2005 IOS Series 2-meter poll

[Bruce Brakel]

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!  

[Dan Michler]

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    

[D]

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!!!  

[Brian]

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.

[damonshort]

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.

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...    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.    Suppose you planted your 'front' foot vertically on the trunk of the tree?  

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

[Jon Brakel]

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.

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.

[mirth]

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

[Jon Brakel]

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?

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

[damonshort]

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?

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....  

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

[Guest]

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.

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

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?


-Diron

[CEValkyrie]

What'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.  

[Bruce Brakel]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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!

[Dan Michler]

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.    

[D]

Hahaha!!!

I like that rule Dan, good idea

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

[Brian]

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

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.

[Brian]

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.

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.  

[Dan Michler]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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.  

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.    

[damonshort]

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?