If you make a putt and the disc seems to come to rest and then falls thru the cage, does it count as in or not? Does it count if it never comes to rest and, in one motion, falls thru the cage? I've seen this a few times and it's always a big question mark. I know if the basket is regulation it shouldn't happen but the fact is not all baskets are made the same from the factory. I've seen this happen on a new basket during a tourney, any thoughts?

Sounds like it came to rest on the ground. No good. Had it come to rest per:


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 <font color="red"> but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section.</font> The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.



then it would be good.

The only way you can have the putt count is if you ask your group if the disc has come to rest and they agree. There's no specified amount of time that a disc has to be at rest before the group can say it is, although it would usually be at least a few seconds. Otherwise, the disc is not considered at rest and if it falls out of the basket before the player retrieves it, it's a missed putt regardless of any claim the basket was not manufactured properly.

The only way you can have the putt count is if you ask your group if the disc has come to rest and they agree. There's no specified amount of time that a disc has to be at rest before the group can say it is, although it would usually be at least a few seconds. Otherwise, the disc is not considered at rest and if it falls out of the basket before the player retrieves it, it's a missed putt regardless of any claim the basket was not manufactured properly.



That's not what the rule says, as far as I know. Regardless of whether the group agrees or not, if the disc falls out before it is retrieved, it's out, according to what I read.

Dave, this was one of the tricky interpretations of 803.07B. If a disc on the playing surface or supported by the basket is declared "at rest" then it gets replaced if it moves after that declaration. On a windy day, the disc is resting in the basket and the player asks the group to declare the disc at rest. The group does so and the disc subsequently gets blown or falls out of the basket before the player gets there to remove it. Per 803.07B, the player gets to replace the disc in the basket to the position where it was called "at rest" allowing the player to properly remove the disc and hole out per 803.13B.

I guess it would be foolish to decare it "at rest" on a windy day.

I'm also guessing that we'll soon see 803.13C(ironically the C stands for itself and Chuck ;)), which reads:

If a disc on the playing surface or supported by the basket is declared "at rest" then it gets replaced if it moves after that declaration. On a windy day, the disc is resting in the basket and the player asks the group to declare the disc at rest. The group does so and the disc subsequently gets blown or falls out of the basket before the player gets there to remove it. Per 803.07B, the player gets to replace the disc in the basket to the position where it was called "at rest" allowing the player to properly remove the disc and hole out per 803.13B.

Let's say a player's disc lands near the basket, then he waits while other players throw their shots. His disc was leaning on a rock, then a wind gust flips it up causing it to roll OB. According to the rules, the player may place the disc back where it was. I can't see the players in the group arguing that the disc was never at rest for the 3-4 minutes they were making their shots.

In this thread example, I don't see the player or group being savvy enough to call a disc at rest after a few seconds. So the drop thru will most likely end up as a miss. But the rule does provide for discs at rest in the basket or on the ground to be replaced if they are moved from that resting position.

I do see where the disc can be replaced to the same spot as it was before it was moved, but it can no longer be used as a hole out because it no longer meets the requirements of remaining until removed per 803.13.B.

The player gets the benefit of marking the disc where it was at rest instead of where the disc was moved to. Then he can proceed to hole out per 803.13.B.

First, if you really have seen this happen with new baskets, then those baskets should have been returned to the manufacturer. Quality control should be good enough so that no basket will allow a disc to go through the bottom.

Second, if this is happening on old equipment, then it should be repaired.

The answer, IMO, is to fix the basket problem, and not have to resort to tricky rules interpretations to achieve the desired result.

but it can no longer be used as a hole out because it no longer meets the requirements of remaining until removed per 803.13.B.




Remaining in the basket is part of 803.13B. But I submit that situations where a disc is in the basket or chains and gets bumped by another disc tossed into the basket, such that it falls thru or out of the basket, are covered by the interference rule 803.07B which specifically does allow it to be replaced and successfully holed out. That's obviously the reason for the interference clause. It doesn't specify whether the interference comes from another player's actions or a natural force like the wind.

but it can no longer be used as a hole out because it no longer meets the requirements of remaining until removed per 803.13.B.




Remaining in the basket is part of 803.13B. But I submit that situations where a disc is in the basket or chains and gets bumped by another disc tossed into the basket, such that it falls thru or out of the basket, are covered by the interference rule 803.07B which specifically does allow it to be replaced and successfully holed out. That's obviously the reason for the interference clause. It doesn't specify whether the interference comes from another player's actions or a natural force like the wind.



Chuck, I still have to disagree. If the second putter putts and knocks the first putt out or bounces off the first putt himself, they lose. The player or players have not retrieved their discs. They are not supposed to putt if the disc is in the basket, that hole is not completed until the disc is retrieved from the basket. The second player has the right to ask the basket to be cleared. If he doesn't and putts, it's tough luck. At least that is how I read the rules.

Explain the rationale for the Interference rule to specifically mention discs at rest supported by the basket then? I can't imagine that dealing with DROTs was the only reason. According the this rule a DROT that's knocked into the basket from a competitive disc or even wind after it's considered at rest, would have to be replaced on top for the player to putt out.

Please explain how a disc falling through the bottom of the basket any different than one falling from the side of the basket?

Take the example of the "Wedgie". This is where a disc is lodged in the side of the basket. The rule is that you need to retrieve that disc before it falls to the ground in order for this putt to count. So again, please explain how this is different than a putt falling through the bottom of the basket.

The key phrase in this whole discussion is "at rest" and how that affects the interpretation. Except in the Disc Above Playing Surface rule 803.08C where it specifically allows the action of the wind or thrown disc to alter the position of a disc at rest, it appears via 803.07B the RC considers all other discs at rest on the playing surface or supported by the basket to remain so regardless of any actions other than the owner marking and picking it up or removing it from the basket. The one scenario that's not covered in the rules is when a disc at rest below 2m but not on the playing surface is dislodged and moved by the wind or another disc and changes position.

If the group calls a "wedgie" at rest, the player can take their time retrieving it according to the interference rule including the possibility that another player putts and dislodges the wedgie so it falls to the ground. As a practical matter, the group is unlikely to make the call that wedgie is at rest and the player is forced to move quickly to retrieve it since without the "at rest" call, the wedgie is presumed to be moving ever so slowly if it pops out before the player retrieves it.

Please explain how a disc falling through the bottom of the basket any different than one falling from the side of the basket?



Chuck is saying that a player makes the putt, the rest of the group pours a few cups of coffee while declaring that the disc is "at rest", then a big gust of wind makes their coffee cold AND blows the disc through the bottom of the pan.

The "at rest" rule allows a player to replace the disc where the group decided and declared it "at rest."

Bottom line, never agree that a disc is "at rest."

The only problem with that is there is nothing in the rules requiring that "at rest" be adjudicated by the group.

The RC has left the "at rest" call by default to some nebulous "reasonable person" call.

The 'at rest' definition has been discussed and argued about for years. I know several years back that there was a consencious amoung a lot of players that if the disc appeared to quit moving it was deemed at rest. This is important when you play in Oklahoma during the windy season. Well maybe it is only not important about 2 weeks of every year. Discs can be blown out of a basket after it was clear that the disc had come to rest. Nothing like a 40 MPH gust to flip a disc out of a basket and roll it 100 feet. However, I have never seen someone turn to the group and ask for an 'at rest' ruling. Generally, if the disc flipped out of the basket, due to wind, the group would either agree or disagree about the at rest state. I guess if you wanted to remove that chance for argument you could ask for an immediate ruling.

...which makes it an extremely grey area, like the courtesy violation.

There's a lot of stuff in the rules that seem to rely on reasonable people making logical interpretations. Wise or unwise? The debate continues........

The RC has left the "at rest" call by default to some nebulous "reasonable person" call.



That is ridiculous. This is clearly a rule that needs to be agreed upon by the players in the group. Just more grey matter in this PROFESSIONAL sport. LOL.

Leaving it to a group decision still relies on "reasonableness". My solution would be to define "at rest" in the glossary and take it out of the hands of the group, at least as much as possible.

How would you define that, especially in relation to situations where the disc is definitely secured in the chains but swaying in them with the wind and still moving?

now the RC needs to define "reasonable person"

Posted on another thread:

"Ok we set up a temp course with the Temporary Innova baskets.

My friend throws a putt and it lands on top of the basket. Then the next player makes his putt, and the disc that was on top of the basket falls through the top and into the basket also. What do you do???

We played it as his disc had already come to rest when it landed on top. Then when the next person threw, we decided that the disc that fell into the basket should not count. And placed the disc back on top of the basket. Kind of like if the disc was on the ground and someone hit the disc with theirs and the disc on the ground rolled 50 feet away. In that case, you would put the disc back to the spot that the group agrees it was laying at before it got hit and rolled away.


ANYONE know what is the right thing to do and is there anywhere in the rule book that would help you make a decision? We couldn't figure it out. "

Classic argument, I say the disc would be good, the top of the basket is not the playing surface it is like being up in a tree, if the disc falls from the top of the basket or tree then it stays where it drops to is a way of looking at it weather the discs drops by an act of nature or his hit by another disc.

803.07.B

803.07
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


OK thanks it is specified in the rules. :o

The part that seems missing in the rules is what to do if a disc gets moved after it's been at rest when the disc is suspended above the playing surface but under 2m. If a disc say in a bush has been at rest then blows or is knocked to another position, I haven't found the rule that definitively says whether the disc is brought back or played from the new position. Anyone help here?

and I think that when a disc comes to rest needs to be defined better. I think a disc should be considered at rest once the next person in the group makes a throw. Therefore if it falls out of the tree after someone else has thrown and lands in the basket, it would not count because the disc actually was already at rest.

This is something that needs to be set in stone.

I've already sent a note to the Rules Committee regarding some of these issues. Perhaps we'll get some form of Q&amp;A on this at some point. I like the idea of the next person throwing meaning the disc is now at rest. However, if everyone is holed out, how do you make the 'at rest' call if needed on the last putt? You can't wait until the group starts to tee on the next hole, if there's even another hole left in the round.

Looking at 803.03F, a disc floating on water and moving only by the action of the wind or current is considered at rest. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to consider a disc securely in the chains and moving only by the action of the wind to be at rest.

As far as a definition of "at rest" I would favor a time oriented definition. We use 3 seconds for calling a foot fault. It doesn't seem fair to disallow a putt when a disc that has obviously been securely planted in the target subsequently falls through the bottom or is blown out by a super gust of wind. I can't see any unfair advantage in counting those putts as completed holes.

If you use 3 seconds as the time, that would eliminate glance-offs and bounce-outs, which occur in split seconds, from being declared holed out. But then 3 seconds may be too long for a fierce prarie wind :D

yeah that is a problem Chuck. Perhaps when the final person who threw begins to make an advancement towards his lie the disc should be considered at rest.

Definitely a touchy situation. Something needs to be clarified though.

I've already sent a note to the Rules Committee regarding some of these issues. Perhaps we'll get some form of Q&amp;A on this at some point. I like the idea of the next person throwing meaning the disc is now at rest. However, if everyone is holed out, how do you make the 'at rest' call if needed on the last putt? You can't wait until the group starts to tee on the next hole, if there's even another hole left in the round.



I think "next person throwing" may be too long. That next person could use that as an advantage by taking the entire allotted time to throw that next throw.

Any support for a time limit?

I had previously asked the RC to consider a 3-count but they were resisting setting a formal time period. Maybe they'll reconsider.

With a three count would you have to leave your disc in the basket for a three count on a drop in? I think I'd resist it too.

Probably. Considering that discs can fall thru some baskets, counting to three might be necessary. However, this could be another one of those rules where players wouldn't strictly enforce it where it was unnecessary or useful such as drop ins.

Considering that discs can fall thru some baskets



Sounds like something to be considered for the design standards. Why wouldn't we require a basket that does not allow discs to fall through as a standard spec?

With a three count would you have to leave your disc in the basket for a three count on a drop in? I think I'd resist it too.



I can understand the resistance to that. I think it could be worded to account for that situation. Perhaps only a 2-count is necessary.

So, for the most part, what I gather is you have to ask the group if the disc is to be considered "at rest" before it falls thru the basket or it doesn't count. Our conclusion at the time was if it can go thru the cage inwards and count, then it should also not count if it goes out. The player was very upset and complaining so we gave it to him(it was a small weekley, not very important) but in a couple of tourneys I've seen it go the other way. It's a basket issue but also a rules issue. This discussion helps understand what needs to be changed, continue on. :)

does anyone else think that perhaps a more strict basket dimension and design standard would clear up a lot of all this "bull hockey"?

also the DROT rule... get rid of it.
YES some bad putts will count as good.
YES some questionable aces will count.

easy to interpret, cut and dried rules will help newbies worry less about ambiguous rules and focus more on their game and ettiquette.

as this sport grows there will be a growing population of (casual and competitive) people that do not fit in the "reasonable" category, and like it or not, we will all some day play with some of them. it is not too far fetched to believe PDGA can mandate (I hate that word though) a basket design that eliminates wedgies and fall throughs.

additionally, any basket manufacturer would probably be happy to make and sell a retrofit kit to bring a basket up to any given new standard. and courses choose to upgrade or not, and do it incrementally.

I can almost hear the crickets and the wind whistling through this rules and standards thread without allthe basket B.S.

surely this has been suggested and most likely shot down due to the cost of replacing baskets

but the best solution would be just to make baskets without holes big enough for a disc to fit through in the top and the cage...

DROT and wedgies are ridiculously stupid when trying to explain to non disc golfers or beginners

Basket specs will be reviewed next Spring once the disc specs have been completed this Winter. Considering that discs only have a minimum flexibility not maximum flexibility requirement, I'm not sure how small the openings in the side of a basket would have to be to prevent wedgies with soft discs like the Blowfly? Short of requiring a solid basket or tight screen mesh, I don't know if we could figure out how to properly retrofit baskets even if we wanted to.

Short of requiring a solid basket or tight screen mesh, I don't know if we could figure out how to properly retrofit baskets even if we wanted to.




country boys would use chicken, or bailing wire.

Basket specs will be reviewed next Spring once the disc specs have been completed this Winter. Considering that discs only have a minimum flexibility not maximum flexibility requirement, I'm not sure how small the openings in the side of a basket would have to be to prevent wedgies with soft discs like the Blowfly? Short of requiring a solid basket or tight screen mesh, I don't know if we could figure out how to properly retrofit baskets even if we wanted to.



Aren't the swede's baskets solid on the lower portion?

Short of requiring a solid basket or tight screen mesh, I don't know if we could figure out how to properly retrofit baskets even if we wanted to.




country boys would use chicken, or bailing wire.



I have played on a private course where the creator made his own baskets using plywood, heavy chain, PVC, and chickenwire. And the answer to the next question is yes: they catch quite well - better than some "real" baskets I have played on.

Probably. Considering that discs can fall thru some baskets, counting to three might be necessary. However, this could be another one of those rules where players wouldn't strictly enforce it where it was unnecessary or useful such as drop ins.



Should the rules encourage this type of disregard for the rules? If players never use a rule, then when it does come into play, they won't know how to apply it anyway.

Also, on the defining at rest as when the next player throws, what happens when the next player throws before the disc in question stops?

Also, on the defining at rest as when the next player throws, what happens when the next player throws before the disc in question stops?


Then the disc is declared to be at rest in the air and must be marked as near as possible to the point on the playing surface directly below where it became at rest in flight. :cool: