thought of something today....

[MTL21676]

I was putting with a buddy and we had a few discs stick in the basket and we're laughing about it...

Then he said he once saw someone hang the disc on the nub on the basket.

If a disc is hanging on the outside of the basket, does it count?

The main reason I say yes is it supported by the basket.
The main reaosn I say no is it is outside of the basket.

Can anyone figure this out?

[jconnell]

803.12 HOLING OUT
B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section...

Maybe that is why NC golfers are better then us Texans, they don't even read the rules much less know them

[MTL21676]

considering how many times I have seen a disc hang on a basket in 12 and half years of playing (that being 0), I don't think it's too big of an issue....I was just curious

[Pizza God]

DROT is not legle (disc resting on top)

I had an Ace with a medal head viper on #9 at Plano several years ago, the disc skipped up into the basket and stuck in the side of a Mach III.

I Ran up there and pulled it out for the $72 ace pot.

I tend to putt low so I have had several putts that stick in the side of a basket. Because I use an Omega SuperSoft 1.11, sometimes they go all the way through the side.

[tbender]

I have seen a disc completely at rest hanging on the outside of the basket. It's a good shot, under the rules. The guy got lucky on leaving a fifteen footer low.

And it almost requires a SuperSoft...

[MTL21676]

yeah, I know DROT's don't count....but I wasn't talking about a DROT

[ck34]

I have actually seen a disc balancing horizontally on nubs for what seemed like 5-7 seconds before the player snapped it up.

[lonhart]

So here's the odd thing in the "holing out" rule--it's ok and counts as "in" if it is hanging on the outside of the lower entrapment section, but not if it is hanging on the upper entrapment section. I've seen both happen, but never in a tournament.

"B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed."

When it is hanging from the upper entrapment section, it could fall in an count as long as the hanging disc (its not a DROT, but rather a DHOT--disc hanging off top ), is not hit by another disc. At least that's what I took from a recent thread that dealt with this same issue. And the fact that it sounds like a lot of people are in favor of eliminating DROT, so that any time a disc is supported by the hole, comes to rest for a reasoable amount of time, and is removed by the thrower, it should count as holing out.

Cheers,
Steve

I propose we eliminate the Disc Resting On Top (DROT) problem in 1 of the 2 following ways:

1. simplify the definition of holing out so it merely requires that a disc be completely supported by the target (thus DROTs count as holed out)

- or -

2. retain the present definition of holing out and change the regulations for the tops of targets so they have sloped lids that shed discs like sloped roofs shed rain. (DROTs: buh bye)

I have actually seen a disc balancing horizontally on nubs for what seemed like 5-7 seconds before the player snapped it up.

Back in 2002, during a casual round with three friends at Cedar Hills, my putt from about 50' on #1 came in a little hot, hit the chains, dropped on its edge into the lower entrapment device (basket), bounced up, and came down balanced horizontally on the rim and stayed there! We all stood there a good 10 seconds waiting for it to drop one way or the other, but the thing never moved: it just sat there with nary a wobble. Turns out, the basket had been damaged and was bent just enough that if an Aviar came down just right, it could end up wedged spanning two nubs.

It's been a running joke between us since then whether the putt should have counted or not because 803.12.B requires that:

In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.

and, arguably, the disc was not wedged INTO the lower entrapment section, and because it was BALANCED ON the lower entrapment section, it was not "hanging from" it, neither was it at rest WITHIN, nor did it remain WITHIN, the entrapment section until removed!

2. retain the present definition of holing out and change the regulations for the tops of targets so they have sloped lids that shed discs like sloped roofs shed rain. (DROTs: buh bye)

Might take a pretty steep lid to shed some of the super-soft putters!

Might take a pretty steep lid to shed some of the super-soft putters!

i'll take that as an endorsement of proposition #1

btw, my go-to putter is the soft JK Aviar-x so while i find your concern about slope a bit over-the-top (sorry, couldn't resist ) -- given anomalous occurences like the one you cited above it seems quite worthy of consideration...

[slo]

#2 isn't likely. I like #1 better anyways, and it also costs nothing but swallowing pride.

...yet #2 is just smarter design, however something making the first 30 years equipment obsolete....etc. They do exist, but not in monopoly-like #'s to force the issue.

something else i just thought about too is that -- especially taking into consideration the slope concerns Felix cites -- increasing the heighth of the top of targets would create some interesting deflections of shots just a little too high...

another option might be a top with holes for discs to fall through -- but like you i favor a re-definition of holing out so that DROTs simply count (like wedgies, hangers, and balancing acts)

to anyone that wants to take full advantage of such a rule change and actually *try* for DROTs, i say -- go for it

[neonnoodle]

This is why, or part of why, I support the rule change that if a disc catching device actually "catches" a disc then the hole should be considered completed.

If manufacturers don't want their disc catching devices to "catch" discs in a certain way, then they should design them NOT TO, and not rely on design specific rules to bail them out.

[Parkntwoputt]

This happend twice in our tournament this weekend to two different people. On a Mach 3 and then on a Chainstar. The disc was held up by the chain loops on the top of the basket. Two of the remaining three people had to putt, but the third just had a drop in. Both times, these peoples discs stuck on a birdie putt, so they ended up taking a three because it did not fall in the basket.

i'll take that as an endorsement of proposition #1

Actually, I would favor instead a revision that says "... supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section." No "within," "in," "on," "hanging from," "outside," etc. Either a disc is supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section or it's not: it it is, it's holed out; if it's not, it isn't. Since the top is neither the chains nor the lower entrapment section, neither DROTS, discs wedged into the top (from any direction), nor discs hanging from inside or outside the top would be holed out. That would address the problem just as well without requiring a change to what constitutes holing out.



[/QUOTE]btw, my go-to putter is the soft JK Aviar-x so while i find your concern about slope a bit over-the-top (sorry, couldn't resist ) -- given anomalous occurences like the one you cited above it seems quite worthy of consideration...

[/QUOTE]Bend an ~16"x32" a sheet of metal into a roughly conical surface, prop it up, and toss your soft Aviar-X at it using a loft- (like an underhand lob) or turbo-style putt (not everyone uses a push- or flick-style putt), and see how steep it gets before the disc consistently slides off of it.

[neonnoodle]

Bend an ~16"x32" a sheet of metal into a roughly conical surface, prop it up, and toss your soft Aviar-X at it using a loft- (like an underhand lob) or turbo-style putt (not everyone uses a push- or flick-style putt), and see how steep it gets before the disc consistently slides off of it.

A good idea for target designers, not for our rulebook though...

[gnduke]

Just curious.

If the pre-polehole definition of a target area on a pole was trying to be preserved by making only discs within the designated area count, then DROTs should be included as well.

Since the number plate on top of the pole is a vanishing item, most DROTs are lofted shots that would have struck the intended target if it were a only a painted portion of the pole and the top of the target had not interfered with the flight of the disc.

Actually, I would favor instead a revision that says "... supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section." No "within," "in," "on," "hanging from," "outside," etc. Either a disc is supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section or it's not: it it is, it's holed out; if it's not, it isn't. Since the top is neither the chains nor the lower entrapment section, neither DROTS, discs wedged into the top (from any direction), nor discs hanging from inside or outside the top would be holed out. That would address the problem just as well without requiring a change to what constitutes holing out.

That sounds preferable to me as well. It would 'spit out' many holing out controversies and would make the rule much easier to intuitively embrace. With such a definition, the DROT rule would no longer seem inconsistent (as long as wedgies count, it seems to me counter-intuitive to disallow DROTs).

[gnduke]

That sounds preferable to me as well. It would 'spit out' many holing out controversies and would make the rule much easier to intuitively embrace. With such a definition, the DROT rule would no longer seem inconsistent (as long as wedgies count, it seems to me counter-intuitive to disallow DROTs).

The proposed wording above does not count out wedgies in the lower section, only wedgies in the upper section.

[sandalman]

Just curious.

If the pre-polehole definition of a target area on a pole was trying to be preserved by making only discs within the designated area count, then DROTs should be included as well.

Since the number plate on top of the pole is a vanishing item, most DROTs are lofted shots that would have struck the intended target if it were a only a painted portion of the pole and the top of the target had not interfered with the flight of the disc.

how do you figure that? seems like DROTS would have flown over the pole target. in fact, that is exactly why DROTs were not considered as completing the hole - because they would have flown over the pole.

The proposed wording above does not count out wedgies in the lower section, only wedgies in the upper section.

ouch, i must have heard what i wanted to hear

i prefer a wording then that says "supported by the chains or resting inside the lower entrapment section."

a disc would have to be caught in the chains or at least 51% inside the catching device to count.

[gnduke]

seems like DROTS would have flown over the pole target. in fact, that is exactly why DROTs were not considered as completing the hole - because they would have flown over the pole.

Go out and try to stick a few DROTs on pole holes without number plates. Unless the disc is dropping in and farly softly, it is very hard to get it to come to rest on top. If the pole bare, and had to be hit in the target area, quite a few of these would make contact in the target area. Discs that are just flying over the taget seldom make enough contact to stick on top.

At least that is what I've seen. And in answer to the question, Yes I have spent some time trying to see how difficult DROTs were to accomplish on purpose.

[cbdiscpimp]

I say anything supported by the lower entrapment device or higher should count as holed out. That would make it simple and as Rob pointed out your not going to see many people TRYING to get DROTS just as you dont see people TRYING to wedge a disc in the side of the basket. IMO I would rather have DROTS count and Wedgies not count since atleast the DROT was high enough to go in in the first place.

A good idea for target designers, not for our rulebook though...

Do you actually read posts AND their back story before spouting off inane comments, or do you just go around shooting off your mouth? (As if anyone really had to ask.)

The proposed wording above does not count out wedgies in the lower section, only wedgies in the upper section.

Really, Gary? Re-read the proposed wording carefully then explain how a disc wedged in the upper section meets the requirement that a disc be "supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section" in order to be holed out, while disc wedged in the lower entrapment section can not be "supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section."

a disc would have to be caught in the chains or at least 51% inside the catching device to count.

So some wedgies that currently count would still count and some wouldn't?

correct -- i don't like wedgies one bit, but if a wedgie got 51% in then that's good enough for me

(though maybe target makers need to make the holes small enough to deter any wedgies...)