shall receive one penalty throw. The approximate lie for the player's next shot shall be marked in-bounds nearest the spot where the disc was last seen, as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official.

C. If it is discovered, prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player's disc that was declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have the penalty throw for the lost disc subtracted from his or her score.

D. A marker disc that is lost shall be replaced in its approximate lie as agreed to by a majority of the group or an official with no penalty.


<font color="blue">
I have read it many many many times and it doesn�t mention either of those terms or even concepts one time.

Identification is implied in the term "LOCATE", "retrieved" is not. �Retrieving� a disc has never been necessary for the determination of a disc. Even 350 feet out in the middle of an OB lake, 30 feet under water, neither identification nor retrieval is necessary for determining that the disc is Out of Bounds.

All that is called upon, by rule, to determine the identity of the owner of a disc is that all in the group agree that that the disc in question is the throwers.

You know where the benefit of the doubt goes, and you know the spirit of our rules would not try to stick it to the thrower. A player attempting to do so, to use the rules to inflict and unnecessary and malicious interpretation of an unrelated rule would be in jeopardy of violating our more vital courtesy rules. </font>

Technically, the definition of lost includes the inability to retrieve.

<font color="blue"> Please show me where.

If 1, 2, 3 or all members of a group, a spotter or official says that they know that the disc went into the lake, or that that is the players disc 40 feet up in the tree, then the inability to retrieve the disc is irrelevant to the situation and our rules, as well as to the ability to "Locate" the disc. </font>
For instance "Johnny saw the disc up in the tree, but he lost it from his bag during the rest of the round." The rule for a lost disc states that if a disc cannot be 'located' it is lost. My next question would then be, how do you know that you have 'located' your disc? At sixty feet it looks like your Starfire, it has the right stamp, but unless you can see your unique mark, you don't KNOW it is your disc. We know that people can get confused about their disc, even when it is on the ground and they have picked it up. There is a rule for playing from the wrong lie, because it happens.

<font color="blue"> This is a statement of fact, not to start a fight: Your premise is in error therefore your conclusion is equally erroneous Jerry. There is not and never has been any requirement that a disc be retrieved in order to be �located� or otherwise identified for other rulings. There just isn�t. It is a judgment call. And in 25 years of playing disc golf I can not recall a single time when the question has ever come up out on the course during a competition. If I anyone can positively identify it, even without retrieving it, that is good enough for me. So long as I do not have indisputable evidence to the contrary I will take that players word for it.</font>

Now before anyone says that a lost disc was not called for the current 2M rule, that is true because they are already being penalized. The same is true if a disc lands in a murky pond. It may be lost, but there is already a penalty.

<font color="blue"> That is not the point. The point is that it is �known� or �judged� by the player, players, group, spotter or official as being OB. Being lost is irrelevant to the ruling. It is either OB or it is not (period).</font>

Just asking a question, but if you can't get your disc down, within the time limit, should it be considered a lost disc?

<font color="blue"> Fair enough, and the answer is, by myself and I am certain the PDGA Rules Committee, an emphatic NO. And it goes back to you not being able to demonstrate where in our rules it says that a disc must be retrieved in order to be located or identified. If you can show me where it does I will gladly re-examine your argument.</font>

Please don't argue that you saw the disc the whole time and that you saw it get lodged in the tree. I have seen someone throw a disc into an open fairway and they played from the wrong lie. It happens.

<font color="blue"> Well, Jerr, then your really saying, �If the disc is not identified, then it is lost.� Not �If the disc is not retrieved, then it is lost.� Those are 2 very different and unrelated situations as concerns our rules.

The question to ask is this: What if the identity of the owner of the disc is in question, 40 feet up in a tree and unable (immediately) to be retrieved?

In other words, either only the player who threw the shot thinks the disc is his/hers, while the other players in the group think that it is not, what happens by �existing rules� in that case?

Answer this, and you will have your answer to its relation (or lack of relation) to the 2MR. </font>

That does bring up a good point.

If the group can't come to a concensus, or they decide the disc in the tree isn't the player's missing disc, the player can play provisional shots from both rulings. Mark the spot below the spotted disc without penalty, and also play with penalty from the spot the card decides in accordance with the lost disc ruling.

and what happens after the round when they drag the TD out to the tree only to discover the disc isnt up there at all anymore? was it there before? did it fall? did it get picked up by someone else? were they cheating? omigosh! the possibilities are endless!

I would think that the lost disc ruling would be the one that sticks unless the player can prove the disc is his.

There should be some legimate concern that the disc was not his if the card could not give him the benefit of the doubt during the round.

Nick,


A couple of things. There are two questions I am trying to get clarification on. The first is by definition, a disc stuck in a tree is considered lost if you cannot regain possession of it, see below definition. Secondly what occurs if you cannot make a positive definition of the disc. If the disc cannot be identified, you don't know that it is yours. If you can see your signature on it, I would say the second question is moot. On the other hand, if you cannot then you mark it and off you go. One very common definition of lost is to 'not have in your possession' and if the disc was not retrieved it was lost. I will go further to state that if the disc cannot be properly identified it is also lost. Now obviously, if it can be retrieved then it is not lost by the definition above. Sorry if I did not clarify that earlier.

As far as the disc being 350 feet out in the pond, lost does not come into play because there is a rule for OB. Unless the water is not OB then the next rule that would come into play would be lost disc. Two different rules, same result.



Identification is implied in the term "LOCATE", "retrieved" is not. �Retrieving� a disc has never been necessary for the determination of a disc. Even 350 feet out in the middle of an OB lake, 30 feet under water, neither identification nor retrieval is necessary for determining that the disc is Out of Bounds.





As to whether the group needs to agree if it is your disc or not, depends on the way the rules are written. If the 2M rule is omitted and the TD has not implemented it, then the group does not need to agree. As a matter of fact, I would say that the player can simply state it is his and go on. Unless a rule is created for determining an unrecoverable disc, the next closest rule would be 803.08 D for Out of Bounds, but since the 2 M rule is not applied, a majority decision is not required. There simply is no rule for this situation. Please identify a rule that says a majority decision is required. If it is the new rule then my question has been answered and I don't see a problem.




All that is called upon, by rule, to determine the identity of the owner of a disc is that all in the group agree that that the disc in question is the throwers.





You have not answered my question. How can you give the benefit of the doubt? The best I can do is if that disc cannot be identified the player lost the disc at the last seen site. Now we will stroke the player and give them some benefit on the lie, back at the last seen location.




You know where the benefit of the doubt goes, and you know the spirit of our rules would not try to stick it to the thrower. A player attempting to do so, to use the rules to inflict and unnecessary and malicious interpretation of an unrelated rule would be in jeopardy of violating our more vital courtesy rules.





Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, Encarta, American Heritage, etc, etc, etc

to no longer be in possession of something

By the way, this is a major definition of the word, not a minor. The common usage assumes 'to not know where an item is', but this is not the primary meaning.




Technically, the definition of lost includes the inability to retrieve.

Please show me where.





Nick, if you cannot identify the disc, you cannot be assured it is yours. This would meet your definition of both the rule and of the word lost. If you do not have possession of the disc, then by definition it is 'lost', see above. This would meet another common definition of the word lost. Your grasp of the English language does not make you an expert. What you are arguing is that lost means, "I don't have it in my hands and I don't know exactly where it is". Your statement of fact below, is essentially not fact, it is your interpretation. Now if you want to add the definition in the rulebook glossary Lost- Not in possession of due to inability to locate" I could agree with that.

As to whether you can identify the disc or not, has never been required before. The disc is either up in the tree, one stroke penality, or it is OB, one stroke penality, or it is lost, one stroke penality. The change in the rule is going to change this equality.




This is a statement of fact, not to start a fight: Your premise is in error therefore your conclusion is equally erroneous Jerry. There is not and never has been any requirement that a disc be retrieved in order to be �located� or otherwise identified for other rulings. There just isn�t. It is a judgment call. And in 25 years of playing disc golf I can not recall a single time when the question has ever come up out on the course during a competition. If I anyone can positively identify it, even without retrieving it, that is good enough for me. So long as I do not have indisputable evidence to the contrary I will take that players word for it.





Your statement has nothing to do with my question. You are confusing OB and lost. If your supposition is that the disc is OB, with the change in the two meter rule, it is no longer 'OB', therefore 'known' or 'judged' is not even a consideration anymore.



That is not the point. The point is that it is �known� or �judged� by the player, players, group, spotter or official as being OB. Being lost is irrelevant to the ruling. It is either OB or it is not (period).





And you still walk around the question, without giving a good answer. If my disc has a big butterfly tie die on it and I can see that big butterfly, then even though I have not retrieved it, I have identified it. If however, my disc is a white disc with my signature neatly placed on the rim, but I cannot see the rim from the ground, then I cannot accurately identify it. I used for example the rule of playing from another player's lie. How is it that you can so accurately identify a disc 40 feet up in the air, but we have to make a rule for playing from the correct disc at your feet? If you cannot identify your disc, how can you locate it????? Once again, if you can ID it then I don't have a problem.




Fair enough, and the answer is, by myself and I am certain the PDGA Rules Committee, an emphatic NO. And it goes back to you not being able to demonstrate where in our rules it says that a disc must be retrieved in order to be located or identified. If you can show me where it does I will gladly re-examine your argument.




Nick, I am really bring up to separate questions, and I am sorry if I did not make this clear. The first question is that by definition, a disc out of your possession is considered lost. Go look up the word lost. Most will simple define it as a derivation of the word lose. In almost every case the term is defined as 'out of your possession'. Would you agree that if the disc is stuck up in a tree you lose the use of it? The second question is if the disc cannot be identified, how can it be 'located' and therefore it is lost.



Well, Jerr, then your really saying, �If the disc is not identified, then it is lost.� Not �If the disc is not retrieved, then it is lost.� Those are 2 very different and unrelated situations as concerns our rules.

The question to ask is this: What if the identity of the owner of the disc is in question, 40 feet up in a tree and unable (immediately) to be retrieved?

In other words, either only the player who threw the shot thinks the disc is his/hers, while the other players in the group think that it is not, what happens by �existing rules� in that case?

Answer this, and you will have your answer to its relation (or lack of relation) to the 2MR





Nick, I don't see a rule to handle the answer if the disc cannot be identified. Tell me by rule what happens if the group cannot agree that the disc is the players and what rule requires a group consensus. I am just asking questions for future clarifications.

jerry, while your textbook definition of "lost" maybe a main definition, "lost" also DOES mean "cannot find it". "lost" implies not knowing where something is... not just not possessing. if your neighbor borrows your hammer and doesnt return it, it is not lost - even though you do not have possession of it anymore. you know exactly where it is. likewise, if a tree grabs a disc way up high... and you see it up there... it is NOT lost. it may be irretreivable, it may be >2M, it may even be OB. but it is not lost. now that does assume that the disc way up there is reasonably assumed to be the one that was thrown. to make this assumption one really only need to see a disc the same color that was thrown, hanging in a spot that might make sense considering where it was last seen, or where it entered the tree space.

btw, you problem with the certainty of identification does NOT commence with the annihilation of the 2MR. the question you pose is just as relevant with or without the 2MR. the identifiability of a disc hanging 40 feet up is completely independent of whether the 2MR is in effect. since this has never been an issue before, i suspect that it wont in the future. lack of the 2MR may wreck several things... but this is not one of them.

I would think that the lost disc ruling would be the one that sticks unless the player can prove the disc is his.

There should be some legimate concern that the disc was not his if the card could not give him the benefit of the doubt during the round.



Benefit of the doubt would continue beyond the round; legitimate concern or not.

But like I said earlier, in 25 years this has arrisen exactly 0 times, so I seriously doubt that the PDGA Rules Committee will give this a second thought, and rightly so in my estimation.

The majority of the most active minds on DISC_ussion wasted on an issue that would rank no better then last on the list of things that need to be addressed in the PDGA. What a shame. :confused:

Rest easy Scott, it recieves appropriate attention out in the real world. (NADA)

It's just fun because it gets under Rhett and Pat's skin... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

Getting under Rhett and Pat's (and for Pat and Rhett, Nick's) skin, that ranks second to last on the previously mentioned list. :D

Alacrity

I agree that if a player threw a giant spike hyzer that went out of view 50 feet from the tee pad and we can not agree that the white disc in the tree 120 feet down the fairway belongs to the player, the player should have to take a lost disc penalty throw and mark the lie from where it was last seen: 120 feet back in the schule.

However, if the group witnessed the white disc actually flying into the tree at roughly the same place the disc is resting, the group could reasonably assume the disc belonged to the player and give them the benefit of the doubt and say it is the player's disc. It is not necessary to "prove" identification. It is reasonable to assume this disc belongs to the player. This decision would have to be made by the group. If they can't agree, then player will have to take a lost disc penalty and throw from where disc was last seen.

It is also reasonable to assume in some examples that the player's disc is in the tree, even if it can't be seen. Example: Player throws a disc into a palm tree. Entire group watches it go in, but never sees it come out. Due to the nature of palm trees and surrounding terrain, it would be easy enough to see if it came out. Now, we can't see the disc up in the palm tree, but we all watched it go in to the palm, and we all know it is up there. It is not necessary to see or even identify the disc to mark the player's lie. They get to mark it under where it was seen coming to rest and not take a penalty stroke for lost disc.

Here is an example where we could not give the benefit of doubt to the player. We all watch white disc fly into tree, and when we arrive at tree there are two white discs in the tree. Since it is impossible to determine which disc belongs to player, or if either disc belongs to player, the player will have to mark his disc where it was last seen going into the tree, and take the lost disc penalty throw. His lie would not be drastically different, but the player would have to take the lost disc penalty throw.

Remember, the player does have two minutes to try to retrieve the disc from the tree and prove it is his disc.

Remember, the player does have two minutes to try to retrieve the disc from the tree and prove it is his disc.



Don't forget that the player can still play a provision shot as if it were his/her disc and leave it up to the TD or an authorized official to make the final call. The player ,if insistent, that it is his/her disc up in the tree, always has this option under our current rules.

Remember, the player does have two minutes to try to retrieve the disc from the tree and prove it is his disc.


This is why the benefit of the doubt should be given. It should be assumed that some players, desperate to save a stroke, would risk life and limb to retrieve their discs. Getting a DNF due to a trip to the emergency room would be bad. In most instances, a disc stuck in a tree that is assumed to belong to a player will actually be the disc belonging to that player. If there is a consensus among the playing group, then mark the lie and resume play. This is no different than reaching an agreement on where a disc went OB or where it was last seen. Ours is an inexact sport. Reasonable assumptions need to be made from time to time to maintain the flow of play.

Remember, the player does have two minutes to try to retrieve the disc from the tree and prove it is his disc.


This is why the benefit of the doubt should be given. It should be assumed that some players, desperate to save a stroke, would risk life and limb to retrieve their discs. Getting a DNF due to a trip to the emergency room would be bad. In most instances, a disc stuck in a tree that is assumed to belong to a player will actually be the disc belonging to that player. If there is a consensus among the playing group, then mark the lie and resume play. This is no different than reaching an agreement on where a disc went OB or where it was last seen. Ours is an inexact sport. Reasonable assumptions need to be made from time to time to maintain the flow of play.



Ed Zackery! And if anyone in the group is insistent that the disc up there is not the player's in question, then our rules provide for that as well; play a provisional from where the disc was last seen. Then let the TD or authorized official figure it out later.

There is no difference between how this would work with or without the 2MR.

Again, I'd be interested in hearing stories of this ever having happened out there (inability to identify a disc in a tree). And if there are any stories, my guess is that they make up less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of disc golf play.

(Which incidentally is the vertical difference between a one stroke penalty and none with the 2MR in place.)

Just so everyone knows, I am just asking questions that will be asked after the rule is changed. I would suggest that the term lost be clearly defined in the glossary so that someone cannot argue that non-retrieval does NOT mean lost. Regardless of how you may define the word lost, there is more than one meaning. By defining it in the glossary, this question will never arise.

If I saw your yellow disc go in a tree and I stood underneath a yellow disc, I would say that it is yours and would not consider it lost, but there will be some that argue by definition it is. Most of the discussion on this board is simply based around different definitions of the words we use. I don't care, I just want to see this answered before the question arises.

Now someone take the time to answer these questions, and remember, I am not arguing for one side or the other, I am just trying to circumvent some of the crap that is going to come up later:

What rule requires a majority to determine a disc lodged in a tree is yours. If 2M and above is not OB, I don't see a rule that says any of the group needs to be consulted. The closest is:

803.08 D. If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination.

But this doesn't apply with the change in the rule because over 2M is not even close to OB(please don�t argue 2M/OB, you know the intent). Is the new change going to say something about group majority?

I saw another post that said we saw the disc go in the top of a palm tree, but didn't see it come out and we don't see the disc. I have read two different takes on this, one member said it was lost and a stroke was given, one player said benefit of the doubt and no stroke. Once again, if the rule is not written to state that a majority decision can circumvent an obvious lost disc, how can you give the benefit of the doubt?

The fact that I have seen several different takes on this should tell people there will be disagreement on the course. I will repeat myself, I am not argueing for one side or the other, I just want to see clarification.

Just so everyone knows, I am just asking questions that will be asked after the rule is changed. I would suggest that the term lost be clearly defined in the glossary so that someone cannot argue that non-retrieval does NOT mean lost. Regardless of how you may define the word lost, there is more than one meaning. By defining it in the glossary, this question will never arise.



I disagree, and here is why:
1) All that is necessary is that the disc be located.
2) The identification process does not include, nor should it include, retrieving the disc.
3) Our rules cover every potential outcome of any scenario.
4) The 2MR has no influence over whether a disc is declared lost or not, only whether it is over 2M or not. Removing the penalty throw changes nothing. It is not an �Either Or� situation. (�Either� it is over 2M �Or� it is lost. It is lost or it is not lost (period). If it is over 2M then it is over 2M. It simply can not and never has been both.)
5) I have not seen this ever come up in 25 years of disc golf. Let�s see if it ever comes up this year where the 2MR can be turned off.


If I saw your yellow disc go in a tree and I stood underneath a yellow disc, I would say that it is yours and would not consider it lost, but there will be some that argue by definition it is. Most of the discussion on this board is simply based around different definitions of the words we use. I don't care, I just want to see this answered before the question arises.



A) The question never has arisen.
B) There are procedures already in place within our rules to deal with this. (Provisional Throw)


Now someone take the time to answer these questions, and remember, I am not arguing for one side or the other, I am just trying to circumvent some of the crap that is going to come up later:



In my opinion, and I�m pretty sure the PDGA Rules Committee�s, you worry in vain. When you play in an event this weekend, just see if anything remotely like this arises; whether 2MR related or not. (i.e. Lost vs OB)


What rule requires a majority to determine a disc lodged in a tree is yours. If 2M and above is not OB, I don't see a rule that says any of the group needs to be consulted. The closest is:

803.08 D. If the in-bounds status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination.

But this doesn't apply with the change in the rule because over 2M is not even close to OB(please don�t argue 2M/OB, you know the intent). Is the new change going to say something about group majority?



Jerry, listen to what you are saying: A disc is located in a tree, some in the group think it is not the players disc, others that it is. You say that a �new conflict� will arise because the 2MR will be turned off. Are you saying that the other players in the group, to gain an advantage, would argue that that is not the players disc up there because they feel that it should be a stroke anyway, because they believe so ardently in the turned off 2MR? Should a player have to climb into a 40 foot wide thorn bush to get there disc out if the bush has been declared casual, to avoid a �lost disc�?

The status of a lost or not lost disc has no relation to the status of whether a disc is above or below 2M. Either it is lost or not, or it is above 2M or not. You cannot have a lost disc located above 2M or it is not lost.


I saw another post that said we saw the disc go in the top of a palm tree, but didn't see it come out and we don't see the disc. I have read two different takes on this, one member said it was lost and a stroke was given, one player said benefit of the doubt and no stroke. Once again, if the rule is not written to state that a majority decision can circumvent an obvious lost disc, how can you give the benefit of the doubt?



This has, again, nothing to do with the 2MR. If the disc cannot be located then it is by rule lost. Where it was last seen is only important as far as where the group or official mark the subsequent lie. You cannot call a lost disc as being also above 2M. (Otherwise it wouldn�t be lost now would it?)


The fact that I have seen several different takes on this should tell people there will be disagreement on the course. I will repeat myself, I am not arguing for one side or the other, I just want to see clarification.



Jerry, there will be disagreements on the course �til dooms day. In this case it will not be due to lack of definition or clarity �within� our rules, but due to lack of knowledge and understanding �of� our rules.

I appreciate your interest and most definitely your concern and care for our rules and game, but I think that you have created something out of nothing here. I think the best way to illustrate this would be for you to, the next time you are out on the course, imagine that the 2MR is NOT in effect, imagine that there is a disc 40 feet up in a tree, and that 2 people in your group believe that it is the players disc and the others that it is not. What is the ruling under our current rules? Let�s not discuss it further here until, we both, have gone out and actually experienced the real thing out on the course. We�ll come back and discuss it on Monday. Sound good?