taking away the 2 meter rule

[Cgkdisc]

The nature of our game is primarily throwing the disc in the air and trying to avoid obstacles and foliage at all heights including grass. No one willingly wants their throw to touch anything other than the basket before landing if at all possible except maybe for intentional skip shots. It makes no sense to legislate additional penalties for contact with foliage from certain directions and not other directions. Contact with obstacles and foliage is generally not a good throw nor intended. Throwing over the top may be a better percentage choice than a line drive, but both can involve avoiding or dealing with foliage.

If the designer has a thing against using spike hyzers and thumbers on a hole, you design the hole to negate the option. Don't use a weak sauce penalty like the 2m to semi-scare them. If over the top is a better choice for some players than a line drive or roller, there should be nothing wrong with players taking that route and not getting penalized for pinballing thru trees any more than the player throwing a line drive and kicking off trees if they miss the line. The 2m rule simply discriminates against those who can play routes over the top in the same way some designers have been known to place logs to screw with rollers.

If the designer doesn't want players to take a particular route, whatever that may be, then design against it in the same way designers simply do not clear some trees and brush to discourage certain line drive routes. Using a blanket 2m rule is simply a weak attempt to occasionally penalize players capable of making certain types of throws in favor of line drive players who also hit trees and don't get the added penalty.

 

[Smigles]

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.

I know this is going back a few pages and waaaay off topic, but how is this "too close to tell" ?

The foot is not on the ground yet and the disc is at least a foot from his hand allready. And that's one of the closer calls. It was during the european open 2009 and many people were very suspicious, and specialy complaining after seeing a video of that particular putt, only to be shut up later by that pic.

IMO Feldi is the guy where you can have the least of all worries. Jump putts are a different thing entirely, and so is the Ulibarri style of walkthrough putts. But what Feldi does looks legit, feels legit when you try it and has been filmed again and again and there is no evidence of it being a faul, only much badmouthing.

Maybe I should open a new thread about this.

 

[craftsman]

Having a blanket 2m rule is like saying, " if you miss your line and kick left its okay, but if you kick right, its a stroke".

 

[RayGeFilled]

I'm just a casual player, and have yet to play in a sanctioned DG tournament, but I've been a ball golfer all my life and I think this is pretty cut and dry.

Get rid of the rule. It is pretty simple, if you cannot mark your disc and throw behind it, then you need to take a one stroke penalty. That's the way I would have played it having never read the rulebook. That's the way it is played in ball golf, and there are all the same provisions for casual impediments. I don't read a single argument in here that would justify not penalizing a player that puts his disc in a tree.

The one argument I see consistantly is that it is a matter of luck determining if the disc stays suspended in the tree. But that is just the bounce of the game. Of any game really. The disc could stay inn the tree, bounce out, bounce all the way back to the thrower, bounce into the basket, or bounce out of bounds. Bad luck isn't really a justification for leniency. It's part of the game and everybody is playing by the same rules, so what's to complain about? It's kind of risk and reward, part of the challenge of the game.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Being in or shooting thru trees is rarely part of the intended fairway or hole design in ball golf. And ball golf requires players to "play it where it lies." This is not the case in disc golf where we NEVER play it where it lies. We take a stance on the ground above or below where it landed. Subtle but significant difference. Trees are an integral part of many fairways in disc golf. It's not the same game as ball golf in this regard and how penalties are handled should reflect that difference.

 

[DavidSauls]

The difference between the "luck" effect of the 2M rule, and the baseball bouncing or a rake in a sandtrap, is that it's the (bad) rule that inserts the luck effect.

Around here it's not 1 in 10 that sticks. More like 1 in several hundred. Certainly not enough to affect someone's shot decision, even when the rule was universally in effect.

 

[patdb23]

I'm all for a permanent 2m rule but if it is removed, it will definitely change my style of play on certian courses. Rather than shooting through a low narrow gap of trees, I will throw the spike hyzer. So what if it's 30ft up in a tree directly above the basket. I'll take a two most everytime, my rating will soar, and just continue to use the canopy of a tree as a big catchers mitt. So go ahead and remove the 2m rule. I guarantee though round times will increase.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've played many years, both under the universally-applied 2M rule, and the TD-optional (and virtually never applied here) version. I definitely favor the latter.

Among the arguments I've seen in favor of making it universal, let me paraphrase a few:

"It should be a penalty because it should be!" Sometimes emphasized with "of course it should be!".

----Circular logic at best, though I keep seeing it.

"I've always played that way."

---I understand the sentiment, and approve of stability in our rules. But that's not a very compeling argument, in and of itself.

"You can't play it where it lies."

---That's an argument for a 2-inch rule; anything above ground, stuck in a tree, bush, perhaps tall grass penalized?

"Someone shouldn't be able to deliberately throw into a tree over the basket, knowing they'll drop down for an easy putt (unless it sticks in the tree)."

---99% of trees on disc golf courses are not over baskets; why make a bad rule apply to all of them for the ones that are? And of the ones that are, how many create a better option by throwing into the tree instead of approaching normally? I've only seen one, though I'll take my western friends' word that there must be more. Where this situation exists and a disc might stick in the tree, what are the odds? 1 in 10? Does that create a strategic decision in the player to have a 90% chance of birdie by driving into the tree, as opposed to, say, a 70% chance by approaching the basket normally?

"Luck is part of the sports."

---True, but rarely created by the rule.

"Bad shots should be punished, and hitting a tree is a bad shot."

---Shots that hit trees are already punished. There momentum is stopped, a distance penalty. Where the disc falls, or the lie is marked if stuck in the tree, is often a bad lie. If a disc is stuck, the player may have to complet the round without it. Why should 1 in 100 shots get an extra penalty because the disc stuck in the tree?

"You shouldn't throw near the trees."

---Not sure about other places, but in South Carolina every shot is near and among trees.

"It's comparable to out-of-bounds."

---Again, perhaps a regional thing, but if any course had as much out of bounds as we have trees to weave discs between, I think it would be considered very bad course design.

*

Instead, why not let the TD (or course designer) determine where 2M should be penalized, just like he decides how much luck to allow in the course design, just like he decides what should be out-of-bounds, based on the best option for that particular hole?

 

[BENFTS]

Thank you Ray and chuck there's no changing an already made il mind and you seem so passionate about the elimination of this rule.

I completely disagree that this rule in any way penilizes people because of their throwing ability, as Ray said its the bouncen of the game it can happen to all of us.

 

[JTacoma03]

I, for one, like the 2m rule. I believe it gives course designers another dimension when determining the challenges to a particular hole. If it were up to me though, I would increase the height required to be "OB". I would think that it needs to be at least 10-12ft (~3.5-4m) suspended above the ground before a penalty is applied. I think increasing the height would reduce the anger with "lucky falls and unlucky sticks".

On the other side of the coin I do understand frustration with it, especially because so much of the competitive side of our sport still takes place on - let's face it - recreational level courses. Often these courses are in city parks and designed to appeal to the masses, so when more technical skill is applied and only sometimes punished it appears more random.

Honestly though, I don't have much sympathy for the whiners, least of all feldberg. At his level, if he gets stuck in a tree it means he's probably running/playing aggressively and that's a risk you take when playing that style of game. I think he's trying to use the lesser rated players angst to fuel his own campaign against the rule simply because he doesn't like it. The more skill you have, the less luck will play a factor...and guess what at 1040 rated I don't feel bad if he gets a penalty stroke once every 6 tournaments because he ran a basket.

 

[JoakimBL]

Great post David.

I completely disagree that this rule in any way penilizes people because of their throwing ability, as Ray said its the bouncen of the game it can happen to all of us.

You are absolutely right. It doesn't penalize on throwing ability, it only penalizes on random luck.

All the ball golf analogies are bad. There is no penalty for hitting the rake in the bunker or the sprinkler head in the fairway, just the unlucky bounce. We also have that in disc golf. A golf ball stuck in a tree is in no way comparable to a golf disc stuck. There is the hole course design thing. You don't play ball golf in the woods and trees and bushes are not in the middle of the fairway. And you don't guard the hole with a big tree either. The shape and size of a disc, makes it much more likely to get stuck, than a tiny golf ball. And even though I know very little about golf rules, I'm pretty sure there is no rule that getting stuck in a tree is a penalty. The problem is getting to play from the lie in the tree. As Chuck has already said, we never play the disc were it lies, so any comparison to ball golf in that matter is nonsense. And if we did, the rule should not be 2 meters, it should be 2 centimeters, which obviously is a dumb rule.

This should only be a question of course design. There are much better ways than random penalties to force players from taking certain lines or throws in my opinion.

 

[gdub58]

Being in or shooting thru trees is rarely part of the intended fairway or hole design in ball golf.

That difference is necessary to bring an element of challenge into disc golf. In ball golf the rough and bunkers create a bad lie which add an element of difficulty and penalty to a poor shot. In disc golf we have trees and little else to create this sort of penalty.

And ball golf requires players to "play it where it lies." This is not the case in disc golf where we NEVER play it where it lies.

You're really losing me with this. Other than the occasional weird lie (like being 1m up in a tree), in disc golf our stance always has to be based on where the disc lies. That's where the challenge comes in.

All the ball golf analogies are bad. There is no penalty for hitting the rake in the bunker or the sprinkler head in the fairway, just the unlucky bounce. We also have that in disc golf. A golf ball stuck in a tree is in no way comparable to a golf disc stuck. There is the hole course design thing. You don't play ball golf in the woods and trees and bushes are not in the middle of the fairway. And you don't guard the hole with a big tree either. The shape and size of a disc, makes it much more likely to get stuck, than a tiny golf ball. And even though I know very little about golf rules, I'm pretty sure there is no rule that getting stuck in a tree is a penalty. The problem is getting to play from the lie in the tree. As Chuck has already said, we never play the disc were it lies, so any comparison to ball golf in that matter is nonsense. And if we did, the rule should not be 2 meters, it should be 2 centimeters, which obviously is a dumb rule.

You're missing my point - there is the possibility of a penalty in ball golf when hitting a random object even beyond the unlucky aspect of it. I've had balls bounce off of sprinkler heads into unplayable lies and a couple even out of bounds over the years. The argument against the 2m started out being that it is too random, and I'm simply pointing out that random bounces are part of many games.

And yes, getting stuck in a tree is a penalty in ball golf unless you can somehow play it from the spot in the tree (and that's only if you can get to the ball and clearly identify it as yours). Believe me, there are a lot more rules in ball golf that seem random and unfair at times. And, they are not optionally enforced as is the 2m rule.

I guess that's what has prompted me to respond so much on this. Disc golf is a lot more forgiving than ball golf on the rules, and several of the rules in disc golf (like foot faults) are hotly debated on whether or not they should be called in tournaments and rarely if ever are called in casual play. I can only imagine how much complaining would come from some disc golfers if they played ball golf regularly and played by the rules. Try hitting from an unrepaired divot or from an imbedded lie with no relief...

 

[DavidSauls]

You're missing my point - there is the possibility of a penalty in ball golf when hitting a random object even beyond the unlucky aspect of it. I've had balls bounce off of sprinkler heads into unplayable lies and a couple even out of bounds over the years. The argument against the 2m started out being that it is too random, and I'm simply pointing out that random bounces are part of many games.

The distinction is there's not a penalty for hitting random object. Is there a penalty in golf for coming to rest against the sprinkler head?

Yes, it can lead to an unplayable lie or even O.B. So can hitting a tree in disc golf, depending on how the disc falls/rolls/kicks. The 2M rule creates an additional penalty for the 1% that stick in the tree.

 

[gdub58]

The distinction is there's not a penalty for hitting random object. Is there a penalty in golf for coming to rest against the sprinkler head?

Yes, it can lead to an unplayable lie or even O.B. So can hitting a tree in disc golf, depending on how the disc falls/rolls/kicks. The 2M rule creates an additional penalty for the 1% that stick in the tree.

Totally agree - why is having a penalty for that 1% such a problem?

In my own experience and as others have pointed out, the 2m rule is generally used by TDs on courses purposefully because of the design of a hole or the course. At the BG Ams, they invoke the rule only at Kereikas because virtually all of the trees are big cedars that grab discs - it makes you think about your shots more and creates an extra challenge for that course. I like that extra challenge - apparently some don't.

 

[Three Putt]

To me I totally ignore any argument that the 2M rule is a good rule in any fairway. In the fairway it is a random double penalty. You already threw a bad shot that you have to recover from. You already lost distance from hitting a tree and you probably have a bad lie. Adding a stroke if the disc happens to stick 2M up is an arbitrary penalty on top of an already bad outcome.

The only argument I can see is the whole "your disc is stuck 15' up in a tree right next to the basket, so you get to pull it down and drop it in instead of having the 100' comeback you should have" factor. I ran an event where a playoff ended this way. The guy who won made a horrible shot but his disc stuck in a branch right over the basket for a drop in and the win. The 2M rule would have been a good rule there.

The problem for me is that the kind of courses generally where the 2M rule makes sense around the basket are the same ones where it makes the least sense in the fairway, that being the heavily wooded courses. Heavily wooded courses tend to have have the sort of foliage around the basket that makes it a good rule, but they also have the tough lies with no shot at the basket off the fairway that makes the 2M rule unnecessary and unfair.

Because of that, you end up with the "it's in effect on this hole but not that one" confusion that I think is worse than just using the rule. Either it's a rule or it isn't.

This is why I love Chucks suggestion of the rule only being in effect in the circle. The circle is already a defined area we use with different rules from the rest of the course, so why not add another caveat to the circle? It would be consistent, the TD wouldn't have to spend 1/2 hour explaining it in the players meeting and no one would have to argue about where it was in effect. It eliminates the double penalty in the fairway and preserves the penalty for the bad shot drop in. Win-win-win. Why this idea isn't getting more traction is beyond me.

 

[DavidSauls]

Totally agree - why is having a penalty for that 1% such a problem?

In my own experience and as others have pointed out, the 2m rule is generally used by TDs on courses purposefully because of the design of a hole or the course. At the BG Ams, they invoke the rule only at Kereikas because virtually all of the trees are big cedars that grab discs - it makes you think about your shots more and creates an extra challenge for that course. I like that extra challenge - apparently some don't.

That's why I agree with the current rule---apply 2M where appropriate. I can even agree in certain fairways, such as where cedars are good enough at catching discs to be real obstacles and players make risk/reward decisions based on them.

I'm not bothered by it being in effect on certain hole or courses, not others. I play a lot on courses where O.B. changes from hole to hole.

I disagree with those who say it should always be a penalty (and, though to a lesser degree, with those who say it should never be a penalty).

 

[Jay Dub]

Make it a blanket rule that the 2M rule is in effect within the 10M circle and never anywhere else. I can understand the reason for that.

 

[Three Putt]

Make it a blanket rule that the 2M rule is in effect within the 10M circle and never anywhere else. I can understand the reason for that.

If Jay Dub and I agree on something, either Hell is freezing over or we are on to something. Call the PDGA!

 

[Jay Dub]

If Jay Dub and I agree on something, either Hell is freezing over or we are on to something. Call the PDGA!

Hahaha! :thmbup:

 

[KenTyburski]

Make it a blanket rule that the 2M rule is in effect within the 10M circle and never anywhere else. I can understand the reason for that.

Really like this idea. I don't think much about the 2m rule, because it has rarely been in effect in any tourneys I have played. I don't think about it in casual play at all. This thought about the advantage of being inside the circle makes the most sense.

The only issue I see is what another poster expressed, in that you have overlapping trees, contention about 9.95m vs. 10.05m (especially when guesstimating a measurement overhead), etc. I might modify this idea to either a painted circle (which I know happens for many big events, but rarely for smaller ones) inside of which the the TREES would be included (whether or not the DISC is outside of 10m or not), or to identifying a relatively circular set of specific trees on any given hole out to a distance at the TD's discretion, within reason (maybe out to up to 15m?). If you are caught in any of those trees, the rule applies. Easy to mark the trees with a flag, a painted dot, etc. if they are included. Makes a little more work for TDs or volunteers, but eliminates questionable interpretation of the rule; you are probably walking the course numerous times marking OB or for other reasons, so just mark the trees as you go.