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?

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 :confused: ;) :cool::D

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

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.

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...

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

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

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! :eek:

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!

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!



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

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 :D) -- given anomalous occurences like the one you cited above it seems quite worthy of consideration...

#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 :D :D

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.

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.

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!



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

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 :D) -- 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.

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...

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).

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).



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

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.

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).



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 :D

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% <font color="blue"> inside </font> the catching device to count.

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.

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.

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...

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.)

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).



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% <font color="blue"> inside </font> 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 :D

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

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).



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." :)



Felix, by 'count out' are you reading Gary to mean disallow or holed out? (i took him to mean disallow, so i think he read you right)

Felix, by 'count out' are you reading Gary to mean disallow or holed out? (i took him to mean disallow, so i think he read you right)

Oops! Missed the "out." That's what happens when I try to squeeze in a quick scan of the board between appointments. :( (Although if it had been I, I would have written "ruled out" rather than "count out." :D)

a disc would have to be caught in the chains or at least 51% <font color="blue"> inside </font> the catching device to count.

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



well, when 51% of the disc is wedged inside the lower entrapment section, then chances are it wedged from the inside out since a disc is thickest at the 50% wedge point and gets smaller from there on vis-a-vis the hole into which it wedges :D besides -- if the majority of the disc is inside -- i'd call that inside :D

(i'd still prefer a small enough grid to deter wedgies...)

I thought I had replied to this already. Yes, I read you correctly, and meant discs wedged in the upper section would not count as holed out, but that discs wedged in the lower section would still count as in.

Gary, are you replying to me or to Felix? :D

Felix.

What did you say that I could refer to ? My supersofts can squeeze through some pretty small holes.

Never add wording that says 51%.

Never add wording that says 51%.

very true! otherwise we would have to worry about explaining to the ESPN viewers why a disc that is wedged 50.05% in counts a holed out, but a disc that is just 49.95% in does not. good lord! that would be a mess!

Never add wording that says 51%.



would wording it as 'more than half' work? i only added that in order to try to prevent interpretation controversies. the devil is in the details... The RC meetings must really be something ...

Never add wording that says 51%.

very true! otherwise we would have to worry about explaining to the ESPN viewers why a disc that is wedged 50.05% in counts a holed out, but a disc that is just 49.95% in does not. good lord! that would be a mess!



my thought was that given the circular shape of a disc, if a disc gets more than half way through a hole it is no longer being slowed down from traveling further (farther(?) so it would be unlikely to occur.

ps: thank god you didn't bring up the 2 meter rule :D

i can understand the origins of that thought, rob, but just going more than halfway in does not mean adisc is gonna go all the way in. by the time it is halfway in, its speed is very low, and friction becomes the most powerful force. it's probably fairly likely that a disc could stop 51-75% in.

but my biggest concern is how to measure 50%.

I apologize for not reading this whole thread and possible repreating something, but wedgies are bogus in my mind. Wedgies are always lame putts. They should not be rewarded. I have seen way too many of them in my life and everyone of them has been on a putt that the whole group witnessed. Therefore, why not have the rule state something to the effect of "If the disc is wedged in the side of the basket and two members witness the disc hit below the rim and wedge in the basket, then the disc is marked below the basket and the player has yet to complete the hole."

In fact, in the spirit of justice, I advocate the creation of a temporary rule which penalizes the putter one stroke for a wedgie. :D For each player, the rule will last the number of years they have played. :D

I say that DROTS count because atleast they had a chance to go in and wedgies dont because when they got to the basket they werent even high enough to go in :D

Just do away with the basket, stick a flag in a hole
in the ground. If it's in the hole, it's In The Hole:D

Nothing I hate worse than wondering "Is It In?" :o

Putting would really become a challenge, no more throwing
with 60' power on a 45' putt. Try rolling an Ace from
420'+ thru low cover...

I hate to say it, but a hole in the ground about 2 feet in diameter sounds awesome to me. :D

sure would increase trhe likelihood of rollers being aces!

I hate to say it, but a hole in the ground about 2 feet in diameter sounds awesome to me. :D


We've ben there, done that, and chicken-wire was involved.

DROTs shouldnt be allowed simply due to basket variances. a basket with a number plate has a higher chance of drots than one without. DiscCatchers have a higher % chance of drots than a chainstar does due to the shape of its top. A global rule to support drots just doesnt make sense.

and to the person who said a drot had a chance to go in while a low putt did not.... i truly hope you were joking.

Start digging some holes, but make sure to put in proper drainage

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...

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.)





Felix, by 'count out' are you reading Gary to mean disallow or holed out? (i took him to mean disallow, so i think he read you right)

Oops! Missed the "out." That's what happens when I try to squeeze in a quick scan of the board between appointments. :( (Although if it had been I, I would have written "ruled out" rather than "count out." :D)



Hello Kettle! LOL!

i can understand the origins of that thought, rob, but just going more than halfway in does not mean adisc is gonna go all the way in. by the time it is halfway in, its speed is very low, and friction becomes the most powerful force. it's probably fairly likely that a disc could stop 51-75% in.

but my biggest concern is how to measure 50%.



Yet another reason for using "caught" as the only criteria for holing out on all "Disc Catching Devices".

sorry for barging in like this ,but i didnt know how to start a new topic.anyhow, Im ready to start playing golf after playing in the snow during winter. my question has to do with sandals and tournaments. I have some" keen" sandals with a closed toe .Are sandals not appropo for tourneys and what is considered a sandal? thanks for the inputt.

Hello Kettle! LOL!

At least my post was RELEVANT to the topic under discussion AND addressed the nub of the argument. If misreading a post makes one a kettle, I suppose that lifting part of a post and deliberately twisting it out of context must make one a chamber pot. :D

ok going back to the original thread.I agree with someone who said that better basket design is needed to avoid unnecessary quandary as to whether the disc is in or out.This would prevent trying to measure whether the disc is 50% in during tournaments.We need a better basket design to avoid going thru da chains,bouncing out from shallow baskets,wedgies and "DROTS".Until then we are stuck with the def. at hand .By the way wouldn"t taking your own disc while teetering on the basket, be considered disc interference?, After all the disc has not come to rest !

I don't see that there are any problems with wearing sandals. Here in Texas we have an Adv Masters player that always wears sandals. He plays well in them and, as I understand it, has fewer problems with his feet.


sorry for barging in like this ,but i didnt know how to start a new topic.anyhow, Im ready to start playing golf after playing in the snow during winter. my question has to do with sandals and tournaments. I have some" keen" sandals with a closed toe .Are sandals not appropo for tourneys and what is considered a sandal? thanks for the inputt.

Pat started a thread where it was discussed and the PDGA modified the NT Players handbook to allow sandals.

NT players handbook (http://www.pdgatour.com/handbook.php#_Toc63670311)

It's in the dress code section.

the key is good quality, athletic sandals. flip flops do not cut it - either for playing well or for dress code compliance. teva's are nice sandals but not for competitive golf.

www.chacosan.com (http://www.chacosan.com) - thats where the good stuff is. Z2, Terrano soles.

Pat,

You may or may not know that I am diabetic and I am always being told by doctors to protect my feet. Have you ever had any injuries wearing sandals?


the key is good quality, athletic sandals. flip flops do not cut it - either for playing well or for dress code compliance. teva's are nice sandals but not for competitive golf.

www.chacosan.com (http://www.chacosan.com) - thats where the good stuff is. Z2, Terrano soles.