2 meter rule ... ranting on FB

[Cgkdisc]

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.

No, you would mark behind the closest bush trunk/stalk on the line of play. The trunk/stalk would be between you and the basket. If you landed above 2m, you would always mark on the ground behind the tree/bush you were suspended in, same as the way you mark your shot using Solid Object relief 802.02E if your disc lands up against a tree on the basket side.

 

[Consult20]

No, you would mark behind the closest bush trunk/stalk on the line of play. The trunk/stalk would be between you and the basket. If you landed above 2m, you would always mark on the ground behind the tree/bush you were suspended in, same as the way you mark your shot using Solid Object relief 802.02E if your disc lands up against a tree on the basket side.

Ok, but again, what if the disc landed > 2 meters high and the bushes were on a ledge with a severe dropoff to the point where it would be dangerous or impossible to throw from behind them? Or if behind them there was water -- lake/river?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Ok, but again, what if the disc landed > 2 meters high and the bushes were on a ledge with a severe dropoff to the point where it would be dangerous or impossible to throw from behind them? Or if behind them there was water -- lake/river?

It's not a problem unique to this proposal. What do you do under current rules if your disc lands in a tree above the position that's over the cliff? if anything, this proposal provides a consistent marking position for everyone landing above 2m whether over land or cliff. If that position can't be played for some reason, the TD/designer could determine a drop zone or the player could take Optional Relief or Optional Rethrow just like they do now when they can't play their lie. Optional Relief is even worse when 2m rule is in force because it's a second penalty and more loss of distance.

 

[Consult20]

It's not a problem unique to this proposal. What do you do under current rules if your disc lands in a tree above the position that's over the cliff? if anything, this proposal provides a consistent marking position for everyone landing above 2m whether over land or cliff. If that position can't be played for some reason, the TD/designer could determine a drop zone or the player could take Optional Relief or Optional Rethrow just like they do now when they can't play their lie. Optional Relief is even worse when 2m rule is in force because it's a second penalty and more loss of distance.

Ok then, if I understand you correctly, in this scenario currently with or without the 2 meter rule you can mark your lie directly beneath the disc (+1 stroke with 2 meter), but with your proposal that would not be an option. I believe I understand everything else you are saying as far as options available.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Places like this very rocky sloped fairway area are a good example of unsafe lies outside of the thorns etc.. This was dry season. I think that area gets watwr flowing too not sure how they play it at the private course.

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

Solid argument there. Lets see what else we can apply that to:
Penalizing players for landing on narrow concrete paths is a good idea. If you don't like it, brush up on your control or reanalyze your personal risk/reward flow chart.

Penalizing players for landing outside the fairway is a good idea. If you don't like it, brush up on your control or reanalyze your personal risk/reward flow chart.

Penalizing players for landing IN the fairway is a good idea. If you don't like it, brush up on your control or reanalyze your personal risk/reward flow chart.

Penalizing players for hitting the chains is a good idea. If you don't like it, brush up on your control or reanalyze your personal risk/reward flow chart.

Yep, solid argument, that you can apply to any circumstance that can possible happen during a round of disc golf. :doh:

I see what you did there, you're so sassy.

 

[teemkey]

Since the TD can even specify individual trees, calling the 2 meter rule in effect for trees inside the circle seems fair. But really, it should be the resulting lie, not the tree.

 

[loki the trickster]

I personally like the 2M rule. Yes i grew up in Sacramento and learned to play at orangevale. I have never heard any real argument against having the 2M rule other then its stupid or if i do it has a pga golf comparison(disc golf is not ball golf).

If your playing your line that close to a tree and not required to throw it you should get rewarded for making it and if you get stuck above 2M then you get the stroke. If you dont want the possible stroke avoid the trees as best as you can.

In my mind the 2M rule is something that forces people to play for their shots to finish on the playing surface.


My personal opinion is the PDGA needs to make set rules, no more leaving this rule or that one up to the TD to use or define( something i think everybody would agree about). All rules should be the same and turnaments should all use the same rules.

 

[Pbmercil]

My personal opinion is the PDGA needs to make set rules, no more leaving this rule or that one up to the TD to use or define( something i think everybody would agree about). All rules should be the same and turnaments should all use the same rules.

The 2m rule is literally the ONLY rule that is optional at the TD's discretion. So I'm not really sure what your trying to say, because there are literally zero other rules that TD's can pick from

 

[DavidSauls]

The 2m rule is literally the ONLY rule that is optional at the TD's discretion. So I'm not really sure what your trying to say, because there are literally zero other rules that TD's can pick from

The O.B. rule is entirely at the TD's discretion. He chooses what places are O.B. The rulebook says how to play it, if a shot comes to rest there.

It doesn't say, "all water" or "all roads" or anything like that.

Similarly, with the 2-meter rule, the TD chooses which trees (or other high surfaces) to which it applies, and the rulebook says how to play it, if the shot comes to rest there.

 

[Steve West]

Also at TD's discretion: What par is, start times, shotgun or not, which courses/holes/tees/baskets to play, greater casual relief, whether water is causal or not, casual obstacles, mandatories and what line goes with them, options after OB, drop zones or not for OB and Lost.

Also, the seemingly limitless possibilities of Special Conditions.

Not to mention judgements like whether a surface is a playing surface, and whether a disc is illegal or not, when a scorecard is late, and any other ruling where there is confusion.

 

[DavidSauls]

My personal opinion is the PDGA needs to make set rules, no more leaving this rule or that one up to the TD to use or define( something i think everybody would agree about). All rules should be the same and turnaments should all use the same rules.

Be careful what you ask for. If the choice was between returning the 2-meter rule to universal application, or abolishing it entirely, odds are it would be gone.

 

[zenbot]

I was curious how bolf approaches ball in tree. It's a little trickier as you must positively identify the ball to call it unplayable. If you can't identify the ball they you get stroked and distance. It can be a lot more punitive than the 2m rule if you're unable to retrieve your ball in order to identify it.



My Ball is Stuck in a Tree - What are My Options?

 

[DavidSauls]

I have never heard any real argument against having the 2M rule other then its stupid or if i do it has a pga golf comparison(disc golf is not ball golf).

Well, if you've got a lot of time on your hands, there is an epic thread about the 2-meter rule, which I linked on post #27 of this thread.

It's got all the reasons against having the 2-meter rule. And, in fairness, all of the reasons for having it.

It may change your mind. It probably won't. But at least you'll have heard all the arguments.

 

[loki the trickster]

Be careful what you ask for. If the choice was between returning the 2-meter rule to universal application, or abolishing it entirely, odds are it would be gone.

That is EXACTLY what i hope happens!

The rules need to be uniform from coast to coast and continent to continent.

 

[loki the trickster]

Well, if you've got a lot of time on your hands, there is an epic thread about the 2-meter rule, which I linked on post #27 of this thread.

It's got all the reasons against having the 2-meter rule. And, in fairness, all of the reasons for having it.

It may change your mind. It probably won't. But at least you'll have heard all the arguments.

Sorry i had plenty of discussions for and against. The rules for the longest time were pro 2M.

My problem is that the PDGA needs to make the choice of pro or anti 2 meter rule. Someone should be able to travel anywhere and know the rules.

 

[DavidSauls]

Sorry i had plenty of discussions for and against. The rules for the longest time were pro 2M.

My problem is that the PDGA needs to make the choice of pro or anti 2 meter rule. Someone should be able to travel anywhere and know the rules.

I understand the sentiment, but....how is that different from O.B.?

I travel and play a course with paved walking paths on the fairways, and I don't know if they're O.B., or beyond them O.B., or not. Unless I read the instructions, telling me whether O.B. applies. (On a course near me, all the possibilities come into play---not O.B., O.B. on the path, O.B. on and beyond the path).

How is that different than not knowing if the 2-meter rule is in effect, without checking the sign or rules sheet?

 

[DavidSauls]

Sorry i had plenty of discussions for and against. The rules for the longest time were pro 2M.
.

OK. You said you had not heard any real arguments, I thought I'd offer them. You don't have to be convinced by them, but they're more than just "its stupid" or anything to do with golf.

 

[beereakfast]

It seems like his point was more directed a continuity in the rules. For myself, I agree. But then, I know a few spots where the trees will catch and hold your disc pretty badly. It does make more sense to me than calling it a random penalty. Wooded courses have trees. If you hit one, I don't call it random. I do all the time.... Just a bad execution!

 

[prerube]

Sometimes rules are set regionally. You are not going to see this rule in Arizona or Florida. Its going to be at a park with lots of cedar trees where retrieving the disc will slow the pace of play.