I don't like it that a disc wedged into the side of the basket is considered holed-out, while a disc at rest on top of the basket is not considered holed-out. Why is there special wording in the rule that allows discs wedged into the bottom of the basket to be holed-out and dis-allows discs at rest on top of the basket? A shot wedged into the side of the basket is a miss just as a disc that finishes on top of the basket is. I don't see how you can say one is good and the other is not.

The top of the basket serves no purpose other than as something to hold the chains.

A hole is finished when the disc is being supported by the basket or the chains. The basket, while some (including me) call the entire target a basket, is only the bottom part the disc usually falls into.

The hole as a whole should always be called the "hole" or the "target" and then it has parts including the top of it, the chains, the basket, the pole and various other things depending on the model.

When the disc is wedged, it clearly is being supported by the basket. When it is on top, it is clearly being supported by the chain holders.

Just like discs can fall through the top of the chain holders and count, they can wedge into the basket and count. Both are bad shots with a whole lot of luck.

Luckily neither happen no where near enough, like cut throughs do, to where this is a serious issue.

I think the rule should be changed to make the disc completely inside the basket and/or chains.

I think the rule should be changed to make the disc completely inside the basket and/or chains.



With current baskets, some discs standing on end in the basket might not count with that definition.

The simpler rule: "Solely supported by the target" makes DROTs and wedgies just as good, but that will never happen. The new tech standards for targets has been written to try to prevent new designs from allowing wedgies, though hang ons can still happen.

I don't think the Rules Committee had any unifying philosophical justification for the apparently different treatment of DROTs and wedgies. I'm pretty sure that's just what they were left with after discussing and voting on those two issues.

I think not only should wedgies, drots and nubbers all count, but you should have to draw a little smiley face in the margin of the scorecard when you get one. You know you get a little smiley face when you get one that counts. You should have to share the love with the scorekeepers. :D

i'd like to see none of them count but could live with all of them counting as well. either way would make more sense than the current rules.

I don't think the Rules Committee had any unifying philosophical justification for the apparently different treatment of DROTs and wedgies.


Yes they did and it comes for the original holing out process which was to hit between two taped lines on a tree. If you land on top of the chain support, you landed "above the tape" thus "no good." If you wedge in the side of the basket, it's possible you went into the basket over the top of rim and wedged on the way out, thus you would have hit the tape or above it on an object target meaning you successfully holed out.

Since we have blind holes where players can't always see whether a shot went over the rim of the basket and wedged on the way out OR wedged from the outside, the benefit of the doubt was given to the player even if everyone in the group sees the disc wedge from the outside. That's the historical rationale for the rule that carries thru to today.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/DSC02505.jpg (http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc184/gotcherj/?action=view&current=DSC02505.jpg)

This photo was taken after my putter wedged itself from the inside of the basket. I've wedged several discs from the outside when I putted low and hard.....this was my first (and only) inside job! :D

vvv How about when Adam Goodman's putt did this. vvv

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=21-162837L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=4496&srv=img3)

1 in a million chances that it gets snagged on that broken upper ring.

In or out? Good or bad? If the disc's bottom edge is touching that one link.....it's good. If not, C'est la vie. :D

vvv How about when Adam Goodman's putt did this. vvv

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/21-1628374496T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=21-162837L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=4496&srv=img3)

1 in a million chances that it gets snagged on that broken upper ring.

In or out? Good or bad? If the disc's bottom edge is touching that one link.....it's good. If not, C'est la vie. :D




If it is touching a chain then it is good from how I see it.

Unless the chain link alone can support the disc without the chain wire supporting it, I would say no good in theory. However, in the field, I would probably argue that the disc would have dropped into the chains/basket if the wire wasn't broken and call it good.

I know I've seen that rationale (for DROTs and wedgies) before, but I still vote for simpler, consistent rules, then the disc hanging from the broken chain support above would not be a gray call. Supported solely by target. Check. No gray area. There are times where tradition and history need to guide the rules of this sport and there are times when subtle improvements could be made. But then the sky would be falling and some would threaten again (like they do every year) that they wouldn't renew.

Given that a DROT rarely happens, is very difficult to do on purpose, and they stand a better chance of hitting the imaginary tape lines than a wedgie ever would, I think they should count. The wording of the rule could be simplified to a disc completely supported by the entrapment section of the basket.

That may be why I'm not on the rules committee.

Unless the chain link alone can support the disc without the chain wire supporting it, I would say no good in theory. However, in the field, I would probably argue that the disc would have dropped into the chains/basket if the wire wasn't broken and call it good.



Really, a no (in theory)? Think back to the MN tourney where the rock and the upper rim of the tray worked together to support the disc. Without the rock it would have fallen into the water, and without the tray...well, it would have also fallen into the water.

I'd have to give the player the benefit of the doubt and say that as long as it's touching a link/chain/(part)tray then it *is* supporting it, no matter how much.

In either case, the disc in the picture should count as holed out according to the rule.


803.13 Holing Out

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging <u>outside</u> of, the upper entrapment section. The disc must also remain within the chains or entrapment sections until removed.



The rule refers to both the upper and lower sections as entrapment sections, so everything that is supported by either section or the chain assembly is considered holed out except for the situations specifically excluded in the rule.

The exclusions are limited to discs resting on top of or hanging outside of the upper entrapment section.

The disc in the picture is clearly not doing either.

Think back to the MN tourney where the rock and the upper rim of the tray worked together to support the disc. Without the rock it would have fallen into the water, and without the tray...well, it would have also fallen into the water.


And partly due to that issue, the decision was made for Worlds that if any non target object next to the basket is helping support the disc and it was taken away, would the disc stay supported? We had the basket in the triple tree trunks where a disc could get wedged vertically between the basket and a tree trunk. If that happened, the call was going to be "not in." Gary may remember that issue as a marshal there.

Mike,

It's too bad that more people can't see a (way too) complex situation and dilute it down to simplicity that makes sense (as you've done within your post). Well said. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to make potentially simple situations complex to justify their inability to fail to comprehend the potentially easy.

Karl

Ps: And to all DROTs-not-counting advocates, as far as the DROT argument being a bad shot, picture a "floaty putt" coming down toward the center pole - as in the archaic, prototypical "2 lines on a tree" scenario. Its angle of decent is maybe -20degrees or so. It WOULD have hit between the "lines" of the pole BUT someone placed some weird chain-supported metal hoop on top which stopped the discs ability to 'hit between the lines on the pole' and "stopped" the disc up there! It would have counted, but never had the chance to get to the actual 'pole' (and thus hit between the lines).
Blows this "bad shot" theory all to crap, doesn't it.

Nope. Because the "tree" is the diameter of the chain support, not the center pole.

If "supported by the target" became the rule, would a disc leaning against the pole and supported by the locking collar above the ground count as "in"? BTW, I'm not against changing the rule as proposed. I was just providing the historical rationale for why "no drots" allowed as good.

I suppose a disc could be theoretically balanced on the locking tab leaning against the pole, but I wonder how hard it is to set a disc in this position, let alone as a result of a throw. Has anyone ever seen something like that? I've seen my share of leaners, but nothing ever on the tab completely off the ground. I'm not sure if this one in a million possibility would be worth making the proposal more complicated. Count the guy lucky and ask him for his lotto picks. :cool:

"No" to your nope.
There is NO "standard" tree diameter Chuck, so pole targets can be any diameter you want. And I don't believe (historically) that the "original" pole target were only those of trees with a certain diameter (of, what is it, about 20" or so in width). Therefore, my scenario stands as valid (it WOULD have been a good putt).
To answer your question (in your previous post) - "Yes". Any disc "...supported solely by the target..." would be "good". ANY part of the target. I don't care if we disc magically "glued" itself onto the side of the lower pole...if the disc is SOLELY supported by the target, it's good.
The problem is that we have such a weird / silly / odd / convoluted-shaped target!

Karl

Ps: And it's interesting Chuck, in nearly every post I've made in the last month or so, you are RIGHT 'on it'...immediately reposting on that thread.
Closet stalker? I wonder if I should be flattered or worried?

I've seen it. That's why I mentioned it. Plus there's nothing in the new Target specifications preventing a manufacturer from making a target with multiple catching "trays" of some sort under the main basket nor preventing a customer from adding these items in the process of target installation. In addition, manufacturers could make the top of target more likely to trap a disc versus the movement toward more domey designs to reduce the chance of DROTs.

http://c2.api.ning.com/files/2wK1D6IGgbICiNTjCnuw5SUTml2roJfCItmE-eTSKFc686hyK9hCgF0HD5LkkeaoUmv0OPEpVCwV7jtd5e3du1b f6ZPSxaH0/Canadianbasket.jpg

i'd like to see none of them count but could live with all of them counting as well. either way would make more sense than the current rules.



2nd.

Yes they did and it comes for the original holing out process which was to hit between two taped lines on a tree. If you land on top of the chain support, you landed "above the tape" thus "no good." If you wedge in the side of the basket, it's possible you went into the basket over the top of rim and wedged on the way out, thus you would have hit the tape or above it on an object target meaning you successfully holed out.



Please say it ain't so. Do we play sanctioned tournaments on courses with marked trees? This is laughable.

No matter how you spin it, it still doesn't make a shot landing on top of the chain support a "good" putt whether the rule is changed or not.

No matter how you spin it, it still doesn't make a shot landing on top of the chain support a "good" putt whether the rule is changed or not.



And a wedgie is a good putt then? I think they both are the same (wedgie vs DROT), a bad shot, but our rules as they are wriiten count one as good and the other as bad. That is my issue.

A wedgie could have been good from the inside as the photo shown. The DROT cannot. Benefit of the doubt. There really is no justification for changing the rule other than making it simpler, but not really more fair. That's simply a trade-off judgement for the RC to make the next time it gets reviewed.

I think that counts regardless of if it is touching chains or not. The standard when hanging from the top of the basket is not the supporting point, it is whether or not the disc is within the entrapment device. This disc is clearly within the upper entrapment section, and would count regardless.


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

I guess my whole issue is that I think a wedgie is a worse shot than the DROT, yet per the rulebook wedgie, good, DROT, bad. I do see your point about the inside wedger though.

After reading the input and thinking about it, I think the entrapment device per the PDGA rulebook should be everything except the pole, lock, and quick-crete, and every disc supported by the entrapment device should be considered holed-out, ending this silly practice of marking a lie right under the basket and whatnot. That is $0.02.

How would you handle manufacturers designing a target so it had various ways to catch a disc all the way from the bottom to even nets up a flag pole? Maybe Innova and DGA wouldn't do it but others would just to show it could be done.

If you every played one of Reese's courses...you can land on the top of those baskets and it will fall into the basket

How would you handle manufacturers designing a target so it had various ways to catch a disc all the way from the bottom to even nets up a flag pole? Maybe Innova and DGA wouldn't do it but others would just to show it could be done.



Someone could also get an oil drum barrel approved.

But it can be handled the same way the PDGA handled the wheel and turbo putt. The BOD could just deny them and rewrite the rules to make it set in stone.

perhaps the rules should have an order of operation when determining if a disc is hole out or not.

also, chuck when you say benifit of the doubt...

yes i think benefit of the doubt is a great guideline, but when you see it wedge into the side of the basket from 5 feet, there is 0 doubt. the rule could be written to say these things.

if the direction of the wedged disc is questionable (blind hole or just unclear), the benefit of the doubt is given to the player, if it is clear that it entered below the rim of the basket, the disc is not holed out and the current lie should be marked below.

that doesnt seem unfair or difficult to enforce.

a disc that wedges in or goes in below the rim of the basket is a missed shot, there is no argument that justifies someone being rewarded for a shot that was clearly a miss.

and on top of all this, i think that manufacturers should be instructed to at least attempt to fabricate baskets that do not allow the wedge, thus removing this confusion.

I don't think it's feasible to have the group make the wedgie call. It's those shots from 100 feet away that not everyone can see to make the "over the rim" / "under the rim" call, and that's if they're looking closely. That's partly why the RC made them all good to reduce arguments.

The new standards have tightened up the maximum basket wire gap for new models of Championship targets.

If you throw a shot to a basket you cannot see and some how your disc is wedged 1/2 way in and 1/2 way out, who is to say whether it went in and tried to come out through the basket or tried to go in through the side.
This seems like one of the only reason to call a wedged disc in!

Here's the solution. The PDGA should modify the current basket specs to limit the size of the gaps in the bottom basket. Bam, no more wedgies! Grandfather this rule so that existing baskets are OK, but all new baskets would have to be manufactured according to new specs. On the old baskets wedgies would be OK, on new ones there would be NO wedgie issue. Changing the specs would eliminate this problem.

Not sure if you're trying to be funny but that's what we did...

I don't think it's feasible to have the group make the wedgie call. It's those shots from 100 feet away that not everyone can see to make the "over the rim" / "under the rim" call, and that's if they're looking closely. That's partly why the RC made them all good to reduce arguments.

The new standards have tightened up the maximum basket wire gap for new models of Championship targets.



yes chuck, and this is why i said benefit of the doubt could be in the rule. if you cannot come to a consensus or you didn't see it happen, by all means, give it to the player. call it good. BUT, if you are standing 7 feet away and ram it into the side of the basket and it barely sticks in there, there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that it was a BAD shot and should not be rewarded. and i dont see your 100' away argument making much impact. if a disc is going to go all the way or more than half way through the opening in the basket, it will have to be screaming in from 100', and will most likely either - stop instantly and look crazy because it just wedged from the outside, hit the chains then wedge from the inside, or it will make noise, slightly change direction and somehow enter the cage below the rim,.... all of which are very noticeable to the naked eye, and if there is any question or argument, then you give it to the player. simple as that.

i never want to punish someone for a good shot just because no one saw it, and i also don't want to reward someone for a terrible shot that everyone saw.

i also think that if a disc went inside the basket, wedged through and landed on the ground, it should count as good, thats a problem with the target not the player/throw. but thats a whole other thing. reward good shots, not bad shots.

and on a side note, same with DROTs. bad shot, doesnt count. we all know that drots dont count, so no one is doing it on purpose. its a miss and you should thank your karma that it didnt deflect 30 feet away.

While in priciple it might make sense, the RC tries to avoid having rules where the players have to make calls, since we know how well that works. So their bias is going to be one way or the other on wedgies being good (as they've done) with no group call. I think the RC would be more inclined to have wedgies and DROTs both count rather than do what might be more fair which is have the group make the call on wedgies that you propose.

it just seems ridiculous that an obviously terrible shot is rewarded because the way a rule is written, or because the RC doesnt want arguments. its like saying, 'well we cant enforce it, so lets just rewrite the rules so people are less likely to be unhappy and ignore that it is counter intuitive to the sport'. should we rewrite the foot fault rule to be more lenient because some people dont follow it anyway, and its a hard rule to see, judge, and call. seems like a parallel situation. foot faults are hard to see from any distance, especially in tall grass, should the RC rewrite this rule so players dont have to make calls and/or argue?

i understand the logic, i just dont agree with it. i think there are better ways to deal with it. yes, sometimes you might not see it, and it did go from the inside out. but this doesnt mean that everytime you pretend it went from the inside out, even if you saw the opposite. missed shot. sillyness.

If you're talking about terrible shots being rewarded and good ones not getting rewarded, all you need to do is look at what happens with regular shots on baskets once or twice per round, not the unusual DROTs and wedgies. We live with that all the time.

Yes I see many more good shots denied than I do wedgies.

sounds like you are saying, well if we cant fix them all, might as well not fix any of them. yes there are good shots that aren't rewarded, as well as bad shots that are, maybe we cant completely eliminate that. but i would think the RC would want to eliminate as many cases of these two things as possible, and take as much dumb luck out of the game as possible. no one sets up their approach so they will be putting square on to one of these openings in the basket, and no one aims for the side, its luck if it happens and its a miss. you cant score in hockey or soccer through the side of the net, in basketball through the bottom, under a volleyball net, or go through the net in tennis. all of these things are set up with one way in and have ways of preventing otherwise, but if a puck were to go through the side or under the bar it wouldnt count. its not just where it ends up, its how it gets there.

Yes I see many more good shots denied than I do wedgies.



of course, i do too. and it would be nice if every good shot were rewarded, but thats a basket issue not a rules issue. and on this note how many wedgies actually happen, and what percentage of those few wedged from the inside? just eliminating the rule would reduce rewarded bad shots more than it would punish good shots, although thats not what i proposed.

I think the wedgie rule is sort of an abstraction of "better to let more crooks go free than incarcerate one innocent person."

ha, i guess thats a good way to put it. i say, 'send them all to jail!'. that is, only in this disc golf analogy.

Ive seen one guy wedgie 3 putts in one round during a Charity Triples tournament. I dont know what kind of putter it was, but it used to be white... Now its black, and i kid u not the flexibility of this thing reminded me of a wet rag more then a frisbee. I think the rule changed but back then you had to pull it through the basket on the chain side? now u can just remove it however you want cant you?

I don't think it's feasible to have the group make the wedgie call. It's those shots from 100 feet away that not everyone can see to make the "over the rim" / "under the rim" call, and that's if they're looking closely. That's partly why the RC made them all good to reduce arguments.

The new standards have tightened up the maximum basket wire gap for new models of Championship targets.



yes chuck, and this is why i said benefit of the doubt could be in the rule. if you cannot come to a consensus or you didn't see it happen, by all means, give it to the player. call it good. BUT, if you are standing 7 feet away and ram it into the side of the basket and it barely sticks in there, there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that it was a BAD shot and should not be rewarded. and i dont see your 100' away argument making much impact. if a disc is going to go all the way or more than half way through the opening in the basket, it will have to be screaming in from 100', and will most likely either - stop instantly and look crazy because it just wedged from the outside, hit the chains then wedge from the inside, or it will make noise, slightly change direction and somehow enter the cage below the rim,.... all of which are very noticeable to the naked eye, and if there is any question or argument, then you give it to the player. simple as that.

i never want to punish someone for a good shot just because no one saw it, and i also don't want to reward someone for a terrible shot that everyone saw.

i also think that if a disc went inside the basket, wedged through and landed on the ground, it should count as good, thats a problem with the target not the player/throw. but thats a whole other thing. reward good shots, not bad shots.

and on a side note, same with DROTs. bad shot, doesnt count. we all know that drots dont count, so no one is doing it on purpose. its a miss and you should thank your karma that it didnt deflect 30 feet away.



hear hear!!!!

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but keep challenging Chuck's argument because it is weak. When we all see a lousy putt get stuck in the side or come to rest (as some want to further corrupt the rules), we all know that is shouldn't count. Pretty simple: if everyone saw it wedge in the side from the outside, then no good; if they did not, then it counts. No innocents are jailed using this criteria.

Don't presume that the arguments I put forth are my personal opinions on the matter. My comments have mostly been proxy for the Rules Committee rationale as I understand it. That's true for several topics on the D-Board where those behind the rules or policies aren't entering the dialog. As I've said before, there are several topics where you could choose a side and I'll do my best to defend the other.

You see lots of bad shots get rewarded, when people hit trees and it kicks them closer to the pin. But i guess you can't really control that like you could counting wedgies.

I have an existential reaction to wedgies. (Its probably been like that since Middle School :-) ) Whatever happens it fine. As long as the rule is consistent and relatively easy to intepret its ok with me. This thread has already discussed the many rare and wacky situations where good shots get denied and bad shots go in or get close. Such is life. I have seen a putt go off a tree and into the basket for a deuce. Its on the Worlds 2008 video. I have also seen a tee shot land on top of the basket. Same deuce. Better shot but same deuce. The rule was very clear and nobody complained on either occassion. If I see a wedgie I will likely scratch my head or perhaps elsewhere in imitation of the disc's position and exclaim, "Nice shot. Lets see you do it again."

As long as people use extra soft putters, the wedgie is gonna happen - even if you redesign the basket.

if you double the number of vertical bars on the basket, you probably wont see any, and sure wont see any drivers wedge from the inside out.

i say have any wedgies within putting range (10 meters) be counted as no good! everyone from that distance can see it was a bad shot, but have a provision that if the disc hits chains (must hit) then gets wedged from the inside then that would count. Everything from 10 meters out would be ok until basket technology eliminates this.

you cant score in hockey or soccer through the side of the net,


Oh yes you can! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F_CPPftPKo) But seriously, I don't know if we have better baskets or stiffer putters here in Finland, but I don't remember seeing a single wedgie in the two years that I've played. So to me, this whole discussion seems pretty trivial. And I agree with some of the other posters on the fact that luck is just a part of the game, sometimes you're lucky and sometimes unlucky. If someone thinks allowing wedgies gives other people an unfair advantage, just learn to throw supersoft plastic. As long as the rules are the same for everyone I don't have a problem with it.

take it back to the old , wedgies no good at all.There have been to many un counted aces that way, ive seen frank aguilera do it twice with old stiff plastic for birdies.

[..] this whole discussion seems pretty trivial.



The best way to avoid trivial, whining, petty disc golf 'talk' is to stay away from this place :eek: