posted from terry calhoun on the pdga announcememnts page

note to nick kight.....PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!!
NO NEW RULES FOR 2005!!!

keith


What Players Need to Know for 2005
#293358 - 01/10/05 12:21 PM Edit Reply Quote



I sure hope I get this right. If not, whoever knows better tell me and I can edit it right. To my knowledge, the following are changes in 2005 that people need to know about - although none of them are officially "rules" changes:

The are no real "rules changes" for 2005, but there are a few changes in the manner of play and in format that players should be aware of:

(a) 2-Meter Rule: Discs caught in trees over two meters are still played the same way, with a penalty and a lie under the disc. However, a TD may - without getting permission from the PDGA first - decide to drop that rule for any particular sanctioned tourney as long he or she notes it in player information handouts, posters, and announces it at the players meeting in such a way as to ensure that every understands. [TDs must report about it to the PDGA in their tournament report when they do allow this change.]

(b) Junior Ages: The categories for Juniors are now "19 and under," "16 and under," "13 and under," and "10 and under." Example, if a player turns 19 in the middle of 2005, he or she stays in the "19 and under" division for the entire remainder of the year. (Previously categories were "under 19," etc. and a junior was "moved up" on their birthdate. Now they get the rest of the current year.)

(c) Some Pro Players Can Now Play in Am Divisions (but not in majors): Any Pro whose rating is below 955 may play in the advanced division instead. For example, if you are a 30-year-old Pro male with a rating of 945, you may play in the MA1 division instead of Pro Open, if you wish. Here is a table:

A Pro with a rating of <955 can play MA1
A Pro with a rating of <915 can play MA2
A Pro with a rating of <915 can play MM1
A Pro with a rating of <875 can play MA3
A Pro with a rating of <875 can play MG1
A Female Pro with a rating of <850 can play FW1
A Female Pro with a rating of <800 can play FW2
A Female Pro with a rating of <750 can play FW3

There will be no cash payouts for those playing in Am divisions, of course.

--------------------
|||
Director of Communications
PDGA &amp; SCUP
[email protected]
734 883 4407

Post Extras:

trophy only??

are pros playing am still excluded from trophy only?

thanks terry.

hi keith. :cool:

hey john...see you in a few months!!!
make sure all those cow patties have been washed away by the end of may :D

Keith dont fear the patties, fear the water.

Pros playing in Am are excluded from 'trophy only' option. However, it's an unpromoted option that Ams playing in Pro can play for 'trophy only' if the TD/club wishes to do that. We have been doing the 'Ams pay 1/3 pro entry fee to play for trophies' in MN since 2003.

Keith dont fear the patties, fear the water.



the water i can walk in WITHOUT needing to be washed afterwards :D

i'll see you in vegas brian!

(a) 2-Meter Rule: Discs caught in trees over two meters are still played the same way, with a penalty and a lie under the disc. However, a TD may - without getting permission from the PDGA first - decide to drop that rule for any particular sanctioned tourney as long he or she notes it in player information handouts, posters, and announces it at the players meeting in such a way as to ensure that every understands. [TDs must report about it to the PDGA in their tournament report when they do allow this change.]



Very nice, I like this rule!

AGREED
Time and place....not all the time and everywhere

trophy only??

are pros playing am still excluded from trophy only?

thanks terry.

hi keith. :cool:

There is no rule creating trophy-only options in 2005. There is a guideline for a entry fee amount if a TD decides to offer a trophy-only option in an amateur division.

Pros playing am are paying and playing for whatever the other ams are. If you have a pro playing am at your tournament, treat him like any other am. [fill in your own cynical joke here.]

[fill in your own cynical joke here.]



Hey! As a pro (Master Woman) who will probably end up playing Am this year, I object to your cynical joking. :mad:Due to the limited divisions offered in a tournament I play, the only option I have is to play Pro Open. I ain't no pro open kind of player. I can hang with the Mens Am Masters, but I can't play with them because I have a pro card.

While I do admit that it would be cheesy for a open guy playing am, there are some instances where it is fair and appropriate.

[fill in your own cynical joke here.]



Hey! As a pro (Master Woman) who will probably end up playing Am this year, I object to your cynical joking. :mad:Due to the limited divisions offered in a tournament I play, the only option I have is to play Pro Open. I ain't no pro open kind of player. I can hang with the Mens Am Masters, but I can't play with them because I have a pro card.

While I do admit that it would be cheesy for a open guy playing am, there are some instances where it is fair and appropriate.



Knowing my brother's sense of humor I'm sure he was suggesting you could make a cynical joke about the pro being treated as any other amateur. The cynical joke would be something along the line that maybe the ams get the short end of the stick in some tournament formats. But as my brother always says "Thow a rock at a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one you hit."

note to nick kight.....PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!!
NO NEW RULES FOR 2005!!!



I think that was more for you Keith, Terry knowing well that you would have a seizure if he wrote it any other way.

All I care is that it sounds like a rules change and acts like a rules change; walking like a duck is fine with me�

The irony in all of this �pros playing in am divisions� is that the only �True Amateurs� will all be �Professionals�. Soon we�ll be paying out the bottom 33% at events�

Pretty funny when you think about it. Hopefully no one will�

I suspect that Open Pro Players with ratings over 955 are going to be pretty rare at events with these �True Am� for pros below 955 options. Well, rarer than usual at any rate�

I'm wondering why we can't figure out a protective divisional system that does not in effect "put it to" folks for being only slightly more skilled than someone else. We've got to be able to do better than this, don't we?

snip... But as my brother always says "Thow a rock at a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one you hit."



Gee Jon, not sure how to take that one. :confused:

[fill in your own cynical joke here.]



Hey! As a pro (Master Woman) who will probably end up playing Am this year, I object to your cynical joking. :mad:Due to the limited divisions offered in a tournament I play, the only option I have is to play Pro Open. I ain't no pro open kind of player. I can hang with the Mens Am Masters, but I can't play with them because I have a pro card.

While I do admit that it would be cheesy for a open guy playing am, there are some instances where it is fair and appropriate.


Knowing my brother's sense of humor I'm sure he was suggesting you could make a cynical joke about the pro being treated as any other amateur. The cynical joke would be something along the line that maybe the ams get the short end of the stick in some tournament formats. But as my brother always says "Thow a rock at a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one you hit."


Yes, I was reading an am-scam thread on another website right before I posted that, and had my own cynical punchline in the first draft, but decided to delete it. Your cynical punchline might be funnier.

note to nick kight.....PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!!
NO NEW RULES FOR 2005!!!



I think that was more for you Keith, Terry knowing well that you would have a seizure if he wrote it any other way.

All I care is that it sounds like a rules change and acts like a rules change; walking like a duck is fine with me…





no nick i think terry wrote it that way for YOU as i already knew there were not rule changes but YOU haven't grasped that yet!

and terry also likes to have the "correct" story out in print more than making than making YOU happy

Whenever possible I'd like to get the correct word out and also please both Keith and Nick.

forget nick you can NEVER please him...
i on the other hand am much more reasonable to deal with :D

So If I'm an Open Mens with a ratting under 960, turning 40 this year, and under 2 meteres tall, I can beat, I mean play Kevin Royal in the Am Masters this year? :D

Pros have to be over 39 with a rating under 915 to play Am Masters.

915 eh?

I can do that! :o

Pros have to be over 39 with a rating under 915 to play Am Masters.


I think it is "supposed to be" not "have to be".

At least that the way it has been in practice for the ams. :eek:

Pros have to be over 39 with a rating under 915 to play Am Masters.


I think it is "supposed to be" not "have to be".

At least that the way it has been in practice for the ams. :eek:



The way it has been for the Ams ?

There has never been a top for Adv Masters, just a level in skill where it was more beneficial to either play Adv (bigger fields) or Pro Masters.

The way it has been for the Ams ?

There has never been a top for Adv Masters, just a level in skill where it was more beneficial to either play Adv (bigger fields) or Pro Masters.


I am talking about the ratings caps for Int and Rec which have been in place for the ams. but in practice MANY TDs don't check the ratings, so in reality you are SUPPOSED to be under the cap but you don't HAVE TO BE to compete in the division.

Since the same TDs will be not checking pro ratings, I posit that you do not HAVE to be under the rating cap to compete in the am division as a pro.

Yea?

Well my ratting is supposed to be closer to 1000, but according to Lyle & James on another thread, it would be easier and more fair (whatever that means) if I settled for 915 :o

Huh!!

Please explain. You have really confused me. I said something about the 10m rule. You said


Well my ratting is supposed to be closer to 1000, but according to Lyle & James on another thread, it would be easier and more fair (whatever that means) if I settled for 915

Haven't you ever seen a thread hi-jacking before ?

And what do int and rec have to do with am masters anyway ?

They all have ratings caps for at least some players. That's what they have to do with each other!

pro players playing am have ratings caps also.

in my case, i just have a cap. a discraft ace race 2004 cap to be specific.

[QUOTE]
(a) 2-Meter Rule: Discs caught in trees over two meters are still played the same way, with a penalty and a lie under the disc. However, a TD may - without getting permission from the PDGA first - decide to drop that rule for any particular sanctioned tourney as long he or she notes it in player information handouts, posters, and announces it at the players meeting in such a way as to ensure that every understands. [TDs must report about it to the PDGA in their tournament report when they do allow this change.]




Very nice, I like this rule! [QUOTE]


[QUOTE]
AGREED
Time and place....not all the time and everywhere



In 2006 the random penalty for hitting a tree and actually sticking above 2 meters can still be put into play whenever a TD chooses, but it won't be in effect all the time and everywhere. That's because after considerable thought, the PDGA Rules Committee made a courageous suggestion regarding what they thought will be best for the sport -- a rulebook which attempts to best reward skill over random bad luck. Realizing that particular holes and scenarios may benefit from having a 2 meter penalty in place, they leave that option open to be put into effect when deemed appropriate by a TD.

and that is a nice cap.. actually the only thing discraft i carry!!

so what dija do with the discs you got with the cap?

sold them 4 for 30 last 2 years worth!!

...after considerable thought, the PDGA Rules Committee made a courageous suggestion regarding what they thought will be best for the sport -- a rulebook which attempts to best reward skill over random bad luck.


I have no idea why the RC has proposed what they proposed about the 2MR. I can presume it's because the RC believes the proposed change would be the right thing to do. I simply disagree.

My disagreement, however, has nothing to do with my impression of the RC as a group. I don't even know them, but I do respect anyone who does volunteer work. So to be clear, I simply disagree with a single result from one of their deliberations.

But while I disagree with the proposed rule change, what I really find objectionable, robj, is the manner of your argument. You assign characteristics to those proposing the change -- characteristics which can only mean that those resisting the change are members of an opposite group. If the RC is "courageous" for suggesting the change, then I suppose I am cowardly for opposing it. If the RC made the change after "considerable" thought, then I suppose I'm responding without thinking at all.

I suppose next you're going to say God is on your side.

For crying out loud, we are talking about a rule change. We are not talking about "who has the moral high ground".

So can you please find a way to be a cheerleader for this proposed rule change without casting the rest of us in league with the devil? (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but I hope I'm also making my point...)

Paul, just because I do feel the experience and expertise of the individuals on the Rules Committee deserves respect, it does not follow that I feel anyone disagreeing with their recommendation to eliminate the 2 meter rule (penalty) deserves disrespect. That's a bit absurd, even if you are presenting the accusation under the camouflage of humorous exaggeration.

As for God's position, I haven't asked Climo what his position is.

It seems to me you're as interested in merely arguing as you are in discussing the merits/rationale of the RC's recommendation. I have been wrong (once) in the past though, so I can't be sure... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

As for God's position, I haven't asked Climo what his position is.



LOL! Nice one.

I agree with your sentiment Rob, because I feel different levels of credence towards different sources doesn't mean I think any are dumb or foolish. I respect even Craig's, Rhett's, Keith's and Meartz-o-matic's thoughts on this, I just agree with the PDGA Rules Committee's more for all the reasons stated already and make my arguments accordingly.

I respect even Craig's, Rhett's, Keith's and Meartz-o-matic's thoughts on this,



i know the others have posted their thoughts on this but i haven't posted mine....i only have posted that YOUR interpretation of it being a NEW RULE was WRONG!!!

but thanks for respecting my thoughts on it if i ever give them :D
keith

It seems to me you're as interested in merely arguing as you are in discussing the merits/rationale of the RC's recommendation. I have been wrong (once) in the past though, so I can't be sure... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Well, then I guess you're wrong again.

i know the others have posted their thoughts on this but i haven't posted mine



Keith, what are your thoughts on the Rule Committee's recommendation that the 2 meter rule be eliminated?

i know the others have posted their thoughts on this but i haven't posted mine



Keith, what are your thoughts on the Rule Committee's recommendation that the 2 meter rule be eliminated?



i'll have to run it by nick first for clarification because even as much as i like to write, i just can't make my thoughts 2 page diatribes like nick does and therefore no one would read it anyways :D

did that clear it up for you? :p

i know the others have posted their thoughts on this but i haven't posted mine



Keith, what are your thoughts on the Rule Committee's recommendation that the 2 meter rule be eliminated?



i'll have to run it by nick first for clarification because even as much as i like to write, i just can't make my thoughts 2 page diatribes like nick does and therefore no one would read it anyways :D

did that clear it up for you? :p

Nick has puppets! :eek:

i know the others have posted their thoughts on this but i haven't posted mine



Keith, what are your thoughts on the Rule Committee's recommendation that the 2 meter rule be eliminated?



i'll have to run it by nick first for clarification because even as much as i like to write, i just can't make my thoughts 2 page diatribes like nick does and therefore no one would read it anyways :D

did that clear it up for you? :p



are you suggesting discussions with Nick inevitably degenerate into a game of who is in control? I used to think that too, till I found Nick like myself favored eliminating the 2 meter rule in favor of better, clearer, and more consistent ways to achieve the same end (as the 2 meter penalty purports to achieve). Now, Nick's posts are pretty good reads :D

...like myself favored eliminating the 2 meter rule in favor of better, clearer, and more consistent ways to achieve the same end...



WTF??????????????

"Better" is purely subjective.

But what in god's name could be clearer or more consistent than "a disc coming to rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface will incur a 1 stroke penalty"??? It is amzingly clear. And it is universally consistent.

But I now see that you, like Nick, simply don't like it so you will say anything to try and get other people to not like it too.

But what in god's name could be clearer or more consistent than "a disc coming to rest more than 2 meters above the playing surface will incur a 1 stroke penalty"??? It is amzingly clear. And it is universally consistent.



Yes, it is amazingly clear, but it is not "consistent" with other hazard and relief rules and you know this. That it is universally consistent in application is not the same thing as being universally consistent with our rules governing hazards and relief. This you know also.

So, you ask, what could be more clear and consistant?
Deleting the 2 meter rule completely from our rulebook and requiring TDs that wish to do something equivalent to use our OB and Relief rules, thereby bring such penalty throws into the universal family and application of every other rule in our rules of play.

exactly. why people refuse to look through the eyes of the RC to see what triggered their suggestion that the 2 meter rule be removed is beyond me. Instead of discussing why they think the 2 meter rule works, they say things like "WTF"

Try to use the 2 meter rule elimination to your advantage with a particular tree. See how inconsistently and rarely you stick. See that if you do stick 50 feet up, you may have lost your disc. See also how often contact with the tree results in a 2 putt or worse. And please address the heavily wooded tight fairway of a 500 foot hole. Do you really think hitting and sticking in a tree at 300 feet deserves a penalty (in addition to the fact that you hit a tree?)

But while I disagree with the proposed rule change, what I really find objectionable, robj, is the manner of your argument. You assign characteristics to those proposing the change -- characteristics which can only mean that those resisting the change are members of an opposite group. If the RC is "courageous" for suggesting the change, then I suppose I am cowardly for opposing it.



I'm going to go out on a lim here, and guess that the term "courageous" was used not to describe the rule itself but how difficult it is to make any change or suggestion around here with out getting a boat load of UNDUE backlash from players, who are more often than not, not even PDGA current.

Personally I thnk the rule change is the right thing to do, and I think that the RC is far more qualified that you or I to answer the question.

Out of curiousity, when you think of the PDGA and the RC, and then you look at your PDGA number that's well over 1000, do you stop to think? Wowo these people have a a lot more experience and invlovement than me? Or do you just start spouting off as a self appointed expert?

But while I disagree with the proposed rule change, what I really find objectionable, robj, is the manner of your argument. You assign characteristics to those proposing the change -- characteristics which can only mean that those resisting the change are members of an opposite group. If the RC is "courageous" for suggesting the change, then I suppose I am cowardly for opposing it.



I'm going to go out on a lim here, and guess that the term "courageous" was used not to describe the rule itself but how difficult it is to make any change or suggestion around here with out getting a boat load of UNDUE backlash from players, who are more often than not, not even PDGA current.




That's a pretty solid limb you placed yourself upon, so please play on without penalty :D Thanks for reading between the lines and correctly gauging what I meant by calling the RC's recommendation *courageous* rather than misreading it as a cheap way of spinning the rule phase out itself. I would call the phase out of the 2 meter penalty long overdue and mathematically sensible -- but not "courageous"

Out of curiousity, when you think of the PDGA and the RC, and then you look at your PDGA number that's well over 1000, do you stop to think? Wowo these people have a a lot more experience and invlovement than me? Or do you just start spouting off as a self appointed expert?


Um... what are you talking about? Because it makes sense that people running an organization have the most experience in it, and those who are affected by their decisions would have less experience. But those with less experience are still PDGA members, and we have a right -- even a responsibility, I think -- to voice our concerns.

And if we voice lame concerns, then we'll learn all the more quickly by taking a stand -- even a wrong one -- and finding out over time whether or not we're right or wrong. Investing some effort in a position -- again, a right or a wrong one -- is how most people learn. Most people don't learn much from sitting on the sidelines and taking no position at all.

But I understand how you might think it would be simpler to have a ruling body make decisions and get no criticism from its members for those decisions. Some powerful thinkers in the past have thought the same way. Not everyone should be allowed a voice, they said, because not everyone's voice is equal. The only true members of a community are those who have risen to a level high enough to permit them entry into the ruling class. Maybe that's what we should do here. Oh, wait, no, skip that... that's the textbook definition of fascism...

Out of curiousity, when you think of the PDGA and the RC, and then you look at your PDGA number that's well over 1000, do you stop to think? Wowo these people have a a lot more experience and invlovement than me?


Got another out-of-curiosity question for you: if you make judgments about a person based on the color of his skin, that makes you a racist, right?

So, if you're making judgments about others based partially on their PDGA numbers, does that make you a "numberist"? Gotta be a better word for that.

I've heard this a few times now, that people with high PDGA numbers are essentially a lower PDGA class.

If this is a prevailing prejudice, maybe we should randomly sort everyone's PDGA numbers and re-assign them to get that prejudice out of the way.

Though facThough fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead. Paul calling Rob a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)

Nick, I think it was John that Paul was calling a numberist, though I am sure he is putting me in that camp. Which seems typical of his tendency to change his opponents arguments into something they are not for easier refutation. It, I hesitate to say, reminds me of the intellectually dishonest tactics of a Rush Limbaugh -- though I am willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wants to make a lively argument.

Paul I am not saying the lower your PDGA number, the more your opinion counts.
What I am saying is that when there exists a committee of experienced volunteers who have been looking at our Rules and the impact the rules have on the game for a considerable time, and then they make the bold move to suggest a change -- their suggestion deserves respect and consideration. More so than if some self-appointed expert like you or i decide to spout off about it. Disagreement is fine. Do you disgaree that the fluky rate at which a disc hitting a tree above 2 meters sticks (5%), combined with the more often than not tendency for tree contact to result in a less favorable lie means the 2 meter rule applies so inconsistently it deserves to be re-thought?

I wish the anti-2 meter crusaders would try to undo the damage to fair play that they have already caused by spreading mis-information about the 2m rule.

The 2 meter rule is in effect this year! A TD can waive it for his/her event, but it is in effect by default. The 2-meter haters have effectively confused the issue and people around here seem to think that the rule has been eliminated.

Great work guys. Way to act like you care about the rules but really only care about your own opinion. I think DROTs should count, but I don't go around telling everybody that they do count.

Maybe you crusaders can try to get the real word about the rule out. No, that would go against your agenda.

Though fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead. Paul calling Rob a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)


Um, Nick, moriarti's (not robj's) post belittled the opinions of those with a high PDGA number. Because I think moriarti's attitude alienates new members, I responded.

If you think setting someone straight is off-topic, then your post just now to me also qualifies as off-topic. Not only was your post off-topic, but it was also unfounded (you thought I was talking about robj) and mis-directed (you should be talking to moriarti). Try again.

Though fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead. Paul calling Rob a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)


Um, Nick, moriarti's (not robj's) post belittled the opinions of those with a high PDGA number. Because I think moriarti's attitude alienates new members, I responded.

If you think setting someone straight is off-topic, then your post just now to me also qualifies as off-topic. Not only was your post off-topic, but it was also unfounded (you thought I was talking about robj) and mis-directed (you should be talking to moriarti). Try again.



OK!

Though fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead? Paul calling moriarti a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)

How you like me now?

Nick, I think it was John that Paul was calling a numberist, though I am sure he is putting me in that camp.


Actually, I was asking John a question, asking him what's the difference between forming an opinion based on a person's skin and an opinion based on a person's PDGA number. Both are ridiculous, in my view.

Which seems typical of his tendency to change his opponents arguments into something they are not for easier refutation. It, I hesitate to say, reminds me of the intellectually dishonest tactics of a Rush Limbaugh -- though I am willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wants to make a lively argument.


I only respond to what I read. If you don't like the response, then don't write the words down to begin with. And conversely, if you write words down, especially judgmental words that invite a response, don't be surprised if you get one.

Paul I am not saying the lower your PDGA number, the more your opinion counts.


Good!

What I am saying is that when there exists a committee of experienced volunteers who have been looking at our Rules and the impact the rules have on the game for a considerable time, and then they make the bold move to suggest a change


Why is it bold for the RC to suggest a change to the rules? Isn't that one of their jobs?

-- their suggestion deserves respect


Is it disrespectful to disagree with one of their suggestions?

and consideration.


Consideration? We've got 7 threads of consideration going on here. Isn't that enough?

More so than if some self-appointed expert like you or i decide to spout off about it.


I've never appointed myself anything. Have you appointed yourself an expert on this matter?

Disagreement is fine.


Oh, good.

Do you disgaree that the fluky rate at which a disc hitting a tree above 2 meters sticks (5%), combined with the more often than not tendency for tree contact to result in a less favorable lie means the 2 meter rule applies so inconsistently it deserves to be re-thought?


What? Look, you gotta write better than that if you don't want people to mis-interpret you. I'm not trying to be intellectually dishonest at all -- it's just sometimes I don't know what the h some of you are saying.

If you think setting someone straight is off-topic, then your post just now to me also qualifies as off-topic. Not only was your post off-topic, but it was also unfounded (you thought I was talking about robj) and mis-directed (you should be talking to moriarti). Try again.



OK!

Though fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead? Paul calling moriarti a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)

How you like me now?


Well, your post is still as off-topic as mine, and it's still mis-directed at me instead of at moriarti who originated this off-topicness, so I say you're now being a class-A jerk, Nick.

How you like me now?




I like you more than words can say. i think you are the most intelligent and respected person who has ever posted. i think anyone who disagrees with you is immoral, offensive, and just plain silly. in fact, you should be the only one who ever is allowed to post here anymore. why no one has nominated you for the DG hall of fame, is beyond me. you should at least be voted volunteer of the year, because you take so much time to explain things so well for us. i don't know what we'd do without you.

wow, this prozac really helps!

I wish the anti-2 meter crusaders would try to undo the damage to fair play that they have already caused by spreading mis-information about the 2m rule.

The 2 meter rule is in effect this year! A TD can waive it for his/her event, but it is in effect by default. The 2-meter haters have effectively confused the issue and people around here seem to think that the rule has been eliminated.

Great work guys. Way to act like you care about the rules but really only care about your own opinion. I think DROTs should count, but I don't go around telling everybody that they do count.

Maybe you crusaders can try to get the real word about the rule out. No, that would go against your agenda.



Rhett, isn't it reckless for you to assume anti-2 meter crusaders spread mis-information about the 2 meter rule for 2005? In fact it was a PDGA email that spoke of a PDGA radio segment for Oct. 11, 2004 that was titled "the end of the 2 meter rule" which started the spread of information. So blame the PDGA.

Also blame the Board of Directors (except the Competition Director who voted in favor of the RC timeline) for changing the timeline for the complete elimination of the 2 meter rule until 2006 despite the fact that a PDGA radio segment had already announced the end of the 2 meter rule as the default condition for 2005. The Rules Committee had every reason to suspect the BoD would implement their recommendation since the PDGA RC is set up to oversee the Rules for PDGA play. It was only because the BoD failed to back the RC that we have the present confusing scenario where both PDGA radio and the new "Disc Golf Magazine" declared the 2 meter rule is not in effect for 2005, yet the BoD subsequently voted to make 2005 a phase out year where the 2 meter rule can be waived without special permission by a TD but is otherwise in effect.

The BoD has cited their inability to get the new Rule book updated in time for 2005 as the reason we are merely phasing out the 2 meter rule in 2005 and delaying the full elimination of the 2 meter penalty (as per the PDGA Rules Committee recommendation) until 2006 (when a new Rule book will also eliminate the 2 meter penalty).

The BoD has cited their inability to get the new Rule book updated in time for 2005 as the reason we are merely phasing out the 2 meter rule in 2005 and delaying the full elimination of the 2 meter penalty (as per the PDGA Rules Committee recommendation) until 2006 (when a new Rule book will also eliminate the 2 meter penalty).


I think the above is why Rhett said anti-2MR crusaders are spreading mis-information. Your statement is not factual, Rob. The 2-meter rule is not being phased out in 2005. It is still in place. TDs may have a simpler means of waiving it than they've had in the past, but the rule isn't "phased out" for any tournament unless a TD explicitly makes it so.

And in 2006, if the BoD accepts the RC's recommendation, then the rule will be waived by default, unless TDs explicitly reinstate it. This is not the same as a "full elimination of the 2 meter penalty", because the option still remains to reinstate it.

So, it looks like Rhett has a point, doesn't it?

If you think setting someone straight is off-topic, then your post just now to me also qualifies as off-topic. Not only was your post off-topic, but it was also unfounded (you thought I was talking about robj) and mis-directed (you should be talking to moriarti). Try again.



OK!

Though fascinating, discussing methods of discussion, don�t you think it would be a little more productive to discuss the actual topic instead? Paul calling moriarti a "Numberist" is not getting us anywhere. (Or is it? Does that make you an "Anti-Numberite" Paul?)

How you like me now?


Well, your post is still as off-topic as mine, and it's still mis-directed at me instead of at moriarti who originated this off-topicness, so I say you're now being a class-A jerk, Nick.



Paul, you;re so uptight if you f*rted your boots would fly off. Don't be so serious.

Well, your post is still as off-topic as mine, and it's still mis-directed at me instead of at moriarti who originated this off-topicness, so I say you're now being a class-A jerk, Nick.



Paul, you;re so uptight if you f*rted your boots would fly off. Don't be so serious.


I wondered what happened to my boots...

Oh! Now Paul is just going to love this:


The 2-meter rule is not being phased out in 2005. It is still in place.



A} That the 2MR as optional in 2005 is "a phase out of the 2MR" as many TDs exercise their liberation over course design during PDGAs. This opt out is new, and the number of events opting out will be a precursor to the number in 2006 that will see the PDGA Rules of Play as recommended by the PDGA Rules Committee in October of 2004, put into full effect. Where the 2 meter rule will be, at best, an option TDs may use if they specifically choose to. That or a mere echo of its former self, as an equivalent application of the OB rule..

B} It is in the rules book, yes, but it's days are numbered as a "REQUIREMENT" or "RESTRICTION".

Get used to it. TDs that give their competitors an experience according to this, and waive the 2 meter rule, will be doing them a service in preparing them for the future of disc golf..

Well, your post is still as off-topic as mine, and it's still mis-directed at me instead of at moriarti who originated this off-topicness, so I say you're now being a class-A jerk, Nick.



Paul, you;re so uptight if you f*rted your boots would fly off. Don't be so serious.


I wondered what happened to my boots...



Dude! They're up here in PA. I figure they must have hit Mach II in the upper atmosphere to get here that quickly!

Well, your post is still as off-topic as mine, and it's still mis-directed at me instead of at moriarti who originated this off-topicness, so I say you're now being a class-A jerk, Nick.



Paul, you;re so uptight if you f*rted your boots would fly off. Don't be so serious.


I wondered what happened to my boots...



Dude! They're up here in PA. I figure they must have hit Mach II in the upper atmosphere to get here that quickly!


Well, send 'em back! My feet are cold...

Oh! Now Paul is just going to love this:


The 2-meter rule is not being phased out in 2005. It is still in place.



A} That the 2MR as optional in 2005 is "a phase out of the 2MR" as many TDs exercise their liberation over course design during PDGAs. This opt out is new, and the number of events opting out will be a precursor to the number in 2006 that will see the PDGA Rules of Play as recommended by the PDGA Rules Committee in October of 2004, put into full effect. Where the 2 meter rule will be, at best, an option TDs may use if they specifically choose to. That or a mere echo of its former self, as an equivalent application of the OB rule..

B} It is in the rules book, yes, but it's days are numbered as a "REQUIREMENT" or "RESTRICTION".

Get used to it. TDs that give their competitors an experience according to this, and waive the 2 meter rule, will be doing them a service in preparing them for the future of disc golf..


I see your point, but the phrase "phase out" is more loaded to me than that. I guess I consider "phasing out" to mean that eventually the rule will be entirely gone, without even the option to reinstate it by any TD.

I mean, if the rule is "phased out" in 2005, then in 2006, when some TDs decide to reinstate the rule in their tournaments, that won't be called "phasing in" the rule, will it?

The BoD has cited their inability to get the new Rule book updated in time for 2005 as the reason we are merely phasing out the 2 meter rule in 2005 and delaying the full elimination of the 2 meter penalty (as per the PDGA Rules Committee recommendation) until 2006 (when a new Rule book will also eliminate the 2 meter penalty).



I think the above is why Rhett said anti-2MR crusaders are spreading mis-information. Your statement is not factual, Rob. The 2-meter rule is not being phased out in 2005. It is still in place. TDs may have a simpler means of waiving it than they've had in the past, but the rule isn't "phased out" for any tournament unless a TD explicitly makes it so.

And in 2006, if the BoD accepts the RC's recommendation, then the rule will be waived by default, unless TDs explicitly reinstate it. This is not the same as a "full elimination of the 2 meter penalty", because the option still remains to reinstate it.
So, it looks like Rhett has a point, doesn't it?



As a default rule, the 2 meter rule is being phased out. The only reason it isn't gone is a logistical problem in getting the PDGA Rulebook changed in time to reflect the elimination of the 2MR for 2005. Therefore 2005 is a transition year in which TD's no longer require any special permission from the PDGA Competition Director to waive the 2 meter rule for PDGA sanctioned tournaments, and then next year in 2006 -- with a new printing of the PDGA Rule book -- the 2MR will be effectively phased out as a default scenario.

If you are suggesting that TD's implementing the 2MR for particular holes or events in 2006 means the rule isn't being phased out, you're missing the point. The Rule book is changing because the 2MR is being eliminated. (see the PDGA radio segment from October 2004 entitled: "the end of the 2 meter rule")

The future will be PDGA play without a 2 meter rule as the default scenario. It's as simple as that and the present title of this thread adresses that fact.

...their liberation over course design ...








just wanted to actually make sure i was really reading this

Why are you associating those words/that quote with me?