this came up in a tournament that i wasn't in, but was asked what should have actually been done.

person throws off the tee, goes through some schule and out the other side. (how it made it through, i have no idea) the other side of that schule is a wide open "fairway". although it is not on any actual hole, just a large path for power lines. the player decides that it will be almost impossible to get back through into the correct fairway (by no means is this an unsafe lie, or a lost disc, and they made it through one way once already). another player (who is also an official) says that since it would take more strokes to get back to the fairway, that person could bring it back for a re-tee, but, would be throwing for a two. (i thought all re-tees were for a three, another subject though, maybe) i also don't think this was cause for any kind of relief, especially a re-tee.

i've read on the lost disc and unplayable lie, but couldn't find anything of this matter. what would have been the correct ruling on this?

the player that asked me this question, wasn't sure if this was correct, but there were three "officials" on the card. so didn't want to press the issue too much further.

They should have played it where it was. I thought you only had the option to go back to the previous lie if the shot went OB, or was lost. I may be wrong, don't have time to double check the rules right now.

My understainding is they can re-tee from the original lie with a one stroke penalty. I know this is true on OB shots (you don't have to take it where it went OB you can play from the original lie).

I guess if the player deemed his lie to be unplayable, it looks like he doesn't need the group to agree.

803.06

A. A player may declare his or her lie to be an unplayable lie. The player is the sole judge as to whether the lie is unplayable. The unplayable lie may be relocated to a new lie that is: (1) No closer to the hole, on the line of play and within five meters of the unplayable lie; or (2) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved, from an approximate lie as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official. The original throw plus one penalty throw are counted in the player's score.

That is correct. If a player deems his shot unplayable, he has the option to return to his original lie and throw with a stroke penalty.

He absolutely has the right to call an unplayable lie it matters not what the actual lie is like, but he would be throwing 3 from the previous lie (in this case the tee) throw + 1 shot penalty. Often this is a good option if a player throws somewhere ugly and goes out of bounds, still he would be throwing 3 from the orginal lie.

^
|
What he said =)

So just to clarify...

A player can determine a lie to be unplayable if the tee pad for the 3rd shot is more beneficial than playing from the said lie for 2nd shot, regardless of if it is playable?

For example, a fairway shot can be declared unplayable by the thrower if it lands near a bee hive? And if we're going that far...an imaginary bee hive?

There are times when I'm playing by myself when I say "oh f*** that shot...I'm re-teeing for my third stroke. It's a 4 from here and 5 from there..." That's legal in PDGA sanctioned play?

Yes. 803.06A as shown before.

There is one rule anomaly where a re-tee might be throwing four. The 2m rule does not have a provision for simply playing from the previous lie. IMO The 2m rule (when in effect) should allow the same relief as an unplayable lie.

re: 2M penalty - very good krupicka, I believe you may be right!

Walking through the rule book, assuming the 2M penalty is in effect:

803.08 B. If a disc has come to rest above two meters, as measured from the lowest point of the disc to the playing surface directly below it, the player shall be assessed a one-throw penalty. This penalty applies only if the disc is above in-bounds. The player shall proceed from a lie marked in accordance with 803.08 A.

803.08A deals with how to mark a disc if it directly over a solid obstacle, out of bounds, etc.

So, the lie would be on the ground under the disc, lying 2. If then an unplayable lie was called, we tack on an extra throw, stay on the tee box, lying 3, getting ready to throw 4.

If this is the case, and right now, I believe it is, this could complicate things a bit. If someone threw their tee shot deep into the nasty woods, they could say that they were going to declare an unplayable lie, and then throw again (aside: do they throw immediately again, or do they wait until everyone else on the box has thrown?).

Let's say they threw again, and then started walking down the fairway, not in the direction of the woods, effectively abandoning the disc. But what if the disc is above 2M in the woods? They should still get that penalty throw. I believe that I would have the right as another player on that card to see if the disc was above 2M or not. Assuming that where the disc went into the woods was farther away than any of the drives, I would then have 3 minutes after the clock was started, to look for the disc.

And say that I found it was above 2M, but I was really in some nasty thorns, and nobody wanted to go in and confirm my finding? Unless the thrower concedes the 2M penalty throw, somebody else MUST confirm the status of the disc, or risk the charge of circumventing the rules.

Yeesh! Now I hope that krupicka and I are wrong, because that opens up a can of worms that I, even in my DG-zealousness, was not looking to open.

Please post confirmation or rebuttal of my conclusions. As long as you use the Rules of Play (and perhaps the Competition Manual), my mind can be changed.

A player can determine a lie to be unplayable if the tee pad for the 3rd shot is more beneficial than playing from the said lie for 2nd shot, regardless of if it is playable?

Any shot can be declared unplayable at any time by the player, not just the tee shot. No justification is needed.

Say you are on an "ant hill" hole with the basket on top of a big hill. Say you brain-fart and doink your 10 foot putt off the tray, and it catches an edge and rolls all the way down the big hill and more. Let's also say it is not O.B. way down there.

You have two chioces:

Play from waaaaay down there, hoping you can land on top of that dang hill again in one shot and sink the next putt in one for a best case scenario of "current score plus 2"
Declare an unplayable lie and throw from previous lie, where you would need only make a 10 foot putt to card a "current score plus 2"
Option two makes the most sense in this case since there is virtually no hope of sinking the shot from waaay down there.

Here is the kicker, back in days gone by the 2 M rule said something along the lines of "play it as an OB". Since the 2M rule is now at TD discreation, the play it as an OB no longer applies.


There is one rule anomaly where a re-tee might be throwing four. The 2m rule does not have a provision for simply playing from the previous lie. IMO The 2m rule (when in effect) should allow the same relief as an unplayable lie.

Here is the kicker, back in days gone by the 2 M rule said something along the lines of "play it as an OB". Since the 2M rule is now at TD discreation, the play it as an OB no longer applies.

The "Disc Above the Playing Surface" rule, aka the 2 Meter Rule, never said anything of the sort.

The penalty for a 2 meter violation was 1 stroke. The penalty for an O.B. shot was 1 stroke. That is the only similarity they have/had. You might as well say "That was a practice throw, you're OB." They both have 1 stroke penalties, right?

Calling a 2 meter violation "OB" causes all kind so of problems, like...if you are going to play it from the last in-bounds spot, that would mean the last spot it was below 2 meters. The rule doesn't work like that at all so don't call "2 meters is OB".

So how about comments on my hypothesis that, since the 2M violation is a stand alone rule and incurs an immediate penalty, another player has a right to determine the 2M status of a disc thrown by another competitor, even though the competitor has declared from the throwing mark that the lie is unplayable, and will take stroke and distance?

Here's another one. As someone mentioned before, what if someone went through an almost impenetrable bushy barrier, where it would be almost impossible to get back to the fairway in 2 throws, so the player, upon arriving at the disc, claims that it is unplayable and will rethrow from the original spot.

Is it permissible for another player to ask to see the original resting place of the disc, if there is a decent likelihood that the disc might be above 2M? After all, we penalize a player for moving a disc that is near OB before other players can check on the status, can we not do the same for a disc that might be 2M as well? Rule 803.08D states if that the player moves the disc, it will be considered to have been over 2M.

You are correct in all your arguments.

If 2M is in effect, the lie must be established on the playing surface before it can be declared unplayable.

If 2M is in effect, the player should request another player verify the 2M status of a disc before moving the disc, just as they should request verifcation of discs that may be near OB. If there is any doubt of the 2M status, the player that moved the disc receives the penalty.

The only part I disagreed with was the choice of the word "claims" in reference to declaring the disc unplayable. A claim implies that there is evidence that can prove the point, in this case the declaration is all that is required.

Gary,

You are right, I shouldn't have said "claims" in reference to unplayable, since any lie may be declared unplayable. You made a good point that, in order to declare a lie unplayable, the lie _must_ (my emphasis) be established, which means that the disc must be treated as a lost disc, and must be looked for in order to establish its lie. If it is found IB, the thrower can then declare the lie unplayable, and if the disc is at or above 2M, a penalty throw is added, regardless of how the thrower chooses to proceed.

So, if the 2M rule is in effect, you cannot, from your lie, after you have thrown your shot, declare that the disc is unplayable or lost, and then throw again, when it is your turn, from that spot. You can, however, throw again when it is your turn, if the disc is OB, since their is no 2M penalty for an out-of-bounds disc. But, should that be a provisional OB shot, in case the disc is IB?

Maybe it is just me, and I can't believe that I am writing this, but maybe we need to scrap the 2M penalty altogether, because it complicates matters when the disc goes into an area that no one wants to enter, but must in order to establish a lie.

But, even without the 2M penalty, can the player make a declaration from the mark that a disc is lost or unplayable? A disc is not lost until a three minute attempt has been made to find it, and a disc cannot be declared unplayable until a lie has been established, or is that not necessary anymore if there is no 2M penalty, and the player can declare the disc unplayable and rethrow, giving up the right to take the 5M provision as stated in the Rules?

There is some debate on whether a player can declare a disc lost prior to the full three minutes and throw from the previous lie with penalty. There is no strong reason to require the full three minute search outside of the 2M rule.

If the disc is found, the player can declare an unplayable lie and return to the previous lie with penalty; if the disc is not found the player can return to the previous lie with a penalty. Only in the case of 2M is there a strong need to locate the disc to determine the penalty count.

I actually disagree here. We are having a similar arguement on our forum. But here is the jist. The ruling for an unplayable lie is not the only issue here. Read the definition. An Unplayable lie is defined as: A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is relocated with a penalty.
This means that if the player cannot stand safely at their lie or cannot make an attemped throw then it is defined as unplayable. Not if the lie sucks...if that was the case there would be more people rethrowing to improve their lie when a disc lands in crap.

Sorry to say but from the definiton that was not an unplayable lie and the interpretation of the definition is arguable.

I actually disagree here. We are having a similar arguement on our forum. But here is the jist. The ruling for an unplayable lie is not the only issue here. Read the definition. An Unplayable lie is defined as: A lie from which a player decides that obstacles to stance or throwing motion make it impractical or unsafe to attempt a throw. The lie is relocated with a penalty.
This means that if the player cannot stand safely at their lie or cannot make an attemped throw then it is defined as unplayable. Not if the lie sucks...if that was the case there would be more people rethrowing to improve their lie when a disc lands in crap.

Sorry to say but from the definiton that was not an unplayable lie and the interpretation of the definition is arguable.

Key words in the rule: Player decides.

If a player decides it is unplayable, then it is unplayable. It says nothing about having someone second the call or having a majority of the group agree. It also uses the word "impractical" which is about as subjective as you can get when making decisions. I think it is impractical to buy a gas guzzling Hummer, but apparently lots of people don't agree with me. Perhaps it really is practical for them to own a Hummer? So what is practical to you could very well be impractical to me.

This means that if the player cannot stand safely at their lie or cannot make an attemped throw then it is defined as unplayable. Not if the lie sucks...if that was the case there would be more people rethrowing to improve their lie when a disc lands in crap.

This exact rule used to be named the "Unsafe Lie Rule", and arguments like yours were the reason it was renamed. I argued in favor of the new name being the "Undesirable Lie Rule", because that it was it is and has always been. The lie doesn't have to be unsafe or "unplayable", whatever that means.

So, if the 2M rule is in effect, you cannot, from your lie, after you have thrown your shot, declare that the disc is unplayable or lost, and then throw again, when it is your turn, from that spot. You can, however, throw again when it is your turn, if the disc is OB, since their is no 2M penalty for an out-of-bounds disc. But, should that be a provisional OB shot, in case the disc is IB?

I propose an update to the 2MR, something to this effect: If the 2MR is in effect and a player's disc is determined to be above 2 meters, the player may, at his/her option, proceed instead under the terms of the Unplayable Lie rule.

At Southern California courses, the player would be allowed to play the 2MR like it currently exists. Mark it underneath with a penalty and throw. East Coasters, when caught at the crown of a nasty cedar tree, could take relief up to 5 meters or go to the rpevious spot instead of taking the 2 MR penalty and then having to throw from the middle of prison.

Rhett,

I like your idea. Since a penalty stroke is being assessed for the 2M infraction, it is functionally a double penalty to make the player throw from directly underneath the lie, when it might still be in the tree prison.

Would that modification have any effect on determining the 2M status of a disc that is in the deep woods and needs to be found?

Also, what do you think about the idea that you cannot declare an unplayable lie if you do not find the disc? For instance, if you throw in the deep woods, the disc has to be found before the lie can be declared unplayable; otherwise, the disc must be declared lost.

IMO, once the 2m anomaly is taken care of. Absent course rules the limit OB/Mando options, when throwing from the previous lie, it doesn't matter for which rule one is taking that lie.

I believe you right, but I don't think we have resolved the issue when the 2M penalty is in effect.

Also, what do you think about the idea that you cannot declare an unplayable lie if you do not find the disc? For instance, if you throw in the deep woods, the disc has to be found before the lie can be declared unplayable; otherwise, the disc must be declared lost.

I don't understand how it would play any differently between those two choices. It's not like you get a freebie with either ruling. Assuming it was a tee-shot, you're throwing three from the tee either way.

Are you still talking about the 2MR here? I thought we already agreed that the rule needs changing.

I don't understand how it would play any differently between those two choices. It's not like you get a freebie with either ruling. Assuming it was a tee-shot, you're throwing three from the tee either way.

Are you still talking about the 2MR here? I thought we already agreed that the rule needs changing.

The intent of the unplayable lie, (which needs another name like Mulligan), was to allow a stroke and penalty for any shot, at any time, regardless of where the disc went or how it lied.

Unfortunately it was combined with section 1 of that same name (unplayable) for moving lies, not retaking shots. Section 1 is definitely different from section 2 and should be separated. Section 1 matters whether you have thrown in a penalty area (when in effect); section 2 doesn't matter.

In other words, it doesn't matter if your shot is lost, OB, up a redwood tree, or next to the basket, you can declare an unplayable, eat two strokes, and throw again from the same lie. The wording and combination of the two instances of "unplayable" make it seem to be in conflict with the 2M rule when in effect.

The intent of the unplayable lie, (which needs another name like Mulligan), was to allow a stroke and penalty for any shot, at any time, regardless of where the disc went or how it lied.


It's really the opposite of a mulligan since a penalty is involved. Perhaps spell it backwards and call it the Nagillum option...

It's really the opposite of a mulligan since a penalty is involved. Perhaps spell it backwards and call it the Nagillum option...

Chuck, being the punster you are, I can't believe you didn't profer "take two"

Already used. We have the "Take two and play from the Red tee" at the IDGC. It's used on some of the water holes when a player playing from the longer Blue tee doesn't think they can make it across the water, maybe on a real windy day. They can choose to take a 2-throw penalty and play from the Red tee throwing their third shot.

One way you can implement the take-two rule for water holes and not do violence to the rules is to declare the ground behind the long tee to be o.b., and the short tee to be the drop zone. Then a player who wants to take two and advance to the short tee can pitch backward off the long tee, retreive his disc and move on.

One way you can implement the take-two rule for water holes and not do violence to the rules is to declare the ground behind the long tee to be o.b., and the short tee to be the drop zone. Then a player who wants to take two and advance to the short tee can pitch backward off the long tee, retreive his disc and move on.

Or you can skip the shenanigans and ask the Comp Director for a waiver to allow players to "concede the water" without having to lose a disc, like I did when I ran the EIEIO. :D

Or you can skip the shenanigans and ask the Comp Director for a waiver to allow players to "concede the water" without having to lose a disc, like I did when I ran the EIEIO. :D

Rhett makes a great point and ALL TD's should take note. While the PDGA Rules try to cover all situations, it is impossible to cover all possible scenarios and still keep the rules manageable.

When you are going to run an event at a course that may require a special waiver of the rules to be practical, please call or send an email to David Gentry - the PDGA Tour Manager. It is very easy to do and can allow your event to do something that may not ordinarily be allowed by the rules. Some events may have to become X-Tiers (if they make larger format changes that can affect how ratings are calculated), but ordinary events can also petition for a waiver for special situations.

For example, Rhett got permission to use a drop zone so players can concede the water on one hole. Sunrise Showdown petitions for waiver every year. There is a drop zone added on Hole 11 so players don't have to climb back up the ski mountain to re-tee should they not be able to find their disc. Even with spotters on the hole, discs still manage to disappear into the Buckthorn or over the edge of the mountain. Players still have to take a stroke, but this helps for speed of play on a hole that already suffers a lot of back ups. Yes, players could throw provisionals, but they too could become lost and end up adding to the wait.

So if you know of an event where they are getting "creative" with the rules to suit a local course situation, remind the TD that they can probably get a legal exception from the PDGA. All they have to do is ask.

If someone threw their tee shot deep into the nasty woods, they could say that they were going to declare an unplayable lie, and then throw again (aside: do they throw immediately again, or do they wait until everyone else on the box has thrown?).

Is this aside question answered officially or unofficially anywhere? Same question is applicable to provisional tee shots, i.e. do you throw your second shot immediately or wait until the other players have all teed off first?

I have always played it that you wait for when your next turn to throw would be based upon the result of the first throw. That said, for holes like USDGC #17, players keep throwing from the tee until they are done throwing from there.

The unplayable lie rule needs to be revised. It should be group decission not just the player. I'd say if the player is in danger of getting hurt,cant get into the lie(to thick brush) bees etc etc. then yes,but just because it may take more then 1 stroke to get out of the shule no way. That gives said player an advantage. It may take 3-4 or more to get out and not just one. This needs to be rewritten

Is this aside question answered officially or unofficially anywhere? Same question is applicable to provisional tee shots, i.e. do you throw your second shot immediately or wait until the other players have all teed off first?
I'd say it is answered officially...

801.02 Order of Play
C. After all the players in the group have teed off, the player farthest from the hole (the away player) throws first. To facilitate flow of play, a player who is not farthest away may play next if the away player consents.

I read that to mean that all players throw their tee shots, then the farthest player from the hole throws next. I would think the player throwing another shot from the tee (re-teeing after OB or unplayable, throwing a provisional, etc) would be considered the away player following everyone's initial tee shots.

The unplayable lie rule needs to be revised. It should be group decision not just the player.
Not likely. Unless you think the OB rule should be changed to a 2-shot penalty, there's no shot inbounds that is so bad it should ever be penalized more than the penalty we apply to going out of bounds, which at worst, is throw and distance. That's the worst penalty our current unplayable rule applies and a player should have full control over whether they are willing to accept our worst penalty short of DQ.

The unplayable lie rule needs to be revised. It should be group decission not just the player. I'd say if the player is in danger of getting hurt,cant get into the lie(to thick brush) bees etc etc. then yes,but just because it may take more then 1 stroke to get out of the shule no way. That gives said player an advantage. It may take 3-4 or more to get out and not just one. This needs to be rewritten
If the player is in danger of getting hurt, bees are present, etc, then the situation is covered by casual relief or it should be addressed by the TD (danger area declared OB or an automatic relief area).

As for the argument that "it gives said player an advantage", so what? It is an "advantage" available to ANY PLAYER at ANY TIME on ANY SHOT. And I hardly call choosing to take a penalty as being an advantage. What you say might take 3-4 throws to get out might actually only take one as well. A player choosing to take an unplayable lie penalty might be sacrificing a chance at saving the extra stroke just as much as he might be saving himself from a higher score.

Giving the group the power in this situation is asking for trouble, IMO. I don't want other people to have the authority to force me to play from a lie I don't want to play, for whatever reason I choose to not play it. If I don't want to climb down a ravine 75 feet below the fairway to play my shot, what's the group going to do, push me down the hill rather than allow me to declare the lie unplayable?

Look at it the other way...imagine there's a close battle for first on the card, and I park my drive on the 18th hole for an easy deuce and the win. What happens if the group determines my lie is unplayable and forces me to re-tee with a penalty? What then? Group decision, right? I suppose I can play a provisional and let the TD decide, but what a pain in the butt.

The unplayable lie is written just fine, with the decision resting with exactly the right person...the player who has to play the shot.

The unplayable lie rule needs to be revised. It should be group decission not just the player. I'd say if the player is in danger of getting hurt,cant get into the lie(to thick brush) bees etc etc. then yes,but just because it may take more then 1 stroke to get out of the shule no way. That gives said player an advantage. It may take 3-4 or more to get out and not just one. This needs to be rewritten

No, it does not. Playable or unplayable is solely at the discretion of the player. Writing it as you say would give an advantage to the other players in the group as they could conspire to deny the call. It is written the way it is for a reason.

Let�s examine one of the questions ExCzar raised � one that�s likely to come up in actual play on very tough holes.

WARNING: this is going to hurt your brain. But, hey, don�t shoot the messenger. I�m citing the rulebook exactly as it�s printed.

SCENARIO: You throw your tee shot way out of sight into horrible schule.

QUESTION: Do you have to search for your disc before you declare your lie unplayable and retee?

For example: When the 2M rule is in effect, are you allowed to just stand on the tee and declare your unknown lie unplayable, and retee and, if nobody finds your first disc, you�ll avoid a possible 2M penalty? Do the rules allow you to do that?

Let�s pull out our rulebooks and see.

Does the lost disc rule (803.11) say you have to search for your disc before you declare your lie unplayable? No, it doesn�t. Once you�ve declared your lie unplayable, nothing in the lost disc rule says you have to know where your disc landed, or do a lost disc search, or even look for your disc at all.

(BTW, if �the player� in 803.11A means the thrower � a logical assumption � then no groupmate can use 803.11 to insist on searching for your disc. Individually they can look for your disc, but 803.11 won�t apply to their search: no 3 minute limit; no compulsory group search; and no �lost disc� ruling if they can�t find it.)

Does the unplayable lie rule (803.06) say you have to search for your disc before you declare your lie unplayable? No, this rule, just like the lost disc rule, doesn�t say you have to look for your disc or know where it is.

Does any other rule say you have to search before declaring your lie unplayable? Well, maybe. The 2M rule (803.08C) says, �No penalty shall be incurred if the disc falls unassisted by a player or spectator, to a position less than 2M above the playing surface before the thrower arrives at the disc. The thrower may not delay in order to allow the position of the disc to improve.� So 803.08C says you have to promptly �arrive at the disc� if your disc DID LAND above 2M.

Does that mean you must arrive at your disc if it MIGHT HAVE LANDED above 2M? I don�t know. And I can�t find any other rule in our rulebook that says you have to search for your disc before you declare your lie unplayable.

Even if 803.08C does compel you to search for your disc, what rule would penalize you if you don�t?

803.08C says, �the thrower may not delay [to arrive at the disc],� but this rule itself doesn�t give you any penalty if you do delay to arrive.

801.03 (the excessive time rule) governs taking unreasonable time to �arrive at the disc.� But which disc? You reteed legitimately (per the unplayable lie rule 803.06), so now your second disc is in play. You�ll throw next from the second disc�s lie, regardless of the first disc�s location and regardless of whether you�re now lying 2 or lying 3. So �arrive at the disc� has to mean your second tee-off disc. So 801.03 doesn�t penalize you for delaying to arrive at your first disc.

804.01A (the DQ rule) is the only rule that may be able to penalize you for not searching for your first disc: �A player shall be disqualified by the director for . . . cheating: a willful attempt to circumvent the rules of play.� For you to get DQd under this rule, two things would have to be true: (1) 803.08C compels you to arrive at your first disc; and (2) you know the rules well enough to be aware of that. (Aware = willful.)

How many of the PDGA�s 30,000 members understand these rules that well?

Some say, �Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. You�re responsible to know the rules well enough not to break them.� That�s a noble sentiment. But if it�s true, then the DQ rule should just say, �A player shall be disqualified by the director for circumventing the rules of play.� The �willful attempt� language means some circumventions are not willful attempts and don�t deserve DQ � and these would reasonably include fouls by players who don�t know they�re circumventing a rule.

CONCLUSION: Two mutated rabbits (i.e., twisty interpretations of rules 803.08C and 804.01A) have to pop out of a hat in order to compel you to search for your disc before you declare the lie unplayable.


* * *

On a related matter:

ExCzar, you�re right that the 2M rule should be dumped entirely. But there�s a much more powerful reason than �because it complicates matters.�

Think about this: what is the purpose of any penalty, in any sport? Answer: the sole purpose of any penalty is to guide you to develop skill to avoid doing some certain act. For example, disc golf�s OB penalty guides you to develop skill to avoid landing OB.

Therefore no rule ever should penalize you for doing an act you can�t possibly develop skill to avoid doing. What could the penalty accomplish? Nothing � except to depress you and make the sport less fun.

Whenever a disc flies into a tree, it may fall to the ground or it may hang up, and there�s no skill you can possibly develop to make the difference. Well, you could always throw less than 2M off the ground. But even that doesn�t always work. At the 1990 Worlds, I saw ex-champ John Ahart, three strokes out of the Open lead on Saturday, throw a roller that hit a tree root, rolled up the trunk of the tree, and stuck in vines one inch above 2M. An official measured it three times, shaking his head. The absurd penalty took the heart out of Ahart � he double bogeyed and went into a funk and fell out of contention.

Since it�s impossible to develop skill to keep a disc from hanging up in a tree, there never should be any penalty for landing ANY DISTANCE above IB ground. The 2M penalty never should have existed, and there�s no excuse for it now. It hurts the game, every time.

And, Bill, if you find that argument compelling, you�ll have fun applying the same logic to the penalty for lost disc. (But we�ll save that for another thread.)

Hoser :)

Hoser, you're missing the one thing in the rulebook that requires a player to look for their disc before declaring an unplayable lie ONLY when the 2 meter rule is in effect, and that is the definition of "lie." You must have a lie, or potential lie, before you can declare it unplayable. If the disc is above 2 meters, you don't have a lie until it is marked and have acquired one penalty so far. You can say that you also don't have a known inbounds lie if your disc goes OB, is lost or perhaps missed a mando. However, since the result of all those situations can be rethrowing from the original lie with a one throw penalty, it's immaterial if the lie is known. So, calling an unplayable is allowed without knowing the lie in these instances.

Now, if a player is willing to accept a 2-throw penalty to declare an unplayable on a hole where the 2m rule is in effect, they can do so. The RC is looking at revising the 2m rule to allow the player the choice to rethrow from below their suspended disc OR rethrow from the original lie with penalty so this funky scenario, that prevents a player from calling an unplayable without searching for the disc when the 2m rule is in effect, goes away.

Well, Chuck, you made me dig deeper. The definition of LIE didn�t help, but two other rules did:


803.08A (disc above the playing surface): If a disc comes to rest above the [inbounds] playing surface in a tree or other object on the course, its lie shall be marked on the playing surface directly below it.


When a disc comes to rest above IB ground, the lie SHALL BE MARKED. Yep. Gotta mark it. And it�s not possible to mark that lie without at least looking for the disc.


And 803.08D: If the 2M status of a disc is uncertain, either a majority of the group or an official shall make the determination.


Anytime the 2M status of a disc is uncertain, somebody (not necessarily the thrower) will have to look for that disc before the thrower can declare its lie unplayable.

The rulebook doesn�t say what makes a disc�s 2M status �uncertain.� Does it become uncertain only if someone questions the status? Or is it also uncertain anytime the disc flies into trees and nobody sees it hit the ground? If the latter is true, then 803.08D compels a majority of the group or an official to look for ANY disc that landed out of sight and might possibly be above 2M.

NEW CONCLUSION: if your disc comes to rest above ground (possibly even if it may have come to rest above ground), or if anybody questions the disc�s 2M status, you do have to look for the disc before you can declare its lie unplayable.

Thanks, Chuck.

BTW, the reason the unplayable lie penalty has to be added on top of the 2M penalty is that, according to Rule 803.08B, the act that you get the 2M penalty for is coming to rest above 2M, an act that happens before you mark the lie. So before you declare that (marked) lie unplayable, you�ve already got the 2M penalty.

Hey, Chuck, if you�ve got the RC�s ear, please ask them to check out my reason, at the end of Post #41, for completely eliminating the 2M rule.

Hoser :)

I disagree with your post 41 reason. I believe you CAN develop the skill to avoid throwing into a specific tree or group of trees but not just trees in general. That's how the 2m rule is now supposed to be used, i.e. it's a design option to use where players can see a specific tree hazard to avoid and are capable of specific route choices to avoid it or risk it. Unfortunately, some locations (NorCal is one area) continue to use the blanket 2m rule rather than looking for specific hole situations where it makes sense.

Those senseless NorCalians!