2 meter rule.

Can someone please explain to me in what circumstance this is a good addition to a tournament?

 

[Chuck Kennedy]

Like I said, the more progressive disc golf areas (lead by the logical Swedes a few years before the PDGA finally caught up with the rule change) recognize the inappropriateness of the blanket 2 meter rule. Continue to stick with Norcal in the past because you're still allowed to do so.

[mark ellis]

The flaw of the 2 meter rule is that it adds luck to the game.  While a certain degree of luck will always exist in golf (deflections and rollaways, etc.) the rules (and equipment) should minimize luck.  In a good game whoever plays best should win, not whoever gets luckiest.

 

Two identical appearing shots are shanked into a tree.  An instant before impact no one can predict if either, neither or both will stick in the tree.  The outcome is pure luck, making the 2 meter rule arbitrary.

 

How do we know the shots hitting the tree were shanked?  Because we don't purposely try to hit trees.  We try to avoid trees.  So if hitting a tree is a mistake, why not let the 2 meter meter rule penalize that shot?  Because trees are arbitrary.  Depending on the type of tree maybe 50 shots will hit the tree before one sticks and is penalized.  The one which stuck was not a worse shot than the other 50 it was just more unlucky.

 

For those who like LUCK to play a bigger role in the game, it is easy to invent luck-based rules.  Or just play poker or RIPT.  Or get ripped and go play poker.

[David Sauls]

I'm with Mark.  Stuck in a tree is far too random to make it a penalty stroke.  Most trees, it's 1 in 20 shots?  1 in 50 shots?  Why penalize the 1 guy for sticking, but not the other 49 for hitting the same tree?  Completely unlike a lake, where 99 in 100 stay (the exception being the occasional freak skip).

 

When this rule first became optional, TDs around here would put it up for vote in the players' meeting; the 2-meter rule was overwhelmingly unpopular among the players.

 

[ROBEY the one.]

I only make OPEN/ADV players play by it in our tourney, I figure they are good enough to traverse the course via the flyways without getting caught in a tree. And if they get caught in tree over two meters they are probably doing something stupid, like throwing spike hyzers over a 200ft hole instead of throwing a putter down the fairway like everybody else. Not that they can't throw spike hyzers its just there is a risk of it not coming down and they need to be aware of that, risk/reward.

[Brandon Swanson]

+1

[Hawk]

should always be used...if you throw into a tree, on purpose or not, you should risk getting a penalty if your disc gets stuck over 2 meters...if your disc does not get stuck when it goes into a tree, you should consider yourself lucky for not getting a stroke penalty...

 

the arbitrary nature, or the "luck" of the penalty, is no different than two people throwing a disc near an ob line, both of them hitting the same object, and one of them bouncing ob and the other not going ob...

 

that's just as arbitrary and "lucky" as two discs going into the same tree and one getting stuck and the other not getting stuck...

[mark ellis]

Hawk argues :"the arbitrary nature, or the "luck" of the penalty, is no different than two people throwing a disc near an ob line, both of them hitting the same object, and one of them bouncing ob and the other not going ob..."

 

Well, Hawk,if there was a way to factor out the LUCK in this situation then we should try to do so, too.  One of the goals of course design should be to increase the SKILL factor and decrease the LUCK factor.  That is why we have fairways and why a "poke and hope" hole is a poor design.  We should not justify adding luck to the game just because we can't figure out how to eliminate it in others places.

 

The game has changed with the technological advances in discs.  Now holes can play a 1000 feet long and some holes are designed where the only route to the basket is a blind shot over the top.  I would prefer a narrow tunnel to crashing down into a group of trees and praying it filters through but if the only route is high and blind then we all will take it.  Now that shot is not a mistake deserving of penalty (if it sticks) but the smartest choice presented.

 

Risk and reward are part of the game but arbitrary risks and rewards should be avoided as much as possible. Good rules, good course design and good equipment are all possible and make disc golf a better game.

 

 

[ROBEY the one.]

I agree that a poke and hope hole as you put it (never heard that saying refering to disc golf) IS a poor design.

 

But on holes where the fairway/flyway is 10-20 ft wide and 200-300 ft long. people take the over the top route not because its the only way, but because its the easy way.So why should there not be a 2m rule to protect the design of the hole from being circumvented? In this instance it gives the over the top route more risk if you want the reward of the drop in 2 or the other option with less risk down the middle (prob with putter or mid, ending up 30 or 40 short) you end up with a longer putt for 2, less reward, agree?

Seems like the only way to keep some people honest and in the fairway, not to mention spike hyzers on a short/compact course can be hazardous to others.

[Hawk]

"The game has changed with the technological advances in discs.  Now holes can play a 1000 feet long and some holes are designed where the only route to the basket is a blind shot over the top.  I would prefer a narrow tunnel to crashing down into a group of trees and praying it filters through but if the only route is high and blind then we all will take it.  Now that shot is not a mistake deserving of penalty (if it sticks) but the smartest choice presented."

 

if there is a 2-meter rule in effect that high shot that comes crashing down through the trees is not necessarily the "smartest choice presented" anymore...it now becomes a risky shot on par w/ the narrow tunnel shot b/c of the element of a penalty if you're stuck in a tree...so w/o the rule you have one risky shot, and one shot that has very little element of risk to it, score wise...no brainer which shot you're going to/should throw...w/ the rule, both shots have an element of risk and you as a player must make a choice between the two, understanding that success on one shot might require a bit more "luck" than success on the other...

 

I agree that we should be looking to increase the skill factor and lessen the luck element, but luck or bad luck will always be a part of the game and it will never be eliminated entirely...personally, taking a risky shot at times when I know my skill will only help me so much and that luck can/will play a factor into where my disc will end up is one of the most appealing decisions that I get to make on the golf course...I don't want to see that eliminated, and I don't think it ever will be eliminated...if it is we can all go play disc golf on the computer b/c it will be just like doing that...

 

and I don't see anything arbitrary about electing to accept the risk that if I throw into a tree my disc might get stuck and I might get a penalty...the rule itself is not arbitrary only the height off the ground at which the penalty is assessed can be considered arbitrary...

[Chuck Kennedy]

The result of the rule is arbitrary and less professional. Studies have been done by Park & Rec professionals that discovered the lower the skill level of a participant in individual sports, the more they prefer luck elements as part of the competition. That pretty much confirms what you would expect since the more luck involved the better the chances for a lower skilled player to sometimes beat a more skilled player. So keep the 2 meter rule for rec play and only very selectively use it for sanctioned competition and make everyone happy.

[David Sauls]

Not sure why you "SHOULD risk a penalty" for throwing into a tree.

 

In almost all cases, you're already getting penalized---your disc is being stopped, instead of proceding further towards the basket.  I'm not clear in what other was this is a transgression deserving further penalty.

 

[Hawk]

you should get a penalty if your disc gets stuck in a tree over a certain height, and when you throw a disc into a tree you risk getting it stuck, therefore if you throw into a tree you should be risking a penalty...

 

sometimes you throw into a tree and your disc punches through and does not get knocked down...on my home course there are several holes that the most open line to the pin potentially puts your disc into a tree when it nears the basket...you could choose different lines on these holes that do not put your disc near a tree when it gets to the basket but then you are at risk hitting something else before your disc ever gets near the basket...

 

in other words, it's a trade off...do I throw the open line knowing that at the end there is the tree in which my disc might get stuck, but if it does not get stuck, it will likely be by the basket, or do I throw the line that is less open to the pin but will not put my disc into a tree if it gets to the basket?

 

in the first case you are risking trouble at the end of your shot to avoid trouble at the beginning/middle of your shot, but w/o a tree penalty in play there is no risk in throwing the line that is open until the tree at the end...I think the 2-meter rule, when it is in effect, creates more instances of risk vs. reward for a golfer and that is why I advocate its use in all occasions...