Last weekend at the LSO @ Spirit a disc came to rest and was supported by the basket as well as a boulder next to it. The rule states:
803.13B, 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.

My initial reaction was that the basket shouldn't have been so close to the boulder which would have avoided something like this from happening. But that doesn't matter, it was close enough for a disc to come to rest on both objects. This is just another scenario in which the rules need to be less open to interpretation.

What's your call?

Holed out.


Well, once removed from 'twixt the basket and boulder it was holed out.

Yep, that was our call as well.

Holed out.


Well, once removed from 'twixt the basket and boulder it was holed out.



Help a idiot....do you mean that by removing the disc the player was essentially removing the disk from the basket?

Holed out.


Well, once removed from 'twixt the basket and boulder it was holed out.



Help a idiot....do you mean that by removing the disc the player was essentially removing the disk from the basket?



If you read the rules, the hole isn't complete until the disc is removed from the basket. And yes, that is what I mean.

I think it is just like "supporting points" in regards to stance. Any part of you that is in contact with the playing surface is a supporting point, no matter how little it is actually supporting. (Since it's touching it is supporting some miniscule amount at the least.) Similarly, a disc at rest that is touching the basket at all, no matter how little, is supported by the basket. And per the rules, that's "in".

All IMHO, of course. But I would argue that point all day if you were on my card and your disc ended up in that position. Thinking about it, I'm surprised I haven't seen this come up before because there are a few "inside the spider tree" holes in the tournaments I play. :)

if the disk was supported by an object other than part of the basket, how can it be holed out?
No interpretation by my reading. If it's supported by the basket, yes. But the rule doesn't allow for other supportive objects.

But the rule doesn't allow for other supportive objects.



Show me where it says that in the rulebook please.......exactly, it doesn't, which is why the rule needs some work.

"... [the disc] must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections."

I think a key word here is within. From the description of the event it sounds like the disc is supported entirely outside of the entrapment section.

"This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section..."

In these listed cases part of the disc is clearly within the entrapment section. If the disc is hanging from a nub the rim of the disc is inside of the basket. If the disc is wedged into the side of the basket then part of it is clearly in.

From the description of the event it is unclear if part of the disc was within the entrapment device when it was being "supported by the basket". Just because the disc is being supported by the outside of the entrapment device this is not sufficient to indicate that it is within. I would argue that being supported between the basket and a foreign object does not qualify as hanging from the entrapment section either. Hanging from the entrapment section I would define as being independently supported by. This is different from leaning against the outside of the entrapment section. It sounds like this disc was leaning against the outside of the entrapment section and not hanging from the entrapment section.

I would have ruled this out unless I could see that part of the disc was within the boundaries of the entrapment section. Without being able to view the case it is hard to say though. I think that the sprirt of the rule is that the disc come to rest within the entrapment device. The rules specify two cases where the disc is part in and part out and indicates that these should be considered in. In all other cases I would rule that if the disc is outside of the basket then it is not in.

Let me throw a related scenario out there. A disc comes to rest supported by an adjacent branch and the disc is hanging within the lower entrapment section of the basket. The disc is not touching the chains or bottom of the basket but is inside of the outer edge of the lower entrapment section. In or out?

The disc was resting on top of the basket about 1/3 of the way in and the other side was supported by the boulder...I'd say that's within, wouldn't you? Your post proves my point, in that you interpret a lot about the rule that isn't clearly spelled out.

The disc is not touching the chains or bottom of the basket but is inside of the outer edge of the lower entrapment section. In or out?



Out

The disc was resting on top of the basket about 1/3 of the way in and the other side was supported by the boulder...I'd say that's within, wouldn't you?



Yes. From this description I would be inclined to believe that the disc is within the target.

I'd still say it's NOT a made hole. Does everything, every possible scenario, every possible lie, every possible throw, have to be specifically stated in the rules? Hell, we can't get anyone to read and carry the rule book as it is.

If a non-basket object is supporting the disc, it can't possibly be ruled IN the basket. And don't anyone try to make a simile to the OB rule, there's no relativity. If the disc had the capability of hovering just over the top of the facemask, it would not be considered in. Same with this boulder, it's NOT entirely supported by the entrapment device/chains/basket. Is a ball golf putt in if it's 1/3 over the hole? nope.
I would argue, and agree with a statement made earlier, that it's a lousy place to put a basket if the boulder is that close. That's asking for trouble like this.

not a completed hole. the disc was in even worse shape than a DROT, which doesnt count.

no good, mark it and drop it in.

I am confused. Was part of the disc on top of the basket or lodged between the chains and a boulder? I ask, because the rules clearly discard the top as a supporting device, it must be below the top. So if the disc was resting on top DROT and no good. If it was lodged against the chains, then I could see some concern. I could have sworn the rule use to read "wholly supported by�." Am I just getting old?

I personnally would not have counted it as good because I don't believe that 'supported by' constitutes a part of the disc, but all the weight of the disc must be supported by the entrapment device. Clearly a boulder is not an entrapment device unless the TD has proclaimed it as so.


The disc was resting on top of the basket about 1/3 of the way in and the other side was supported by the boulder...I'd say that's within, wouldn't you? Your post proves my point, in that you interpret a lot about the rule that isn't clearly spelled out.

I should have said...


The disc was resting on top of the lower entrapment device about 1/3 of the way in and the other side was supported by the boulder

I should have said...


The disc was resting on top of the lower entrapment device about 1/3 of the way in and the other side was supported by the boulder





It counts, the rule states, "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."

In this case it was supported by the lower entrapement. Nowhere in the rule does it say the disc can't also be supported by a rock or a tree or whatever. The disc must be released, must come to rest, and must be supported by the lower entrapement device. This shot clearly meets all of those criteria.

In this case it was supported by the lower entrapement. Nowhere in the rule does it say the disc can't also be supported by a rock or a tree or whatever. The disc must be released, must come to rest, and must be supported by the lower entrapement device. This shot clearly meets all of those criteria.


Ding! Ding! Ding!

disc is neither wedged in, hanging from the lower entrapment device, within the entrapment section ,nor supported by the chains therefore not good.

nowhere does the rule actually state "supported by the lower entrapment device"- those are your words.

Supported by the entrapment section is not what the rule says, it says "supported by the chains". Is this disc supported by the chains? No, not as described.

The other part of the rule specifies "within one of the entrapment sections". Whether or not the disc is supported by the entrapment section or the boulder is not the real issue in my opinion. The principle issue should be whether the disc was within the entrapment section. Being within the entrapment section is necessary and sufficient. Being supported by the entrapment section is perhaps necessary but not sufficient to prove that it is within.

Being within should be a very easy visual test. Is some part of the disk within an entrapment section? Yes, then it is good. The out-of-bounds standard works like this. Is some part of the disc in bounds? Yes, then it is not out of bounds.

If you define "within" to be "wholly inside" then no this disc has not met that test. If you define "within" as meaning "in or into" then this disc has met that test for validity. Part of the disc as it lies at rest extends into the entrapment section and is touching the entrapment section. Depending on how rigidly you define "within" determines whether this shot should be good or not. What the disc is supported by is mostly irrelevant.

if "within" were meant to indicate partially inside there would be no need for verbiage indicating "wedgies" are good- they are partially inside.

if "within" were meant to indicate partially inside there would be no need for verbiage indicating "wedgies" are good- they are partially inside.



I think they included the verbiage for wedgies and hanging on the lower entrapment because those are somewhat common, this scenario however, is not. It's still my interpretation that if any part of the disc is inside the outer edge of the lower entrapment then it is "within".

No different than a disc that is balanced on top of the basket's rim or hanging off of the basket's rim. IMO, the disc is in.

Note when I refer to 'basket', I am referring to the 'entrapment section'.

there should be some sort of penalty to who ever placed the basket there in the first place.

common sense should prevent this instance from even occuring.

there should be some sort of penalty to who ever placed the basket there in the first place.

common sense should prevent this instance from even occuring.



What did you want us to do, chop Logger's hands off?

The course plays up a creek for 13 holes and there are very few flat areas in which a basket can be placed. This was the only flat space for a basket on this hole.

Wow...I thought all the talk about this shot was done when I left the tourny....Guess not. ;)

Is it in or is it not?
http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34

no way. Seeing it makes it even more obvious in my mind.

If there's no good place for a basket, maybe there shouldn't be one there. Lousy design.

That is not a holed shot.

Someone notify the RC yet??

Guys, by rule, I would consider this a holed out disc. Again, as always, this is my opinion, not necessarily that of the RC.

By sheer common sense, it's not really holed out. It's clear the disc would not stay in that position if the rock was gone.

However, common sense goes out the window when the target is placed so closely to an obstacle like this that this can happen, so we have to go by rule and count this disc as holed out, although intuitively it shouldn't be so. I understand that this temporary basket may not have been able to go anywhere else, but this simply is not a desirable hole design feature, and you simply can't write rules to try and legislate against a specific situation like this that just simply isn't going to happen but once every 20 years or so, and only then because the target is poorly placed. In a situation like this, you pretty much have to rely on your TD/course official to make a good call and go on.

Chap

Players will be putting on this basket at Pro Worlds and it's possible a disc will be partly touching on of the tree trunks and the basket. It's in.
Perched basket (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg)

When you consider the intent of the basket is to emulate a disc striking an original object target, it makes sense to call it in. All the basket is for is to confirm that a target was "struck" when shots are blind. The only part that makes me uncomfortable would be a situation where the disc got wedged sidewise between the trunk and basket and was never high enough to have possibly gone in.

On the other hand, we allow wedgies where the disc jams into the basket from below. So, all of the evidence would point to shots balanced/wedged between the basket and some other object should be good/in. I'm not sure the chain support in the picture is close enough to any trunk such that a disc sitting on top could simultaneously be balanced against a trunk. Fortunately, Gentry will be there to make the call should that happen, maybe with Greenwell's giant Jaguar.

Image hosted at DGTV. http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/blog_story/34
http://www.discgolftv.com/production/blog_image/image/61/DSC00248.JPG

According to the rule in place as of today(7/20/07)...That disc is in. It's "supported" by the lower entrapment.

disc is neither wedged in, hanging from the lower entrapment device, within the entrapment section ,nor supported by the chains therefore not good.

nowhere does the rule actually state "supported by the lower entrapment device"- those are your words.



By your logic, a disc that is balanced on the rim of the tray is not in. Such a disc would also be neither wedged in nor hanging from the lower entrapment section.

Correct?

No, It would be supported by the lower entrapment device.

Please remember, the rule does not say the disc must be supported by the entrapment section but rather that the disc must be "within one of the entrapment sections"... Discussion of whether or not the disc is supported by the lower entrapment section is not relevant to determining if the disc is in *unless* the disc is "supported by the chains".

Thats a horrible call...the only reason a wedgie is counted is b/c it is fully supported by the basket...that disc isn't even close to being supported by the basket if that rock wasn't there??

Thats a horrible call...the only reason a wedgie is counted is b/c it is fully supported by the basket...that disc isn't even close to being supported by the basket if that rock wasn't there??



True, but the rock was/is there.

Out of curiosity, how on earth is the player supposed to mark the lie and putt it out if considered "out" without a stance violation?

Out of curiosity, how on earth is the player supposed to mark the lie and putt it out if considered "out" without a stance violation?



Stand on the rock or try to put his foot between the mini and rock.

The rock is there but they can't put in every circumstance into the rule. I believe that it was intended as a "common sense" rule also...is the disc supported by basket or chains meaning..."only" the basket or chains even though it doesn't say only in it. Also on the flip side in a small in-state tourney I would of counted it as well...I'm sure that you know the player and know one wanted to be a stickler.

But come on people; you are saying I could stand by the basket and hold discs that are obviously falling out on the rim and wait until the player comes and grabs it. I was fully supporting it just like the rock, but some of the disc was over the rim (that disc is on the ground if not for that rock, not the basket). I want my buddy Mike and Evan from CO to do good at worlds so I'm gonna make sure that neither of them miss a putt!!!!

I think of it this way, if the basket wasn't there the disc would fall and so it IS supported by the basket.

That doesn't make any sense...Look at the pic: the shot missed; its on the ground if the "rock" isn't there; which is the object in question; not the basket...you can't take the basket away then its not a hole and there is no discussion...

But come on people; you are saying I could stand by the basket and hold discs that are obviously falling out on the rim and wait until the player comes and grabs it. I was fully supporting it just like the rock, but some of the disc was over the rim (that disc is on the ground if not for that rock, not the basket). I want my buddy Mike and Evan from CO to do good at worlds so I'm gonna make sure that neither of them miss a putt!!!!


If you did it, it would be "Interference". It's in the rule book.

That doesn't make any sense...Look at the pic: the shot missed; its on the ground if the "rock" isn't there; which is the object in question; not the basket...you can't take the basket away then its not a hole and there is no discussion...



What? Listen to what I said!

The basket is supporting the disc (so is the rock) and if you were to move the basket from under the disc it would fall to the ground verifying that it is in fact supported by the basket.

You are agreeing with me also by stating that it is supported by rock too...this is circular logic and we could go on for days. I truly understand "your" logic but I think we are taking the rule a little to far out of context. I'm just saying that it seems a little silly to count a bad shot thats 70% out of the basket b/c we found a loop hole in the wording of the rule...it obviously means only basket or chains. That is the only reason we count the putt that sticks in the basket

we found a loop hole in the wording of the rule



Which rule has the "loophole" to which you are referring?

I agree with whomever stated that as long as the disc is supported by the appropriate parts of the assembly, and is physically situated where it needs to be according to the rules, then the disc can be considered holed out and can be removed, because the rule does not state that the disc must be _totally_ supported by the target.

thats my point; it should. Common sense tells me that when they wrote the rule they assumed that this is what the rule meant. Why would you count a putt that is not good enough to go in the basket?? The putt is 70% out of the basket is counted b/c of an ambiguous rule with a loophole in the wording

A putt that is wedged in the side of the basket is counted as "good" or holed out, when it was "not good enough to go in the basket", so we already have precedent for that.

And just because a disc is supported by a boulder as well as the basket does not mean that the disc would not have gone in the basket in the absence of the boulder.

Players will be putting on this basket at Pro Worlds and it's possible a disc will be partly touching on of the tree trunks and the basket. It's in.
Perched basket (http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/wg17%20basket.jpg)

When you consider the intent of the basket is to emulate a disc striking an original object target, it makes sense to call it in. All the basket is for is to confirm that a target was "struck" when shots are blind. The only part that makes me uncomfortable would be a situation where the disc got wedged sidewise between the trunk and basket and was never high enough to have possibly gone in.

On the other hand, we allow wedgies where the disc jams into the basket from below. So, all of the evidence would point to shots balanced/wedged between the basket and some other object should be good/in. I'm not sure the chain support in the picture is close enough to any trunk such that a disc sitting on top could simultaneously be balanced against a trunk. Fortunately, Gentry will be there to make the call should that happen, maybe with Greenwell's giant Jaguar.



Chuck, that's a cool basket placement. How do you get the disc back out of the basket? Is it actually shorter than it appears?

With a wedged putt it is completely supported by the basket...that is why it counts no questions asked. If you look at the picture, yes it does mean that if the boulder wasn't there it wouldn't of gone in. The Boulder is what is holding it from completely falling. Its already on the way down. Its a bad putt

With a wedged putt it is completely supported by the basket...that is why it counts no questions asked. If you look at the picture, yes it does mean that if the boulder wasn't there it wouldn't of gone in. The Boulder is what is holding it from completely falling. Its already on the way down. Its a bad putt




Likewise the basket is keeping it from falling down! Good putt! :eek:

Again...this is circular logic and we could go on for years being that the rule is ambiguous. So lets all agree that the rule needs to be re-written to specify what exactly can support the disc....only the basket and chains or the basket and a rock, a tree, a branch, a chair, another disc, etc.

BUMP !

Chuck, that's a cool basket placement. How do you get the disc back out of the basket? Is it actually shorter than it appears?



The basket is about eye level. However the ground is higher on the back side of back tree and even kids can pop their disc out.

personally I would hope disc golfers have MORALS to not try and count that as in. if they would I would call them for unsportsmanship :confused: that should not count .....

personally I would hope disc golfers have MORALS to not try and count that as in. if they would I would call them for unsportsmanship :confused: that should not count .....



Are you talking about the initial picture? If so why would it be unsportsmanlike?

personally I would hope disc golfers have MORALS to not try and count that as in. if they would I would call them for unsportsmanship :confused: that should not count .....



Lets say your right....and BTW I don't disagree per say (not sure yet).

As others have questioned.....how would one mark the next lie and play out the hole? I doesn't look like someone can get behind their lie......Would the player put their foot behind their disc up on the rock with their other foot parallel on the ground and place their other disc in the basket?

I'm thinking that it will take a more detailed list of rules to accommodate for this scenario.

Under the current rule I would consider it unsportsmanlike to not call it as in. I would feel obligated to call it as in if I were on the card.

Let's say the disc was under the basket with the leading edge as close to the pole as it is now. If the player could not take a stance with a supporting point behind the mini, they would take solid object relief back on the line of play until they could take a stance.

Let's say the disc was under the basket with the leading edge as close to the pole as it is now. If the player could not take a stance with a supporting point behind the mini, they would take solid object relief back on the line of play until they could take a stance.



Nice....is the line of play from the tee, or a direct line back from the disc.....hence this situation would the player have to throw over the rock? Or would the lie be from a mini in a direct line from the tee?

Line of play is in reference to the current line to pin. The only time it's not straight is if the player hasn't passed a mando yet. Then it's toward the mando.

Got cha....so is it up to the group to decide on the line that the disc was traveling when it came to rest? What if it skipped around in that group of rocks before coming to rest? If it kicks off of the rocks behind the basket before coming to rest, does the player need to mark their lie behind if there is room, and if not on top of the rocks?

Thanks for the insight Chuck!!

Got cha....so is it up to the group to decide on the line that the disc was traveling when it came to rest? What if it skipped around in that group of rocks before coming to rest? If it kicks off of the rocks behind the basket before coming to rest, does the player need to mark their lie behind if there is room, and if not on top of the rocks?

Thanks for the insight Chuck!!



Read Chuck's post again! It is straight back from the mini on a line from the mini to the pole.

I guess I was asking the proper place to put the mini? What line should the mini be placed in?

I guess I was asking the proper place to put the mini? What line should the mini be placed in?



Behind the rock. Then again you can just stand on the rock right? Or has the Law of verticality been done away with?

As long as the object is connected with the ground and is a surface "intended or suitable for walking on" (judgment call) then you can stand on it. For example, the rocks at Highbridge around the golf ball golf tees can be the playing surface or a player can take relief on the line of play betwen mini and pin.

Is that a line from the lie of the disc relative to the basket, or the line of the shot made? Not trying to be difficult, but a little confused :confused:

It's right in the Rulebook:
Line of Play: The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond. This line has no thickness; therefore one support point must be directly behind the center of the marker

Is that a line from the lie of the disc relative to the basket, or the line of the shot made? Not trying to be difficult, but a little confused :confused:


The Line Of Play (LOP) is the line that goes through the center of the marker disc (mini or maxi) and through the center of the pole of the target.

If you cannot take a legal stance on the LOP behind your marker (behind meaning on the opposite side of your marker from the target) because a solid obstacle blocks you, you are allowed to take your stance on the other side of the obstacle but it has to be on the LOP. The most common time for this to happen is when your disc stops vertically leaning against a tree, in which case you have to move to the other side of the tree. This puts the tree between you and the basket so it's almost never a good thing. :)

Would you say that a lie directly below the disc to be fair? Assuming this is fair, the player then could remove the "hung" disc and putt out?

I'm guessing this is REALLY rare!!! Sorry to be so inquisitive, but this one has me perplexed!!

If so why would it be unsportsmanlike

for trying to count that as in the basket :) if that counts than I am going to start counting DROTS

As long as the object is connected with the ground and is a surface "intended or suitable for walking on" (judgment call) then you can stand on it. For example, the rocks at Highbridge around the golf ball golf tees can be the playing surface or a player can take relief on the line of play betwen mini and pin.




That's not how it was at Mid nationals and that was my only complaint. Heck I had a few 10ft putts that became 15ft uphill in a bush. :D

It was a safety issue and the TD can call whatever they want a legal playing surface or require casual relief like we did. We had someone who does the weed whipping walk on virtually every tee pad rock since last Mid-Nats to see if the boulders were all stable and it looks like they are. So now, players can choose to play on them or take relief. it's still at their own risk though.

http://www.discgolftv.com/production/blog_image/image/61/DSC00248.JPG



If so why would it be unsportsmanlike

for trying to count that as in the basket :) if that counts than I am going to start counting DROTS



The rulebook clearly stats that DROT's don't count. The rulebook also clearly states that this disc has been holed out!

The rulebook says nothing about poorly placed pins. The basket should have never been placed there.

It was a safety issue and the TD can call whatever they want a legal playing surface or require casual relief like we did. We had someone who does the weed whipping walk on virtually every tee pad rock since last Mid-Nats to see if the boulders were all stable and it looks like they are. So now, players can choose to play on them or take relief. it's still at their own risk though.



How was it risky? They seemed really stable to me and it should have been played like it will at Worlds. Then again I weighed like 145lbs. :D

http://www.discgolftv.com/production/blog_image/image/61/DSC00248.JPG



If so why would it be unsportsmanlike

for trying to count that as in the basket :) if that counts than I am going to start counting DROTS



The rulebook clearly stats that DROT's don't count. The rulebook also clearly states that this disc has been holed out!

The rulebook says nothing about poorly placed pins. The basket should have never been placed there.



Why not John? Heck I would have tried for the Bank shot. :D

Well i guess i would have tried the bank shot too. Simply move the basket over 8 inches and this would have never happened. Although i would have loved to have been on the card to see it!

The course looked beautiful on the DGTV videos.

Would you say that a lie directly below the disc to be fair? Assuming this is fair, the player then could remove the "hung" disc and putt out?

I'm guessing this is REALLY rare!!! Sorry to be so inquisitive, but this one has me perplexed!!


That was part of my initial question, but since I wasn't at the tournament I don't know if hte water was played as casual or not. I was also wondering because that looks from the picture like a pretty steep rock face that would take a bit of work to take a legal stance on top of. And, assuming hte ground were dry or the water is casual, I can't really see how one could get a foot behind the lie and another no closer to the pin.

Of course it doesn't matter since the disc is in!

all water was casual

if you wanted to get wet, you could throw from some of the waist-deep pools if necessary

I was also wondering because that looks from the picture like a pretty steep rock face that would take a bit of work to take a legal stance on top of.


Looks like one could easily take a stance from the position of the cameraman & lean in & use the left hand as the supporting point behind the disc.

Video (http://www.discgolftv.com/dgtv/407/wmv/newest?page=1&channel_id=0)

It was a safety issue and the TD can call whatever they want a legal playing surface or require casual relief like we did.



What you mean is a special condition, of course, since casual relief is always optional. Correct?

By the rules I believe the disc is in. By common sense it should not be. Ergo, the rule should be better written (and the basket shouldn't have been exactly where it was).

Incidentally, even if the boulder were not considered part of the playing surface if the disc were NOT ruled to be holed out, it appears to me (since the water was casual) that after the lie was marked beneath the disc the player should have been able to get at least a finger or two in behind it, crouching off to the side and at least the same radius distant from the pole, to drop the putt in. Balance might be a bit tricky though.

Did anyone get an RC ruling on this debate?

This may or may not be a related situation...but I was reminded of it by this thread.

When playing on a low basket during a casual round, a putt became vertically wedged between the bottom of the lower entrapment section (basket) and the ground. One could argue the disc was supported by both ground and basket as in the boulder situation and a portion of the disc was wedged partially into the entrapment area. How is this similar or different from the boulder situation and what are peoples thoughts on this?

Hope this comment isn't too off target...

I would think that this second example would be clearly ruled in, since the rule defines a disc wedged into the basket as coming to rest within it. This part of the definition uses no words that require the disc actually resting on the basket.

However, without the ground as support, this disc would not have remained wedged into the basket. It was just a case where it got jammed between the basket and the grass.