click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)

This happened in a casual round on a damaged discatcher in CT. The disc is not touching a chain.

i am 100% pretty sure this is out - needs to be supported by the chains or basket in some fashion not the top - this is no different that it coming to rest on the top of the chain support

here's a case for OUT.

section 803.13:

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.

out. Supported by the top entrapment section.

But, very cool!

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)

This happened in a casual round on a damaged discatcher in CT. The disc is not touching a chain.




here's a case for OUT.

section 803.13:

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.



The card ruled it *out*, as the rule sort of indicates. This disc is not *hanging outside of the upper entrapment* as the rule clearly states....but rather inside of the upper entrapment. :D

out. Supported by the top entrapment section.

But, very cool!



what kinda shot was it? drive, approach, putt?

what kinda shot was it?



An unlucky one. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Interesting.

I'd say out, because while the disc is within the upper entrapment section and therefore otherwise would be good, it is partly hanging outside the upper entrapment section, which makes it subject to the exclusion clause. This pairs nicely with that one with the boulder...one that I'd say by the rules is in but by common sense should not be, and one that by the rules is out but by common sense should be in.

Bob,

You stole my thunder! You thought (and posted) EXACTLY what I was thinking the moment I first saw this picture..."boulder disc" ruled in (should really be out) and this disc ruled out (should really be in).

But this is just one more example of how the DROT rule is, in my opinion, the stupidest rule in dg. I've explained this rule to numerous non-disc golfers and almost to a man (or woman) they say "...why not just have ANY disc in the devise count?" If THEY can figure it out, it SHOULD be obvious.

Karl

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)

This happened in a casual round on a damaged discatcher in CT. The disc is not touching a chain.




here's a case for OUT.

section 803.13:

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.



The card ruled it *out*, as the rule sort of indicates. This disc <font color="red"> is not </font> *hanging outside of the upper entrapment* as the rule clearly states....but rather inside of the upper entrapment. :D



The rule clearly needs to be rewritten.

that rule and some of the message board rules!!! :confused:

The disc is being supported by the upper entrapment section. It is resting *on top of* a broken portion of part of the uppper entrapment section, therefore the disc is not holed out.

The reason that the rule cannot say that the disc cannot be supported by the upper entrapment section is because that would mean that if a disc came to rest inside the chain assembly, it would not be holed out.

I think that the rule is OK as written.

Where in CT?

Where in CT?



Adam Goodman's putt on the brand new 9 holer in New Canaan, CT.

I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)



I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.



The rule is written OK. LOL. So, do we all agree that if this disc was touching a burr on a single link then it's good? How could you possibly say that a burr on a link touching the center of the flight plate is giving the disc support? :D

Two things need to be done to the rule:
a) let DROTs count. I have seen nothing gained by disallowing DROTs.
b) Change wording so that the disc is holed out if it is solely supported by the target entrapment sections or chains.
Keep the rules simple unless there's a good reason not to.

Since it is Adam's I say it is out for sure....no question!! :D:D:D

I heard he missed the "no footer" putt! :D

1. Baskets do not have to have a deflector of any sort to become PDGA Approved.
2. A deflector can currently look like and be made of anything as long as its width falls inside the spec.
<font color="blue"> (C) Deflection or Entrapment Apparatus
(1) A disc-catching device may incorporate some sort of deflection device in its design. This
apparatus may be flexible or solid.
(2) The maximum width of a deflection apparatus shall be 71 cm.</font>
3. Manufacturers and/or TDs can specify what parts of a deflector, <font color="red">including the top itself</font>, are defined as "entrapment sections" since there's no guidance in the spec or rules.
4. A disc resting on or hanging from the top could be considered "in" if the TD had specified that the complete deflector on all baskets is an entrapment section. Rule 803.13B.

Chuck,

I was tracking with you until #3.

Where is section 804 does it grant a TD the authority to specify what parts of a deflector is an entrapment section?

I agree with #4 if the TD had specified that the complete deflector on all baskets are entrapment devices, I just disagree that a TD has that authority, or should I say, I can't find where the TD is granted that authority.

From Section 800:

Disc Entrapment Device: A target used to complete the hole, usually consisting of an upper entrapping section of chains, cables, tubes, etc. and a lower entrapping section of a basket or tray.

With no specific guidance in the tech specs, the manufacturer's info or the rules on what constitutes an entrapment section, the TD is left to make the call in the same way TDs determine what a disc has to hit on a variety of object targets to "hole out."

Two things need to be done to the rule:
a) let DROTs count. I have seen nothing gained by disallowing DROTs.
b) Change wording so that the disc is holed out if it is solely supported by the target entrapment sections or chains.
Keep the rules simple unless there's a good reason not to.


I support that!

Two things need to be done to the rule:
a) let DROTs count. I have seen nothing gained by disallowing DROTs.
b) Change wording so that the disc is holed out if it is solely supported by the target entrapment sections or chains.
Keep the rules simple unless there's a good reason not to.


---I absolutely agree with this. It takes the ambiguity out of things. If experienced discgolfers have to debate about whether or not a disc is in, then the rule needs to be changed.

If I was playing with this person I would have counted it in because...the rule does not account for BROKEN BASKETS!!!

A BROKEN BASKET should probably be treated as an OBJECT OR POLE, so IMO it's GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!! Why penalize somebody for a broken basket??? If the basket wasn't damaged it may have gone in. Even if the chances were less than 1% to go in if the basket weren't broken, I still see that as penalizing the shooter because the basket was broken.

I think part of the reason for the DROT rule is to eliminate the "luck" factor. Really, if you end up landing on top of the basket, its pretty much a bad putt, dont you think? The idea is having your disc resting in the "tray" section of the basket, not getting let off the hook for being lucky.
I agree eliminating the DROT rule would also eliminate some shades of gray in this matter, but we need to look at both sides of the issue, perhaps the original reason for DROT, and see if it is still appplicable to "modern day" disc golf.???

In both casual and tournament play, I think I've seen more putts wedged into the side of the basket that were considered good than DROTs not counted. The only reason DROTs are considered a bad putt is because they currently don't count.

I think part of the reason for the DROT rule is to eliminate the "luck" factor. Really, if you end up landing on top of the basket, its pretty much a bad putt, dont you think? The idea is having your disc resting in the "tray" section of the basket, not getting let off the hook for being lucky.
I agree eliminating the DROT rule would also eliminate some shades of gray in this matter, but we need to look at both sides of the issue, perhaps the original reason for DROT, and see if it is still appplicable to "modern day" disc golf.???

DROTs and Wedgies are both bad putts with unlikely outcomes that include that they are both suspended off the ground by some part of the target. Why one should count and the other not count has never been apparent to me, other than that Wedgies won and DROTs lost the last time the Rules Committee voted on either.

DROTs lost the last time the Rules Committee voted on either.


According to Chap, RC said Yes to DROTs twice and Board rejected it last two times rules were updated.

"...said Yes to DROTs "

what does that mean? i mean, whats a "yes" mean?

I'm not sure why DROT's don't count and Wedgies do count but I would guess wedgies count because you can putt into the chains and have the disc "wedge" on its way out of the basket, this would be a good putt (into the basket) gone bad (not counted b/c its a wedgie - if this rule were eliminated).

What if your disc is wedged with 5% outside of the lower entrapment device and 95% in the basket? Good or not? Much tougher call than DROT...

There isn't anyway I can think of to make a good putt into the target area and have it end up DROT other than possibly the broken basket seen here.

what does that mean? i mean, whats a "yes" mean?

Twice, the RC suggested rules changes making any disc supported by the basket and/or deflector "good" including DROTs. Board rejected that proposed change both times.

I'm not sure why DROT's don't count and Wedgies do count but I would guess wedgies count because you can putt into the chains and have the disc "wedge" on its way out of the basket, this would be a good putt (into the basket) gone bad (not counted b/c its a wedgie - if this rule were eliminated).



That is my understanding as to the rationale of why "wedgies" are counted, because there was the possibility of a disc entering between the upper and lower entrapment sections, and with a DROT, there is no such possibility, at least with existing mass produced entrapment devices.

i understood that the historical reason was rooted in the old target pole, and object golf. if a disc flew over the pole, or object, it would have missed. so DROTs, the theory goes, would have also missed and should not be counted. ie, the "T" part means it was a bad shot. a good shot would have ended up in the basket. wedgies would have hit the target, so they count. i'm not defending it, just relaying something i read long ago.

I'm not sure why DROT's don't count and Wedgies do count but I would guess wedgies count because you can putt into the chains and have the disc "wedge" on its way out of the basket, this would be a good putt (into the basket) gone bad (not counted b/c its a wedgie - if this rule were eliminated).



That is my understanding as to the rationale of why "wedgies" are counted, because there was the possibility of a disc entering between the upper and lower entrapment sections, and with a DROT, there is no such possibility, at least with existing mass produced entrapment devices.



....but what about those crappy discatchers that will allow small diameter discs to fall through the upper entrapment and into the chains? Should have been a DROT but somehow this bad putt counts b/c it somehow wiggled through and ended up in the "holed out" area of the target. Booooooooooooo to crappy targets!

Start a discussion with a non-disc golfer or a newcomer by saying that "the goal is to throw the disc into the chains and have it come to rest either in the chains or in the basket." I am real skeptical that any person hearing the most basic premise of the sport would have trouble understanding why DROTs don't count. The player didn't achieve the goal. They will also understand why wedgies shouldn't count. The player didn't achieve the goal.

cefire, it is my understanding that the reason wedgies count is theoretically because one can never tell if the disc was in and then was wedged on it's way out. Of course, this argument is lame, as I have yet to see a golfer on any card who did not know how the disc got wedged.

However, if we have to pay homage to this lame argument, we could at least rewrite the rules to say: "if the players on the card witness the disc become wedged without ever entering the basket, the disc is not holed out and should be marked on the playing surface below." This language would mirror the fact that the player failed in their goal and will need one more shot to achieve it, just like with DROTs.

James,

I understand what you are trying to say in your last paragraph, but I think it makes for a more clean, elegant rule to describe holing out as where the disc is and not add how it got there.

Part of the issue with DROTs is caught up in the old object target design and the current target specs. If the most commonly given reasoning for DROTs not counting is to hold up (it's supposed to hit as if it were an object target of the two-bands-around-a-column style), then the upper deflector and chains should be a mandatory part of the basket, and they're not...and you could make just as strong a case that hitting chains and not staying in should count, as that a DROT shouldn't. You are also, by excluding DROTs, ignoring the "bucket" type targets (throw it into the hollow stump, etc.) from those same old courses, which are arguably represented by the basket part of the target. Based on those styles of targets and based on the current PDGA specifications for a disc golf target...which do not require an upper deflector...a high-loft putting style is perfectly valid (and arguably moreso than a straight-line putt at the chains) and therefore DROTs and putts that filter through the top SHOULD count.

I'll play by whatever rules the PDGA goes with, as always, but I personally think that either the target specifications should -require- a deflection assembly...and probably require that assembly not to allow discs to fall through the top...or (preferably) DROTs should count and basket designs that will let a disc fall through the upper deflector support should be encouraged, not considered "crappy."

what does that mean? i mean, whats a "yes" mean?

Twice, the RC suggested rules changes making any disc supported by the basket and/or deflector "good" including DROTs. Board rejected that proposed change both times.



I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "shenanigans" on this one.
:confused:

So, why can the Board overrule the RC?
What's the point of having a RC?
Why not just have the Board write the rules?
Looks to me like the RC is just there to save the Board the time of bothering to write the rules themselves.

To me, the situation is just "not Scottish"! :mad:

- JPB

So, why can the Board overrule the RC? <font color="red"> the Board creates the committee to provide advice and guidance, but it not compelled to accept it lock stock and barrel.</font>
What's the point of having a RC? <font color="red"> they are subject matter experts, have time to work on the issue, have compelling and varied insights on the issue... the point is to bring those folks together to apply their skills to the issue. </font>
Why not just have the Board write the rules? <font color="red"> :Dthat would be fun </font>
Looks to me like the RC is just there to save the Board the time of bothering to write the rules themselves. <font color="red"> its to bring more people, especially SMEs and stakeholders (in this case players) into the process. the Board is not all-knowing. at least this Director isnt. the rest of them could well be, i suppose. it is proper for the Board to rely on whatever parties it wishes for advise, provided those parties are believable. we ask accountants for financial advice, we ask attorneys for legal advice. we ask RC for rules advice.</font>

good questions.

Since a "basket"-type target is not required to have chains, or a top section of the entrapment area, DROT cannot be good. If a course has no top knuckles, a disc can't be ROT. It makes for rules with more universal applicability. Same if it's an object target--can't be ROT, the idea is to HIT the target. Essentially, a basket is the same thing, the space to hit is inside the basket, with the additional help of chains (if they're present).
Given that, a wedgie isn't really in either, unless it's more than halfway into the frame. (How many times does a disc bouce off the chains and wedge? Not very, I'd guess, given that the chains are intended to break the velocity of the disc's travel.)

<font color="red">the Board is not all-knowing.</font>


you have got to be kidding.

I have actually seen a disc go in over the top of the basket, miss the chains entirely, and wedge in to the basket on the far side.

Once.

Compared to about three or four wedgies the other way and half a dozen or so DROTs.

the "target" for the purpose of "holing out" should be defined as "the interior of the catching device structure". this would provide a guideline for card rulings in these situations. If the disc has come to rest with any part of the disc *inside* of the target area, however supported, it should be counted as "holed out".

disc golfers already make judgments like this for OB lines, etc. This idea uses the same concept. there is a plane that is considered to define the "holed out" area just like there is a plane considered to define the "in bounds" area. a disc resting on top of the target is outside of this plane and therefore should not count. a disc resting on a branch that allows part of the disc to extend through the plane should be counted. This isn't a perfect rule, but it provides more clear and reasonable guidelines.

thoughts?

I totally agree with this baldguy but there should also be rules as to what can be around a basket and the conditions of baskets. The boulder shot was an absolute joke. How could a TD not foresee problems when you can't even walk around the basket? It looked cool, yeah, but this is not putt-putt golf. There should not be objects within at least 10 feet of a basket in my opinion. Otherwise you could drop a basket in a 30 foot hole that is 5 foot wide and make people climb down to putt. A broken basket throws everything out the window. It should simply be treated as an object or pole. I can't believe people are actually discussing it because it's like having a basketball rim split in half with no net, 9 pins instead of 10 in bowling, a soccer goal with one side missing, etc. The hole shouldn't count or the benefit should go to the shooter. How could I look my friend in the face during a casual round and say that doesn't count? How much was the side bet? Dang, now I'm discussing it!!!

too funny :)

I agree with what you're saying, for the most part. I think 10 feet might be a bit extreme... I personally like baskets that are guarded on one side by trees or shrubs within a few feet, shaping the green a bit more than usual. It still definitely can and does get out of hand, like you said. perhaps something like "the basket must be accessible with no objects within 10 feet of the basket for at least 180 contiguous degrees of the 20-foot diameter circle surrounding the basket" would help clarify the intentions of your idea. I also think that a rule should be made saying that "for baskets more than 5 feet above the fairway's normal playing surface, there should be a minimum 25 square feet of playing surface touching the base of the target". This would allow elevated baskets but disallow putting baskets up extremely high, down in holes, or in very tight areas (boulders, etc). That one might need some tweaking to be viable, but meh... /un-drift

I actually never saw the "boulder shot" and I'm far too lazy to go diggin it up... anyone have a link?

My argument has always been that a high loft putt that ends up on top would likely have hit within the painted boundaries of an object target had the upper assembly not stopped it's downward progress.

The rule is just simpler and cleaner if it accepts all discs completely supported by the entrapment sections of the target as good. No mention of chains, upper or lower assemblies, no need for DROTs or wedgies. Either it is supported by the target or something else.

My guess is that 99% of all disc golf targets are baskets, of relatively similar construction. Should the rule make them conform to the other 1%....or the other way around? Personally, I'd craft the rule based on the normal chain &amp; basket targets, with perhaps a footnote for the rare targets of other styles.

I'd prefer the simplicity that if the target is holding the disc, and the disc is not touching the ground, it's good. Any part of the target. So a few bad shots get lucky? I'd guess less than 1 in 1000 putts results in a DROT, perhaps far less. There's much more good luck on bad shots elsewhere on the course.

I actually never saw the "boulder shot" and I'm far too lazy to go diggin it up... anyone have a link?




Video (http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/407/wmv/newest?page=1&amp;channel_id=0)

the "target" for the purpose of "holing out" should be defined as "the interior of the catching device structure". this would provide a guideline for card rulings in these situations. If the disc has come to rest with any part of the disc *inside* of the target area, however supported, it should be counted as "holed out".

disc golfers already make judgments like this for OB lines, etc. This idea uses the same concept. there is a plane that is considered to define the "holed out" area just like there is a plane considered to define the "in bounds" area. a disc resting on top of the target is outside of this plane and therefore should not count. a disc resting on a branch that allows part of the disc to extend through the plane should be counted. This isn't a perfect rule, but it provides more clear and reasonable guidelines.

thoughts?



I posted this on the boulder forum, but it seems relevant to thinking about this here:

"When playing on a low basket during a casual round, a putt became vertically wedged between the bottom of the lower entrapment section (basket) and the ground. One could argue the disc was supported by both ground and basket as in the boulder situation and a portion of the disc was wedged partially into the entrapment area." Obviously a terrible putt, but should it count because it has a portion of the disc in the entrapment area?

I think no matter what rule we come up with, its going to include possibilities for good and bad luck. I agree with the previous poster, there are much larger swings in luck via driving, roll aways, etc. these situations are very low percentage. And I don't have a solution for how to change the rule but the key to me is to make a rule that is easy to apply. Not "more than 50% in" or "players in their group must make a ruling" - This can only lead to increased rule lenience and future problems down the road...

I've seen a number of people on this thread promote the idea that people are somehow confused by the rule, or that the rule doesn't adequately address weird outliers. They then conclude that the rule should be changed and their clarifications always seem to end up rewarding bad shots. This makes little sense to me.

No one ever attempts to land on top of the basket when putting. 99% of all cases are a player lobbing a high putt that is lucky enough to stay on top without bouncing off and rolling away. It's a bad shot and everyone who witnessed it, knows as much. It should not be rewarded. We have a rule which reflects that sentiment. Why weaken it?

Just a suggestion, but could the rule be handled with the following:

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest entirely supported by the Entrapment Device. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the upper and lower entrapment section. The disc must also remain wholly supported by the entrapment device until removed.

In effect the top is part of the entrappment device. This would count DROT's and discount discs supported between a boulder and basket or ground and basket.

Just a question, but in ball golf, if the ball is trapped above the hole between the lip and flag pole, is it in or out? I don't know, I hate bolf :p.

because we're trying to get our average finishes down to <font color="red">-16 </font> ? :D

James,

I don't have a problem with your stance, but some baskets lend themselves to DROTs. For instance the innova baskets are notorious for this. I agree that to be on top is a bad putt to start with, but what about on a drive? I have seen multiple discs on top of Disccatchers due to drives. In that case it is a very good drive, just not good enough for an ace.

Well, the player ought to be happy it stuck up there for a drop-in bird, rather than rolling away for a hard putt, or no putt at all. If they want an ace, they should have thrown it lower. ;)

because we're trying to get our average finishes down to <font color="red">-16 </font> ? :D



Alacrity's rule suggestion would only get the average to -16 if the current average is -15.9999

Or about 10 more decimal places at Earlewood Park.

Just a question, but in ball golf, if the ball is trapped above the hole between the lip and flag pole, is it in or out?



It is considered in if, when you go to remove the flag, the ball drops in. In other words, if the flag pole is keeping the ball from dropping in, it's in. The key is whether or not the ball has passed the rim of the cup.

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)



I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.



So if this disc was touching a burr on a single link then it's good? How could you possibly say that a burr on a link touching the center of the flight plate is giving the disc support? :D




K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid!)

If you don't like DROTs, make the basket so that DROTs could never happen...like placing a dome or dunce cap on top (so that any disc 'landing' up there would slide off). Due to the VAST difference in what COULD be a "legal" (per PDGA rules) entrapment device, we have to make things as simple as possible (to cover ALL situations / types of devices). Having part of it "good" and someother part "NG" really confuses things...and isn't necessary. We are so conditioned to seeing / playing on Discatchers, Mach's, etc. that we forget that a totally viable 'entrapment device' may look TOTALLY different than those...and thus the rules have to work for those too! Take a minute and let your mind envision ALL SORTS OF POSSIBILITIES of what a device could be (and still be "OK"). Truly scary, isn't it? I know I could make an "approvable PDGA target" where going for a DROT might be the "method of choice" when trying to hole out.

It's amazing when I explain (to a newbie) that a hole is deemed completed when the disc is supported by the entrapment device and "not all the entrapment device IS the entrapment device" they look at me like "What dumbo made up that rule? Why not just have the entire entrapment device be the entrapment device instead of only part of it?". And then I have to hang my head....

Karl

this might be a baaaaad idea, but could we leave it up to the TDs to specify, like the 2MR, OB, and certain other things?

TD in players meeting:
"thanks for supporting this PDGA sanctioned event. lets cover a few quick rules for this event.
1. the two meter rule is NOT in effect;
2. except for holes 2 and 12 where the OB line is painted, water is not OB. play it from where it lies;
3. DROTs count as IN"

If you don't like DROTs, make the basket so that DROTs could never happen...like placing a dome or dunce cap on top (so that any disc 'landing' up there would slide off). Due to the VAST difference in what COULD be a "legal" (per PDGA rules) entrapment device, we have to make things as simple as possible (to cover ALL situations / types of devices). Having part of it "good" and someother part "NG" really confuses things...and isn't necessary. We are so conditioned to seeing / playing on Discatchers, Mach's, etc. that we forget that a totally viable 'entrapment device' may look TOTALLY different than those...and thus the rules have to work for those too! Take a minute and let your mind envision ALL SORTS OF POSSIBILITIES of what a device could be (and still be "OK"). Truly scary, isn't it? I know I could make an "approvable PDGA target" where going for a DROT might be the "method of choice" when trying to hole out.


We have a local guy making and marketing his own line of baskets, including these:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_jellyfish.jpghttp://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_octopus.jpg
Very unlikely to get a DROT on them. Everyone I have played with while shooting at these baskets seemed to like these designs. For more on DiscIn targets, visit: http://www.discin.net/index.html

nanook

Pat,

"...could we leave it up to the TDs to specify...?" Yes. But why complicate things when we COULD have a rule which simplifies / eliminates such? Due to constraints as to where we decide to build dg course, the need for OBs, etc. may be present...and thus "complicates" the situation enough. But we have the ability to "totally UNcomplicate" the hole out process, so why not do so? If the PDGA has come up with "dimensions" for the width, etc., OK, but it should be written in a way that "ANY disc which comes to rest solely supported by the "entrapment device" is deemed holed out" (or something like that). Yes, you'd have to make sure that no grass is coming up through the bottom and touching the disc, that "rock thing" would be NG, and if you're good enough to throw a disc and have it hang on the twist/assembly knob on my DB-5 then that's holed out too! Remember (for all the DROT are NG pundits) I could just as easily make a basket where the chains were a little longer...and thus your DROT would have been a hole-out. I believe there is no hard and fast "height" rule regarding the distance between the basket and the DROT spot. Just have the whole thing so ONLY the ED is supporting the disc (or levitation!).

Karl

If you don't like DROTs, make the basket so that DROTs could never happen...like placing a dome or dunce cap on top (so that any disc 'landing' up there would slide off).



check out the baskets at

http://www.saulsinsurance.com/marchmadness/Photos.htm

It's amazing when I explain (to a newbie) that a hole is deemed completed when the disc is supported by the entrapment device and "not all the entrapment device IS the entrapment device" they look at me like "What dumbo made up that rule? Why not just have the entire entrapment device be the entrapment device instead of only part of it?". And then I have to hang my head....




Really? When, you talk to a newbie, you actually call the basket an "entrapment device"? You might want to simply call it a basket with chains above it, and then tell them that the object is to get it either in the basket or hanging in the chains above the basket. It's a fairly easy concept to grasp.

We have a local guy making and marketing his own line of baskets, including these:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_jellyfish.jpghttp://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_octopus.jpg
Very unlikely to get a DROT on them. Everyone I have played with while shooting at these baskets seemed to like these designs. For more on DiscIn targets, visit: http://www.discin.net/index.html

nanook



Those actually look fairly decent. Do they meet the current tech standards? It says they do, but I don't see them on the list.

You could still keep the rule as is, but it would be very unlikely to see a DROT on one of these.

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)


[QUOTE]
I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.



So if this disc was touching a burr on a single link then it's good? How could you possibly say that a burr on a link touching the center of the flight plate is giving the disc support? :D




For the love of God, will somebody PLEASE answer the bold question?

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)


[QUOTE]
I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.



So if this disc was touching a burr on a single link then it's good? How could you possibly say that a burr on a link touching the center of the flight plate is giving the disc support? :D




For the love of God, will somebody PLEASE answer the bold question?



Okay I will bite, if the group agrees it is partially suported by the burr, then yes it is in.

Karl,

regardless of what you do, there will probably always be DROTs, putting a cone on top will only reduce the number to get us to -15.99999 average......

I don't think the group would be capable of making that determination (though they may think they can) without some sort of equipment that measures whether or not there is any pressure being exerted on the burr. I doubt such a device exists that could measure that in this situation.

Again, the answer is to keep your equipment in repair and not let this baloney happen.

If you don't like DROTs, make the basket so that DROTs could never happen...like placing a dome or dunce cap on top (so that any disc 'landing' up there would slide off).




check out the baskets at

http://www.saulsinsurance.com/marchmadness/Photos.htm



i love the earlewood dometops!!!!!!

also, i agree with karl. make anything supported solely by the metal thingy good since the cat's already out of the bag on the manufacturing side. rewards a few more bad shots but eliminates all arguments.

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)


[QUOTE]
I think that the rule is OK as written.



Exactly. Fix the basket and you won't have this problem. The rule is not broken.



So if this disc was touching a burr on a single link then it's good? How could you possibly say that a burr on a link touching the center of the flight plate is giving the disc support? :D




For the love of God, will somebody PLEASE answer the bold question?



Okay I will bite, <font color="red"> if the group agrees it is partially suported by the burr </font> , then yes it is in.



Herein lies the problem. So the rule isn't written well enough to establish a ruling on it's own. :D

Jerry,

I know (that there will always be a wicked small chance for DROTS); I�m just trying to appease the DROTs-are-no-good people by �trying� to eliminate (as much as possible) that chance.


All,

I have something that�s circular in top view, with a 66cm OD (outside diameter), it�s 16cm deep, and the top of it�s rim is 80cm above the ground. It meets the specifications for a �PDGA-approved target�. It�s a birdbath. Envision it. Putt at it. You�re telling me that if my putt gets caught up on the gnome that�s sitting in it that the putt wasn�t a good putt / attempt? Hogwash! That putt was wicked better than the putt you threw (at just a couple of mach�s less than the speed of light) that decapitated my gnome and then fell into the birdbath (killing 2 chickadees, 1 nuthatch, and a wren).

And if you think about it, although highly unlikely, it IS possible for a disc to be �flying over the chains and basket�, hit the thingy that holds the chains, slips on down in the crack up there, doesn�t hit a chain doing so, and ends up in the basket. If this thingy isn�t part of the �deflection device� (it having deflected a disc into the basket) what is it?

Karl

Karl, great example :)

i find myself moving more towards the DROT is good camp.

even if the original intention of the rule was to preserve our object course heritage, today's basket configurations have moved past that history. i like gary's example of the sky-putt, especially being a flat or loft putter myself.

as john biscoe says, rewards a few more bad shots but eliminates all arguments.

You are persuaded by an argument that a high lofting putt that sticks on the top of the basket was presumably a well-executed putt that should count??????? Wow, gives new meaning to the old disc golfer saying: that was a great drive, other than that tree in the way.

Did these loft putters actually expect their putt to travel through the top, so that they can then argue that the disc did exactly what they intended?.

btw. what does an analogy using a birdbath have to do with disc golf. We are not writing rules with birdbaths or object holes or any other things in mind. We are writing rules for baskets.

We have a local guy making and marketing his own line of baskets, including these:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_jellyfish.jpghttp://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w130/nanook93/discin_octopus.jpg
Very unlikely to get a DROT on them. Everyone I have played with while shooting at these baskets seemed to like these designs. For more on DiscIn targets, visit: http://www.discin.net/index.html

nanook



Those actually look fairly decent. Do they meet the current tech standards? It says they do, but I don't see them on the list.

You could still keep the rule as is, but it would be very unlikely to see a DROT on one of these.


Both the Jellyfish and Octopuss are approved according to
http://www.pdga.com/documents/tech_standards/PDGA_approved_discs_and_targets.pdf
DiscIn is the fifth manufacturer on the list, down at the bottom of page six.

nanook

James,

Your...
"We are not writing rules with birdbaths or object holes or any other things in mind. We are writing rules for baskets."
...is not corrrect.
We ARE writing rules for 'any other things in mind' (which ARE approvable); birdbaths included! Take away the chains and the top and you have a holey-birdbath.

My birdbath is TOTALLY applicable in this case...it is an approvable (per the present specs) target for disc golf. You seem to be focusing in on what you're accustomed to seeing, not what COULD be used for a PDGA tournament. I could set up a whole course with birdbaths and conduct a tournament on it...and have it PDGA sanctioned. And then all my scenarios would come true.

And if there was any problem with it, it would be because the rules have been written in such a way so as not to encompass "all ends of the spectrum". If this is the case, which it would be, then the rule hasn't been correctly written. If the rule can be simplified / bettered / changed, then maybe it should be.

And boy, I'd LOVE to play a round of dg with you where you'd be zinging your putts and I'd be lofting them in...in to my birdbath targets...which were TOTALLY PDGA-approved. I think I'd learn a lot ;).

Karl

i wonder if there are other ubiquitous man made objects that could be approved as targets? that would be fun to have a course with all kinds of different stuff for targets - and have it all approvable!

One could argue that your birdbath is really a target and not an entrapment device. This reclassification would neutralize some of these hypotheticals that have not ever occured, nor ever will occur in any disc golfer's lifetime.

However, my main point is that 99.9% of disc golf is played with baskets and the rules should reflect that fact. It is of very questionable judgement to rewrite a rule based on what amount to imaginary scenarios.

dang it, how can both sides be so right?

could we have a rule for object targets and one for baskets?

It is of very questionable judgement to rewrite a rule based on what amount to imaginary scenarios.thank you. i totally agree with this sentiment.

i wonder if there are other ubiquitous man made objects that could be approved as targets? that would be fun to have a course with all kinds of different stuff for targets - and have it all approvable!


I'm in. where do I sign up?

Unfortunately for the Bird Bath open, most bird baths won't meet the tech standards...


(A) General Configuration
All disc-catching targets shall be composed of a basket and may have a deflection or entrapment
apparatus above the basket.
(B) Basket
The basket shall have a circular rim of no greater than 67 cm in diameter as measured on the
outside edge of the rim, with a minimal basket depth of 15 cm. The basket rim shall have an
average height of between 76 and 89 cm above the ground. Over slope, height compliance is
determined by averaging the distance to the ground directly below the top edge of the rim at four
equidistant points around the basket. Baskets may be placed at a lower height on courses
designed primarily for junior play.

The birdbath isn't deep enough...

But... round items at least 15cm deep and less than 67 cm in diameter and cound be placed between 76 and 89 cm of the ground:

5 gallon paint bucket
Laundry basket
Old tire on an end table.

My favorite thought so far...

A top loading washing machine!!!!

what does an analogy using a birdbath have to do with disc golf. We are not writing rules with birdbaths or object holes or any other things in mind. We are writing rules for baskets.



With all due respect, I think this may be why you're not giving validity to some of these arguments.
It's an incorrect assumption.
The rules are NOT written with ONLY baskets in mind. They're written to allow for various types of targets or entrapment devices.
That, I believe, may have been the point of mentioning the birdbath.
As the standards for targets are currently written, it is a target legal for sanctioned PDGA play.

Should they be written with ONLY baskets in mind at this point?
Perhaps. That's debatable.
It is not, however, the current state of affairs, and assuming it is will only serve to, imho, incorrectly narrow your focus.

- JPB

James,

You stated, "One could argue that your birdbath is really a target and not an entrapment device." Yeah, you could argue it, but I don't think you'd win! It is VERY much just like a basket (which, by the way, is THE primary target (it's not the chains) which the PDGA rules mention regarding holing out). In fact the birdbath actually is way closer to an actual "basket" than this contraption (which has chains, nubs, hooks, posts, wires, etc.) which we now predominantly throw our putters at!

I do agree with you that the VAST majority of dg is played "toward the typical Chainstars, Machs, etc.". If this is the case (and we wish it to be the case for the future), then we MUST standardize the rule to reflect that. "Pidgeon-hole" all the thingy makers to make it to be VERY similar to what we have now, i.e., they ALL must have baskets, they ALL must have chains, they ALL must have things that the chains are attached to, they ALL must be on poles, etc. I can live with having this mandated (...I doubt everyone could). But to have ANY thingy be so cumbersome that only part of it is actually "good" to me seems awkward at best, confusing to say the least (as are the cases of the "rock-shot" and the "broken rim" situations). I admit that if I ran a tournament with 18 birdbaths advertised as going to be used, I wouldn't fill. This is because we - as human beings - are SO conditioned that "more is better"! And more (possibility of me making a putt) is desirable. It really has nothing to do with "more challenge"; if it did, birdbaths may be more 'en vogue'. Our present type of targets are now 'en vogue' but they may be totally blown out of the water by someone who finds a way to both adhere to PDGA rules AND make a target which catches our discs way better than the present ones do now. If that ever happens, then we'll be revisiting this whole issue again. I say, let's either make it simple (DROTs - along with any other situation where the disc is solely supported by the entrapment device - count) or carve-in-stone that all entrapment devices have to have chains, etc.

Pat,

And yeah, I'm in on that "a different target for every hole" thing!!

Karl

5 gallon paint bucket
Laundry basket
Old tire on an end table.

My favorite thought so far...

A top loading washing machine!!!!



Anyone up for a PDGA round at the local dump?
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This may be the best argument I've seen for perhaps making the entrapment device standards more stringent. If one can go to the dump and easily find 18 things to use as sanctioned baskets....

Then again, I can also see great promise in fashioning baskets from what would otherwise just end up in a landfill, so maybe "wiggle room" is a good thing.

Back to the original question though, I'm of the school of thought that it should not have happened (nor the "half resting on boulder thing".)
If you're going to be using baskets, don't use broken ones, and don't place them close enough to anything so a disc may be touching it and the basket at the same time.

While I understand that these things may sometimes be done out of a certain sense of necessity, I would argue that there are always better options than that.

- JPB

click to enlarge
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1949945)

[QUOTE]
Back to the original question though, I'm of the school of thought that it should not have happened (nor the "half resting on boulder thing".)

If you're going to be using baskets, don't use broken ones, and don't place them close enough to anything so a disc may be touching it and the basket at the same time.





I agree that using damaged equipment opens up the door for all sorts of strange things to happen, but suggesting to not use the basket and only play 17 holes is boderline absurd. The basket pictured was damaged a few weeks ago by a large falling branch. It takes time for municipalities to replace equipment, especially DG equipment(or at least DG equipment around here). It's not like DGers are the city's number one park patrons although most of us would like to think so.

How many times do you think you'd have to throw that putt in order to recreate a similar hang? 1,000x, 10,000x, a million times? Who knows? The bottom line here is it shouldn't take a group decision, or even a split second of time for anyone that has read the rule of holing out to be able to determine if in fact the disc was holed out. That's why i kept asking but "what if the middle of the flight plate was touching a chain, a link, a burr on a single link?" Would or could that be considered support? The rule really needs to be simplified so that even stupid people can figure it out.

As for the basket and the boulder incident, that could have been avoided by a better pin placement. However the rule clearly states that if a disc is supported by the lower entrapment then it has been holed out.

if the upper part is supported by the lower part, then isnt a disc hanging on the upper part supported by the lower part? DROTs COUNT! :)

...a grill...peach basket- the naismith...mtl's hat upside down... (not a personal attack - HUMOR- ha ha ha!) ;)

DROTS are funny only for the fact that they don't count. The picture of the disc hanging in the broken basket is funny I wish I had thrown the shot. I have had one DROT from 200' I laughed and said "sucks it doesn't count" If you get that sort of luck and gripe too much about it I bet you have less fun.

i had a DROT ace at one point... at least it would have been an ace if DROTs counted. It also would have been an ace if the basket was mounted according to those tech standards. Can I count it ex-post-facto if we change the rule? :D

if the upper part is supported by the lower part, then isnt a disc hanging on the upper part supported by the lower part? DROTs COUNT! :)



Interesting tactic, Pat.
I'm trying to remember from 3rd grade math what it's called.
Isn't it the commutative principal?

I don't think it will get you anywhere, but I like the analytical nature of the approach.

- JPB

..... even stupid people can figure it out.




Hey, I think we resemble that remark! :p

hmmm... 3rd grade math... (have i just been insulted? :) )

actually i was thinking of the wishbome song when i came up with that one...

E-ze-kiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
E-ze-kiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
E-ze-kiel cried, "Dem dry bones!"
Oh hear the word of the Lord.

The foot bone con-nected to the (pause) leg-bone,
The leg bone connected to the (') knee bone,
The knee bone connected to the (') thigh bone,
The thigh bone connected to the (') back bone,
The back bone connected to the (') neck bone
The neck bone connected to the (') head bone
Oh hear the word of the Lord!

Dem bones, dem bones gon-na walk a-roun'
Dem bones, dem bones gon-na walk a-roun'
Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk aroun'
Oh hear the word of the Lord

The head-bone connected to the neck-bone,
the neck-bone connected to the back-bone
The backbone connected to the thigh-bone
the thighbone connected to the kee-bone
the kneebone connected to the leg bone
the leg bone connected to the foot bone
Oh hear the word of the Lord

suggesting to not use the basket and only play 17 holes is boderline absurd.



<font color="blue"> I don't believe I made that particular suggestion. </font>


How many times do you think you'd have to throw that putt in order to recreate a similar hang? 1,000x, 10,000x, a million times? Who knows? The bottom line here is it shouldn't take a group decision, or even a split second of time for anyone that has read the rule of holing out to be able to determine if in fact the disc was holed out. That's why i kept asking but "what if the middle of the flight plate was touching a chain, a link, a burr on a single link?" Would or could that be considered support? The rule really needs to be simplified so that even stupid people can figure it out.



<font color="blue"> Agreed. </font>


As for the basket and the boulder incident, that could have been avoided by a better pin placement.



<font color="blue"> Yes, that is a correct interpretation of my inference.

I also agree with the poster that said this stuff is funny. I, as well, find more humor in it than annoyance.

- JPB</font>

...a grill...peach basket- the naismith...mtl's hat upside down... (not a personal attack - HUMOR- ha ha ha!) ;)



Ice cream maker. - makes for a Dr. Fred directional basket... :-)
Trash Can.
Put a stiff piece of wire through the belt loops and hang up a pair of pants...

We've at least got potential for a 9-holer...

..... even stupid people can figure it out.




Hey, I think we resemble that remark! :p



Ooooops Sorry Jerry. (To everyone; especially the Moderators)...I was calling myself stupid. :D

I have an easy fix people!!! And I know its not cheap but just make the holes in the side of the baskets smaller so its NOT POSSIBLE to wedge in OR out of them!!! And if your going to count wedgies then you HAVE to count DROTS!!! In my opinion the wedgie putt is the worst putt of the two.........Means its didnt have enough power or speed on it to even make it to the chains!!! But it just so happend that JOHNNY Wedgies alot putts real hard with a SUPER SOFT whatever and got lucky!!! At least the putt that rests on top was high enough and had enough power to get to the bucket.......You dont see ball golfers on the PGA counting putts that are shot of going in but resting on the lip do you??? No you dont and common sense could tell you weather a disc was wedging INTO the basket or wedging OUT OF the basket. Direction of flight and location of said wedgie would tell the tail all to well.

Oh and why doesnt anyone hang netting in side the inner chains of baskets to stop cut throughs if the deflection device only has to be no wider than 71CM.

PS I never said my solution was cheap!!! Just easy and simple.

This may be the best argument I've seen for perhaps making the entrapment device standards more stringent. If one can go to the dump and easily find 18 things to use as sanctioned baskets....

When we were playing league on lightweight portables in Pontiac, one of the baskets was often set up next to a shopping cart that had been abandoned in the park. Someone in our group once aced the shopping cart and then made the 20 footer for the birdie. :D

id say, obviously broken basket + benefit of the doubt FOR the player = holed out.

perhaps the tech standards and rules need adjusted, but to answer the original question, the putt is good. there is no way to say that the putt isnt resting in the basket by the fault of the player and obviously the disrepair of the basket IS a factor (uncontrollable by the player) so id say there should be, and is in many cases, a spoken or unspoken clause that says.. .. give the benefit of the doubt to the player.

everyone is quoting rules and referencing situations, but the fact is that if this basket is in disrepair, that means it doesnt meet tech standards anymore, therefore the rules cannot apply to it. now, i dont think you should skip it or not be able to use it, perhaps if you knew it was broken ahead of time, you could play the hole as if the target was just that. all you have to do is contact the metal to hole out, instead of trying to use a broken basket as you would a working basket.

here is a question to feed the other arguments arising in this thread. could a current 'basket' be treated as a 'target' meaning could a TD say all you have to do is contact any part of the metal target to hole out?

but the fact is that if this basket is in disrepair, that means it doesnt meet tech standards anymore, therefore the rules cannot apply to it.


Aahh, but that basket still does meet current tech standards since the only deflector spec is its max diameter, not what it looks like or is made of whether "broken" or not.

but if the design is different than has been approved, isnt it 'unapproved'? even though it may meet the standards, in theory, it isnt what it was designed to be.

i guess i assume that the targets or baskets have to be approved? true? false?

I've pointed out before that you can completely remove the deflection device (chains) from an approved basket and it's technically still approved because basket designs aren't currently required to have deflectors at all to be approved. The only measurement made is the diameter of a deflector, if it has one, to make sure it's less than 71cm.

i would still say that it could be the sort of thing, that if intentional, it would make it not approved.

to clarify, if a basket was made with the cage part of the lower basket having gaps that would be designed to pinch the disc and allow many more wedgies to stick, would that be allowed? could you intentionally make discs stick? this is how i see this deformation of the basket in question, and therefore i see it as something different from the original design and should be treated as a different basket.

all of that aside, i still say that it is damaged, and there should be a rule that damaged targets causing such an extenuating circumstance, should follow the idea that the benefit of the doubt should go to the player. perhaps this wont ever get written as a rule, but should be adopted by every player out of good spirit.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the short fall in the current tech standards for baskets and also the competition guidelines that don't address issues such as damage or how to handle situations where a portable basket tips over when the disc hits it or a portable becomes damaged during the round. I've heard of a situation where the pin supporting the basket broke and the basket slid to the bottom of the pipe during the round. We have rules for handling damaged or broken discs during the round but not baskets.

I would say that the basket would have to be deformed in such a way that it no longer met the tech standards before it became "not approved".

well... they don't go around approving individual baskets, they approve the design. And while the broken basket is certainly not "as designed", I think that it would pass tech approval if re-submitted as a new design. So, it seems like the real issue here is that the tech standards allow for some bad designs.

so, hypothetically lets say that the tech standards get fixed and this 'broken' basket becomes of a design that is not approved.

how should it be treated if come upon during play or if it has to be used in a tournament?

That's the question that has yet to be answered by the Rules, or more appropriately, the Competition Committee.

If they change the basket specs to require the upper deflector, I may change my mind, but currently, the essence of how and why I disagree with James can be summarized by saying that in my opinion, one can more legitimately say that a straight-line putt which would have sailed on past if there were no deflector was a "bad shot" than that a high-loft putt which would have gone in the basket if there were no deflector was a "bad shot." This opinion is based partly on the basket specs, partly on which approach usually leaves the easier following shot if the putt is off line, and partly on which I believe is more difficult and takes more skill.

Now, on the other hand, the upper deflector assembly essentially constitutes an obstacle...it's just that most people take advantage of it to hole out with what would otherwise be a bad shot, rather than risking what would otherwise be a good shot being rejected. From this point of view I consider putting at the chains roughly equivalent to "going for it" on a long approach when there are trees behind the basket to stop an errant shot, and loft-putting with the risk of DROT being somewhat akin to trying to taking a narrow line through some thin branches or leaves in order to use your normal putting motion, even though you might hit something. The former analogy is closer, though.

Long story, short, I personally think that either

(1) the tech standards should require the upper deflector

(2) DROT should count

(3) Or suspended in the chains but completely above the rim of the lower entrapment section should NOT count.

The converse of the logic by which I support options 2 and 3 would be that a shot which hits the chains but glances off should count, as if the target were a tone pole, but as a matter of personal opinion I like that option less than any of the other three.

At any rate, I don't feel particularly strongly about any of this (except the part about a loft putt that sticks on top being no more inherently a "bad shot" than a putt that wouldn't have gone in if the chains weren't there) so I honestly don't particularly care what the rule IS as long as it's clear. And I'd prefer clear enough that the arguments are reduced to whether the rule should be different, rather than whether X disc is in or out according to them (although I realize it may never be possible to eliminate ALL cases where both sides of the argument have someone who thinks there's no question about it).

If there were no top level to the basket, the DROT would not exist. The shot would, if coming from above as in a loft putt, land in or out of the basket, pure and simple. If it comes straight on, a line drive putt, it would have sailed past. But, to say a DROT is good for one type (which has a good chance of being in--the loft) and not the other is impossible to legislate. Soooooooo...a DROT by default has to be good or bad, not both. Fact is, since most baskets DO have top deflector devices, a DROT is NOT in the target area. The target area is specifically indicated, and anything that stops within that area is a made shot.

If it was an object target, with a specific area indicated as the target, anything NOT hitting that target would be no good. If the object was, say, a 4' high post, with a target area starting 6" below the top, and going 2 1/2' down, and a disc ended up balanced on the top of the pole, it's no good.
If it hits in the target area and bounces off, it's good (it has to bounce off, it's a stinkin' post, not a basket.)

The so-called "pole hole", or basket, merely adds a basket area to the target area, with chains as a deflecting device, and a top level to hold the chains and act as a further deflector. Think about the "target area" as the center pole within the basket. The chains and bottom of the basket merely act to make sure the made putt is easily identified. If it's trapped within the target area, it's good. If it's not within the target area (and, IMO, it should say COMPLETELY), it's no good. Even hanging from the top knuckles, that's not supported within the target area.

OR...how's this idea? Each basket manufacturer specifies what the target area actually is. DROTs still cannot be good, but wedgies, hangers, leaners, whatever, are based on the manufacturers specs.

That would make a little more competition among manufacturers. "Ours has the biggest approved target area with the most knuckles to catch the hanger" or "Ours makes putting a real art--you'll be a better putt maker after practicing with this basket".

it's true that the "pole hole" adds a level of skill and complexity to our sport that was previously missing. It seems to me that the rules were not accordingly modified.

I've never seen a DROT putt that had any chance of going in the basket. I *have* seen plenty of them bounce out that really should have been in. and of course I've seen lots go in that had no business being there. Some chains are just better at catching than others. There is no valid comparison between tone-poles and pole-holes. they are two completely different targets and the rules cannot be applied in the same way to each. They can certainly specify a clause for each, but AFAIK they have chosen not to do so.

The issue at hand is that the evolution of the sport and a lack in good tech standards have resulted in a very wide variance in target design. If this isn't addressed soon, people *will* start using birdbaths and washing machines. Or, at least, some other bastardization of the original intent. What if football could be played on a 100x40-yard field, or a 92x61-yard one, or perhaps a 107x30-yard one, but all considered "professional" events. What if basketball courts all had goals, but some had backboards and some didn't? Some may have nets, some may not... some goals might be 5' off the ground and some 20. Better yet, for a more direct comparison, what if professional golf greens had holes that might be 6" in diameter by 2" deep or 2" in diameter by 6" deep? These examples are not as wide of a variance range as we deal with, but for some reason they seem ridiculous.

Anyway, I think the original post isn't a valid question because no matter how you look at it, that basket is broken. Common sense says that a putt at a broken basket isn't a putt at all since the target ceased being viable when it broke. Unfortunately, the rules don't have much to say in this regard.

What if football could be played on a 100x40-yard field, or a 92x61-yard one, or perhaps a 107x30-yard one, but all considered "professional" events.



Your dimensions are off by a little bit, but football can be played on a variable sized field.

look on page 6:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws%5fof%5fthe%5fgame%5f0708%5f10565.pdf

The field of play must be rectangular.
The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.
Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds) maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds) maximum 90 m (100 yds)
International Matches:
Length: minimum 100 m (110 yds) maximum 110 m (120 yds)
Width: minimum 64 m (70 yds) maximum 75 m (80 yds)

Oh, you meant American football...

Soccer has been a lot more popular than football worldwide...

Oh, and what if they started playing baseball in different sized stadiums?

of course I'm aware of the popularity difference between football and soccer... but one must consider one's audience. Even you know what I meant.

Soccer and Baseball aren't valid comparisons because scoring isn't measured based on the dimensions of the field. If baseball started allowing different lengths between bases, you might have a point.

In disc golf, scoring is measured mainly on one's ability to "hole out" on a target. drive for show, putt for dough, as they say. The problem is that our target isn't regulated in a meaningful way. Oddly enough, manufacturers have put more restrictions on themselves than the self-proclaimed "governing body" has.

I believe the fundamental reason we've had the lack of tech standards on basket designs is due to patents, primarily DGA. If the PDGA had embraced say the Mach 3 design as "the" basket for PDGA competition, they force all other basket manufacturers to pay royalties to DGA if they would even allow others to make the official PDGA basket. Now that the primary DGA patents have expired in 2006 with the slider chain patent on the Mach 5 the primary one remaining, we have an opportunity to review and hopefully tighten up the basket guidelines when it gets addressed this year.

I think some room has to be left for competitive differences between manufacturers, but that room should be in the areas of portability, durability, style, color, etc. I think the PDGA or any other sanctioning body could easily work within the limits of whatever patents exist to more clearly define a target. Then again, I'm not the one writing the rules ;)

For example, until 2002 no baskets except DGA could be manufactured with an inner set of chains. The famous spider web basket controversy at Cincy Worlds in 1998 brought home this point for many. Until 2006, the inner chains could not come outside the outer set near the bottom of the basket like the Mach 3. These were significant hindrances to defining an "official" target.

Quote:
The field of play must be rectangular.
The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.
Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds) maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds) maximum 90 m (100 yds)
International Matches:
Length: minimum 100 m (110 yds) maximum 110 m (120 yds)
Width: minimum 64 m (70 yds) maximum 75 m (80 yds)

Oh, you meant American football...

Soccer has been a lot more popular than football worldwide...

Oh, and what if they started playing baseball in different sized stadiums?
End Quote----------------------------------------------------


Understand the point, kind of, but those are fields, not targets. The disc golf "field", or fairway, can vary immensly. The soccer goal I am sure has specific dimensions. I am also guessing it's never hanging from a tree or right next to a boulder:)

Baskets IMO should be exactly the same and so should their height in relation to the ground.

If baseball started allowing different lengths between bases, you might have a point.




Right.

In 2007, if the average baseball park had 1 run scored, there were 1.17 runs scored at Fenway and and only 0.76 runs scored at Petco Park.

During any given tournament, we're all playing on the same baskets.

In ball golf there are big differences between putting on bentgrass and bermuda greens. Far bigger than the differences between a Mach 3 and a Discatcher. You don't see much call for ripping up the cow food and putting in astroturf...

you also see more to golf tech standards than "a hole in the ground" which is what ours amount to. We (like almost every sport) have variances outside the target to deal with. the target should not introduce more significant variances... the concept is not a difficult one.

you also see more to golf tech standards than "a hole in the ground" which is what ours amount to. We (like almost every sport) have variances outside the target to deal with. the target should not introduce more significant variances... the concept is not a difficult one.



The standards for a golf hole are just like disc golf... a hole in the ground 4.25 inches in diameter and at least 4 inches deep.

Disc golf: A basket, no more than 67 cm in diameter and at least 15 cm deep.

No the concept is not a difficult one.

I just am practical. I can adapt to the dozen or so similar types of baskets that are out there without a problem. Some you have to putt more gently, some you do not...

The differences in the baskets change your putting style the same way differences in the grass require changes to putting in ball golf. On slow greens rolling at a 7 on a stimpmeter you can go at an 8 foot putt a lot harder than at the US Open on Sunday. And a putt that would easily go in on the former will run right across the top, pop out the other side and roll 12 feet away on the latter.

On the new super-duper catch everything basket you can throw a destroyer full throttle from 12 feet. On a Discatcher Sport you'd best use a little gentler throw.

Its a very simple concept. Why don't you get it? Adapting to the type of hole is just like adapting to the terrain. You probably hated the very thought of the Dr. Fred baskets...

Quote:
__________________________________________________
Its a very simple concept. Why don't you get it? Adapting to the type of hole is just like adapting to the terrain. You probably hated the very thought of the Dr. Fred baskets...
_______________________________________________

I think you mean adapting to the type of basket, not the type of hole. I am fine with that if they are the same dimensions. Just the size of the baskets alone compared to the small holes in ball golf lends for a little leeway in how they catch. Yes, it's the same for everyone.

However, semantics dictate that the "terrain" in disc golf is the grass, dirt, wind, etc. NOT the basket. The terrain leads to the basket. I should basically know that i am putting fast at a basket because it is uphill, or in tall grass. Putting slow at a basket should be done when the basket is downhill or on hard dirt. A putt with the same conditions to the same basket position should usually be pretty close for any basket. I say "should", which is different than "is". I am comfortable with what "is" but would be more comfortable with what "should" be. I have no idea if there are standards for chains but if someone came out with chains that acted like sticky glue I think that would be kind of dumb. Of course, they also might sell the best because they catch everything.

terrain, by definition, should be considered ground, yes. BUT, BG has holes that are on slopes on greens, on corners, all sorts of weird places on some weird shaped greens. The comparable in DG would be some baskets higher or lower than others, since the nearly unanimous consent is that baskets should be reasonably level.

Higher or lower holes happen naturally in discgolf on slopes, mounds, downhill, and weird shaped greens. This is the same as ballgolf. If baskets are higher because of a super long pole, are hanging from a tree or in a tree. I think that is bad. Just my opinion. Artficially lowering or heightening a basket seems dumb. Some baskets have been on top of rocks. I think if they are on rocks then the player should be able to actually step on that rock and have room to putt, even if it is only 2-3 feet that is ok. At the very least the disc should be able to land and stay on that rock. If they are on a rock just to make the basket higher, than to me that is artificially heightening the basket. You would be putting from a flat surface straight up. At least on mounds your body angle is naturally aiming towards the basket. If we want to mimick ball golf as much as possible then I think the rules should have basket height from the ground it sits on be uniform. I always write too much!

Who says the idea is to mimic ball golf?

The differences in the baskets change your putting style the same way differences in the grass require changes to putting in ball golf. On slow greens rolling at a 7 on a stimpmeter you can go at an 8 foot putt a lot harder than at the US Open on Sunday. And a putt that would easily go in on the former will run right across the top, pop out the other side and roll 12 feet away on the latter.

On the new super-duper catch everything basket you can throw a destroyer full throttle from 12 feet. On a Discatcher Sport you'd best use a little gentler throw.

Its a very simple concept. Why don't you get it? Adapting to the type of hole is just like adapting to the terrain. You probably hated the very thought of the Dr. Fred baskets...


The variances in a putting green are part of the course's design. But, no matter how the green is designed, the cup catches the ball the same way on every course.

You can't really compare green variances to basket variances. Then we'd have to start taking trees out of fairways because ball golfers don't have them, and our approach should be as wide-open as theirs.

You can't really compare green variances to basket variances. Then we'd have to start taking trees out of fairways because ball golfers don't have them, and our approach should be as wide-open as theirs.



Yup. You're right. I give up. If I want to compare disc golf to ball golf I need to also require that we hit the discs with sticks rather than pick them up and throw them.

Your vision of disc golf is the perfect version where every piece of equipment is exactly the same.

And if any example of variation in a sport is brought up, it isn't applicable in your world.

Slightly different baskets? Its the coming of the antichrist! But when soccer fields can change in area by more than 10% that doesn't matter.

How about some goalposts in soccer are round and some are rectangular?

Baseball stadiums all being different is not applicable.

Only things that are rigidly defined in your world are applicable to this argument and correct. Anything that proves otherwise, you find some reason why it is different. But football can be played on 110 yard fields and with only 3 downs to move 10 yards... and guess what? Warren Moon and Doug Flutie adapted! Basketball can be played with at least 3 different distances for 3 point lines, with or without zone defense, and back in the 70s, without the slam dunk.

There are 2500+ disc golf courses out there. Give it up. baskets will vary.

Sorry if my analogies don't meet your high standards and all of yours are perfect.

Its a basket with a bunch of chains over it to knock the disc down. Some are different from others. What the heck is the big deal????

The idea is not necessarilly to mimick golf but that is where it seemed the strand was heading. One of the reasons our game is so great is we don't have the confines that ball golf has. Especially no Tee Times and virtually all the courses are free!

You can't really compare green variances to basket variances. Then we'd have to start taking trees out of fairways because ball golfers don't have them, and our approach should be as wide-open as theirs.



Yup. You're right. I give up. If I want to compare disc golf to ball golf I need to also require that we hit the discs with sticks rather than pick them up and throw them.

Your vision of disc golf is the perfect version where every piece of equipment is exactly the same.

And if any example of variation in a sport is brought up, it isn't applicable in your world.

Slightly different baskets? Its the coming of the antichrist! But when soccer fields can change in area by more than 10% that doesn't matter.

How about some goalposts in soccer are round and some are rectangular?

Baseball stadiums all being different is not applicable.

Only things that are rigidly defined in your world are applicable to this argument and correct. Anything that proves otherwise, you find some reason why it is different. But football can be played on 110 yard fields and with only 3 downs to move 10 yards... and guess what? Warren Moon and Doug Flutie adapted! Basketball can be played with at least 3 different distances for 3 point lines, with or without zone defense, and back in the 70s, without the slam dunk.

There are 2500+ disc golf courses out there. Give it up. baskets will vary.

Sorry if my analogies don't meet your high standards and all of yours are perfect.

Its a basket with a bunch of chains over it to knock the disc down. Some are different from others. What the heck is the big deal????


I'm not sure why you are getting so defensive, nor why you're being so rude... did I offend you somehow?

I thought we were discussing the improvement of our sport. you seem to want this to be a different type of discussion, so have at it. I'm not interested.

I'm not sure why you are getting so defensive, nor why you're being so rude... did I offend you somehow?

I thought we were discussing the improvement of our sport. you seem to want this to be a different type of discussion, so have at it. I'm not interested.



Josh-

I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude, I just started feeling like I was talking to a brick wall. It started when you said "Better yet, for a more direct comparison, what if professional golf greens had holes that might be 6" in diameter by 2" deep or 2" in diameter by 6" deep? These examples are not as wide of a variance range as we deal with, but for some reason they seem ridiculous. "

Which is changing the size of the target in ball golf by either increasing it by almost 50% or decreasing it by more than 50%. This would be like changing the width of the chains by to be up to 106 cm to 35 cm...

When I brought up the type of grass and length of the green, I was told, (to paraphrase) No, the terrain has to be analogous to the terrain around the hole, it the basket can't make you change the way you putt.

Then you said "no matter how the green is designed, the cup catches the ball the same way on every course"

Well, other than the annoying little nubs above the rim, every basket catches the disc the same way, its just the chains above basket that differ.

Since every point I made was dismissed out of hand, I think you were being just as "rude." You telling me I can't make a comparison when I just had was "rude." Since you didn't seem to be willing to accept any possibility that all baskets shouldn't be the same made me feel like I was talking to a brick wall.

So, feeling that if I give an example that is perfectly on target, you'll dismiss it out of hand again, but here's one last attempt:

In professional soccer, the rules allow goalposts to be of both rectangular and circular cross section. Like disc golf this affects how shots that are on the border between going in and not going in react. (Goalies hate circular posts in general, even though they give a more consistent bounce since a sharp corner isn't involved.) Soccer has survived for a couple hundred years with this variation.

Now, on to if we change the rule to mandate ONE DESIGN: We have 2500+ courses out there. Assuming they are all 18 holes (yes I know they aren't) at $400 per basket, that's $18 million worth of new baskets needed.

If we go to one design, should your local course stop holding PDGA events until they can raise the cash?

I personally don't see that much of a difference in how easy it is to putt on different baskets. Sure, the single chain baskets have a few more cut-throughs, but the Dr Fred baskets which were about as extreme as it gets were driven out of the market. Their catching area was probably as wide as a Ching Skillshot. The market gave players what they want...

I just don't think today's differences are a big deal. You obviously do. Sorry if my difference of opinion offends you.

The soccer goal is a comparison that I can live with. The dimensions are not changed with a round pole but the shots that may or may not go in are. This would be analagous to baskets that are a little better at catching compared to others. I am guessing the difference is much more with baskets than with a soccer goal, however. Some baskets you can run at while others you have to baby the shot. A soccer player probably shoots exactly the same at a goal with rectagular posts or circular posts.

I just don't think today's differences are a big deal. You obviously do. Sorry if my difference of opinion offends you.


It's no the difference of opinion that offends me, it's the way you choose to argue. It's one thing to disagree. it's quite another to insinuate that I think I'm perfect and that I have my own little world because I don't agree with you.

comments like "Its a very simple concept. Why don't you get it?" and "Your vision of disc golf is the perfect version where every piece of equipment is exactly the same. [...] it isn't applicable in your world. [...] Its the coming of the antichrist! [...] Sorry if my analogies don't meet your high standards and all of yours are perfect. [...] What the heck is the big deal????" are where I start to lose interest.

My feelers aren't hurt, I am just opting out of the debate in favor of something more constructive. See you on another thread.