A discussion has popped up on our local board in regards to how a certain situation would be played out. The hypothetical situation is that while playing a round on a windy day a player makes a putt into the basket. The disc comes to rest in the basket, but before the disc is retrieved, a huge gust comes and blows the disc out of the basket. Now the question is, does the player have to take a stroke by putting the disc back into the basket, or since the disc was "at rest", would the player get to replace the disc to its previous lie?

The question arises with Rule 803.13B stating
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.



and then Rule 803.07 B stating:

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.



I know it's kind of an unlikely situation, but it is possible. One instance where I saw something like this recently, a guy made a long putt, and managed to somehow balance the disc on the rim of the basket. It sat there for a good 3 seconds or more until a gust of wind blew it completely in. The wind could have easily blown it the other way however, and according to 803.13, he would take another shot. Assuming that ~3 seconds worth of time could be considered "at rest", then according to 803.07, he could replace the disc. It seems like 803.07 is more directed at the instance of another player's disc knocking the first player's disc out of the basket, but I could see "natural forces" being construed as interference too.

What would the official ruling be in this instance?

I would say that if the disc has come to rest then that is where the lie is...

As far as I understand, I believe if wind is the culprit, then the person must putt the disc again and play it where the wind left it. I think you can only move it back to it's previous position if the disc was moved unnaturally, such as another disc hitting your disc, or a little kid grabbing your disc or something like that.....

I have witnessed this scenario before. Its not completely unheard of in this part of the country.

I had always been told that in either of these scenarios, you want to get to your disc quickly and remove it yourself. The end of 803.13 B supports this. But, I have never paid attention to the last part of the first sentence in 803.07 B. Is that more talking about a disc "supported by the target <font color="red"> in such a way that it is not in the basket" </font> ? It would seem to contradict 803.13 B otherwise.

Any other Rules guru's want to weigh in?

A disc popping out of the basket due to wind before you retrieve it isn't any different from the situation where a disc wedges into the side of the basket. If you can get there to retrieve your disc in time, you get to count it as in. If not, then it costs you one more shot. The possibility your disc might fly back out of the basket is one reason the rules require you to at least momentarily release the disc into the basket even on a drop-in.

I agree. I guess my confusion is to what that part in 803.07 B is referring to? Under what circumstances can a disc that was moved after being "...at rest on the playing surface or supported by the target" ... be replaced? Is 803.07 B simply a followup to 803.07 A...referring more to replacing a disc after intentional interference?

If the disc is moved by natural causes, then it doesn't look like you can replace it, and where it ends up after getting blown is your new lie. However, here's an interesting loophole. If a mini blows away after marking, the lie had been established and you would get to play from there if the mini blew away. It would seem reasonable that if you state to the group that your disc will be your marker, then you have proclaimed the lie at that point and the wind blowing it away would allow you to return it to its initial at rest position. The only place that wouldn't work is when the disc is in the basket since no lie is ever declared at that point.

Hmm, that makes sense, but the counter argument would make sense too. To deepen the questions, one of the guys on the board says that he emailed this question a while ago to the rules committee and their response was "that after the disc comes to rest in the basket anything that moves the disc is interference and must be placed back to its original lie, then the player can remove the disc and complete the hole. "

I hope to never encounter this problem, but it'd be good to know what to do just in case. :confused:

The problem that the RC doesn't wish to address is how long a disc needs to be 'at rest' to meet the criteria. The disc that enters the basket on a windy day may never have settled down for more than second, if that, before being blown out. Seems like 3 seconds is what people seem to think is fair but the RC has been averse to putting that in writing.

It's freaky bad luck. Just like having a putt hit dead center and bounce out. Just like my putt during worlds that sat in the bottom of the cage for about 2/3 second before slipping through to the ground, with the comish watching. (no, he didn't let me count it as in.) My only hope would be that if it's windy enough to blow the disc back out of the cage it doesn't blow it 100 feet away and OB. :eek:

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 I'm not mistaken, the rule used to require that the player had to remove his/her own disc. I could argue that the current wording allows any type of removal, not just the player who threw the disc. Therefore, once the disc has come to rest and then somehow makes its way out of the basket, it's a legally completed hole.

Once the disc is at rest, supported by the basket (resting in the bottom of the basket), wind would be considered interference. The hole has been completed. If a disc is at rest on the top of the chain assembly and the wind blows it off and it rolls away 100 ft. to an OB area, the disc is replaced on the original lie.

If a disc at rest supported by anything other than the target is blown away by the wind, you play it where it stops rolling.

I asked this very question to the RC and the reply I got was similar to johnrock's response except the last part, and also the hole is not completed until the disc has been removed from the basket. The RC said anytime the disc comes to rest and is moved by any other force than the thrower, than it has been interfered with.

According to johnrock's response if your disc came to rest on the putting green and the wind picked it up and put it in the basket it would be a great stroke of luck, but this is not the case you must put the disc back to the last place of rest as determined by the group and hole out.

If your disc comes to rest in the bottom of the basket and then gets blown out, you put it back at rest in the basket and then remove it and the hole is complete

It's only when a disc is at reast above the playing surface that the wind or another thrown disc can knock it to another position where you have to play from if the lie hadn't been marked yet. So, if your disc is at rest on the ground by a bush and then gets blown away, you get to replace it. If the disc is at rest in that bush a foot off the ground, if it blows away before you get there to mark it, you play from where it ends up.

If the disc is at rest in that bush a foot off the ground, if it blows away before you get there to mark it, you play from where it ends up.


I'm pretty sure there has been a RC ruling that says that only if a disc is above 2 meters do you take it where it ends up after falling "from rest". All others get replaced.

I will have to assume that with the optionalization of the 2MR that if the 2MR is not in effect then all discs above the playing surface are to be replaced.

Incidently, a disc resting on the target is not a disc above the playing surface per the RC.

Correct. I forgot to add the part about the playing surface.

We have had to deal with the wind blowing discs out of the basket once they are at rest. It really puts a strange look on the thrower's face ;)

Chuck, (I realize you are not on the RC)

Are you saying a disc resting on top of the target gets blown away, you play it from its new location?

Hi Chuck et al.,

If a disc is hanging in the chains, and it is moved out of the chains onto the ground (by either wind or someone else's disc), then do you place the moved disc back into the chains, or at a point on the ground under the disc's previous position?

I always thought you had to remove your own disc right after making a successful putt in the offhand chance that someone else in the group might "knock" yours out, leaving you with an extra shot to make. Is that not the case?

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. If a marker disc is moved, the marker disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location, as determined by a majority of the group or an official. (If the two meter penalty is in effect, see also 803.08 C and D for movement of a disc above the playing surface.)

Thanks!
Steve

Are you saying a disc resting on top of the target gets blown away, you play it from its new location?



No, because the rules specifically state that it gets replaced as if the basket was a playing surface, 803.07B.

There's a missing piece in the rules regarding what to do with discs that get moved prior to marking and are above the playing surface (and not on the basket). These discs are definitely not on the playing surface. The rules specifically state to only use 803.08B thru 803.08D if the 2m rule is in effect. If the RC meant any discs at rest that get moved are replaced, then the wording excluding them in 803.07B would be unnecessary.

803.08A says that a disc above the playing surface gets marked directly below it. So, you could literally say that as soon as the group sees the disc at rest, the approximate lie should be re-established if it later moves before the group gets to it. Why players mark the new location if the disc moves when the 2m rule is in effect is unclear? Strict reading would also indicate that discs above 2m that move get the new location, those below 2m get to remain in the same spot, that's assuming the group can determine this from 100 yards away...

So a disc knocked out of the basket is replaced in its original position? That's good to know. I won't be so worried about having my disc being knocked out. I have the impression that most players I know would say, "Too bad, your disc is no longer in the basket and you have to play it from where it lies." Which is erroneous. :o

You also remove your disc from the basket after a made putt as a courtesy to your fellow players. Most people don't like to putt from further than a drop-in for fear their disc will hit yours and bounce out, and your removing it keeps them from constantly having to ask you to remove it. The first person putting did not have to putt with a visually distracting disc hanging in the chains or "trampoline side" up laying in the bottom of the basket...why should subsequent players be forced to do the same as it only became a factor during the game?

Additionally, 803.07B says that "Players shall not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur". Leaving your disc in the basket could potentially put you at risk of an interference penalty.

Don't leave your disc in the basket after making a putt unless specifically told by the next player putting to leave it.

My two cents...

........LarryO

I agree completely Larry. I'm talking about the case when multiple players are within about 6 ft, all looking at each other with the "Can I putt out now?" look, or the "Is it you or me?" or "Mind if I hole out?" looks. In several cases, two guys have gone right after the other. In this case, most people are not worried about missing. But I have seen some cases where discs banged into each other... :o

But as a courtesy I always move to clear out the basket--unless the player says not to. In some instances, even from 10-15 ft out, a guy is so ready to putt that he warns me off of clearing it out. He'd rather stay in the moment and finish than wait the extra 4-5 seconds.

Cheers,
Steve

Agree with retrieving disc every time unless asked not to.

A lot of times, when I'm waiting to putt a 60 footer and and someone else nails an 80 footer, I'm ready to go and don't want to wait. I particularly like to putt with the fresh chains hit in mind. Just like I'd rather have someone go ahead and finish and clear out after they donk a 25 footer.

"at rest" question regarding "holing out". Had this come up in a recent round and a few times before during competitive rounds without ever getting a clear ruling.

Is a disc hanging on the outside of the basket "at rest" within the (entrapment area) of the target. And if the disc can be retrieved from the hanging position outside the basket before it falls off does it constitute holing out?

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...



For example, this one happened to me and is good.
http://krupicka.org/discgolf/nubs.jpg

We've called that same putt good several times. However it is not at rest (within) the entrapment area, it is supported by the target the same way a disc on top of the basket is not within the entrapment area.

A disc wedged (in) the basket is very different from a disc hanging (on) the basket.

I have benefited from the way you rule it, and did the other day even though I argued against it.

The official rule is very explicit that the disc pictured "hanging from the lower entrapment section" is considered holed out. It is not the same as a disc on top of the basket.

Ok, I'm just throwing something out here.

If a disc gets stuck in the side of the basket it's good. If the disc is of course in the basket it's good. What if a disc hit the top of the basket and flips up and then comes down vertically in a way that that gets it stuck "in" the rungs of the top of the basket? It is not resting "on" the top, it is stuck "in" the basket. Food for thought.

I think I understand the original philosophy (it should act like a person catching a thrown disc) why DROT is no good, but IMO it's one of those things that just adds needless complexity to the rules.

I had never thought of that, but that is an interesting question. I had assumed that it had to be supported by the chains or the lower entrapment section but the rule also says (see bold)

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.

So while it appears the disc is not supported by the chains or lower basket it is in the entrapment section. The rule says it cannot be resting on top of the basket, so in your example it could be argued that it is NOT resting on top, but is instead supported by the top and partially hanging into the entrapment section. I believe that the intent is for it not to be supported by the top, this can be seen by the statement that it can be hanging from the bottom, but not from the top. If we argue that it is in the entrapment section while supported by the top then someone could also argue that a disc hanging from the outside top of the basket is leaning into the basket entrapment section and should be counted and clearly the rule states that is not holed out. I would say it is not holed out.



Ok, I'm just throwing something out here.

If a disc gets stuck in the side of the basket it's good. If the disc is of course in the basket it's good. What if a disc hit the top of the basket and flips up and then comes down vertically in a way that that gets it stuck "in" the rungs of the top of the basket? It is not resting "on" the top, it is stuck "in" the basket. Food for thought.

Ok, I'm just throwing something out here.

If a disc gets stuck in the side of the basket it's good. If the disc is of course in the basket it's good. What if a disc hit the top of the basket and flips up and then comes down vertically in a way that that gets it stuck "in" the rungs of the top of the basket? It is not resting "on" the top, it is stuck "in" the basket. Food for thought.


A Disc Resting On Top is "not in".

From that I would have to argue that a disc wedged in the upper assembly is still "not in". HOWEVER....I believe that if a disc is wedged in the upper assembly and is touching a single link of chain (or many links), EVEN IF IT'S BARELY TOUCHING THE CHAIN, then it must be ruled as "in" and the hole should be considered completed upon removal of the disc from the target.

From the above, I would have to further argue that a disc that enters the target by the standard method, say straight into the heart of the chains tape-high, and then somehow deflects up such that it wedges into the upper assembly and is then completely supported by only the upper assembly and somehow manages to not be touching any chain, that disc would be considered "not in".

I'll go with a good ruling.

Take the rule as written.


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.



Step 1: Any Disc that is supported by the chains of wihtin one of the entrapment sections is good.

Step 2: Exceptions = discs resting on top of, or hanging on the outside of, the upper entrapment section are not good.

Conclusion:
Both both the upper and lower sections are considered entrapment sections (no need for the exception if it wasn't) and any disc fully supported by one of the entrapment sections is good except for "discs resting on top or hanging outside of the upper entrapment section".

Since a disc wedged into the upper section and penetrating the area below bowl formed by the upper entrapmetn section is clearly not "resting on top nor hanging outside of the upper entrapment section" it must be good.

Gary,

That was my first thought as well, but there is a problem with that...... what if a disc is hanging from the top, but is leaning into the chains. By your interpretation it would also be good since the rule states "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"

It appears to me after review of this that the intent is that if it is supported by the top, it is not holed out.


Since a disc wedged into the upper section and penetrating the area below bowl formed by the upper entrapmetn section is clearly not "resting on top nor hanging outside of the upper entrapment section" it must be good.

I can't really picture your example, but if it is hanging outside of the upper entrapment section, it is specifically excluded. If it is resting on top of the upper entrapment section it is specifically excluded.

The main problem that I have with your interpretation is that it would be easier to write "excludes a disc completely supported by the upper entrapment section" than "excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section"

Anyone,
Why don't the rule-making gods just change the rule to something that would eliminate all of this...if the disc is totally supported by the entrapment device (the basket) it's considered holed out. None of this "...this part is considered good but this part isn't...". EVERY single time I try to explain this concept (that if your disc ends up in the chains or the basket it's holed out, but if it's on top it isn't) to a person who never played disc golf, they give me this look like "what kind of stupid rule is that? Why not just include the entire basket assembly?" To which I have absolutely no good tacit answer for. Can anyone explain to me why we presently have this (rule)? And any good reasons why we shouldn't change (and "because that's the way it's always been done" is not a good reason)?
Karl

Because that would make too much sense! I completely agree: if a disc is sitting smack on top of the basket, it should be considered "in".

Anyone,
Why don't the rule-making gods just change the rule to something that would eliminate all of this...if the disc is totally supported by the entrapment device (the basket) it's considered holed out. None of this "...this part is considered good but this part isn't...". EVERY single time I try to explain this concept (that if your disc ends up in the chains or the basket it's holed out, but if it's on top it isn't) to a person who never played disc golf, they give me this look like "what kind of stupid rule is that? Why not just include the entire basket assembly?" To which I have absolutely no good tacit answer for. Can anyone explain to me why we presently have this (rule)? And any good reasons why we shouldn't change (and "because that's the way it's always been done" is not a good reason)?
Karl


It's just like the arguing the 2 Meter Rule. People who are for the DROT rule as it is will simply scream "IT'S BAD PUTT IF IT LANDS ON TOP!!!!!! WHY DO YOU WANT TO COUNT A BAD PUTT AS IN????!?!?!?!?!111!!??!?!?!?11?!"

They also cannont comprehend the reality that a high lob-putt, like you might use if the basket was perched near a cliff or next to OB so that the disc is coming straight down at the basket with small chance to go in and great chance to stay within 5 feet of the basket, can absolutely be headed right for the middle of the pole and end up DROT.

Do a search on DROT and read about it to your heart's content. Or just start a few threads about DROT and watch the exact same arguments unfold once again in real time. :)

Rhett,

I don't want to / don't have the time to re-read all that other stuff (but thanks for the offer!) I hear what you're saying (and am not saying YOU feel this way), but the argument you listed makes no sense considering a LOW putt that wedgies in the basket's side IS holed out - but CAN'T be considered a GOOD putt by their standards! If you (well not YOU, we (as a dg group) in general) want to eliminate wedgies and laying-on-top putts from counting (because they, when thrown, were "off-line" and thus were a "bad putt") then just make the top domed / conical (so putters couldn't rest on top...they'd slide off) and wedgies couldn't wedge in (because the holes would be too small). Solutions CAN be found. But this "only part of the entrapment device REALLY can "trap" the disc" is loony (and reeks of inconsistencies / amateurish / evolving (even though we are) sports). In other sports, it's either in the hole or it's not; it's either through the hoop or it's not; it's either across the line or it's not; etc.

Karl

And here it's either supported by the entrapment device (below the top) or it's not.

And here it's either supported by the entrapment device (below the top) or it's not.


Unless it's wedged into the top, which could be considered resting on the top or not.

Call me silly, but sometimes getting a totally unknowledgable opinion of something can be quite eye-opening (as they can "see the forest from the trees" and we, who are very close to it, cannot). Newbies / people who haven't played dg always wonder why only part of the target is really the target. Why not have EVERY part of the "device" be the entrapment device? I still haven't heard of a good counter-argument for why we should continue to have something (an entrapment device which only part of the device really entraps) that is deemed by potential newcomers to the sport as "goofy". It's just one small thing (albeit, very small) that potentially detain people from considering us "legit" (i.e., if I suddenly "discovered" a sport which seemed to "have it's act together", I MIGHT be more inclined to think highly of it...conversely, if I "discovered" a sport which had a target which seemed to be "weird", "illogical", "not really thought out to the fullest extent" (considering our target is such an integral part of our sport), I MIGHT be inclined to "not take that sport as seriously".).

Karl

If it's "wedged in" (sounds fairly painful) the top, it's not "resting on" (peaceful and serene) the top.

If it's "wedged in" (sounds fairly painful) the top, it's not "resting on" (peaceful and serene) the top.


Picture a disc resting on top verticaly, leaning on the number plate to hold it there.

Is there some defined amount of poke-age where a disc changes from "resting on top in a vertical alignment and DROT/not in" to "wedged in the top and not DROT/in"?

Just to keep things murky. I assume the "supported by the chains" portion of the rule was added to include discs fully supported by the chains, but touching no other part of the assembly. Just how much support from the chain(s) is required? In the "hanging from the top on the outside scenario," it has been suggested that touching one link is enough to be considered in. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing in that scenario less than .01 % of the total support the disc is receiving is coming from the chains.

If I were king of the world, I'd consider the fact that this probably happens to the average golfer, what once a year, and simplify the rule to make 'em all in. Just 'cause its change, doesn't make it bad, per se.

If I were king of the world, I'd consider the fact that this probably happens to the average golfer, what once a year, and simplify the rule to make 'em all in. Just 'cause its change, doesn't make it bad, per se.



In 19 years, I've done it once, and seen it done three other times.

I've also seen a disc come down through the top of the original single chain discatchers and end up fully in the chains.

For those who don't want to read the DROT thread, the original reason why DROTs do not count has to do with the origins of the sport and our founder, Steady Ed, who we honored at the IDGC Grand Opening today. When trees were used as targets prior to the pole hole, two wraps of tape high and low were made around trees to mark the target zone you had to hit to hole out. There's no chance to land on top of this original vertical target and Ed carried that concept forward into the first basket design where shots landing on top of the basket would not be in because they would have likely missed the equivalent of the tape wrapping a tree. Ed's wish has been continued such that DROTs are not considered holing out.

So, in the context of this discussion, how do y'all feel about the open-topped Dr. Fred models that allow putts to drop in from the top and count?

So, in the context of this discussion, how do y'all feel about the open-topped Dr. Fred models that allow putts to drop in from the top and count?


Newer Innova DisCatcher models have enough space between the "spokes" in the top for that to happen, to.

Gary,

Just one question, what is it resting on then? It seems obvious that it must be resting on something. Peaceful or not, technically if it is supported by the top, wedged or other wise by definition, 'to support' it is resting on top of the basket. Assume it is not wedged into the basket, but turned sidewise and lightly supported by the top, yet still slightly below the top into the bottom section. Is it then DROT or not? By stating that rest means any form of support, there is no discussion and decision making required, if supported by the top, whether directly on top or haning by the edge, it is not good. If, however, there is any support by something besides the top, then it is good.


If it's "wedged in" (sounds fairly painful) the top, it's not "resting on" (peaceful and serene) the top.

Please see my previous post. If the intent was all discs fully supported by the upper entrapment section, then that wording is simplier than the wording of the rule. Therefore it follows that the wording of the rule is intentional and there must be some difference between "resting on" and "supported by". The only example I can think of is "wedged into" or penetrating as opposed to fully on top of.

Personally I would prefer that that it be "fully supported" whether DROTs be counted as in or out.

What if the NBA made any part of their basket count as good? Wow i could go 10 for 10 from the chairity stripe all day!

What if the NBA made any part of their basket count as good? Wow i could go 10 for 10 from the chairity stripe all day!



As long as the ball stayed on the rim, which is mighty difficult. I guess you could get one of those "wedgies" between rim and backboard, but that's difficult from the charity stripe....it's more likely on a 3-pt. shot from the wings.


Chap

Gary,

My first review was exactly as you called it, but then I have seen a disc that was hanging from the top, but leaning into the basket. I know that you stated that since it is haning from the top it is not good, but the rule shown below says hanging outside the entrapment device. By your take on it, I would say that if it is haning into the chains, it must be good. Granted it is rare, but I have seen it before.

Additionally, there are only two sections in the rules book that talks about 'support' of the disc, the first is in interference with a disc the second is below. The rule uses the term 'rest supported' together. Quite often the term rest is used in the rule book to imply supported and movement has stopped. This one use of 'rest supported' says to me that the disc has ceased to move and is supported by. Just my take, I would still call a disc either wedged sideways in the top, or turned sideways to be resting and DROT.



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.


Please see my previous post. If the intent was all discs fully supported by the upper entrapment section, then that wording is simplier than the wording of the rule. Therefore it follows that the wording of the rule is intentional and there must be some difference between "resting on" and "supported by". The only example I can think of is "wedged into" or penetrating as opposed to fully on top of.

Personally I would prefer that that it be "fully supported" whether DROTs be counted as in or out.

Chuck,

Thanks for the history of this issue, but I believe it's time to go with "logic" and give up on "Ed's wish"...it just doesn't make sense (nor do newbies "see the practicality of it"...and if they don't, we should be able to see past it and find something that does make sense), or if we must, keep the DROT in place, but eliminate ANY possibility of it happening...as I stated in a previous post - just dome the baskets.

Karl

If only..... I have played on baskets that had a domed top and still seen a disc stuck on top.

I have a question for any golf players, does a golf ball stuck between the flag and the top edge of the hole count as in? I don't know, but this is a similar situation to DROT and I am curious how this is handled in ball golf.

never mind, I looked this one up and it DOES count


Chuck,

Thanks for the history of this issue, but I believe it's time to go with "logic" and give up on "Ed's wish"...it just doesn't make sense (nor do newbies "see the practicality of it"...and if they don't, we should be able to see past it and find something that does make sense), or if we must, keep the DROT in place, but eliminate ANY possibility of it happening...as I stated in a previous post - just dome the baskets.

Karl

I think we need to go the other way with this. I think if we're going to make changes to this particular rule, we should leave DROT as out and make discs wedged in or hanging from the lower entrapment section out as well. Though I have taken advantage of my discs being wedged in the LES, its kind of a cheap way to successfully make a putt IMO. Plus, allowing DROT to count slightly lowers our 1.7 putting average around the green (Chuck can explain more about that figure). Discs wedged or hanging from the lower entrapment section dont happen as much as DROT (from my experience anyway) and neither of these options would change that number very much, but if anything....I think putting in DG should be more difficult, not allow for more luck to creap in.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but the same ambiguity still exists. Gary and I differ on the call for DROT if the disc is on edge on the top and appears to be somewhat below the top on the bottom edge of the disc. Under your suggestion what would happen if a disc sticks on the lower basket half in and half out? Granted in my 26 years of playing I have only seen this happen twice and neither was during a tournament. The answer still would be unclear. I suggest that the word "rest" be changed to at "rest supported by the top".


I think we need to go the other way with this. I think if we're going to make changes to this particular rule, we should leave DROT as out and make discs wedged in or hanging from the lower entrapment section out as well. Though I have taken advantage of my discs being wedged in the LES, its kind of a cheap way to successfully make a putt IMO. Plus, allowing DROT to count slightly lowers our 1.7 putting average around the green (Chuck can explain more about that figure). Discs wedged or hanging from the lower entrapment section dont happen as much as DROT (from my experience anyway) and neither of these options would change that number very much, but if anything....I think putting in DG should be more difficult, not allow for more luck to creap in.

Remember, there is no 'standard' entrapment device yet on the books! I think it's about time (in the evolution of our sport) to come up with some 'standard' design / configuration for such and then implement it. At the present time, the 5 or so companies (which have chosen to make dg entrapment devices) have all pretty much designed them the same way. Is this the way we should go? Maybe yes (based on the "if most people think it's good, then let's accept it" principle). Maybe no (based on we haven't played the sport long enough to "know what is best"). But let's "work out any of the bugs" first...and I feel the only "bugs" left to work out are the nuances involved in whether a disc is "entraped" or not. The present size of our targets "just sort of evolved". There's nothing magical about the size. Sure size (of the target) will affect the "making ability" of any putt, but size (of targets) can / does change (among the different types of baskets). Hanging baskets notwithstanding, it is easy to determine if a disc is "entraped" within any area above the pole supporting the basket (leaners (on the pole) only count in horseshoes!), but the "entrapment device" is not the entire thing that the pole supports! Weird at best (and confusing - thus the need for such a discussion point (if it were the WHOLE thing above the pole, there'd be no discussion here at all!)) and not well thought out. Let's design a catching device where such discussions would be meaningless! Existing devices could be used (maybe with slight modifications) OR no modification would be neede - if everything counted.
The argument that that 1.7 number would increase, I believe, isn't a very good one. Sure we can remember those few putts that DROT but ONLY because it's such a freak occurrence! If it were more commonplace, we wouldn't remember them! It MIGHT skew the 1.7 number a little, but so much so that it wouldn't matter much (and so if it did...it would be "equitable" for all and not affect the outcome of anything much). Understand, that 1.7 number is not god. So if it changes a little! And I guarantee you that the gauge of chains (which can vary) and the distance the chains are in from the basket's edge (which can vary), rims have nubs (some don't), etc. make a MUCH greater affect on whether a putt is "good" or not, so the argument of a DROT is not a good putt is also not a good one. And by the way, it takes a heck of a good player to, on purpose, land a disc on the top of the basket...a much better one than one trying to hit the chains! Your target is only a DROT, mine is our present "entrapment" device...let's see who'll win!

Karl

As I said, the 1.7 number wouldnt change much...if at all. I guess my point was that I dont think we need to give a little more help to the players (though a small number and rare in occurance). Given the current baskets and the current rule, I personally think that a putt shouldnt be "in" unless it caught in the chains or fully in the pan (what I call the lower entrapment section).

And, I dont have any undying devotion to the current catching devices. Its whats in place now and I have learned to adapt to them. Creating a different basket that would put more of a premium on good putting, spreading scores, and making for more competative situations would be a good thing IMO.

The problem with wegies in the basket (lower portion of target) is that they frequently occur from inside the basket. I see it far more than DROTs or wedgies from the outside. Very rarely do I see a disc wedge anywhere near to half-way from teh inside, but I do see it wedge a little from the inside with no threat of going all the way through.

So if you say that "wedgies don't count", then you have to define "how much makes it a wedgie". A disc can be at rest in the bottom of the basket and have some portion of the outer radius poking out of the basket. Depending upon how you try to define the wedgie, this could be considered wedged and "not in".

Here's my opinion about rules: they need to be fair, as simple as practicle, and enforceable. Outlawing wedgies would be very difficult to describe.

When it comes to wedgies and DROTs, I think the big picture needs to be taken into account. How much effect could actually be caused if DROTs were counted as in? Would it fundamentally affect the game in a bad way? Would the effect be prevalent, or would the effect only be miniscule? If the worst possible effect is small, would that small negative be worth the added simplicity we could get in the rules?

I think that re-defining holing out as "the disc comes to rest completely supported by the target at the basket or above" makes the rule very simple and easy to call, and the negatives of counting DROTs and wedgies is worth accepting because of how infrequently they occur.

This will be in the same vein as some responses to this I have just seen.

I can imagine the conversations that took place during the evolution of this rule, and I understand the intent.

With that said, and no disrespect intended, I find this completely silly and illogical. Why would the top surface of the top of the device be deemed outside the limits of the proverbial tape line, but the bottom surface of the bottom portion of the device be within the mythical tape line. A shot which skips and wedges in the underside of the basket is just as likely to have missed that tape (due to imaginary tree trunk) as that which floats down on top. Inconsistencies in rules like this, while quaint and endearing to those near to the sport, are viewed as frustrating and stupid by the newcomer.

Why not... either lower the top entrapment device by a quarter inch thus making it fall within the tape line, or better yet, as has already been suggested, call everything out that is not in the chains or in the basket after entering it from the top.

A shot which skips and wedges in the underside of the basket is just as likely to have missed that tape (due to imaginary tree trunk) as that which floats down on top.



The difference is that when the disc is wedged in the side, it could have come to that position from inside of the basket meaning it actually did "virtually" strike the taped tree in the target zone. That's not the case for sitting on top. Even if the group swears they saw the wedgie come from the outside, I have seen discs wedge from the inside, especially on the old cone baskets. So, it was determined that wedgies needed to count as bias toward the player benefit. I'm not defending the wedgie, just explaining how the rule got to where it is with what looks like an inconsistency.

If the disc is wedged in the direction from outside to inside, its out. If the disc is wedged having come from the inside of the pan to the outside, its in. Thats what I would think. It adds more wording, and complicates a situation that rarely comes up anyway. Bottom line - I guess I think DROT or wedges from the outside in should be ruled the same -- I would be in favor of both OUT, but both IN would not be bad either

And on a blind shot if the disc is half wedged in and half out, now you are in, by your suggested change you get to discuss and maybe argue. Right now it is clear if the disc is on top, it is no good.


If the disc is wedged in the direction from outside to inside, its out. If the disc is wedged having come from the inside of the pan to the outside, its in. Thats what I would think. It adds more wording, and complicates a situation that rarely comes up anyway. Bottom line - I guess I think DROT or wedges from the outside in should be ruled the same -- I would be in favor of both OUT, but both IN would not be bad either

I hope we're not getting all wrapped up in symantics about "direction of wedgies", etc., and missing the big picture...which is we need to simplify all of this! Remember, the whole wedgie thing can be totally rectified by simply making the basket "holes" (the side portion that is basically a 'web' of steel rods) smaller - so NO disc even has the chance to fit in to the side. But that is a VERY SMALL aspect of this discussion. The real one is that we just need to make things consistent...like if ANY PART of the device catches / holds the disc, it is holed out.

Karl

I go with the simpler the better, and in the case of DROTs, at least half of them are floating down and would have struck the painted stripe on the tree anyway.

If the defintion was tweaked to land in or be supported by the basket, then hanging in the chains would not be in. If that were the case, the type of deflection device or chain pattern might be tightened up so that discs were actually deflected into the basket and not pass thru. That would be interesting to see.

The old cone baskets never had slide thrus or pipe outs. Their problems were bolt backs when the disc hit the fastening bolt in the basket and hopped back at you. They also had no nubs and discs would still stick on the dome top. Their opening height was also too low. All of these items could easily be retooled to produce a better deflector... but without the ching. Since having a deflector at all or the type of deflector is not specified for PDGA target approval, there's room for improvement including making baskets so discs won't stick in the side.

Or use the current wording of the rule without listing the exceptions:

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 <s>within</s> one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from an <s>the lower</s> entrapment section <s>but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section</s>. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.



or


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 one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from an entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.

Seems straight forward to me...

GN,

Definately better...but (said somewhat tongue-and-cheek) how about "See that metal thing over there, throw your disc at it. If your disc stays in contact with the metal (and isn't touching the ground), it's good." !!

Chuck,

If you think about it, there is (presently) so much variability in target size (just take those cloth baskets - which have been used for PDGA-sanctioned tournaments - and compare them with a Mark V, etc.) that most anything might work (in the long run)...considering everyone (in that tournament) is shooting at the same targets. BUT let's just make it simple. I'm thinking - so that a WHOLE LOT of courses don't have to "retool" their baskets, just get rid of the 'DROT doesn't count' thing. Then any disc that is supported by the target and not touching the ground (thus eliminating leaners) is deemed holed out. For the present time, this makes sense. If, if, if, in the future, the PDGA wishes to mandate a TOTAL refurbishing of targets (...to be done only after a lot of discussion, etc.), then EVERYONE will HAVE to change. But until then, we can make a very confusing thing a whole lot better if we just consider the entire entity the target.

What can we do to "get the wheels in motion" to effect this change?

Karl

Contact the Rules Committee regarding DROTs and wedgies. I think 2009 will be the next update with discussion and revisions happening in 2008. Anything with proposed basket design guideline changes is the Tech Standards Committee.

It will be "at least" 2009 before any rules update goes into effect. The BoD has not contacted the RC about wanting a rules update, and I don't think we're prepared to work on one this year. And it takes quite a few months to get an update finished...it's not an easy process. We have to start now to get one done for 2008. Frankly, I don't think there's any great clamoring out there for that to happen.

The RC has discussed DROT many, many times before. I can't remember why we didn't change it last time....it could be that the BoD indicated they didn't want that change, or perhaps the RC voted against putting it in the update, I honestly don't remember which. The RC does recognize that counting DROT as good would simplify the "holing out" rule.

Chap