Hanging Basket: 2 Meter Ruling

[jobwilson]

I played in the Buffalo Trace Open this weekend in Palmyra, Indiana. For this tournament, the 2-meter rule was in effect, which is fine with me. Here's the question/problem.

Hole 1 at the course is a hanging basket. The bottom of the basket is probably 7.5' off the ground, which of course puts the top 2-meters above the ground. Because of this, the tournament director made the 2-meter rule in effect if you landed on top of the basket.

In my mind, the inside of the basket should be considered part of the playing surface, since it is your final destination. If the bottom of the basket is part of the playing surface, then landing on top of the basket should not put you above 2-meters (even though you are >2-meters above the ground).

What are your thoughts and rulings?

[bradharris]

I think it's a dumb ruling, but fair nonetheless. I'd still consider the ground the playing surface rather than the bottom of the basket.

Kudos to the TD for specifically stating that prior to the round to avoid any confusion. At least you know every player will be playing it the same way.

[Cgkdisc]

Bogus ruling. TD would need waiver from the PDGA Tour Manager for that call since it goes against the intent of the rule. As was pointed out above, the 2-meters should be measured above the highest point in the basket that a disc can hole out. And since that is not really clear, it makes even having the 2-meter rule over the basket inappropriate. Now what the TD could have done to get the same effect without needing a waiver is simply stating that landing on top of the target was OB including when the disc is partly projecting past the edge. But if OB on that target, why not every target? Let's penalize a bad shot that hasn't holed out on the target even more?

[bradharris]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

it goes against the intent of the rule

What is the original intent of the 2-meter rule anyway? With OB and Mandos, the intent is always to force certain lines and avoid hazardous areas. The 2-meter rule has always seemed to me a penalty for bad luck. Two very similar shots can have very different consequences if one stays in a tree while the other falls out.

[Cgkdisc]

I was instrumental in getting the original 2-meter rule changed to having it be optional so it's only used when it makes sense from a design standpoint. So I'm no supporter of blanket uses of the rule. Two places where it can make sense are when trees like cedars have a high probability of snagging 90% of discs going into them AND they are not in the main fairway but bordering it where a shot there is already bad. And the other is when the pin is right under trees that allow power players to go over the top without much risk.

[bradharris]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

I was instrumental in getting the original 2-meter rule changed to having it be optional so it's only used when it makes sense from a design standpoint. So I'm no supporter of blanket uses of the rule. Two places where it can make sense are when trees like cedars have a high probability of snagging 90% of discs going into them AND they are not in the main fairway but bordering it where a shot there is already bad. And the other is when the pin is right under trees that allow power players to go over the top without much risk.

Interesting, thanks for the insight. I was trying to understand the intent of the rule when playing casual rounds with friends. They like to play 2-meter on everything, even tree cluttered fairways that are very difficult to avoid.

[jobwilson]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Now what the TD could have done to get the same effect without needing a waiver is simply stating that landing on top of the target was OB including when the disc is partly projecting past the edge. But if OB on that target, why not every target? Let's penalize a bad shot that hasn't holed out on the target even more?

I want to make sure I'm reading this correct. What you're saying is that the TD could have made the tops of all the baskets OB, but to apply it to a single hole because of the 2-meter rule is absurd?

Essentially, either way you phrase it it's an absurd ruling?

[Cgkdisc]

It seems ill-advised to have the penalty for such a fluky shot. For example, if you have a penalty for landing on the top, why not also penalize a disc wedging in the side of the basket? Landing on top or in the side of the basket is already seen as "bad luck" (less than perfect throw) so why pour it on with a penalty, too?

[New013]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

And the other is when the pin is right under trees that allow power players to go over the top without much risk.

there's a couple holes in my area where a lot of guys just throw the disc in to the trees and let it fall down by the hole. #1 at Kentwood comes to mind.

[Cgkdisc]

It's partly a design issue with older courses when the 2 meter rule was always in effect. However, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with developing the "skill" to throw into the trees as a strategy any more than trying to throw so you land on the ground near the basket. The tree route may be more risky. But as the folks at Pro Worlds will find out this week, landing flat on the ground and avoiding roots and rough spots has its own set of luck involved.