Disc Golf Store
  #41  
Old 09-10-2013, 04:49 PM
bombmk bombmk is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradharris View Post
I had to reread the rule, important aspect bolded.

"A disc in water or foliage is considered to be at rest once it is moving only as a result of movement of the water, the foliage, or the wind."

This is not a general rule that applies to any throw. It applies to a throw that lands in water or in a tree or bush.

The wind aspect is essentially just saying that a disc cannot be blown out of a tree by wind.
There is a sentence before that.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-10-2013, 04:54 PM
bombmk bombmk is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradharris View Post
Was it rolling downhill? I can't even begin to picture this happening on flat ground.
See the video I posted just before your comment. That is started with a forehand roller, that goes sideways and is about to die as the wind takes it.
Basically what happened to me - thankfully mine did not roll 550 meters.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-10-2013, 04:54 PM
bradharris's Avatar
bradharris bradharris is offline
Banned From the Trilogy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Merrimack, NH
Years Playing: 11.3
Courses Played: 70
Posts: 4,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
There is a sentence before that.
"Momentum imparted by the throw" does not mean "momentum in the direction of the throw."

Lets say you have a very steep downhill hole. If I set my disc on edge, give it a slight nudge to get it moving and then let gravity do the rest, you could argue that it was gravity giving it it's momentum and not my throw.

But my throw is what caused the series of events that led to it rolling down the hill. Thus, it is all considered momentum imparted by the throw.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-10-2013, 05:21 PM
bombmk bombmk is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradharris View Post
Thus, it is all considered momentum imparted by the throw.
Let me be rude for the sake of argument: Says who?

That argument can be used for a disc that lands on top of a basket stops and is then blown into the basket as well. Its all a result of the momentum I imparted on the disc.

I think we all know what is right here - but the way the rules state is definitely flawed.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-10-2013, 08:22 PM
araytx araytx is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 8
Courses Played: 132
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeverett View Post
How about something like this, then?

Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly. Click here to see how YouTube videos should be embedded. There could also be a technical issue that's not your fault. Click here to view the video on YouTube's site. If this link doesn't work, you did something wrong.

That disc is traveling in the entirely opposite vector from the one imparted on it by the player.
Seen that one many times. Again, the key is ONLY. Even in that scenario above, that disc is flying the opposite way because of the wind AND the original spin/momentum placed on it by the thrower. Without any spin, that disc isn't doing the same thing. Direction is a non-issue. In this same scenario at this same time (and I know because I was AT the GBO in that wind), every time I held a disc up in that wind and let it go, it went straight down to the ground and stopped.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-10-2013, 09:55 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 40.2
Courses Played: 187
Posts: 1,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
"A disc is considered to be at rest once it is no longer moving as a result of the momentum imparted by the throw. A disc in water or foliage is considered to be at rest once it is moving only as a result of movement of the water, the foliage, or the wind. "

Anyone else find that to be a somewhat problematic description of what constitutes at rest?

I can't be the only one to have had roll-aways moving due to nothing else but wind? I once had a putt bounce off the front of the cage, drop down - and then the wind took it and rolled 60+ feet away on flat ground - past the basket from my position. (OB even)

Any momentum imparted on it by the throw was clearly lost the moment it hit the ground.
I think you make a good point. Now. propose a revision that covers the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-10-2013, 10:01 PM
mashnut's Avatar
mashnut mashnut is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Temecula, CA
Years Playing: 12.4
Courses Played: 815
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 13,602
Is it a good point though? Without the momentum of the throw, the disc isn't sitting on edge in a way that the wind can effect. That's still a result of the momentum imparted by the throw.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-11-2013, 05:35 AM
bombmk bombmk is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Courses Played: 2
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashnut View Post
Is it a good point though? Without the momentum of the throw, the disc isn't sitting on edge in a way that the wind can effect. That's still a result of the momentum imparted by the throw.
For any practical application of the rules, I would concede the point immediately.

But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.

And I must admit I am raising the question without a proposal for correction at hand. I recognize this is a definition that is hard to make.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-11-2013, 07:26 AM
bradharris's Avatar
bradharris bradharris is offline
Banned From the Trilogy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Merrimack, NH
Years Playing: 11.3
Courses Played: 70
Posts: 4,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.
That isn't the criteria. The only time wind is even mentioned is in the sentence related to foliage or water.
Reply With Quote
 

  #50  
Old 09-11-2013, 07:37 AM
araytx araytx is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 8
Courses Played: 132
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
For any practical application of the rules, I would concede the point immediately.

But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.

And I must admit I am raising the question without a proposal for correction at hand. I recognize this is a definition that is hard to make.
Personally I don't agree that's the criteria and therefore there is no "doubt goes to the player in this case. See my last paragraph below. The criteria is not "that the wind is able to move it;" the criteria is "it's no longer moving due to momentum imparted by the throw." Part of the momentum the thrower is imparting is the spin he/she puts on the disc to make it fly.

Maybe it's because I have a degree in science. There is no way the laws of physics say that even "the 550-ft roller" is moving ONLY due to the wind. That disc is moving due to the original momentum AND the wind. Many shots do that. Very likely in the roller case and in the case of bombmk's putt it's 80, 90, maybe even 95% due to the wind -- but not ONLY. Let's examine the examples he gave us. On bombmk's downhill example notice he said, "give it a 'slight nudge'." From his own words in the roller example, "it was about to die (meaning it hadn't 'died' yet) as the wind took it." Even in both of those examples the disc was moving due to momentum from the thrower AND wind. So, I do not find it problematic on the "letter of the rule" as currently written.

Now my other point is always one I bring up in rules debates. Every rule (and every law) has both a letter of law and a "spirit of the law". Maybe I'm wrong, but it layman's terms the intent to me is clear. The intent is "once a disc is observed to have stopped moving, then that's it -- it's stopped." I believe the RC worded it the best way possible to attempt to clarify it's intent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.