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.]


I hear that in 2006, the 2MR will be completely gone. Is this true?

Is anyone interested in adding their name to a list of players that would like to see the 2MR rule NOT changed. Local C-Bus (actually, Delaware, OH) golfer Gordon Holton is interested in getting this started and asked me to post the question.

Thanks.

I hear that in 2006, the 2MR will be completely gone. Is this true?




No. At this point, the tentative rule change for 2006 is for the rule to applied on specific holes or whole courses as specified by the TD. So, if Ohio prefers to have the rule in place on every hole on every course, they would be able to continue as if nothing had changed.

thanks for the option of voting Yes AND No... i did because i am totally opposed to removing it for within 10M, but totally support removing it for outside of that range.

I voted no because I would want the TD or Course Pro to decide where and when to use it.

I voted yes because I believe the "play it as it lies" concept too central to the theme of golf to allow for unlimited penalty free vertical relief on any course and in any tournament that is PDGA sanctioned.

Keep the rule! Only Crappy shots end up in trees anyways! :cool:

I voted yes because I believe the "play it as it lies" concept too central to the theme of golf to allow for unlimited penalty free vertical relief on any course and in any tournament that is PDGA sanctioned.



Fantastic, then I expect to see you bring your clubs out at the next event Steve. Should be interesting....

Ball golf "plays it where it lies". The location of the ball.
Disc golf "plays it where the lie is". The mark on the playing surface.

If you are contending that in disc golf the lie is up in the tree, then:
A) The tree must be considered playing surface and therefore the disc is NOT 2 meters above the playing surface.
B) There should be no relief for discs above the playing surface below 2 meters. (Not having to have a supporting point on a lie 5 foot 5 inches up in the center of a thick cedar at release, but instead on the playing surface with a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through can't be considered "insignificant relief, can it?)

The difference is significant, and meaningful to this discussion. In all instances of a disc above the playing surface we mark "the lie" on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest. Regardless of how high. This is indisputable.

I think the more relavent point is that for any disc above the playing surface at any level, we are taking relief.

Why is some vertical relief OK ?

Either you play it where it lies, or you take relief. If you should be penalized for taking relief, then take penalties every time you take relief.

I think the more relavent point is that for any disc above the playing surface at any level, we are taking relief.

Why is some vertical relief OK ?

Either you play it where it lies, or you take relief. If you should be penalized for taking relief, then take penalties every time you take relief.



If marking your lie on the playing surface truly represents taking relief I agree. But that we never play the disc "where it lies" I do not know if I agree that vertical relief can be 100% equated to hoizontal (OB, type) relief. I am not necessarily against penalizing such relief, I just want it to be 100% consistent, one way or the other (and IMO no one is in a better position to decide which way than the TD at each event, or the course pro at each course, hence I do not like blanket hazard rules).

Ball golf "plays it where it lies". The location of the ball.
Disc golf "plays it where the lie is". The mark on the playing surface.

If you are contending that in disc golf the lie is up in the tree, then:
A) The tree must be considered playing surface and therefore the disc is NOT 2 meters above the playing surface.
B) There should be no relief for discs above the playing surface below 2 meters. (Not having to have a supporting point on a lie 5 foot 5 inches up in the center of a thick cedar at release, but instead on the playing surface with a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through can't be considered "insignificant relief, can it?)

The difference is significant, and meaningful to this discussion. In all instances of a disc above the playing surface we mark "the lie" on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest. Regardless of how high. This is indisputable.


This is one of the more interesting posts you've written, Nick. If you stick with this line of reasoning, then I take it that you're looking for a consistent set of rules, and that you have a problem with providing vertical relief below 2m without a penalty. I think the answer to your request might be to have no 2MR as well as no vertical relief for the disc of any kind. If no vertical relief is provided, then if one can't throw from the lie in a tree, then both vertical and horizontal relief is granted with a penalty, per the unsafe lie rule. Right?

I think the problem with this is that some people will actually attempt to climb some trees to throw their discs, possibly risking themselves and/or the tree. I think that is partly why the 2MR exists (a de facto unsafe lie rule), to prevent people from attempting such a thing to avoid a penalty. But without the two rules: the 2MR and the vertical relief to a playing-surface lie, then it all falls to the unsafe lie rule, which might give you the consistency you're looking for. Do I have this right?

Free relief is given when you are within 1 meter of OB. You get up to 1 meter relief perpendicular to the OB even if it takes you closer to the hole.

Keeping our rules of play in mind, getting free relief from a lie above the playing surface but within some set distance from the playing surface is perfectly consistent with our rules of play. There is no controversy here. Keep the 2 meter rule, and move along now.

This poll is so sad. We are a house divided. :D

Hey how many 2MR debate threads do we need? I thought this thread was intended for voting in the poll. Giving a brief explanation as to why you voted the way you did is tolerable, but shouldn't we keep our debates on the other thread?




B) There should be no relief for discs above the playing surface below 2 meters. (Not having to have a supporting point on a lie 5 foot 5 inches up in the center of a thick cedar at release, but instead on the playing surface <font color="red"> with a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through </font>
can't be considered "insignificant relief, can it?)



Didn't wanna extend a debate over here but........where the he77#%! are you getting this from? How does marking your disc directly under a suspended disc give a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through. In some circumstances that may be true ( certainly not in the case you're citing in this post ) but most often you're encombered in someway. (ie. having to stoop or crouch below low hanging branches, short arming a follow through or having to go to a secondary shot since your primary option is dangerous or impractical)

The good news is the current rule and the expected 2006 version will give every course designer/TD who actually sets the penalty situations on a course the options they need. This poll is unnecessary as are the overall disagreements at this point. I suggest the venue for disagreements should move to course by course local discussions as to whether the TD/designer applied the penalty situations well on that specific hole and/or course.

Looks like the MN tour TDs polled so far (I'm not one of them and didn't persuade anyone) will not have 2m penalties. They account for about 10 PDGA events. We'll probably try some innovation on a few holes at the Mid-Nationals in lieu of a blanket 2m penalty. I suggest posters check and see what their local TDs plan to do and focus their persuasion efforts there if needed. There's more than enough ammuniton already posted here to support any position.

Posting here what TDs and designers in different areas plan to do might be more valuable to posters rather than continuing to hash over the same points. Seems like that gives a better idea of what the competitive scene will be like this year. The 2005 PDGA TD report has a box for TDs to indicate whether they used the blanket 2m rule, just on some holes, or on no holes, so we can monitor what actually happened this year.

The good news is the current rule and the expected 2006 version will give every course designer/TD who actually sets the penalty situations on a course the options they need.


They always had those options given rule 804.01 regarding special conditions. Didn't they?

Yes. But now it has more of an 'official' green light as an option which many TDs are embracing.

Hey how many 2MR debate threads do we need? I thought this thread was intended for voting in the poll. Giving a brief explanation as to why you voted the way you did is tolerable, but shouldn't we keep our debates on the other thread?




B) There should be no relief for discs above the playing surface below 2 meters. (Not having to have a supporting point on a lie 5 foot 5 inches up in the center of a thick cedar at release, but instead on the playing surface <font color="red"> with a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through </font>
can't be considered "insignificant relief, can it?)



Didn't wanna extend a debate over here but........where the he77#%! are you getting this from? How does marking your disc directly under a suspended disc give a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through. In some circumstances that may be true ( certainly not in the case you're citing in this post ) but most often you're encombered in someway. (ie. having to stoop or crouch below low hanging branches, short arming a follow through or having to go to a secondary shot since your primary option is dangerous or impractical)



This is all very interesting Steve, but would you mind answering my question?

Do you consider a lie to be where the disc comes to rest, or where the lie is marked on the playing surface?

Is not 6 feet 6 inches relief, if you believe the lie is where the disc comes to rest rather than the mark on the playing surface, significant?

Can you directly answer those two questions?

there are two lies - the first is where the disc came to rest. the second is from where it is marked and played. oh yeah, the third lie is that all relief is the same.

The more I read about this issue the more I like the idea that the lie is where the disc comes to rest. If that is 10 feet up a tree, then that is the lie (treat the LOP as if it is in two dimensions; dimension one is from the basket along the ground and dimension two is from the basket at the height of the disc). Steve's idea (I think it was Steve's, and probably didn't originate with him) that the rule requiring the player to play the lie by placing his/her foot on the LOP within 30 cm behind their disc, and that the disc position is inviolate, works for me. If you move the disc it is relief and requires a stroke. Under this situation, if the disc is in a tree, if you can put your foot behind it, then you play it from there; thus you eliminate the 2 meter rule. However, since we don't want people climbing trees we modify the rule that states one foot must be on the playing surface to enforce the idea that the playing surface has to be on the ground/grass/artificial surface covering the ground. This rule would slightly favor taller players but honestly, anyone doing the splits to place one foot up a tree any distance much over a foot is not going to get a great throw so the height advantage will be minimal.

The same rule works for throws in a shrub. If you can lift your foot up to the height of the disc in the shrub then you can play it from there. Otherwise you play it from the ground and take a relief stroke as in ball golf. Remember that if you move your foot out of the LOP prior to release it is a stroke, i.e. why risk it, take your relief stroke and play on the playing surface (maybe give the player a 1 meter zone of relief).

The only weakness has been pointed out by Nick (and others) in the past, what about grass? If your disc is three inches off the ground due to grass, do you play as if the surface is the dirt underneath or the height of the disc? This is common sense to me. We all know the difference between a shrub and ground cover (no matter how dense the ground cover might be), but in particularly onerous cases the TD would be required to define before a tournament... i.e. the ground cover on hole 11 on the left side of the fairway is considered playing surface even though it is 1.5 feet high.

This solution ends the two-meter rule, it still punishes people for errant throws and, most importantly, it will irritate people on both sides of the argument. :D

(maybe give the player a 1 meter zone of relief).


Now that you're starting to understand the 2-meter rule, it won't be long until you realize that 2-meter vertical relief is analogous to 1-meter horizontal relief. :)

<font size=-5>Our stance rules do not require that you place one of your feet on the playing surface on the LOP and within 30cm, they require a supporting point. A supporting point can be a foot, a knee, a hand, a chin, etc. Holding your hand at "the lie" 1.5 meters up in a tree is pretty easy to do, but it will affect your throw. Marking the lie on the playing surface and playing from there actually makes the game easier.</font>

Laughing hard now... :D

Actually, what I meant was that if you are going to stroke the player for moving his or her disc down from a tree or bush you might as well give him or her some relief from the tree or bush as part of the penalty, i.e the relief isn't free, the player payed for it.

Our stance rules do not require that you place one of your feet on the playing surface on the LOP and within 30cm, they require a supporting point. A supporting point can be a foot, a knee, a hand, a chin, etc. Holding your hand at "the lie" 1.5 meters up in a tree is pretty easy to do, but it will affect your throw. Marking the lie on the playing surface and playing from there actually makes the game easier.




If only I had read more closely... Actually this is harder than some might think. The key term is "supporting point." That is, if your disc is over your head and you put your hand there, that hand has to be a supporting point, it has to hold at least as much of your weight as any other supporting point. I'm dying to see someone toss a disc while hanging from a branch. A better shot would be to hook your legs over the branch and throw upside down... :D

Actually, what I meant was that if you are going to stroke the player for moving his or her disc down from a tree or bush you might as well give him or her some relief from the tree or bush as part of the penalty, i.e the relief isn't free, the player payed for it.



Call it unsafe and give them relief upto 5m no closer to the hole, with the 1 shot penalty. Wait, that sounds familiar..... ;)

803.05 :)

The key term is "supporting point." That is, if your disc is over your head and you put your hand there, that hand has to be a supporting point, it has to hold at least as much of your weight as any other supporting point.

all supporting points are not required to support equal weights. (in fact if you read your own sentence more closely, you will see an inherent difference in there already.) since any contact at all will exert some force upon the tree/branch/whatever, it can be assumed that contact = support. no where does it say that the support must be in an upward direction either - so lateral and even downward support are clearly permitted within the scope of our rules.

now, i am 6'0" and can reach to about 8'. a 5'0" player could likely reach to what, gosh, its the magic number - 6'6"!!! so basically 98% of all players, not counting junios, can reach to 2M. what an amazing coincidence.

i better stop, lest based on realworld sanity i withdraw my support for a limited removal of the 2MR :)

Hey how many 2MR debate threads do we need?

At least five.

This is all very interesting Steve, but would you mind answering my question?
<font color="red">No, Nick I don't mind ( just as long you don't continue asking the same questions in different wording) </font>

Do you consider a lie to be where the disc comes to rest, or where the lie is marked on the playing surface?

<font color="red"> The lie is where the disc came to rest. For practicality purposes we mark our lies on the playing surface directly below any suspended lies whether the suspension be 2 inches or 100 feet (or any other heighth for that matter) </font>


Is not 6 feet 6 inches relief, if you believe the lie is where the disc comes to rest rather than the mark on the playing surface, significant?

<font color="red"> Six feet, six inches (aka 2meters) is the maximum allowable heigth a suspended lie can be without incurring a 2MR penalty stroke (somehow I think you knew this already didn't you?)
As far as the term relief , yes you could refer to this as relief if you choose. I tend to think of it as a tolerance not unlike the one meter you are permitted to move your lie perpendicuilarly from an OB boundary. Also the up to three meters you are allowed to tee behind the front edge of a tee pad. Or the 30cm one supporting point may be placed behind your marker disc.
As far as the term significant no I don't consider it significant since you basically have the same shot. By same shot I'm talking same line to the hole, same obstacles in the way, same wind conditions and the shot would require the same disc attitude. By contrast, if you were playing a lie with the same linear positioning but at a heigth of 25 feet above the playing surface, many if not all of these conditions would likely be different and at from that heighth relief would be significant when moved to the playing surface</font>

Can you directly answer those two questions?

[/QUOTE]

<font color="red"> I believe I just did. I suppose you now have another question for me? Or are you just going to attack my answers for now? </font>

You weren't supposed to read it that closely Pat. I was working towards getting to see Nick hanging from one hand while putting out... Now you've ruined it! :D

Hey how many 2MR debate threads do we need?

At least five.

What he said.

Ok Steve, now I have to add a few notes.

<font color="blue">"The lie is where the disc came to rest."</font>

<font color="blue">As far as the term relief , yes you could refer to this as relief if you choose.<font color="red"> Based on your earlier statement, it is relief, no choice. The definition of relief would be moving your lie for to make it easier or possible to play.</font> I tend to think of it as a tolerance not unlike the one meter you are permitted to move your lie perpendicuilarly from an OB boundary.<font color="red"> You are not allowed a meter from an OB bourndary as a "tolerance" it is provided to insure a legal stance can be taken.</font> Also the up to three meters you are allowed to tee behind the front edge of a tee pad.<font color="red"> Three meters is the defined length of a tee pad when a permanent pad is not provided</font> Or the 30cm one supporting point may be placed behind your marker disc. <font color="red"> 30cm is the approximate size of the thrown disc that was removed and marked by the marker </font></font>

<font color="red">These are not allowances but reasonable distances for specific purposes. The 2m distance (a height easily reached by the majority of players) is the same thing, but I am not sure why the retrievability of a disc determines whether a penalty is incurred or free relief is granted. </font>

<font color="blue">As far as the term significant no I don't consider it significant since you basically have the same shot. By same shot I'm talking same line to the hole, same obstacles in the way, same wind conditions and the shot would require the same disc attitude. By contrast, if you were playing a lie with the same linear positioning but at a heigth of 25 feet above the playing surface, many if not all of these conditions would likely be different and at from that heighth relief would be significant when moved to the playing surface</font><font color="red"> Are you saying that if you were required to have a point of contact immediately behind a disc suspended 6' from the ground that you would be able to execute the same shot as when the lie is marked on the ground below that spot ? </font>

I don't really care how you feel about whether the rule stays or goes, but relief is relief whether vertical or horizontal. As the rule stands, you are allowed up to 2m of free vertical relief when suspended, just as you are allowed up to 1m of horizontal relief when resting beside an OB boundary. With the OB, there is the concern that a legal stance may not be possible.

Just two questions.

What is the concern that requires a lie be moved to the ground when suspended below 2m ?

Why is that concern different when the lie is above 2m ?

This is all very interesting Steve, but would you mind answering my question?
<font color="red">No, Nick I don't mind ( just as long you don't continue asking the same questions in different wording) </font>
<font color="blue">Great! Thank you. I promise not to ask the same question in a different way unless I need further clarification of something very specific. </font>

Do you consider a lie to be where the disc comes to rest, or where the lie is marked on the playing surface?
<font color="red"> The lie is where the disc came to rest. For practicality purposes we mark our lies on the playing surface directly below any suspended lies whether the suspension be 2 inches or 100 feet (or any other heighth for that matter) </font>
<font color="blue">Directly from our current PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf book: </font>

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


<font color="blue">This seems to clearly state that the �lie� is not where the disc comes to rest but instead where the mark is made on the playing surface, does it not? Now if you want to contend that the playing surface is also the tree surface, that is fine, but then it would not be 2 meters above the playing surface would it? </font>

Is not 6 feet 6 inches relief, if you believe the lie is where the disc comes to rest rather than the mark on the playing surface, significant?
<font color="red"> Six feet, six inches (aka 2meters) is the maximum allowable heigth a suspended lie can be without incurring a 2MR penalty stroke (somehow I think you knew this already didn't you?)
As far as the term relief , yes you could refer to this as relief if you choose. I tend to think of it as a tolerance not unlike the one meter you are permitted to move your lie perpendicuilarly from an OB boundary. Also the up to three meters you are allowed to tee behind the front edge of a tee pad. Or the 30cm one supporting point may be placed behind your marker disc.
As far as the term significant no I don't consider it significant since you basically have the same shot. By same shot I'm talking same line to the hole, same obstacles in the way, same wind conditions and the shot would require the same disc attitude. By contrast, if you were playing a lie with the same linear positioning but at a heigth of 25 feet above the playing surface, many if not all of these conditions would likely be different and at from that heighth relief would be significant when moved to the playing surface</font>
<font color="blue"> According to our PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf book marking your lie on the playing surface does not constitute �relief�. For one thing it is not in the 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF rule, where all relief is defined, for another it is not described in any terms as �relief� in the 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE rule. Can you show me where it is?</font>

Can you directly answer those two questions?

<font color="red"> I believe I just did. I suppose you now have another question for me? Or are you just going to attack my answers for now? </font>
<font color="blue"> Yes, and thanks. I don�t plan on attacking you or your answers, just discussing the issue at hand. Why do you want me too?</font>

The key term is "supporting point." That is, if your disc is over your head and you put your hand there, that hand has to be a supporting point, it has to hold at least as much of your weight as any other supporting point.

all supporting points are not required to support equal weights. (in fact if you read your own sentence more closely, you will see an inherent difference in there already.) since any contact at all will exert some force upon the tree/branch/whatever, it can be assumed that contact = support. no where does it say that the support must be in an upward direction either - so lateral and even downward support are clearly permitted within the scope of our rules.

now, i am 6'0" and can reach to about 8'. a 5'0" player could likely reach to what, gosh, its the magic number - 6'6"!!! so basically 98% of all players, not counting junios, can reach to 2M. what an amazing coincidence.

i better stop, lest based on realworld sanity i withdraw my support for a limited removal of the 2MR :)



I'd like to see you throw a 350 foot approach hyzer shot with one supporting point 6 foot 6 inches up. I suspect it would be slightly more difficult than doing so with one supporting point on the playing surface.

This discussion is a non-point however in light of the two facts that our rules stipulate that our lie is the point on the playing surface below the disc and that trees are not considered playing surface (otherwise no point upon them could be considered above the playing surface, could it?).

Actually, what I meant was that if you are going to stroke the player for moving his or her disc down from a tree or bush you might as well give him or her some relief from the tree or bush as part of the penalty, i.e the relief isn't free, the player payed for it.



Call it unsafe and give them relief upto 5m no closer to the hole, with the 1 shot penalty. Wait, that sounds familiar..... ;)

803.05 :)



I'd agree but for the simple and absolute fact that "your lie" by rule is not up in the tree but on the playing surface beneath the tree. Now if you want to make the tree included in the definition of "playing surface" I am fine with that, but that would make any disc up in a tree, no matter how high, still resting on the playing surface wouldn't it...

What I want to do is separate the lie from the playing surface. The ground is the playing surface the lie is wherever the disc comes to rest. You have to have one foot (or as Pat points out, one hand) in the LOP, i.e. just behind the lie and one foot or hand on the playing surface. If the lie is on the playing surface your in good shape, if it is sufficiently far above your head then you have to obtain relief and it is a stroke. This isn't how I first laid this out but Pat's assertion that placing a hand in the LOP is sufficient has caused a modification. I am willing to accept that taller players have an advantage albiet they are still throwing with one hand on the tree and can't release until the disc has left their throwing hand. I think this is sufficiently distracting that many will take relief. The beauty of this approach is that it makes the decision the players: "should I throw with my hand on the tree or take relief?"

Tony has built on this by saying if they take relief then incorporate it into our current rules structure, call it an unsafe lie and give them 5 meters. I can accept that.

What I want to do is separate the lie from the playing surface. The ground is the playing surface the lie is wherever the disc comes to rest. You have to have one foot (or as Pat points out, one hand) in the LOP, i.e. just behind the lie and one foot or hand on the playing surface. If the lie is on the playing surface your in good shape, if it is sufficiently far above your head then you have to obtain relief and it is a stroke. This isn't how I first laid this out but Pat's assertion that placing a hand in the LOP is sufficient has caused a modification. I am willing to accept that taller players have an advantage albiet they are still throwing with one hand on the tree and can't release until the disc has left their throwing hand. I think this is sufficiently distracting that many will take relief. The beauty of this approach is that it makes the decision the players: "should I throw with my hand on the tree or take relief?"

Tony has built on this by saying if they take relief then incorporate it into our current rules structure, call it an unsafe lie and give them 5 meters. I can accept that.



Lyle, you are talking about fundamentally changing the primary rule of disc golf: the lie. This is a can of worms I do not think it advisable to open. There is a ton of logic behind having it on the playing surface, too numerous to mention, and next to none in having it be where the disc comes to rest (particularly since we "never" actually throw from where it came to rest).

But I like worms Nick. When the lure fails they almost always get something...

Good points Nick but here is another view. I am more comfortable with the notion that the lie is what it is than it is on the playing surface. First, my limited understanding of ball golf is that this is more consistent with our "father" sport. Not to say that should matter. Second, it's more consistent with the notion of "play the disc from where it lands as much so as you can." The obvious observation that we don't play the disc from where it lands notwithstanding, there is a consitancy to the action of walking to the place your disc has landed, picking it up, and throwing it from that position with a body part placed in conjunction with that position. If you are required to change that basic formula due to the place your disc has landed, in my opinion, you have taken relief and should be stroked. This seems to be much simpler than what we currently are doing and is more consistent with the spirit of the sport than flat elimination of the 2 meter rule.

The fact that some players are taller is a fact and our attempts to compensate for it may rest in our forebearers trying to make things equal to all. The reality is that tall players have an advantage, we short players (I'm 5'8" thank you) have to deal with it.

Hey how many 2MR debate threads do we need?

At least five.

What he said.



I think we should have seven threads. Seven is a much better number and I think with seven threads the issue would become clear to all posters everywhere!

What is easier to codify is a difference between the lie and the mark. The mark is on the playing surface, the lie is where the disc came to rest. If your disc comes to rest inbounds and on the playing surface then they can be the same, and you have the option of using the thrown disc as the mark or using a mini. If you land OB, suspended, or within 1 meter of OB and wish to take relief you must use a mini.

This all works within the framework of our rules with no inconsistencies. Call over 2 meters what you want: unsafe, unreachable, unplayable, untenable, or simply "over 2 meters". Playing a disc suspended less than 2 meters is, for a vast majority of golfers, very possible. Take your 2 meter free relief directly below in order to take a legal stance per out rules. (Which require contact with the playing surface within 30cm and on the LOP.)

What's the problem?

Is it the measure of 2 meters itself and not the concept? Well, why do you get 1 meter from OB? Everyone I know can take a legal straddle stance with 0.5 meter relief. If the 2 meters were 1 meter would you all not have a problem with it?

Lyle,

If we want to call where the disc came to rest our "lie" then by all means let's do so, that would be a completely new rule with a completely new understanding. Playing surface would also need to be redefined; in fact it would have to include all surfaces where a disc could possibly come to rest. This would also represent the death knell for the 2MR in that unless the disc was levitating, it could never be 2 meters above the playing surface, since everything is the playing surface.

If we changed the rule, then marking your lie on the playing surface below would represent �taking relief�. Since the rule remains as defined within our rules of play, marking your lie on the playing surface is most definitely NOT taking relief, no more than picking your disc up, having a supporting point on the lie, and flinging it from a completely different position is.

Nick

What is easier to codify is a difference between the lie and the mark. The mark is on the playing surface, the lie is where the disc came to rest.



Not according to our rules it's not:


806 GLOSSARY
Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.
Line of Play: The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond.

<font color="purple"> </font>
<font color="blue">Directly from our current PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf book: </font>

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


<font color="blue">This seems to clearly state that the “lie” is not where the disc comes to rest but instead where the mark is made on the playing surface, does it not? Now if you want to contend that the playing surface is also the tree surface, that is fine, but then it would not be 2 meters above the playing surface would it? </font>

<font color="purple"> I believe there are many implications of rules that may not be specificly stated because the end result is the same and the extra explanation would seem unneccessary. I contend while not specificly stated in our rules, that our initial lie is where our discs came to rest. In the event it happens to be a suspended lie our lie is then marked directly below the suspended location and then this becomes the lie from which we take our stance. Placing a supporting point behind a suspended lie would be impractical at best and impossible at worst, therefore our lies are moved to the playing surface below.</font>

<font color="orange">Is not 6 feet 6 inches relief, </font>if you believe the lie is where the disc comes to rest rather than the mark on the playing surface, significant?
<font color="red"> Six feet, six inches (aka 2meters) is the maximum allowable heigth a suspended lie can be without incurring a 2MR penalty stroke (somehow I think you knew this already didn't you?)
As far as the term relief , yes you could refer to this as relief if you choose. I tend to think of it as a tolerance not unlike the one meter you are permitted to move your lie perpendicuilarly from an OB boundary. Also the up to three meters you are allowed to tee behind the front edge of a tee pad. Or the 30cm one supporting point may be placed behind your marker disc.
As far as the term significant no I don't consider it significant since you basically have the same shot. By same shot I'm talking same line to the hole, same obstacles in the way, same wind conditions and the shot would require the same disc attitude. By contrast, if you were playing a lie with the same linear positioning but at a heigth of 25 feet above the playing surface, many if not all of these conditions would likely be different and at from that heighth relief would be significant when moved to the playing surface</font>
<font color="blue"> According to our PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf book marking your lie on the playing surface does not constitute “relief”. For one thing it is not in the 803.04 OBSTACLES & RELIEF rule, where all relief is defined, for another it is not described in any terms as “relief” in the 803.07 DISC ABOVE THE PLAYING SURFACE rule.</font> <font color="orange"> Can you show me where it is? </font>

<font color="purple"> Yes it is found in the form of a question posed to me in your prior post.

I find your debate tactics amusing. You pose a question using a term that is apparently erroneous in the context in which you ask it, and instead of splitting hairs I answer it using your term in the context you posed the question and then you respond by saying I'm the one using an erroneous term. </font>

Can you directly answer those two questions?

<font color="red"> I believe I just did. I suppose you now have another question for me? Or are you just going to attack my answers for now? </font>
<font color="blue"> Yes, and thanks. I don’t plan on attacking you or your answers, just discussing the issue at hand. Why do you want me too?</font>



<font color="purple"> No I was not expressing a wish, just an expectation. </font>

[QUOTE]
<font color="green"> Are you saying that if you were required to have a point of contact immediately behind a disc suspended 6' from the ground that you would be able to execute the same shot as when the lie is marked on the ground below that spot ? </font>

<font color="red">No that's not what I'm saying. As Nick and I have concluded, no one plays their lie from the playing surface. We place a supporting point on a mark on the playing surface and then we play (release) our shot from wherever is comfortable and/or advantageous for us, all the while maintaining aforementioned supporting point. Most people play their shots from waist high with a standard backhand throw, which often times may be a meter or more away from the supporting point. While in a sense we are taking relief everytime we throw, it is not significant relief (it is within what Nick has termed our lie bubble ). If we throw (release) a disc from a heigth of one meter we are playing it from a heigth that is equidistant from playing surface and a heigth of two meters. Therefore, allowing a player to play a shot from a lie that was originally 1.9 meters high is not allowing any more relief than is generally taken nearly everytime a disc is thrown (subsequent the drive) </font>

I don't really care how you feel about whether the rule stays or goes, but relief is relief whether vertical or horizontal. As the rule stands, you are allowed up to 2m of free vertical relief when suspended, just as you are allowed up to 1m of horizontal relief when resting beside an OB boundary. <font color="orange"> With the OB, there is the concern that a legal stance may not be possible.</font>

Just two questions.

<font color="green">What is the concern that requires a lie be moved to the ground when suspended below 2m ?</font>
<font color="red">
The same as you just stated for OB. I suppose there could be other issues as well like player safety, tree safety and the ability to keep a mini in place from a suspended lie.</font>

<font color="green">Why is that concern different when the lie is above 2m ? </font>
<font color="red">
In either case you are moving your lie to the playing surface. The reason you are taking a stroke for a 5m lie and not a 1.9m lie is that moving a lie 5m is substancial relief.( if you hypothetically could levitate to the 5m location you would encounter a shot that would be significantly different than from either the playing surface or 1.9m).</font>

Misconception: The lie is where the disc comes to rest.
Actual Rule: 806 GLOSSARY Lie: The spot on the playing surface upon which the player takes his or her stance in accordance with the rules.
Stretched Conception: We mark our lie on the playing surface within when the original lie is within 2 meters because it is an acceptable amount of relief, based on the �average reach theory�.
Actual Rule: Relief: A change made to the player's lie or surrounding area, such that an obstacle is removed from the vicinity, or when that is impractical, the lie is relocated away from the obstacle in accordance with section 803.04 C. (In which there is no mention of �relief for discs above the playing surface� and neither is there any mention of relief within the �Disc Above the Playing Surface� rule. Under current rules (including the 2MR it simply is not relief (period) .)
If you want to change our rules to make it relief, fine, but then you will have to deal with the challenge of the definition of lie and playing surface and TDs needing to stipulate special conditions to keep players out of climbing their trees and bushes.

Steve,

You need to use a different method of differentiating your words from others. Try using initials before the quoted lines.

I'd answer the general tenor of your post as follows: Marking your lie on the playing surface does not represent relief in reality or within our rules. It may seem it, but it simply is not. There for whether the disc is 1, 2 or 20M off the playing surface is of no consequence to lie or relief. Relief is either the moving of the mark on the paying surface or moving obstacles around the mark on the playing surface.

If you can show me where it says otherwise in our rules I will consider your argument pertinent to the discussion. That or if you plan to start a campaign to change what relief and lie are defined as within our rules.

I may be wrong (and usually am) but I think what Steve is saying, our rules notwithstanding, is that the reality is that where the disc comes to rest is it's lie.

Our rules bend reality to fit our desire to play from the ground but that is artificial (even if it is easier to enforce and measure). Only our definition makes the lie on the ground. The reality is that the disc comes to rest where it comes to rest. If we are to, as many advocate, play from where the disc comes to rest, then we need to acknowledge that moving the disc to the ground after it comes to rest in a tree is relief and should be stroked. Our rules, as they currently exist, ignor the basic tenant of, play it from where it comes to rest. The reason for that is we don't want people to climb trees. Fine, if you can reach the disc, play it with some part of your body in conjunction to the disc (i.e change the rules to encompass this possibility*). If not, take relief and a stroke.

*Keep in mind that a disc suspended in a bush could only be played from that point if we changed the definition of supporting point to include a hand gripping the bush or to change the rule such that any part of the body in the LOP within 30 cm of the lie at release is sufficient to assume the player is in close proximity to the lie.

That or if you plan to start a campaign to change what relief and lie are defined as within our rules.

thats perhaps a better solution/starting point that just blasting away the 2MR.

funny Nick how when you disagree with a rule that is in our rulebook you are all over it as being unnecessary, ill-advised, whatever, but when the rule book lends some arcane support to your position then you become all about the infallibility of the rules.

Now Pat,

We all argue those points we want supported using the best tools available.

The one I like best is the posters who berate those who don't want to change a rule as being afraid of change when they want a modification and then on a different thread will wax poetic about how necessary a rule is. Oh wait, isn't that what you just said. :D

BTW - I don't think Nick is doing that. He is trying to get a clarification; if someone is proposing that the rules be changed then he wants them to define their argument as such. Sooooo, that is exactly what I am proposing. I think we need to change the rules to say that the lie is what it is. Then let the chips fall where they will. If you take relief then you get stroked. Very simple.

That or if you plan to start a campaign to change what relief and lie are defined as within our rules.

thats perhaps a better solution/starting point that just blasting away the 2MR.



Why do that when eliminating the 2MR entails no other adjustments to our rules. Simple.

You are concerned about the areas within 10 meters of the pin. Then have at it. There are any variety of ways to deal with it already within our current rules (minus the 2 meter rule).

Sorry, I am done responding to pointless hostility Pat. Just give me the meat and potatos of your arguments and leave the garnish in the kitchen...

Sooooo, that is exactly what I am proposing. I think we need to change the rules to say that the lie is what it is. Then let the chips fall where they will. If you take relief then you get stroked. Very simple.



Please clarify exactly how something like that would be possible. I don't see a need for it, but I will entertain the idea.

One possibility I would be interested in exploring is the "reach rule". Something like first you mark your lie on the playing surface and if with one supporting point in contact with your lie you are able to reach up through the branches and retrieve the disc, then you may play it with no penalty. It plays exactly as the 2 meter rule but with the spirit of the rule apparent rather than implied or hidden ( and of course no measurement needed).

This could cause some interesting situations beyond tall people having a seeming advantage. Say the disc is only 1.5 meters up but when the player crawls into the tree and places a supporting point on the lie beneath the disc, they find it impossible to reach up and get the disc? The only way, as has been seen countless times is to lie down and stick your leg and foot way under there, so there is no way you are going to reach a disc even 1 meter above the playing surface in that position, right?

The one concern I have is this; won�t such a rule end up endangering the lower branches of a bunch of trees? Wouldn�t you rather folks just stay out of and away from trees all together? I know I would. If there is a tree that has fragile lower branches, that I as a TD or Course Designer want to protect (in order to maintain a consistent level of challenge) wouldn�t it be more effective to just string off the area beneath that tree as OB, so no one is in there either trying reach their disc or throw from in there?

(I�m interested in using the outermost edge of the canopy of the tree as the OB line upon which the vertical plane is based as well. It would be the call of the group, official or TD with the benefit of the doubt going to the thrower throughout.) But this is off topic, if the topic is the �lie is where the disc comes to rest�.

Lie: The exact location where the disc comes to rest.

So, some part of the body must occupy that space at the point of release, right? If that is not possible then a penalty throw must be incurred. To keep people out of the trees and bushes OB would have to be used. This would tend to favor taller players it would seem, not something I am necessarily against, since the alternative is to seemingly penalize them.

After reviewing these possibilities I have to say I am not as pleased with them as I would be with just dumping the 2 meter rule and keeping our current definition and use of �lie� as the place on the playing surface below the disc at rest, and letting TDs or Course Designers penalize or not according to their own individual preferences for a disc being a certain distance off the playing surface or for being supported by a playing surface of a different OB/IB status.

If I have missed your point Lyle, please clarify.

That is the point I've been trying to make.

If the lie is where the disc comes to rest, any movement of the lie is relief (by strict definition of relief, not curent DG rules).

If the complaint about the removal of the 2m rule is based on not allowing free relief, that argument should also apply to relief below 2m. You must have a point of contact immediately behind your marker disc (thrown disc in this case) when you release you shot, or you have a stance violation.

Or you take relief and mark the suspended lie on the playing surface. When should this relief be free ?

That's just it Gary, under current rules (minus the 2 meter rule) it is not relief. It is simply how we mark our lie on the playing surface.

The "CONSTANT" in disc golf's lie is the point on the playing surface which the thrower must have contact with at the time of release. The only relation it has with where the disc came to rest is that it is beneath it.

Why do that when eliminating the 2MR entails no other adjustments to our rules. Simple.


It is simple, so long as you ignore every point made to the contrary on this message board.

The difference is significant, and meaningful to this discussion. In all instances of a disc above the playing surface we mark "the lie" on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest. Regardless of how high. This is indisputable.


This is one of the more interesting posts you've written, Nick. If you stick with this line of reasoning, then I take it that you're looking for a consistent set of rules, and that you have a problem with providing vertical relief below 2m without a penalty. I think the answer to your request might be to have no 2MR as well as no vertical relief for the disc of any kind. If no vertical relief is provided, then if one can't throw from the lie in a tree, then both vertical and horizontal relief is granted with a penalty, per the unsafe lie rule. Right?

I think the problem with this is that some people will actually attempt to climb some trees to throw their discs, possibly risking themselves and/or the tree. I think that is partly why the 2MR exists (a de facto unsafe lie rule), to prevent people from attempting such a thing to avoid a penalty. But without the two rules: the 2MR and the vertical relief to a playing-surface lie, then it all falls to the unsafe lie rule, which might give you the consistency you're looking for. Do I have this right?


Well?

You have taken my words out of context, which I suppose is nearly impossible NOT to do here, here I return it to it�s orginal context:



I voted yes because I believe the "play it as it lies" concept too central to the theme of golf to allow for unlimited penalty free vertical relief on any course and in any tournament that is PDGA sanctioned.



Fantastic, then I expect to see you bring your clubs out at the next event Steve. Should be interesting....

Ball golf "plays it where it lies". The location of the ball.
Disc golf "plays it where the lie is". The mark on the playing surface.

If you are contending that in disc golf the lie is up in the tree, then:
A) The tree must be considered playing surface and therefore the disc is NOT 2 meters above the playing surface.
B) There should be no relief for discs above the playing surface below 2 meters. (Not having to have a supporting point on a lie 5 foot 5 inches up in the center of a thick cedar at release, but instead on the playing surface with a clear unhindered wind up throw and follow through can't be considered "insignificant relief, can it?)

The difference is significant, and meaningful to this discussion. In all instances of a disc above the playing surface we mark "the lie" on the playing surface directly below the disc at rest. Regardless of how high. This is indisputable.



Now to your questions:

This is one of the more interesting posts you've written, Nick. If you stick with this line of reasoning, then I take it that you're looking for a consistent set of rules, and that you have a problem with providing vertical relief below 2m without a penalty.


My statement is based on a hypothetic idea that our lie rule be changed from what is actually in our rule book:

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


To:
Lie: The spot where the disc comes to rest.
The challenge then of course would be to get all of the rest of the rules to be in �accordance� with this new definition. A major (and unnecessary) task in my opinion.
You see, under current rules, I do not see, nor do I think our rules support, the idea that marking your lie on the playing surface is in fact taking any relief at all.
But in the hypothetic, where the lie is where the disc came to rest (and not in accordance with current rules or definitions), moving said lie, at all, would constitute relief, and therefore fall under the Obstacles and relief rule (if that is also included in the hypothetical).
Meanwhile, back in reality, I don�t think anyone should be penalized for marking their disc on the playing surface at all, because short of the 2MR, it is not only permitted by the rules, it is actually required that you do so, and for any host of excellent and well-thought out reasons (no climbing trees, no having to stick your foot 4 feet off the ground into a bush that can�t support any weight and will likely suffer damage in taking the stance and throwing motion, etc).


If no vertical relief is provided, then if one can't throw from the lie in a tree, then both vertical and horizontal relief is granted with a penalty, per the unsafe lie rule. Right?


Again, within the hypothetical, the answer would be yes, the unsafe lie rule would be the only option left.

I think the problem with this is that some people will actually attempt to climb some trees to throw their discs, possibly risking themselves and/or the tree. I think that is partly why the 2MR exists (a de facto unsafe lie rule), to prevent people from attempting such a thing to avoid a penalty.


Within the hypothetical, I agree.

But without the two rules: the 2MR and the vertical relief to a playing-surface lie, then it all falls to the unsafe lie rule, which might give you the consistency you're looking for. Do I have this right?


Again, within the hypothetical, I agree. If the player cannot take a legal stance then it would fall to the unsafe lie rule. This would be consistent in my estimation.

However, consistency is available in a way that does not involve changing our definition of �lie�, and that is to simply remove the 2MR and allow TDs that want to enforce an OB penalty for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to do so. This option has that added benefit of not requiring any changes or additions to our rules other than the deletion of the 2MR. That is the best option as I see it.
I hope I have been clear.

[quote[...Again, within the hypothetical, I agree. If the player cannot take a legal stance then it would fall to the unsafe lie rule. This would be consistent in my estimation.

However, consistency is available in a way that does not involve changing our definition of �lie�, and that is to simply remove the 2MR and allow TDs that want to enforce an OB penalty for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to do so. This option has that added benefit of not requiring any changes or additions to our rules other than the deletion of the 2MR. That is the best option as I see it.
I hope I have been clear.

[/QUOTE]
Very clear! Thanks for the thorough explanations. You've given me something to think about.

[quote[...Again, within the hypothetical, I agree. If the player cannot take a legal stance then it would fall to the unsafe lie rule. This would be consistent in my estimation.

However, consistency is available in a way that does not involve changing our definition of �lie�, and that is to simply remove the 2MR and allow TDs that want to enforce an OB penalty for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to do so. This option has that added benefit of not requiring any changes or additions to our rules other than the deletion of the 2MR. That is the best option as I see it.
I hope I have been clear.


Very clear! Thanks for the thorough explanations. You've given me something to think about.

[/QUOTE]

Can't wait to here your conclusions. (No sarcasm implied or meant.)

However, consistency is available in a way that does not involve changing our definition of �lie�, and that is to simply remove the 2MR and allow TDs that want to enforce an OB penalty for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to do so. This option has that added benefit of not requiring any changes or additions to our rules other than the deletion of the 2MR.


I guess my first thought is that by discussing the retention or removal of the 2MR during the players' meeting, you potentially rankle a number of people before the tournament even starts. And the 2MR would certainly have less weight if the PDGA withdraws its support of it, making it harder for the TD to step out and re-instate it. So I'm wondering how many TDs will actually enforce a 2MR once it's written out of the rulebooks. Will they actually feel free to enforce it, if they want to?

My second thought is that removing the 2MR will at least have an impact on the lost disc rule. The rulebook will have to clarify what "lost" means when a disc is stuck high in a tree.

I'm still wondering if the unsafe lie rule can be expanded somehow to replace the 2MR without specifying the 2-meter height but also without redefining the "lie" of a disc. And by expanding the unsafe-lie rule, one takes both the TD and the lost-disc rule off the hook. If the TD wanted to, he could still impose OB in some areas where an unsafe lie would be questionable -- a way of reinstating the 2MR or some derivative. Or he could choose to establish a no-penalty drop zone for other unsafe lies -- a way of eliminating the 2MR. But if the TD says nothing at the players' meeting, then some form of unsafe lie rule could exist as a default to impose a penalty for some discs stuck in places where they shouldn't be stuck.

Maybe instead of "unsafe lie", something else called "unsafe retrieval"?...

Still thinking.

Cool, thanks for sharing your thought process.

Interesting that this post should happen now. I played in the North Side Freeze this Saturday and the only rule (besides beer and dope) that got mentioned was this one and that it was inforce. You might ask why?

The Conroe course, where this tournament is played, is a highly technical course that requires the player to throw through a number of small windows and gaps that are surrounded by trees and shrubery. The designers of the course obviously took the 2 M rule into account in development and designed a number of holes where a throw into trees, even a simple loft over the top of the basket is possible but unfavorable due to the possibility of sticking in a tree.

On the other hand, the designers often used the same philosophy to prevent players from doing just that. The overhand shot that would allow players to play in on top of the basket is often blocked close in to the T forcing the player to play the gaps and more difficult path. Perhaps Chuck and Nick are correct, good course design and good TDing are more than able to compensate for the the 2M rule. I could very well see specific holes on this course being designated 2M on so as to force the player to play a certain way and others where the key is to utilize other skills having no 2M rule. This is consistent also with the idea ( I think Pat and Chuck's) that the rule not be eliminated, just placed under the full control of the TD.

I'm ok with optional 2MR, I'm 100% ok with TDs making vertical OB hazards (even covering the entire course if they want). I bet those trees at that park Lyle would fair a good bit better if some of the key ones were OB beneath them (and not just a penalty throw for over 2 meters but for anywhere above the playing surface in them).

Hi Paul,

Is this it? Not complaining, I just thought there would be more to it.



However, consistency is available in a way that does not involve changing our definition of �lie�, and that is to simply remove the 2MR and allow TDs that want to enforce an OB penalty for a disc at rest 2 meters above the playing surface to do so. This option has that added benefit of not requiring any changes or additions to our rules other than the deletion of the 2MR.


I guess my first thought is that by discussing the retention or removal of the 2MR during the players' meeting, you potentially rankle a number of people before the tournament even starts. And the 2MR would certainly have less weight if the PDGA withdraws its support of it, making it harder for the TD to step out and re-instate it. So I'm wondering how many TDs will actually enforce a 2MR once it's written out of the rulebooks. Will they actually feel free to enforce it, if they want to?

My second thought is that removing the 2MR will at least have an impact on the lost disc rule. The rulebook will have to clarify what "lost" means when a disc is stuck high in a tree.

I'm still wondering if the unsafe lie rule can be expanded somehow to replace the 2MR without specifying the 2-meter height but also without redefining the "lie" of a disc. And by expanding the unsafe-lie rule, one takes both the TD and the lost-disc rule off the hook. If the TD wanted to, he could still impose OB in some areas where an unsafe lie would be questionable -- a way of reinstating the 2MR or some derivative. Or he could choose to establish a no-penalty drop zone for other unsafe lies -- a way of eliminating the 2MR. But if the TD says nothing at the players' meeting, then some form of unsafe lie rule could exist as a default to impose a penalty for some discs stuck in places where they shouldn't be stuck.

Maybe instead of "unsafe lie", something else called "unsafe retrieval"?...

Still thinking.

I think letting TD's decide is like haning different state laws for alcohol, and so on, and nobody likes that so we should try to make the rule the same for all tournaments. You don't see different water rules on The PGA, if it's in the water it's stroke everywhere.

I think letting TD's decide is like haning different state laws for alcohol, and so on, and nobody likes that so we should try to make the rule the same for all tournaments. You don't see different water rules on The PGA, if it's in the water it's stroke everywhere.


Is that correct? I've seen on TV some players carefully taking off a shoe and sock, rolling up their pant leg, stepping into water to hit out of shallow water at PGA events. Did they stop that?

No, that's not correct. Water is usually a Lateral Hazard in ball golf. The player has the option to play out of the water or take a drop and a stroke penalty.

No, that's not correct. Water is usually a Lateral Hazard in ball golf. The player has the option to play out of the water or take a drop and a stroke penalty.



Huh? :confused: So they can't carefully taking off a shoe and sock, rolling up their pant leg, stepping into water to hit out of shallow water at PGA events but they have the option to play out of the water? Is it me or do those sound strangely, almost eerily similar?

Anyhoo, I�m outta here for 5 days so have at it, let�s see some excellent arguments for why the 2MR should stay�

Sorry Nick, I was agreeing with you.

You asked if Boobs was correct and then went on with your story about rolling up pants and taking off socks, and I replied with "no that (Boob's post) is not correct".