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
The bottom line (FOR ME) is this: Everyone is trying to make the game easier and easier.....one person hits a limb, so they break that limb down....another person hits a tree so they complain to the parks department that it is a hazzard and the worker comes the next week and cuts down that tree......(don't laugh....I've seen it happen in Norton....right Don???) What is wrong with the way disc golf is right now...why change such a great sport....rules are rules and where there is a need to tweek the rules for certain reasons...to change a rule 180 degrees is just not right....Pretty soon they will make a rule that no basket can be placed further than 300' from the tee box or that if you go OB, you get a second chance with no penalty.....how much easier will they make it before it's not challenging any more and not fun either???....I know that some of these comments are really going to the extreme but you get my point......I miss the good ol' days when I didn't know the rules and just played for fun, not having to worry about whether I made an infraction on the rules or not....
The trees were cut down in Norton because they were diseased (according to the parks director), unless you count the evergreens that were cut down because they were cutting into the power lines (rather than trimmed!). It is frustrating when this happens and there is nothing you can do about it. The best thing is to talk to those in charge and make sure the course is considered when tree removal is something the parks committee is wanting. I think Rodney is talking about the tree on 8 and the big branch on 14 that seemed to be cut for no reason, other than to make the course easier. I don't know who did that, but I would like to know!!! It's just not right.
I don’t think removing this rule will make the game easier. What it will do is even things up a bit (for reasons that have been stated earlier).
I don’t think removing this rule will make the game easier. What it will do is even things up a bit (for reasons that have been stated earlier).
-
disc golf superhero
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:12 pm
- Location: Salina
- Contact:
Thread drift...
Speaking of tree trimming....
The trimming of park trees sure doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense sometimes. Our parks dept. trimmed the lower branches off of pret-near every pine tree in our park a few years back. It was to facilitate mowing! Now, that isn't something that comes to mind right away, but it does make sense from their POV. Made some pins easier to reach.
I do know that trimming (other than the bottom branches) of a evergreen tree is a tricky thing to do. If you don't do it right, the tree will die. Pine trees are also very suseptible to a number of ailments from nasty little bugs to some sort of tree blight. A park in Lincoln is seeing the effects of such an infestation. There are dead pine trees all over.
It is good to have a friendly relationship with the parks powers that be. You can let them know about your course concerns and they can give you some reasoning behind their decisions.
You can alway plant another placement if the trimming is too radical. The way we make placements, it costs about $20 with the majority of the cost being the Master lock.
The trimming of park trees sure doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense sometimes. Our parks dept. trimmed the lower branches off of pret-near every pine tree in our park a few years back. It was to facilitate mowing! Now, that isn't something that comes to mind right away, but it does make sense from their POV. Made some pins easier to reach.
I do know that trimming (other than the bottom branches) of a evergreen tree is a tricky thing to do. If you don't do it right, the tree will die. Pine trees are also very suseptible to a number of ailments from nasty little bugs to some sort of tree blight. A park in Lincoln is seeing the effects of such an infestation. There are dead pine trees all over.
It is good to have a friendly relationship with the parks powers that be. You can let them know about your course concerns and they can give you some reasoning behind their decisions.
You can alway plant another placement if the trimming is too radical. The way we make placements, it costs about $20 with the majority of the cost being the Master lock.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
I copied a post I made to the PDGA forum. Some of it might not make since without having read the thread.
These are just my opinions. I'm sure they seem a little overkill. I don't think the new ruling will have that much of an impact, to be honest. That doesn't change the principle of the matter. In summary, to me, the rule should not be changed because 1) this changes the risk/ reward strategy of the hole, 2) Unretrievable discs (unreachable) should incur a penalty.
Quote from myself on PDGA forum:
I have just heard about this decision so I decided to check here. I've read this thread and I noticed some good points made. It seems that some people are putting some good thought into this issue.
Though it may not be ok to insult someone for their opinion on this matter, I think it's ok to have a strong opinion about it, as I do myself.
When I first heard of what had happened I asked "why"? I've read the entire thread, listened to the announcement via PDGA radio, and still haven't found a satisfactory answer. Much effort was expended explaining the qualifications of those that helped make the decision, but little with their logic for doing so.
Is it because whether or not a disc lands in a tree is due to luck, and eliminating this luck will make tournaments more fair? I understand this line of reasoning, but I don't think this is a matter of just luck. What kind of shot (annhyzer stall will likely stick, low beam will likely not, hyzer depends on speed), what kind of tree, where at on the tree... all account for whether a discs sticks or not. How close a player is playing his shot to a tree or how big the gap is between the trees that he aiming for have a lot to do with whether the player hits the tree in the first place. These are calculations that the player can attempt to perform before he throws his shot.
The main reason I am against abolishing the 2m rule is because it changes the strategy of the hole. Most courses are fairly short and offer hyzer routes for the righty on a good majority of the holes. The holes that this isn't the case for are usually short enough to give the righty other options for his birdie. I know this is quite a generalization. I've only played about 100 courses. As courses become better (which they are), I'm sure this will become less and less so. Never-the-less there are a great number of holes/ course that are righty friendly and many holes have the option of throwing a hyzer above the trouble. The problem with this is that in a lot of cases, it's too easy of a shot. The mechanics of a hyzer release are solid enough to withstand small errors and give close to expected results. There is much more that can go wrong with other types of throws, such as annhyzers, and I believe that they require a more exact touch. My point is that most of these hyzers that hit trees (on the way down) fall to the ground with good results. By taking the penalty away, the more interesting shots down below aren't even considered, and the rare punishment that keeps players respecting the trees isn't dealt.
It seems like people differ greatly as to what holes need the 2m rule. It has been said that the only good example is that in which the tree is being used as a backstop. Certainly this is probably the best example. Another example that easily comes to mind is where a player has trouble that is closer to the tee than the basket. He can easily hyzer or tomahawk over to quite possibly land in some other trees located closer to the basket. If he plays it clean he has the bird, if not... he could get stuck. If there is no penalty, than there is no reason to play the low shot through the trees than gives a much harder upshot if the shot doesn't miss the trees. There is no encouragement to throw skillful shots such as low and straight, or rollers. The new disc design, the Epic, has been shown to DRAMATICALLY increase the distance for tomahawk throws. It seems that with the new rules, the tee boxes would have to be put right underneath a tree to discourage players from circumventing the hole by hucking it skyward.
I thought Sandalman gave some good examples. I've played those holes and what you say is true. To eleminate the 2m rule also eliminates the risk/ reward balance of the holes. Those are some of the greatest holes in disc golf, not poorly designed.
I'd like to hear about course designs or locations where the 2m rule does not help with giving the hole an extra element of strategy. It seems that they would be courses that gave very poor lies below those discs caught above 2 meters. These would be trees that had low, thick branches like cedars. It would be in conditions where these trees with rough lies were a long way from the basket. Anything else?....
I'm looking at where courses are headed. Lengthening courses and adding trouble with multiple routes to the pin will add excitement to the game of disc golf. (Ted's Dread in KC is the most difficult I've played). It will be so much more than the pitch and putt game we often play now. Some of the best courses I've played have had options of throwing above and below the tree canopy. By taking away the 2m rule, these holes will be lessened and it will result in more lost discs. This will also play into the changing concept of "fairway". With longer holes, a player will elect to aim up and over at trees that will yield a cleaner 2nd shot to the pin. These big trees are some of the best in disc golf and don't usually give poor lies when marking caught discs. This is a another example of how it is not just those trees next to pins that should use the 2m rule. I agree with the person who stated that no penalty for a bad shot is worse than a double penalty.
On another note, "Mommy and Daddy" mentioned that trees could be made OB for the sake of clarification. This would include lies below 2m. It sounds like for this person, it is not the double penalty that is the problem with the 2m rule, but something unclear about the 2m rule. I'm not sure what this is. It seems like there is something I'm not informed about. I've never had a problem determining whether or not a disc is above 2m. As noted in the PDGA radio announcement, 2m is not an arbitrary height. Certainly making the surface of a tree OB sounds like an interesting possibility, but Chuck's question regarding "where did it go OB?" on this 3d surface and where to play it from was never answered. It seems that this would be highly more subjective, unclear, and confusing than the simple 2m rule we have now.
Confusion is another thing to address here. By taking away the 2m except for if and how the TD wishes to enforce it, confusion will be created. As with all change, this is to be expected. But did it have to be this way? TD's follow the rules, they don't take the time to create them. They take the path of mental conservation. They are not going to use the 2m rule at all, because they will feel like it will be unclear to players as to whether or not it is in effect. The attitude will be "those guys in charge changed the rules, it will be them that have to deal with it". They won't want to deal with the complaining due to flip-flopping the rules back and forth. It was mentioned that it would have been much better to leave the 2m rule as default while giving TD's permission to release it at there discretion. I HIGHLY AGREE. This would have made more sense and led to less confusion.
I have heard other suggestions that would have made more sense than the decision that has been made. A list of better alternatives...
1) As mentioned above. Set the 2m rule as default with TD's option to release.
2) Allow player to play discs above 2m as an unsafe lie. They can't play it where is lies, so a 1 stroke could be taken with the player having the ability to releave his lie by playing it on a line straight back from the hole. 2 strokes may be taken for lateral relief.
3) Give 2m penalty. Allow player to play from current lie or previous lie.
These could be combined or tweaked to be very useful.
Trees are the most critically defining element of strategy for disc golf shots. Though the 2m rule doesn't change a great majority of shot selection, it does serve a useful purpose in adding the risk/ reward factor that encourages both skillful shots and the golfer's ability to use his head. I think we need to seriously consider our process for making the rules for our game. I'm not at all satified that this decision was the best one that could be made for the future of our sport.
These are just my opinions. I'm sure they seem a little overkill. I don't think the new ruling will have that much of an impact, to be honest. That doesn't change the principle of the matter. In summary, to me, the rule should not be changed because 1) this changes the risk/ reward strategy of the hole, 2) Unretrievable discs (unreachable) should incur a penalty.
Quote from myself on PDGA forum:
I have just heard about this decision so I decided to check here. I've read this thread and I noticed some good points made. It seems that some people are putting some good thought into this issue.
Though it may not be ok to insult someone for their opinion on this matter, I think it's ok to have a strong opinion about it, as I do myself.
When I first heard of what had happened I asked "why"? I've read the entire thread, listened to the announcement via PDGA radio, and still haven't found a satisfactory answer. Much effort was expended explaining the qualifications of those that helped make the decision, but little with their logic for doing so.
Is it because whether or not a disc lands in a tree is due to luck, and eliminating this luck will make tournaments more fair? I understand this line of reasoning, but I don't think this is a matter of just luck. What kind of shot (annhyzer stall will likely stick, low beam will likely not, hyzer depends on speed), what kind of tree, where at on the tree... all account for whether a discs sticks or not. How close a player is playing his shot to a tree or how big the gap is between the trees that he aiming for have a lot to do with whether the player hits the tree in the first place. These are calculations that the player can attempt to perform before he throws his shot.
The main reason I am against abolishing the 2m rule is because it changes the strategy of the hole. Most courses are fairly short and offer hyzer routes for the righty on a good majority of the holes. The holes that this isn't the case for are usually short enough to give the righty other options for his birdie. I know this is quite a generalization. I've only played about 100 courses. As courses become better (which they are), I'm sure this will become less and less so. Never-the-less there are a great number of holes/ course that are righty friendly and many holes have the option of throwing a hyzer above the trouble. The problem with this is that in a lot of cases, it's too easy of a shot. The mechanics of a hyzer release are solid enough to withstand small errors and give close to expected results. There is much more that can go wrong with other types of throws, such as annhyzers, and I believe that they require a more exact touch. My point is that most of these hyzers that hit trees (on the way down) fall to the ground with good results. By taking the penalty away, the more interesting shots down below aren't even considered, and the rare punishment that keeps players respecting the trees isn't dealt.
It seems like people differ greatly as to what holes need the 2m rule. It has been said that the only good example is that in which the tree is being used as a backstop. Certainly this is probably the best example. Another example that easily comes to mind is where a player has trouble that is closer to the tee than the basket. He can easily hyzer or tomahawk over to quite possibly land in some other trees located closer to the basket. If he plays it clean he has the bird, if not... he could get stuck. If there is no penalty, than there is no reason to play the low shot through the trees than gives a much harder upshot if the shot doesn't miss the trees. There is no encouragement to throw skillful shots such as low and straight, or rollers. The new disc design, the Epic, has been shown to DRAMATICALLY increase the distance for tomahawk throws. It seems that with the new rules, the tee boxes would have to be put right underneath a tree to discourage players from circumventing the hole by hucking it skyward.
I thought Sandalman gave some good examples. I've played those holes and what you say is true. To eleminate the 2m rule also eliminates the risk/ reward balance of the holes. Those are some of the greatest holes in disc golf, not poorly designed.
I'd like to hear about course designs or locations where the 2m rule does not help with giving the hole an extra element of strategy. It seems that they would be courses that gave very poor lies below those discs caught above 2 meters. These would be trees that had low, thick branches like cedars. It would be in conditions where these trees with rough lies were a long way from the basket. Anything else?....
I'm looking at where courses are headed. Lengthening courses and adding trouble with multiple routes to the pin will add excitement to the game of disc golf. (Ted's Dread in KC is the most difficult I've played). It will be so much more than the pitch and putt game we often play now. Some of the best courses I've played have had options of throwing above and below the tree canopy. By taking away the 2m rule, these holes will be lessened and it will result in more lost discs. This will also play into the changing concept of "fairway". With longer holes, a player will elect to aim up and over at trees that will yield a cleaner 2nd shot to the pin. These big trees are some of the best in disc golf and don't usually give poor lies when marking caught discs. This is a another example of how it is not just those trees next to pins that should use the 2m rule. I agree with the person who stated that no penalty for a bad shot is worse than a double penalty.
On another note, "Mommy and Daddy" mentioned that trees could be made OB for the sake of clarification. This would include lies below 2m. It sounds like for this person, it is not the double penalty that is the problem with the 2m rule, but something unclear about the 2m rule. I'm not sure what this is. It seems like there is something I'm not informed about. I've never had a problem determining whether or not a disc is above 2m. As noted in the PDGA radio announcement, 2m is not an arbitrary height. Certainly making the surface of a tree OB sounds like an interesting possibility, but Chuck's question regarding "where did it go OB?" on this 3d surface and where to play it from was never answered. It seems that this would be highly more subjective, unclear, and confusing than the simple 2m rule we have now.
Confusion is another thing to address here. By taking away the 2m except for if and how the TD wishes to enforce it, confusion will be created. As with all change, this is to be expected. But did it have to be this way? TD's follow the rules, they don't take the time to create them. They take the path of mental conservation. They are not going to use the 2m rule at all, because they will feel like it will be unclear to players as to whether or not it is in effect. The attitude will be "those guys in charge changed the rules, it will be them that have to deal with it". They won't want to deal with the complaining due to flip-flopping the rules back and forth. It was mentioned that it would have been much better to leave the 2m rule as default while giving TD's permission to release it at there discretion. I HIGHLY AGREE. This would have made more sense and led to less confusion.
I have heard other suggestions that would have made more sense than the decision that has been made. A list of better alternatives...
1) As mentioned above. Set the 2m rule as default with TD's option to release.
2) Allow player to play discs above 2m as an unsafe lie. They can't play it where is lies, so a 1 stroke could be taken with the player having the ability to releave his lie by playing it on a line straight back from the hole. 2 strokes may be taken for lateral relief.
3) Give 2m penalty. Allow player to play from current lie or previous lie.
These could be combined or tweaked to be very useful.
Trees are the most critically defining element of strategy for disc golf shots. Though the 2m rule doesn't change a great majority of shot selection, it does serve a useful purpose in adding the risk/ reward factor that encourages both skillful shots and the golfer's ability to use his head. I think we need to seriously consider our process for making the rules for our game. I'm not at all satified that this decision was the best one that could be made for the future of our sport.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
This is another post I made in response to some guy named Nick aka "Mommy and Daddy" that posted numerous replies that supported removing the 2m rule. As noted in one paragraph from my last post, he thinks it would be much clearer if everything off the playing surface was considered OB (including trees). It's not that important that I include this reply here, but I did mention it in the last post and wanted to include his response to "where should the OB disc be marked and played from."
The second half deals with the new rule (among many other rule changes for 2005) for lost discs. The new penalty will require stroke and distance, or throwing from the previous lie plus 1 stroke for the extra throw and 1 stroke for the penalty. This is different than the current situation, which is playing from where last seen will a 1 stroke penalty.
Quote from Nick: (Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB. Mark a meter away from where it enters the soil, take a stroke, and play on." )
Quote from Me: I'm thinking of the example of an evergreen tree. Say a player sticks 1m up on the perimeter of a big, thick evergreen tree. Under these circumstances he would take a stroke, move into the tree and mark his lie 1m from the trunk perpendicular (on either side?) to the line to the pin.
This would be like a 3 stroke penalty. Throwing to the center of the tree would be difficult to do, but ANY disc suspended in the tree (including below 2m) would be marked next the trunk. The player would be lucky to throw clear of the tree from his marked position. That really would be like a 3 stroke penalty. That seems to be what most want to eliminate by getting rid of the 2m rule. Seems inconsistant.
On another note...
Requiring stroke and distance (previous lie) for lost discs is like a 2 stroke penalty. Compare that to no penalty for discs above 2m. We need to be very clear about how we are going to determine wether the disc is lost or not. When there are 2 strokes on the line and its a group decision and the player isn't allowed (or can't) climb the tree to get his disc... Seems like there are going to be some problems here.
Under the new 2m rule and new lost disc rule the question is no longer going to be whether or not this disc is above 2m (1 stroke penalty), but whether or not a player can convince his group that the disc in this tree is indeed his (2 stroke penalty). This question is much more debateable (such as the rare instance of 2 green discs in a tree, 50'+ high) and could cause trouble. If everyone gives the player the benefit of the doubt I suppose things will be alright, but how can this be written into the rules?
The second half deals with the new rule (among many other rule changes for 2005) for lost discs. The new penalty will require stroke and distance, or throwing from the previous lie plus 1 stroke for the extra throw and 1 stroke for the penalty. This is different than the current situation, which is playing from where last seen will a 1 stroke penalty.
Quote from Nick: (Post on your tee signs or bulletin board at the course: "All trees and bushes are OB. Mark a meter away from where it enters the soil, take a stroke, and play on." )
Quote from Me: I'm thinking of the example of an evergreen tree. Say a player sticks 1m up on the perimeter of a big, thick evergreen tree. Under these circumstances he would take a stroke, move into the tree and mark his lie 1m from the trunk perpendicular (on either side?) to the line to the pin.
This would be like a 3 stroke penalty. Throwing to the center of the tree would be difficult to do, but ANY disc suspended in the tree (including below 2m) would be marked next the trunk. The player would be lucky to throw clear of the tree from his marked position. That really would be like a 3 stroke penalty. That seems to be what most want to eliminate by getting rid of the 2m rule. Seems inconsistant.
On another note...
Requiring stroke and distance (previous lie) for lost discs is like a 2 stroke penalty. Compare that to no penalty for discs above 2m. We need to be very clear about how we are going to determine wether the disc is lost or not. When there are 2 strokes on the line and its a group decision and the player isn't allowed (or can't) climb the tree to get his disc... Seems like there are going to be some problems here.
Under the new 2m rule and new lost disc rule the question is no longer going to be whether or not this disc is above 2m (1 stroke penalty), but whether or not a player can convince his group that the disc in this tree is indeed his (2 stroke penalty). This question is much more debateable (such as the rare instance of 2 green discs in a tree, 50'+ high) and could cause trouble. If everyone gives the player the benefit of the doubt I suppose things will be alright, but how can this be written into the rules?
Same problem we have now. If you can't get a disc down within the time limit (2 min., I think), and you can't identify it as yours, it is lost. You play from where the disc was last seen by the group, one throw penalty. That rule has nothing to do with two meters.Under the new 2m rule and new lost disc rule the question is no longer going to be whether or not this disc is above 2m (1 stroke penalty), but whether or not a player can convince his group that the disc in this tree is indeed his (2 stroke penalty). This question is much more debateable (such as the rare instance of 2 green discs in a tree, 50'+ high) and could cause trouble. If everyone gives the player the benefit of the doubt I suppose things will be alright, but how can this be written into the rules?
Most people assume that the disc in the tree that is the same color as their disc, must be there disc. So they mark it, take there one throw penalty (2 meters), and go on. Actually they should play from where the group last saw the disc! (Is the rules committee changing this to a two throw penalty, or has this always been, and I missed it?)
I want to talk about one more point you made about these technical holes where now people will go over the top. I can't really think of any (Keep in mind, I have not played as many courses as you). With the two meter rule, if there is an up and over route, I think most guys will take it, if they think they can throw that far. They are not that concerned with the 2m rule. With the rule change, you are only faced with a possible bad lie, and I think you will see TD's specifying holes in which the 2m rule will apply.
Feel free to comment on any/all of these points.
Don
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
About the disc in the tree. With the new no 2m rule and more players throwing the shots without as much respect given to the trees, there will probably be a few more discs suspended in trees that are unreachable. To keep people from abusing the trees and to save time, players will probably not be allowed to climb trees to get their disc until after the round. You can bet that players will expect to be given a free drop for a disc in the tree that looks like theirs. If the group doesn't agree to this then the player will face a new consequence in 2005. The player will be forced to throw from his previous lie +2 shots from when he was there last. That is a much bigger difference than the current situation. It is this difference that it seems the new no 2m rule was designed to eliminate. This new rule of "stroke and distance" is more specific than the current rule of (where last seen), but will bring up problems like forgetting to mark the previous lie, or taking tons of provisional throws when the outcome of the shot is not known.
As for the changing of the hole strategy, I think you are basically right, Don. It is a degree (or percentage) for every hole. Yes, for some holes the new no 2m rule will effect the throwers choice on the hole. The situations vary; I'm thinking of holes with challenging low routes, versus throwing over and landing in sticky trees like evergreens just to gain distance (not because the over the top route is a good route for a clean birdie). They would do it to take out the chances of getting a 4. Players who don't know how unlikely it is to get stuck will probably change their throw strategy more than the more experienced player, probably to their own demise. Just my thoughts...
As for the changing of the hole strategy, I think you are basically right, Don. It is a degree (or percentage) for every hole. Yes, for some holes the new no 2m rule will effect the throwers choice on the hole. The situations vary; I'm thinking of holes with challenging low routes, versus throwing over and landing in sticky trees like evergreens just to gain distance (not because the over the top route is a good route for a clean birdie). They would do it to take out the chances of getting a 4. Players who don't know how unlikely it is to get stuck will probably change their throw strategy more than the more experienced player, probably to their own demise. Just my thoughts...
Honestly with all of the nit picking that goes on at the PDGA discussion board, I'm surprised that there aren't more laywers playing DG!
It is a logical assumption that if you see a disc the same color that you threw stuck in the tree that you threw it into that it is your disc. How many times has it NOT been your disc? Like NEVER. I have only seen another disc in the same tree a couple of times in 10+ years of golfing. Even then, it wasn't the same color. Talk about catering to the 0.01%. That's not what the rules should do.
Usually that disc is stuck inside the pine tree, so marking it directly below (as per the rules) is making you shoot from the middle of the tree! I've seen more that a few shots from inside the tree at Seymour Smith in Omaha NOT make it clear of the tree. Doh!
Dumping the 2 M rule won't change the way I play. People are talking about throwing OVER the trees! Man, I haven't even looked at that line since before I turned 40! How many people do? Not as many as you seem to think. The majority of women wouldn't think to throw over trees, intermediates probably won't reach if they tried. Old farts like me won't because of our worn out shoulders. It's you big arm pups that do.
It's just not going to make THAT much difference over all of the courses in the country.
Now, on to the disc resting on top....
It is a logical assumption that if you see a disc the same color that you threw stuck in the tree that you threw it into that it is your disc. How many times has it NOT been your disc? Like NEVER. I have only seen another disc in the same tree a couple of times in 10+ years of golfing. Even then, it wasn't the same color. Talk about catering to the 0.01%. That's not what the rules should do.
Usually that disc is stuck inside the pine tree, so marking it directly below (as per the rules) is making you shoot from the middle of the tree! I've seen more that a few shots from inside the tree at Seymour Smith in Omaha NOT make it clear of the tree. Doh!
Dumping the 2 M rule won't change the way I play. People are talking about throwing OVER the trees! Man, I haven't even looked at that line since before I turned 40! How many people do? Not as many as you seem to think. The majority of women wouldn't think to throw over trees, intermediates probably won't reach if they tried. Old farts like me won't because of our worn out shoulders. It's you big arm pups that do.
It's just not going to make THAT much difference over all of the courses in the country.
Now, on to the disc resting on top....
-
Brian Shields
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:40 pm
-
Notorious ROG
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:53 am
- Location: OKC or WIC depends on day of week
The Friz
Harv has been dead on this for years, no 2 meter rule at the Friz, now the PDGA agrees, Harv is a pioneer & innovator for sure.
MOST FUN WINS
HA
ROG
MOST FUN WINS
HA
ROG
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
Anita,
The 2 green discs way up in a tree is just an extreme example of uncertainty. I know that this never happens. My point is just that if the guys in a player's group want to be buttheads (or simply wish to play by the rules), then you'll have to prove that the disc in the tree is yours. If it's in a difficult spot or way up there, then it is unlikely that you will be able to get it down by throwing stuff at it. In this case, it sounds like you would have to have a retracktable 40' stick or face the 2 stroke penalty! If perfectly fine with the assumption that if a player sees his disc (or what looks to be his disc) in a tree, then he can just mark it and it's not a lost disc. I just hope everyone else will be in agreement with this or that this can be written into the new rules.
The 2 green discs way up in a tree is just an extreme example of uncertainty. I know that this never happens. My point is just that if the guys in a player's group want to be buttheads (or simply wish to play by the rules), then you'll have to prove that the disc in the tree is yours. If it's in a difficult spot or way up there, then it is unlikely that you will be able to get it down by throwing stuff at it. In this case, it sounds like you would have to have a retracktable 40' stick or face the 2 stroke penalty! If perfectly fine with the assumption that if a player sees his disc (or what looks to be his disc) in a tree, then he can just mark it and it's not a lost disc. I just hope everyone else will be in agreement with this or that this can be written into the new rules.