DISContinuum DISCussion

In 2005 the one stroke penalty for being over two meters above the playing surface will be abolished unless the TD says otherwise.  

Of your five choices, you might only want to consider the first two or three if you really want to tell us something.  

And, as in all Discontinuum polls, feel free to make up extra screen names and post extra votes from colleagues' computers if the issue is that important!   :D

I can't make up my mind if this is a good rule to abolish.  It is somewhat a factor of really bad luck if you get stuck in a tree, but especially with pine trees, you have not made a good shot if it hits up high in the tree.  However, shooting from under the pine tree is prolly penalty enough without adding an extra stroke.  I voted No, just because I think it is so much a factor of really really bad luck to get stuck in a tree.

Dude I wish this would have happened last year.  2 stuck in tree shots at Ewing kept that from being a really awesome round that would have let me play on Saturday in Iowa   :lol:  

It's saved me in rounds, it's hurt me in rounds..

I think it was a good rule to begin with.. I think if you happen to have a bad shot, well, then you should be KILLED!!

VOTE YES!!!  

I voted no, why should you be rewarded for a foul shot?  Next they will want to change the water penalty.  The stroke penalty forces the course to play harder and in turn make you a better player.

QuoteI can't make up my mind if this is a good rule to abolish.  It is somewhat a factor of really bad luck if you get stuck in a tree, but especially with pine trees, you have not made a good shot if it hits up high in the tree.  However, shooting from under the pine tree is prolly penalty enough without adding an extra stroke.  I voted No, just because I think it is so much a factor of really really bad luck to get stuck in a tree.

I tend to agree with Dan on this, not so much from a 'bad luck' perspective, but from the fact that often the lie winds up being marked in a terrible spot (e.g. if you wind up in the middle of some really high brush), so in effect it's a *two* stroke penalty!

But we need a little thread drift here...  B)  In the IOS TD opinion, what happens if a disc lands on the bridge over an OB creek? (hole B at Bevier, for example.) I know it's discretionary as to whether such a bridge is also OB.

less thread drift, actually relevant to the topic. It deals with trees anyhow. Regardless of the 2-meter rule, where do you mark the lie if the disc lands in a tree such that the mark directly below it would literally be in the middle of the trunk? I've seen this happen a couple of times (once to me, although it wasn't 2m up), and it made a big difference whether the mark wouldve been on the basket side of the tree or the away side. Although I suppose if the mini was right on the front side of the tree you'd still have to take a stance behind the mini and thus behind the tree, but that was more than 10 cm.  :P  Suppose you planted your 'front' foot vertically on the trunk of the tree?  :huh:

I just marked & shot from behind the tree anyhow but I've spent countless sleepless nights agonizing over this issue ever since....  

QuoteI voted no, why should you be rewarded for a foul shot?  Next they will want to change the water penalty.  The stroke penalty forces the course to play harder and in turn make you a better player.

Actually this rule change makes the 2m rule EXACTLY like the water rule. There is no water rule according to PDGA rules unless the TD declares water to be OB.

Damon - I believe you were correct in marking your lie on the far side of the tree.

Quoteless thread drift, actually relevant to the topic. It deals with trees anyhow. Regardless of the 2-meter rule, where do you mark the lie if the disc lands in a tree such that the mark directly below it would literally be in the middle of the trunk?

You mark behind the tree. If your mark were to land directly in front of a tree such that you cannot make a legal stance within 30cm of the mark (if the tree trunk were thicker than 30cm) then you get to take your stance immediately behind the tree. 803.03 E

Quote

Quoteless thread drift, actually relevant to the topic. It deals with trees anyhow. Regardless of the 2-meter rule, where do you mark the lie if the disc lands in a tree such that the mark directly below it would literally be in the middle of the trunk?

You mark behind the tree. If your mark were to land directly in front of a tree such that you cannot make a legal stance within 30cm of the mark (if the tree trunk were thicker than 30cm) then you get to take your stance immediately behind the tree. 803.03 E

well, fine, if you want to quote the rulebook to me....  :P

What's your stance (pardon the expression) on the bridge situation though?

QuoteI voted no, why should you be rewarded for a foul shot?  Next they will want to change the water penalty.  The stroke penalty forces the course to play harder and in turn make you a better player.

You voted No and you do think there should be a penalty?

:blink: Whaaaaaaaaaaa?


-Diron

QuoteWhat's your stance (pardon the expression) on the bridge situation though?

At Beiver with the bridge on hole B&9 i would consider those playing surfaces. You would play from you lie on the bridge with no penalty.

There have also been cases where a disc goes under a bridge with no water under it where you cannot get a proper stance behind your lie.  

The Rules Committee has an opinion on the Bridge Over trOuBled Water question.  

Basically it is incumbent upon the TD to tell you in the player's meeting if the bridge is a playing surface.  If it is, you are in bounds.  It is also incumbent upon the TD to explain to you how he intends the bridge situation to be played as a special course condition.  

The bridge anomolies have been discussed on pdga.com and they will be 1/2 cured by a new 2005 rule.  They are as numerous as Star Trek time travel paradoxes and these are some of them:

In each of the following circumstances can you use the rule of verticality to play from the bridge if it is declared a playing surface?
You are in bounds under the bridge.
You are out of bounds under the bridge.  
You are within one meter of out of bounds under the bridge.
You are within two meters of the ground but suspended in the under trusses of the bridge.  For this hypothetical, also consider subquestions hung up over o.b. or hung up over i.b.!  
You over two meters from the ground, and over two meters is being penalized, and hung up in the under trusses of the bridge, again o.b. or i.b.

How about if you are hung up in a tree over the bridge, within two meters of the bridge but more than two meters from the ground, can you play from the ground with no penalty if over two meters is beng penalized?  And all the implied permutations here!

The half-cure is a new rule that makes clear that when you have come to rest on a playing surface, you mark on that playing surface and play from that playing surface.  So clearly, in bounds under the bridge more than one meter from out of bounds cannot be elevated to the the bridge surface.  On the bridge cannot be lower to the ground.

I'm finding the voting pattern interesting, especially the #3 choice!  If you are so not into these kinds of issues, feel free to vote for the funniest choice.   :)

I'm philosophically o.k. with the rule change because it makes the rule work just like o.b. from the TD's perspective.  I think it is self-evident or consistant with natural law that an unplayable lie that requires relief should be penalized and that for the sake of safety, uniformity and speed of play, you need an objective definition of the unplayable lie.  In my own mind this is the Billy Piest Rule, which Jon probably does not recall specifically, but he fell out of our maple tree and was lucky only to have broken his arm.  Rather than leave it to the player's discretion to decide which trees to climb and which water hazards to wade into, which is actually the golf rule if the area is not staked as o.b., we have decided that the TD should have some discretion to rule certain areas off limits.  I like this rule because we have too many "Billy Piests" playing the game who are certain they can throw from the top of the pine tree.

On a practical level, the rule change is going to create a slew of foreseeable and unforeseeable issues.  TDs will forget to declare but bossy know-it-alls with the same last name will enforce a stroke penalty within their group.  Clueless players will be stroking other clueless players where no stroke is required.  Chuck Kennedy will be all over the place moaning that it is not a "stroke," it is a "penalty throw," and so on.  

After four or five years we will all learn the new rule, and then the Rules Committee will change it back.  This is what we are doing with the o.b. line rule.  We've finally taught everyone that the "Ellis" rules declared that the o.b. line is in bounds.  The new rules declare that it is out of bounds!

Just to be 100% sure.  If I'm at a tournament next year and the TD mentions nothing of the 2 meter rule and I get stuck 3 meters up in a tree, then I am NOT to take a penalty shot.  This statement is correct in 2005, right?  Cuz I know its gonna happen to me and I'm sure that the other people in my group will probably think I should take a penalty, so I better be ready :)

I've always felt that instead of 2 meters, the rule should have been based on your height.  Its only OB if you can't reach it standing on your toes.  I'm about 6'4" with pretty lanky arms.   :lol:  

Hahaha!!!

I like that rule Dan, good idea

If you can't reach it without aid of an outside object - your OB - stroke!!

[/QUOTE] You voted No and you do think there should be a penalty?

Quote

I think the TD should keep the one-stroke penalty for being two meters above the playing surface.  

This is the option that I voted for.  I voted for no change in the two meter rule.

QuoteActually this rule change makes the 2m rule EXACTLY like the water rule. There is no water rule according to PDGA rules unless the TD declares water to be OB.

SO if a TD does not state that water is OB before the start of a tourny.  I can swim into the water, retreive my disc, tread water, and shoot unpenalized?  If this is true I hope that some TD at Lemon Lake or Terra Haute would forget to state the OB.  I used to play water polo and can probably be accurate enough to have an edge.  

Have you played that Terre Haute course Brian?  I used to play there alot when I went to school downstate.  Did they change something to bring water into play?  There were no water hazards when I played it.

QuoteJust to be 100% sure.  If I'm at a tournament next year and the TD mentions nothing of the 2 meter rule and I get stuck 3 meters up in a tree, then I am NOT to take a penalty shot.  This statement is correct in 2005, right?  Cuz I know its gonna happen to me and I'm sure that the other people in my group will probably think I should take a penalty, so I better be ready :)

I've always felt that instead of 2 meters, the rule should have been based on your height.  Its only OB if you can't reach it standing on your toes.  I'm about 6'4" with pretty lanky arms.   :lol:

Dan, that is correct.  Your best weapon is a copy of the new rules in a plastic baggie in your disc golf bag.

Thenew lost disc rule is going to be a bitch with a hangover so you're going to want the rulebook for that one too.

As to the reaching it on your tippy-toes rule, that was the original Brakel Brothers rule.  We were playing frisbee golf before there was a PDGA and it was obvious that at some point it had to be a penalty.  But I was taller than Jon so then we made the rule my tippy toes regardless of whose disc it was, and Jon would be there saying, "You don't try as hard when it is my frisbee."  So then it was the top of my head standing flat footed.

This is what is weird:  Stork Roddick and his buddies began playing a few years before that.  Their rule went through the exact same evolutionary pattern.  They settled on two-meters because that is exactly how tall Stork is.  Two meters or six feet rapidly became the competing standards all over the country until we had an extensive body of PDGA rules settling that issue.  Two meters won because at the highest levels our sport is ruled by liberal, cheese-eating, Europhiles.    

Quote
After four or five years we will all learn the new rule, and then the Rules Committee will change it back.  This is what we are doing with the o.b. line rule.  We've finally taught everyone that the "Ellis" rules declared that the o.b. line is in bounds.  The new rules declare that it is out of bounds!

So the new rule is, OB if any part is even touching the line, let alone completely beyond it?

In a way that might make more sense. A couple of yrs ago at Rumbletown there was a situation where a disc went over a fence but was leaning against the outside of the fence. Since the fence was the vertical plane of the OB line it was ruled in bounds.

I'm assuming this is a case where the new rule *won't* have to be explicitly stated?

Quote

Quote
After four or five years we will all learn the new rule, and then the Rules Committee will change it back.  This is what we are doing with the o.b. line rule.  We've finally taught everyone that the "Ellis" rules declared that the o.b. line is in bounds.  The new rules declare that it is out of bounds!

So the new rule is, OB if any part is even touching the line, let alone completely beyond it?

In a way that might make more sense. A couple of yrs ago at Rumbletown there was a situation where a disc went over a fence but was leaning against the outside of the fence. Since the fence was the vertical plane of the OB line it was ruled in bounds.

I'm assuming this is a case where the new rule *won't* have to be explicitly stated?

The new rule will be explicitly stated in the rules right where the old rule was.

The call at Rumbletown was correct but under the new rules that disc is still out.

You don't have to be entirely in bounds to be in bounds.  That rule is unchanged, last I knew.  

But formerly if you were only touching the o.b. line you were in, and where you last touched the line you were last in, like if you [you wish!] flew into the tennis courts, hit the far side fence on the inside and stayed inside, you'd mark it outside way over there.  But now touching the fence means nothing and you mark it on the near side where you first went out.  I'm talking Bevier #2, 11, 20.  So before you were looking at a long run for par or an easy four.  Now you are looking at a five or even a six if you went out nearside and are marking one meter off the fence where all you can do is pitch laterally to the fairway.  This rule argues for a tennis court drop zone, or maybe we want to bust your chops for throwing in there since that is the kind of thing that gets courses pulled.  

Very interesting so far with the votes.

hi.  i just wanted to make my first post :rolleyes:

while i'm here i'll say that the level of discourse here is much better than the pdga board!  NK must not be a member?

Quotehi.  i just wanted to make my first post :rolleyes:

while i'm here i'll say that the level of discourse here is much better than the pdga board!  NK must not be a member?

thanks for visiting. feel free to come back.

Quote

But formerly if you were only touching the o.b. line you were in, and where you last touched the line you were last in...

in other words, it's a case of where you first went out, as opposed to where you last were in ...? Does this only apply to fences? I suppose I could wait for the rulebook, but it sounds like some of this requires interpretation by lawyers anyhow.... :ph34r:  

Quote

QuoteActually this rule change makes the 2m rule EXACTLY like the water rule. There is no water rule according to PDGA rules unless the TD declares water to be OB.

SO if a TD does not state that water is OB before the start of a tourny.  I can swim into the water, retreive my disc, tread water, and shoot unpenalized?  If this is true I hope that some TD at Lemon Lake or Terra Haute would forget to state the OB.  I used to play water polo and can probably be accurate enough to have an edge.

This is true under the current rules and is not being changed with one small caveat:  If you are treading water, you don't have a point of contact with the playing surface, so that is an illegal throw!  And if you threw floating Lightning plastic or a Hydra, your disc might be floating more than 2 meters above the playing surface in a location where you can't stand on the playing surface.  But then you could argue that the surface of the water IS the playing surface provided you threw floating plastic.  Hmmmmm...

I could bring this up but I don't think the rules committee will get excited about it.

I was surprised and flattered by how many points I raised in new threads on PDGA.com over the past few years that were incorporated into the new rules, like the new caddy rule, the new provisional rule, the new playing surface rule, the new double jeopardy rule [your answer must now be in the form of a question and the payout is doubled!], the new intentional interference rule, etc.  Then I thought, dude, it's not about you.  Everyone brings these up.  

Quote

Quote

But formerly if you were only touching the o.b. line you were in, and where you last touched the line you were last in...

in other words, it's a case of where you first went out, as opposed to where you last were in ...? Does this only apply to fences? I suppose I could wait for the rulebook, but it sounds like some of this requires interpretation by lawyers anyhow.... :ph34r:

Any time it would somehow matter whether the line is in bounds or out of bounds, like if you came out to play disc golf not realizing that it was a tennis tournament, the line will be in 2005 out of bounds, but previously was in bounds.  Anytime you are touching the line and not touching anything in bounds, like where the line has width and substance like a rope, fence, wall or napping Serbian, you are touching o.b. and not touching i.b.

[Ancient Adler Brakel Brothers' Rule: Napping Serbians are o.b.]  

This rarely comes up, but at Bevier it could come up if you went into the tennis courts at point X and then touched the fence at point Y and the fence had been defined as ob rather than the pavement.  Or if you were playing PDGA rules for the road and the TD said the concrete curb is the o.b. line.  Before sitting entirely off the asphalt and on concrete under PDGA rules if the concrete is the line, would be i.b. but now it is o.b.

I'm not sure how you guys play these for league, but at a PDGA tournament the ruling of where you were last in bounds could change now that the line itself is out of bounds.

So, if you totally botch your tee shot on #2 at Bevier and hit the fence but are still lying on the grass, you are inbounds.  You are touching the ob line but also have your disc touching IB.  Right?  

I am telling you right now, I am not playing Brackel brothers tippy toe rules as I am only 5'6" and will get screwed by that rule.   :P  

QuoteSo, if you totally botch your tee shot on #2 at Bevier and hit the fence but are still lying on the grass, you are inbounds.  You are touching the ob line but also have your disc touching IB.  Right?  

I am telling you right now, I am not playing Brackel brothers tippy toe rules as I am only 5'6" and will get screwed by that rule.   :P

Touching in bounds is in bounds, today and next month.  But touching the out-of-bounds while entirely out-of-bounds used to be in-bounds and that will become out-of-bounds.

I'm learning through this process that the Brakel Brother's Conspiracy will require getting a Brakel who is strong with the Force on the rules committee.  I can't control those guys through e-mail.  If Jon continues to shy away from using the PDGA as our stepping stone to galactic domination, there is another.  

When you and Jon get elected (and before you dominate the galaxy), can you obtain hidden columns "C" and "D" that contain "the formulas"?!  Hopefully you will have access!

Alright, so after reading terry calhoun's post on pdga today, it seems that the 2 meter rule is still in effect.  The only change is that TD's can do away with the rule if they wish.  This is no big deal then as I don't forsee playing too many tournaments where the TD will opt to do away with the rule.

The way this had previously been described to me is that the 2 meter rule was gone unless the TD decided to announce that it was in effect.  If nothing was said then being 5 meters up in a tree was not a penalty.

Yeah, we punted on making any new rules at all because of Rules Committee shenanigans at the last moment in the rules process.  Someone on the committee tried to slip a never seen before new rule into the absolute final draft without telling anyone, "Oh, by the way...," and they left the rule out of the Table of Contents.  

Is this mike on?  

:D  

Quote... a never seen before new rule...

something about orange shirts, I'll bet..  B)

obscure inside joke, but some people here know...

So I was reading the PDGA 2 meter rule poll thread which you have linked back to here Bruce.... I couldn't get past page three before I tired of the argument between Nick and that other guy.

QuoteSo I was reading the PDGA 2 meter rule poll thread which you have linked back to here Bruce.... I couldn't get past page three before I tired of the argument between Nick and that other guy.

Well it boils down to this:  Some people think that a disc stuck at the very top of the 50 foot high pine tree that is fifteen feet from the basket should be treated the same as the park job on the ground 15 feet from the basket.  Some people think if you are taking 50 feet of vertical relief from where you threw it, you ought to be penalized.  Some people think it should depend on whose disc and which tree.

They've covered all the arguments on Discussion at PDGA.com thoroughly.  Of those three types of people, I'm on of them.  You probably are too.   :D  

I thought I'd bump this puppy back to the top in case anyone has not responded to the poll.  If you read through this thread, don't miss the part about most of those rule changes being deferred to 2006.  

The IOS TDs are a bunch of weasels.  They'll probably just go with what is popular.  

As far as I'm concerned the 2 meter rule will be in effect at any tournament where it is my call until the PDGA says that I can no longer call the 2 meter rule in effect.

I was just kidding about you being a weasel.  I should have emoticonned that.  

Quote

QuoteSo I was reading the PDGA 2 meter rule poll thread which you have linked back to here Bruce.... I couldn't get past page three before I tired of the argument between Nick and that other guy.

Well it boils down to this:  Some people think that a disc stuck at the very top of the 50 foot high pine tree that is fifteen feet from the basket should be treated the same as the park job on the ground 15 feet from the basket.  Some people think if you are taking 50 feet of vertical relief from where you threw it, you ought to be penalized.  Some people think it should depend on whose disc and which tree.

They've covered all the arguments on Discussion at PDGA.com thoroughly.  Of those three types of people, I'm on of them.  You probably are too.   :D

I gave up trying to wade through the 'discussions' on PDGA awhile ago, so I don't know if the following issue was specifically addressed.

I agree that over 2 meters deserves a penalty, but re: marking the subsequent lie, I don't see any option in the rules other than marking directly below where the disc is. In a lot of cases (pine tree, thick brush) that can in effect be a double penalty, which I don't agree with.

In an OB situation, you can take 'stroke+distance' or mark within a meter, etc., but that option isn't listed under the 2-meter section. Oversight?

I saw comments saying we should just declare over 2M OB and if this is what they're referring to I'd tend to agree.

My puppet and I breathlessly await enlightenment on this issue.

I think treating it as a per se unplayable lie would work better than treating it as o.b.  Currently for an unplayable lie you get five meters lateral relief and that gets you out of the pine tree.  

If you play over 2 meters is o.b., you would mark where ever you were last under two meters which, if you think about how three different throws landing in the same bush might have gotten there, could be weird.  One might be o.b. two feet off the tee and the other is o.b. two feet in front of the bush.  Of course, the same could happen with the pond or the o.b. road where the lefty has to go o.b. off the tee and hyzer back but the righty is going to hyzer or skip o.b. at the end of his flight.  

The folks arguing it at PDGA.com seem to think that whoever has the last word wins.  Maybe the Board will follow the spirit of the PDGA Constitution and let the players decide, but don't hold your breath.

QuoteI think treating it as a per se unplayable lie would work better than treating it as o.b.  Currently for an unplayable lie you get five meters lateral relief and that gets you out of the pine tree.  

If you play over 2 meters is o.b., you would mark where ever you were last under two meters which, if you think about how three different throws landing in the same bush might have gotten there, could be weird.  One might be o.b. two feet off the tee and the other is o.b. two feet in front of the bush.  Of course, the same could happen with the pond or the o.b. road where the lefty has to go o.b. off the tee and hyzer back but the righty is going to hyzer or skip o.b. at the end of his flight.  

I see your point about OB. And isn't it true, although I've never seen it done, that you can declare anything an 'unsafe lie' and take a stroke and relief? There's nothing that says 'unsafe' has to be justified.

Currently, that is the rule.  Up to five meters laterally, no closer, one stroke; as far as you want, no closer, two strokes.  

Quote...And isn't it true, although I've never seen it done, that you can declare anything an 'unsafe lie' and take a stroke and relief? There's nothing that says 'unsafe' has to be justified.

I've done it twice. Once was at the TDs suggestion rather than have players try to play off a very high cliff he suggested that we take unsafe lie penalties and play it well away from the cliff.

I don't remember the other situation very well...I think I was on a steep slope that I couldn't keep my footing on. I took my 5 meters to the path, the one stroke penalty and parked my upshot. Everyone in the group looked at me like I was cheating so I looked up the rule and read it aloud. Then they looked at me like I was some kind of geek...looking up the rules while playing and all that.  ;)  

I taught my junior girls this rule when they were little and they used it a lot.  When you are in 6 foot high schule and you're four foot tippy toes, you might as well walk it out.

I used it in Peoria last summer.  I was trapped in one of those schule islands at McNaughton.  I explained to the spotter what I was doing because none of my foursome was anywhere to be seen.  He said, "Really?!  I've only been playing for a couple of months."  

QuoteI taught my junior girls this rule when they were little and they used it a lot.  When you are in 6 foot high schule and you're four foot tippy toes, you might as well walk it out.

I used it in Peoria last summer.  I was trapped in one of those schule islands at McNaughton.  I explained to the spotter what I was doing because none of my foursome was anywhere to be seen.  He said, "Really?!  I've only been playing for a couple of months."

Where I get confused with this, though, is that the 2-meter rule seems to specify that you have to play from 'below the disc'. It'd be better if something were added to point out the option of an 'unsafe lie', if it's actually allowed in this situation.

Quote

QuoteI taught my junior girls this rule when they were little and they used it a lot.  When you are in 6 foot high schule and you're four foot tippy toes, you might as well walk it out.

I used it in Peoria last summer.  I was trapped in one of those schule islands at McNaughton.  I explained to the spotter what I was doing because none of my foursome was anywhere to be seen.  He said, "Really?!  I've only been playing for a couple of months."

Where I get confused with this, though, is that the 2-meter rule seems to specify that you have to play from 'below the disc'. It'd be better if something were added to point out the option of an 'unsafe lie', if it's actually allowed in this situation.

Before you can take an unsafe lie you have to mark you lie--either physically or at least mentally, so that you know how far you can go. When you mark your lie from above 2 meters is when you would incur the penalty. Then if you wanted to take an unsafe lie from there it would be another penalty. The 2 meter rule should be changed to an unsafe lie from where you would mark the disc...but the PDGA BOD seems intent on that not happening and instead ditching the rule altogether, which I think is dumb.

I think this is the best argument for the 2-meter rule.  One player takes the thumber route and finishes 40 feet up in a tree but when he marks it on the ground he is 20 feet away.  Another guy plays the fairway and finishes 20 feet from the basket.  If you don't penalize the tree shot you've just let that player who landed 44 feet 8 inches from the basket advance his disc 25 feet closer to the basket without a penalty.