taking away the 2 meter rule

[gvan]

You cannot walk putt within 30ft.

Or, in fact, from 32.8 feet.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yes please.

Ahem.

I remain an Optionalist. Alas, at this point the decision is more subjective and opinion.

I believe there are places where this is a good rule, and places where it's a bad rule.

In the latter, it's a matter of whether the devotion to Principle outweighs the negative aspects. Both of those are subjective, aren't they? Are we a slave to this Absolute Principle, or is it a Guiding Principle? What are the negative aspects, and just how negative are they?

I've qualified my previous posts; instead of thinking the rule is bad here because of the negative aspects, with no redeeming benefits, I see it as bad because of the negative aspects, in spite of the guiding principle. I'd rather violate the principle and avoid the random penalties than stick to the principle and suffer the random penalties.

But 40% of the words in those paragraphs are subjective or opinion, not to mention debate.

Meanwhile, where in places where it's a good rule, it has a stronger underpinning with this guiding principle.

*

That's the best I can do, on short notice.

 

[patdb23]

My premise is that I would like to see a set of rules in place that is consistent throughout our sport so that no matter where you go the same rules are in place. I'm trying to think of a popular professional sport where the rules change subject to the vicinity of the event, but at the moment my mind draws a blank. I realize we play on courses with different terrains, landscapes, etc. and therefore some rules may not be feasible to assign to specific courses, such as defined areas of OB.

For the seasoned players that have played this game for a few years or more and played in a variety of tournaments, the knowledge of the rules has been learned through this experience. I have yet to meet any new player that has a full grasp of all the rules. And I would go as far as to say that some players who have played this game for many years don't always keep up with the revised rules or simply haven't come across a specific situation in a long period of time and have forgotten how to make a certain rule call.

Just consider the fact as a PDGA certified official you have to carry the rulebook at all times. But we all know that not all the rules are in the rule book or competition manual. Yes, there's a third source of rules, in the PDGA Rules Q & A. When is the last time you ever saw a PDGA certified official carry the Rules Q & A with them?

Time and time again I have witnessed courses/tournaments that have laid out a set of very specific rules which hinders the continuity of the game. I have witnessed people gain strokes or earned penalties after-the-fact because they were not accustomed to these specific set of rules for the event. I'm not talking about the misunderstanding of amateur players either. This has been witnessed by top pros in NT events.

Anyway, this particular discussion of an optional 2M rule goes against my premise stated above. My point is that we should move in the other direction, a direction towards a set of rules that allows continuity and cohesiveness integrated in our "professional" sport.

 

[patdb23]

(John): Welcome back to the 2013 Memorial here in beautiful Fountain Hills, Arizona. I'm your host John Duesler along with Rebecca Duffy. Catch us up to speed Rebecca.

(Rebecca): Right now we are looking at hole 8, a challenging 568ft par 4 with the basket sitting out on a peninsula with the Fountain Hills lake in the background. Now each hole on the course has a very specific set of rules in place, so let me share this with our audience. Players on the tee must navigate their first drive to the right of a mandatory tree which is about 200ft in front of the tee. If they miss the mandatory, the player must throw from a drop zone, but no penalty stroke will be applied. There is a street along the right of the fairway which is OB. Along the left of the fairway is the fountain hills lake which is also OB. Once players clear the mandatory, if a player lands in the trees to the right of the fairway no 2M penalty will be issued, players will mark their lie below. Now if players land in the trees on the peninsula above 2M, they will be issued a penalty. When a player throws towards the peninsula, any shot that does not land on the peninsula, the player must go back to a second drop zone, and a penalty will be issued. However, if the player is within the 10m circle and their shot goes OB into the lake, the player has the option to call an optional rethrow and throw from their last lie, or they can play from the spot the disc was last IB. I forgot to mention, there's a park bench in the middle of the fairway. Landing on the concrete below the bench will result in a penalty. There is also a sidewalk near the road on the right edge. Most players are accustomed to sidewalks as OB. Not this year, as sidewalks have been designated as playable. John, are you paying attention, did you get all that?

(John): What happens if a player's disc makes the mando, but then hits the bench, rolls down the hill and just as it almost enters the water, it lands on a duck, which happens to get the disc stuck on its back, takes off in flight and the disc drops downward and lands in the basket? Would that be considered a birdie or hole in one?

 

[Dave242]

If you are a believer that PIWIL is a fundamental tenet of the game of golf, I am not sure how you can logically argue against this rationale.

I remain an Optionalist. Alas, at this point the decision is more subjective and opinion.

I believe there are places where this is a good rule, and places where it's a bad rule.

In the latter, it's a matter of whether the devotion to Principle outweighs the negative aspects. Both of those are subjective, aren't they? Are we a slave to this Absolute Principle, or is it a Guiding Principle? What are the negative aspects, and just how negative are they?

Aye....there's the rub.

The approach to answering your final question quoted involves (involved?) a lot of sweat equity and careful planning.

Since every designer worth his salt has an understanding of the effect of the 2MR, they could make the fairway width/length ratios and shape such that they compensate for the effects of the 2MR. If they are designing with the intent of the 2MR being used, they understand that the shule or certain trees have a higher risk than others of adding an extra stroke by means of the 2MR. So, they widen the fairway slightly, thin out branches and trees appropriately, and/or shorten the holes.

In the end, the "math" works out the same in that the exact same scoring spread is achieved (based on skillful play being rewarded and errors being punished) as would have been the case had he/she designed without the intent of the 2MR being used (where narrower fairways and thicker shule would have been in place). The casual observer would never know this, BTW.

Since most courses were designed with the 2MR being non-optional, you could argue either that the courses are already designed correctly with the punishment of the 2MR factored in.......or, that the designer is not worth his salt (or I suppose, that in some cases the course has grown in on itself). In the latter case/s, the way to fix things if the 2MR is in place is to widen the fairways, shorten the holes, and/or thin the shule to compensate.

 

[jimbosprint]

(John): Welcome back to the 2013 Memorial here in beautiful Fountain Hills, Arizona. I'm your host John Duesler along with Rebecca Duffy. Catch us up to speed Rebecca.

(Rebecca): Right now we are looking at hole 8, a challenging 568ft par 4 with the basket sitting out on a peninsula with the Fountain Hills lake in the background. Now each hole on the course has a very specific set of rules in place, so let me share this with our audience. Players on the tee must navigate their first drive to the right of a mandatory tree which is about 200ft in front of the tee. If they miss the mandatory, the player must throw from a drop zone, but no penalty stroke will be applied. There is a street along the right of the fairway which is OB. Along the left of the fairway is the fountain hills lake which is also OB. Once players clear the mandatory, if a player lands in the trees to the right of the fairway no 2M penalty will be issued, players will mark their lie below. Now if players land in the trees on the peninsula above 2M, they will be issued a penalty. When a player throws towards the peninsula, any shot that does not land on the peninsula, the player must go back to a second drop zone, and a penalty will be issued. However, if the player is within the 10m circle and their shot goes OB into the lake, the player has the option to call an optional rethrow and throw from their last lie, or they can play from the spot the disc was last IB. I forgot to mention, there's a park bench in the middle of the fairway. Landing on the concrete below the bench will result in a penalty. There is also a sidewalk near the road on the right edge. Most players are accustomed to sidewalks as OB. Not this year, as sidewalks have been designated as playable. John, are you paying attention, did you get all that?

(John): What happens if a player's disc makes the mando, but then hits the bench, rolls down the hill and just as it almost enters the water, it lands on a duck, which happens to get the disc stuck on its back, takes off in flight and the disc drops downward and lands in the basket? Would that be considered a birdie or hole in one?

:clap:

 

[DavidSauls]

Aye....there's the rub.

The approach to answering your final question quoted involves (involved?) a lot of sweat equity and careful planning.

Since every designer worth his salt has an understanding of the effect of the 2MR, they could make the fairway width/length ratios and shape such that they compensate for the effects of the 2MR. If they are designing with the intent of the 2MR being used, they understand that the shule or certain trees have a higher risk than others of adding an extra stroke by means of the 2MR. So, they widen the fairway slightly, thin out branches and trees appropriately, and/or shorten the holes.

In the end, the "math" works out the same in that the exact same scoring spread is achieved (based on skillful play being rewarded and errors being punished) as would have been the case had he/she designed without the intent of the 2MR being used (where narrower fairways and thicker shule would have been in place). The casual observer would never know this, BTW.

Since most courses were designed with the 2MR being non-optional, you could argue either that the courses are already designed correctly with the punishment of the 2MR factored in.......or, that the designer is not worth his salt (or I suppose, that in some cases the course has grown in on itself). In the latter case/s, the way to fix things if the 2MR is in place is to widen the fairways, shorten the holes, and/or thin the shule to compensate.

Dave, those weren't the negative effects I had in mind.

I don't want to recycle the earlier posts, but it was the effects of random penalties. The effects of the same throws by different players being penalized differently by whether the trees caught them or not.

Now, before the 2M advocates jump in, I'm referring to how much (or little) you see this as a problem. If you see it as a minor or negligible negative effect, then the Fundamental Principle outweighs it. If you see it as a huge and awful negative effect, then you decide whether the Fundamental Principle is so revered that you live with the negative effect, or if you hedge the Fundamental Principle to alleviate it.

P.S. #1 Absolute Principle was a poor choice of words on my part.
P.S. #2 I suspect most courses were designed with no consideration of the 2M rule at all, due to its low frequency of impact; or, at least around here, about half of our courses were designed after the 2M rule became optional, and thus no issue at all.

 

[JoakimBL]

Since most courses were designed with the 2MR being non-optional, you could argue either that the courses are already designed correctly with the punishment of the 2MR factored in.......or, that the designer is not worth his salt (or I suppose, that in some cases the course has grown in on itself). In the latter case/s, the way to fix things if the 2MR is in place is to widen the fairways, shorten the holes, and/or thin the shule to compensate.

What are you basing the assumption that most courses were designed with the 2 meter rule non-optional? Now if it was ever an argument for the 2 meter rule that the courses in CA was designed to use the 2 meter rule, the same argument is just as valid for not enforcing it for courses where it wasn't intended.
If comparing the 2 meter rule to OB is valid, isn't arguing for mandatory 2 meter rule the same as arguing for mandated OB on all courses also. Lets say make all fairways 10 meters wide. You only have a very narrow window that the designer intended you to throw in and you shouldn't think outside the box.
It is my opinion that the sport has evolved away from the 2 meter rule. Spike hyzers and overhand shots should be just as valid options as frozen rope shots and rollers. Maybe that wasn't the way the game was intended to be played back in the day, but what is wrong with playing that way today?

 

[Dave242]

Dave, those weren't the negative effects I had in mind.

I don't want to recycle the earlier posts, but it was the effects of random penalties. The effects of the same throws by different players being penalized differently by whether the trees caught them or not.

I do not want to recycle earlier posts, but I do want to dwell on implementing a principle/absolute/tenet/whatever-you-call-it consistently. I will do that using an example that might be recycled (sorry)....an example I have seen happen more frequently in the woods of the Carolinas than the 2M penalty.

The first throw bounces off a splitter tree 70' down a 250' wooded fairway but fortunately it hits a branch at the edge of the fairway and falls straight down. The player recovers for par with a good upshot and putt.

Say that the EXACT same throw was made by the next player and due to just the slightest breeze it hits the tree 1/16th of an inch away from the first one which alters its course by 1 degree.....and it bounces deeply enough into the woods where it takes a pitch-out and good upshot/putt to save bogey.

Now, by the same argument for not using the 2MR AND being consistent with how you choose to bend the PIWIL tenet to do so.....please explain to me why there should not be a rule that you can relocate your disc to compensate for the unlucky/random/fluky/etc kick deep into the woods.

 

[JoakimBL]

Please stop making the argument that we don't throw from the ground (it's just silly). We are talking about where you mark the lie, not throwing stance.

The 2m rule is not about luck. You make your own luck. If you throw at a tree, there is a chance that it will be caught. Stop blaming bad luck for the disc being caught. You threw it! Take responsibility!

I know it's silly. But to me it is silly saying were playing it where it lies, when that is not what we're doing. You said it yourself. "We are talking about where you mark the lie" We mark our lie on the ground. We take our stance behind our mark. That is perfectly possible even if the disc is 20 feet up a tree.

Saying it has nothing to do with luck, is like saying you are not unlucky if you get hit by lightning. You put your self in position to be hit by lightning, so take responsibility. Obviously you can minimize the risk, even eliminate it completely by not throwing near a tree, but that does not factor out the randomness or whether or not it gets stuck, should you be either bold nor bad that you hit the tree anyway.

 

[Dave242]

What are you basing the assumption that most courses were designed with the 2 meter rule non-optional?

Most courses were designed before the 2MR became optional a few years back.

Now if it was ever an argument for the 2 meter rule that the courses in CA was designed to use the 2 meter rule, the same argument is just as valid for not enforcing it for courses where it wasn't intended.

Yes there is - the argument is that not using the 2MR violates the Play it Where it Lies tenet of golf. Read up a little on it in golf literature (they call it "Play it AS it lies" but we do not care how it is lying (tombstoned, upsidedown, wedged into something, etc)....we just care where it lies in relation to marking it on the playing surface.

It is my opinion that the sport has evolved away from the 2 meter rule. Spike hyzers and overhand shots should be just as valid options as frozen rope shots and rollers. Maybe that wasn't the way the game was intended to be played back in the day, but what is wrong with playing that way today?

That is true and it is a reason that lots of people would howl if the rule every came back as mandatory. But.....that does not change the PIWIL tenet of the game for purists.

 

[Dave242]

We mark our lie on the ground. We take our stance behind our mark. That is perfectly possible even if the disc is 20 feet up a tree.

First off, since when are tree branches considered playing surfaces? You yourself just said "we mark it on the ground". How could anyone then play it from 20' up?

Secondly, the exceptions to PWIL are always based on player safety and fairness. Doing anything close to what you are suggesting would infringe on both.....and it would probably require a rule change in most cases.

 

[mendofrolfer]

i am from cali and i think the rule should be nationwide, you should not be able to throw at a tree above the basket hoping you stick so u can have a drop in birdie. this could happen and prob does happen places where they "cheat" (dont play the 2 meter rule)

 

[JoakimBL]

First off, since when are tree branches considered playing surfaces? You yourself just said "we mark it on the ground". How could anyone then play it from 20' up?

Secondly, the exceptions to PWIL are always based on player safety and fairness. Doing anything close to what you are suggesting would infringe on both.....and it would probably require a rule change in most cases.

I didn't say tree branches are playing surfaces. I said that whether my disc is 6 or 20 feet in the air, it is possible to mark the spot on the ground and stand behind that spot, in accordance with 803.03. I never said climb the tree and throw from there. I play it from 20 feet up, the same way I don't play it a 0 feet/flat on the ground: I stand on the ground holding my disc in the hand and throw it. If you want to compare it to the purity of ball golf, are we not violating the PIWIL principle when we are allowed to take a big step to the side with one foot and throw around obstacles?

 

[JoakimBL]

i am from cali and i think the rule should be nationwide, you should not be able to throw at a tree above the basket hoping you stick so u can have a drop in birdie. this could happen and prob does happen places where they "cheat" (dont play the 2 meter rule)

No we design our courses better Or we just throw at the tree and hope we drop down (as it does 999% of the time). Take your pick.

Thanks for shedding some new light to the discussion. I can't recall that point being made previously :wall:

Also, thank you for at least letting us Europeans play without it, and only mandating it in the US

 

[DavidSauls]

Now, by the same argument for not using the 2MR AND being consistent with how you choose to bend the PIWIL tenet to do so.....please explain to me why there should not be a rule that you can relocate your disc to compensate for the unlucky/random/fluky/etc kick deep into the woods.

The distinction is trying to remove avoid unluck/random/fluky penalties, while allowing unluck/random/fluky events. The penalties are created by the rule; the events are not. And we are talking about rulemaking.

So relief from the tree removes a penalty stroke that may be seen as unfair; relief from the deep woods does not.

Again, with the assumption that you deep the random penalties to be more objectionable than the bending of the PIWIL princple. If the PIWIL is more important to you, or you don't see the random penalties as objectionable (or objectionable enough), you keep the 2M.

 

[jimbosprint]

I didn't say tree branches are playing surfaces. I said that whether my disc is 6 or 20 feet in the air, it is possible to mark the spot on the ground and stand behind that spot, in accordance with 803.03. I never said climb the tree and throw from there. I play it from 20 feet up, the same way I don't play it a 0 feet/flat on the ground: I stand on the ground holding my disc in the hand and throw it. If you want to compare it to the purity of ball golf, are we not violating the PIWIL principle when we are allowed to take a big step to the side with one foot and throw around obstacles?

Why can't you separate where the lie is marked for one shot from the throwing stance for the next shot?

 

[DavidSauls]

Secondly, the exceptions to PWIL are always based on player safety and fairness.

I think I'd phrase this as "player safety and practicality". "Fairness" opens up all kinds of issues.

For example, relief from the solid object is a practical issue, not safety or fairness. So is relief from casual water; we just deem it not practical to force someone to wade while putting, though he can if he chooses.

"Fairness" is exactly the reason the 2M-Abolitionists cite.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think I'd phrase this as "player safety and practicality". "Fairness" opens up all kinds of issues.

For example, relief from the solid object is a practical issue, not safety or fairness. So is relief from casual water; we just deem it not practical to force someone to wade while putting, though he can if he chooses.

"Fairness" is exactly the reason the 2M-Abolitionists cite.

Too late to edit. I meant to specify that the exceptions to PIWIL, other than above 2M, are perhaps better described as being for safety or practicality. Even below 2M, more practical than anything since you can be right behind the disc (Dave's suggestion from way way back), but it's more practical to mark the lie on the ground.

Relief above 2M would be an issue of fairness.

 

[BENFTS]

Did anyone see Phil Mickelson loose his ball in the trees at the us open yesterday?