By 'you' I presume you mean members of the Rules Committee of which few if any read these threads.

there is a simple solution after the 2 meter rule is eliminated as a force-fed rule for all courses and all holes:

Declare the 2 meter rule in effect for Seneca hole 16





The point is it is not being rescinded. The whole Seneca course can remain a bastion of 2-meterdom should the locals and TDs prefer it.



Guys, I understand that in the future, we'll be able to keep it if we want. I was only commenting on the fact that people claim it won't make a difference in what they choose to throw when they step on the tee pad. Sure it will. No one would choose a roller on 16 if all they had to do was bang an easy righty hyzer and get caught in a cedar 20 feet from the basket.

That was my point. Repeal of the rule (at any level, local or national) would SURELY change the way people play the hole.

Of course, that falls into the 'duh' area because the same can be said about OB or other design aspects of a hole. Not every design element will affect how some players play a hole. But calling or marking area OB or not, can influence play as much as 2m or not, and likely more so. If Seneca 16 didn't have a 2m rule, I would consider using the 10m drop zone with no penalty method we used at Mid-Nationals this year. If a player's disc was suspended at any height in foliage within 10m of the basket, they have to play from a drop zone marked 10m from the basket.

Just because it goes in above 2m does not mean it stayed there.




It's a slippery slope but the RC wants to allow the 'reasonable person' assumption. If you watch a disc land in a pond, it's not really lost but just temporarily non-retrievable since you know it's there (assuming it's not a James Bond movie with a submarine waiting to capture the disc and decode the secret message embedded in the hot stamp).



A. It is reasonable to assume that a disc entering OB water will not re-emerge and be in play after passing through the core of the earth once it is gone from view. The same can not be reasonably assumed about a disc seen entering a tree, bush or other vertical obstacle.

B. The OB rule is not the 2MR. There is precisely one similarity: the one throw penalty.

C. If the disc in the tree is the thrower�s then there are rules to deal with it.

D. If it is not then there are likewise rules to deal with it.

E. If it is thought to be and later discovered not to be there are rules to deal with it.

F. If it is not identified as the throwers disc it is not reasonable to say that his disc is still 2 meters above the playing surface because it was last seen above 2 meters or because there is a disc that looks like the throwers in the tree. It is a lost disc if it can not be located within 3 minutes of the entire group beginning to look.

F. If it is not identified as the throwers disc it is not reasonable to say that his disc is still 2 meters above the playing surface because it was last seen above 2 meters or because there is a disc that looks like the throwers in the tree. It is a lost disc if it can not be located within 3 minutes of the entire group beginning to look.



It is my understanding that the RC will allow reasonable doubt in favor of the player if an orange disc is seen in the tree above 2m in the area the group saw the player's orange disc enter the tree. Likewise, if the group sees a player's disc enter a tree (subject to the 2m penalty) like a cedar that typically catches discs, and it obviously enters above 2m, the group may consider the disc above 2m instead of being lost even if the disc is not seen. This is why I might be more likely to use the 2m rule next year in selected circumstances since the lost disc rule will potentially be more punitive.

F. If it is not identified as the throwers disc it is not reasonable to say that his disc is still 2 meters above the playing surface because it was last seen above 2 meters or because there is a disc that looks like the throwers in the tree. It is a lost disc if it can not be located within 3 minutes of the entire group beginning to look.



It is my understanding that the RC will allow reasonable doubt in favor of the player if an orange disc is seen in the tree above 2m in the area the group saw the player's orange disc enter the tree. Likewise, if the group sees a player's disc enter a tree (subject to the 2m penalty) like a cedar that typically catches discs, and it obviously enters above 2m, the group may consider the disc above 2m instead of being lost even if the disc is not seen. This is why I might be more likely to use the 2m rule next year in selected circumstances since the lost disc rule will potentially be more punitive.



Then you are completely mistaken Chuck. There is no provision in our rules or by the PDGA RC for assuming that a disc that vanishes above 2 meters can be presumed to have remained above 2 meters. It is not reasonable as you put it.

The disc that can be seen above 2 meters is either identifiable or it is not. There is no assuming. As stated previously there are rules to deal with any eventuality concerning this situation. I will reiterate if necessary.

If you can show me exactly where the rules or PDGA RC provide an explanation as you have please share it.

I'm saying it sounds like this interpretation is coming for 2006. It's moving toward the 'reasonable person' assumptions that exist within several ball golf rules.

By 'you' I presume you mean members of the Rules Committee of which few if any read these threads.

no chuck, that was a direct personal attack on you! :D:D:D(just kidding). seriously, it was nothing more than a rhetorical comment born of frustration and directed at the people who are making this inconsistant stuff up.

A. It is reasonable to assume that a disc entering OB water will not re-emerge and be in play after passing through the core of the earth once it is gone from view. The same can not be reasonably assumed about a disc seen entering a tree, bush or other vertical obstacle.


so, um, it is now reasonable to assume that a disc entering a tree will NOT fall? thats quite a reversal nicki. you used to say that virutally all discs that enter trees end up on the ground. quick, better get robj in here! :D

thanks for the invite pat :D

many or most does not mean all. any rule creation or modification does well to consider all practical possibilities rather than rely on common happenstance. if you would quit seeking rhetorical advantage and instead really discuss your perspective as an alternative to Nick's or mine -- that would be refreshing and helpful /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

been there, done that. it worked with most everyone but you two. and besides, gaining rhetorical advantage is much more fun and, given the competition, a far more achievable objective. :D

where the end is used to justify the means, you won't find me competing with you -- so your achievements in that arena aren't worth a hoot :p

if so, then those achievements are perfectly in line with the logic and care that went into the decision to kill the rule.

U.S. Masters and no 2-meter rule definitely affected shot selection at La Mirada. Yes, the smart choice on some shots was indeed to throw at the trees, something that some posters here cannot fathom.

The solution isn't all or none. If the strategic throw is to aim at a tree then either the hole design is weak or some form of risk/reward should be considered. It could be 2m w/penalty or 10m drop zone w/o penalty or even Nick's OB version if it's easily markable.

especially on friday playing the short courses where alot of the baskets were near/under trees...

i specifically hyzer bombed a couple of holes that with the rule in place i wouldn't have...

and to counter nick and the other defilers of disc golf rules...in the 2 tournaments i have played at la mirada this year so far...i have personally been on the card of 3 people that were over 2m,saw 4 other people from different cards,AND i also got stuck over 2m myself at us masters

but since it NEVER happens in nick's world i just figured it must have been a mirage :eek:

If the strategic throw is to aim at a tree then either the hole design is weak or some form of risk/reward should be considered.


Wrong wrong wrong.

Putting baskets next to sticky trees and thereby providing a risky "probably stick for a penalty" versus the reward of "maybe falling down next to the pin" is an excellent design.

Oh wait, y'all have lobbied and changed the rules so that now the risk part of that equation is gone by default.

That doesn't make the design "weak". It means that the design was effed-over by changing this rule.

And adding the complication of giving TDs the "option" of going out and marking all that perfectly good desing isn't really going to fly. Making certain holes/trees/whatever "2 meter rule on" will just make player's meetings more complicated and confusing. I doubt that very many TDs will do it at all. And all the players who know the course usually skip the player's meeting anyway, so there will be more problems no matter how you do it.

But yeah, nice job turning a bunch of well designed holes into "weak" ones, just like that.

The 2m rule in the past has "saved" holes that were weak on design. One of the "sins" in course design is putting baskets in positions where certain trees can be used to backstop shots regardless whether the 2m rule is a consideration. Carlton has written about it and possibly Houck who I know agrees with it. Removing the 2m rule as a default will expose these weaker designs if a step isn't taken to add soemthing back or change the pin position. The first example in the Hole Quality scoring guide for the new course evaluation shows an example of this in the very first picture:

www.pdga.com/course/eval/OHDQPictureGuide.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/course/eval/OHDQPictureGuide.pdf)

If you put a sticky tree that has a DCF of >80% (disc catching factor) in place of that stick-tree, then you have a completely different scenario. :p

I said sticky trees, not stick-trees.

I said sticky trees, not stick-trees.

I said sticky trees, not stick-trees.

Here's the problem I have with calling baskets near trees "weak".

It's Monday morning Quarterbacking.

Disc golf courses weren't built by multi-national conglomerates with millions to throw around. They were usually built by "dudes" who convinced a park to give them some land. And many parks say, "You have to clear every tree you want to cut with us first." /OR/ "You can't cut any trees greater than 3" in diameter". So, you work with the land you get.

When Seneca was designed, the 2M rule was firm. If there had been no 2M rule in 1990, then the design probably would have been much different.

So now that the rule leans toward TD discretion, you want to go back and say the holes that were designed when the rule was firm are "weak"? Unfair.

Those baskets placed near trees were designed that way BECAUSE of the rule, not in spite of it. It allowed designers with their hands tied by the Park a chance to design good holes without cutting trees down.

Yes, I know designers can continue to design the way they want and implement the rule on their course. But don't say that holes that were designed pre-2004 are now somehow "weak" because of a drastic rule change.

If 10 years from now we change the rule to allow DROTs as a valid putt, does that make all previous basket designs weak too? Only in hindsight and only because of a rule change that was unfathomable when the actual design occured.

One of the "sins" in course design is putting baskets in positions where certain trees can be used to backstop shots

therefore baskets on slopes where a player can drill a shot in to the slope is a weak design.

i must respectfully disagree.

So you are fine with putting an OB area 4 feet by 4 feet right next to or around the basket then, right?

It is weak design. It just is.

Seneca is a nice course whether the 2MR is in effect or not. Think about it though, how many other courses run around putting 4 by 4 foot OBs with deflection devices all over the place. It is weak. It is more like Putt Putt golf with the windmills and elephants.

One throw penalty restricted areas should be used very carefully. Their overuse does, in my opinion, severely weaken their overall design quality as well as the way they just play.

especially on friday playing the short courses where alot of the baskets were near/under trees...

i specifically hyzer bombed a couple of holes that with the rule in place i wouldn't have...

and to counter nick and the other defilers of disc golf rules...in the 2 tournaments i have played at la mirada this year so far...i have personally been on the card of 3 people that were over 2m,saw 4 other people from different cards,AND i also got stuck over 2m myself at us masters

but since it NEVER happens in nick's world i just figured it must have been a mirage :eek:



Again with the reading comprehension challenges Keith. I have NEVER said discs NEVER get stuck above 2 meters... that would be nearly as idiotic as saying because 4 people out of 90 got stuck in a tree above 2 meters that the 2 meter rule is valid.

If it is valid to penalize that with a stroke penalty because of frequency, then why don't we throw another throw penalty on top of missed putts. They're more frequent right? They are certainly more under our control than whether or not a disc tumbles to below 2 meters in a tree or bush are they not?

There you have it, proof positive that missed putts should count as 2 throws... :p

that would be nearly as idiotic as saying because 4 people out of 90 got stuck in a tree above 2 meters that the 2 meter rule is valid.

no, it would be MORE idiotic.


There you have it, proof positive that missed putts should count as 2 throws...

um... they do. think it thru.

unless your a student of the Atwood school of back and forth putts!

So you are fine with putting an OB area 4 feet by 4 feet right next to or around the basket then, right?

It is weak design. It just is.



How is it any different than putting a basket right next to water? Water is OB. 2 or 3 holes at Paw Paw have baskets right next to water. Jordan Creek has a hole like that. Tinicum has a basket near water. In fact, every course I can think of that has water usually has at least 1 basket right next to it. Water may not act as a backstop the way a tree could, but water next to a basket is still "OB right next to or around the basket." Are all of the holes with baskets next to water considered weak design too?

Just askin... you may believe that they are.

I do believe that OB too near a basket or preferred landing area is weak design. It makes the hole play flukey; a player can not intellengently and skillfully attempt to avoid such poorly placed hazards.

Be specific with examples. I can't think of any holes where the basket is within 4 feet of OB water of any of the courses you list. I can think of hole 14 at Seneca where a tree is 4 or 5 feet from the basket.

I noticed the fubar tree on 18 has been mercifly put to rest. The 2 meter rule didn't do much to protect it. I wonder if making it OB and the ground around it OB would have given it a longer life span? (Not to mention added challenge to the hole.)