lissyssil
Apr 15 2011, 04:10 PM
Is there a hole in the rulebook here? I know I'm being obtuse, but we recently had a discussion about this on the course, not because it happened, but because we like to argue.

Adam, Barry, Carlo and Dean are on a card together. The tee order on a short par 3 is A, B, C, D.

Adam is a lucky guy, and cans an ace with his drive. Barry plays to within feet of the basket, Carlo does the same as Barry, and then Dean throws his drive out, and, lo and behold, it's in the basket for another ace.

The foursome leaves the tee box, walks up to the green, and notices that Dean's drive (and ace) is lying directly on top of Adam's ace, and is unsupported by the chains or interior surface of the basket.

Now, we all know that Adam should have cleared the basket of his disc before anyone else threw, but we also all know that this rarely happens in real play.

Here's the question: Did Dean's ace count? Has he holed out? By literal interpretation of the rules for holing out:

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally supported by the pole. A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

Dean's disc is not supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It is, instead, supported by Adam's disc.

What rulings would you apply, and CGKDisc, if you could provide an interpretation, that would be great.

lissyssil
Apr 15 2011, 04:12 PM
...and I'm dumb for not putting this in the "Rules Discussion" forum. My bad.

cgkdisc
Apr 15 2011, 04:53 PM
I would think the first disc temporarily became "the bottom of the basket" so the player aced. It's the same as a disc landing completely on top of another disc on the ground. I don't think you would call the disc on top as "not on the playing surface."

wsfaplau
Apr 17 2011, 11:45 AM
Logical and practical YES
Supported by the rules NO not that I see

cgkdisc
Apr 17 2011, 11:58 AM
If rocks and leaves laying on the playing surface would be considered the playing surface, then anything else lying on it would also comprise the playing surface. There's no requirement to remove say a McDonald's bag before taking a stance so the bag becomes the playing surface by definition (see Playing Surface definition) when the player stands on it.

jconnell
Apr 17 2011, 12:48 PM
Gotta say this is, and I know the OP acknowledged this, an extremely obtuse debate.

The disc doesn't have to be actually physically touching the basket or the chains to be supported by it. I think we all know the old adage, if A=B and B=C, then A=C, right? Well, in this case, A (the basket) supports B (Adam's disc), and B supports C (Dean's disc). Therefore A supports C.

Viewed another way, if you were able to magically make the basket vanish, what would happen to the two discs? They'd fall because they're no longer supported/held up by the basket. Therefore both discs are being supported by the basket even if both aren't directly contacting the basket.

bruce_brakel
Apr 17 2011, 02:19 PM
I don't think "support" is necessarily transitive like "equals" or identity. Not all verbs possess transitivity. Bruce loves his daughter. His daughter loves some boy from her drama class. It does not follow that Bruce loves the boy from his daughter's drama class. After all, I may know someone who knows someone who knows someone, but I don't actually know Kevin Bacon.

I agree with your second argument and I think the second ace counts.

ishkatbible
Apr 20 2011, 07:23 PM
so to the original poster... would you really consider not giving the guy his ace? or stroke the first guy for interference? ... just sayin'

lissyssil
Apr 26 2011, 12:38 PM
Neither. I'd give both aces, but I think there's an ambiguity in the rules relating to holing out, and I offered up this obtuse and obscure hypothetical as evidence thereof.

tkieffer
Apr 26 2011, 01:17 PM
Actually, the first disc isn't supported by the basket, but is supported by the galvanizing on the metal that is plated on the basket. Oh, wait, forgot about the dust and dirt that would be between the basket galvanizing and the disc itself whose source could have come from the basket or the disc. Then of course there are the laws of physics that state that nothing is ever completely at rest and ..............

I don't think the rule has ambiguity with exception of that which people introduce by needlessly complicating things.