The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf

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


Views: 987

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

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.

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.


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.

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...

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.


"If a disc doesn't land on the playing surface, then it should be penalized" is the general concept being discussed. Whether a disc lands flat on the playing surface or not is similarly as lucky as landing above 2 meters. So those backing the 2-meter rule might also agree that we should eliminate the 2-meter requirement and penalize every throw that doesn't land flat on the playing surface or even touching the playing surface? If so, then I could buy (not necessarily like) that as the rule versus the arbitrary 2 meter height. We all know that discs fly above 2 meters as part of the regular game. There's no requirement that discs always fly below 2 meters. So that particular height makes no sense to draw the line there versus 5 feet, 1 meter, or 12 inches if we're talking about heights that humans can measure or reach without much if any assistance. Penalizing discs "not touching the playing surface" is the only "logical" boundary if you really felt a player should be penalized for not landing on the playing surface. But adding more luck to the already lucky elements of the game makes no sense regardless where you draw the line.

so the quibbling is over the arbitrary designation of 2 meters as the rule?


I can understand that...in other words, why not penalize for being 0.5 meters off the playing surface?


personally I think there should be a penalty for a disc stuck in a tree and I think making that penalty begin at a height that is above what a typical person could reach is a good place to start...

Ok, at least "not on the playing surface" is an argument I hadn't thought of.   Not a convincing one, though.  Perhaps the 2-meter threshhold was where most people could easily reach and remove a disc, as opposed to standing under a tree hurling stones at it.


Penalties for out-of-bounds make sense, to keep people from throwing truly out of bounds (busy highway, neighbor's yard, etc.) or into places where the disc can't be played (deep water), and have since been used by designers to heighten the strategy.  I just don't see a similar rationale for stuck-in-tree, unless someone's planted cedar trees in places to strategically catch discs.

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.



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...

It's what you think but there's no logic behind a tree versus a bush or a baby pine tree. USing a reference whether someone can reach it is also lame because it has nothing to do with the height that good versus "bad" throws are thrown. Hobbits could throw discs at heights above 2 meters and NBA centers throw at heights of 1 meter along with a few rollers. 

Reply to Discussion


Blog Posts

Disc Golf Approach Shot Tips by Paul Ulibarri

Posted by Alan Barker on October 30, 2014 at 12:40pm — 1 Comment

State of Disc Golf: Disc Golf Growth

Posted by Alan Barker on January 29, 2014 at 2:26pm

What are your favorite Disc Plastics?

Posted by Alan Barker on November 4, 2013 at 1:38pm

2 Tips For Guys To Entice A Girls

Posted by Frederick Cranford on September 11, 2013 at 5:42am

Disc Golf Answerman Episode 6

Posted by CoolDaddySlickBreeze on August 13, 2013 at 4:40pm



© 2015   Created by Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service