Player A putts at the basket, hits the number plate, disc decides to hang from one of the loops for suspending the chains. Group decided that player A can leave it and not mark it under basket and remove it from play. Player B then putts and in doing so the rattle of the chains dislodges player A's disc, it falls and comes to rest in the basket. Neither discs made contact.

how would you call it?

803.03 Marking the Lie
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, on the line of play, touching the thrown disc.<u> A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker.</u> The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. <u>A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location </u>

The player chose to use his disc as a marker and the marker got "inadvertently moved". Put it back on top.

Even better, rule 'B'.
B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unplayable lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within one meter of the out-of-bounds line.

Since it was resting on the target, the player didn't have the option of not marking it.

The proper call is 803.07B Interference:
B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official.

Disc is replaced on the chain support but in reality would just be marked on the ground for the player to putt out.

I think what the rule junkies are trying to get at is that no, it doesn't count. His disc falling in the basket is not in the same stroke that caused to disc to rest upon the basket. He would have to still replace his lie and putt his disc in.

But if the wind blew it in it would count.

Negative.

Nope. If you notice the Interference rule posted above, all it says is "moved" and does not specify what that can or can't be. Rule 803.03F would also support that interpretation. Once the group has determined the hanging disc is "at rest" then even wind blowing it in would not allow it to count.

but...but.....what if you throw a thumber which drifts over the OB line and get's stuck in a Sycamore tree. Then, a butterfly flaps it's wings in China and a gust of wind blows the disc loose, which then plinkos down the branches, lands on edge at the base of the trunk and rolls back fair? What if the disc lands fair but is on a towel? A towel being held up by a broken branch caused by a gate that was opened in the middle of the round? Could you then jump putt while your bag is on front of your marker even if you kicked your bag and all your discs rolled towards the target, which by the way, allows discs to drop in from the top. :D

Just one more case for eliminating the DROT rule.

Karl

So, if a putt/throw wedges in the side of basket and the player walks up to it and right before he grabs the disc it falls to ground. Is the shot holed out since the disc had stopped moving?

If the group agrees that it had come to rest, then sorta. Disc needs to be replaced into &amp; then removed from the basket for hole to be officially completed.

I disagree.

I think the only way a shot wedged into the side of the basket counts is if you remove it BEFORE it falls out. If it falls out before you take it out you aren't holed out.

See the last sentence in B

803.13 Holing Out
A. A player who fails to play any hole or fails to hole out on any hole during the round may be disqualified, at the discretion of the director, using the following guidelines:
(1) Holes missed due to late arrival may be scored and penalized according to section 804.02.
(2) Inadvertently failing to hole out (as determined by a majority of the group or an official) shall result in 2 penalty throws being added to the number of throws plus penalty throws already taken on the hole. The hole shall then be considered completed.
(3) Intentionally failing to hole out (emergency, injury, plane flight, etc.) constitutes withdrawal from competition. The player shall be withdrawn from competition and officially listed as �Did Not Finish� on the scorecard and in the event results.

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.

C. Object Targets: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must strike the marked target area on the object as specified by the director.

I would satisfy 803.13B by replacing the disc to its "at rest" lie supported by the target (per the explicit guidance provided by 803.07B), then watching it "remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed".

So does fact "the disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed" mean if Johnny Jumpputt's 45 footer sticks in the chains and he doesn't remove it then Forehand Fred's putt knocks it out of the chains and onto the ground then Johnny still needs 1 more throw to hole out?

But there is 803.07.B

B. If a disc at rest on the playing surface
or supported by the target is moved, the
disc shall be replaced as close as possible
to its original location, as determined by
a majority of the group or an official...

OK, I'll agree Johnny's disc could be replaced since it was moved from the entrapement device but I'm not yet convinced a disc that falls out from being wedged in the side of the basket can be replaced if it falls before it is removed.

Seems like a mis-use of the term "at rest". Is "at rest" defined anywhere. I didn't see it clearly defined in the rules anywhere. (just about a disc in water) Did I miss it?

IIRC the RC has been hesitant to define "at rest"

I tried to get the RC to define "at rest" as something like a three count (i.e., one mississippi, two mississippi, etc.) but they refused. So we're left at the whim of the group making that determination. If a wedgie occurs, the player should ask the group while hurrying toward the basket if they agree the disc is at rest. If they say yes, then you can slow down. In my experience though, we're enjoying your sprint, since it's likely an uncommon occurrence... :p

Suppose Player A has a long putt and Player B has a slightly shorter putt and his lie is just off to the side or near Player A's lie. Immediately after Player A putts, Player B aggressively steps up and fires his disc toward the basket and it arrives at the same time or even before Player A's disc has reached the basket. A number of things could happen including mid-air collisions, wedgies knocked out, simultaneous chain out, etc...
Could any rulings be enforced? It doesn't seem any rules have been broken. It would be tough to even call a courtesy violation since Player B waited his turn to throw. Could a player continue to do this throughout a round to aggravate others on his card without penalty?

it's not his turn to throw until the first guy's throw is completed which i take to mean come to rest. if the second player's disc struck the first players prior to it coming to rest then interference is what i would call.

I would agree but was curious since I don't believe the rulebook addresses the actual completion of a throw. At rest only seems to be mentioned when dealing with particular situations like hole outs, discs in water etc...
It's an unlikely scenario but I suppose it could happen.

Player A must mark the lie if the disc is supported by the target before the next player throws. In this example, either Player A failed to mark (warning for violation of the mark rule) or Player B didn't allow time for Player A to mark (threw out of turn, courtesy violation). Warnings are for the group to decide, but the one thing they should/will do is replace Player A's disc and go on from there.

Player A must mark the lie if the disc is supported by the target before the next player throws.


Not exactly. Player B determines whether to ask Player A to mark if he wishes. But player A has the option to ask to remove the disc before Player B throws.

Maybe the question should be:
Are players afforded the right/opportunity to see their disc come to a complete stop (at rest) before the next player throws in any situation?

At least until it disappears from the view of the group.

Is this clearly stated in the rulebook for all situations?

here is my hypothetical.

seriously.

what happens if someone has a wedged putt, and they are running for it (they assume they have to remove it for it to count) and as they reach for it, it falls out and lands in their hands, or hits their leg?
is there interference here? what if the person ends up standing there with a disc in their hands and a funny look now on their face? or what if it hits their foot and rolls 20 feet away?

where now is their lie? and are there any penalties accrued?

wow, no takers? there is usually a vomit of opinions pouring out over rules questions that involve a grey area of the pdga rulebook.

Sounds like the disc was still moving and hence not "at rest"

TZ: what happens if someone has a wedged putt, and they are running for it (they assume they have to remove it for it to count) and as they reach for it, it falls out and lands in their hands, or hits their leg? is there interference here?
what if the person ends up standing there with a disc in their hands and a funny look now on their face? or what if it hits their foot and rolls 20 feet away?

CK: Yes, unintentional interference. No penalty. Play it where it lands. I know I've been struck by my own shot at least once and have seen it several times over the years typically when in deep schule and your shot deflects off the foliage just after release. You play it where it lies with no penalty.

Sounds like the disc was still moving and hence not "at rest"



Agreed, when it hits the ground or rolls away, where it stops mark it. If it moved it was not at rest.

But then again Chuck says that if a disc is hanging from the top of the basket it is at rest. So does that mean if it sticks in the side of the basket after few seconds is it at rest?

What do you say Chuck?

What do you say Chuck?


The group decides according to the RC. So it's up to the player to ask and get confirmation from the group that the disc is 'at rest' unless it's offered willingly by the group so grandpa doesn't get a heart attack huffing up the hill to snag his shot stuck in the side of the basket. :p

There are two parts to the question.
a) Is the disc at rest? That gets argued both ways here.
b) If you argue the disc was not a rest, and the disc pops out and hits the player, should there be an interference penalty?

I tend to lean on the side of wedged putts being at rest and then can avoid answering the second. :cool:A wedged putt can be at rest and then pop out due to wind or even a change in the temperature of the disc.

What do you say Chuck?


The group decides according to the RC. So it's up to the player to ask and get confirmation from the group that the disc is 'at rest' unless it's offered willingly by the group so grandpa doesn't get a heart attack huffing up the hill to snag his shot stuck in the side of the basket. :p




So what your saying is the only definitive answer is the one you get from your group, not the rule book. In this instance.

The rulebook does specify the words 'at rest' but leaves it to the group to determine. The thing that messes with absolutely defining 'at rest' is wind moving a disc trapped in the chains. It's possible the disc will take a while to be 'at rest' and yet we accept that it essentially meets the 'at rest' condition by looking that the disc is indeed relatively secure in the chains even though they are swaying, and allow the player to hole out by removing their disc.

Thanks Chuck, that makes sense.