2m Rule? Yeah or Nay?

by **Fritz** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:59 am

PDGA discussion on 2m rules has me thinking what the consensus is on the DGR Forums.

by **bcsst26** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:00 am

I would say always yes.

by **MR. WICK** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:04 am

It's been the TD's discretion at most of the tournaments that I have played. I really dont care either way as long as I know before the round if it's in effect or not.

by **MDR_3000** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:11 am

2m rule should only be in effect on certain holes...where the preferred route is down low and there is a "hero" route up high. Otherwise it's just dumb.

why 2 meters? where did that number come from? why not 1 meter or 3 meters? Is throwing a shot higher than 6 feet off the ground, bad?

by **garublador** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:29 am

MDR_3000 wrote:2m rule should only be in effect on certain holes

I agree with this. I think it should be treated like OB rather than being a blanket rule.

by **discdawg** » Tue May 06, 2008 6:55 pm

What is a 2M rule??

by **mark12b** » Tue May 06, 2008 7:16 pm

discdawg wrote:What is a 2M rule??

it's an optional rule that gives you a penalty stroke if your disc gets stuck in a tree more than 2m off the ground. the idea is that, without the penalty, on some courses people will just aim into the tree canopy and take the lie directly below where it gets stuck -- the tree is basically a huge catcher's mitt and this sort of shot makes the course too easy (as opposed to the difficult line between the trunks).

by **J-Man** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:27 pm

Here's a curve ball - drop zone or unwind?
2m rule...no, it's not like many throw into a tree hoping it will stick.
Drop zone or unwind??
Unwind
Peace

by **mark12b** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:39 pm

way back when i was first playing recreationally all we knew about was unwind for mandos... so dropzone even with the penalty feels a bit like cheating to me. :roll:

but, it makes the game a little more civilized and keeps it moving, so i can live with it.

by **Fritz** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:03 am

Wow, have to say I'm stunned at the results of this poll.

Buncha sissies...

by **Timko** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:05 am

Fritz wrote:Wow, have to say I'm stunned at the results of this poll.

Buncha sissies...

Put an option that it should be enforced on certain holes, and I'll vote for it.

Disc golf doesn't have a concept of hazards, and we don't need more forced ob.

by **Fritz** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:08 am

If you are ever in Colorado, go play Bird's Nest in Arvada

You'll love it. There are rock formations that are OB Traps. Makes the course very unique. There is no water on the course, so OB traps/hazards are throughout the course. It's so much fun. Best of all they are not hidden and very easy to know where they are.

The rule is, if the circle or shape has been completed, it's now an ob trap

by **Timko** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:11 am

Fritz wrote:If you are ever in Colorado, go play Bird's Nest in Arvada You'll love it. There are rock formations that are OB Traps. Makes the course very unique. There is no water on the course, so OB traps/hazards are throughout the course. It's so much fun. Best of all they are not hidden and very easy to know where they are.

The rule is, if the circle or shape has been completed, it's now an ob trap

ob != hazard.

In golf, water is not ob. It's a hazard. So you can play from it if you wish. Most people take their stroke and a drop though. I like hazards where you have the option to throw from them. I don't like being forced to take a drop. Hence my problem with the 2m rule. On holes where the over the top route "cheats" the hole, as MDR mentioned, I'm in favor of it, but I don't like the rule as a blanket.

by **some call me...tim?** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:24 am

I feel similarly. There's a course here that has several OB "ponds" on it that are basically just rock circles put in place to make the hole play harder. Actually, I think they were originally declared OB because plants had been planted and they wanted to protect them. Now either the plants have disappeared or they've grown up to be hardy enough for normal traffic. The "ponds" are still in play, and they don't really serve any purpose other than to make some of the holes play harder. My stance on OBs is the same as on mandos. They should only be applied where safety is a concern or you're trying to protect some area. Adding OBs just for the sake of making a hole harder just seems...chintzy.

by **Timko** » Wed May 07, 2008 8:31 am

Tim_the_Enchanter wrote:I feel similarly. There's a course here that has several OB "ponds" on it that are basically just rock circles put in place to make the hole play harder. Actually, I think they were originally declared OB because plants had been planted and they wanted to protect them. Now either the plants have disappeared or they've grown up to be hardy enough for normal traffic. The "ponds" are still in play, and they don't really serve any purpose other than to make some of the holes play harder. My stance on OBs is the same as on mandos. They should only be applied where safety is a concern or you're trying to protect some area. Adding OBs just for the sake of making a hole harder just seems...chintzy.

#1 at Swope is a great example of this. Both a mando (which is good, it keeps people out of #2's fairway while forcing you down a tunnel) and OB (dumb, because it's just there to make the hole harder).

2m Rule? Yeah or Nay?

2m Rule Good? Bad?

2m Rule? Yeah or Nay?

Who is online