In a tournament situation - 2-m rule is in effect. Basket is situated near a river area, with scraggly trees all along the river bank such that sailing past the basket into the trees is pretty much jail. Player throws a shot, goes past the basket and lands in the trees behind the basket, and is suspended above 2 meters. Player (who is an official) then declares an unplayable lie, relocates and holes out. An official walking with the group (not playing) declares that just the 2-stroke unplayable lie penalty should apply, as you can not assess more than one penalty for the same shot. Later, an unhappy player in the group goes behind the official and player and confronts the TD, who then says it's 1 stroke for the 2-m violation and 2 strokes for the unplayable lie. The TD declares that the 2-m penalty still applies because you have to drop the disc and mark it before the lie becomes unplayable.

In the end, the one stroke didn't matter for placing, so the player and official both gave it up. I still think the TD was wrong...

Let's take another example - Kiss the Sky in Aspen, CO, plays on the ski runs. There are several shots where if you get slightly off, you can sail down a hill and possibly take 4 shots to get back up, not to mention that you may not even physically be able to get to the disc. There are trees all along the outer areas, so stopping suspended in a tree above 2-m is a possibility. Someone sails down a hill and knows it will take several shots to get back up, so declares an unplayable lie without even trying to get down to the disc to avoid risking injury and goes back to the previous lie. Let's assume in this case they can't even see the disc to know if it's above 2-m or not. Only the unplayable lie penalty would be assessed! So apparently, if we can see the disc is above 2-m, you get two penalties, but if you can't see it you only get one... I love how people interpret the rules sometimes.

Unplayable is not a 2-shot penalty for starters. (Used to be an option in the old rulebook prior to 2006.) And, if you have to take a 2m penalty and you don't like your lie under the tree, it costs you another penalty to choose the unplayable lie at that point and return to where you threw the shot that landed above 2m. So, in your example, the player could have either tried to play it under the tree with a 1-shot penalty or take a 2-shot penalty (2m + unplayable) and rethrow, counting the shot that went above 2m. If that original throw above 2m was their tee shot, they would be back on the tee throwing their 4th shot.

In the case of the mountain shot example, it would not be unplayable but lost disc rule which ends up about the same way. Lost disc is 1-shot penalty and return to previous lie and throw again. If the 2m rule is in effect, players in your group will be trying to find your disc in the "hopes" it is suspended above 2m. You cannot call the unplayable lie without taking the time to look for that reason. Because if the disc is above 2m, you get that penalty and then either have to play it from down the mountain or take another penalty (unplayable) and come back to retee. It's a good reason not to have the 2m in effect for mountain courses since the unplayable and lost disc penalties which are both "throw and distance" should be sufficient penalties without complicating things even more.

actually in the first example shouldn't he be able to go back to the previous spot with only a 1 stroke penalty?

if you throw OB you have the option of playing from where you take your disc in bounds or the previous spot. This being said he should've been able to take his disc out of the tree and go back to the previous spot adding only 1 stroke. Same thing for the 2nd example... lost disc... goes back to previous spot.

Correct me if i'm wrong but with being able to take your next shot from either spot after throwing OB then that would've been the best recourse to take

He wasn't OB is the reason your assessment isn't correct.

if 2m rule is in effect
then 2m = OB

correct? This is where the miscommunication may be from here... i've always heard that if you are above 2m (when the rule is in effect) you are 'OB' and you mark below your disc.

not technically ob.

2m. and OB are Two different things.

The only thing similar between OB and 2m is the 1-throw penalty. Where the disc is relocated for your next throw is different. If you read the rulebook, you will not see the 2m penalty in the OB section. However, if your disc is OB and above 2m, you don't get both penalties, just the OB penalty. However, if you take an unplayable after marking below 2m, that's a separate decision and the additional unplayable penalty is added to the 2m penalty.

This same thing happened when I marshaled the Masters cup. I made the same ruling, 2 strokes. I then talked to Dr. Voakes who suggested adding the option of rethrowing to the 2 meter penalty thus getting rid of the two strokes. Never brought this up because The 2 meter penalty seemed to be phasing out. Dont know if he ever brought it up to the R.C.
Gaff

hmm... good to know

one question on that... if a TD announced '2m rule is in effect' and also says 'everything above 2m is OB' then would it be OB? I've played at least 1 tourney and maybe more where the TD actually said 'everything above 2m is OB' I'm assuming this is because they were misunderstood but if its said at the players meeting then it is OB right?

regardless... good to know its not technically OB... thanks!

The only thing similar between OB and 2m is the 1-throw penalty.


I've heard people mistakenly call that ob in the tree most everywhere I've been. That is why there is confusion on this ruling. ob and unplayable both have the option to rethrow from your last position, why not the 2 meter too.
Gaff

The simplest solution would be that when the 2m rule is in effect, is for the RC to define the 2m rule as a mandatory unplayable lie. Thus the relief would match the relief in 803.06 (+1 and either the lie under the disc and up to 5m away from the pin or the previous lie)

haha, so a strange situation would be if the TD called everything above 2m OB, then if you were to throw your disc from the tee box and like most discs, it travels at above 2m for most of its flight, then gets stuck in a tree above 2m near the basket, you would have to take your next shot from where it was last in bounds, which would be when the disc was last below 2m...

foolish yes, but it goes along with all the other crazy but true ideas that can be caused by the rules in certain situations...

Unplayable is not a 2-shot penalty for starters. (Used to be an option in the old rulebook prior to 2006.)


Could have sworn I read it correctly, but looking now I didn't. My mistake.


And, if you have to take a 2m penalty and you don't like your lie under the tree, it costs you another penalty to choose the unplayable lie at that point and return to where you threw the shot that landed above 2m. So, in your example, the player could have either tried to play it under the tree with a 1-shot penalty or take a 2-shot penalty (2m + unplayable) and rethrow, counting the shot that went above 2m. If that original throw above 2m was their tee shot, they would be back on the tee throwing their 4th shot.


So this is in fact an instance where a player may be double penalized for a throw?


In the case of the mountain shot example, it would not be unplayable but lost disc rule which ends up about the same way. Lost disc is 1-shot penalty and return to previous lie and throw again. If the 2m rule is in effect, players in your group will be trying to find your disc in the "hopes" it is suspended above 2m. You cannot call the unplayable lie without taking the time to look for that reason. Because if the disc is above 2m, you get that penalty and then either have to play it from down the mountain or take another penalty (unplayable) and come back to retee. It's a good reason not to have the 2m in effect for mountain courses since the unplayable and lost disc penalties which are both "throw and distance" should be sufficient penalties without complicating things even more.


Yeah, it was kind of a sketchy side example. And good luck trying to convince Colorado players that the 2-m rule should not be in effect... for some reason they like the extra penalty on the few holes with trees.

Either way, I still don't agree with the double penalty for 2-m and unplayable lie, but I guess that's the way it is. Petition to change this in the next rules update? :cool:

It's not really a double penalty since there are two separate situations. I do like the idea where the 2m penalty (if active) would be considered an unplayable lie in a future revision and handled the same way where the player would either get to move back up to 5m from directly below the disc or get to rethrow from the original lie if that's not good.

Double penalty, ABSOLUTELY!!!
I am so with you but a voice in the wilderness with the sencaites and their sacred cedars.

Yeah, it was kind of a sketchy side example. And good luck trying to convince Colorado players that the 2-m rule should not be in effect... for some reason they like the extra penalty on the few holes with trees.



The nice thing about the 2m penalty under the current rules is that only certain trees can have the penalty. So, don't have it on the trees down the mountainside since that area is enough penalty already. But if there are key trees spreading over the pin for example, just have the 2m on those or on the regular fairway. It's really not any more complicated than keeping track of the variety of OB hazards on some courses.

Yeah, it was kind of a sketchy side example. And good luck trying to convince Colorado players that the 2-m rule should not be in effect... for some reason they like the extra penalty on the few holes with trees.



The nice thing about the 2m penalty under the current rules is that only certain trees can have the penalty. So, don't have it on the trees down the mountainside since that area is enough penalty already. But if there are key trees spreading over the pin for example, just have the 2m on those or on the regular fairway. It's really not any more complicated than keeping track of the variety of OB hazards on some courses.



i assume you'd have to mark those trees somehow eh? what color ribbon would you use on that? ;)