I was reading through the Official Rules of Disc Golf and came past a rule that I was not sure about,

Basket Targets: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally supported by the pole. A disc that enters the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.


My question is on the second part, "A disc that enters the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out."

Does this mean if I was to spike Hyzer and my disc was to ace through the top support and come to rest in the basket, it does not count?

Correct, it's not an ace unless no one saw it enter the basket that way so no one knew. That's not a new rule. It's been that way for awhile now.

Thanks cgkdisc,

I have been an avid player for some time now. But, only recently have become a member.

I feel that this rule is a little goofy, I get spirit of the rule. But, if none were to witness the ace, then it is good. I just seems weird that one individual who had the ace score through the top of the basket gets the ace, and a different individual with the same shot did not score the ace because someone just happen to witness the shot.

Oh well.... 1,000,000, to 1 shot anyways.

It's equipment failure. The top on a tournament grade target should be designed so a disc cannot get through.

It's equipment failure. The top on a tournament grade target should be designed so a disc cannot get through.

In my opinion it is a rules failure too. It seems overly convoluted and counterintuitive to have the same shot scored two different ways depending on how much people were paying attention.

Shrodinger`s cat.....

In my opinion it is a rules failure too. It seems overly convoluted and counterintuitive to have the same shot scored two different ways depending on how much people were paying attention.

It happens in many sports where the outcome of some plays can depend on who (official) was paying attention and the angle they were seeing it.

It happens in many sports where the outcome of some plays can depend on who (official) was paying attention and the angle they were seeing it.

Yeah but it's not integral to the rule. Also whenever possible the other sports take measures to lessen the impact of "officials" missing a call. This rule increases it. It is soooo much simpler to say if the disc is in the basket it's good. We have enough problems with understanding and enforcing the rules of this game and this rule change makes both more difficult. In my opinion making sure the disc enters the entrapment device in the manner the designers envisioned doesn't change the quality of the game at all. And it certainly doesn't change the game significantly enough to be worth the problems this rule has created.

I kind of agree with PhattD. This is a technical issue, that should be handled by the technical standards. If you don't want discs entering the basket in unintended ways, design the basket so that it's not possible.

As ever with these kind of things it's the edge cases where the problem comes, not the simple "if the disc is in the basket it's good" case. I wasn't involved at the time but my understanding is that the rule is trying to address wedged discs, or put another way defining what is meant by "the disc is in the basket". What the rule now says is that as long as the disc enters 'correctly' and wedges on the way out, it's good. If it wedges in the side or top on the way in, it's not.

A disc in the basket or wedged that was not seen is given the benefit of the doubt.

But it is just simpler to say (and to evoke) "...if the disc is solely supported by the target the hole has been completed (by the user of that disc)..."; anything else is more confusing and a bandaide at best. I totally understand all the arguments of "DROTs shouldn't count", wedges, etc., but they all just complicate a situation that does NOT have to be so! The longer we wait to 'correct the situation', the longer it will be entrenched and harder it will be to get to logicalness / sanity. If we wish to have the most convoluted "target" in sports then at least we can make 'completion' of target simple...and we can, IF we want to.

Karl

Well said.

It may be simple but it opens up another can of worms. It cannot happen without updating basket specs even more to prevent all kinds of ledges and trays that could be added to basket designs so any possible shot that comes near the target has a chance to be snagged.

It may be simple but it opens up another can of worms. It cannot happen without updating basket specs even more to prevent all kinds of ledges and trays that could be added to basket designs so any possible shot that comes near the target has a chance to be snagged.

Do you really see anything even remotely similar to this happening? Or are you grasping at straws to try and justify this rule? Let me point out that there weren't any baskets with ledges on them before this rule came out. Also avoiding writing new technical specs was never mentioned in the original reasons for making this rule change. I think the PDGA really needs to do a better job stink testing new rules before they iimplement them. This one doesn't pass.

I disagree. This is one of those cases where a fairly simple visual concept is very difficult to write into simple language and unfortunately ends up a bit cumbersome. I've never had any difficulty explaining how a basket works to a beginner but speech is a far better communicator than text.

The rule 'stinks' on what basis? That two hypothetical throws are judged to have different outcomes because one is observed and the other isn't? Let's call it 'Schrodinger's Ace'. When would it matter? Only if the two shots happened in the same division, in the same competition. To use your own phrasing "Do you really see anything even remotely similar to this happening?". And the real rub to this is you'd never even know, as that's the whole point.

Do you really see anything even remotely similar to this happening? Or are you grasping at straws to try and justify this rule? Let me point out that there weren't any baskets with ledges on them before this rule came out. Also avoiding writing new technical specs was never mentioned in the original reasons for making this rule change. I think the PDGA really needs to do a better job stink testing new rules before they iimplement them. This one doesn't pass.
Yes I do. For example, all Innova would have to do is extend their yellow band up an inch or two to create a tray on top of the basket making it easier to land a disc on top. They could arguably say their basket catches more throws from a marketing standpoint.

Bruce,

I think the wording (text) would be as "easy" as a verbal explanation. Pretty much just like I've written it (and thus you could 'explain it' to someone) a few posts earlier - give or take a word or two...which could be decided on by the rules committee.

"...if the disc is solely supported by the target the hole has been completed (by the user of that disc)..."

It's the presently-accepted "oddities" (not on top, not off the edge, etc.) that makes the explanation 'difficult', potentially confusing, and NOT as simple AS IT COULD BE. It's our (well not mine, but SOME people's) inability to want to change to something better (remember KISS) that is the only hold-up.

Karl

Yes I do. For example, all Innova would have to do is extend their yellow band up an inch or two to create a tray on top of the basket making it easier to land a disc on top. They could arguably say their basket catches more throws from a marketing standpoint.

I'm sorry Chuck, normally I respect your opinions, but this is one of your most nonsesical responses. To be clear I am arguing against this rule change, which means I prefer the old way. Therefore if we did it my way DROT wouldn't count and there would be no point in Innova extending their tray. Secondly if there are other feasible ways in which basket manufacturers could gain an edge by modifying their baskets they could have done it before this rule came out. Third you are assuming that a gimmicky basket that "caught" more discs would sell better. I don't think disc golfers would support courses buying baskets with wierd ledges on them. And lastly I think technical specs that would prevent this would be easier to draw up than it is explaining to some noob why his wedgie is only good if nobody sees it.

I disagree. This is one of those cases where a fairly simple visual concept is very difficult to write into simple language and unfortunately ends up a bit cumbersome. I've never had any difficulty explaining how a basket works to a beginner but speech is a far better communicator than text.

The rule 'stinks' on what basis? That two hypothetical throws are judged to have different outcomes because one is observed and the other isn't? Let's call it 'Schrodinger's Ace'. When would it matter? Only if the two shots happened in the same division, in the same competition. To use your own phrasing "Do you really see anything even remotely similar to this happening?". And the real rub to this is you'd never even know, as that's the whole point.

First of all this rule makes a difference anytime it affects your score. It doesn't matter if anyone else had a similar shot if you lost a stroke because someone saw your disc enter improperly, it still affects your standing in the tourney. Same thing is true if someone else has a disc enter improperly that no one saw and that saved them a stroke. Then it matters to everyone that is now one stroke back or tied with him.

Secondly to be clear I'm not all that concerned with how it affects the score. What I don't like the rule is it makes things more complicated when we should be looking to make things less complicated. We still have to define what constitutes a disc in the basket. Just define it and leave out any mention of the path it took to get there and you have simplified the rule. Use the technical specifications to prevent discs from entering the entrapment device in "unapproved" ways if you want. You can even grandfather in existing devices and just move forward.

Lastly I don't see anyone coming up with any valid reasoning for why this rule change improves the game. So what if the disc goes through the basket?

A disc going through the basket from the outside has not completed the hole properly. Simple as that. The game was based on hitting a target, not landing in the basket. The basket was added to help confirm that the target was struck. Unfortunately, we've had to deal with rules for legacy equipment (baskets) and newer equipment (softer discs) that still allow wedgies to occur. So, do you violate the traditions of the game or work to upgrade baskets to prevent the wedgies and tolerate the occasional unfairness in the meantime? Not sure there's a correct answer but the RC has chosen one.

Since the rules committee has long abandoned the tradition of hitting the target to hole out, and the basket isn't consistent in confirming that shots hit the target, my hope is that one day they'll choose another answer.

A disc going through the basket from the outside has not completed the hole properly. Simple as that. The game was based on hitting a target, not landing in the basket. The basket was added to help confirm that the target was struck. Unfortunately, we've had to deal with rules for legacy equipment (baskets) and newer equipment (softer discs) that still allow wedgies to occur. So, do you violate the traditions of the game or work to upgrade baskets to prevent the wedgies and tolerate the occasional unfairness in the meantime? Not sure there's a correct answer but the RC has chosen one.

You are entitled to your opinion Chuck. But just because the sport started with the idea of hitting a target does not mean that it has to stay that way. And the fact that in order to continue to conform to that standard or concept we have to concoct a strange and convoluted method of determining whether or not a player has holed out I believe demonstrates how out of date that concept is. Anyone picking up the sport will intuitively look at the target and assume the object is to get the disc in the basket. They will not look at it and think this is a device used to help me determine if the disc has struck a target in the correct way. Lets ove forward and realize that the way disc golf is being played the object of the game is to get the disc in the basket, not to mimic the way we used to throw at painted bands on trees. And yes I am old enough to remember doing that. If you really want holing out to represent hitting a target then splashing chains and blowing right though should count as holing out. You have proffered no valid reason why this rule makes the game any better other than "well that's the way it is". Make the game simpler to learn, and officiate, not more complicated. I also think the rules committee needs to start thinking about how the general disc golf community will feel about a rule before they just implement it. The is what I meant by "stink test" because I think the majority of disc golfers think that this new rule stinks.

PhattD, I'm explaining the rule not defending it. What I would personally prefer doesn't always match what I post in discussion explanations. I could accept your position if the RC decided to go that way, but that's not where they are coming from at this point.

If the disc doesn't go in the basket properly, the hole has not been completed. Simple.

Therein lies the divide. Some care how it goes in the basket; some care that it goes in the basket.

The RC is seemingly in the first camp, necessitating the current rather complex rule defining where in or on the target the disc must come to rest, how it got there, and who saw what, to determine the result of a shot.

I think folks are overstating both the complexity and how hated this rule is. I've yet to meet anyone who can't understand the rule as it clearly describes exactly how a basket is designed to work, so it can't be that complex. I've also never met anyone offline who had an issue with the rule as is.

I know when explaining it to new players, they are like, "Huh?" Rather than it being a simple 2 second, "If the disc is solely supported by the basket, you've holed out". There ends up being a little Q&A explaining the nuances.

I know when explaining it to new players, they are like, "Huh?" Rather than it being a simple 2 second, "If the disc is solely supported by the basket, you've holed out". There ends up being a little Q&A explaining the nuances.

My experience numerous, numerous times. Without exaggeration, probably one quarter of the times I've explained the rules the aforementioned Q&A is needed...and it is usually followed by some mumbling under their breath akin to "that's weird" or "that's just dumb - why not the whole target (being good)?" It's like the emperor's new clothes syndrome; as a 'child' (not us O.F.s) and they'll "call it like it is".

Karl
Ps: And a LOT of the others - who don't say anything about such - DO give tacit looks / body language which I've interpreted as being pretty much the same.

I think folks are overstating both the complexity and how hated this rule is. I've yet to meet anyone who can't understand the rule as it clearly describes exactly how a basket is designed to work, so it can't be that complex. I've also never met anyone offline who had an issue with the rule as is.

For myself, it's not too complex to understand---just far more complex than it needs to be. And "hated" is overstating things a bit; I don't know of anyone who necessarily hates it, but plenty who think it's a poor rule.

I've also had plenty of the "You've got to be kidding" reactions from newer players.

It's not a big deal, either way, but I wish the definition of making a shot was that the disc came to rest supported solely by the target. Period.

I guess I've had different experiences than others. I've encountered few new players who are surprised or disappointed to learn that a disc landing on top of the target or a disc wedged into the side of the target isn't "in" (conversely, I ran across plenty of people who were surprised by wedgies counting back when the rules allowed for them). Such shots are akin to a hockey puck ripping through the net to enter the side of a hockey net or putting the basketball up through the hoop from underneath. All of them have a result that is similar to the objective (the puck is "in" the goal, the ball went "through" the hoop) but since they didn't enter the target correctly, they don't count. And there isn't a contingent of basketball newbies scratching their heads at the complex idea of the ball having to pass through the hoop from above only.

The basketball analogy breaks down in a couple of ways:
1) basket is good based on its path, not where the ball ends up. (same thing for soccer, hockey, etc).
2) There is no "if you didn't see it" clause in the rules.

PhattD, I'm explaining the rule not defending it. What I would personally prefer doesn't always match what I post in discussion explanations. I could accept your position if the RC decided to go that way, but that's not where they are coming from at this point.

At what point did you get the impression that I didn't understand the rule? I disagree with the rule. I think if you're going to make a rule change it should be an improvement. I also think the RC needs to give some consideration to what the overall disc golf community would like to see when it comes to rules. It could be as simple as posting proposed rule changes here and seeing what people think. If there is an abundance of argument maybe they should rethink the rule.

It may be simple but it opens up another can of worms. It cannot happen without updating basket specs even more to prevent all kinds of ledges and trays that could be added to basket designs so any possible shot that comes near the target has a chance to be snagged.

It doesn't open up anything. The current rule still has to define how the disc is supported. All you have to do is eliminate anything to do with how the disc entered the basket and you have simplified the rule. Any disc that is considered holed out if you didn't see it would now be considered holed out even if you did see it. And yes it can happen without updating technical specs. This is a, relatively, new rule. I remember playing the game when this rule wasn't in place. Trust me, it's possible. Having wedgies count really isn't that big a deal. And why is it so hard to update technical specs. How about. "Openings in the top ring and the basket must be small enough to prevent discs from passing through or becoming wedged." Disc manufacturers can then submit new basket designs for sanctioning as they come out. Just announce the specs years before they will go into affect and give manufacturers time to move their current merch. And grandfather in course baskets installed before the specs go into affect.

However you try to simplify it there will always be 'what if's. So for the allegedly simple supported solely by the basket approach:
What if it's a temporary basket with a concrete base, does a disc lying on the base count?
What if it's a skillshot or traveller basket and it comes to rest up on the legs?
What if foliage is sticking into the tray and touching the disc, is it no longer solely supported by the basket?

PhattD, you want to disallow DROT but not care how a disc gets into the basket, well now you have to define DROT, so any partial wedgie from above or hangers.

On transparency, I am trying to do exactly what you're asking for, partly by being involved in discussions and by starting threads on certain of our thoughts.

Conrad summarises all our discussions and thought processes on his site. As I said before I wasn't involved at the time of this discussion, but you can see the process detail here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2011/HolingOut.txt

The way I see it, we presently have the MOST COMPLEX, WEIRD-SHAPED, MISUNDERSTOOD "goal / endpoint" in sports. Believe it or not, this is hurting us!

One can always make things more complex (to appease one's ego and justify not being able to understand (and work within) simple concepts) but rarely does that make things 'better'. The idea that Headrick came up with was "OK" but while potentially subjective (in whether or not a hole was completed), the "2 ribbons around a tree" concept was cleaner. Over the years people have concentrated on 'refining' (more chains to 'eliminate' cut-throughs, deeper baskets, etc.) that idea but failed to understand all the consequences (debates, convoluted rules, misunderstanding, lack of credibility, etc.). These same people are now not willing to see things as they are because of all the time they've invested in this.

It is my hope that the rules / standards committee, some day (obviously not THIS committee, today) will understand and accept that...and then effect changes to make things simplier and correct errors which were made in the past.

Karl

Try reading the ball golf rules.

If you are a pro or even an amateur tournament player in disc golf you need to know the rules. There aren't that many convolutions in the way they are written, but there are provisions that can vary depending on the situation.

Newbies don't really care about the rules. They don't care if they miss a mando. They throw from ob. They throw multiple shots from the tee. They only need to follow the rules if they are playing in a tourney or a club-run event. 99% of the disc golf players fit into this less structured category.

Mr. bird-like leathery-winged dinosaur,

I have. Many times. Probably more than you have. Been playing ball golf tournaments for almost 40 years now. And all of that doesn't mean squat because we're not talking about ball golf. We're talking about making rules of a fledgling sport easier at a time which they CAN be made easier (with relative ease - compared to other, older sports).

As for your "There aren't that many convolutions in the way they are written...", why not make the number of 'convolutions' even less? It can be done...and not hurt things (only make them better) at all. K.I.S.S.

And I fully realize / understand / agree that most players don't want or 'need' this structure; but I also don't understand why we (the other 1%) have to have complexity when it is not needed. Seems like any set of rules which CAN be made 'simple', 1) SHOULD be made simple and, 2) MIGHT attract more of the other 99% to maybe make it a 98%/2% ratio. :)

Karl

Do you think that DROTs should count? Do you think that a wedgie should count? Do you think that a shot that goes thru the side should count? If not: we have convolutions. KaKaw!

The pterodactyls on Journey to the Beginning of Time said, "Keeeeeee!" if I remember correctly. That's all I want to say on the topics being debated here. Keeeee!

Do you think that DROTs should count? Do you think that a wedgie should count? Do you think that a shot that goes thru the side should count? If not: we have convolutions. KaKaw!

To answer your questions above:
Yes, yes, and yes!
So no "KaKaw" for you!

Honestly, it is because we have such an "odd" target / end point (and I'm being nice here) that we have potential for such things to happen. But because everyone gives me the "...oh, it would take too much money to retrofit the targets..." (so we're supposed to 'continue a stupidity' until time immemorial??) or "...there must be standards or the targets will be all weird and will catch differently..." (like they're not weird already?? and who cares HOW they catch, they will catch 'equally' (weird or not) for everyone!!), no one is willing to see sanity and 'nip things in the bud' (as a 40y.o. sport IS 'nip-able' - it being relatively young). I believe that ANY disc 'solely supported' by our ridiculous* target / rule(s) SHOULD be deemed holed out. And defining solely supported is a fair piece easier than the convolutions we DO have now!

Karl
*ridiculous because it CAN have wedgies, CAN have DROTS, etc...but even MORE ridiculous because we can't write things in simple ways to 'cover up' the weirdness that we're seemingly unwilling to undue.

However you try to simplify it there will always be 'what if's. So for the allegedly simple supported solely by the basket approach:
What if it's a temporary basket with a concrete base, does a disc lying on the base count?
What if it's a skillshot or traveller basket and it comes to rest up on the legs?
What if foliage is sticking into the tray and touching the disc, is it no longer solely supported by the basket?

PhattD, you want to disallow DROT but not care how a disc gets into the basket, well now you have to define DROT, so any partial wedgie from above or hangers.

On transparency, I am trying to do exactly what you're asking for, partly by being involved in discussions and by starting threads on certain of our thoughts.

Conrad summarises all our discussions and thought processes on his site. As I said before I wasn't involved at the time of this discussion, but you can see the process detail here:
http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2011/HolingOut.txt

Name one of those situations that is answered by restricting holing out by the path the disc travelled to enter the basket? Every question in terms of how to define a disc coming to rest on the catching device is still a question. Saying that the disc has to enter via the gap between the top ring and the top of the basket doesn't change any of that does it? To further clarify my position. I'm not trying to simplify the rules I'm objecting to making them more complicated. If this somehow made the game better I would say it might be worth adding a little complexity. The only thing this does is eliminate wedgies. And it isn't even fully successful at doing that. What's the point?

If the intent is to "remain true" to the "tradition" of the sport as hitting a target, How come it doesn't count when I blow straight through the heart of the chains and land on the ground. It's simple hitting a target is hard to determine from a distance. Whether or not a disc comes to rest in the target is easier. So the RC decided to use both. we still have to judge if the disc is legally at rest in the catching device. Only now we also have to judge whether or not it entered said device properly.

I don't know that is or was the intent, it was an argument Chuck used, not me. To me it seems as simple as 'how is the basket supposed to work?'. Clearly it's designed to work in exactly the way the rules describe how to hole out.

I think had I been voting at the time I would have probably abstained, I'm sympathetic to the 'what's the point' argument of ruling out some very occasional lucky wedgies. But I'm equally ambivalent about changing it back, it does seem to me that there is marginally less grey area in the rule's current formulation, and any marginal gain in simplicity would have to be offset against the increase in ambiguity.

I don't know that is or was the intent, it was an argument Chuck used, not me. To me it seems as simple as 'how is the basket supposed to work?'. Clearly it's designed to work in exactly the way the rules describe how to hole out.

I think had I been voting at the time I would have probably abstained, I'm sympathetic to the 'what's the point' argument of ruling out some very occasional lucky wedgies. But I'm equally ambivalent about changing it back, it does seem to me that there is marginally less grey area in the rule's current formulation, and any marginal gain in simplicity would have to be offset against the increase in ambiguity.

I don't have a problem with changing the rules for what it means to be "at rest in the basket". My issue is with requiring the disc to enter the basket in a certain way. All I'm saying is it would make more sense to eliminate that one section of the definition of holing out. The effect would be to make so that any shot that, under the current rules, would only count if no one saw it and make it count regardless. It seems to me that would keep any reduction in ambiguity introduced in the current rule formulation without adding the "if no one saw it" clause.

In terms of the intent of the basket, if you read the article on the invention process from a few issues ago, they pretty clearly state their intent in creating the basket.

As ever with these kind of things it's the edge cases where the problem comes, not the simple "if the disc is in the basket it's good" case. I wasn't involved at the time but my understanding is that the rule is trying to address wedged discs, or put another way defining what is meant by "the disc is in the basket". What the rule now says is that as long as the disc enters 'correctly' and wedges on the way out, it's good. If it wedges in the side or top on the way in, it's not.

A disc in the basket or wedged that was not seen is given the benefit of the doubt.

Bruce, not to beat a dead horse but...

I was asked a question about whether a blind shot that was wedged in the side counted and I answered yes that is my recollection in the new rulebook.

Someone else later pointed out Q&A 41 and the accompanying photo in the online version which clearly says the wedged disc doesn't count (it makes no mention of whether it was seen or not) Q&A 34 helps if the dic is in the target but not wedged.

That Q&A and the holing out rule give the impression a wedged shot would not count with the possible exception of if more of the disc was on the inside it might be touching the inner wall.

So blind wedges, Count or not and please show me where in the rulebook I should have looked to get my answer.

Thanks

I have concluded QA34 says blind wedges count.

This may be better under a different question though.
QA34 is about a putt and it is not likely to have a blind putt.

What an amazing discussion.

These arguments could so easily be put to rest:

� Write this hole-out rule for all targets that catch �off the ground�: �When your legally-thrown disc rests on the correct target and not touching ground, your lie is your next hole�s tee.�

� If you want to exclude temp-target bases, make a local rule that defines them as �ground.�

I�ve played since 1973 and seen all the changes. I�ll bet there will be many more. Someday disc golf courses may feature no targets at all until your weight on Tee #1 illuminates a half-meter holographic sphere, a few feet off the ground, in Fairway #1. Whenever a disc touches it, the sphere will flash bright. No flash: no hole-out. The hole-out rule will be �When your legally-thrown disc makes the correct target flash, your lie is your next hole�s tee.�

It doesn�t matter what a target looks like or how it �catches,� as long as the hole-out requirement is equal for all players.

your lie is your next hole�s tee

This implies that you have not holed out (i.e. not completed the current hole) and that you are using the next hole's tee for a drop zone on the current hole.

No such implication. Here�s why.

Since 1983, each PDGA rulebook begins, �The object of the game is to traverse a course from beginning to end in the fewest throws of the disc.� You can think of disc golf as hole play; or you can think of it as throwing continuously from Point A (Tee 1) to Point Z (Target 18) and striking a series of targets along the way, with each throw creating a lie to throw from next. Logically, the hole-out rule for that game is, �When your legally-thrown disc [hits the target] your lie is the next tee.� It�s how we�ve always played.

No such implication. Here�s why.

Since 1983, each PDGA rulebook begins, �The object of the game is to traverse a course from beginning to end in the fewest throws of the disc.� You can think of disc golf as hole play; or you can think of it as throwing continuously from Point A (Tee 1) to Point Z (Target 18) and striking a series of targets along the way, with each throw creating a lie to throw from next. Logically, the hole-out rule for that game is, �When your legally-thrown disc [hits the target] your lie is the next tee.� It�s how we�ve always played.

That may be how the rule book begins, but every other rule separates holes as distinct units with a score assigned to each unit. Your logic has deceived you. You have put that last quote up as if it is actually in the rule book; it is not.