Due to inactivity the KDGA forums have been locked. All past threads are still available. Please join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/kansasdiscgolf!
2 meter rule
-
Master Dyck
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:14 pm
- Location: Moundridge, KS
2M
The only part of the 2M rule I didn't like was the double penalty from cedars or other evergreens that reach the ground. I think this changes the psychology of the game. I like the relief idea but I guess it's too late for suggestions. The deal is done and I'll enjoy it everytime I get stuck above 2m.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
Seems we have some renewed interest on the subject. Any new insights after all this time its been drug out?
My personal opinion (which I may have already overstated, but 2 hasn't made it here to call me on it yet) is one in favor of the rule. Any rule or element of course design that adds skill or strategy to the game is one I'd favor.
Many dislike the rule because of the double penalty. I say that the player, after taking the penalty, should be allowed as much distance as they want back from the pin on the line of play or be allowed to rethrow the previous shot as in OB situations in order to avoid this double penalty.
How can you justify not taking a penalty for throwing your disc up at the top of a tree? It's not on the playing surface. This brings up the point that most make. 2 meters is an arbitrary distance. I usually like for rules to be specific, and this rule is, but I wouldn't have a problem with playing tallest guy in the group. Point is you can retrieve it (without going through extra means) from the playing surface. How many times is it really questionable whether or not a disc is above 2m? When playing, I've always given the benefit of the doubt to the thrower.
Main reason why this rule can be useful is in course design. Many courses out east are thick with trees. You can play a really low shot very accurately or you can eliminate the trees by bombing a tomahawk and crashlanding it. Hopefully the tees don't offer too good of throw for a tomahawk if the other option is particularly nasty, but we can't put every tee pad under a tree to eliminate this.
My point is that 2m rule adds an element to consider (risk, not just reward) and that increases options of play. I don't feel like it increases the luck factor of the game, but rather rewards the players who can throw without hitting the trees. There is no such thing as luck, just factors that we cannot contemplate. No two disc golf shots (or two of anything else) are exactly the same when examined closely enough.
Now, why does everyone hate this rule? I don't think I'll ever get it. Someone please help.
My personal opinion (which I may have already overstated, but 2 hasn't made it here to call me on it yet) is one in favor of the rule. Any rule or element of course design that adds skill or strategy to the game is one I'd favor.
Many dislike the rule because of the double penalty. I say that the player, after taking the penalty, should be allowed as much distance as they want back from the pin on the line of play or be allowed to rethrow the previous shot as in OB situations in order to avoid this double penalty.
How can you justify not taking a penalty for throwing your disc up at the top of a tree? It's not on the playing surface. This brings up the point that most make. 2 meters is an arbitrary distance. I usually like for rules to be specific, and this rule is, but I wouldn't have a problem with playing tallest guy in the group. Point is you can retrieve it (without going through extra means) from the playing surface. How many times is it really questionable whether or not a disc is above 2m? When playing, I've always given the benefit of the doubt to the thrower.
Main reason why this rule can be useful is in course design. Many courses out east are thick with trees. You can play a really low shot very accurately or you can eliminate the trees by bombing a tomahawk and crashlanding it. Hopefully the tees don't offer too good of throw for a tomahawk if the other option is particularly nasty, but we can't put every tee pad under a tree to eliminate this.
My point is that 2m rule adds an element to consider (risk, not just reward) and that increases options of play. I don't feel like it increases the luck factor of the game, but rather rewards the players who can throw without hitting the trees. There is no such thing as luck, just factors that we cannot contemplate. No two disc golf shots (or two of anything else) are exactly the same when examined closely enough.
Now, why does everyone hate this rule? I don't think I'll ever get it. Someone please help.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm