Interference rules say that if my disc is on top of the basket and another player's disc pushes it inside the basket, I still have to mark my lie and putt it in.
However, it's said in the FAQ that if 2-meter rule is in effect and my disc is on a tree (over 2-meters), and someone's throw (or wind, or a bird etc) drops it down, I'm a lucky guy and receive no penalty.

What is the situation if my disc is hanging from the basket (being "in", either on the chains or so) and it falls down later?
(This can happen in case of hole-in-one when I don't remove the disc from the basket before another player's tee offs)

You have to retrieve you disc before it falls out. If the disc were to fall out at any point it would not be considered caught by the catching device.

Basically, if you get a wedgie ace, you need to sprint your happy self to the basket before the disc pops out, or else you will have to putt out the hole.

Ha ha, just happened to me this past week at Zebulon in NC.


http://www.nynjdiscgolf.com/PICTURES/100_0094c.jpg

http://www.nynjdiscgolf.com/PICTURES/100_0095c.jpg

I've done that before! I had a BlowFly stretch across two nubs like that and it was tighter'n a drum-head. :D

You have to retrieve you disc before it falls out. If the disc were to fall out at any point it would not be considered caught by the catching device.

Basically, if you get a wedgie ace, you need to sprint your happy self to the basket before the disc pops out, or else you will have to putt out the hole.



This is your answer above. But if another player knocks the disc out with their thrown disc from the "in" parts of the basket, what then?

803.13 Holing Out

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section 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.

If it was knocked out, it was not 'holed out' and the player must complete the hole. Which raises an interesting observation: if a player is putting and your disc is in the basket and they say leave it, if your disc gets knocked out then you have not holed out and you must complete the hole. I have never seen this happen, but I bet that it has.





This is your answer above. But if another player knocks the disc out with their thrown disc from the "in" parts of the basket, what then?

If it was knocked out, it was not 'holed out' and the player must complete the hole. Which raises an interesting observation: if a player is putting and your disc is in the basket and they say leave it, if your disc gets knocked out then you have not holed out and you must complete the hole. I have never seen this happen, but I bet that it has.




This is why in a tournament, I will always clear my disc. I don't care if they next guy has a 3ft putt. My motivation is not the fact that my disc may get knocked out, but that if his disc bounces off of mine and out of the basket he would get furious with me (albiet his fault if he told me not to clear) but it would dampen the mood of the group.

But him knocking mine out is yet another reason to grab your disc. It is also proper etiquette IMO.

(inserting fly into ointment)
So...if one waves off the other player's attempt to get their made-disc out of the entrapment device and THEN knocks it out...what then?
My understanding is that the next 'away player' has the choice of waving off the previous player (as a courtesy?!?) who has made their putt for a 'speed of play thing'...though, if holing out entails the removal of one's disc this seems to be a sticky point. What say ye zealots! :confused:

There is no difference.

The away player may wave off the player trying to retrieve his disc from the basket, but the responsibility of removing the disc belongs to the player that made the putt. If he agrees to leave his disc at risk, then he will suffer the consequences if his disc is knocked from the basket.

Now, is it a courtesy violation to agree to leave the disc and then (when the other player is in his pre-putt/putt routine) decide that he must remove it.

So if you're waved off and still retrieve your disc...that 'seems' discourteous.

What about 803.07B?

803.07 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.

Wouldn't any disc knocked off or out of the basket be replaced where it was? The player can then remove it and be holed out.

--Mike

It does, but if you say you want to retreive it and the player putts anyway, would this be considered discourteous as well? I have only seen one disc get knocked out of the basket and in that case it was while I was praticing my putting and the disc was in the chains, not in the basket. I have seen far more discs bounce off a disc already in the basket. I guess the best thing is to remove your disc after a putt and don't give the next player the option. Though there have been times that I look at a disc in the basket and feel better about my putt to be. I prefer to see that other disc in the basket when I putt. However, I will not putt if the disc is in the chains or the disc is in the basket side toward me.


So if you're waved off and still retrieve your disc...that 'seems' discourteous.

What about 803.07B?

803.07 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.

Wouldn't any disc knocked off or out of the basket be replaced where it was? The player can then remove it and be holed out.

--Mike



I would not think that movement caused by things other than interference are governed by the this rule. The Q&A make it clear that a competitively thrown disc can not interfere with another disc. This is based on the definition that interference is intentional and disc to disc contact is incidental.

What about 803.07B?

803.07 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.

Wouldn't any disc knocked off or out of the basket be replaced where it was? The player can then remove it and be holed out.

--Mike



I would not think that movement caused by things other than interference are governed by the this rule. The Q&A make it clear that a competitively thrown disc can not interfere with another disc. This is based on the definition that interference is intentional and disc to disc contact is incidental.



Right. So the disc gets moved back.

Gary,

I stand corrected, he is right. If you go back and read the Q&A on DROT you see that once the disc comes to rest, it is at rest. The only exception is if the 2 meter rule is in effect. If you go back and read the rules on interference, it states that equipment (and discs are defined as part of the equipment) can cause interference and the disc is to be replaced. So it looks to me like the disc can be replaced and then removed to hole out. As stated the only exception is if a disc is knocked out of a tree it is played where is lies. I believe this is at odds to 803.07B, but it does give the player the benefit of the doubt. I would suggest that the Q&A on a disc stuck in a tree is no longer a correct interpretation, however, until the player can verify the disc is 2 meters the penality cannot be assesed if it is knoced out of a tree. This is all contingent upon the 2M rule being in effect.



I would not think that movement caused by things other than interference are governed by the this rule. The Q&A make it clear that a competitively thrown disc can not interfere with another disc. This is based on the definition that interference is intentional and disc to disc contact is incidental.

I like this interpretation better. : :cool:

Basically, if you get a wedgie ace, you need to sprint your happy self to the basket before the disc pops out, or else you will have to putt out the hole.



If the disc is declared 'at rest' then no sprinting is required. In ball golf, it's 10 seconds for a putt on the lip to drop in. If it doesn't drop in after 10 seconds, and then does drop in before the player taps it in, it's counted as holed out and the player gets a one shot penalty. That results in the same score as just tapping in a one inch shot. It's not really a penalty. Even though ball golf has this 10 seconds to be 'at rest' the RC has some reason why they don't wish to specify a time for DG.

Given the definition of "holed out", there's no need for a timed rule similar to the 10 seconds of ball golf.

Basically, if you get a wedgie ace, you need to sprint your happy self to the basket before the disc pops out, or else you will have to putt out the hole.



If the disc is declared 'at rest' then no sprinting is required. In ball golf, it's 10 seconds for a putt on the lip to drop in. If it doesn't drop in after 10 seconds, and then does drop in before the player taps it in, it's counted as holed out and the player gets a one shot penalty. That results in the same score as just tapping in a one inch shot. It's not really a penalty. Even though ball golf has this 10 seconds to be 'at rest' the RC has some reason why they don't wish to specify a time for DG.



So , rest could be 2 seconds.

Given the definition of "holed out", there's no need for a timed rule similar to the 10 seconds of ball golf.



Unfortunately, the "holing out" rule is in direct conflict with 803.07B. There are other places where the 'at rest' ruling must be made with no guidance from the rules or RC.

this is the situation that we had yesterday in a very casual round.

player 1 putts, his disc comes to rest on top of the basket, leaning over the edge perched to drop in and count.

player 2 asks player 1 to mark the disc since it is a visual distraction.

player 1 makes an argument that if the disc resting on top is knocked in before everyone else is finished his shot counts.

not wanting to make a big ordeal player 2 putts hits the chains knocking player 1's shot in that was resting on the top and player 2's shot falls out.

final result player 1 scored a 2 player 2 scored a 3 and felt raw that his putt bounced off another dics and did not go in.

How should this have really played out according to the rules?

Player 1 DROTs & disc is clearly "at rest". His throw is now complete & whatever happens before he throws again, he must mark under the basket & putt.

Player 2 asks for a mark. Player 1 refuses. Courtesy violation.

If Player 2 then putts anyway, tough s&%$ if he is knocked out. Player 1 still has to mark under the basket & putt.

Player 2 should've asked again, courtesy violated Player 1 again, ad infinitum, until he got a putt at an empty basket.

If player 1's disc is at rest, player 2 can ask to have the shot marked. Player 1 doesn't get the knock into the basket anyway because disc is replaced where it was located at rest before player 2's shot. Pretty clear in 803.07A & B.

this is the situation that we had yesterday in a very casual round.

player 1 putts, his disc comes to rest on top of the basket, leaning over the edge perched to drop in and count.

player 2 asks player 1 to mark the disc since it is a visual distraction.

player 1 makes an argument that if the disc resting on top is knocked in before everyone else is finished his shot counts.

not wanting to make a big ordeal player 2 putts hits the chains knocking player 1's shot in that was resting on the top and player 2's shot falls out.

final result player 1 scored a 2 player 2 scored a 3 and felt raw that his putt bounced off another dics and did not go in.

How should this have really played out according to the rules?



That's funny...the same thing happened to me yesterday during a casual round. Player one putted and his disc rested on the top of the basket (I can't remember what type of basket but it's the kind where a disc can find it's way through the top if angled correctly). Player 2 hits the chastity belt and the vibration of the belt knocks player one's disc through the top into the basket.

same situation in florida last year. 1st disc drot, 2nd disc hits top of basket and 1st disc falls in. player 1 scored their drot as a made putt. after the scorecards were turned in the player went back to the td, who then added 1 stroke, but not the 2 penalty strokes for turning in an incorrect scorecard, after all in was "only" a b-tier. (td was same guy who "forced" a guy playing in his group at an earlier tournament to take stroke and distance on a disc in OB water, since it couldn't be seen and was therefore "lost".)

same situation in florida last year. 1st disc drot, 2nd disc hits top of basket and 1st disc falls in. player 1 scored their drot as a made putt. after the scorecards were turned in the player went back to the td, who then added 1 stroke, but not the 2 penalty strokes for turning in an incorrect scorecard,



There would not be a penalty for an incorrect scorecard (last sentence of 804.03.G.2), but there should have been a penalty for failing to hole out. (803.13.A.2) +2 should have been added to the score turned in. No additional penalties would have been required.

same situation in florida last year. 1st disc drot, 2nd disc hits top of basket and 1st disc falls in. player 1 scored their drot as a made putt. after the scorecards were turned in the player went back to the td, who then added 1 stroke, but not the 2 penalty strokes for turning in an incorrect scorecard,



There would not be a penalty for an incorrect scorecard (last sentence of 804.03.G.2), but there should have been a penalty for failing to hole out. (803.13.A.2) +2 should have been added to the score turned in. No additional penalties would have been required.



good lookin' out!

**Thread drift warning**
(td was same guy who "forced" a guy playing in his group at an earlier tournament to take stroke and distance on a disc in OB water, since it couldn't be seen and was therefore "lost".)


Did the players on the card actually see it enter the water? If so, I would disagree with that TD since 803.09 does NOT say you have to see or find the disc in its final position, only that
"In order to consider the disc as out-of-bounds, there must be reasonable evidence that the disc came to rest within the out-of-bounds area . In the absence of such evidence, the disc will be considered lost and the player will proceed according to rule 803.11B."

(italics mine) I have seen this situation myself; Iast year I played a tourney out-of-state where I was one of only a couple non-locals in the field. One of the locals (who I didn't know from Adam) hucked one into an OB island in the middle of the fairway. The whole card watched it happen and everyone agreed the disc was definitely in that OB island. But the player was forced to play it as a lost disc even after I (politely) showed them 803.09 in the rule book. No one, TD or otherwise, has ever explained to me why this situation HAS to be played as "lost disc" instead of OB. It certainly was not mentioned in the players meeting before the start of play.

Can anyone shed light on this? I would be willing to start another thread on this situation if necessary...

nanook

I believe that the line "reasonable" should have been applied along with "benefit of the doubt". At worlds this past year I saw a player throw a disc into an area that was clearly marked as out of bounds with string. The area was covered in johnson grass about 3 feet tall and dropped down into a creek. The IB side was an open meadow. The player was forced to take stroke and distance because no one could "find" the disc in the johnson grass, even though that whole area was OB. I ran to argue with them and plead his case, but he had already thrown and was walking on by then. The whole area was marked, it could not have been anything but OB.

So this has been discussed before. I believe the player could have argued there was reasonable evidence and thrown a provisional. Obviously, the TD mentioned above interpted the rule differently and this is a problem.



Can anyone shed light on this? I would be willing to start another thread on this situation if necessary...

nanook

in the case of the wrongfully applied stroke and distance in the ob mentioned i had the unfortunate duty to the inform player that it was his duty to know the rules and no, i couldn't stroke the player that gave him the wrong info.

Yes it sucked, but you were right, it was his responsibility to know the rules. I talked to him later and he agreed that you were right, but how do you deal with the comment above where the TD said it was lost??!!


in the case of the wrongfully applied stroke and distance in the ob mentioned i had the unfortunate duty to the inform player that it was his duty to know the rules and no, i couldn't stroke the player that gave him the wrong info.

In my case, I convinced the rest of the card to let the guy in question throw a provisional. However, at the end of the round, the TD ruled it as a "lost disc". I showed the TD the "reasonable evidence" part of 803.09 as well, to no avail. I didn't push the issue since I was just visiting the area and didn't want to be viewed as an "out-of-town jerk".

I think there should be a formal appeals process in place. If there is a disagreement with a TD's decision on rules, payout, or whatever you'd submit a "TD decision appeal form" online to the rules committe and they'd make a ruling. They could say, hey you're wrong we agree with the TD or take appropriate action. In the case of the TD that misapplied the rules it would merit a form letter that clarified the rule and expressed faith in their ongoing learning of the rules. End of story. Similar appeals that came up frequently could merit a precedent setting statement in the points of clarification companion rules book.

Before everyone chimes in about how overworked the volunteer rules committee already is and how it would be overly burdensome and unworkable: I e-mailed the committee about 9 months ago and volunteered to do any routine tasks they may have in order to gain experience and maybe become a member in the future. They said they had everything under control and didn't need any volunteers.