2 meter rule ... ranting on FB

[JC17393]

If your disc gets stuck in a tree 2m or over above the ground it is considered OB and you get a penalty stroke. Play from directly under where it was in the tree.

I hate to be nit-picky, but when the rule is in play, your disc being suspended 2m or more above the ground IS NOT CONSIDERED OB.

OB and above 2m are two separate things with two separate rules and two separate means of dealing with the situation. The only thing they have in common is that they both come with a one throw penalty. /endrant (nothing personal Jay, just a pet peeve)


IMO, the 2-meter rule as it currently exists is the best of all worlds. TDs that want to use it may do so, TDs that don't want to use it don't have to, and TDs who fall in the middle and think it works in some instances but not others can use it selectively and judiciously.

I'm in that third boat. The 2-meter rule is a design tool just like the OB rule or the mandatory rule. It can be used judiciously to enhance the design and challenge of a hole when it is put in place specifically for that hole or just certain objects on that hole. It can also be implemented poorly and unnecessarily...which is usually the case when it is declared in play for an entire course. Sure, it works great for that one velcro-like cedar on the green of short little hole 7, but why does the oak tree 25 feet into the woods off the fairway on 500 foot long hole 16 need to carry a penalty for a disc that happens to get stuck 201cm above the ground?

 

[joshmo65]

The main place that I think of that it comes in to play where I play regularly is Keriekes at the Am Champs at Bowling Green (and probably any other tourney that uses that course). Here it isn't as flukey, the tall cedar trees are nicknamed 'velcro' trees, if you take a high crash route, be prepared to deal with the consequences, if you hit one of the cedar trees high, it's likely you'll be taking a penalty, and possible you might not find the disc, or be able to get it down. This hazard presents itself all over the course and must be taken into account on nearly every drive. Seems to be a pretty good use of the rule to me..

Seneca Creek also has the super sticky cedar trees and plays the 2m. Since they are not too difficult to throw over, adding the 2m rule in adds some risk to the reward of just throwing over everything. I like it in these cases.

 

[Horsman]

Dont you just have to have a supporting point directly behind your lie? So you could just put your hand up that high and be fine?

 

[Consult20]

?...The 2-meter rule is a design tool just like the OB rule or the mandatory rule. It can be used judiciously to enhance the design and challenge of a hole when it is put in place specifically for that hole or just certain objects on that hole.

That's a reasonable argument. Example: Island hole with a large pine tree near the basket. If you throw straight at the pine tree and hit it there's a good chance the disc will drop down close to the basket for an easy 2. The 2 meter rule could offer a reasonable risk/reward scenario in that circumstance.

But what percent of the time is the rule implemented like this for a specific hole vs the entire course? I bet it's pretty low.

 

[JC17393]

Dont you just have to have a supporting point directly behind your lie? So you could just put your hand up that high and be fine?

You have to have a supporting point on your lie, yes. But a lie is defined as being on the playing surface. A tree branch isn't a playing surface.

 

[JC17393]

That's a reasonable argument. Example: Island hole with a large pine tree near the basket. If you throw straight at the pine tree and hit it there's a good chance the disc will drop down close to the basket for an easy 2. The 2 meter rule could offer a reasonable risk/reward scenario in that circumstance.

But what percent of the time is the rule implemented like this for a specific hole vs the entire course? I bet it's pretty low.

No doubt it is very low. I think it's due to a combination of "old school" courses that were designed with the old blanket 2m rule in play (and the locals are resistant to change) and plain ignorance of the notion that it doesn't have to be all or nothing with the rule. I know I've had conversations with a TD or two at courses that still use the blanket 2m rule about limiting it to particular holes/areas instead of the entire course. None, to my knowledge, have bothered to make any changes. Call it lazy, call it stubborn, call it being a traditionalist, I don't know.

One of the courses around my area used to utilize the rule exactly how you describe (the hole has since been changed). An "island" green with a lone tall pine towering over the basket. It was the only tree on the entire course for which the 2m penalty applied. I thought it worked great.

 

[runningDoc]

The one tourney I played where the 2m rule was implemented was the Warwick NY DG championships.

I personally hate the rule, but Warwick (the best course I've ever played at) has a lot of holes with many trees right near the baskets, some large trees with canopies overhanging the whole putting circle.

Theoretically you could purposely throw into those trees, especially using a tomahawk or thumber, and get it stuck in the tree and have an easy inside the circle putt. Hell a good strategy would actually be throwing a shot full speed into the trees and if it gets stuck who cares, if it falls then you're in the putting circle.

This is the one time where the 2m rule makes sense to me.

 

[DavidSauls]

That's a reasonable argument. Example: Island hole with a large pine tree near the basket. If you throw straight at the pine tree and hit it there's a good chance the disc will drop down close to the basket for an easy 2. The 2 meter rule could offer a reasonable risk/reward scenario in that circumstance.

But what percent of the time is the rule implemented like this for a specific hole vs the entire course? I bet it's pretty low.

To have any teeth, it would have to be a tree with a reasonable chance of catching the disc.

If it only catches 2% of the discs that hit it, and drops the rest on the green, the 2 meter rule won't persuade anyone to consider a different route. Unless that different route offers even better odds, in which case few people would be throwing at the pine tree.

It's probably another regionalism. I can't think of a single hole on any courses around me where the strategy is to throw into a tree so you get knocked down. I remember one, years ago on a temp course, but it no longer exists.

 

[Horsman]

You have to have a supporting point on your lie, yes. But a lie is defined as being on the playing surface. A tree branch isn't a playing surface.

Gotcha gotcha, so if the disc is on the ground you can have your hand be your supporting point behind the disc.

 

[JC17393]

Gotcha gotcha, so if the disc is on the ground you can have your hand be your supporting point behind the disc.

Yes. You can stand on your head and use that as your supporting point behind the disc if you want. Supporting point is not limited to just your feet (debunking rules myth #24 ).

 

[Cgkdisc]

An interesting idea for a compromise would be changing the rule to where a disc suspended above 2m would always be marked on the line of play behind the trunk of the tree it was suspended in with no penalty. In the case where there are trees near the basket, the player would have to at least make a straddle putt attempt from behind a tree no matter where they actually landed up in the tree. In the case of cedars, the mark might be tough to get to. In that case, the player could take Optional Relief as far back as they want with a 1-throw penalty.

 

[Horsman]

An interesting idea for a compromise would be changing the rule to where a disc suspended above 2m would always be marked on the line of play behind the trunk of the tree it was suspended in with no penalty. In the case where there are trees near the basket, the player would have to at least make a straddle putt attempt from behind a tree no matter where they actually landed up in the tree. In the case of cedars, the mark might be tough to get to. In that case, the player could take Optional Relief as far back as they want with a 1-throw penalty.

Might be hard to determine what tree the disc is suspended in if there are a bunch of trees next to each other and I think it might be kind of unfair to some people to have to do a straddle. The tree might have a big trunk and a tall person will have a much easier time with it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Might be hard to determine what tree the disc is suspended in if there are a bunch of trees next to each other and I think it might be kind of unfair to some people to have to do a straddle. The tree might have a big trunk and a tall person will have a much easier time with it.

True. But if the rule were addressed, the RC might decide it would be the trunk closest to the pin if unclear. The point is the player would get a small penalty and demonstrate some skill by having to make bit more challenging recovery shot.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

To have any teeth, it would have to be a tree with a reasonable chance of catching the disc.

If it only catches 2% of the discs that hit it, and drops the rest on the green, the 2 meter rule won't persuade anyone to consider a different route. Unless that different route offers even better odds, in which case few people would be throwing at the pine tree.

It's probably another regionalism. I can't think of a single hole on any courses around me where the strategy is to throw into a tree so you get knocked down. I remember one, years ago on a temp course, but it no longer exists.

I dont think trees catch discs all that well in general or id have lost a ton more discs in my life..lol. Even thick pines around here can be pretty flukey. To me tree that can catch a lot of discs and in the way of a line to the basket is just poor design.

 

[Consult20]

An interesting idea for a compromise would be changing the rule to where a disc suspended above 2m would always be marked on the line of play behind the trunk of the tree it was suspended in with no penalty. In the case where there are trees near the basket, the player would have to at least make a straddle putt attempt from behind a tree no matter where they actually landed up in the tree. In the case of cedars, the mark might be tough to get to. In that case, the player could take Optional Relief as far back as they want with a 1-throw penalty.

What if it were a group of tall bushes on the edge of a cliff or steep drop-off? I think you would always need the option to mark directly below the disc for safety's sake.

 

[DavidSauls]

True. But if the rule were addressed, the RC might decide it would be the trunk closest to the pin if unclear. The point is the player would get a small penalty and demonstrate some skill by having to make bit more challenging recovery shot.

Most of the time, the player stuck in a tree is being penalized by loss of distance on this throw. With some odds that he'll also be penalized by an obstructed shot, unless its a solitary tree in an otherwise open area. Which, of course, are the same penalties, whether the disc is stuck, or not.

Your solution might work with a tree over a green.

 

[DavidSauls]

I dont think trees catch discs all that well in general or id have lost a ton more discs in my life..lol. Even thick pines around here can be pretty flukey. To me tree that can catch a lot of discs and in the way of a line to the basket is just poor design.

Some varieties do better than others. Where I live, other than cedar trees, the catching percentage is very low, too low to create a deterrent with a penalty stroke. I hit a lot of trees---I mean, a lot of trees---and can't remember the last time I stuck one more than 2-meters high.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What if it were a group of tall bushes on the edge of a cliff or steep drop-off? I think you would always need the option to mark directly below the disc for safety's sake.

Just like any other marking location, if you can't play from there, you can take Optional Relief on line of play or Optional Rethrow. The point is you already might not like to play the lie under the tree anyway whether 2-meter rule in effect or not. At least this idea mildly penalizes players with a consistent place to mark your lie if landing above 2m and provides the same challenge to demonstrate your skill on your next throw.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

and can't remember the last time I stuck one more than 2-meters high.

Sometimes i pretend to be simon lizotte and throw over the top of crazy stuff. Normally doesnt work but even then discs seem to always fall down. Id had a few stuck in vines bushes just around head height that can seem to disapear into the woods.

Discs are weird. I swear sometimes they are controlled by some vooodoo ****.

 

[Consult20]

Just like any other marking location, if you can't play from there, you can take Optional Relief on line of play or Optional Rethrow. The point is you already might not like to play the lie under the tree anyway whether 2-meter rule in effect or not. At least this idea mildly penalizes players with a consistent place to mark your lie if landing above 2m and provides the same challenge to demonstrate your skill on your next throw.

So in your proposal, if I threw over the basket and it went into those bushes behind the basket, I can mark right in front of the basket for a drop in next shot, since that would be on the line of play? Even if it was "no closer to the basket", it would be a wide open shot then, so that seems like quite an advantage.