2005 IOS Series 2-meter poll

[Bruce Brakel]

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.  

[CEValkyrie]

Very interesting so far with the votes.

[sandalman]

hi.  i just wanted to make my first post

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?

[CEValkyrie]

hi.  i just wanted to make my first post

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.

[damonshort]

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....  

[Bruce Brakel]

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.

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.  

[Bruce Brakel]

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....

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.

[Chainmeister]

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.    

[Bruce Brakel]

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.  

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.  

[DougEDawg]

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!

[Dan Michler]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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?  

 

[damonshort]

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

something about orange shirts, I'll bet..  

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

[mirth]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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.

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.    

[Bruce Brakel]

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.  

[Jon Brakel]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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

[damonshort]

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.

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.  

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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.