I think you have to know the ubb to do a poll out here anymore but we got one going at Discontinuum.org. Now that our regular readers there have had a chance to vote, I thought I'd put a link here so the rest of the PDGA could chime in. You might have to set up a screen name and everything to vote, I'm not sure, but it is all free. Not counting the silly choices in the poll, the regulars were voting 12-4 for keeping the 2-meter rule in play. If you want to vote but aren't playing the IOS, just mentally substitute your own series or local events.

The Discontinuum/IOS 2-meter poll (http://discontinuum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1550&st=20&)

It's good to know we'll have so many new people willing to run tournamentsand leagues so they can impose the 2-meter rule. This rule modification might have a huge bonus effect by stirring many to action...

This one never really took off but the linked poll has cute answers...

the part i find most fascinating about that linked thread is the revelation about the real reason the 2MR will stay this year. thank god there was a printing delay ro we would truly have a Putin-backed rulebook in '05! :eek:

KEEP THE 2 METER RULE

definitely

My appologies, I have been out of the loop since the holidays.

So the 2 meter rule drop I take it has been postponed? The rule that was to change Jan 1? Is that becauce new rule books need to be made and sent?

The TD has the option to set aside the 2m rule on the whole course or just some holes as deemed appropriate.

I'm really not interested in "popular" control of our rules of play. Every vote or poll ever put out on this topic has been about 50/50 and I suspect if the 2MR was something that had never been a part of our game and was now being considered as an amendment, that it would get close to zero support "popularly".

The PDGA Rules Committee should have total control over this process. The PDGA Board of Directors should only discuss and send back wording suggestions or decide on rules they feel would mean "the end" of their organization.

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.



Of course, the converse is true as well.

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.

Last year I don't recall the automatic d.q. for willful overt destruction of plant life or equipment ever coming into play at the eight tournaments I helped run.

The two meter rule is now at the TD's discretion! No way, won't this invite anarchy? "TD Discretion?" I didn't think that was part of the PDGA's vocabulary.

That is assuming that the TD has the ability to exercise discretion. :eek:

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.

Last year I don't recall the automatic d.q. for willful overt destruction of plant life or equipment ever coming into play at the eight tournaments I helped run.



Thanks for an example of a rule that should be called and enforced that is not, to emphasis the difference with one that has no business being in our rules at all.

ummm, i think the point was that those rules were never called because they were never violated.

according to the theory of usage-based rule elimination, those rules should be striken from the book post-haste.

I am not saying that rules should be stricken that are rarely if ever called. I am saying that rules should be stricken that are superfluous and will have little if any effect on the game (particularly since TDs still have the power to declare a very similar but essential rule in it's place: OB).

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.



Wow - you're truly funny Nick. First - show me even an allusion to a source for your number. Going past the absurdity of your statement - let's just say for the sake of argument that it is 100% accurate. You are espousing the removal of a rule that by your account happens upwards of 12000 times a year in sanctioned events (6000 members X 2) - and in the next breath call it superfluous. Do you know the meaning of that word?

I had to laugh when you got on Maerzomatics case about not answering direct questions. How about you answer a few?

You claim that removing the 2m rule offers a course designer more freedom. Given that trees are the predominant design obstacle around the world - how does removing the risk/reward element of the 2m rule give them more freedom? Please be specific - this is an item I would like to see you post prolifically on. We could all then be enlightened as to how you would approach the use of obstacles in the design of a hole. Feel free to use examples you have created yourself, or ones that you have seen others create. And perhaps you could offer some examples of holes that would benefit (i.e. be better, more challenging holes - not just be easier) from the removal of the 2m rule.

If OB is a better application for lies above ground (or discs suspended above the playing surface - however you wish to phrase it), how is it that we will have a more consistently applied rule if each piece of foliage needs to be identified as OB or not?

Let's start there - and see if you can address 2 direct questions. Last I checked - on the big thread - you had 155 posts - to my 7 - and they all largely said the same thing. I'd like to hear some specifics about your categorical list. Substance vs fluff if you are able.

Craig, I will gladly answer your questions, but let�s be clear here, there is no reason for you to belittle or be mean spirited in this discussion. We have gotten past that and you are welcome to join us, but not as a pointlessly antagonistic pest.

You claim that removing the 2m rule offers a course designer more freedom.
Given that trees are the predominant design obstacle around the world - how does removing the risk/reward element of the 2m rule give them more freedom? Please be specific - this is an item I would like to see you post prolifically on. We could all then be enlightened as to how you would approach the use of obstacles in the design of a hole. Feel free to use examples you have created yourself, or ones that you have seen others create. And perhaps you could offer some examples of holes that would benefit (i.e. be better, more challenging holes - not just be easier) from the removal of the 2m rule.


The freedom to designers is inherent in the removal of a blanket rule and the institution of a �chosen� or �opt in� rule. TDs and Course Designers having a �choice� would necessarily entail greater freedom would it not? I�m not sure how it could be considered anything else� how a restriction could be construed as a freedom?
I�ll be glad to answer your question, in a gesture of good faith can you answer the same questions illustrating how the 2 meter rule provides you greater freedom in design or how having it be something you could �opt into� rather than have it be blanket increases challenge or enhances risk/reward? It�s only fair right? You must have some ready and waiting to share, right? Then I will be only glad to share my examples, ok?


If OB is a better application for lies above ground (or discs suspended above the playing surface - however you wish to phrase it), how is it that we will have a more consistently applied rule if each piece of foliage needs to be identified as OB or not?


I didn�t realize it was an �either or� option. A TD or Course Designer may declare all areas 2 meters above the playing surface as OB, therefore having no need to mark anything. Now if the TD wants certain areas or specific trees or objects of any kind declared OB, like any other OB they have to do so explicitly at the players meeting and hopefully on the scorecards and player program. OB is consistent in a different way than being simply �blanket or mandatory�, it is clear, concise and understandable of it�s own volition.

Again, I will be glad to answer any follow up questions you may have and provide the examples (in good faith), but you need to put a sock in your overt rudeness and hostility. You don�t deserve it and neither do I.

For those just tuning in, Nick and Craig have been having this same argument for well over 4 years now on one message board or another. No animosity implied -- just adding a little perspective to any unsuspecting new reader.

Allow me to translate for the masses.....


Craig, I will gladly answer your questions, but let�s be clear here, there is no reason for you to belittle or be mean spirited in this discussion. We have gotten past that and you are welcome to join us, but not as a pointlessly antagonistic pest.




Pot = Kettle


I�ll be glad to answer your question, in a gesture of good faith can you answer the same questions illustrating how the 2 meter rule provides you greater freedom in design or how having it be something you could �opt into� rather than have it be blanket increases challenge or enhances risk/reward? It�s only fair right? You must have some ready and waiting to share, right? Then I will be only glad to share my examples, ok?




In other words, I don't have any.


OB is consistent in a different way than being simply �blanket or mandatory�, it is clear, concise and understandable of it�s own volition.




Clear - if your disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface, take a penalty stroke (rule paraphrased because I am too lazy to cut and paste)

Concise - if your disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface, take a penalty stroke (rule paraphrased because I am too lazy to cut and paste)

Understandable - if your disc is suspended more than 2 meters above the playing surface, take a penalty stroke (rule paraphrased because I am too lazy to cut and paste)

Not clear - the maple trees on hole 9 are OB if you stick in the branches while playing hole 9, but not if you are playing the adjoining fairway on hole 10. If the branch is close to the ground it's not OB. If it's not a maple it's not OB.

Not concise - the maple trees on hole 9 are OB if you stick in the branches while playing hole 9, but not if you are playing the adjoining fairway on hole 10. If the branch is close to the ground it's not OB. If it's not a maple it's not OB.

Not understandable - the maple trees on hole 9 are OB if you stick in the branches while playing hole 9, but not if you are playing the adjoining fairway on hole 10. If the branch is close to the ground it's not OB. If it's not a maple it's not OB.

This is funny. Everyone that dislikes Nick won't admit that his idea has merit. Whether or not you agree that it's the best way to handle the situation, and whether or not he would do the same is not the point.

In direct response to your post, Dan, no one is saying the TD must specify which trees are OB in a singular manner. The advocates for the disposal of the rule are merely suggesting that every tree in the world need not have the 2 meter rule applied to it. All a TD (or course designer) has to say is "2 meter rule is in effect at this tourney/course." Not a detailed description of trees affected. If they just want one tree to be OB, that is also an option, i.e. more design freedom. Your maple trees situation just muddies the argument. You are right, it's not as clear/concise/whatever that way. But it's also probably not going to happen that way.

While it's 'probably not going to happen' it certainly can. And either way it's a lot less clear and concise than the existing rule.

The big issue I have with not penalizing bad shots that stick up in trees is it leaves wide open the possibility of someone having a disc stuck 30' up in a cedar tree, leaving the disc where it is, throwing from beneath the disc, and walking up to the next shot with no penalty. The thought that our rules (or should I say lack thereof?) would allow this to happen just boggles the mind.

I agree with you, to an extent. I don't, however, believe the 2-meter rule is the way to handle it. I see no difference in 1 meter and 30 meters. I say, penalize them all, or none, but the 2-meter rule is not satisfactory.

While it's 'probably not going to happen' it certainly can. And either way it's a lot less clear and concise than the existing rule.




And just to clarify, I knew you were going to quote the "probably" statement. I know it very well could, but I don't think the possibility of TD's muddying the rules at their tournaments is a valid argument against the rule. Again, the point being addressed was design freedom, and the change works well in that light.

According to your definition only the 2 meter rule is concise, clear and understandable.

Dan, how do you hand all of those muddy, cloudy and incomprehensible OBs out on the course then? Seriously. Do you think we should get rid of non-blanked OB rules? And take all control over hazard design away from TDs and Course Designers?

Craig, I will gladly answer your questions, but let�s be clear here, there is no reason for you to belittle or be mean spirited in this discussion. We have gotten past that and you are welcome to join us, but not as a pointlessly antagonistic pest.


My dear friend Nick - Being that I have posted on these threads in a much less prolific fashion than yourself - I really do consider myself a pointed protagonist vs a pointless antagonist. I have tried in my most recent post - to have you elaborate on points which you claim justify your reasons for wanting this rule eliminated. You have not yet answered either question.


You claim that removing the 2m rule offers a course designer more freedom.
Given that trees are the predominant design obstacle around the world - how does removing the risk/reward element of the 2m rule give them more freedom? Please be specific - this is an item I would like to see you post prolifically on. We could all then be enlightened as to how you would approach the use of obstacles in the design of a hole. Feel free to use examples you have created yourself, or ones that you have seen others create. And perhaps you could offer some examples of holes that would benefit (i.e. be better, more challenging holes - not just be easier) from the removal of the 2m rule.



The freedom to designers is inherent in the removal of a blanket rule and the institution of a �chosen� or �opt in� rule. TDs and Course Designers having a �choice� would necessarily entail greater freedom would it not? I�m not sure how it could be considered anything else� how a restriction could be construed as a freedom?



As a designer - one is confronted with some very basic principles - the most significant of which (IMO) is dictating a path from point A to point B through the use of natural (or man made) obstacles. The most prolific obstacles we have on DG courses are trees and gravity. The nature of a tree as an obstacle is that it will serve to shape the path available for a disc to travel between the two points. The choice a player makes in choosing a path to the hole is largely determined by the consequences of how the obstacles are navigated. I say that removing the 2M rule reduces the effective use of trees as obstacles - because the risk of opting for a route which ignores such an obstacle is also eliminated. This creates IMO an additional burden (i.e. LESS FREEDOM) on the course designer to be able to use these obstacles effectively.

You simply stating that removing a "blanket rule" gives a designer inherently more freedom is plainly out of sinc with MY reality as a designer. I have asked you to provide reasoning and examples to back up your assertion. You say you are glad to do it, I'll wait patiently.


I�ll be glad to answer your question, in a gesture of good faith can you answer the same questions illustrating how the 2 meter rule provides you greater freedom in design or how having it be something you could �opt into� rather than have it be blanket increases challenge or enhances risk/reward? It�s only fair right? You must have some ready and waiting to share, right? Then I will be only glad to share my examples, ok?



In other words you first huh Nick? I would think that after a couple hundred posts on the subject - you might have some ready answer yourself - but apparently not. I have given you the basic design principle and the nature of objects above. The freedom granted the designer by having the 2M rule in place is that the nature of the most available type of obstacle is constant. Knowing that each tree has the capacity to block, catch, or deflect a thrown disc gives the eisgner the freedom to place tees and pins wherever the obstacles will most effectively create a challenge for the player. Taking away one of the risks INHERENT in navigating the obstacle - then reduces a designers freedom. Would you like me to elaborate further?


If OB is a better application for lies above ground (or discs suspended above the playing surface - however you wish to phrase it), how is it that we will have a more consistently applied rule if each piece of foliage needs to be identified as OB or not?



I didn�t realize it was an �either or� option. A TD or Course Designer may declare all areas 2 meters above the playing surface as OB, therefore having no need to mark anything. Now if the TD wants certain areas or specific trees or objects of any kind declared OB, like any other OB they have to do so explicitly at the players meeting and hopefully on the scorecards and player program. OB is consistent in a different way than being simply �blanket or mandatory�, it is clear, concise and understandable of it�s own volition.



Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Please read it again. It is a question regarding how rules can be applied with consistency (one of your claims). If one tree is OB and one is not - that is inconsistent. If a seedling tree with guy wires can suspend a disc above the ground 1", is it consistent to penalize it the same as one suspended well out of reach? How is it more consistent to try and apply OB in a variety of ways instead of just one way? (above 2M)


Again, I will be glad to answer any follow up questions you may have and provide the examples (in good faith), but you need to put a sock in your overt rudeness and hostility. You don�t deserve it and neither do I.


kettle black Nick.

If you feel that asking you to live up to the same standards as you ask others to do is being overtly rude - I guess that you must have "hurt feelings".

When your posting on a topic becomes so redundant and prolific as to dominate m,ultiple threads on the same topic on the same discussion board - I don't think it is I that is being overtly rude by calling you on it. 155 posts on one thread Nick - come on man - resist the urge once in a while.

Craig, I will gladly answer your questions, but let�s be clear here, there is no reason for you to belittle or be mean spirited in this discussion. We have gotten past that and you are welcome to join us, but not as a pointlessly antagonistic pest.

...Craig response snipped...


Wow. I can hardly believe that Nick actually posted that.

Are you freaking kidding me???

Hey Nick, why can't Craig post like you usually do?

now rhett, dont be a pointlessly antagonistic pest. :D

Your original question:

You claim that removing the 2m rule offers a course designer more freedom.
Given that trees are the predominant design obstacle around the world - how does removing the risk/reward element of the 2m rule give them more freedom? Please be specific - this is an item I would like to see you post prolifically on. We could all then be enlightened as to how you would approach the use of obstacles in the design of a hole. Feel free to use examples you have created yourself, or ones that you have seen others create. And perhaps you could offer some examples of holes that would benefit (i.e. be better, more challenging holes - not just be easier) from the removal of the 2m rule.


Your answer: (?)

As a designer - one is confronted with some very basic principles - the most significant of which (IMO) is dictating a path from point A to point B through the use of natural (or man made) obstacles. The most prolific obstacles we have on DG courses are trees and gravity. The nature of a tree as an obstacle is that it will serve to shape the path available for a disc to travel between the two points. The choice a player makes in choosing a path to the hole is largely determined by the consequences of how the obstacles are navigated. I say that removing the 2M rule reduces the effective use of trees as obstacles - because the risk of opting for a route which ignores such an obstacle is also eliminated. This creates IMO an additional burden (i.e. LESS FREEDOM) on the course designer to be able to use these obstacles effectively.


I�m not sure if you are being purposefully confusing or not here, but somehow you have made it sound like forcing the 2MR on all TDs and Course Designers increases their level of design freedom. That by removing the 2MR players will no longer pay any attention to the trees as obstacles. That is simply an untrue statement, how can anyone honestly try to pass it off as some kind of real design consideration? Seriously.


You simply stating that removing a "blanket rule" gives a designer inherently more freedom is plainly out of sinc with MY reality as a designer. I have asked you to provide reasoning and examples to back up your assertion. You say you are glad to do it, I'll wait patiently.


YOUR reality as a designer is something incomprehensible then, because saying that removing design options increases them is an oxymoron.


I have given you the basic design principle and the nature of objects above. The freedom granted the designer by having the 2M rule in place is that the nature of the most available type of obstacle is constant. Knowing that each tree has the capacity to block, catch, or deflect a thrown disc gives the eisgner the freedom to place tees and pins wherever the obstacles will most effectively create a challenge for the player. Taking away one of the risks INHERENT in navigating the obstacle - then reduces a designers freedom. Would you like me to elaborate further?


No, I would prefer if you answered in the English language please. What the �? I�m not even going to attempt to paraphrase because I don�t know what you were saying and also because you would accuse me of misquoting you anyway. It�s extremely difficult to answer your question when the question is so discombobulated. In simple straight forward language are asking me: Do you think without the 2MR the nature of most obstacles (trees) to block, catch or deflect thrown discs is decreased? If it is (and that is a big if) then my answer would be that the 2MR has �NO EFFECT� on the nature of those obstacles to block, catch or deflect thrown discs. It remains unaltered.

If OB is a better application for lies above ground (or discs suspended above the playing surface - however you wish to phrase it), how is it that we will have a more consistently applied rule if each piece of foliage needs to be identified as OB or not?


Not sure I how many times I need to answer this same question, but I there would be no need or requirement to identify �each piece of foliage as OB or not. The TD could make none of them OB or All of them OB with no need to mark anything. IF THE TD CHOOSES (get that, their choice) they can mark and identify ANYTHING on their course as OB. That is no different than the way it is now.

A TD like you could simply say that everything 2 meters above the playing surface is OB. Or if we keep the 2MR as an opt in rule in 2006 you just say that the rule is in effect. TDs that don�t want to use it can say the 2MR is not in effect. Explain how that is not �more freedom� for the TD.



I didn�t realize it was an �either or� option. A TD or Course Designer may declare all areas 2 meters above the playing surface as OB, therefore having no need to mark anything. Now if the TD wants certain areas or specific trees or objects of any kind declared OB, like any other OB they have to do so explicitly at the players meeting and hopefully on the scorecards and player program. OB is consistent in a different way than being simply �blanket or mandatory�, it is clear, concise and understandable of it�s own volition.



Perhaps you didn't understand the question. Please read it again. It is a question regarding how rules can be applied with consistency (one of your claims). If one tree is OB and one is not - that is inconsistent. If a seedling tree with guy wires can suspend a disc above the ground 1", is it consistent to penalize it the same as one suspended well out of reach? How is it more consistent to try and apply OB in a variety of ways instead of just one way? (above 2M)



Craig, here you are just trying to be evasive. To say that having one path OB and another not is �inconsistent�, though true is not transrulerelevant. The consistency I am talking about is within the context of ALL OF OUR RULES, not within a single or just 2 rules. We do not have any other rules that are blanket hazards other than the 2MR. It is not consistent with other hazard rules. Applying hazard rules consistently does not mean �to make all water OB, or all paths OB, or all bridges OB� it means to allow TDs and Course Designers to apply them as they see fit, the 2 meter rule just an option along with all the other hazard rules. That the 2MR is blanket IS INCONSISTENT. I�m not sure if you are incapable of getting this or whether you just don�t want to.

Now to answering your original question: How does removing the 2MR increase design freedom? Use specific examples.

Easy: The entire course at Seneca- �choose� to enforce the 2MR. You have now exercised your �freedom� to use or not use the 2MR to promote the challenges you see, as the TD and Course Designer, as essential. Hence, your freedom has been increase, certainly there has been no decrease in freedom.
Easy: The entire course at Brandywine- �choose� to waive the 2MR. I have now exercised my �freedom� to not use the 2MR to promote the challenges I see, as the TD and Course Designer, as essential. Hence, my freedom has been increase, certainly there has been no decrease in freedom.
Easy: Hole 18 at Seneca- �choose� to waive the 2MR, but make a certain group of likely disc catching trees at the first bend OB along with the areas beneath them, thereby increasing the risk reward of hitting those trees and landing in the OB areas (not just above 2 meters).
Shall I go on? Is the increased freedom of design not readily apparent? I mean the TD can �choose� any variety of design uses for these hazards, including continuing to enforce the 2MR.

Is your interest in this really designer freedom? Seems more like you want to restrict than to expand what they are able to do or not.

Again, the point being addressed was design freedom, and the change works well in that light.


And again, "design freedom" was always available via the 804.01 rule. Removing the 2MR does not improve the situation one bit. Removing the 2MR simply removes the 2MR.

And being that the 2 meter rule only comes into play maybe once or twice a year per player at PDGAs there is no way to reasonably argue that by deleting it from our rules that our organization would be threatened.



It came into play three times for me during the SW team invitational in San Diego. Once for, and twice against. And all three times were within 10m of the basket.

Non-PDGA tourney, but just a data point, that it does come in to play.

Man are you thick or what?

Let's try this a different way. I wasn't trying to be evasive, convoluted, or anything else. I want to talk specifics of course design, and the nature of obstacles. You seem unable to fathom those concepts, and insist on maintaining extreme generalities. Let's try a different variation of a question I asked previously, that you failed to answer. See if you can address it specifically - and not generally.

Can you identify any other sort of readily available natural obstacle that can be used in course design that would serve as a "hazard".
Let me help you in understanding the question. The equivalent in ball golf is a bunker. When a player lands in a bunker - they are virtually guaranteed to add a stroke (sometimes more) to their score. It's not an absolute, but the scale of BG courses is significantly different than DG courses. The nature of DG courses is such that their scale does not impose such a standard without the use of trees as natural hazards or "bunkers". Holes that are only a few hundred feet long generally can be navigated when caught by an obstacle in or near the fairway or near the green, without adding a stroke to the players score. In other words - take away the 2M rule - and there is no other way to use hazards in course design to penalize an errant shot - (or one unfortunate enough to find a bunker), without creating artificial OB. So by taking away the 2M rule - there are no effective, readily available obstacles to use that aren't just merely obstacles. Maybe you wouldn't consider this a loss of freedom - but it certainly qualifies as a loss of a significant design tool. Without hazards as a design tool - the only effective score affecting design tool left - is distance or artificial OB - how totally boring. So that's my question - is there an alternative design tool to create a hazard while designing a hole?


Now to answering your original question: How does removing the 2MR increase design freedom? Use specific examples.

Easy: The entire course at Seneca- �choose� to enforce the 2MR. You have now exercised your �freedom� to use or not use the 2MR to promote the challenges you see, as the TD and Course Designer, as essential. Hence, your freedom has been increase, certainly there has been no decrease in freedom.



Start again Nick. You are confusing and mixing/matching your own statements. This latest one is about the freedom of the TD to enforce a rule - and has nothing to do with increasing a designers freedom. Design freedom is about building into a hole design, risks and rewards in navigating the path to the hole. The ability to do so is tied to the use of obstacles as hazards. There are natural hazards, and there are man made hazards. OB can be used effectively to punish errant throws, trees can obviously be used the same way. Taking away trees as an option reduces the available options available to the designer. You apparently do not understand this concept.


Easy: Hole 18 at Seneca- �choose� to waive the 2MR, but make a certain group of likely disc catching trees at the first bend OB along with the areas beneath them, thereby increasing the risk reward of hitting those trees and landing in the OB areas (not just above 2 meters).



Now on this one you are either trying to be funny - or you're just being ignorant. There is one tree that generally either knocks discs down, or catches them on this fairway (in the location you reference) - and it defines the line you have to hit to have a successful shot. Choosing to call that tree OB or not has nothing to do with increasing my freedom as a designer. In this case -the hazard has obviously been included in the fairway as a hazard. Are you suggesting that once placed there - being able to say it's no longer a hazard - but merely an obstacle - that my design freedom has been increased? That's pretty bassackwards if you ask me.



Is your interest in this really designer freedom? Seems more like you want to restrict than to expand what they are able to do or not.



My interest in this is having you back up your list of supposed "absolutes" in your argument supporting the elimination of arule of play. So far, you are the one who has failed to answer any question directly, or with any detail. It's all very wide sweeping and generalized. This approach, is consistent with many things that you talk about. Getting you to address the specifics, elements, or ramifications of your "talking points" seems to be very difficult.

Can you identify any other sort of readily available natural obstacle that can be used in course design that would serve as a "hazard".
Let me help you in understanding the question. The equivalent in ball golf is a bunker. When a player lands in a bunker - they are virtually guaranteed to add a stroke (sometimes more) to their score. It's not an absolute, but the scale of BG courses is significantly different than DG courses. The nature of DG courses is such that their scale does not impose such a standard without the use of trees as natural hazards or "bunkers". Holes that are only a few hundred feet long generally can be navigated when caught by an obstacle in or near the fairway or near the green, without adding a stroke to the players score. In other words - take away the 2M rule - and there is no other way to use hazards in course design to penalize an errant shot - (or one unfortunate enough to find a bunker), without creating artificial OB. So by taking away the 2M rule - there are no effective, readily available obstacles to use that aren't just merely obstacles. Maybe you wouldn't consider this a loss of freedom - but it certainly qualifies as a loss of a significant design tool. Without hazards as a design tool - the only effective score affecting design tool left - is distance or artificial OB - how totally boring. So that's my question - is there an alternative design tool to create a hazard while designing a hole?



Is this your question?

Can you identify any other sort of readily available natural obstacle that can be used in course design that would serve as a "hazard".


Your attempt to clarify it, if it was in fact a question, certainly did not clarify much.

Other natural obstacles besides trees:
1) Elevation Changes
2) Rock formations
3) Gullies
4) Streams
5) Rivers
6) Ponds
7) Bushes
8) Thickets
9) Tall Grass
10) Soft muddy earth
11) Fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves)
12) Roots sticking up out of the ground
13) Seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.)
14) Wind
Basically anything that could possibly hinder the progress of the disc towards the target or interfere with run-up, stance or throwing motion is a hazard.

None of these hazards automatically entails a �penalty throw� yet all of them seem to function perfectly well as �hazards�.

If you want to add a penalty throw to the hazard, as a designer I believe you should have the freedom to do so. I do not think that it should be mandatory that you do so. The nearly universal (2MR being the exception) method of accomplishing that is to make them OB. If that is not the definition of �design freedom� then we are just speaking different languages Craig.


. So by taking away the 2M rule - there are no effective, readily available obstacles to use that aren't just merely obstacles.


What!?! If this makes sense to anyone at all please chime in and explain it. This is complete and total �non-sense� to me. Same goes for this:

Maybe you wouldn't consider this a loss of freedom - but it certainly qualifies as a loss of a significant design tool.


A) I don�t consider having the choice to declare (or not) everything above 2M OB a �loss of freedom�, particularly since a �design choice� has been added that was not available before.
B) As repeatedly stated, you, Craig Gangloff, can still, IF YOU CHOOSE, have the 2MR(or it�s equivalent) in effect at ALL of your events. Just as Pat can have it in effect at his events or just within 10M of the pin. Saying that it is optional does not equal in anyone�s estimation, other than yours, the �loss of a significant design tool�.

I�m unsure if that is the question you asked. I am quite sure that it is not the answer that you want.

this has gone past amusing into the realm of the absurd.

first, a designer who designs a course with the 2MR in place will no longer be assured that the design will survive - a TD and arbitrarily/unilaterally, with no regard for the design, obliterate the design by suspending the 2MR.

and in 2006, if things stand the way the are now, the default will be NO 2MR - so the TD wont even have to do anything to destroy the design - the TD will have to PROACTIVELY put it back in !

this is wrong.



now, reagrding this list:

1) Elevation Changes
2) Rock formations
3) Gullies
4) Streams
5) Rivers
6) Ponds
7) Bushes
8) Thickets
9) Tall Grass
10) Soft muddy earth
11) Fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves)
12) Roots sticking up out of the ground
13) Seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.)


to equate these with trees is silly. none exist with the frequency or regularity of trees. most, even when they do exist, do not significantly (or at all) come into the consideration of how to play a hole to the degree that trees do.

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

Think about it; how many times do you play holes with trees on them? Now how many times are you really concerned with sticking above 2 meters, or concerned enough that you do not, still, choose the line with the best chance of scoring well?

I know that there is no way you have a course, where this would be more of a factor than Seneca, and even there, I don�t give the 2 meter rule a second thought on a single throw I make there. Not one thought. And watching other players it is clear that they don�t either. They just figure if it sticks it sticks, oh well.

Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

Perhaps where you live you don't have any elevation changes, rock formations, gullies, streams, rivers,lakes, ponds, bushes, thickets,tall grass, soft muddy earth, fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves), roots sticking up out of the ground, or seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.), but everywhere I have been there has been plenty of all of thee above.

Perhaps on most courses trees are the main obstacle (that was not the question though) but I have been playing on courses where they are not the main obstacle for 24 years now so I know that it is absolutely a fact that these other obstacles are hazards and behave as such, sometimes even moreso than trees do.

Thanks Pat - for chiming in - apparently someone gets what I'm talking about.

Nick - thank you for your list of obstacles. Such a list proves to me that you do not recognize either the frequency of such obstacles as available design tools, or the desirability in using them in course design.

1) Elevation Changes - a good design tool - not always available - to use elevation as a "hazard"- it usually is used in tandem with some other obstacle - like trees.
2) Rock formations - seldom available - most people avoid using rock formations as significant design obstacles - as they chew up discs. Good obstacle - no hazard.
3) Gullies - bad design tools - introducing foot traffic into these areas promotes unsafe playing areas, and erosion. Overuse of such features highlights a designers disregard for the plot of land on which they are working.
4) Streams - infrequently available. Should be kept out of play where possible - usually used as OB - different quality of hazard.
5) Rivers same as streams.
6) Ponds same as streamns
7) Bushes - are generally cleared. But when not - they fall into the same category as trees - maybe I should have included bushes/shrubs in the same category as trees. They have the same capacity to affect play - but are generally less available/desirable as design elements.
8) Thickets - should be avoided wherever possible. Bad example
9) Tall Grass - should be avoided wherever possible - terrible design tool - promotes invasive species growth, promotes insect populations, promotes lymes disease.
10) Soft muddy earth - as a design tool? Are you kidding?
11) Fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves)
Are also generally cleared - to suggest that these are design tools akin to the availability of trees as design tools is rediculous.
12) Roots sticking up out of the ground - as design tools? In a rare instance maybe - but as a hazard? Never - come-on Nick
13) Seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.) - Good design tool - but readily or commonly available compared to trees? Think again
14) Wind - no comment.

I appreciate your attempt to answer my question - I asked it twice - it was only one sentence - not sure why you are confused - but you missed the most important part. That is - an obstacle or type of obstacle that is READILY AVAILABLE to serve as a HAZARD in hole design. I offered you an example of what a hazard is - and how it functions in hole design. Is there some dispute about what the nature of a hazard is? Or that trees serving as natural hazards is inherently tied to the 2M rule?

Without the 2M rule - you have eliminated THE MOST COMMON AND READILY AVAILABLE HAZARD in course design. I will give you your semantic victory in agreeing that a TD's choices/fredom have been increased by giving them the choice to enforce or not enforce the 2M rule. But to suggest that it increases the designers freedom by taking away the most commonly available means to affect score is totally ludicrous.

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

<font color="purple"> roughly equal numbers. </font>

Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

<font color="purple"> whether the rule explicitly states so or not, the 2MR IS an OB rule. thats why players say "is it OB?" when looking at a suspending disc. but to your point, the behaviour of the players apparently varies by region, because your anecdotal evidence differs from ours.</font>

Think about it; how many times do you play holes with trees on them? Now how many times are you really concerned with sticking above 2 meters, or concerned enough that you do not, still, choose the line with the best chance of scoring well?

<font color="purple"> some holes with trees do not offer an above the canopy route, so a direct comparison between tree'd holes and 2MR considerations is meaningless. that being said, i can tell you with 100% certainty that when an above the canopy route is available, i consider the ramifications of a 2MR penalty every single time. further, my ultimate decision is not always about scoring "well". the tourney situation plays a big factor in how i decide to play the hole. </font>

I know that there is no way you have a course, where this would be more of a factor than Seneca, and even there, I don�t give the 2 meter rule a second thought on a single throw I make there. Not one thought. And watching other players it is clear that they don�t either. They just figure if it sticks it sticks, oh well.

<font color="purple"> if thats what they figure, then who is is that is fighting so hard to remove the rule? doesnt sounds like the players care too much that its there. funny thing though - the players here, DO care, and WANT it to stay. </font>

Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

<font color="purple"> perhaps. i say perhaps because on a treelined, tight fairway, OB under the trees magnifies the penalty for a throw that ces off a small trunk and lands in the OB area. this "double-jeapordy" is exactly one of the reasons you want to get rid of the 2MR. but you are creating the same situation just in different places. </font>

Perhaps where you live you don't have any elevation changes, rock formations, gullies, streams, rivers,lakes, ponds, bushes, thickets,tall grass, soft muddy earth, fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves), roots sticking up out of the ground, or seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.), but everywhere I have been there has been plenty of all of thee above.

<font color="purple"> we have plenty of the above. i grew up in PA, so i'm not unfamiliar with the terrain. i stand by my statement that to equate those features with trees is silly. </font>

Perhaps on most courses trees are the main obstacle (that was not the question though) but I have been playing on courses where they are not the main obstacle for 24 years now so I know that it is absolutely a fact that these other obstacles are hazards and behave as such, sometimes even moreso than trees do.

<font color="purple"> such courses are in the minority by far. although some courses in arizona might also be in that count. come to think of it though, even Fountain Hills incorporated trees into the design so much that they were as much trouble as the pond. </font>

Thanks Pat - for chiming in - apparently someone gets what I'm talking about.

no problem - it really isnt all that hard.

Craig,
So which was it did I answer your question or not? It seems I did but that you just reject the answer, is that right?

I know you believe yourself a design expert, and I�d tend to agree with you, but the sad fact is that you have some giant blind spots as concerns the discussion currently at hand.

I see now that you wanted me to list hazards that also automatically incur a 1 throw penalty throw, and in that you definitely have me, if a disc comes to rest in a tree, and the 2MR is in effect, then not only are you likely not where you wanted to be, but you have to add a penalty throw to your score for that hole. Then again, if you hit the tree above 2M and stick in it below 2M then you don�t get a penalty throw added.

So no, you got me, there are no other hazards that MANDATE a penalty throw.

I�m not sure what pertinence that has to this discussion though, other than perhaps in support of my contention the 2MR is unlike all of our other hazard rules and hazard �OPTIONS�.

You see, that stream can be declared OB and then there you have it! Like magic it accomplishes the same thing as the tree hazard with the 2MR in effect!

Now if you are talking about the non-penalty throw characteristics of the �tree hazard� such as how it behaves in influencing flight path options, or how when it is struck in mid-flight it affects the path of the disc, or how it influences run-up, stance or throwing motion, then it is just like every other obstacle on the course. Its influence is its influence, the 2MR penalty stroke has nothing to do with any of that, and certainly far less than if the tree were OB.


Without the 2M rule - you have eliminated THE MOST COMMON AND READILY AVAILABLE HAZARD in course design. I will give you your semantic victory in agreeing that a TD's choices/fredom have been increased by giving them the choice to enforce or not enforce the 2M rule. But to suggest that it increases the designers freedom by taking away the most commonly available means to affect score is totally ludicrous.


Craig, that is simply untrue. The TD or Course Designer, if they choose, can still exercise their freedom to design a course exactly the way they want it in 2006 and beyond, even with the 2MR or equivalent. If this is not, in your opinion, a increase in design freedom, then at least you can see that it is not a decrease.

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

Think about it; how many times do you play holes with trees on them? Now how many times are you really concerned with sticking above 2 meters, or concerned enough that you do not, still, choose the line with the best chance of scoring well?

I know that there is no way you have a course, where this would be more of a factor than Seneca, and even there, I don�t give the 2 meter rule a second thought on a single throw I make there. Not one thought. And watching other players it is clear that they don�t either. They just figure if it sticks it sticks, oh well.

Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

Perhaps where you live you don't have any elevation changes, rock formations, gullies, streams, rivers,lakes, ponds, bushes, thickets,tall grass, soft muddy earth, fallen logs, branches and other natural debris (leaves), roots sticking up out of the ground, or seams between different surfaces (sand, dirt, grass, tall grass, stone, gravel, etc.), but everywhere I have been there has been plenty of all of thee above.

Perhaps on most courses trees are the main obstacle (that was not the question though) but I have been playing on courses where they are not the main obstacle for 24 years now so I know that it is absolutely a fact that these other obstacles are hazards and behave as such, sometimes even moreso than trees do.



Great post Nick. But don't confuse them with the facts, they've already made up their minds :D

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

roughly equal numbers.



You are not being serious now.


Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

whether the rule explicitly states so or not, the 2MR IS an OB rule. thats why players say "is it OB?" when looking at a suspending disc. but to your point, the behaviour of the players apparently varies by region, because your anecdotal evidence differs from ours.



Actually Pat, the 2MR is not OB. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is not related in any way shape or form to our OB or Relief rules, and THAT is the primary challenge I have with it. That and it's universal nature.


Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

perhaps. i say perhaps because on a treelined, tight fairway, OB under the trees magnifies the penalty for a throw that ces off a small trunk and lands in the OB area. this "double-jeapordy" is exactly one of the reasons you want to get rid of the 2MR. but you are creating the same situation just in different places.



This sort of misdirection and evasiveness makes me wonder if you really are interested, at all, in discussing this. Marking a tree as OB is no different than any other use of OB. If you throw OB you deal with the consequence, period. There is no double penalty involved.

Actually Pat, the 2MR is not OB. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is not related in any way shape or form to our OB or Relief rules, and THAT is the primary challenge I have with it. That and it's universal nature.




A. If a disc comes to rest above the playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it. If the point directly below the disc above the playing surface is an out-of-bounds area, the disc shall be declared out-of-bounds and marked and penalized in accordance with 803.08. If the playing surface directly below the disc is inside a tree or other solid obstacle, the lie shall be marked on the line of play immediately behind the tree or other solid obstacle.

B.If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.07 A.

Nick - is it really such a stretch, given that 803.07 is adjacent in the rule book to OB rules 803.08, and that the first two portions of 803.07 are worded as they are, that the 2M rule is basically a special condition form of OB? Same penalty isn't it? Seems to me the biggest bone of contention in all of this is appropriate relief to avoid double jeopardy if directly below the suspended disc is an "encumbered" stance. Am I off here? Would it make you feel any different if the 2M section were listed under 803.08?

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

roughly equal numbers.


You are not being serious now.

slow down there boy... i'm not fabricating this. you have absolutely no reason to imply i am lying. i am actually remember more 2MR penalties than OB's last year, but i figured you'd really go ballistic if i said that before.





Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

whether the rule explicitly states so or not, the 2MR IS an OB rule. thats why players say "is it OB?" when looking at a suspending disc. but to your point, the behaviour of the players apparently varies by region, because your anecdotal evidence differs from ours.



Actually Pat, the 2MR is not OB. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is not related in any way shape or form to our OB or Relief rules, and THAT is the primary challenge I have with it. That and it's universal nature.

yes i know that 2MR is not OB in the letter of the rules. however, in "natural rules" (like natural law, get it?) it is.



Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

perhaps. i say perhaps because on a treelined, tight fairway, OB under the trees magnifies the penalty for a throw that ces off a small trunk and lands in the OB area. this "double-jeapordy" is exactly one of the reasons you want to get rid of the 2MR. but you are creating the same situation just in different places.



This sort of misdirection and evasiveness makes me wonder if you really are interested, at all, in discussing this. Marking a tree as OB is no different than any other use of OB. If you throw OB you deal with the consequence, period. There is no double penalty involved.

if so then you're missing my point. my point is the declaration of trees and underneath as OB could not be applied universally because theres lots of times you might be under a tree but still within, or close to, the fairway. if OB is to be used to protect certain areas, then fine. we use OB for environmental protection already. you do not need to eliminate the 2MR to make that option available.

I�m unsure if that is the question you asked. I am quite sure that it is not the answer that you want.


LOL! Nick, I think you and I and several others on this board should make this our signature.

Your "opinion" is noted. Question though, how many times did you land OB last year? Now how many times did you incur a 2M penalty throw?

roughly equal numbers.


You are not being serious now.

slow down there boy... i'm not fabricating this. you have absolutely no reason to imply i am lying. i am actually remember more 2MR penalties than OB's last year, but i figured you'd really go ballistic if i said that before.



OK, you say you took more 2MR penalties than OB penalties, it seems far fetched to me being that I can�t remember a single 2MR penalty for myself, but (unfortunately) countless OB penalties, but I will take your word for it. I doubt that is a universal trend however. But even it is, this is a minor point.




Secondly, it has in no way shape or form been proven that the 2MR is more effective than OB in protecting course obstacles. Quite to the contrary in my opinion. You mark an area OB and players are far far far more likely to try and avoid it than they are to even consider the blanket 2MR when they prepare to throw.

whether the rule explicitly states so or not, the 2MR IS an OB rule. thats why players say "is it OB?" when looking at a suspending disc. but to your point, the behaviour of the players apparently varies by region, because your anecdotal evidence differs from ours.



Actually Pat, the 2MR is not OB. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is not related in any way shape or form to our OB or Relief rules, and THAT is the primary challenge I have with it. That and it's universal nature.

yes i know that 2MR is not OB in the letter of the rules. however, in "natural rules" (like natural law, get it?) it is.


I disagree and here is why:
1) The 2MR does not provide relief, as does OB.
2) The 2MR is not declared like OB, it is mandated.
3) The 2MR hazard is nowhere near as consistent in result as OB.
Natural law does not break it�s own rules. Water flows downhill, get it?




Now what if those trees and the immediate areas beneath them were OB, do you think it would enter their thinking more than the 2 meter rule?

perhaps. i say perhaps because on a treelined, tight fairway, OB under the trees magnifies the penalty for a throw that ces off a small trunk and lands in the OB area. this "double-jeapordy" is exactly one of the reasons you want to get rid of the 2MR. but you are creating the same situation just in different places.



This sort of misdirection and evasiveness makes me wonder if you really are interested, at all, in discussing this. Marking a tree as OB is no different than any other use of OB. If you throw OB you deal with the consequence, period. There is no double penalty involved.

if so then you're missing my point. my point is the declaration of trees and underneath as OB could not be applied universally because theres lots of times you might be under a tree but still within, or close to, the fairway. if OB is to be used to protect certain areas, then fine. we use OB for environmental protection already. you do not need to eliminate the 2MR to make that option available.



[/QUOTE]
You also do not need the 2MR rule to make that option available, but that is not the point. The point is this: If you, the Course Designer, decide either that you want to protect a group of trees, a specific tree, or all of your trees you have the following options under current rules with the 2MR rule optional (or deleted):
1) Declare the tree surface OB, anything completely supported by the contiguous surface of the that tree is OB, and relief taken in accordance with our rules. No need to mark, unless clarification is needed (as in it is one in a group, which I�m not sure why the Designer wouldn�t declare all of them as OB, but that is his/her freedom to do or not).
2) Declare the tree and beneath OB, and anything in that tree or immediately below it is OB. If its among a group of trees then string would be advisable.
3) Declare the tree to have the 2MR in effect.
A benefit is that freakishly bad shots that hit and stick in trees where no protection is needed and no advantage can possibly be gained are left in their natural obstacle state (within our rules: i.e. no additional penalty throw).
Using the right one is a matter of choice based on design concepts, knowledge and experience, but combined there can be now doubt that our rules will be more consistent (within themselves and their usage) and the active choice to protect sensitive areas will have more options.

The point is this: If you, the Course Designer, decide either that you want to protect a group of trees, a specific tree, or all of your trees you have the following options under current rules with the 2MR rule optional (or deleted):

assuming that the TD knows and choses to use your design


1) Declare the tree surface OB, anything completely supported by the contiguous surface of the that tree is OB, and relief taken in accordance with our rules. No need to mark, unless clarification is needed (as in it is one in a group, which I�m not sure why the Designer wouldn�t declare all of them as OB, but that is his/her freedom to do or not).

this point is specifically about the "contiguous surface" concept, not about the 2MR rule in general: there are all kinds of problems with this. for example, what if a medium sized dead stick/branch is lodged up in the tree (not an uncommon occurance, since those are frequently used to dislodge stuck discs). lets say a suspended disc is supported in part by said stick. the stick is not part of the tree, so i cant be considered part of the contiguous surface. same would be true for suspended water bottles, rocks, whatever. it would be far more clear to simply say "suspended" and forget the "contiguous surface" and its accompanying, and contorted, definitions.

back to the topicv at hand, declaring a tree as OB is wierd. you'd have to be so careful about trees with intertwined branches. not to mention that a disc that rolls to a tree and comes to rest on its root (suspended, albeit 2 cm above the surface) is OB while the disc that rolls to a rest 5 inches to the left is safe. you've re-introduced the randomness you despise in the 2MR.

oh yeah, youre still assuming the TD is gonna know and follow the designers thinking.



2) Declare the tree and beneath OB, and anything in that tree or immediately below it is OB. If its among a group of trees then string would be advisable.

no problem here, except that i would strongly recommend the string thing, otherwise youre gonna have controversies over whats is actually under the tips of branches. but hey, the TDs can make every call i guess.

3) Declare the tree to have the 2MR in effect.
A benefit is that freakishly bad shots that hit and stick in trees where no protection is needed and no advantage can possibly be gained are left in their natural obstacle state (within our rules: i.e. no additional penalty throw).

sorry, ya lost me there. the 2MR does have a penalty stroke in our rules. i know i'm misinterpreting something or you said it wrong. please clarify.


Using the right one is a matter of choice based on design concepts, knowledge and experience, but combined there can be now doubt that our rules will be more consistent (within themselves and their usage) and the active choice to protect sensitive areas will have more options.

nice conclusion. have you considered that 1 & 2 are virtually the same if you treat #1 in a fashion that would actually be manageable. since your options are now to string up rope to mark OB or to use the 2MR, could you please explain how your options have increased? both options have been available for years.

At the risk of repeating something someone may have already said, since I haven't read a post in this thread since Nam...

I will venture to say that the MAJORITY of course designers designing the MAJORITY of courses DO NOT consider the 2m penalty when making the design.

Trees, yes. 2m penalty, no.

In fact I'll go so far as to say that if a designer is relying on the 2m penalty for his design, then he is either very constrained by what he has to work with, or his design isn't very good. :eek: :) :eek: :o

In fact I'll go so far as to say that if a designer is relying on the 2m penalty for his design, then he is either very constrained by what he has to work with, or his design isn't very good.



Glad someone else said it. It is not consistent nor reliable enough to be considered a legitimately penalizing design element. If I see a certain type of tree 10 feet from a basket, similar to #2 at Big Creek (Iowa), its design score will be docked. See picture on page 9: http://www.pdga.com/course/eval/holedesign.pdf
(Hole Quality ranges from 1-9 with 9 best)

is it possible that a player's view of the risk/reward of a particular shot is different that what the designer considered to be a legitimately penalizing design element? seems like it would be, especially since risk/reward values changes with the tourney context.

also, chuck, i see what you mean about Big Creek #2's scrawny tree. so my question is: do you believe there are some tree-near-basket designs that are both "good" and also use the 2MR as a legitimately penalizing design element.

Hank I think you missed the point. The 2M function is not what dictates use of the obstacle. But when the penalty is removed from the obstacle - it's effectiveness is dimished.

As regards Big Creek #2 - since all I have to go on is the picture - it seems that the only other available obstacles on the hole are giant bushes/hedges - so having the lone tree as a final obstacle to the hole is perfectly legit. Does that sort of tree present a formidable risk of being caught over 2M? Probably not - not ALL trees do.

Chuck, why would you dock #2 at Big Creek and not #6 at Ewing, when the pine at Ewing is more apt to catch a disc than the tree at Big Creek?

Interestingly, at Worlds I was almost above 2m on that hole, in the bushes behind the basket on my tee shot. Missed the putt anyway. :(

Hank I think you missed the point. The 2M function is not what dictates use of the obstacle. But when the penalty is removed from the obstacle - it's effectiveness is dimished.




I understand what you are saying but I think you missed the point.

If a designer doesn't consider the 2m penalty when designing the hole, then it doesn't matter (to the design/designer) whether the penalty exists or not.

Therefore, the effectiveness is not diminished, because the penalty wasn't considered in the first place. The tree is still the tree, which is all the designer considered.

Would it make you feel any different if the 2M section were listed under 803.08?


No, because it would still stick out like the sore thumb it is. What would make me feel different is if "playing surface" finally got defined, and "contiguous IB/OB" surfaces replaced the OB "vertical plane" line that way a TD could just say that any non-playing surface above 2 meters(or any height they want) is OB.

I know that the restricted and mandated nature of the 2MR is a selling point for you, but it is the worst aspect of it for me, particularly in context of other hazard and relief rules we currently have.

this point is specifically about the "contiguous surface" concept, not about the 2MR rule in general: there are all kinds of problems with this. for example, what if a medium sized dead stick/branch is lodged up in the tree (not an uncommon occurance, since those are frequently used to dislodge stuck discs). lets say a suspended disc is supported in part by said stick. the stick is not part of the tree, so i cant be considered part of the contiguous surface. same would be true for suspended water bottles, rocks, whatever. it would be far more clear to simply say "suspended" and forget the "contiguous surface" and its accompanying, and contorted, definitions.



This is incorrect Pat. If the stick is completely supported by an OB surface then it itself is also OB. Like a stone surrounded by moving water or better a stick lying in a flat OB area.

I don't remember a pine near the basket on #6 Ewing? That was the downhill shot with the basket across the gravel walkway with a hedge of some sort along the left side. Regardless, I've said back in the 'early days' of these multipronged discussions that if the default was no 2m penalty with the option to add it where desired, the one place I might consider it is with high probability disc catching tree(s) like fir/cedar near a basket. Although since that time, I would lean toward the alternate idea to make players throw from a 10m drop zone instead of take a 2m penalty.

back to the topicv at hand, declaring a tree as OB is wierd. you'd have to be so careful about trees with intertwined branches. not to mention that a disc that rolls to a tree and comes to rest on its root (suspended, albeit 2 cm above the surface) is OB while the disc that rolls to a rest 5 inches to the left is safe. you've re-introduced the randomness you despise in the 2MR.



No I'm not. OB is OB. There is no a little bit OB, either you are or you are not. If you don't want to be 2 inches OB completely supported by the contiguous root system of the main tree, then I suggest you be careful not to land near that tree, or at least the main trunk of it.

And intertwining branches from other trees would like any other ruling lean towards the benefit of the doubt in the thrower's favor. This is not anything new.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Declare the tree to have the 2MR in effect.
A benefit is that freakishly bad shots that hit and stick in trees where no protection is needed and no advantage can possibly be gained are left in their natural obstacle state (within our rules: i.e. no additional penalty throw).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry, ya lost me there. the 2MR does have a penalty stroke in our rules. i know i'm misinterpreting something or you said it wrong. please clarify.



These are not the same thought. You have combined them in when they are completely separate thoughts:

3) Declare the tree to have the 2MR in effect.

A benefit[to not having a blanket 2 meter rule] is that freakishly bad shots that hit and stick in trees where no protection is needed and no advantage can possibly be gained are left in their natural obstacle state (within our rules: i.e. no additional penalty throw).

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Then I guess I have to respectfully disagree that it is not a consideration. It is one of many. The use of trees as obstacles in course design is specific to the nature of the type of tree in question. Some types of trees catch nearly everything - and where they are used in a holes design may very well be a legitmate element and consideration of the hole layout. To say that this diminishes the design of the hole I believe is overly general and inapplicable to many situations.

Having the general nature of an obstacle include the facet of a potential penalty is a valuable constant for the course designer. Removing that constant diminishes the value of the obstacle as a potential hazard, and relegates it to a mree obstacle.

I guess one of the things I don't understand about the supporters of eliminating the 2M rule is this; an awful lot has been said over the past couple years that the game is getting to easy - the baskets should be smaller, etc etc. I've heard plenty of folks on here arguing that this rule change would reduce the challenge. How does eliminating a "blanket hazard" make the game more challenging? Is that a concern? A goal?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the right one is a matter of choice based on design concepts, knowledge and experience, but combined there can be now doubt that our rules will be more consistent (within themselves and their usage) and the active choice to protect sensitive areas will have more options.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nice conclusion. have you considered that 1 & 2 are virtually the same if you treat #1 in a fashion that would actually be manageable. since your options are now to string up rope to mark OB or to use the 2MR, could you please explain how your options have increased? both options have been available for years.



Certainly. The option to waive the 2 meter rule without CD permission is new this year. If a TD chooses to waive the rule then there are any number of possible ways of creating aerial hazards that function better and are more consistent with other hazard rules than the set 2MR. But they still have that option as blanket or specific coverage rule. Without this option to waive there would be no option to waive the 2 meter rule or explore other methods of creating aerial hazards and hence less options.

The potential 2m situation that did bother me on Ewing was a lone pine bough waving around right at the 2m height about 10 feet away from basket #3. No design complaint with requiring players to putt in a way to avoid hitting it. However, a bough block PLUS a potential fluky 2m penalty is kind of like getting your jump shot blocked in the NBA AND you getting called for some bogus foul JUST because it was blocked.

so then lets make all rules optional and really provide some freedom! this IS america, is it not?!?

Hank I think you missed the point. The 2M function is not what dictates use of the obstacle. But when the penalty is removed from the obstacle - it's effectiveness is dimished.



How do you figure?
Does it suddenly "behave" differently?
Does it no longer deflect discs?
Does it no longer catch discs?
Does it no longer stop discs from advancing?
Does it no longer impede stance?
Does it no longer impede throwing motion?
Is it no longer taken into consideration when planning a throw?

And if it is so crucial the design of the hole to penalize the disc that sticks above 2 meters, why isn't it crucial to penalize discs that hit it, or stick in it at any hieght, or that hit it and drop right below it or that tear off a chuck of bark?

The only difference is that on the blue moon occasion someone sticks in it (not at all, but just) above 2 meters they add an additional penalty throw to thier score.

That is not a change in the behavior of the tree, it is a change in the behavior of the rules.

Sorry Chuck, my bad. It was #3 at Ewing, it is pictured on page #6 in the holedesign pdf.

I think a better analogy for what you mean would be when you take a jump shot from the baseline and hit the back of the backboard, thus not only missing the shot, but losing possession of the ball as well. The obstacle (as it were) was there to begin with.

Of course, my response to that would be "You knew before you shot that the limb was there, it's not blocking the only route to the basket, next time try a better route."

I guess one of the things I don't understand about the supporters of eliminating the 2M rule is this; an awful lot has been said over the past couple years that the game is getting to easy - the baskets should be smaller, etc etc. I've heard plenty of folks on here arguing that this rule change would reduce the challenge. How does eliminating a "blanket hazard" make the game more challenging? Is that a concern? A goal?



Craig, you take your blanket 2MR and I'll take my infinite number of aerial OBs(including the optional 2MR) and we'll see who can make Seneca play with more challenge. How about that? At the Faux, I get to design one round and you can just leave the 2MR in effect for the other. The only rule is that I can't make OBs out in the middle of the fairway unnaturally, such as fake lakes or streams, they have to be tree or no larger than the tree they are under.

Sound fair?

a chuck of bark



or perhaps bark of chuck?

nick, that sounds like a fun challenge for craig. but you are challenging him on course design, not being a TD. your efforts at design within the role of a TD are worthy of applaquse, but we all know it aint gonna happen at most tourneys. even with fantastic, motivated, and exceptional TDs.

Ideally Pat, this sort of design would be done by the course pro on an ongoing basis, not by a TD just prior to the event. But this does go directly to the topic of OB offering greater design and challenge options than the blanket 2MR does, does it not?

The Faux Leap is not a PDGA event, so given, there is a little more freedom to play around, here is a quick list of some of the things I would do:
1) Put a ribbon around certain objects where within 10 meters of that ribbon a disc at rest above 1 meter would be OB. This would include at least 15 baskets and key trees on bends in fairways where bunches of cedars are located; each with a painted drop zone of varying distances and difficulties.
2) If I noticed any tree anywhere on any fairway was getting the tar beaten out of it (cedar or not) I would mark off the areas around it's base as OB. I can only think of about 10 such trees.
3) Any bush or tree with low lying branches (under 1.5 meters) would be strung off as OB.
4) Certain fairway roughs would be marked off as OB (i.e. the left side of hole 17).
(Most of these are primarily directed at protecting the obstacles, but I am confident that the level of challenge would also increase.)
That would be a start; it would also likely already be enough to out challenge the blanket 2MR.

Since it is not a PDGA, I would also like to try on 2 or 3 holes enforcing putting rules within an asymmetrical physically defined green, where all 10 meter rules apply, such as no jump putting and extending the 1 meter up OB rule. These greens would be larger on Open holes(as large as 30 to 45 meters wide in some cases) and smaller on holes with lot�s of obstacles near the pin.

This is all in fun, but it would be interesting to see what it would be like.

Well, back to the topic. Oh joy...

those all sound like very worthwhile things. dont take this wrong, but virtually all of these could be done now, within the current scope of pdga rules - and they dont have anything to do with 2MR, so comparing their yields isnt really appropriate.

regardless, i hope you do all those things cuz they all make sense.

Well, yes, that is partly the point Pat (that they are all possible under current rules). The difference is that it would all be done without the 2MR and in many cases possibly to answer some of the design considerations 2MR guys keep bringing up.

Really I'd just like to play Seneca with no 2MR at all and nothing it's place, to see if there is this quantum mindset change you guys keep talking about, or whether it really IS no big deal. I suspect it really is just no big deal, and if that is true at Seneca, I find it hard to believe it a big deal anywhere.

(But if it is, there are options to deal with it other than the 2MR.)

Well Nick - at least I see where you are coming from. Your suggestions for altering the course design, have no connection with the 2M rule, and for the most part prove several of my points. Your suggestions all involve a significant amount of work in establishing and maintaining elements of the course - not to mention establishing an understanding in the players minds of what is OB where. The most significant element here - which you seem to have basically ignored in everything you've had to say on the subject has to do with placing and maintaining these "markings" on the course. While I know you have volunteered many hours working on new courses, and maybe even preparing them for events - I think your lack of acknowledgement of this as a factor reflects your lack of involvement with regular ongoing maintenance of these sorts of design features (I can't think of any string line OB's on any courses near you.)

Your previous statements have inferred that the challenge of the course could be increased by eliminating the 2M rule, and selecting specific areas where discs suspended would be ruled OB - your suggestions above involve wholesale design changes and adding significant areas of OB that in only some cases might be effective. For instance - calling the left side of 17 OB along the old fence line may very well SAVE a player strokes (even w/a penalty) because if you go deep down that hill - it often takes more than one throw to get back out.

I think a more effective test would be to just run one round with, and one round without the 2M rule - and have the players note the penalties on the card. Comparing the two based on changing the course design could not an accurately compare anything.

I think a more effective test would be to just run one round with, and one round without the 2M rule - and have the players note the penalties on the card. Comparing the two based on changing the course design could not an accurately compare anything.



Now who is changing the topic? I thought the discussion between us was about whether challenge could be increased by using our established Hazard and Relief Rules rather than the 2MR. That is exactly what I proposed. Now you want to change the deal?

I'm fine with it, but it is not what we were discussing. Considering I never give the 2MR a second thought at Seneca, except when some poor sod takes a penalty throw once a year, I doubt there will be any noticible difference in rounds.

This also might be the only way to get me down there to your Reaganomics Formatted Event besides...

For the record this is a complete falsehood:

Your previous statements have inferred that the challenge of the course could be increased by eliminating the 2M rule



At most I said the the decrease in challenge would be negligible, since the obstacles lose no challenge other than the penalty throw for sticking 2M above the playing surface. Something I have repeatedly stated is not a factor in approaching even the most wooded holes for me, and I suspect most players...

What I have said, and what I DID say is that I can design a course, without using the 2MR, that presents more challenge than one that simply employs the blanket 2MR. That is what I said and that is what I proposed.

To change the 2MR to a blanket OB at 2M and above opens up another can of worms I hope I never have to deal with. Getting the whole card to decide where the disc was last IB, in other words where it was last under 2M. That's needed for the player to make their decision as to how they want to handle their next shot.

Too much rule added into the sport at that point IMHO :cool:

Ray,

That is a singularly interesting take on it! If everything above 2 Meters is OB then the disc could have entered OB right at the tee pad!

(This proves yet in another way that the 2MR is not an OB rule.)

Areas above a certain height could still be OB, but that area would have to be specified.

I wish we could get some idea of the solutions the PDGA RC came up to deal with these sorts of concerns.

The answer I suspect is somewhere within the �Bridge Over OB� Q & A.

Nick

Now who is changing the topic? I thought the discussion between us was about whether challenge could be increased by using our established Hazard and Relief Rules rather than the 2MR. That is exactly what I proposed. Now you want to change the deal?



Let's see - now infinite aerial OB's includes crating new artificial hazards on the ground? That's not what you've said before Nick. Can a course be made more challenging using other types of hazards than using the 2M rule? Certainly.

Does removing the 2M rule effect the challenge of the course? If penalties are involved - then certainly the challenge is reduced if there are no penalties.

You speak with giant forked tongue Mr Kight. And I think it is a circular one.

Considering I never give the 2MR a second thought at Seneca, except when some poor sod takes a penalty throw once a year, I doubt there will be any noticible difference in rounds.

Yup -I'm sure you've never stuck in a cedar tree there - and that you never thought about it afterwards. THAT's reality


This also might be the only way to get me down there to your Reaganomics Formatted Event besides...

How many posts ago did you deride me for a perceived piece of rudeness? It's comments like that that earn you a coupon for a free bi_tch slap.

For anyone who cares - I am offering an event with a sliding entry fee based on ratings. $50 for 1000PR with a $5 reduction for every 20 ratings points. It's unsanctioned, and an experiment (maybe that's where the Reaganomics comment comes from - I don't know). Regardless - Nick -don't be such a tool.


For the record this is a complete falsehood:

Your previous statements have inferred that the challenge of the course could be increased by eliminating the 2M rule



At most I said the the decrease in challenge would be negligible, since the obstacles lose no challenge other than the penalty throw for sticking 2M above the playing surface. Something I have repeatedly stated is not a factor in approaching even the most wooded holes for me, and I suspect most players...



What you said Nick - was that you could create a more challenging course - using infinite aerial OB's instead of the 2M rule.


What I have said, and what I DID say is that I can design a course, without using the 2MR, that presents more challenge than one that simply employs the blanket 2MR. That is what I said and that is what I proposed.



All I can say to this is - Do it with less effort. Otherwise it's a waste of time. Make it so the design requires less maintenance - or it just isn't practical. Your's is a fantasy world with no pragmatic application.

I'm impressed by how much talk is going on about the 2M rule.

I personally am cool with the current trend about no 2m unless TDs say otherwise, (the old way was OK too) but Craig said something that brought up something that I hadn't considered:

What does a course designer think when he designs a course (e.g. Seneca) where 2m is considered to be a significant design element; then the local TD takes away that design element (perhaps to speed up the round, or he hates 2m on principle). How 'dissed' is the designer going to feel? And I think the designer's intention should have some weight in this decision, especially since the designer often did a lot of the work getting the course in the ground.

And I DO believe that 2m can be a legitimate and desirable design feature. Those friggin Qtip trees at Seneca are a good example. I love those Qtip trees BTW (but I HATE getting my disc out of them).

Perhaps some DGers don't like 2m because of the 'luck' factor: sometimes they stick, sometimes they don't. Those Qtip trees at Seneca stuck almost every time for me (thanks Seneca). We have a holly tree at a new course in the Seattle area that is a disc eating machine, and believe me, it's a HUGE design element on that hole! And a good one too, albeit an unintentional one.

I always consider luck to be a legitimate and important factor in DG, so in that regard you could say I'm a 2M fan. As well as a wind fan, a rolling-OB fan, a how-did-that-basket-not-catch-that-putt? fan, etc.

Here's another 2m problem: Parks over here spent some money making a big "Simplified Disc Golf Rules" [oxymoron :)] sign, which of course included a 2m rule. [for fun, try writing up a headrick-type DG rules for newbies with 100-200 words, 5-6 paragraphs]. Now I'm thinking, should I change the sign, for some $$$? Shave off the lettering on the 2m rule? Paint over the 2m rule? Put down, "rule is kinda flexible, depends on the TD?"

In other words, whenever there is a change in a core DG rule, that means hundreds? of rule signs around the US/world are now out of date, and who wants to go thru the hassle of updating a SIGN? That makes me think we should have rule changes every 5-10 years instead of 2 years, but then again, ball golf changes rules every year, and you think they'd have it all figured out by now.

BTW Craig's idea of prorating pro entry fees depending on rating sounds like great idea to experiment on, just like his superpro idea, which I also liked.

Oops no more time to blah blah blah, thanks for reading

I have been very consistent on this for over 4 years now, all the while being completely open to any new idea that came up concerning it. My position is based on the input of everyone, as well as my own knowledge of the rules and play.

I will give credit to the 2MR for accomplishing the following:
It keeps people out of the trees and bushes above 2 meters when they throw.

That�s it. Even the one credit I do give is not exclusive to the 2MR, because it is not really what keeps us out of trees anyway; what does that is our own, appropriate, well-thought out definition of �lie�.


806 GLOSSARY Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.



I give it no direct credit as a �design tool� because anything it can do OB can do better.
As for adding challenge, that is a non-point, because that could be said of adding a stroke to any random occurrence; like missing a putt or even just hitting a certain object.
It is absolutely and definitively an aberration within our rules in that it does not conform to any other hazard or relief rule that we have.

This is the essence of this topic.

If anyone can find a way to make it conform to other hazard rules I would be open to that �discussion�. (I suspect that that is exactly what the PDGA Rules Committee provided.)

Perhaps some DGers don't like 2m because of the 'luck' factor: sometimes they stick, sometimes they don't. Those Qtip trees at Seneca stuck almost every time for me (thanks Seneca). We have a holly tree at a new course in the Seattle area that is a disc eating machine, and believe me, it's a HUGE design element on that hole! And a good one too, albeit an unintentional one.



Is the 2MR what makes that holly a great design element?


In other words, whenever there is a change in a core DG rule, that means hundreds? of rule signs around the US/world are now out of date, and who wants to go thru the hassle of updating a SIGN? That makes me think we should have rule changes every 5-10 years instead of 2 years, but then again, ball golf changes rules every year, and you think they'd have it all figured out by now.



I'm sure folks said the same thing when the forward pass was introduced in American Football. And since when has the 2MR been considered a "core rule". It's not like it is as important as our stance rules or something! Our game would not cease to exist without it. In fact the change would be unnoticeable at all to the naked eye. (Mark the lie on the playing surface and play on.)

Why don�t we look at what the PDGA Rules Committee came up with and then discuss it? Anyone have access to that info?

all the while being completely open to any new idea that came up concerning it.



Thanks for the laugh Nick - that's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.


You give no credence or credit to anyone's ideas but your own - as is evidenced by the literally HUNDREDS of redundant, condescending, and insulting posts on the same topic.


Luke - resist the force Luke - don't post anymore about 2 meters

all the while being completely open to any new idea that came up concerning it.



Thanks for the laugh Nick - that's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.


You give no credence or credit to anyone's ideas but your own - as is evidenced by the literally HUNDREDS of redundant, condescending, and insulting posts on the same topic.


Luke - resist the force Luke - don't post anymore about 2 meters



A little projection going on there perhaps Craiger?

Wow! Take a day or two away from this thread and it's like trying to play catch up with a collegiate English Lit class.







Considering I never give the 2MR a second thought at Seneca, except when some poor sod takes a penalty throw once a year, I doubt there will be any noticible difference in rounds.





To me this is evidence you are more than willing to misrepresent not only reality but your own knowledge and experience to try and support your point. Regardless of which side of the 2MR issue you're on, you must acknowledge the 2MR has a profound effect on not only scoring but also player mindset at Seneca.(You were referring to Seneca Creek State Park in Gaithersburg Md, right????)

I find it very difficult to believe there is any player who has ever played Seneca in the past seven years or so that does not consider the possibility of having their disc stuck above 2M on at least 50% of the holes. The last tournament I played there (Soiree, I believe 2001), I shot a 54 the first round. On the holes I rolled off the tee I was -6. On the holes I threw an airshot I was +6. I believe Joe Mela says he rolls all 18. I think about the 2MR on any hole (even on my approaches) that I'm considering an air shot. My fear of incurring a 2m penalty is partly if not largely why I roll the majority if the holes there.

I do agree in a large part with what Craig has said concerning how the elimination of the 2MR will in fact undermine the course design, not only at Seneca but courses all over where there are an abundance of potentially disc eating trees. I know my strategy and mindset at Seneca would change dramaticly in certain situations. I no doubt would be aiming at the trees closest to basket instead of trying to avoid them. They serve as the perfect backstop for all the downhill shots that have fast greens.

The 2m penalty doesn't make rollers better at Seneca, it's the trees themselves. I doubt there would be much difference in which tee throw was better even without the potluck penalty. You still might take a lost penalty in those trees without the 2m penalty. All the 2m penalty does is add random penalty throw 'noise' in the scoring in the same way the pinball caroms do to scores at Paw Paw.

I don't remember the holes well enough to pick one out but I assume some of them can be reached in the air where there are guard trees inside the 10m circle? On those, I would still want the player to putt from a 10m drop point if they land above 2m but without penalty.

I no doubt would be aiming at the trees closest to basket instead of trying to avoid them. They serve as the perfect backstop for all the downhill shots that have fast greens.



Try it sometime. It's amazing how much air there is in a tree when you want to hit it.

As a follow on, let's say a World Champ like Joey does actually choose to roll 18 holes at Seneca. It's not like he can't make other types of throws. My contention would be that the design is pretty weak if a roller is considered the only viable tee shot on every hole and that's at least partly due to the current 2m penalty. The fluky 2m penalty, that goes above and beyond what's necessary when trees already penalize the shots hitting them, compels a World Champ to throw rollers because the risk of one or two fluky penalties is not tolerable.

There are well designed courses where all tee shots can be aired without rolling since we many times can't control the quality of the ground surface and mowing frequency. Although providing shot variety is part of good design, so a course that lacks options for rollers and skip shots might be less than optimal. On the other hand, a course where rollers are the prohibitive choice on most holes seems to be lacking in options, when usually it's much easier to make several acceptable air routes available on any course. The direction this leads is that it's possible Seneca would be a better balanced course without the 2m penalty so the fluky penalties don't compel players to avoid air routes completely.

or to put it another way: the removal of the 2MR at seneca will make a crappy design more tolerable for the merely mortal player.

or another way: the removal of the 2MR at seneca will make a crappy design even worse for discgolfers because it will now encourage shots that require more common skills (hyzer bombs) instead of forcing players to go develop less-common skills (accurate rollers)

but maybe thats just me :D

The only problem with your logic there, Chuck, is that Joe throws rollers a huge % of the time on wide open holes as well. Heck, I've seen him win a CTP on a wide open 150' field shot with a roller.

Having played Seneca and seeing and hearing how other players play it, rolling has developed into a fine art that's almost too technical there. And remember, these are elite players who might have the skills to hit smaller than reasonable air gaps if it made sense to them. What are regular players expected to be able to do? Meyers, another World Champ, told me he had something like 7 or 8 roller discs at various levels of 'beatness' to hit precise angles there.

To be honest, I throw a lot of rollers on wooded courses anyway, provided the ground is not rocky as precision rollers are a strong suit of mine. On the uphill shots I would continue to roll at Seneca. However on the downhill shots I'd be more inclined to throw high bombs aiming at the closest prominent tree in relation to the pin.

When Seneca was a new course the cedars were much smaller. Back in the early 90s most big arms ignored the fairways and threw the biggest and highest hyzers possible with the intent of hitting a non cedar closest to the basket. As the cedars grew they became a much greater threat of catching the over the top shots and at this point the course became a "throw an airshot at your own risk" type of course.

I agree that there are problems with course design when players skilled at throwing air shots choose to throw rollers on 80% of the holes. While the 2MR does not make the course any better, it does provide a real added risk for any player who looks for the cheater route over the obstacles in the fairway instead of navigating the obstacles in the fairway. Without the perceived risk of a 2m penalty you'll have fewer players playing the course as the designers intended. (and puh-lease don't argue that maybe the designers wanted people to throw hyzer bombs over the trees instead of playing fairways).

Considering I never give the 2MR a second thought at Seneca, except when some poor sod takes a penalty throw once a year, I doubt there will be any noticible difference in rounds.


You must acknowledge the 2MR has a profound effect on not only scoring but also player mindset at Seneca.(You were referring to Seneca Creek State Park in Gaithersburg Md, right????)


Actually, Steve, I mustn�t, and I really don�t.

I have been playing Seneca since it first went in the ground and even with the cedars I have never allowed the 2MR to influence the route I choose to take in getting from point A to point B. I can go hole by hole and in each case I pick the route that has the best chance of getting me to the pin (which is possible on almost every hole except the longest of the Long to C Pin holes). No challenge is added by the 2MR.

To say I never think of it is not what I said, I do recall here and there folks taking 2MR penalties, but that still doesn�t enter my strategic thinking as I get ready to throw a shot, and honestly, when I observe the shots of other players they don�t seem to be giving it a second thought either.

Example of how I know the 2MR is negligible in the strategic thinking of even top players in disc golf: Paw Paw. The guy who won the event 2 years ago, who shall remain nameless, threw an air shot off the tee of hole 2 through a dangerous narrow opening with many dangerous 2MR trees to the left, but he throws the anhyzer air shot up hill anyway. He gets it further up that hill than most expert golfers. So far up the hill that he actually is positioned well to throw an easier upshot down through the trees to the pin; but what does he, and nearly every other top golfer do, seemingly with no consideration to the 2MR what so ever, they throw various bombs over the top of these very tall and mostly evergreen trees (disc catching). Certainly it can not be said that that the 2MR adds any challenge to this hole, even though according to you it should.

I�d be interested in hearing where on the Seneca course the 2MR is such a large consideration that it changes your choice of the best chance to get to the pin? Where the simple obstacle aspects of the trees are not of greater and far more considerable effect than is the 2MR? All aspects that would be there regardless of the existence of the 2MR.

My fear of incurring a 2m penalty is partly if not largely why I roll the majority if the holes there.


Steve, are 100% sure that your choice isn�t more about your chances of either reaching the pin or a preferred landing area for an approach shot, than it is about avoiding a 2MR? I find that extremely hard to believe.


I no doubt would be aiming at the trees closest to basket instead of trying to avoid them. They serve as the perfect backstop for all the downhill shots that have fast greens.

Please name 6 examples of this at Seneca where there is more than even a 1% chance of incurring a 2MR penalty throw attempting to use a tree as a backstop. And even if there are one(hole 3, tree 6 feet from pin) or two, making those trees specifically OB would solve that better than does the blanket 2MR.

While the 2MR does not make the course any better, it does provide a real added risk for any player who looks for the cheater route over the obstacles in the fairway instead of navigating the obstacles in the fairway. Without the perceived risk of a 2m penalty you'll have fewer players playing the course as the designers intended. (and puh-lease don't argue that maybe the designers wanted people to throw hyzer bombs over the trees instead of playing fairways).



Questions:
A) Which has a greater "percieved risk" level, a tree with the 2MR in effect, or a tree that is OB (as well as the area immediately beneath it)?
B) If the TD doesn't want players to throw spike hyzers or thumbers over the top of holes, then whose responsibility is it to make that as least an advantage to attempt as possible?

Players Meeting, TD speaking: "Um. I know some of you freaks can chuck them over the top of the fairways I so carefully designed for you, but I ask you pretty please with sugar on top not to do that. Ok?"

Chyah!

If you don't want me going over the top then don't design holes where it is easily possible to go over the top. And don't hand me that small minded bs about discs were meant to fly horizontally. They can, do, and should fly any way the human body can propell then (within our rules of play).

Which has a greater "percieved risk" level, a tree with the 2MR in effect, or a tree that is OB (as well as the area immediately beneath it)?

i know you like lots of words, but making an OB area on the ground actually does make the tree(s) inside the area OB also. so the OB areas you propose dont really have anything to do with the trees, except that they include the trees. unless i missed something (again). it might be more simple to just talk about OB areas.

If the TD doesn't want players to throw spike hyzers or thumbers over the top of holes, then whose responsibility is it to make that as least an advantage to attempt as possible?

the designer's! if the TD is also the designer, the Jah Bless Him/Her. that is not the typical reality.

the TD's first and foremost task (IMO) is to make sure the event is held in accordance with the rules, followed by maintaining the schedule, followed by making it fun (which includes sponsorships, etc) but i digress.

If the TD doesn't want players to throw spike hyzers or thumbers over the top of holes, then whose responsibility is it to make that as least an advantage to attempt as possible?

the designer's! if the TD is also the designer, the Jah Bless Him/Her. that is not the typical reality.

the TD's first and foremost task (IMO) is to make sure the event is held in accordance with the rules, followed by maintaining the schedule, followed by making it fun (which includes sponsorships, etc) but i digress.



In any case it is not the Players responsiblitly.

Though as a TD, everything at the event IS in the end her/his responsibility.

2 meter rule: my thoughts...... if your disc is in a tree. you must play from where the disc came to rest. if it is in a tree. then your next shot should be from with in the tree (climb the tree and play from where the disc rest) if you can not climb the tree and play from where the disc rest then it is a un-play-able lie. mark the disc directly under the disc and play from there with a 1 stroke pently.

2 meter rule: my thoughts...... if your disc is in a tree. you must play from where the disc came to rest. if it is in a tree. then your next shot should be from with in the tree (climb the tree and play from where the disc rest) if you can not climb the tree and play from where the disc rest then it is a un-play-able lie. mark the disc directly under the disc and play from there with a 1 stroke pently.



Hey! Don't act like this guy didn't ask the question, for the 15th time maybe, but here it is...

Let's try this first, before we have to go through another week of discussing why that is not an option, nor should it be:

Look up the rule defining marking your lie and what a lie is defined at within our rules.

It is very easy to do. Click the "Rules" link above or below and select the rule and read.

There will be no tree climbing now, nor will there be any in 2006 when our rules finally get the update they so justly deserve and the PDGA Rules Committee has worked so hard to provide.

In disc golf we play from the Playing Surface.

Look up the rule defining marking your lie and what a lie is defined at within our rules.

It is very easy to do. Click the "Rules" link above or below and select the rule and read.


Right, and then after that, Nick, go find the 2-meter rule and read that.

C'mon, Nick, you're doing it again. You can't point somebody to the current rules to challenge a point, then ignore those very rules to make your own point.

Look up the rule defining marking your lie and what a lie is defined at within our rules.

It is very easy to do. Click the "Rules" link above or below and select the rule and read.


Right, and then after that, Nick, go find the 2-meter rule and read that.

C'mon, Nick, you're doing it again. You can't point somebody to the current rules to challenge a point, then ignore those very rules to make your own point.



Sure I can. When my point is that the 2MR does not function within the context of these other, more fundamental, definitions and rules. You are the one that needs to show how it is contextually related, not me.

I foresee a rulebook with the 2MR completely stricken from it, and a time when TDs like Craig will have to announce that an equivalent or similar OB rule usage is in effect at their event.

...nor will there be any in 2006 when our rules finally get the update they so justly deserve and the PDGA Rules Committee has worked so hard to provide.

its that kind of one-sided attitude that makes people mad. lets face it, regardless of the hard work the rules committee puts in, and i'm sure they do, and the slick pdga-radio explanations, the full ramifications of complete removal of the 2MR were NOT sufficiently considered.

further, it has been stated by people who actually participated in the discussions that this particular change was very evenly divided, and it was NOT even agreed to include it in the changes.

fortunately, a serendipitous printing schedule problem prevented a giant unnecessary leap and forced us, regardless of some manuvering that Putin could learn from, to take much more appropriate baby steps.

the full ramifications of complete removal of the 2MR were NOT sufficiently considered



In your opinion Pat. Not in the opinion of the PDGA Rules Committee or the PDGA Board of Directors.

There are no 'baby-stepping" about it. They just ran out of time in 2005. 2006 will see the full implimentation of the rules updates.

Nick, from your title, it sounds like you want to replace 2M with OB. This is the first I've heard of this option, sorry that I didn't get your whole point, if that is a point you're trying to make. I haven't read all the other 2M threads.

I guess this means that you want 2M gone and then TD's can draw little OB cirles around the Seneca Qtip trees? If so, I guess that's not horrible, but then what happens when a roller just happens to roll into the circle?

As far as:
"Is the 2MR what makes that holly a great design element?"
Well yes and no I guess. To explain:

If I hit the holly and it's 2M, then I get a 4, otherwise a 3. So a stroke penalty. Painting an OB circle around the tree IN THIS INSTANCE will probably have almost the exact same effect as a 2M rule.

Now a not-so-good amateur can very well not recover and get a 5 instead of a 3, so the 2M is a stroke, and the distance lost is another stroke.

=======================

As far as a "core" rule, maybe we have differences in meaning as to what a "core" rule means. I don't mean "core" meaning no way it can ever change or go away. I mean "core" as in: a pretty essential element in explaining how to play/score the game. Meaning, after you give out about 10 or so rules about playing the game (order of play, marking your lie, what "holing out" means, foot faults, demonstrating balance, moving obstacles to stance and flight path, etc), the 2m rule is going to come up soon after, along with OB, mando, and unplayable lie.

In other words, I'm not married to the 2m concept, but it does have its appeal IMO. 2m going away is not a tragedy (except maybe for some trees :) ).

There's a person or two in the NW that not only hates 2m, but thinks we should eliminate all mandos and OBs and unplayable lies. Says all that is just bad course design. Well I guess that's one way of looking at it; he has a point.

And yeah the Seneca Qtip trees scare me for 2m. When I last played there in 2001?, I threw a ROLLER 2m in the tree! Yowch!

There's a person or two in the NW that not only hates 2m, but thinks we should eliminate all mandos and OBs and unplayable lies. Says all that is just bad course design. Well I guess that's one way of looking at it; he has a point.




That's one way to get a few more 1000 rated players in the NW besides importing them :D

Yes, Kurt, I am saying that OB should completely replace the 2MR. Even if that means that Craig still rules all discs that come to rest more than 2M above the playing surface are OB.

The only time their would be a need for �little circles� is if he wants to include the whole tree and some of the ground in the OB area. Otherwise there is no need to mark anything. If a roller rolls into an OB area, then it is OB. (Not trying to be smart with you, there just is no other way of phrasing that answer.)

My point about your �holly tree� is that it is an excellent obstacle not due to the 2MR, but due to it being an excellent obstacle in its own right. If you believe as other here obviously do, that those qualities as an obstacle are not substantial enough, then fine declare a part or all of the tree as OB. (Certainly it can�t be argued that that would do less to protect the tree or make players not try harder to avoid it�)

I don�t argue that hazards should be done away with, only that they be uniform in definition and application within our rules of play and the 2MR is not because it is not a hazard rule at all, and it has no discernable relief as other hazard rules do.

OK Nick I more or less get what you mean

...I don�t argue that hazards should be done away with, only that they be uniform in definition and application within our rules of play...

not to belabor a point (well, ok, simply to belabor a point) specifying everything above 2M as OB make the use of OB in place of the 2MR an exception to our OB rules in that the disc will not be marked where it went OB, but rather below where it came to rest. so if the 2MR is really an inconsistancy so will the use of OB be. you argue for replacing one special case with another, not for the attainment of some abstract high ideal you name consistancy

WORD!

...I don�t argue that hazards should be done away with, only that they be uniform in definition and application within our rules of play...

not to belabor a point (well, ok, simply to belabor a point) specifying everything above 2M as OB make the use of OB in place of the 2MR an exception to our OB rules in that the disc will not be marked where it went OB, but rather below where it came to rest. so if the 2MR is really an inconsistancy so will the use of OB be. you argue for replacing one special case with another, not for the attainment of some abstract high ideal you name consistancy



Actually Pat, you are wrong. How is OB a "special case"? It is the oldest golf rule around. Certainly older than disc golf.

Judging where a disc was last in bounds when it is up in a tree will be a lot easier than judging where it went out after it disappears into a lake or river that's for sure.

Besides, with what I hear about "throw and distance" taking over OB relief, you won't even have to worry about "where it was last in bounds". Once your disc is ruled OB, you will likely have the choice to play it from the previous lie or from a drop zone if provided by the director.

And save your breath, same goes for a lost disc...

Personally I don't want to see any hole use this above 2 meter OB hazard option, unless to protect a vulnerable tree or bush (and then I would protect more than just the part folks "can't reach") but if they do, I would have no basis to argue against it as a hazard "fully within" the family of all other hazard rules. Something even 2MRheads should appreciate...

no nick, i think its you who is wrong. the OB over 2M is different because the lie will be marked below where it came to rest. our OB rules call for the lie to be marked where the disc became OB.

or are you really suggesting that we tell players "oh, you get to play this from 10 feet in front of the teepad, because thats where your throw rose to over 2M and became OB!" ?!?

the lost disc rule has nothing to do with this case, because the disc is not lost. its in plain site, 3M up in a tree, 300' down the fairway.

good responses do not include "well, thats why you shouldnt use the OB over 2M rule".

no nick, i think its you who is wrong. the OB over 2M is different because the lie will be marked below where it came to rest.



It is a possibility Pat. But I�m betting that would not be the ruling for vertical hazards (i.e. an OB playing surface or object above/below an IB playing surface). They would be the �exact same� rules that govern every other OB area or object. (Do you want me to copy and paste them from the Rules link?)

I do predict that the 2006 rules will have �throw and distance� and �drop zones� will replace �last judged to be IB�. But even if it does not vertical hazards do not cover the entire course (unless the entire course has tree cover above 2 meters), it is above the object that defines that hazard (the tree, bush, building or whatever). So the last place in bounds would be the edge of the tree. And as I said, this will be far easier to judge than it would be to judge where a disc that vanished 100 feet out in a lake was last in bounds.

OB is OB is OB. It has rules and relief that is already specified. No special rules need be created to define elevated OB surfaces or objects.

I think I know where you are getting confused Pat; it has to do with you still thinking the lie is up in the tree.

It is not, and has never been so; according to our rules. It is on the playing surface where we take our stance. Placing your lie on the ground below a disc that is above the playing surface has never been, by our rules, considered taking relief. That is a new invention by the 2MRheads to try and prop up a sputtering and tenuous substantiation of a rule that has never seemed quite right.

ni, i am not confused at all actually. our rules say that a disc that comes to rest OB is marked where it went OB. so you cant really say that "anything above 2M is OB" because that, at least when taken for face value, means the airspace also.

and the rthing about the relief is not the last refuge for the 2MRheads as you so disparagingly label them. it came from the overall discussion about the differences between where the disc comes to rest and the place from which it is played (the "lie").

ni, i am not confused at all actually. our rules say that a disc that comes to rest OB is marked where it went OB.

Actually "at face value" you are wrong again.

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.

B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from: (1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or (3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).



so you cant really say that "anything above 2M is OB" because that, at least when taken for face value, means the airspace also.


Actually, until you can show me a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface resting on air I think I can.
But I should thank you for bringing up another golden oldie illustrating how inane the 2MR is, I mean imagine it, having 80% of our field of play Out of Bounds!?! What a crazy thought...

Oh yeah, one more thing Pat, if you want to prove that vertical hazards are logically impossible, be my guest; it only supports the deletion of the 2MR more.

ni, i am not confused at all actually. our rules say that a disc that comes to rest OB is marked where it went OB.


Actually "at face value" you are wrong again.

803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS (snipped text of rule -- see above)

so you cant really say that "anything above 2M is OB" because that, at least when taken for face value, means the airspace also.


Actually, until you can show me a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface resting on air I think I can.


What? If the disc comes to rest in a tree, and everything above 2m is OB, then the disc went OB long before it even got to the tree.

The rule says one of the options is to place the disc lie within 1 meter of "the point where the disc last crossed out-of-bounds." So as soon as the thrown disc rises above 2 meters, at that point it has already crossed into OB territory. If the disc falls below that point later, then no harm, no foul, but if the disc later sticks in the tree, never falling below 2m, then the disc never left OB after that point of entry.

Yes, this is absurd, but I think that's Pat's argument against calling the 2-meter height OB. If there is no drop zone, and the previous lie is an even worse position than the OB entry point, then the only remaining choice is to mark the disc lie on the playing surface below the OB entry point, give or take 1 meter. After taking a penalty!

See what Pat's talking about now?

But I should thank you for bringing up another golden oldie illustrating how inane the 2MR is


What makes what Pat said a "golden oldie?" And what does the 2MR have to do with this scenario?

I mean imagine it, having 80% of our field of play Out of Bounds!?! What a crazy thought...


Interesting comment. So in a wooded course, if you really wish to mark circles around every tree, peppering cylinders of OB all over, won't the OB percentage for some holes be nearly as high?

thank you paul, that saved me from having to explain it :D

<font color="blue"> Paul,

Working from the assumption that you are being serious, here are my comments about your comments:</font>



ni, i am not confused at all actually. our rules say that a disc that comes to rest OB is marked where it went OB.


Actually "at face value" you are wrong again.
803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS (snipped text of rule -- see above)

so you cant really say that "anything above 2M is OB" because that, at least when taken for face value, means the airspace also.


Actually, until you can show me a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface resting on air I think I can.


What? If the disc comes to rest in a tree, and everything above 2m is OB, then the disc went OB long before it even got to the tree.
<font color="blue"> I can see how you might interpret it that way, however �air�, upon which no disc can come to rest, does not constitute �anything�, and certainly no boundary would serve any purpose. Hence my comment about showing me a disc at rest 2 meters up supported only by air. </font>
The rule says one of the options is to place the disc lie within 1 meter of "the point where the disc last crossed out-of-bounds." So as soon as the thrown disc rises above 2 meters, at that point it has already crossed into OB territory. <font color="blue"> This is incorrect. The OB boundary is defined by the OB object (the part of the tree, bush or object on the course that is above 2 meters. Not by �air� that is above 2 meters. </font> If the disc falls below that point later, then no harm, no foul, but if the disc later sticks in the tree, never falling below 2m, then the disc never left OB after that point of entry. <font color="blue"> I understand what you are getting at, but again, since the air above 2 meters is not considered �anything� that could support a disc at rest, it is not part of the OB area. So the disc only entered the OB area when it was above 2 meters above an OB area (the tree, bush or other course object). </font>
Yes, this is absurd, but I think that's Pat's argument against calling the 2-meter height OB. If there is no drop zone, and the previous lie is an even worse position than the OB entry point, then the only remaining choice is to mark the disc lie on the playing surface below the OB entry point, give or take 1 meter. After taking a penalty!
See what Pat's talking about now? <font color="blue"> I have always seen what Pat is talking about, I raised the same question about 3 or 4 years ago on this very topic. I was shown the error of my thinking back then by some poster or more likely Carlton or Joe. Only an object on the course can have a definable border, �air� cannot. </font>





But I should thank you for bringing up another golden oldie illustrating how inane the 2MR is


What makes what Pat said a "golden oldie?" And what does the 2MR have to do with this scenario? <font color="blue"> See Above. This was discussed before the turn of the millennium. </font>

I mean imagine it, having 80% of our field of play Out of Bounds!?! What a crazy thought...


Interesting comment. So in a wooded course, if you really wish to mark circles around every tree, peppering cylinders of OB all over, won't the OB percentage for some holes be nearly as high? <font color="blue"> First of all, if a director or course designer wants their entire course to be OB above 2 meters, there is no need to mark anything. Secondly, yes, I believe that in a sport such as Disc Golf, with dynamically flying projectiles flying as high as 250 feet, that making all of that area OB is crazy. I merely offer it as an alternative for folks addicted to the 2MR. </font>

[/QUOTE]

I merely offer it as an alternative for folks addicted to the 2MR.


how making OB extend down to the ground instead of stopping at the 2M mark is an "alternative" is beyond me. but thanks for the (idiotic) "choice".

I merely offer it as an alternative for folks addicted to the 2MR.


how making OB extend down to the ground instead of stopping at the 2M mark is an "alternative" is beyond me. but thanks for the (idiotic) "choice".



OK Paul, you are on. What is Pat talking about here?

Discs at rest 2 meters above the playing surface (if declared so by the director) will be considered OB. If the director didn't specify the manner in which they were to be played, then follow our rules governing this situation. The last place they were in bounds was just before they passed over the OB area,(popularly described in this thread as) the part of the tree over 2 meters. As judged by the group. Not sure what is "idiotic" about that... It there is something then our entire OB rule is "idiotic", and I don't think it is, do you?

This is not the 2MR where you mark them straight down, in case that is what is throwing your 2MRcentric brain off...

your version only works if the TD says "Discs at rest 2 meters above the playing surface will be considered OB."

now have that little voice in your head say "everything over 2M is OB" and you will see at what i am getting.

Are actually expecting Nick to admit he is wrong???

...I don�t argue that hazards should be done away with, only that they be uniform in definition and application within our rules of play and the 2MR is not because it is not a hazard rule at all, and it has no discernable relief as other hazard rules do.



So you're trying to get further from Ball golf since they don't treat their hazards the same, we should :o

A tree is a different type of hazard than a creek, street, sidewalk or pond, but you want ALL hazards to be treated the same. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I have no problem with treating each with different rules, but you do so argue on Nick :cool:

your version only works if the TD says "Discs at rest 2 meters above the playing surface will be considered OB."

now have that little voice in your head say "everything over 2M is OB" and you will see at what i am getting.



This falls into the category of Nick not considering the full ramifications - or practical application of his ideas.

So how Nick - when establishing over 2M as OB instead of a special condition OB (which for all intents and purposes is what we have in the existing 2MR) do you reconcile this portion of the rule that states - "where last in bounds"? How does one choose the point at which you were last in bounds? Doesn't what you are suggesting (given the nature of the way the OB rules are written) REQUIRE vertical cylinders of OB? Where only the area of the obstacle is considered OB (instead of all areas above the 2M vertical plane)? And doesn't that create a rather large issue with marking and maintaining lots of little OB's on a course? Or are you suggesting that the vertical cylinders defining an OB area above the playing surface START at 2M? And IF that is what you are suggesting - what is the substantive difference between that and the current 2MR?

in a sport such as Disc Golf, with dynamically flying projectiles flying as high as 250 feet



It's no wonder nobody takes you seriously. You have no concept of reality. 250 feet. Yeah.

Love and kisses,
Hank

I bet most people cant throw it more than 60 feet up.

250 feet isn't a problem in MTA, so why should it be for golf shots wanting to go up and over?

Come on guys - 250 feet equals at least an 18-20 story building. MTA shots routinely that high? You must be if you think so :)

It's remarkable about people's misconceptions of vertical measurements. TRy and relate height to buildings. 1 story equals 10-12 feet average. Think about that next time you think that big hill on your course has 100 foot elevation change.

your version only works if the TD says "Discs at rest 2 meters above the playing surface will be considered OB."
now have that little voice in your head say "everything over 2M is OB" and you will see at what i am getting.


Pat, can a disc come to rest on air over 2M? Hence "air" is not "anything" (particularly as regards OB), the disc has to be at rest in an OB area in order for its status to be considered OB.


...I don�t argue that hazards should be done away with, only that they be uniform in definition and application within our rules of play and the 2MR is not because it is not a hazard rule at all, and it has no discernable relief as other hazard rules do.


So you're trying to get further from Ball golf since they don't treat their hazards the same, we should :o
A tree is a different type of hazard than a creek, street, sidewalk or pond, but you want ALL hazards to be treated the same. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I have no problem with treating each with different rules, but you do so argue on Nick :cool:


Ray, we already are very far from Ball Golf in how we deal with �PLAYING OUR LIE� due to the indisputable fact that we do not use clubs to propel a stationary projectile. I am more concerned with having our rules not get further from other Disc golf rules.
Yes, tree hazards are a different type of hazard than or other types of hazards. But each does not have their individual set of rules. And who said the 2MR is exclusive to trees? Hazards have 2 primary aspects: The first is the actual physical and psychological obstacle to stance, throwing motion and the disc in motion; The second is whether or not they have a penalty throw associated with them, this aspect is optional in all instances other than the 2MR. All I am saying is that this should be optional as well and join all of our other hazards. That and follow the same rules of penalty and relief.


So how Nick - when establishing over 2M as OB instead of a special condition OB do you reconcile this portion of the rule that states - "where last in bounds"? How does one choose the point at which you were last in bounds?


Craig, if all parts of objects (not considered playing surface by the director) above 2 meters are declared OB by the director:
o A player throws a disc that lodges in an object 25� up.
o The player and group identify the disc as his and declare it OB.
o The lie is determined by finding the point where the disc was last outside the elevated OB area. The lie is marked on the playing surface directly below that point and OB relief (as per rule is provided, i.e. 1 meter perpendicular).

Doesn't what you are suggesting (given the nature of the way the OB rules are written) REQUIRE vertical cylinders of OB?


These aerial OB areas would be the same shape and size as any other OB area with the exception of their lower boundary being defined by the 2 meters above the playing surface rather than the playing surface itself. The outer line or OB line would be the entire outside lower shape of the OB area and extend upward to encompass any object above it. Judging last place in bounds is no different than any other OB, only you are able to stand below the disc at rest and look up at the OB area from below rather than from outside or within.


Where only the area of the obstacle is considered OB (instead of all areas above the 2M vertical plane)?


The 2M vertical plane does not exist as a perfectly flat surface. It follows the contour of the playing surface below, which can take on nearly any shape possible. The OB area is defined by �things� above that line upon which a disc �can� physically come to rest.


And doesn't that create a rather large issue with marking and maintaining lots of little OB's on a course?


No, it most certainly does not. Personally if I were directing an event I would not use aerial OB s, or very very very rarely would I. But if the entire course were to be declared OB above 2 meters, then there would be no need to paint or string lines around anything having to do with them.


Or are you suggesting that the vertical cylinders defining an OB area above the playing surface START at 2M? And IF that is what you are suggesting - what is the substantive difference between that and the current 2MR?


They will not be �vertical cylinders�, they will be an infinite variety of lower surface shapes extending upward. Read above for clarification. The substantive difference between using OB to define aerial hazards rather than the current 2MR, is that one is optional and uniform in application and understanding (with other rules), while the other is mandatory and outside our fundamental rules governing Out of Bounds and Relief.

Again, personally, if I were directing an event, I would likely NEVER declare the entire course OB above 2 meters. The most I would do is declare particularly sensitive or endangered (by location to turns in the fairway) as OB, and I would make the entire tree OB above the playing surface, not just the part above 2 meters.

This has answered your questions, though I am quite sure you feel it has not.

if air isnt "anything" why the %&*$ does it mess with my discs so freakin much!!!

if air isnt "anything" why the %&*$ does it mess with my discs so freakin much!!!



Funny, but not an explanation of how a disc can come to rest on it and be declared OB...

Oh but you have answered questions this time Nick (surprisingly so) and your answers are very telling.


Or are you suggesting that the vertical cylinders defining an OB area above the playing surface START at 2M? And IF that is what you are suggesting - what is the substantive difference between that and the current 2MR?


They will not be �vertical cylinders�, they will be an infinite variety of lower surface shapes extending upward. Read above for clarification. The substantive difference between using OB to define aerial hazards rather than the current 2MR, is that one is optional and uniform in application and understanding (with other rules), while the other is mandatory and outside our fundamental rules governing Out of Bounds and Relief.


[/QUOTE]

I'm ok with your explanation of the varying shapes of OB - but that is not substantive.

As to your claim of what IS substantive - now this is an item to call back to your attention. Whether or not a penalty area is OPTIONAL or not has nothing to do with differentiating between calling an area above 2M OB or calling it a special condition. Please try and answer the question asked if you can. Now if you had responded by saying that the difference between the two is that one offers a different form of relief than the other - that would be substantive.

I call this to your attention Nick - because your answers to these latest posts are indicative of a pattern not only in your posts - but in your mode of thinking on the entire subject. You say that OB above 2M is a more consistent approach - but then go on to elaborate how any two obstacles would have a different shaped OB - or that any two similar objects could be either OB or not - a stand which does not illustrate any consistency.

You say that the vertical plane of 2M can only be crossed where there is an object declared as OB. This is not consistent with the definition of OB lines as vertical planes in the rules - in fact it is a clear contradiction that you seem unwilling to either acknowledge or address. why is that? IMO it is because your mind is closed.

Craig,

If you have a point then make it. I have no idea what you just attempted to say.

OB is consistent. It is not a mandatory declaration that all non-grass covered surfaces are OB. It is a tool the director and designer "can choose to use". The 2MR is not optional, it is not a "choice". It is also based on a very flimsy piece of logic having to do with "reach" and a confused idea of "significant relief", not on the rock solid logic of Out of Bounds verses In Bounds.

I wish you would stop trying to figure me out (and failing at it) and make your points stand up based on their own inherent merit (though since every one of your points has been shown to lack any merit perhaps I understand why you choose to attack the messenger instead).

The 2MR is fading for good and I for one am very glad that organized disc golf is coming to its senses.

nick, craig's point can be summed up as "the current 2MR is the horizontal-plane instance of our otherwise vertical-plane OB rule".

as such, the 2MR is absolutely consistant with our OB rules and is nothing more than an instance of OB that uses a horizontal boundary rather than a vertical.

the rock-solid concept of IB vs. OB applies just as well to either axis.

that being said, and hopefuly understood (please lord, just once let him understand!), it is a choice this year... just not a choice with your desired default.

Pat, you must be confusing me with Craig or yourself. I have no problem agreeing with something when presented in an understandable form and well, that I agree with anyway.

Not only does it not have the desired default, it does not have the desired application either.

If a TD wants to make a special condition that is identical to the 2MR then fine, they should need to get special permission from the Competition Director. Otherwise use OB like the rest of us mere mortals...

Pat, you must be confusing me with Craig or yourself. I have no problem agreeing with something when presented in an understandable form ......



Ahh, that explains so much. Nick only agrees with stuff that he understands! :D :D :D

I'll try and speak slowly for you Nick - you seem to need several people to say something at least a hundred times before you understand that a point has not only been made, but elaborated on, broken down, re-hashed, and re-stated.

You say that OB is a better application than the 2M rule.
You also say that above 2M can only be considered in the final resting place of a disc (when OB is substituted for the 2MR). It has been brought to your attention that this creates a conflict with determining the last point of being IB. Your response is to say that crossing the plane doesn't matter - it's where the disc comes to rest. Read the OB rules my friend, and you'll see that the point at which a disc was last IB has nothing to do with whether or not a disc can be supported at that point - it has crossed a plane which marks a boundary thus a point must be judged and determined as the point at which the disc was last IB - this is usually a judgement call that the group must agree on - or be determined by an official). A horizontal plane creates a problem with this scenario - and you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Because if all discs that end up suspended above 2M - are (under your scenario) to be considered OB - the point at which they were last IB - is 2M above the playing surface. If you want to try and claim that the shape of the tree determines a 3 dimensional OB area, suspended above the ground - OK - at least admit that there is no feasible way to determine exactly where the disc was last IB because the shapes of trees and their crowns are not uniform. Some are shaped like cones (the cedars at Seneca), some are globular, some are pear shaped, etc. The point at which a disc was last IB would be determined by where the disc entered that shape - not where it ends up suspended. So while in some cases - determining the spot would be no problem - in a significant percentage of cases - it would be impossible to determine - and could very well affect the spot, the playability of the next shot, and ultimately the score. This is what I speak of as inconsistent in your application of this rule. Do you understand?

A reasonable comparison is to take any OB line on the ground - it could take any form - a staked or painted line, a hard surface change, whatever. Whatever the line is - has a vertical plane associated with it - which is the determining factor in placing a mark that does not end up IB. In order for your application of OB to be consistent (as a substitute for the 2MR) - the same condition must exist for the plane which is above 2M. As soon as you cross 2M - you are technically OB the way the rules are currently written.

This is why I have been saying all along - that the 2MR is basically a special condition form of OB. Your most recent statements support this - even though you'd never admit it.

Let's get back to my earlier question - can't you admit that the only real SUBSTANTIVE issue w/ the 2MR is relief? Isn't that the beef? That once given a penalty - you can't reconcile the potential difficult lie in addition to the penalty? If you were to consider the 2MR as a special condition OB (I know you don't agree with it - but considering scenarios does not require that you do) - would a satisfactory solution be to provide some form of releief to eliminate the possibility of a double penalty? These suggestions have been made ad nauseum by the way - are there any you like?

Your claims of added consistency of converting the 2MR to OB have been debunked, shot full of holes. There are certainly elements in all the arguments on these threads that have merit. But bashing on and on about making the rules more consistent - continually fails to convince - largely because - applying OB to a disc suspended above the playing surface (that would otherwise be in an IB area) is a SPECIAL CONDITION!! And our current rules treat it as such - and appropriately so. Insulting, degrading, deriding, or belittling the rule as abhorrent, an abberation, inconsistent, or any other nasty buzzword carries no substance Nick.

If you're going to shoot for 300+ posts on this single topic - perhaps you could form an argument that considers the practical application of the changes you suggest. This is where you are most consistent - ignoring the practical application, and ramifications of your ideas.

Thanks Pat - that was very concise and to the point - and Hey he didn't agree - but at least he understood!!

The horizontal OB plane, set at whatever height the TD chooses (3 meters, 2 , 1 or even simply �above the playing surface�) does not go on infinitely in all directions, it ends where it meets the vertical OB plane extending downward (see Rule of Verticality 803.08 C.) from the physical outermost edge of the course object that is more than 2 meters above the playing surface. Anything suspended within that area is by current rule OB.

Our rules provide 3 elections for a player with a disc in an OB area (see Rule 803.08 B.). <font color="blue">�(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole;� </font> is just one of them. Where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds is really quite easy to determine. Just as with any other OB area, follow the flight path of the disc back until it is clear of the OB area.

The elevated lower OB surface acts no differently than does a playing surface, other than it is elevated.

Hope this helps you to understand the rule as it currently exists.

Hope this helps you to understand the rule as it currently exists.


What does a horizontal OB plane have to do with the current rule? As far as I know, that doesn't exist yet. I think people are arguing how impractical it would be if it did.

Your explanation seems to indicate, however, that you don't yet grasp the impracticality of a horizontal OB plane. You say "Where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds is really quite easy to determine." That's the crux of what people are calling impractical, but you say nothing about it. Where, exactly, do you expect the last crossing of OB to be if a horizontal OB plane is ever introduced to the rules?

The TD declaring everything above 2 meters as OB creates the lower boundary of the OB area, while the outer edge of the object creates the parameter from which the OB vertical plane extends upward and downward (but only to above 2 meters).

There are no rules on "how to define" OB just that it be defined. So this definition does fit within our current rules and nothing new need be created. I used the term horizontal plane as a politeness to Craig, nothing more.

And I don't need to describe how to mark where a disc was last in bounds, our rules already provide for it.

And I don't need to describe how to mark where a disc was last in bounds, our rules already provide for it.


I already know what the rules say. I have no idea what you think the rules say. Your remarks indicate that you think something different than everyone else. Even when you directly quote the rule, you seem to treat the horizontal OB plane differently from the way the current rule would actually treat it.

But go ahead and don't answer this one simple question. I bet you can't anyway, without quoting the rules and acting like it's all self-evident -- again. Makes it easier to go on believing whatever it is you want to believe, doesn't it?

Paul,

What question are you asking exactly?

Where is the point at which a disc passes from IB into OB concerning an aerial OB?

I believe I have explained that already, but since you didn't understand it I will do it again.

First you need to understand the boundaries of aerial OB. Again, it is the same as one on the playing surface only elevated to a specified height above the playing surface. The outside horizontal boundaries are defined by the outermost physical parts of the object that is above the specified height. This boundary(vertical plane) as per rule extends upward and downward; but in the case of this aerial OB, the border ends when it gets to within the designated height. Every disc within this area is by rule to be called OB.

If the director specifies that it must be played where it was last IB, that point would be just before it entered this area. That point would be determined by group, official or director by judging where it passed into this area.

This is the same explanation I gave earlier. If you are having difficulty understanding it perhaps it would help if you describe for me how you determine where a disc was last IB with a ground OB. If you can answer that, then you have your answer for an aerial OB, just slide it up whatever height the director specifies.

Paul, Pat and Craig I do understand that you believe the above 2 meter plane (or whatever you want to call it) goes on indefinitely, but that is because you are thinking about the 2MR not an aerial OB Area. But even then you would be wrong, because there is no risk of a 2MR violation were there is no object above 2 meters for a disc to come to rest on.

Again, to be emphatic, the OB line is not this infinite plain 2 meters above the playing surface (if that is the height the director specifies), it is the area contained within the outer boundaries of the OB object more than 2 meters above the playing surface. It begins and ends there and it goes no lower than 2 meters.

If you still don�t get it then give me a scenario and I will give you the proper ruling.

Regards,
Nick

nick, with all due respect, that is just your interpretation. your version is not spelled out anywhere, nor is it intuitive.

additionally, your "outermost physical parts of the object" concept is misleading. by your own logic, there is zero chance of a disc coming to rest in the air between breanches but inside of your "boundary", therefore that space cannot be considered OB. again, that is according to your own words.

anyway, you are right about one thing - discs cannot come to rest suspended in air. even with texas' pollution it cant happen. so we are left with the universally understood concept that the 2MR is a special case of OB, which uses a horizontal plane 2MR above the playing surface as its delineator. to bemore correct, it actually uses a subset of that plane - in fact it uses a set of points, and that set consists of the intersection points for the plane and a vertical line projected downward perpendicular to the plane from any solid object above the plane. a disc suspended directly above any of those points is OB.

due to the need for maintaining sanity while trying to explain this to a player, the wording hasevolved over time to what we have today - the 2MR. and it works quite well, thank you.

Paul,

What question are you asking exactly?

Where is the point at which a disc passes from IB into OB concerning an aerial OB?

I believe I have explained that already, but since you didn't understand it I will do it again.

First you need to understand the boundaries of aerial OB. Again, it is the same as one on the playing surface only elevated to a specified height above the playing surface. The outside horizontal boundaries are defined by the outermost physical parts of the object that is above the specified height. This boundary(vertical plane) as per rule extends upward and downward; but in the case of this aerial OB, the border ends when it gets to within the designated height. Every disc within this area is by rule to be called OB.

If the director specifies that it must be played where it was last IB, that point would be just before it entered this area. That point would be determined by group, official or director by judging where it passed into this area.

This is the same explanation I gave earlier. If you are having difficulty understanding it perhaps it would help if you describe for me how you determine where a disc was last IB with a ground OB. If you can answer that, then you have your answer for an aerial OB, just slide it up whatever height the director specifies.

Paul, Pat and Craig I do understand that you believe the above 2 meter plane (or whatever you want to call it) goes on indefinitely, but that is because you are thinking about the 2MR not an aerial OB Area. But even then you would be wrong, because there is no risk of a 2MR violation were there is no object above 2 meters for a disc to come to rest on.

Again, to be emphatic, the OB line is not this infinite plain 2 meters above the playing surface (if that is the height the director specifies), it is the area contained within the outer boundaries of the OB object more than 2 meters above the playing surface. It begins and ends there and it goes no lower than 2 meters.

If you still don�t get it then give me a scenario and I will give you the proper ruling.

Regards,
Nick


Yes, thank you, that helps me understand you. You're defining "aerial OB" to be the intersection of a horizontal OB plane set at 2 meters with vertical OB cylinders surrounding the outermost branches of every tree a TD determines to be part of the aerial OB rule on a hole.

Well, I guess that's one way to teach geometry to kids drawn to the game.

I've played on wooded courses where there's almost a complete canopy of branches overhead. Are you saying that if a TD invokes aerial OB wherever trees grow above 2 meters, then where that canopy exists, everywhere underneath that canopy would be OB if the disc gets above 2 meters? Are we supposed to figure out where the breaks in the canopy are and judge if the disc ever passed through those IB breaks, in order to determine when the disc last went OB?

Or are you saying, in such cases, where aerial OB might be difficult to implement practically, you would expect the TD not to call an aerial OB hazard for that hole? What then happens if a disc is stuck above 2 meters? No OB penalty, simply because we couldn't figure out how to implement aerial OB?

I'm still not seeing the advantage of this approach over the 2MR.

I think that you are incorrect. There is precident of OB lines not being continuous, i.e. two stakes placed apart marking the line.

Here is something that might help you understand:

Stakes are placed around a tree that are right on the edge of it's outermost reaching branches marking it OB. Any disc coming to rest inside that OB area is OB.

Now remove the stakes and use the just the outermost reaching branches as the marker for the OB line.

Now raise the OB areas lowest point to 2 meters. Now you have a completely defined and contained elevated OB area with no strings and completely within our existing rules. It behaves nearly the same as the 2MR accept it is an OB rule through and through.

I like this because it also opens the door for directors to declare other heights besides 2 meters as OB. This would be handy for trees they are VERY interested in protecting.

Again, I do not really favor aerial OBs, and certainly object to the 2MR, but directors that feel differently will still be able to more or less have that option even if the 2MR is completely deleted from our rules of play. The other is not true, that being that if the 2MR continues they are essentially forcing their opinion on the rest of us, and for what? Even you have admitted that the 2MR doesn't make much sense outside the putting area...

Changing the 2MR to a director defined aerial OB is not what I think you guys are stuck on, it is that directors might get design freedoms you feel they should not have. You knowing better than them what they need of course...

If determining where the disc was last IB was thought to be beyond the capabilities of average golfers by the director then yes, a drop zone or playing it from it' s previous lie would be advisable.

Disc golfers in general should all be pretty skilled at 3 dimensional thinking. If they are not, our rules will likely be the least of their worries...

The OB area is no more complicated than any other OB area, the difference is that it starts at a given distance above the playing surface. It really is that simple.

And yes I did consider the gaps between the trees, that is why the connect the lines outermost branches are the outer boundry, any gap inside that outer boundary is still within the OB area. Adjoining trees have no gaps.

The bottom line is that directors are not going to use rules or areas that are diffiicult to understand. Next time you are at a course check out a tree and see if by looking up you can tell what is within the outermost branches and what is not? I'm guessing that you will be able to, and if you can't then that is a good spot for:

A) A drop zone
B) Playing from your previous lie
C) No penalty at all, mark you lie and play on.

Here is something that might help you understand:

Stakes are placed around a tree that are right on the edge of it's outermost reaching branches marking it OB. Any disc coming to rest inside that OB area is OB.

Now remove the stakes and use the just the outermost reaching branches as the marker for the OB line.

Now raise the OB areas lowest point to 2 meters. Now you have a completely defined and contained elevated OB area with no strings and completely within our existing rules. It behaves nearly the same as the 2MR accept it is an OB rule through and through.

the sad thing is, i've understood this all along.

the amazing thing is you have just precisely described the functioning of our current 2MR.

the only difference is that the current 2MR does not include the initials "OB". apparently that is the shortcoming that you find so reprehensible.

the great thing is that adding two letters will be so much easier than removing the rule!

Here is something that might help you understand:

Stakes are placed around a tree that are right on the edge of it's outermost reaching branches marking it OB. Any disc coming to rest inside that OB area is OB.

Now remove the stakes and use the just the outermost reaching branches as the marker for the OB line.

Now raise the OB areas lowest point to 2 meters. Now you have a completely defined and contained elevated OB area with no strings and completely within our existing rules. It behaves nearly the same as the 2MR accept it is an OB rule through and through.

the sad thing is, i've understood this all along.

the amazing thing is you have just precisely described the functioning of our current 2MR.

the only difference is that the current 2MR does not include the initials "OB". apparently that is the shortcoming that you find so reprehensible.

the great thing is that adding two letters will be so much easier than removing the rule!



Apparently you do not understand at all Pat.

The differences between OB and the 2MR are significant and detailed but I will review them again for your benefit:

<table border="1"><tr><td> OB Rule:</td><td>2M Rule:
</td></tr><tr><td>The OB rule is standard for adding a penalty throw for any area or object the director wants players to avoid.</td><td>A rule that penalizes players whose disc sticks more than 2 meters above the playing surface.
</td></tr><tr><td>Provides a method of creating any variety of resticted areas.</td><td>Mandates everything more than 2 meters above the playing surface as a restricted area.
</td></tr><tr><td>There are 3 methods of relief. Throw and distance, last place in bounds with 1 meter and drop zone.</td><td>There is no relief. Played as all other lies in disc golf, but with a penalty throw.
</td></tr><tr><td>Based on fundamental "Golf" rules of play.</td><td>Created for one situation.
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Yes, the OB rule can approximate the 2MR, and fortunately without all of the 2MRs shortcomings.

I'll be only too happy to review (again) those shortcomings.

First question: Nick, if the 2MR weren't mandated, which would mean the TD would have the option to invoke the rule or not, what is the essential difference between 2MR and the OB situation you describe above?

Second question: isn't it true that a mandated rule could be revoked by the TD if he applies for special permission to do so via rule 804.01?

Third question: isn't that what's happening with the 2MR now?

Fourth question: so what now drives the need to turn 2MR into some version of OB? (In other words, don't you already have what you want?)

First question: Nick, if the 2MR weren't mandated, which would mean the TD would have the option to invoke the rule or not, what is the essential difference between 2MR and the OB situation you describe above?

The essential difference is that the 2MR is based on a single infinite above 2M area, while the OB rule must have an outer parameter. Another difference is that OB has 3 rules concerning how to proceed ones the disc is declared OB, where as there is no rule for the 2 meter rule beyond the normal marking of our lie on the playing surfaces.

Second question: isn't it true that a mandated rule could be revoked by the TD if he applies for special permission to do so via rule 804.01?

Yes, it is true, but there is no saying that the PDGA Competition Director would have given such permission in the past.

Third question: isn't that what's happening with the 2MR now?

No, what has happened now is that directors do not need to petition the PDGA Competition Director for special permission to waive the 2MR.

Fourth question: so what now drives the need to turn 2MR into some version of OB? (In other words, don't you already have what you want?)

The deletion of the 2MR is based on it being:
A) A poorly conceived rule.
B) A completely superfluous rule.
C) There should be not be any mandated �penalty throw� obstacles.
D) It�s time has simply come, there is no compelling reason left to keep it.
E) It is not as effective as OB in protecting areas deemed in need of protection.

No, I do not really have what I want yet.

The essential difference is that the 2MR is based on a single infinite above 2M area, while the OB rule must have an outer parameter.


I'm sorry, what? Are discs thrown into space being treated unfairly, compared to discs thrown around the world? This is a nonsense comment, Nick.

Another difference is that OB has 3 rules concerning how to proceed ones the disc is declared OB, where as there is no rule for the 2 meter rule beyond the normal marking of our lie on the playing surfaces.


So you think adding a drop zone and a re-throw from a previous lie would be good add-ons to the 2MR?


isn't it true that a mandated rule could be revoked by the TD if he applies for special permission to do so via rule 804.01?


Yes, it is true, but there is no saying that the PDGA Competition Director would have given such permission in the past.


Well, I'm living in the present, and so are you. With regard to 2MR, I think the answer to my question is simply yes.


isn't that what's happening with the 2MR now?


No, what has happened now is that directors do not need to petition the PDGA Competition Director for special permission to waive the 2MR.


Splitting hairs. The BoD is using 804.01 to give that automatic waiver, and you know it.

The deletion of the 2MR is based on it being:
A) A poorly conceived rule.
B) A completely superfluous rule.
D) It�s time has simply come, there is no compelling reason left to keep it.


A), B) and D) are redundant ways of saying you don't like the rule.

C) There should be not be any mandated �penalty throw� obstacles.


We just showed that there is no PDGA mandate anymore for 2MR.

E) It is not as effective as OB in protecting areas deemed in need of protection.


First, you say the advantage of OB is that it is optionally imposed by the TD, rather than mandated. Now you're saying that an optionally imposed boundary is more effective than a mandated one in protecting trees? How so? (Do we even know that either rule truly protects trees?)

No, I do not really have what I want yet.


I think you do. The 2MR mandate is gone; it may never have been. The only thing left is to remove the 2MR option entirely, but that would constrain TD freedom to impose the 2MR. But you said you're against that kind of constraint.

So rejoice! You've got the 2MR option, and the freedom to keep it in place or drop it. Unless you have another reason for eliminating it, beyond "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it..."

The essential difference is that the 2MR is based on a single infinite above 2M area, while the OB rule must have an outer parameter.


I'm sorry, what? Are discs thrown into space being treated unfairly, compared to discs thrown around the world? This is a nonsense comment, Nick.


Paul, you did not understand me apparently. One of the reasons the 2MR is different from the OB rule because it has no horizontal border. Is that better?



Another difference is that OB has 3 rules concerning how to proceed ones the disc is declared OB, where as there is no rule for the 2 meter rule beyond the normal marking of our lie on the playing surfaces.


So you think adding a drop zone and a re-throw from a previous lie would be good add-ons to the 2MR?


Hail no. I think the 2MR should be dropped completely, and if a director wants to use something similar then go right ahead, but within the OB rule.




isn't it true that a mandated rule could be revoked by the TD if he applies for special permission to do so via rule 804.01?


Yes, it is true, but there is no saying that the PDGA Competition Director would have given such permission in the past.

Well, I'm living in the present, and so are you. With regard to 2MR, I think the answer to my question is simply yes.


A waiver from the PDGA Competition Director is not the same thing as a revised rule. I am looking for the rule to be deleted from our rules so that we only have our OB rule governing the option to add a penalty throw for a disc landing in a director restricted area. Turning off an on a �bad� rule is not the solution, particularly when a �good� rule is standing at the ready.




isn't that what's happening with the 2MR now?
.

No, what has happened now is that directors do not need to petition the PDGA Competition Director for special permission to waive the 2MR.
.

Splitting hairs. The BoD is using 804.01 to give that automatic waiver, and you know it. .


As just pointed out it is not splitting hairs because:
A) The 2MR is not the same rule as Out of Bounds, in name or function.
B) It is not a �changed rule� as Mr. Minutia so likes to point out.





E) It is not as effective as OB in protecting areas deemed in need of protection.


First, you say the advantage of OB is that it is optionally imposed by the TD, rather than mandated. Now you're saying that an optionally imposed boundary is more effective than a mandated one in protecting trees? How so? (Do we even know that either rule truly protects trees?)


No, I do not really have what I want yet.


I think you do. The 2MR mandate is gone; it may never have been. The only thing left is to remove the 2MR option entirely, but that would constrain TD freedom to impose the 2MR. But you said you're against that kind of constraint.


Paul, considering the director has the freedom under the OB rule to declare anything above 2, 1, 3 or any other height above the playing surface as OB, don�t you think it is a little redundant to have a 2MR? What additional freedom does it provide? To have a rule that is tenuous at best in reasoning and application to our sport?!?


So rejoice! You've got the 2MR option, and the freedom to keep it in place or drop it. Unless you have another reason for eliminating it, beyond "I hate it, I hate it, I hate it..."


I have now explained nearly uncountable times the reasons I feel the 2MR should be eliminated. I don�t hate the rule, I just think that it sticks out like a big old embarrassing sore thumb in otherwise excellent rules of play.

The only thing about our rules that anyone could consider me feeling the level of hate for is the general lack of knowledge, adherence and enforcement average disc golfers have. And I am not saying they all have to be a Zealot, just that they take some pride in it and have the proper mindset about it, namely that they don�t say �Who cares�.�.

I have now explained nearly uncountable times the reasons I feel the 2MR should be eliminated. I don�t hate the rule, I just think that it sticks out like a big old embarrassing sore thumb in otherwise excellent rules of play.



You have!!! And for the countless time - you have reiterated a list without any more substance than your personal opinion. The only piece in your list that does have any substance is related to relief. That is really the only difference between how the 2MR affects a lie, and the way the OB rule does.

Since you took the time to elaborate on your "aerial OB constraints" - let me illustrate for you the difficulty in its application - since you seem to be either ignoring it, refusing to acknowlege it, or you have remained unaware of it in spite of Pat and my prodding.

If an aerial OB is a cylinder suspended 2M above the ground. How does one determine the last point a disc was in bounds when;
1) the tree in question has a crown 25' across
2) The tree is blind from the tee
3) the disc ends up suspended above 2M on the edge furthest from the tee

Did the disc go straight through the middle?
Did it hit the top and tumble down?
Did it go all the way around and stick where it hit?
Would there be any consistency in how one group makes the call to another?
What is the potential difference between one extreme of the call to the other? And how does that compare to the consistency of the call under the current 2MR?

With the 2MR currently in place - there absolutely would be no variation (ok inches maybe). Using the OB rule makes it highly questionable. Do you understand this point Nick? That just because a disc hits a tree at a certain point - it doesn't mean that point can be determined readily - due to the fact that the disc doesn't always stop moving?

If an aerial OB is a cylinder suspended 2M above the ground. How does one determine the last point a disc was in bounds when;
1) the tree in question has a crown 25' across
2) The tree is blind from the tee
3) the disc ends up suspended above 2M on the edge furthest from the tee


Simple. The same way they determine where a disc that flew through a thicket of bushes and trees to a blind OB area on the other side; and I quote:


803.08 OUT OF BOUNDS
A. A disc shall be considered out-of-bounds only when it comes to rest and it is clearly and completely surrounded by the out-of-bounds area. A disc thrown in water shall be deemed to be at rest once it is floating or is moving only by the action of the water or the wind on the water. See section 803.02 F. The out-of-bounds line itself is considered in-bounds.
B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or ... These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).




Did the disc go straight through the middle? <font color="blue">Irrelevant: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.�</font>
Did it hit the top and tumble down? <font color="blue">Irrelevant: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.� </font>
Did it go all the way around and stick where it hit? <font color="blue">Irrelevant: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.� </font>
Would there be any consistency in how one group makes the call to another? <font color="blue">Irrelevant: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.� </font>
What is the potential difference between one extreme of the call to the other? And how does that compare to the consistency of the call under the current 2MR? Irrelevant: �(2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.� </font>



More to the point: I do not support the last place in bounds option anyway, because it is inherently fraught through and through with loose judgment and possible favoritism. The best options would be to simply see that it is OB and play from a drop zone or the previous lie, no judgment or favoritism could possibly interject itself into that.


With the 2MR currently in place - there absolutely would be no variation (ok inches maybe). Using the OB rule makes it highly questionable. Do you understand this point Nick?



Craig, you are presenting this from the premise that marking the disc straight down as if it were a normal everyday lie is appropriate for a disc ruled to have come to rest in an area designated by the director as needing an additional penalty throw, I do not accept that premise because there simply is no substantiation within our primary rules nor presented in reality for such an idea. There is however substantiation within our primary rules and in reality for using the Out of Bounds rule.

If you are of the opinion that landing 2 meters above the playing surface is worthy of a penalty throw, (and you do Craig, right?) fine, I think that it is overly punitive, but if you are a director, go for it; but use the primary rule created specifically for all situations like this, the OB rule.

Besides there is no question involved in seeing a disc OB and playing it from a drop zone or the previous lie. ZERO.


That just because a disc hits a tree at a certain point - it doesn't mean that point can be determined readily - due to the fact that the disc doesn't always stop moving?


All that need be determined is where the disc was last in bounds and I am hopeful that in the next rules update even that will not be an option due to it�s highly varied nature of application. Previous lie and or drop zone are much better options.

But of course the best of all is to just mark your lie on the playing surface and play on with no penalty throw or relief. I believe we call that playing it from the lie. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If all these things are irrelevant - then your biggest argument (for consistency in application of the rules) is also Nick - you can't have it both ways.

If you want to answer each pointed question with irrelevant, irrelevant. Expect the same inane argument when you claim 2M is arbitrary (or any other derogatory term of the day you choose). Nick's argument? Craig's answer - doesn't matter - 2M means penalty - too bad. Not very substantive or meaningful, is it Nick?

Try and answer the questions posed Nick. What is the potential variance in where the mark is placed in the scenario above? Is there any? Is that consistent?

Saying it is irrelevant is being in denial.
Hiding behind what would (in Your Opinion) be a better rule than what we have currently isn't much of a fall back argument either. Saying "as determined by the majority...." is better and more consistent than is it 2M or isn't it - is one of your weakest arguments to date.

Nick's posts on 2M = 268
Craig's posts on 2M = 26

Craig, What is the potential variance in where the mark is placed between a 2MR and its normal lie? Is there any? Is that consistent?

Your question is just as irrelevant as that one is.


If all these things are irrelevant - then your biggest argument (for consistency in application of the rules) is also Nick - you can't have it both ways.



First off, I did not call all of these things irrelevant, just the ones that were irrelevant. All of the factors that go into determining where a disc was last in bounds are the same for any OB situation regardless of elevation above the playing surface. (The only real difference would be that the disc could enter the OB from below, something unlikely when the bottom most OB area is the actual playing surface.)


Try and answer the questions posed Nick. What is the potential variance in where the mark is placed in the scenario above? Is there any? Is that consistent?


Craig, the question and answer is irrelevant due to the nature of the things being compared. One being a fundamental and sound rule while the other an unfounded and unsubstantiated rule. You are basically saying the rule is right because it is currently an existing rule, without providing any verifiable reason for it�s existence in the first place OR certainly within the context of our other primary rules of play. The 2MR is NOT consistent with other rules governing penalty throws for a competitively thrown disc coming to rest in a specified area. If it were I would have no argument with it. Add to this that the OB rule can accomplish the same thing and more and there simply is no reason for the rule to begin with.

At the risk of being 3 times redundant, asking, �What is the potential variance in where the mark is placed in the scenario above? Is there any? Is that consistent?� Is not a relevant question because I do not accept the comparison between the rule governing the marking of a lie with the rules governing the determination of a lie according to our Out of Bounds rules. They are two completely separate animals. I mean if you mark the lie in the same spot, what is the point of adding a penalty throw to the score and what exactly was the purpose of having the penalty throw if the lie is in the protected area anyway? It simply is not a valid comparison.


Saying it is irrelevant is being in denial.


I should probably take your word on this since you are clearly an expert on such behavior. ;)

At the risk of being 3 times redundant, asking, �What is the potential variance in where the mark is placed in the scenario above? Is there any? Is that consistent?� Is not a relevant question because I do not accept the comparison between the rule governing the marking of a lie with the rules governing the determination of a lie according to our Out of Bounds rules. They are two completely separate animals. I mean if you mark the lie in the same spot, what is the point of adding a penalty throw to the score and what exactly was the purpose of having the penalty throw if the lie is in the protected area anyway? It simply is not a valid comparison.




Man are you really this thick? I am asking you to compare where a lie would be determined under the current 2MR, vs where it would be marked if the 2MR were in the form you espouse as OB. I have tried to illustrate for you - although you can't seem to grasp the concept) - that if Ob were as you suggest, that there are scenarios under which the determination of the lie is much less accurate than the application of the rules we have in place. Far from being irrelevant - it is entirely relevant with the changes you suggest.

You say that a 3D OB area can be handled exactly as a planar 2D OB line? And I'm the one in denial?? That's rich.

I'm done arguing nothing with you Nick. You don't appear to actcually have an argument with actual SUBSTANCE. I'll check back from time to time and see if you come up with one. Good luck with reaching 300 posts on this subject - I'm confident it shouldn't take more than another week or so.

I am asking you to compare where a lie would be determined under the current 2MR, vs where it would be marked if the 2MR were in the form you espouse as OB.


The current 2MR does not need a determination to mark the lie. It is no different than marking our everyday run of the mill lie. I don�t know if I �espouse as OB, anything, the OB rule does all the espousing I need.

[/QUOTE]


I have tried to illustrate for you - although you can't seem to grasp the concept) - that if Ob were as you suggest, that there are scenarios under which the determination of the lie is much less accurate than the application of the rules we have in place.


And I have tried to illustrate for you that that is an �irrelevant� comparison. It�s like saying which is more accurate, marking your lie or marking your lie according to the OB rule. There is no comparison, they are completely separate things.


Far from being irrelevant - it is entirely relevant with the changes you suggest.


Craig, there is no way of saying this other than to say that you are simply wrong.
But if I were to even entertain your impossible hypothetical, then within the Out of Bounds rule, comparing where a disc was last in bounds to where you mark a 2MR lie. I would have to say marking the disc where it was determined to be last in bounds is far more accurate than saying it went out of bounds where the disc came to rest 2 meters above the playing surface. So the 2MR lie would be nearly as inaccurate as would be possible, since the lie is not where it stops but where it went OB.

That is the answer to your question, though I�m certain it is not the answer you hoped for.


You say that a 3D OB area can be handled exactly as a planar 2D OB line?


First of all show me a single OB line in all of creation that exists entirely within 2 dimensions? Just one. C�mon, you should be able to think of one right? Just one? No, OK?
Then back to reality: All Obs have vertical planes that surround them that reach upward and downward. The difference between a playing surface OB and an aerial OB is simply that the aerial OB begins at a (whatever) height off the playing surface and its vertical plains only reach upwards. This is not rocket science. Simply take the normal OB and move it up whatever distance from the playing surface the director specifies.


I'm done arguing nothing with you Nick.

I too bore of you �arguing nothing�, but you are welcome back anytime you have �something� to argue.

You are truly hopeless Nick. A plane exists in 2 dimensions - they have no volume. Your "aerial OB's" do. Crossing a plane, and entering a voluminous area are completely different. Having shown your affinity and understanding of basic geometric principles (or lack thereof) - there really is no reason to continue. Please just stop posting on the topic - give someone else who might have an opinion a chance. I will if you will Mr. 270

You are truly hopeless Nick. A plane exists in 2 dimensions - they have no volume. Your "aerial OB's" do. Crossing a plane, and entering a voluminous area are completely different. Having shown your affinity and understanding of basic geometric principles (or lack thereof) - there really is no reason to continue. Please just stop posting on the topic - give someone else who might have an opinion a chance. I will if you will Mr. 270



I'm going to be nice here. Everyone mark this date down. I am not going to call Craig an *****.

Craig, there is no way of saying this other than to say that you are simply wrong.
But if I were to even entertain your impossible hypothetical, then within the Out of Bounds rule, comparing where a disc was last in bounds to where you mark a 2MR lie. I would have to say marking the disc where it was determined to be last in bounds is far more accurate than saying it went out of bounds where the disc came to rest 2 meters above the playing surface. So the 2MR lie would be nearly as inaccurate as would be possible, since the lie is not where it stops but where it went OB.

not surprisingly, this misses the entire point, which is that nick's version of OB in a tree results in a more inaccurate lie than does the current 2MR rule.

here's why:

in the current 2MR rule, the lie is specified as the point on the ground directly underneath the suspended disc. (not including the suspended disc over OB water, etc.) ths is a VERY accurate and precise and nor-subject-to-guessing-or-doubt point on the ground.

in nick's vacuous aerial OB circus, the lie is marked where the disc first went OB. since OB (in his world) is defined as vertical "cylinders" with their bounderies at the edge of the tree, the disc is marked belowe the point where it entered "tree-space". sounds good on the surface, BUT...

lets say i'm playing a hole that has a forest down the left side of the fairway running all the way to the pin. since i'm a lefty and its winter and there's no leaves, i decide to bust a hyzer. my disc carves a wonderous arc over the treetops and crashes towards the pin. alas! it gets snagged 3M up just 5M left of the pin! where's my next lie???

a lot of the answer depends on what the TD has specified. if he's using nock's aerial OB on the whole course, the lie is somewhere close to the tee, where my hyzer first entered tree-space. if the TD is selectively using aerial OB on certain trees but not others then it gets downright difficult, because there's no way to tell really where it entered tree-space. it mighta come in short, but kicked left. it mighta come in long but kicked back towards the pin. who really knows?

it is rather obvious that the current 2MR is immediately and consistently superior in marking the lie in accordance to the rule. the 2MR is extremely specific about the mark. nick's Rule of Tree-Space makes almost every mark nothing more than a guess.

and this is what he calls a better rule that will clean up our sport!

I'll take it by your reply Nick - That you still have not grasped the error of your words. Every single OB line exists purely as a 2 dimensional plane (not just one OB line on one course - but every OB line on every course!!). They are comprised of whatever one dimensional line may delineate the area on the playing surface, plus a second dimension that rises vertically from the earth. A discs abililty to be considered OB has everything to do with where it crosses that plane - and nothing to do with where it ends up. This is what makes a disc suspended above the playing surface a special condition.

You have proposed that trees as objects can be treated as suspended 3D OB areas - to which - I and Pat have tried to bring to your attention a potential difficulty in knowing, following, and calling the rules as written. I gave a you a perfectly plausible situation whereby such a difficulty could exist - and asked you for a qualitative comparison. Such a comparison would be based on the efficacy of having one form of the rule employed over another (with no comment asked for or required as to whether or not either rule is more correct, superior, or desirable than the other). You chose to respond by saying that you can't compare one to the other - which in effect says that you can't compare any two dissimilar things. You can of course - when considering two approaches to the same item - which is what has been going on on these multiple threads for how long??

The example shows easily that with the 2MR as written - there would never be any question as to where the lie is marked, while simultaneously showing that if OB were used for lies suspended above ground - the best approximation for the marked lie would be subject to a guess by the group or an official (as you so eloquently stated about 6 times). I submit this to you as a desirable form of consistency in being able to apply the rules - which suffers when OB is used as a blanket substitute for the 2MR. I understand that you are striving to have dissimilar rules become "as one" by eliminating one - and lumping it's special condition into the other. Some have noted that there could be a problem in doing so. You appear unwilling to recognize those difficulties.

This is not to say that some form of OB for lies above ground could not be employed that eliminates these difficulties - but being that you are more interested in either arguing semantic minutia - or just never conceding any single point on anything - we'll probably never get there.

You can call me a ****** anytime Nick - it won't bother me :)

You can call me a ****** anytime Nick - it won't bother me :)

How about arrogant fathead?

I think Craig's point can be explained by a simple example. The TD says that "over two meters within 100 feet of the basket is o.b.," and he even marked that area with a stripe. The elevation gently falls as you approach the basket so that a throw can be falling with respect to true altitude while rising with respect to ground elevation.

We now have an imaginary cylinder with an oblique bottom for our o.b. area.

A disc is thrown on a "rope," leaving the tee at about four feet off the ground, dropping slightly relative to altitude but rising slightly in relation to the ground. It enters the o.b. cylinder from somewhere underneath the cylinder and finishes o.b. in a tree ten feet from the basket. In other words, when it crossed the 2MR o.b. line, it was under 2 meters. But somewhere before it hit the tree it was above 2 meters.

Old rule: Mark it under the tree. Take a penalty. No discussion.

New rule: Debate with the foursome where it entered this imaginary cylinder. Since the bottom of the cylinder is not defined by anything visual, like the edge of the road or the string line or anything, this should be a spirited debate.

To the reader who cannot visualize what i'm talking about when I describe this cylinder with a non-perpendicular bottom, [I'm not sure if oblique is the right word] how are you going to apply this rule during a game?

Using o.b. instead of 2 meters would require every player to watch the disc at very point in its flight while critically evaluating when it was above or below o.b. just in case it should ultimately be stuck above o.b. at the end. Where it is stuck at the end is pretty close to something that can be objectively measured whereas its height along the way is going to be a matter of widely varying opinion.

Great post, Bruce. Exactly right.

Using o.b. instead of 2 meters would require every player to watch the disc at very point in its flight while critically evaluating when it was above or below o.b. just in case it should ultimately be stuck above o.b. at the end.

and then they'd all have to agree that they saw the same thing! :D

Using o.b. instead of 2 meters would require every player to watch the disc at very point in its flight while critically evaluating when it was above or below o.b. just in case it should ultimately be stuck above o.b. at the end.



You're messing with us, right? This is a test, right?

Because we are already supposed to do that in relation to the current OB, and also in case the disc gets lost. You know, the rules where the lie is established by "the group".

Using o.b. instead of 2 meters would require every player to watch the disc at very point in its flight while critically evaluating when it was above or below o.b. just in case it should ultimately be stuck above o.b. at the end.



You're messing with us, right? This is a test, right?

Because we are already supposed to do that in relation to the current OB, and also in case the disc gets lost. You know, the rules where the lie is established by "the group".

Yes, but only because we did not get the new rules done in time to publish them this year.

Not a test Rhett - just an illustration that this responsibility would become much more daunting and implausible if OB were substituted for 2M.

Craig, there is no way of saying this other than to say that you are simply wrong.
But if I were to even entertain your impossible hypothetical, then within the Out of Bounds rule, comparing where a disc was last in bounds to where you mark a 2MR lie. I would have to say marking the disc where it was determined to be last in bounds is far more accurate than saying it went out of bounds where the disc came to rest 2 meters above the playing surface. So the 2MR lie would be nearly as inaccurate as would be possible, since the lie is not where it stops but where it went OB.



not surprisingly, this misses the entire point, which is that nick's version of OB in a tree results in a more inaccurate lie than does the current 2MR rule.



I am not missing any point Pat, the simple fact remains that they are incomparable because you can�t compare the marking of your normal (non-penalty throw) lie with the relief rules concerning OB. They are completely separate things.

In OB you look at the area below the disc at rest, if it is OB then you follow the rules to determine the lie. With the 2MR you are just marking the lie where you would if it had no penalty (as if it were a normal lie). There is no comparison. And if there were the "determined lie" according to the OB rule would be MORE ACCURATE because it would be correct under the OB rule. The only way the 2MR lie would be more correct is if the 2MR were in effect. If you take each separately and compare, which is idiotic, the lie for the OB is still more accurate for the OB rule and the 2MR still more accurate for the 2MR. Again, the comparison is meaningless.


here's why:

in the current 2MR rule, the lie is specified as the point on the ground directly underneath the suspended disc. (not including the suspended disc over OB water, etc.) ths is a VERY accurate and precise and nor-subject-to-guessing-or-doubt point on the ground.

in nick's vacuous aerial OB circus, the lie is marked where the disc first went OB. since OB (in his world) is defined as vertical "cylinders" with their bounderies at the edge of the tree, the disc is marked belowe the point where it entered "tree-space". sounds good on the surface, BUT...

lets say i'm playing a hole that has a forest down the left side of the fairway running all the way to the pin. since i'm a lefty and its winter and there's no leaves, i decide to bust a hyzer. my disc carves a wonderous arc over the treetops and crashes towards the pin. alas! it gets snagged 3M up just 5M left of the pin! where's my next lie???



Pat, that is total �non�sence. Marking a lie according to OB rules does not change one iota between and aerial or surface OB. It is determined by the group, official or the director; it has never been a huge challenge before, what makes you think it has suddenly become so. Particularly since there is a physical outer boundary and a method for determining the lower one (same as the 2MR actually)? Besides I support the removal of �last in bounds" language from our OB rule anyway, so all that will be left to determine is:

A) Is it OB?
B) Is there a mandatory Drop Zone?
C) Where was the throwers previous lie?

Simple, absolute, no judgment or geometry (a good thing considering some 1000+ rated golfers don�t even know that 2D lines and planes are only hypothetical in a 3D universe) necessary.


a lot of the answer depends on what the TD has specified. if he's using nock's aerial OB on the whole course, the lie is somewhere close to the tee, where my hyzer first entered tree-space. if the TD is selectively using aerial OB on certain trees but not others then it gets downright difficult, because there's no way to tell really where it entered tree-space. it mighta come in short, but kicked left. it mighta come in long but kicked back towards the pin. who really knows?



This is a worse case scenario that you know just as well as I do; that directors will avoid at all costs, and if it comes up one time, you can be assured it will not come up again. But even if it did the OB rule provides all that is necessary for a fair ruling.


it is rather obvious that the current 2MR is immediately and consistently superior in marking the lie in accordance to the rule. the 2MR is extremely specific about the mark. nick's Rule of Tree-Space makes almost every mark nothing more than a guess.


Then all marks given according to our Out of Bounds rule are �guesses� I suppose. And again, if the actual lie according to the OB rule is where the disc was last over in bounds, then the 2MR lie is totally inaccurate and worse than even a guess. Your logic is circular and irrelevant to the topic of lie accuracy Pat. You should at some point be able to see this. I just hope that it is sooner rather than later.


and this is what he calls a better rule that will clean up our sport!


ABSO � effin� � LUTELY! Particularly if the �last place over in bounds� option is removed, but even if it is not the OB rule is the primary, and should be the only, method of providing a penalty throw and optional relief for director declared hazards. There is no need or compelling reason to have this one mandatory "special condition" rule forced on them.

Then all marks given according to our Out of Bounds rule are �guesses� I suppose.

omigosh, nick's starting to get it!

Well - they are guesses in all cases where you can't see the spot of course :)

Nick - you're a funny guy. Planes are mere geometric theories with no place in reality? Boy our rules are in real trouble then!!

Craig,
You would actually be funny if I didn�t know for sure you were being serious.

Every single OB line exists purely as a 2 dimensional plane (not just one OB line on one course - but every OB line on every course!!).


Provide a single example of this in the place, the rest of us, call reality.

They are comprised of whatever one dimensional line may delineate the area on the playing surface, plus a second dimension that rises vertically from the earth.


Likewise provide me with even one example of a one-dimensional line this place we, the rest of us anyway, call reality.
They have night classes at most community colleges for Geometry.


A discs abililty to be considered OB has everything to do with where it crosses that plane - and nothing to do with where it ends up. This is what makes a disc suspended above the playing surface a special condition.


They also have classes in English and Philosophy.


You have proposed that trees as objects can be treated as suspended 3D OB areas - to which - I and Pat have tried to bring to your attention a potential difficulty in knowing, following, and calling the rules as written.


Potential difficulties exist for any rule we have, for good reason we do not run to the extremes in our written rules trying to discount every possibility. We strive for elegant solutions that cover the broadest possible range of situations. That is exactly what our OB rule does, there is no need, nor have you, Pat, Bruce or anyone else made a single valid point as to why we need an exception to the OB rule.


I gave a you a perfectly plausible situation whereby such a difficulty could exist - and asked you for a qualitative comparison. Such a comparison would be based on the efficacy of having one form of the rule employed over another (with no comment asked for or required as to whether or not either rule is more correct, superior, or desirable than the other).


You are being legalistic hear Craig, I am not a witness on the stand, limited to Yes/No answers that more often than not do not speak to the actual truth of the situation or topic. �Comment� is part an parcel of �Discussion� as is whether the point made is correct, superior or desirable, and specifically so when a comparison is requested. Again, because you don�t like the answer you get don�t call foul; just present your contesting idea.


You chose to respond by saying that you can't compare one to the other - which in effect says that you can't compare any two dissimilar things.

I didn�t say �I can�t compare two dissimilar things�, I said that doing so is �irrelevant� in the �context� of this discussion. And if you had read the post you will see that I compared them anyway; mainly to further illustrate the meaninglessness of the requested comparison. To which you have no response other than to deny that I answered your question, when plainly I had; just not how or with the content you would have liked.


The example shows easily that with the 2MR as written - there would never be any question as to where the lie is marked, while simultaneously showing that if OB were used for lies suspended above ground - the best approximation for the marked lie would be subject to a guess by the group or an official (as you so eloquently stated about 6 times). I submit this to you as a desirable form of consistency in being able to apply the rules - which suffers when OB is used as a blanket substitute for the 2MR. I understand that you are striving to have dissimilar rules become "as one" by eliminating one - and lumping it's special condition into the other. Some have noted that there could be a problem in doing so. You appear unwilling to recognize those difficulties.



A) The comparison is completely meaningless. A 2MR lie is completely unrelated to an OB lie and if even if it were the 2MR would be the least accurate of any options under our OB rule for marking a lie.
B) Any challenge in determining a lie according to our OB rule has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE 2MR. And are the exact same challenges in determining a lie according to our OB rule for surface OB areas.


This is not to say that some form of OB for lies above ground could not be employed that eliminates these difficulties - but being that you are more interested in either arguing semantic minutia - or just never conceding any single point on anything - we'll probably never get there.


You always play the �semantics� card when you reach the point at which you can no longer see the gaping hole in your logic and/or approach.

You need to figure out what you are trying to say more clearly. It�s not my job to guess, but what you seem to be inferring is that the �Lie Above the Playing Surface� rule for marking a lie should be used for aerial OB areas. I am not necessarily in support of such an idea, but it perhaps merits discussion. It still has nothing to do with �accuracy� of a marked lie though within the �CURRENT� OB rule. It would be an amendment; one that I would likely not support due to it placing folks lie below/within the course object that was marked OB and I would prefer to see them follow �EXISTING� OB rules that at least provides a little relief for their 1 throw penalty.


You can call me a ****** anytime Nick - it won't bother me


Get it right, I didn�t call you a ******, and I actually didn�t call you an ***** either. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You're messing with us, right? This is a test, right?

Because we are already supposed to do that in relation to the current OB, and also in case the disc gets lost. You know, the rules where the lie is established by "the group".

Currently you don't have to be evaluating a disc at every moment of its flight as to when it is above and below 2 meters. If it is not heading towards o.b. I don't watch it any longer than the player who threw it does.

But it would be ironic if we were to adopt a stroke-and-distance lost disc rule under the rationale that it is too hard to say where it was last seen, and then create Nicks arial o.b. rule.

Nick, the difference between arial o.b. and real o.b. is that real o.b. usually has something physical defining the edge of the plane, like the water's edge, the road or the rope line. Trying to say when a disc was over 2 meters when it was 250 feet away is a bit different from saying that it went over the pond just as it passed that tree. I think to have arial o.b. you need a well treed hole and a two meter line painted on every trunk.

Well - they are guesses in all cases where you can't see the spot of course :)

Nick - you're a funny guy. Planes are mere geometric theories with no place in reality? Boy our rules are in real trouble then!!



Planes and lines exist just not in 2 Dimensions and certainly not in one-dimension. LOL! Really! LOL!

You're messing with us, right? This is a test, right?

Because we are already supposed to do that in relation to the current OB, and also in case the disc gets lost. You know, the rules where the lie is established by "the group".

Currently you don't have to be evaluating a disc at every moment of its flight as to when it is above and below 2 meters. If it is not heading towards o.b. I don't watch it any longer than the player who threw it does.



The very first rule in our rule book:

801.01 COURTESY
A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.




But it would be ironic if we were to adopt a stroke-and-distance lost disc rule under the rationale that it is too hard to say where it was last seen, and then create Nicks arial o.b. rule.


�Throw and distance� is an OB rule not a lost disc rule Bruce. And �Aerial� OB areas have always been possible, there would be no �Creation� involved, only designations by the directors.


Nick, the difference between arial o.b. and real o.b. is that real o.b. usually has something physical defining the edge of the plane, like the water's edge, the road or the rope line. Trying to say when a disc was over 2 meters when it was 250 feet away is a bit different from saying that it went over the pond just as it passed that tree. I think to have arial o.b. you need a well treed hole and a two meter line painted on every trunk.



Aerial OB areas are identical to surface ones, with the exception being they start a specified height off the ground. The physical object above that designated height and extends upward determines the parameters. The skills involved in determining where the disc was last IB is the same as any other OB determined lie, a line along the playing surface; if anything it should be easier since the disc is visible and not at the bottom of some lake or river.

Bruce, leave the rules to the rules people please, your mind is not suited to such matters. Trees and Mountains need to be considered simultaneously.

Not a test Rhett - just an illustration that this responsibility would become much more daunting and implausible if OB were substituted for 2M.



Daunting perhaps for folks living in 2D or 1D universes perhaps.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :D

�Throw and distance� is an OB rule not a lost disc rule Bruce.

You need to read both of my last two posts together Nick.

Daunting perhaps for folks living in 2D or 1D universes perhaps.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :D



Nor could I :) poor poor Nick - ok mr mathematician - since you want to pretend that I am the one unable to conceptualize 3 dimensions. Please explain to the unknowing public the concepts involved with planes, volumes, lines and vectors - using the x, y, and z coordinate system. Oh wait let me help.............. nah - I'll let you hang yourself (not that you haven't already)

�Throw and distance� is an OB rule not a lost disc rule Bruce.

You need to read both of my last two posts together Nick.



Or you need to take greater care in posting your first one. And neither speak to the other flaws I point out in the first.

Daunting perhaps for folks living in 2D or 1D universes perhaps.

Sorry, couldn't resist... :D



Nor could I :) poor poor Nick - ok mr mathematician - since you want to pretend that I am the one unable to conceptualize 3 dimensions. Please explain to the unknowing public the concepts involved with planes, volumes, lines and vectors - using the x, y, and z coordinate system. Oh wait let me help.............. nah - I'll let you hang yourself (not that you haven't already)



No problemo Craiger, but first I think there are a few unanswered questions for you to answer, such as where on any course in the known universe does a vertical OB plane exist in 2D, or an OB line exist in 1D? LOL! (OK, yes this is getting a little cruel now, I'll play nice.) Though fun, this is not related to the topic really.

Aerial OB area�s boundaries are identical to surface OB areas, with the exception of being a designated height above the playing surface. Anything below that height is IB, anything above OB. The outer boundary is set by the outermost physical reach of the course object; this being the same as calling a fence part of the OB area (the entire fence and everything above it is OB, regardless of the IB area below the fence).

This is not difficult, it just involves a little reality based 3D thinking, and is already completely covered within our current rules.

Planes and lines exist just not in 2 Dimensions and certainly not in one-dimension. LOL! Really! LOL!

actually, nick, you should be laughing in shame. planes and lines are pretty much ALL that exists in 2D.

further, lines are made up of points. points have no dimension at all, so lines, in fact, DO exist in 1D.

Aerial OB areas are identical to surface ones, with the exception being they start a specified height off the ground

let the record show that Nick has admitted that his aerial OB circus in an EXCEPTION TO THE OB RULE!!!

apparently its an OK exception, as opposed to the 2MR rule, which (again, apparently) is not. could this simply because the 2MR wasnt his idea???

No problemo Craiger, but first I think there are a few unanswered questions for you to answer, such as where on any course in the known universe does a vertical OB plane exist in 2D, or an OB line exist in 1D?

nick, please stop the geometry until you take a refresher course! every freakin plane in existance is 2d, and every line is 1D. get a grip!


Aerial OB area�s boundaries are identical to surface OB areas, with the exception of being a designated height above the playing surface.

wow, he really is bent on making sure we know that his Aerial OB really IS an exception! :D

nor have you, Pat, Bruce or anyone else made a single valid point as to why we need an exception to the OB rule.

um, actually yes we have.

"Shots that stick in trees above 2M are not good shots."

actually, i'm not really sure that this is truly an exception. after all it is just a corralary to the general OB concept that states

"Shots that end up where they shouldnt be are not good shots"

from that concept came specific "rules" like

"Shots that end up on roads are not good shots"
and
"Shots that end up in the pond are not good shots"
and
"Shots that end up inside of the yellow string are not good shots"

the 2MR rule is not really an exception to the concept of OB. and like vertical boundary plane OB (ponds, roads, etc), horizontal boundary plane OB (2MR), the proper method of determining the lie is specified in our current rules.

there is absolutely NO inconsistancy and no exception going on.

No problemo Craiger, but first I think there are a few unanswered questions for you to answer, such as where on any course in the known universe does a vertical OB plane exist in 2D, or an OB line exist in 1D?

nick, please stop the geometry until you take a refresher course! every freakin plane in existance is 2d, and every line is 1D. get a grip!


Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�

Again, this is irrelevant, though fun.



Aerial OB area�s boundaries are identical to surface OB areas, with the exception of being a designated height above the playing surface.

wow, he really is bent on making sure we know that his Aerial OB really IS an exception! :D



The exception is only in location, not in content or variance of ruling. I know you guys are contextually challenged, but try to stay focused ok?

Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�

nick, IMAGINE a plane extending upward from the edge of a sidewalk next to a fairway. thats a 2d vertical plane out on a course. now imagine the TD has placed a yellow string exactly one point wide on the edge of the sidewalk. thats a 1d line out on a course. both exist without any trouble. the fact that you are so adamant about their non-existance really worries me.


The exception is only in location, not in content or variance of ruling.

so its a double exception then. because not only is it an exception to the OB rule itself, it is an exception to the list of exception types that have trhe Nick Seal of Approval.

No problemo Craiger, but first I think there are a few unanswered questions for you to answer, such as where on any course in the known universe does a vertical OB plane exist in 2D, or an OB line exist in 1D?

nick, please stop the geometry until you take a refresher course! every freakin plane in existance is 2d, and every line is 1D. get a grip!


Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�

Again, this is irrelevant, though fun.




See there Nick - I didn't have to do anything - and sure enough you went and hung yourself - and the funnest part of all - is that you don't even know it!!

Any school teachers out there that can offer a reference for Nick to bone up on his geometry?

Have you come to grips at all with what Pat has said to you Nick?
lines - have no thickness - they exist only in one dimension. (Or is this another of Nicks Semantic minutia BS where the reality of physical OB lines require the use of material that does have thickness?) Regardless - the concept of a line without thickness and the planes extending from them are clearly a part of our rules - in multiple instances.

This is why our rules say that a TD has to say which side of the fence demarks OB - because the PLANE that extends vertically from the OB LINE is the SECOND dimension of the OB line and also has no thickness. Now when you add DEPTH to a plane - all of a sudden you have a VOLUME which exists in 3 dimensions. (This is where your aerial OB's come in Nick)

Crossing into a VOLUME that one cannot see from the tee is very different than crossing a PLANE when it comes to judging where someone was last in bounds. And could potentially provide a detriment and/or unfair advantage during play - based on where the lie is marked. I could build you a model if you really still don't get it.

I think the most entertaining part of your recent days work Nick is that first you call the integral comparison points of what's being talked about irrelevant, and then you go on to state emphatically that the geometric principles on which a large number of terms we use in the rules don't even exist, AND THEN - when someone shows you the error of your ways - its OUT OF CONTEXT!! Truly a banner day Nick - I'm surprised the earth is still spinning on its axis :)

ps - I tried to encourage you to just leave this topic alone - but I guess 300 posts is just something you gotta have :confused:

I'm not a high school teacher, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

http://www.e-zgeometry.com/class/class1/1.2/1.2.htm

Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�


Holy math classes, Nick. You do understand that calling a plane two-dimensional is redundant, right? And calling a line one-dimensional is similarly redundant?

Just as it would be redundant to call a cube three-dimensional. Really, Nick, you don't understand this? (And far worse, you're making fun of others because they do?

Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�


Holy math classes, Nick. You do understand that calling a plane two-dimensional is redundant, right? And calling a line one-dimensional is similarly redundant?

Just as it would be redundant to call a cube three-dimensional. Really, Nick, you don't understand this? (And far worse, you're making fun of others because they do?



Sure Paul, and you understand that no physical 2D plain exists in relation to our OB or 2MR in the 3D universe most of us call reality, right? And you do understand that a 1D line as relates to our OB line does not exist in 1D out here in what we also like to familiarly call our real world, right?

Understanding of our OB line and the OB Vertical Plane both involve a 3 dimensional understanding of geometry. True whether we are discussing surface or elevated OB areas...

This is a minor point, yes, irrelevant to the topic of substantiating the continued existence of the 2MR.

Once again you are jumping contexts. Your point and my question are about the 3D nature of OB lines and vertical planes out in the real world. Do 1D lines and 2D planes exist in textbooks, sure. But that is not the context of our discussion. You tried to present the logic that OB lines are 1D and vertical planes are 2D and I asked you to provide a single �Actual� example anywhere in the known universe where this was true within the context of OB lines and OB planes, and you have refused, for obvious reasons (it being impossible).

The OB line undulates in 3D space, moving up, down, left, right, and at angles vectors following the outermost boundaries of the area or object that is OB. The vertical OB plane undulates in 3D space extending upward and downward from the OB line curving to encompass the outermost boundary of that same OB space. These lines do not remain in a single never-ending dimension nor do the planes remain within a single 2 dimensional plane. In fact OB lines are rarely if ever continuous, jumping upward, sideways and downward from outermost to outermost surfaces (fence, string and stakes, the parameter of a building, etc.).

You seem to be contending that the lower (or bottom) boundary for the aerial OB continues on indefinitely, correct? I mean how else could you go OB 2 meters above the playing surface in the middle of a field with no objects above 2 meters within 300 feet of you, right? Well, consider this; the lower boundary of aerial OB areas no more goes on indefinitely than does the lowermost boundary for a surface OB. It ends where the OB line or it�s extended (upward and downward) plain intersects the lowermost boundary. It ends. It is a contained area. This is fundamentally how all OB areas function.

I never tire of this, so keep it coming.

Out of the context of our discussion perhaps, but show me a 2d vertical OB plane or 1d OB line out on a course? Though so�

nick, IMAGINE a plane extending upward from the edge of a sidewalk next to a fairway. thats a 2d vertical plane out on a course. now imagine the TD has placed a yellow string exactly one point wide on the edge of the sidewalk. thats a 1d line out on a course. both exist without any trouble. the fact that you are so adamant about their non-existance really worries me.
<font color="blue"> Is the edge of that sidewalk perfectly straight with absolutely zero variation in 3 dimensions? No, that would be impossible. It is not even a consideration in most OB cases where the line and plane vary greatly in 3D space. </font>


The exception is only in location, not in content or variance of ruling.

so its a double exception then. because not only is it an exception to the OB rule itself, it is an exception to the list of exception types that have trhe Nick Seal of Approval.


<font color="blue"> The "location" of an OB area has nothing to do with the rules that govern them. Do I need to explain why OB areas need to be "located" in different "locations"? </font>

wrong again Nick. here is a concrete example of 1D lines and 2D planes that define OB boundaries. MANY courses have OB defined just like this example.

there is a fence down the side of a fairway. the crossbars/wires/etc are mounted on the outside of the fence. the TD declares that the INSIDE of the fenceposts define the OB line.

for a determination of OB then, the players are required to use the LINE (1D) between the innermost points of the fenceposts. if a small bush has caught a disc 6cm above the ground very near to the fence, then the determination is made by first examining this LINE (1D), and then projecting upward a PLANE (2D) to see if the disc is less than 100% outside the PLANE (2D).

now admit that this is a valid example and that LINES and PLANES do in fact exist when dealing with our OB.

thank you

nor have you, Pat, Bruce or anyone else made a single valid point as to why we need an exception to the OB rule.

um, actually yes we have.

"Shots that stick in trees above 2M are not good shots."

actually, i'm not really sure that this is truly an exception. after all it is just a corralary to the general OB concept that states

"Shots that end up where they shouldnt be are not good shots"

from that concept came specific "rules" like

"Shots that end up on roads are not good shots"
and
"Shots that end up in the pond are not good shots"
and
"Shots that end up inside of the yellow string are not good shots"

<font color="blue"> Pat, this has already been discussed at length. We simply do not penalize "bad shots", if we did, there would be nothing wrong with our rules providing an additional penalty throw for missing a putt within 10 meters, or for "hitting any tree at all". That would be silly though, right?

Moreover, it is the result of the shot that is penalized when a disc comes to rest in a restricted area, not the degree of excellence in the execution of the shot. I mean, consider a relationship between 3 throws. One flys misses a tree by 1 centimeter and aces the hole. The next wormburns and is only 45 feet from the tee. The last is identical in every physical quantitative and qualitative way to the 1st but nicks the tree and the ace missed by a centimeter and goes ob. What does "good shot" have to do with the result? </font>

the 2MR rule is not really an exception to the concept of OB. and like vertical boundary plane OB (ponds, roads, etc), horizontal boundary plane OB (2MR), the proper method of determining the lie is specified in our current rules.

there is absolutely NO inconsistancy and no exception going on.



<font color="blue"> You are right that the 2MR is not an exception to the OB rule, IT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OB RULE. If it were properly related then I would have no issue with it at all. It is based on faulty, though not incomprehensible logic, and it's restrictive nature unlike any other "hazard-like" rule in our rule book. </font>

wrong again Nick. here is a concrete example of 1D lines and 2D planes that define OB boundaries. MANY courses have OB defined just like this example.

there is a fence down the side of a fairway. the crossbars/wires/etc are mounted on the outside of the fence. the TD declares that the INSIDE of the fenceposts define the OB line.

for a determination of OB then, the players are required to use the LINE (1D) between the innermost points of the fenceposts. if a small bush has caught a disc 6cm above the ground very near to the fence, then the determination is made by first examining this LINE (1D), and then projecting upward a PLANE (2D) to see if the disc is less than 100% outside the PLANE (2D).

now admit that this is a valid example and that LINES and PLANES do in fact exist when dealing with our OB.

thank you



Yes, I considered this before, thing is for this to work there would have to be only 2 posts encompassing the entire OB area on one side. Then you would have a perfect 2D plane (if the posts were perfectly perpendicular to the playing surface, otherwise the plane would follow the angle of the post then go straight upward). However, you would still have the challenge of needing a perfectly level playing surface for the OB line to exist within 1 dimension.

And as your argument clearly illustrates "perfection" is hard to come by in the real world were generally speaking everything has width, height and depth. Well, except your arguments perhaps... :D

You seem to be contending that the lower (or bottom) boundary for the aerial OB continues on indefinitely, correct? I mean how else could you go OB 2 meters above the playing surface in the middle of a field with no objects above 2 meters within 300 feet of you, right? Well, consider this; the lower boundary of aerial OB areas no more goes on indefinitely than does the lowermost boundary for a surface OB. It ends where the OB line or it�s extended (upward and downward) plain intersects the lowermost boundary. It ends. It is a contained area. This is fundamentally how all OB areas function.

I never tire of this, so keep it coming.



Actually Nick - the contention of a continuous 2M plane was Bruce's interpretation of what I was trying to say - which was more in tune with your designation of "suspended OB areas or objects". And while it is a legitimate contention (under the premise of applying the currently written OB rules to lies above ground) - I am willing to let it slide if I can get you to answer the more pointed and RELEVANT question regarding your claim of OB being a better application of the rules to lies above ground than the 2MR.

Perhaps I phrased it so you couldn't understand - but I think you're just avoiding answering it. In a way I'm trying to help you out here Nick - I don't disagree that OB could very well be a better application of the rules to lies above ground (I'm perfectly fine with the notion of getting some relief after taking a penalty - if need be). BUT - there are obvious and inherent difficulties with making it work - and I'm giving you the opportunity to think them through and make them make sense. Instead - you'd rather banter incessantly about the use of lines and planes being represented by physical objects with physical attributes that differ from their theoretical description. The application of the concepts doesn't change their nature Nick - just because I use a 5mm rope or a chain link fence to mark OB doesn't change the nature of the OB plane existing only in 2D. Arguing such is (to use your own words) nothing more than a smoke screen.

The relevant question I posed basically asked you where a mark would be if one rule were in place (the 2MR), vs if OB were the rule in place. This is what we are debating right - which rule would be a better application to this condition (lies above ground)? And it's not just WHERE it would be - but HOW it is determined.

Your response was "as determined by the group or official". OK fine - YOU are the group or the official. Given the scenario I gave you; tree blind from the tee, crown 25' across, disc suspended over 2M on the edge of the tree furthest from the tee. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHERE THE LIE IS?? From the HOW part comes the extrapolation that I made in the orginal question - is there a difference between one mark and the other (under the premise of using one rule or another)? Is there a chance that the marks would ever be different? Would a variation in where the lie is marked under the 2 different rules ever provide a benefit or detriment to the player in question? And most importantly - which rule being applied would provide the same mark most consistently?
If these questions are not entirely relevant to comparing which rule better addresses a very plausible scenario of play - maybe you could come up with a comparison that is.

I don't actually expect a straight answer - but what the hey.

Yes, I considered this before, thing is for this to work there would have to be only 2 posts encompassing the entire OB area on one side. Then you would have a perfect 2D plane (if the posts were perfectly perpendicular to the playing surface, otherwise the plane would follow the angle of the post then go straight upward). However, you would still have the challenge of needing a perfectly level playing surface for the OB line to exist within 1 dimension.

how so very wrong you are once again, my cant-see-the-forst-cuz-i-refuse-to-open-my-eyes friend!

when checking OB between two posts, one only need consider the two posts that the disc is between, not the entire set of posts in the fence.

further, in the fence post example, there are lots of lines defining the OB boundary over the entire length of the fence. in fact there is one line for each set of two adjacent posts.

since lines are made of points, and points have no width or length, the posts can be as close together or as far apart as you wish, and there still exists a line between them!

continuing, the posts do NOT need to be perpendicular to the ground. most TD's will say "the OB line {note the use of the word "line"} is the inside of the posts where the posts meet the ground." the contour of the ground is irrelevant (finally i get to use this word in an appropriate context!).

finally, the ground need not be perfectly flat. the line between the posts where they meet the ground defines the OB boundary. a plane is projected perpendicular to the ground, both up and down. should the ground dip in places, then the line defining OB within the dip may indeed be shorter than the line defining OB at the base of the fenceposts. but it is still a line, and it is still a part of the 2D OB plane. should the ground peak a little, then the OB boundary line broken into two shorter lines, seperated by the ground.

give it up nick. your geometry arguments are completely wrong at worst, and utterly misguided at best.

Pat,

I�m not going to go around with you again on this. It is pure silliness and really has no relationship to the argument under discussion.

For the record, I agree that theoretical lines "can" exist in 1dimensional space, and that theoretical planes "can" exist in 2 dimensional space, but that does nothing for the dialog of our OB line and vertical plane which no matter how strange the situation simply do not "entirely" exist in either 1 dimension or 2 dimensions, but like everyone but you and Craig, exist in 3 dimensions. Yes, if you break them up into a nearly infinite number of segments lacking 2 or 1 dimensions they do "hypothetically" exist, but that is not something within the context of our discussion and certainly lends no worth to it.

The point that you were trying to make that the lower boundary of OB areas goes on indefinitely is incorrect. It ends when it intersects the OB outer boundary. This is not speculation or some revolutionary new idea, it is just the way it has been, is and will continue to be. What do you have to say to that?

Nick

The three of you should gather under a tree somewhere and could hash this out much easier.

Craig, buddy, no matter how you phrase it, it still comes down to comparing Apples to Oranges. The 2MR is not an OB rule, and it does not really provide relief or even what we could term, within the context of the rules, as a �new or different lie�; you mark it in the same place regardless of it�s distance from the playing surface. But when the area is a restricted Out of Bounds area, you must follow the rules governing that area and the if the lie beneath that area is OB, which it is even with an aerial OB, then you must choose one of three options for relocating your lie (depending on what the director allows). None of these options is to proceed directly below, or above for that matter, to a surface of a different Out of Bounds/In Bounds status. (Now if you would like to introduce that as a new standard or option for our OB rule, as I said before, that has some merit, but it is not a relevant point of comparison in defense or substantiation of the 2MR. It just isn�t.)


The relevant question I posed basically asked you where a mark would be if one rule were in place (the 2MR), vs if OB were the rule in place.


This is an unclear statement. You want me to compare if the lie provided in the 2MR is more accurate than the lie provided in the OB rule. Correct?

This is what we are debating right - which rule would be a better application to this condition (lies above ground)?


Yes, we are debating which is a better rule. That they have completely different options in marking a lie is not really comparable, because the 2MR is not a restricted area in the same sense as Out of Bounds. If it were, it would follow the same rules, and not be listed in the �Disc Above the Playing Surface� rule at all. In fact it would not be mentioned at all in our rules, because it would be unnecessary to include it, just as it is unnecessary to include individual descriptions of every different kind or location of Out of Bounds area.

And it's not just WHERE it would be - but HOW it is determined.


Are you talking about the lie or the restricted area? The lie is irrelevant as explained. The restricted area is BETTER defined using the Out of Bounds rule because that is the purpose of its very existence: to govern play when a disc comes to rest within a restricted area.


I don't actually expect a straight answer - but what the hey.


Well perhaps then it is time you �join� the dialog and change your expectation. I have directly answered your question to the best of my ability and for the most part without casting aspersions about you other than in fun.

To get off of this circular ride we need to build up from a common point of agreement and find out where our fundamental differences exist, otherwise this discussion just returns to point A every so often.

Here in is the fundamental question:

Do you believe that there is a course object that deserves a separate and mandated restriction and rule to govern it?

Or

Do you believe that all course objects should be governed by a single and director determined restriction and rule?

I am pretty sure that this is where our fundamental difference of opinion is on this issue.

Other than the mandatory nature of the 2M rule, which you seem to support, the main sticking point for you appears to be that you would like the option of marking a lie for a disc at rest in a restricted area that is above a non-restricted area to be directly below (or perhaps above, i.e. bridge) the disc at rest. This is an intriguing idea, but it is not an argument for the substantiation or continued existence of the 2MR, but of modifying our Out of Bounds rules. I believe part of it is actually answered in the Rules Q & As - Multiple Playing Surfaces (http://www.pdga.com/rules/qa.php) already.

The point that you were trying to make that the lower boundary of OB areas goes on indefinitely is incorrect. It ends when it intersects the OB outer boundary. This is not speculation or some revolutionary new idea, it is just the way it has been, is and will continue to be. What do you have to say to that?

first, thank you for admitting that your earlier statements about lines and planes were incorrect. it takes a big man to admit that they have totally forgotten their 8th grade geometry.

to the (new) topic at hand, ie lower boundaries of the OB, please clariffy your use of "outer" in "the OB outer boundary". outer relative to what? something to do with the direction of hte disc? is there an "OB inner boundary"? if so, what is it? before you get all up in a hissy fit, this is a valid clarification - i can think of different meanings and they have different ramifications.

The three of you should gather under a tree somewhere and could hash this out much easier.



Chuck, you HAVE actually met Craig and I, right? LOL! ;)

I'd rather the rules committee do the meeting, they are the ones getting paid the big bucks... :D

Actually, it would be cool to do, but not during competitive rounds. Maybe at the 05 Worlds? Are you a pro Pat, I forget?

I'll also be at the Mid-Nationals but unless Craig starts throwing left handed he won't be at that.

Basically this comes down to I don't see a compelling reason for aerial OB areas (and certainly no mandatory aerial OB areas) I am open to other directors and course pros deciding otherwise. For clarity and understanding I'd just prefer that it be under a single rule, the one designed specifically to restrict specified areas in the game of golf (OB).

to the (new) topic at hand, ie lower boundaries of the OB, please clariffy your use of "outer" in "the OB outer boundary". outer relative to what? something to do with the direction of hte disc? is there an "OB inner boundary"? if so, what is it?




when checking OB between two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height, branches or leaves in the case of a tree] posts, one only need consider the two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height]posts that the disc is between, not the entire set of [parts of the object above the specified height] posts in the [on the object] fence.



When are you going to show me a perfect 2D OB plane or 1D OB line out on the course? Big man� /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

when checking OB between two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height, branches or leaves in the case of a tree] posts, one only need consider the two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height]posts that the disc is between, not the entire set of [parts of the object above the specified height] posts in the [on the object] fence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When are you going to show me a perfect 2D OB plane or 1D OB line out on the course? Big man�

except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE.

OB lines are everywhere. even in the rules so are planes. give it up already.

Like I figured - no straight answer.

But when the area is a restricted Out of Bounds area, you must follow the rules governing that area and the if the lie beneath that area is OB, which it is even with an aerial OB, then you must choose one of three options for relocating your lie (depending on what the director allows).



This is a flip flop Nick - is the suspended/restricted OB area above the playing surface? or does it start at the playing surface? - 2 very different scenarios. You can't very well talk about them simultaneously. We are talking about trees in areas that would otherwise be in IB areas right? I have been challenging your notion of an object suspended above ground (the crown of a tree) which could be determined as OB in lieu of the 2MR. Let's talk about one or the other. Although..... if you want to use the scanario of the OB line extending to the ground - you make my point of consistently determining the correct lie all the more pertinent.

This is what we are debating right - which rule would be a better application to this condition (lies above ground)?


Yes, we are debating which is a better rule. That they have completely different options in marking a lie is not really comparable, because the 2MR is not a restricted area in the same sense as Out of Bounds.

[/QUOTE]
Where the lie is marked seems to be the main point of contention for advocating OB over the 2MR. Isn't the general complaint about the 2MR that its unfair that the LIE has to be marked underneath or behind the object the disc is stuck in? Isn't that ultimately the point?
And if it's the lie that is the important factor - comparing how the lie is determined is entirely relevant to the evaluation - if we can't start there - then it's all a giant waste of energy.


And it's not just WHERE it would be - but HOW it is determined.



Are you talking about the lie or the restricted area? The lie is irrelevant as explained. The restricted area is BETTER defined using the Out of Bounds rule because that is the purpose of its very existence: to govern play when a disc comes to rest within a restricted area.


Talking about the determination of the lie Nick. Because that is what will be different between having the rule be a "special condition OB rule" (which for all intents and purposes - is what the 2MR is) and having no special condition rule (i.e. blanket OB rule). And how is it that the 2MR doesn't "govern play when a disc comes to rest within a restricted area"? Isn't that exactly what it does? And isn't that consistent with the "notion" of OB? (If it lands here - take a penalty - mark it like this).


Here in is the fundamental question:
Do you believe that there is a course object that deserves a separate and mandated restriction and rule to govern it?


NO - all objects should be treated the same
Or


Do you believe that all course objects should be governed by a single restriction and rule?


YES - not determined by the TD, but by the course designer


I am pretty sure that this is where our fundamental difference of opinion is on this issue.
ther than the mandatory nature of the 2M rule, which you seem to support, the main sticking point for you appears to be that you would like the option of marking a lie for a disc at rest in a restricted area that is above a non-restricted area to be directly below (or perhaps above, i.e. bridge) the disc at rest. This is an intriguing idea, but it is not an argument for the substantiation or continued existence of the 2MR, but of modifying our Out of Bounds rules.



Don't know how you came up w/this interpretation Nick - NOT EVEN CLOSE. The main sticking point with using OB instead of 2M is the ready & consistent means to determine accurately where play continues from. The 2MR leaves no room for interpretation - while the OB rule does. If you want to use OB rules AS WRITTEN!!!! NOT ASSUMING ANY CHANGES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMING OUT NEXT YEAR - OR ELEMENTS YOU WOULD PREFER TO SEE DELETED - They just don't quite work for lies above ground. Which is why they are covered by a special condition type rule.

<font color="blue"> You are right that the 2MR is not an exception to the OB rule, IT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OB RULE. If it were properly related then I would have no issue with it at all.


Well, the lost disc rule is unrelated to the OB rule, isn't it? The unsafe lie rule is unrelated to the OB rule.

For that matter, arriving late to a tournament is unrelated to the OB rule, and you get more than a one-throw penalty for that.

What's so special about the OB rule that every rule has to be related to it? And why don't you require all the other non-2MR rules to meet that criteria, if that is your strongest objection to 2MR?

The three of you should gather under a tree somewhere and could hash this out much easier.



Under an OB tree or a non-OB tree?

when checking OB between two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height, branches or leaves in the case of a tree] posts, one only need consider the two [outermost parts of the object above the specified height]posts that the disc is between, not the entire set of [parts of the object above the specified height] posts in the [on the object] fence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When are you going to show me a perfect 2D OB plane or 1D OB line out on the course? Big man�

except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE.

<font color="blue"> Not when the object itself is declared as the boundary, it isn't. If a fence is OB then the outermost part of it is the OB line. Same with objects above the playing surface.</font>

OB lines are everywhere. even in the rules so are planes. give it up already.


<font color="blue"> Nice context switch (again). Sure OB lines are everywhere and so are OB vertical planes (actually they are not, but....) show me a whole OB line or vertical plane that exists "entirely" within 1 or 2 dimensions. This is too easy Pat. What are you going to do switch it back to hypothetical la la land again? :p</font>

More later, but your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic under discussion might come from:


They just don't quite work for lies above ground. Which is why they are covered by a special condition type rule.



LIES by current rules definitions ARE ALL ON THE PLAYING SURFACE. Don't take my word for it READ OUR RULES.

And again, if you want to add the option of marking a lie on an IB playing surface below (or above) an OB area to our OB rule, I am open to that discussion, but not as a separate unsubstantiated rule. I.E. just because you feel the OB rule should include this option does not substantiate the existence of a completely separate and contradictory rule.

<font color="blue"> You are right that the 2MR is not an exception to the OB rule, IT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OB RULE. If it were properly related then I would have no issue with it at all.


Well, the lost disc rule is unrelated to the OB rule, isn't it? The unsafe lie rule is unrelated to the OB rule.

For that matter, arriving late to a tournament is unrelated to the OB rule, and you get more than a one-throw penalty for that.

What's so special about the OB rule that every rule has to be related to it? And why don't you require all the other non-2MR rules to meet that criteria, if that is your strongest objection to 2MR?



Paul you make some very superficially witty remarks. Too bad they are not related to the discussion under way. Enjoy your tangent.

You truly do amaze Nick. When confronted with concise, direct items - you choose to address semantic minutia. Subsitute "discs suspended above the playing surface" for "lies above ground", or just shed the glossary term for 1/2 a second for the sake of discussion!! The sad part is - you know exactly what I'm talking about - and choose this route instead. It's past being frustrating - it's gotten to the point of being plainly insulting. Talking or discussing anything with you means fighting through what the meaining of "is" is. I think your just trying to qualify for the entire b_itch slap coupon book, instead of just the occasional one everybody gets.

i wrote:

except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE.


nick wrote back:

Not when the object itself is declared as the boundary, it isn't. If a fence is OB then the outermost part of it is the OB line. Same with objects above the playing surface.



well, first of all, i said "except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE" that means that the TD has declared that, um i wish i could state it some other way, the innermost point of the post is the OB line!

NOT that the post is the "boundary". declaring a post as the boundary and leaving it at that would probably mean the outside is the boundary due to the lack of clarity. bad TD!!! thats why around here we say "the inside of the post where the post meets the ground is the OB line."

nick, youre not even trying to have a discussion or to unbderstand what anyone is saying. you're just looking for opportunities to say we're "switching".. even tho its is you who is switching because you fail to read and/or comprehend what we are even discussing. apparently reading and comprehension are on the list with geometry of the things you have forgotten since junior high.

<font color="blue"> You are right that the 2MR is not an exception to the OB rule, IT IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE OB RULE. If it were properly related then I would have no issue with it at all.


Well, the lost disc rule is unrelated to the OB rule, isn't it? The unsafe lie rule is unrelated to the OB rule.

For that matter, arriving late to a tournament is unrelated to the OB rule, and you get more than a one-throw penalty for that.

What's so special about the OB rule that every rule has to be related to it? And why don't you require all the other non-2MR rules to meet that criteria, if that is your strongest objection to 2MR?



Paul you make some very superficially witty remarks. Too bad they are not related to the discussion under way. Enjoy your tangent.


Thank you?

But I thought I was on point. You have a problem with 2MR not being related to OB, and I was just pointing out a lot of rules are unrelated to OB. I don't understand why you insist that 2MR must conform in every way to the OB rule, when other rules don't even approach the OB rule in conformity.

Because the 2MR is somewhat like OB, it must be exactly like OB? If there is any similarity, it must be made completely the same?

To me, this is a weak argument. All the rules are there for their own reasons, and those reasons should be considered on their own merits. If they share one or two things in common with another rule, I say that's fine, and not surprising. If they don't have exactly the same characteristics as another rule, I'm also not surprised. I don't think a tree is the same as a fence, or a pond, or a road. These are different things, and different rules may be made to apply. A fence may be defined as an OB boundary. A pond may generate a number of lost-disc penalties. A busy road may be an unsafe lie. A tree may capture a disc two meters or more up, out of reach.

That the path through a tree is not as easily seen as a path over a fence is also not surprising. Trees get in front of trees, and it's hard to see through them. Fences and other OB boundaries are usually clearly marked on a hole, and there aren't layers of them -- just the one boundary on one side, and the other boundary on the other side. Still, it can be difficult to witness a disc passing over the OB boundary, but if that is granted, then it must also be granted that it's usually even harder to see a disc drive through a cluster of trees! No wonder a different rule, relying on the disc's final resting place, is used in that situation.

I just don't see the problem that you have with 2MR, Nick. But thanks again for calling me witty.

How many times did I reference in the same post as you quoted Nick - that I understand where the lie is? How's that for a direct question? Maybe that'll force you to actually read it.

i wrote:

except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE.


nick wrote back:

Not when the object itself is declared as the boundary, it isn't. If a fence is OB then the outermost part of it is the OB line. Same with objects above the playing surface.



well, first of all, i said "except that the innermost point of the post is typically used to define the OB LINE" that means that the TD has declared that, um i wish i could state it some other way, the innermost point of the post is the OB line!

NOT that the post is the "boundary". declaring a post as the boundary and leaving it at that would probably mean the outside is the boundary due to the lack of clarity. bad TD!!! thats why around here we say "the inside of the post where the post meets the ground is the OB line."

nick, youre not even trying to have a discussion or to unbderstand what anyone is saying. you're just looking for opportunities to say we're "switching".. even tho its is you who is switching because you fail to read and/or comprehend what we are even discussing. apparently reading and comprehension are on the list with geometry of the things you have forgotten since junior high.



What are you talking about Pat? You asked me a question about the nature of the OB line when a tree is declared OB, and I gave you the answer. There is no "Inner Boundary" only Within the OB area and without. "Outermost" is used to declare that all that matter in judging the OB line for a tree (or anything else for that matter) is the outermost reach of the branches. The chances of a disc coming to rest outside that area is as impossible as is a 1dimensional OB line. Seriously!

And if you think that is tough to judge, it is as easy as looking up and "knowing" whether you are under the object or not. (Benefit of doubt to player as always for any that are hanging outside the tree (fat chance).)

Rather than fixating on my answer, why not just make the point you think needs to be made? Or don't you have one on your own?

I'll just stick with my earlier posts is saying, the lower boundary for an aerial OB is whatever height the director makes it. Anything above that lower boundary is OB. This is no different than surface OBs. You are just needlessly nitpicking. It works dude! Relax.

Here's something for you to do: Why should we keep the 2MR?

Where should I start?
The reasons I want the 2MR deleted from our rules of play are many.
What are your arguments for keeping it?

Well to be fair let�s start as if the 2MR has never existed:

Hey, my disc is stuck in this tree what do I do?

Well, according to our rules you mark the lie on the playing surface beneath the disc at rest and play on?

Now is where our predisposition due to living with the 2MR enters the dialog:
We�ve got what Bruce says is a natural and common sense discussion and what I say is an unnatural and contrived discussion. Which is it and what could have resulted the same or differently, and why? Did other rules exist that could have effectively dealt with the situation and did the situation really need dealing with and why?

Rather than having me rehash what I read as your reasons, why don�t you share your reasons unhindered by any of my reasons to the contrary, then I mine unhindered and we can compare and discuss? Sound good?

Either way it all works out in the end.

Wow - after all that - Nick's ultimate response to an honest open discussion is to just blow it off and ignore it. Have you reached 300 posts on the topic yet Nick? We all know that's your only true goal. To bad there's nothing more than smoke leaking from your......

The chances of a disc coming to rest outside that area is as impossible as is a 1dimensional OB line.

this is a good example of why the wording of rules should be clear. in nick's statement, he claims that discs cannot come to rest outside of OB areas! he really doesnt mean that discs cannot come to rest safely IB on the ground away from the tree, but that is in fact what he said.

The chances of a disc coming to rest outside that area is as impossible as is a 1dimensional OB line.

this is a good example of why the wording of rules should be clear. in nick's statement, he claims that discs cannot come to rest outside of OB areas! he really doesnt mean that discs cannot come to rest safely IB on the ground away from the tree, but that is in fact what he said.



And this is a clear example of why it is impossible to have a conversation with people that can't remain with a thought past a single sentence. I was not proposing rules language, I was discussing a point:

Pat, "The chances of a disc coming to rest outside that area is as impossible as is a 1dimensional OB line.". "Outside that area" represents mid-air above 2 meters. How many discs do you think come to rest mid-air above 2 meters?

C'mon man!

Wow - after all that - Nick's ultimate response to an honest open discussion is to just blow it off and ignore it.



And what "honest" "open" "discussion" are you refering to Craig? There is very little "honest" "open" or much of a "discussion" coming from your direction. The truth is that you simply refuse to consider anyone's ideas but your own. And as someone (anyone) who has known you for over 15 years, it really is no surprise at all!

Make your bloody points, if you have any, and stop just being a reactionary malcontent. What is your point here?

Why do you feel the 2MR should be preserved? (I'm not against preserving it, so long as it is in a jar of formaldehyde tucked deep in a closest that is...)

we've all followed nick down a dozen or more of his twisted tangents. we've spent countless posts correcting his belief that lines are not 1D and planes are not 2D. we've engaged him on his ideas like aerial OB and circling individual trees. we'vre pretty much listened to whatever he had to say and then tried to point out the pros and cons of those ideas.

we've discussed the merits of penalty-free drops from suspended discs. we've talked about the special case of 2MR within 10M.

we've weighed on lots of ideas regardless of from they came.

now nick, just because a person points out the blemishes of a particular idea does not mean they only like their own ideas. people have been making points throughout this and the rest of the 2MR threads. quite often we have had to deal with your inanities like the last week we wasted on your completely non-standard geometry definitions.

Our bloody points have been bloody well made, many tiimes. we've offered real reasons that support the retention of the 2MR at least close-in. we've offered a whole lot more than our opinions - we've offered specific cases and reasoned thought.

in turn, we get this evidence of an open mind:

<font color="purple">I'm not against preserving it, so long as it is in a jar of formaldehyde tucked deep in a closest that is</font>

you could easily win the election for the new position of Hypocritist at Large

And what "honest" "open" "discussion" are you refering to Craig? There is very little "honest" "open" or much of a "discussion" coming from your direction. The truth is that you simply refuse to consider anyone's ideas but your own. And as someone (anyone) who has known you for over 15 years, it really is no surprise at all!

Make your bloody points, if you have any, and stop just being a reactionary malcontent. What is your point here?

Why do you feel the 2MR should be preserved? (I'm not against preserving it, so long as it is in a jar of formaldehyde tucked deep in a closest that is...)



Gee Nick - over the past week or two - I have tried to engage you actively on very specific points of concern. Your response in every case has been either evasive or nonsensical.

And as a beginning premise - if someone (anyone) is advocating the removal of (or even modification of) one of our rules - the onus would be on them to fully justify the reasoning for doing so - not the other way around.

The fact that we have attempted to engage you, and attempted to have you provide reasons that are substantive (that word isn't to "legalese" for you is it?), instead of purely subjective - for removing the rule: coupled with the attempt to have you reason through and provide solutions for potential problems in having the rules be applied consistently and pragmatically - shows pretty openly and honestly that we ARE considering your ideas. We may be considering them with a critical eye - but what do you expect when you persist in shoving the same points down people's throats over 4 threads and nearly 300 posts?

If what it takes to engage you is to justify the existing rule - how's this (my own personal opinion); the 2MR addresses a special condition during play that differs slightly from OB but is essentially the same - with the main exception being the form of relief. It provides a consistent means to determine a lie when a disc is suspended above the playing surface - and it's blanket nature offers consistent expectations to all players on all courses. Additionally - the penalty provided (IMO) is justifiable from the standpoint that the vast majority of shots that end up suspended above 2M are not playable from that location. I do not offer my opinions as anything other than my opinions - I do not offer them as indisputable facts. You could learn from this approach.

And what "honest" "open" "discussion" are you refering to Craig? There is very little "honest" "open" or much of a "discussion" coming from your direction. The truth is that you simply refuse to consider anyone's ideas but your own. And as someone (anyone) who has known you for over 15 years, it really is no surprise at all!

Make your bloody points, if you have any, and stop just being a reactionary malcontent. What is your point here?

Why do you feel the 2MR should be preserved? (I'm not against preserving it, so long as it is in a jar of formaldehyde tucked deep in a closest that is...)



Gee Nick - over the past week or two - I have tried to engage you actively on very specific points of concern. Your response in every case has been either evasive or nonsensical.

And as a beginning premise - if someone (anyone) is advocating the removal of (or even modification of) one of our rules - the onus would be on them to fully justify the reasoning for doing so - not the other way around.

The fact that we have attempted to engage you, and attempted to have you provide reasons that are substantive (that word isn't to "legalese" for you is it?), instead of purely subjective - for removing the rule: coupled with the attempt to have you reason through and provide solutions for potential problems in having the rules be applied consistently and pragmatically - shows pretty openly and honestly that we ARE considering your ideas. We may be considering them with a critical eye - but what do you expect when you persist in shoving the same points down people's throats over 4 threads and nearly 300 posts?

If what it takes to engage you is to justify the existing rule - how's this (my own personal opinion); the 2MR addresses a special condition during play that differs slightly from OB but is essentially the same - with the main exception being the form of relief. It provides a consistent means to determine a lie when a disc is suspended above the playing surface - and it's blanket nature offers consistent expectations to all players on all courses. Additionally - the penalty provided (IMO) is justifiable from the standpoint that the vast majority of shots that end up suspended above 2M are not playable from that location. I do not offer my opinions as anything other than my opinions - I do not offer them as indisputable facts. You could learn from this approach.



Or to paraphrase: I got nothing...

Or to paraphrase: I got nothing...


Are you speaking for yourself? (There I go, being "superficially witty" again...)

Thanks Paul :)

Nick - all you have is 300 posts of nothing. Pathetic

Perhaps because you took nothing?

Is it conceivable that the monopolizing that this thread (or any other thread on this subject) endures has resulted in many to give up any further posting on the subject? Would you be willing to consider that there may be another definition to 'moderation' on a chat board besides watching over threads?

Alright. These threads are yours for the next 5 days to make your case for keeping the 2MR. It will be interesting to see if any formal ideas raised are not just reactions to the list of reasons for its removal.

Craig saying it is my job to prove why it should go is not entirely accurate considering it is optional this year and scheduled to be made a remote "non-default" option in 2006.

In any case, the floor is yours, do your worst.

Tim, did you ever consider that Craig, Paul and Pat are the ones squelching participation here?

Let's see it. Whatchu Got?

See you in five days.

Tim, did you ever consider that Craig, Paul and Pat are the ones squelching participation here?


Sure, Nick. Up is down, left is right, lines aren't 1D, planes aren't 2D, and we're the ones squelching participation.

Must be nice in Nick-verse.

Tim, did you ever consider that Craig, Paul and Pat are
the ones squelching participation here?


Well, after Nick's insult, I guess not a lot of people are lining up to do his bidding.

But if Nick is looking for arguments in defense of the 2MR, he can refer back to these posts of mine.

where I argue that avoiding the 2MR does take some skill:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=273413&Searchpage=3&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post273413

where I argue against increasing the TD's workload, all for the unmeasurable goal of "eliminating randomness":
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=273698&Searchpage=3&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post273698

where I argue that the 2MR is meant to differentiate some really bad throws from a good throw:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=278204&Searchpage=2&Main=265580&Search=true&#Post278204

where I argue that results matter (even in going OB, results matter -- if the disc didn't land OB, then it wouldn't matter if the disc ever crossed into OB during its flight):
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=289972&Searchpage=3&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post289972

where I argue that not penalizing all bad shots is not an argument against the 2MR (the OB rule doesn't meet this criteria, either):
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=290085&Searchpage=3&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post290085

where I argue that replacing 2MR with tree-OB makes for a lot of thankless, extra work for the TD:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=292208&Searchpage=3&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post292208

where I hope I didn't offend any of Helen Keller's kin:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=292736&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post292736

where I argue that calling the 2MR inconsistent is like saying it's just different from the other rules (and if none of the rules were different from each other, I suppose we wouldn't need any of them except one):
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=293312&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post293312

where I argue that getting rid of the 2MR makes the lost disc rule more complicated to implement:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=293657&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post293657

where I argue that matters of luck even affect the lost disc rule, but I don't hear anyone asking to eliminate that rule:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=294357&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post294357

where I argue that a tree catching a disc in flight can be thought of as providing horizontal relief, if one compares its lie on the playing surface to where the disc would have landed if the tree weren't there -- this argues the point that a penalty for horizontal relief and for high vertical relief are not so dissimilar...
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=294385&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post294385

where I make an analogy for discs that go OB during flight, only to land back IB, versus discs that hit trees above 2m, only to fall out and land on the playing surface... neither shot gets a penalty...
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=294484&Searchpage=2&Main=257783&Search=true&#Post294484

where I wonder if the 2MR can be branched off the unsafe lie rule, rather than OB rule:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=296864&Searchpage=0&Main=296189&Search=true&#Post296864

where I make the point that rule 804.01 always gave the TD ample freedom to remove the 2MR, if he wanted to (we have no evidence that the Competition Director would have ever refused a TD permission, and ample evidence to the contrary):
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=298999&Searchpage=1&Main=272225&Search=true&#Post298999

where I have issues with Nick's definition (or lack thereof) of "aerial OB":
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=305976&Searchpage=1&Main=272225&Search=true&#Post305976

where again I argue against making the 2MR a direct off-shoot from the OB rule:
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=309040&Searchpage=1&Main=272225&Search=true&#Post309040

I could say something really smart arsed right about now, but I'd still rather hear some of the more salient arguments for keeping the rule presented in a managable format. Giving us a list of homework to read old stuff is not a help.

Paul, can't you break it down for us?

1 hr 12 min left and then ...

These threads are yours for the next 5 days to make your case for keeping the 2MR.

this was nick assigning homework


I could say something really smart arsed right about now, but I'd still rather hear some of the more salient arguments for keeping the rule presented in a managable format. Giving us a list of homework to read old stuff is not a help.

this is nick's response to a post that proved the home work was already done, in fact had been done for days/weeks.

nick, please go away again. prefereably longer this time.

I'm not pretending to be associated with or held to your timetable for any of this Nick. Just leave it alone long enough for someone to discover that you're not dominating the conversation with the same ol same ol - and maybe they will participate. My participation has been driven largely by your relentless attack - and lack of substantive arguments. So take your 5 days and add a zero.

Ignoring (or attempting to) Nick's theories on the subject, a while back I had posted my thoughts one what Carlton Howard said on PDGA radio about the removal of the rule. I don't remember the exact info, but here's what he said, and my responses (paraphrased on both ends).

He said that the rule had too much 'luck' involved. I've stated here more than once that we don't play a game of luck, we play a game of physics. 2 'identical' shots that hit a tree are never even remotely 'identical'. Angle of attack, speed, type of disc, etc, etc, are all different. Don't say they are the same and that one got 'lucky', because they aren't the same. The lottery is a game of luck, disc golf is not. 2 discs hitting a tree and only one sticking is the same situation as 2 discs hitting the chains and only one staying in the basket.

The 2m height is 'arbitrary'. No more so than the following:

A painted yellow chalk line
Yellow rope
10m falling putt circle
The shoreline of a lake/stream/pond/ocean/volcanic lava flow

It has already been stated why 2m was the agreed upon height. It makes sense to me.

They already removed the rule in Sweden. So? This is the PDGA, tell them to put it back.

There is a 'double penalty' of bad lie plus stroke. I agree with that and offered a better solution - treat is as an unplayable lie and allow 5m relief. Don't remove the rule entirely because of one problem with it. Fix the problem.

The 'consistency' argument is a non-issue, and the use of OB has serious flaws, as has been evidenced by the geometry discussion from a couple of weeks ago.

I've said before that it's foolhardy to allow a player to stick a disc 30' up in a tree, mark under it, throw penalty-free, and move on without even retrieving the disc. I still stand by that statement.

Chuck and Pat like the removal of the rule everywhere except within the 10m putting circle. I don't like that theory, mainly because it accepts the fact that there should be some penalty for sticking but implies that it's excusable on the fairway. I think that there should be a penalty regardless of location, and in this case I'll cite consistency as the reasoning.

I don't remember if Carlton had any other reasons, and don't have speakers here at work to listen again to find out. I fully respect his experience in the game, and his skill as the rules committee chair. I just disagree with him in this case.

Well stated Dan.

If ever there was a time to say let the TD decide, this is it. I've already played in one tournament where the TD made it clear that he would prefer to use the 2M rule as it made the course more challenging. My guess is the PDGA will find fewer TDs eliminating this rule in 2005 than they think. Is anyone counting?

2 for 2 sanctioned events on heavily wooded courses not using it this year.

These threads are yours for the next 5 days to make your case for keeping the 2MR.

this was nick assigning homework


I could say something really smart arsed right about now, but I'd still rather hear some of the more salient arguments for keeping the rule presented in a managable format. Giving us a list of homework to read old stuff is not a help.

this is nick's response to a post that proved the home work was already done, in fact had been done for days/weeks.

nick, please go away again. prefereably longer this time.



Pat, you simply are incapable of making an argument based on the strength of your own positions aren't you? This is a perfect example of why you guys can't stop your tirade on me long enough to get a meaningful point out about the topic.

I'm going to read over Dan's post and give you guys a couple more days to present your thoughts, hopefully ones having to do with the topic, then I am going to discuss what has been presented; I'll even go back and read Paul's list of posts.

You guys "say" you want to find common ground. You "say" you want to resolve this in a constructive manner. You "say" that you have convincing points concerning this topic.

Well, it is time that you "show" us that you do.

2 for 2 sanctioned events on heavily wooded courses not using it this year.


Haven't there been 19 sanctioned events already this year?

2 for 2 sanctioned events on heavily wooded courses not using it this year.



2 for 2 for me as well, but non-sanctioned on medium wooded courses. I actually used it on Saturday at Whiteclay. It felt strange, yes, but not like cheating. The guys in my group thought nothing of it, just reassured me that it was not in effect.

Sweet!

I'll even go back and read Paul's list of posts.


You might want to stick with the argument summaries above the links, since it looks like some of the links are broken now. Someone has either re-sorted the database or removed some posts, because some of the links don't even point to my posts anymore. I wonder why that happened.

Nick, with all due respect, you have already posted your thoughts on this matter. Several times. While I can't stop you from posting, I will request that you don't. I don't see any way that it will help to further this discussion.

nick, get lost. i have made many posts with reasonable reasons for keeping it. i have made lots of posts for keeping it within 10M. i have painstakingly attempted to compromise by accepting the removal of the rule outside of 10M.

mixed in with meaningful discussion have been the necessary geometry brush-up courses and discussions of the pros and cons about the various alternative proposals.

i do not answer to you, and do not accept your demeaning and petty assignments.

get off your high horse. better yet, get off this board.

nick, get lost. i have made many posts with reasonable reasons for keeping it. i have made lots of posts for keeping it within 10M. i have painstakingly attempted to compromise by accepting the removal of the rule outside of 10M.

mixed in with meaningful discussion have been the necessary geometry brush-up courses and discussions of the pros and cons about the various alternative proposals.

i do not answer to you, and do not accept your demeaning and petty assignments.

get off your high horse. better yet, get off this board.


Again, you waste time flaming and make no attempt at presenting any ideas related to the topic. You are consistent, I'll give you that.

Nick, with all due respect, you have already posted your thoughts on this matter. Several times. While I can't stop you from posting, I will request that you don't. I don't see any way that it will help to further this discussion.



What will then Dan, defenders of the 2MR brigade unopposed? I gave 5 and half days and all that came out was more bile against me personally. If the case is so strong for keeping the mandatory 2MR then shouldn't the better points stand on their own? Funny how only after I posted an inoccuous reminder that I would return to the discussion did Craig and Pat post again, and only to hurl insults, not to present any points of emphasis as concerns the topic.

The truth is that they attack me because they have no salient arguments to make. There is no convincing argument for keeping the 2MR mandatory, or even as an option. If there were it would not take much effort to present it clearly and concisely. That has not happened and I doubt that it will. It just isn't there.

But if it is I am all ears. Bring it. Don't be asceared...

Nick, this thread, and others just like it have several good points for retention of the rule. It's understandable that you can't find it, however, since you'd first have to:

a) wade through several hundred of your posts
b) read them
c) comprehend them

The first task will be the hardest, trust me.

nick, the 200 posts on this thread and hundreds more elsewhere contain many valid arguments in support of the 2MR.

who the hell do you think you are to "require" anyone to write them all again. the rest of the world does not exist to do your bidding, especially when what you want is already there.

besides, why should we try to explain AGAIN when you did not read them with an open mind the first time around.

congratulations, you have achieved new heights of arrogance and self-centered-ness.

Nick, this thread, and others just like it have several good points for retention of the rule. It's understandable that you can't find it, however, since you'd first have to:

a) wade through several hundred of your posts
b) read them
c) comprehend them

The first task will be the hardest, trust me.



Mildly amusing but completely useless. Why can�t you bring it and plop it down in front us here?

Don�t do it because I asked, do it because it is clear to you and you want others to understand. I�ll give each post 2 days of ride time so long as they are on topic and have no mention of me.

Mildly amusing but completely useless. Why can�t you bring it and plop it down in front us here?



Who is this 'us' you are speaking of? You and your imaginary friends? Just because you hear voices in your head it does not mean someone is there.



Don�t do it because I asked, do it because it is clear to you and you want others to understand. I�ll give each post 2 days of ride time so long as they are on topic and have no mention of me.



How gracious of you, oh grand poobah of the message board, to give us 2 days of ride time.

You will notice, oh mighty sphincter, that most everyone has left this discussion. A few of us are here because we like the easy target practice, but you have successfully annoyed everyone to the point that they don't care any more.

No, that does not mean you won the argument, as much as you'd like to think so.

Dan,

You are a sad man, aren't you?

Take care,
Nick

Comprehend this Nick. While you monitor every discussion on every thread, some of us have more important things to do. Which is why I said I do not subscribe to your time limits (that qualifies as bile?) Time my friend - back off a little and you might be surprised what comes out. You issuing time limits for returning to the conversation - and ultimatums of what posts need to contain is laughable, and only serves to discourage participation. You couldn't even leave it alone for 5 days!! We know how you feel - we aren't interested in re-hashing it ad nauseum just because you offer a 5 day respite from participating. Geez - how many times in 5 days have you scanned this thread? Just leave it alone man. add a zero - make it 50 days - there are plenty of other threads you can dominate - and you even have a whole other message board......

2 for 2 sanctioned events on heavily wooded courses not using it this year.



What, you couldn't let me live the lie for at least a day? :)

Actually, I would be interested in knowing the entire count. Is anyone counting?

TDs using 2m rule or not is a question on the TD report so the PDGA is counting.