A hypothetical.

[ReinZ_96]

I had a discussion yesterday about a disc being legally holed out... I assume we've all seem this image at this QA.

https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-c...orizontal-position-top-trays-rim-spanning-two

Now, i hadn't read the QA in quite a while so didn't know the exact wording of it off the top of my head and just had the image in my mind and reasoned through the rules to a different conclusion that the QA does in our hypothetical. Discs 1, 2, and i guess maybe 5 are the discs in question. Based on my understanding, the wording of the QA makes it technically possible for a disc to enter the basket incorrectly according to rule 807.B and still count?

In order to complete a hole with a basket target, the thrower must release the disc and it must enter the target above the top of the tray and below the bottom of the chain support, and come to rest supported by the target.

Disc 6 doesn't count because of this rule. And by extension a disc sitting inside the basket that entered through the side of the basket would NOT count, by my understanding, for the same reason. It did not enter the target correctly so that it happens to be supported by the target means nothing.

Now, onto the hypothetical. IF a disc managed to somehow fully enter the target incorrectly through the cage or otherwise THEN landed in the position of disc 1 (which i guess also applies to discs 2 and 5) without exiting and reentering the target legally, based on the boded section of the rule, i understand that in this hypothetical it technically should not count because it entered the target incorrectly. But the QA says in all of the scenarios it doesn't matter how the disc got there (even if it was in a way that violates the rule above?) because the plane is broken.

Now, extending what the QA says, any disc that breaks the plane at any point counts, no? So, a disc that enters the target incorrectly then tries to flip out over the lip of the cage (getting to a similar position as disc 1 in the image) but falls back in still counts because it broke the plane. Even though it entered the target incorrectly. To me, it seems like the rule and the QA contradict each other in this scenario. Or even in scenarios where the disc is in position 1, 2 or 5 and the disc did not enter the basket correctly.

Why does the plane being broken matter if the disc entered the basket illegally? Shouldn't the plane being broken be contingent on the disc entering the basket correctly, just as the disc being supported by the target after coming to rest is? Or, does breaking the plane constitute "entering" even if the disc has already entered the basket incorrectly?....that's just silly; if you climbed into a building though a window then stuck just your arm through the front door from the inside and pulled it back in you still didn't enter the building through the front door just because 'you broke the plane of the doorway'.

Either the rule is worded poorly or the QA is wrong in this hypothetical....or I'm just a moron, which is definitely a possibility.

Opinions?

 

[ru4por]

I had a discussion yesterday about a disc being legally holed out... I assume we've all seem this image at this QA.

https://www.pdga.com/faq/rules/qa-c...orizontal-position-top-trays-rim-spanning-two

Now, i hadn't read the QA in quite a while so didn't know the exact wording of it off the top of my head and just had the image in my mind and reasoned through the rules to a different conclusion that the QA does in our hypothetical. Discs 1, 2, and i guess maybe 5 are the discs in question. Based on my understanding, the wording of the QA makes it technically possible for a disc to enter the basket incorrectly according to rule 807.B and still count?

[/B]

Disc 6 doesn't count because of this rule. And by extension a disc sitting inside the basket that entered through the side of the basket would NOT count, by my understanding, for the same reason. It did not enter the target correctly so that it happens to be supported by the target means nothing.

Now, onto the hypothetical. IF a disc managed to somehow fully enter the target incorrectly through the cage or otherwise THEN landed in the position of disc 1 (which i guess also applies to discs 2 and 5) without exiting and reentering the target legally, based on the boded section of the rule, i understand that in this hypothetical it technically should not count because it entered the target incorrectly. But the QA says in all of the scenarios it doesn't matter how the disc got there (even if it was in a way that violates the rule above?) because the plane is broken.

Now, extending what the QA says, any disc that breaks the plane at any point counts, no? So, a disc that enters the target incorrectly then tries to flip out over the lip of the cage (getting to a similar position as disc 1 in the image) but falls back in still counts because it broke the plane. Even though it entered the target incorrectly. To me, it seems like the rule and the QA contradict each other in this scenario. Or even in scenarios where the disc is in position 1, 2 or 5 and the disc did not enter the basket correctly.

Why does the plane being broken matter if the disc entered the basket illegally? Shouldn't the plane being broken be contingent on the disc entering the basket correctly, just as the disc being supported by the target after coming to rest is? Or, does breaking the plane constitute "entering" even if the disc has already entered the basket incorrectly?....that's just silly; if you climbed into a building though a window then stuck just your arm through the front door from the inside and pulled it back in you still didn't enter the building through the front door just because 'you broke the plane of the doorway'.

Either the rule is worded poorly or the QA is wrong in this hypothetical....or I'm just a moron, which is definitely a possibility.

Opinions?

Discs that come to rest within the target must enter the target via the space between the top of the basket and the bottom of the top. Entering through the basket or falling through the top does not count.

 

[Dingus]

Why does the plane being broken matter if the disc entered the basket illegally? Shouldn't the plane being broken be contingent on the disc entering the basket correctly, just as the disc being supported by the target after coming to rest is? Or, does breaking the plane constitute "entering" even if the disc has already entered the basket incorrectly?....that's just silly; if you climbed into a building though a window then stuck just your arm through the front door from the inside and pulled it back in you still didn't enter the building through the front door just because 'you broke the plane of the doorway'.

Either the rule is worded poorly or the QA is wrong in this hypothetical....or I'm just a moron, which is definitely a possibility.

Opinions?

One way to think of entering the target correctly is to picture a cylindrical plane going from the top of the tray to the bottom of the chain support. If the disc breaks that plane, it has entered the target correctly. In this case, the part of the disc that is still hovering over the tray has done that.

I think you are reading into the "break the plane" wording a bit to much. The intention of the Q&A is to talk about how your disc initially enters the target. If you "break the plane" while ENTERING the target, it is presumed you are good. The reason for the "break the plane" distinction is to determine whether disc 1 has actually entered the target. In that case it had indeed entered the target because it had broken the plane. It isn't a good putt simply because it was laying across the plane.

To your question, I believe that if a disc enters the basket incorrectly you would need to completely exit the target and re-enter correctly for it to be good. You cannot enter the target from within the target.

 

[chevis]

i like to award amazing things that a discs do, so i would say if your hypothetical happened i would give it holed out status for being so cool, plus technically if it did exit & come back through the plane that is entering correctly.

i have issue with disc 2 in the diagram; entering the target must break the "cylindrical plane going from the top of the tray to the bottom of the chain support". tray is the bottom of the basket & a line from there to the chain support would be inside of the nub & disc2 would not break that plane. tray is the wrong word; basket rim would clarify.

 

[Cgkdisc]

i like to award amazing things that a discs do, so i would say if your hypothetical happened i would give it holed out status for being so cool, plus technically if it did exit & come back through the plane that is entering correctly.

i have issue with disc 2 in the diagram; entering the target must break the "cylindrical plane going from the top of the tray to the bottom of the chain support". tray is the bottom of the basket & a line from there to the chain support would be inside of the nub & disc2 would not break that plane. tray is the wrong word; basket rim would clarify.

Tray is the better word because all parts that make up the tray are included, not just the rim. The conical target plane's perimeter around the tray is considered to extend to the farthest most points from the pole on the top of the tray including the nubs.

 

[BillFleming]

On an tangent from this....the issue I have with the rule is that it must be observed. If a disc enters through the side of the tray (#6) but did not get stuck and ended up fully in the tray....it does not count as 'holed out' and basically needs to be dropped back in legally. Okay, I get that. But what about a blind shot, no one sees the disc hit the tray, go through the side and end up in the tray. That would look to be a legal 'hole out', but is actually not.

I personally think the rule should allow the disc to go through the side and into the tray; even if it just partially enters the tray.

 

[ru4por]

On an tangent from this....the issue I have with the rule is that it must be observed. If a disc enters through the side of the tray (#6) but did not get stuck and ended up fully in the tray....it does not count as 'holed out' and basically needs to be dropped back in legally. Okay, I get that. But what about a blind shot, no one sees the disc hit the tray, go through the side and end up in the tray. That would look to be a legal 'hole out', but is actually not.

I personally think the rule should allow the disc to go through the side and into the tray; even if it just partially enters the tray.

If you do not see the "ace", the group makes a decision. I think the rule is fine.

 

[ReinZ_96]

I think you are reading into the "break the plane" wording a bit to much. The intention of the Q&A is to talk about how your disc initially enters the target. If you "break the plane" while ENTERING the target, it is presumed you are good. The reason for the "break the plane" distinction is to determine whether disc 1 has actually entered the target. In that case it had indeed entered the target because it had broken the plane. It isn't a good putt simply because it was laying across the plane.

To your question, I believe that if a disc enters the basket incorrectly you would need to completely exit the target and re-enter correctly for it to be good. You cannot enter the target from within the target.

This is what my thought was based on the rule, but the person I was discussing with was very adamant on taking the QA word for word on the "whether it got stuck there on its way in or on its way out" part of the scenario and not the 'it never entered correctly in the first place' part. They seemed dead set on it counts becuase the plane is broken, no matter how it got there. Which the wording in the QA certainly could lead one to believe and is why I was questioning my understanding of the rule.

 

[Dingus]

I personally think the rule should allow the disc to go through the side and into the tray; even if it just partially enters the tray.

The problem is that unscrupulous Masters players will take their gum putts and blowflys and intentionally try to score "wedgies".

 

[zenbot]

The problem is that unscrupulous Masters players will take their gum putts and blowflys and intentionally try to score "wedgies".

Instead of just doing it the easy way? Those crazy boomers!