from andi lehmann's story on the pdga home page...

"Dan �Stork� Roddick throws his upshot at the basket. His disc jams itself into the side of the basket. Most other players would leap forward, run to the target and pull it through from the inside, as that counts as being �in�. "

i thought you could pull it out in any direction. is andi correct?


on another non-rules related note:

"Bryan Wagler's ace was his first throw of the tournament! Ed Matais and Steve Hepker both hit aces on the same hole and they were on the same card! "

3 players on the card hit an ace? yikes! i'd hate to have been the fourth! down 2 strokes to my card after one hole - and i had a par! :eek:

Andi is wrong. It doesn't have to be pulled from the inside.

Sandalman, I think you were the victim of sentence structure or something. They were on the same card as each other, not as the first guy.

Andi also better check that hole number for McCray's ace. Pickard number 8 was 584 feet last I knew. Downhill, but it would still be remarkable.

I think he meant Bryan Gawler

And Rodney is right - doesn't matter how the wedged disc is removed to be counted as good (a crime - in and of itself :) )

But that doesn't make Andi wrong. She said "Most other players would ... pull it through from the inside"

She's probably correct that most players don't know that it doesn't have be pulled through the inside.

I'm not sure *most* other players would pull it from the inside, but Andi also said "as that counts as 'in'", which isn't wrong, it's just not required to do that to count as in. In other words, you're right, nothing said was wrong. Wow, we must be bored if we're posting about this. Or do we really care that much about the details?

True. Most players would probably try to decide if more or less than half the disc was breaking the plane of the basket rim before deciding whether or not it counts. :)

whatever

If a disc is wedged in the side, and UNwedging itself, is it "at rest"

803.02 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.

Then the rules also state

803.12 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.


Is a disc in motion (unwedging itself) "at rest"

seems like a grey area to me.

If the disc is obviously moving (i.e. you can see it oozingback out of the basket) you can't touch it - as it is obviously NOT at rest - interference automatic 2 stroke penalty.

If it's still in motion, I don't think you can count it as "at rest."

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.

Is a disc in motion (unwedging itself) "at rest"

seems like a grey area to me.



You are right. If you want to be really nitpicky, Stork's disc was at rest.....until it was removed by a combination of gravity and the plastic flexing back to its original shape.

If they just added the words 'by a competitor or caddy' to the end of the rule, this gray area would be taken care of.

The disc can be hanging on the outside from a nub, and it would be good too, as long as the only thing supporting the disc is the basket.

I'm taking my official's test [#1, per: question #4]; isn't/wasn't there a stipulation that a re-tee was/is acceptable for a missed mandatory/O.B. shot? I can't find any mention, neither on-line, nor my 1997 rulebook. :confused:

Thanks in advance. :)

yes re-tee is acceptable, as long as it is specified as the drop zone

OB yes, Missed Mando, no.

Missed mando always goes to the drop zone now. In '97 we had to unwind.

OB gives the player choice of where it last crossed OB, Drop Zone (if provided), or the previous lie (which would be the tee if it went OB on the drive).

----

Oh yeah, MTL is correct. If the Tee is the DZ, then re-tee is acceptable :)

Applicable rules:

803.8 OUT OF BOUNDS
B. A player whose disc is considered out-of-bounds shall receive one penalty throw. The player may elect to play the next shot from: (1) The previous lie as evidenced by the marker disc or, if the marker disc has been moved from an approximate lie, as agreed to by the majority of the group or an official; or (2) A lie that is up to one meter away from and perpendicular to the point where the disc last crossed into out-of-bounds, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. This holds true even if the direction takes the lie closer to the hole; or (3) Within the designated Drop Zone, if provided. These options may be limited by the tournament director as a special condition (see 804.01).

803.11 MANDATORIES
B. A disc passing the incorrect side of the mandatory results in a one-throw penalty, and the next throw shall be made from the drop zone, as designated for that mandatory.

803.8=803.08, yes? ;) :D
Much thanks; I was using 'mandatory' to search. :(
"Previous lie" was my snag point. el'Doh; that COULD be the teebox!

...on the test I have, #1, the correct answer for question #4 is then "D", BUT if the TEE=DZ, then "C" would not only be true, but a BETTER answer than "D". :confused: [due to use of the word "proceeds"]

803.12 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.




So what's the difference between a disc swinging in the chains and one oozing from the cage? The last sentence sure seems to imply that removing it from the entrapment section that it remains in counts as 'in'.

Wait until the chains stop moving* before you pull the disc. :)

*Moving due to the force exerted on the chains by the disc. When the chains are only being moved by the wind, the disc is at rest (I think--this is similar to a floating disc?).

Once the disc has stopped moving it's at rest. Then it starts moving again. Nothing says it has to remain at rest, just that it come to rest then be removed before it falls from the entrapment device.

If it's still in motion, I don't think you can count it as "at rest."



I've always looked at it this way--

In order for the disc to be "oozing out", it had to have first been at rest because it entered from one direction and is oozing out in the opposite direction. At some point, even if instantaneously, it had to have been at rest and therefore, in.

--Mike

Thanks Mike, that sure makes sense to me. Now I just need to switch to an 86 Softie or Super Puppy to get a putter that would actually wedgie for me. Proto Wizards don't do it, unless you fire them from a cannon.

3x Aviars do it too...

I was playing in a tourny last weekend with a friend. He threw his old beat to hell 3x JK aviar and it hit the side of the basket and wedged in. I had to tell him to go pull it out because it is a wedgie and if I had putted and my putt knocked his disc out then he had to putt again since he didn't hole out.

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.



This part of the rule is as STUPID AS IT GETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a disc is wedged in the side of the baket which means it NEVER had a chance to go in in the first place. Why do we count this as holed out??? Im sure countless people have gotten to count a crappy low putt because they use a super soft putter and it stuck in the side of the basket. The putt was HORRIBLE and wasnt high enough to actually go in but they got lucky and it stuck in the side of the basket. That is just STUPID. I can see maybe hanging from one or 2 of the nubs on the basket because atleast that PUTT or SHOT was high enough to go in in the first place but not anything stuck in the side or bottom. That in my opinion rewards poor skill and lots of luck. Discs resting ON TOP of the basket SHOULD count and ones stuck in the side or bottom of the basket should NEVER count!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we need to change this rule.

What do you guys think???

CB

I think the reason that part is included is for those blind drives where you can't see the basket from the teebox. If you have a wedgie it is hard to tell how it got wedged(if it hit in the basket and tried to bounce out through the basket or if it came in from the outside)

If TDs could only get off their lazy keister and silicone-lube the cages before the tourney, wedgies would never happen! :)

Does this have the makings of another MRV thread?

Actually you aren't making any sense. A disc on top NEVER had a chance to go in. A disc stuck in the side had a chance of pushing all the way through and completely in.

Could you explain you strange logic that tells you a DROT had a better chance then a wedge?? :confused:

If a disc is wedged in the side of the baket which means it NEVER had a chance to go in in the first place.



How do you know?
What if it went into the basket and wedged part-way through from the inside-out?
What if it was on the drive?
What if it was on a blind hole?


Can you suggest some wording that can be fairly applied in all situations?

I think the reason that part is included is for those blind drives where you can't see the basket from the teebox. If you have a wedgie it is hard to tell how it got wedged(if it hit in the basket and tried to bounce out through the basket or if it came in from the outside)



Have you EVER seen or even HEARD of a disc hitting INSIDE basket and wedging OUT?????????

I have NEVER heard or that EVER. I have heard of them going in and BOUNCING out but never wedging out.

Correct me if im wrong but i doubt this has ever happend and if is has, it would be easy to tell if it was wedging OUT from INSIDE the basket or wedging IN from OUTSIDE the basket.

I just think its stupid to reward shots that never had a chance of going in in the first place :mad:

i believe there is a roots issue on this, as was described a long time ago on the old message board. think of the pole of the basket like the old school pole or object markers on an object course. the basket and chains was added to add some reliability to whether the disc hit the object/pole or not. if it did, then it should be in the basket. BUT the way things worked out was that the basket itself blocked the path to the lower part of the pole.

thats why a DROT could NEVER have hit the object - it was too high, but a wedgie certainly could have been good - it absolutely was the correct height.

no, the debate can go on about whether or not the current rule should continue, etc, but at least there is some historical perspective regarding the origins of the rule.

Have you EVER seen or even HEARD of a disc hitting INSIDE basket and wedging OUT?????????



Yes, I have.

[/QUOTE]
Have you EVER seen or even HEARD of a disc hitting INSIDE basket and wedging OUT?????????

I have NEVER heard or that EVER. I have heard of them going in and BOUNCING out but never wedging out.

Correct me if im wrong but i doubt this has ever happend and if is has, it would be easy to tell if it was wedging OUT from INSIDE the basket or wedging IN from OUTSIDE the basket.



[/QUOTE]

me too, big arm tommy shot, over too tall trees, slammed the inside of the basket without hitting chain and plopped onto the ground next to it......it wasnt me.......he was ******..... :eek:

Have you EVER seen or even HEARD of a disc hitting INSIDE basket and wedging OUT?????????




Yes, I have seen it happen more then once. Most recently was in a doubles mini and it nearly came all the way out. I can't give an exact number but I have seen it atleast a half dozen times.

Actually you aren't making any sense. A disc on top NEVER had a chance to go in. A disc stuck in the side had a chance of pushing all the way through and completely in.

Could you explain you strange logic that tells you a DROT had a better chance then a wedge??



A disc wedged in the side of a basket NEVER had a chance of entering the basket the way it was meant to go in. If it was meant to go threw the side we wouldnt have chains we would just have a CAGE the whole way up and the idea would be to SLAM the disc into the cage and have it stick or go threw not hit the chains and fall to the bottom. Discs that hit the cage were never on the right path to go in in the first place. A shot that wedges in or goes THREW the cage is 1 a freak accident and stroke of rediculous luck and 2 prolly not a very well executed shot. Discs were made to hit the chains and fall into the basket. Not hit the basket and become stuck in the side.

I guess you are right about one thing. A DROT had just about as much chance or going in as a wedge. NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that NOTHING but IN THE BASKET should count. Nothing stuck in the side or resting on top. A disc stuck in the side of a basket and being called in is like a ball golf putt resting on the lip and being called in as well. It needed 1 half a rotation more and it would have been in BUT ITS NOT. The discs stuck in the bottom or side of the cage needed about 8-12 more inches of height to be in but we call them in anyway :confused:

Its just STUPID!!!!!!!!!! Lets just start saying that disc that are up against the pole underneath the basket count too. I mean there was no chance of it ever going in the basket correctly but it was close so let give it to them

Can you explain to me how a shot that hits the cage and sticks should be rewarded??? Its all about luck. Ive hit the cage thousands of times and never stuck but some people do it all the time. IMO Its just stupid to reward someone for a bad shot.

Have you EVER seen or even HEARD of a disc hitting INSIDE basket and wedging OUT?????????



Ok you guys got me on this one but you saw it therefor you could prove that it was in and then wedged out. But a disc that was wedging in never had a chance to go in in the first place.

Can you explain to me how a shot that hits the cage and sticks should be rewarded??? Its all about luck. Ive hit the cage thousands of times and never stuck but some people do it all the time. IMO Its just stupid to reward someone for a bad shot.




Agreed it is a bad shot. BUT it CAN go through the cage and in therefore it DOES have a chance to go all the way in, a drot doesnt have that chance.

The ball golf analogy is not correct either, in you analogy the ball actually comes up completly short. A better analogy would be a ball that got wedge between the rim and the flag pole.In ball golf if the ball is being held out by the flagpole it is IN.

it does have a chance but not a chance to go in the correct way and you are still rewarding LUCK which in my opinion isnt fair.

...but the real reason to allow wedgies is for blind shots that wedged from the inside out. Though very rare, it's impossible to know if those throws wedged correctly or incorrectly, therefore we treat all wedgies the same.

I have been reading this thread and feel that a good compromise could be reached. While I do agree that a wedgie is only at the mercy of luck (either inside out or outside in), I do think that there should be a rule about wedgies counting if there was a chance of it being wedged from inside out. I have played on a course where the baskets are so poorly built that a putt can clam chains and then fall THROUGH the basket. Now if the wedgies count, why shouldn't something like that? But the problem then occurs that anyone could claim they did that if the disc was close enough to the pole. On the subject of DROTs, I think that this shot should count if we are to count wedgies. On some of the older DisCatchers it is possible for the disc to fall through the upper part of the cage and fall into the chains. So on SOME baskets, DROTs could result in holing out while on others, it is impossible. I think the ONLY way to solve this problem is to put stricter rules on the design of targets as to guarantee that no shot can enter the chains from the top of the target or enter the basket from the sides or below (hypothetically). This could be done by making the cage construction on the basket and upper part of the basket a lot tighter. I don't care if you have a super soft putter, we could find a hole that if it ever did get through than you should get the stroke because you have a better chance of acing the hole than doing it. So to summarize my argument, I think the only way to resolve this is to make the target as black and white as a ball golf hole... if its in, its in... if not... tough luck. So tighten the holes on the basket and top and there shouldn't be any room for arguing.

On the subject of DROTs, I think that this shot should count if we are to count wedgies. On some of the older DisCatchers it is possible for the disc to fall through the upper part of the cage and fall into the chains. So on SOME baskets, DROTs could result in holing out while on others, it is impossible.

while i agree with the rest of your post, theres something wrong here. ie, ifthe disc is on top it is a DROT and not holed out. if it falls thru, then not only is it holed out, but it is no longer a DROT. no way no how can a DROT be holed out.

you are totally correct some equipment standards could, and should, easily be written to exclude the possibility of wedgies.

Sandalman, I must humbly agree that you got me on a very well spotted miswording. I was only trying to say that a dist that lands on the target and THEN falls through is considered holed out. But as you pointed out... the Disc then obviously does not Remain On the Target.

Well, it would be really tough on the thousands of existing courses if the Tech Standards were re-written to exclude old baskets because they don't prevent wedgies.

I don't argue that, but we could grandfather the old ones in and just insist on baskets being installed AFTER some date to comform to the new rules. Another thing is that all of this discussion is only really at play when the tournament is at a very high level. At any amateur level I don't see any problem with saying wedgies either count or not. But at the pro level there should be no way that the equipment can be ambiguous.

btw Klunker, your Homer avatar is now right up there with Jeff_L's Big Red Tongue avatar as the two avatars most likely to crack my 16 month daughter up! :D

A disc wedged in the side of a basket NEVER had a chance of entering the basket the way it was meant to go in.

Especially if it was thrown with a jump putt! :D

btw Klunker, your Homer avatar is now right up there with Jeff_L's Big Red Tongue avatar as the two avatars most likely to crack my 16 month daughter up! :D


That's funny... has the same effect on me. :)