taking away the 2 meter rule

[araytx]

I realize the 2 meter rule is trying to make a point to the player to stay out of the trees or else, but we all hit trees from time to time and the 2 meter rule creates this random situation where sometimes a player gets penalized and sometimes they do not, so luck becomes more of a factor with the 2 meter rule, so I am for eliminating it.

I personally would like some appropriately used hybrid of all-or-nothing 2m rule. I absolutely disagree with the statement about luck. When a player intentionally throws a high shot up into a tree or over and spiking down into the tree hoping it hits the ground, that's not a situation where luck becomes more of a factor -- everyone that does that knows the risk before they do it. I guess the one whose discs actually came to rest on the playing surface was the lucky one. But you know.

In general the rules should punish bad shots and reward good ones. A "hope and pray it comes down"-shot is not such a scenario. I do agree however, that a shot that sticks in the middle of a fairway, right at the curve 250 feet from the basket, is not what should be punished, either. Personally, if there was a reasonably easy way to do it, I'd rather see a rule where it's only in effect within a 50-ft radius of the basket, or somehting like that. And of course it makes sense that "big arms" who can throw over everything don't like it. Why would they?

 

[araytx]

I'd support ditching this rule only AFTER Feldberg leads a charge to eliminate the too-close-to-tell-for-sure walking putts used so frequently by him and others. He whines, doesn't mean we should necessarily listen to everything he has to say.

Post me a video ...

 

[Cgkdisc]

The current rule allows TDs to selectively use the 2m rule where it might make sense either by hole or on individual trees. It's the blanket 2m rule that's ill-advised old school entrenchment without thoughtful consideration of design aspects of a hole.

 

[gdub58]

If the sport at the competitive level is about measuring skill, then every effort should be made to reduce luck factors where feasible and possible. The 2m rule falls more on the luck side with few exceptions. Calling it OB when landing surrounded by water in mostly dry or narrow (under 2 feet wide) creeks is also too lucky. Calling asphalt paths OB that cross fairways where it's IB on both sides creates an unlucky situation. I'm sure some of you can think of other lucky elements that exist or are deliberately created where there's more luck than skill being introduced.

Jumpin' Joe Feidt PDGA #362 is also a 2-meter stick along with Stork, or at least when they were younger...

Two throws hit the same spot - one skips or rolls OB, the other one doesn't. That's luck. Can't be controlled nor should it be.

Bad hops in baseball, funny bounces in football, bouncing off a sprinkler head in ball golf - all can be considered luck. Tiger Woods won the PGA Championship in 2000 because of an incredibly lucky bounce off a cart path on the last hole.

Now, if the 2m rule was only enforced if you flipped a coin after your disc got stuck and it came up heads, then I'd agree that it would be introducing luck that has nothing to do with your throw and wouldn't be fair. Otherwise, it is no different than getting a bad roll or tree bounce.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.


Sorry for all of the long posts - I'm stuck at LaGuardia for six hours with free Internet so I'm bored and frustrated and venting here makes it more tolerable...

 

[The dude on the bike]

If there needs to be a rule about not being on the ground then so be it, the distance from the ground should not matter.

 

[araytx]

The current rule allows TDs to selectively use the 2m rule where it might make sense either by hole or on individual trees. It's the blanket 2m rule that's ill-advised old school entrenchment without thoughtful consideration of design aspects of a hole.

Yes, Chuck, I agree. Where we play there are some wooded courses where the 2m rule is always in effect. I believe, just looking at the design that it was meant (by the designer) to protect around the basket, but TD's think it's so much simpler to say "always in effect," because then no one argues about which holes and where it was in effect or not.

I wish they'd just yellow-stripe paint circles around the the holes where it was in effect within 10m.

 

[araytx]

Two throws hit the same spot - one skips or rolls OB, the other one doesn't. That's luck. Can't be controlled nor should it be.

Nope, I disagree. The same exact shot thrown with the same angle, same speed, at the same spot, same everything with different discs won't have that same thing occur. The skill is in disc selection, not shot selection.

Bad hops in baseball, funny bounces in football, bouncing off a sprinkler head in ball golf - all can be considered luck.

The baseball one. Well on a well-manicured field yes, I agree, that's luck. But funny bounces by an oddly-shaped football, that's not luck, that's expectation. Bouncing off a sprinkler head in bolf, that's not luck that's a poor grounds crew.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

yep

 

[agentdozzer]

If your disc didnt land on the playing surface then you should be ob. I dont like the fact that this rule isnt used more it should always be in effect. Try explaining to the guys at espn how a disc twenty feet in the air is just played from below it with no stroke, I can hear them laughing now.

 

[Cgkdisc]

gdub58 - Two throws hit the same spot - one skips or rolls OB, the other one doesn't. That's luck. Can't be controlled nor should it be.

Sorry but the 2m rule is deliberately adding the luck factor without a (hopefully) well defined border like OB for where it's safe and where it is not. The typical throw in DG is higher than 2m. Check it out. We throw downhill where we're above the 2m point in the trees that might be in the fairway or block a throw such as at Dela and other courses with elevation. Even well designed holes require players to flirt with foliage higher than 2m. As "The dude on the bike" posted above, a rule where "if a disc does not land flat on the playing surface, it's a penalty" would be more fair or at least introduce the same amount of fluky luck into all shots rather than just those arbitrarily above 2m. Imagine if a roller hops into a bush a few inches above the ground and got penalized. It would be in a similar percentage fluky zone as the current 2m rule.

 

[BENFTS]

I'd be for allowing the 2m penalty if every missed cut-thru putt also counted if observed by the group. Balance the fluky bad luck with some fluky good luck. Both make about as much sense to apply.

Just like in ball golf the ball sometimes goes over the hole and not in. This is the nature of the game.

 

[BENFTS]

If the sport at the competitive level is about measuring skill, then every effort should be made to reduce luck factors where feasible and possible. The 2m rule falls more on the luck side with few exceptions. Calling it OB when landing surrounded by water in mostly dry or narrow (under 2 feet wide) creeks is also too lucky. Calling asphalt paths OB that cross fairways where it's IB on both sides creates an unlucky situation. I'm sure some of you can think of other lucky elements that exist or are deliberately created where there's more luck than skill being introduced.

Jumpin' Joe Feidt PDGA #362 is also a 2-meter stick along with Stork, or at least when they were younger...

The best players eliminate this by throwing shots that have little or no risk in landing 2m in a tree or rolling OB. If we reduce the luck factor then the game just got lame.

 

[Cgkdisc]

But ball golf doesn't have a stopping device like the chains, at least when putting. If our baskets were truly just the basket then you couldn't complain about skip outs, rim outs or skip overs.

 

[Cgkdisc]

BENFTS - The best players eliminate this by throwing shots that have little or no risk in landing 2m in a tree or rolling OB. If we reduce the luck factor then the game just got lame.

I'm afraid what's lame is the laziness of TDs to selectively apply the 2m rule only where it makes sense and it's not everywhere on the course. I realize that Cali initiated the game but in this case hasn't done as well advancing the sport.

The Swedes came to the game much later and had a chance to watch and observe what the sport was about without being blinded by tradition. It's not like they're lacking lots of trees. They were the first to ban the 2m rule. The PDGA finally caught up so there wasn't a disconnect between ruling bodies. Now we're in-sync.

 

[BENFTS]

You cant complain about it now, the disc still needs to come to rest in the chains and or in the basket so the same logic can be applied. Skill is a way of minimizing the issues and no amount of it will ever eliminate all of the chances for these things to happen, that's why the saying goes "its better to be lucky than good any day".

 

[BENFTS]

I'm sorry if players are not good enough to mentally manage the risk reward factor in shot selection and I'm also sorry that I think its lame. I don't know what you think advancement is but I can assure you the 2m rule is not the tip of the spear and might not even be attached to the spear for that matter. Maybe we can go back to ground baskets...

 

[Cgkdisc]

Just eliminating luck where it can deliberately be done as in "use 2m rule selectively and sensibly, just not everywhere."

 

[BENFTS]

Chuck, I guess I don't see why changing or removing the 2m rule will have a positive impact on the game. I know we all throw our discs higher than 2m for the most part but what part of that is luck? You as the thrower know where the disc needs to go and where it needs to land and if you miss that target area you have a chance of being penalized. Sure luck can determine if a disc gets caught up or not but you put the disc in the situation to be there.

I told one of my employees the other day that same kinda of thing in a round about fashion, she left her phone in plain view and unattended, a student came by and stole it while she was not in the office. Employee is mad and understandably so but she left the phone in a place that was not safe and she lost her phone as a result. Somethings we can control and others we cant, I personally think that we control 95% of weather or not a disc gets stuck in a tree and if given an opportunity that disc may F%$K you if you let it have that chance. You wouldn't leave your wallet on a convince store counter and expect not to loose it would you?

 

[patdb23]

This is a good debate and I really like the points that have been brought out. I'm more in favor of a permanent 2M rule and yeah I know it is a sucky rule. What I like about the 2M rule is that it adds an additional element of risk in the vertical field of play. Take the 2M rule away and I guarantee you more players will be throwing airshots with less concern of risk. At my home course, probably 70-80% of the baskets are within 5 meters of a tree. Usually there are two options:

1. Take the low narrow route.
Reward: Hit the gap having a direct route to the basket
Risk: Miss the gap and hit a tree deflecting your shot

2. Throw over the trees.
Reward: Eliminate having to navigate through narrow paths
Risk: Penalized for landing 2M above

I realize there's alot more risk and reward that can be added above, but you can see how taking away the 2M rule really offers more reward to going over the top.

Some have suggested enforcing the 2M rule only for trees within a certain distance of the basket. I don't know about you, but we already have people who cant count out 10 meters correctly (the ten pace example, hello its 33ft, not ten tiny steps). Now add an object to walk around near a basket and measure distance? And then the issue of assigning a particular tree to enforce the 2M rule. Well, there's a lot of trees with branches that weave in and out of other trees. I could just see the argument, well the disc is supported by that branch that runs down a limb into the trunk of this tree even though the branch is woven into the 2M tree.

Again if they do eliminate the 2M rule, you will find more players throwing airshots which will increase the likelyhood of more discs stuck in trees. That translates into more time retrieving discs and slowing play.

 

[gdub58]

Nope, I disagree. The same exact shot thrown with the same angle, same speed, at the same spot, same everything with different discs won't have that same thing occur. The skill is in disc selection, not shot selection.

Don't take this so literally - when I say the same shot could do two different things, a two-inch difference could result in an OB for one or the other. Heck, if you want to take it to your extreme, the exact same shot at the same speed with the same disc could produce different results if there is an unexpected gust of wind for one of them.

Bouncing off a sprinkler head in bolf, that's not luck that's a poor grounds crew.

Seriously? Exposed sprinkler heads exist on every golf course that have a watering system - the greenskeeper does not put a cover on them when they are not turned on. There's also rakes in bunkers that can give you an unlucky bounce and many other examples that I've experienced over years of playing.

 

[BENFTS]

Don't take this so literally - when I say the same shot could do two different things, a two-inch difference could result in an OB for one or the other. Heck, if you want to take it to your extreme, the exact same shot at the same speed with the same disc could produce different results if there is an unexpected gust of wind for one of them.





Seriously? Exposed sprinkler heads exist on every golf course that have a watering system - the greenskeeper does not put a cover on them when they are not turned on. There's also rakes in bunkers that can give you an unlucky bounce and many other examples that I've experienced over years of playing.

The rakes and other things on a ball golf course are great examples.