And the PDGA strikes again!

[kenjiac]

My point wasn't the rule it self, although I do think that it's a bad rule (but that horse has already been beaten to death) my point was with the ambiguity of the statement from the person that makes the rules that benefit of the doubt goes to the player. Maybe it's because I'm not one of the cool kids, and usually don't have the large group of friends at events...but there has been situations where the group is made up of friends and all of a sudden these "benefits of the doubt" or "group decisions" start to really go against me. That is the issue that I have with vague rules in a sport where the competitors police themselves. Could you imagine the anarchy that would ensue in football or basketball or baseball if the players got to make the judgement calls on the people they were competing against?

This is covered already. If your group can not come to an agreement. You bring the situation to the TD and he deceides. If you need you take a provisional so that both senerios are played out do so.

 

[ru4por]

Sorry, but the only thing fuzzy about your example is the part where you say "I personally would not count it". You know what the rules are though. I hope everybody takes the rule literally, that's what they are there fore.

I think this is exactly the OP's point. The rules cannot always be taken literally. Rules in sports often have to be interpreted. This is why we have on course rules officials. Rule are designed to ensure fair play. I as well would not count it, if all indication were that is went from outside in.
PGA touring pros are always asking for officials help in call in ball golf. The rules are not black and white, just as close as possible.

 

[kenjiac]

Ok ok just cause I have never seen it does not mean it's impossible.

Can't you tell which way a disc wedged in ? Isn't the bigger part of the disc in the direction it came from ?

I have hit center pole and wedged on the way out so that it appears that it wedged on the way in on the front side of the basket. Saw it happen so my shot was good. I understand the benefit of doubt portion of this rule.

 

[araytx]

With all due respect I play a lot of tournaments big and small and MOST people in the events (especially the am's) don't know most of the rules...So in that situation you are wrong.

Secondly my issue isn't about knowing the rule, it's about how it is implemented. The PDGA posts the picture with all of the discs in the basket and then says these are in and these are out...and then it comes to the weggie disc and says this one is out, except if no one sees it then we give the benefit of the doubt to the player... That last part is where I have my problem.

Almost every event I have played there are many times where someone in my group doesn't play by the rules and states "come on we are just doing this for fun" or I happen to be leading and then all of a sudden my out of bounds locations seem to be less and less in my favor. This is the problem in competitive sports when you leave things up to judgement calls and players favor and the people they are competing against.

Lastly I do have a problem with the wording.
"come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom AND inside wall) of the tray"
If you want to read the rule exactly as it is written it does say both the bottom and the inside wall, so any disc just sitting on the bottom would not be considered holed out...if you read the rule as it is written. I would never suggest that to be the case, but that is how it is written

Harris:

Come on!

OK – reality check. I believe the rule here is clear. I also firmly believe the intent is clear, and is just as many have stated. You say that the parenthetical portion of the rule (which in my mind is an inclusive definition, not an all-encompassing or exclusive one) defines "supported by the …inner cylinder…of the tray" as "supported by both the inside wall and bottom of the tray." Most everyone else seems to be interpreting as I do, and that is that it means "supported by either the inside wall or the bottom of the tray or both." (Our point is that the parenthetical part defines inner cylinder as including both the inner wall and bottom.) The argument you're making sounds like basically "if that's what the PDGA meant and they they worded it that way, then their grammar is poor, perhaps even wrong."

Well, maybe. And rather than define it the way they did (parenthetically), perhaps they should move "inner cylinder" to the definitions, too, and relieve us all of this possible disagreement. However, in the alternative since you are a professional writer and I don't know if RC people are, then I'd suggest you give a better way of wording 802.05 A so that it clarifies that "inner cylinder" means either/or "bottom/inside wall," but not requiring it to be both.

 

[Harrishabitat]

Sounds like you need to move up a division so that you do not have to play with as many idiots.

And how is the rule not clear. If a disc is wedged from the inside out, it counts. If the disc is wedged in the basket on a blind shot and no one saw it then the player is given the benefit of the doubt and it is counted.

And if you really have to read the fne print on how to hole out, chances are your looking for an excuse as to why you played poorly or as to why someone beat you.

So following the rules = excuses for playing poorly? Great Logic :clap:

 

[Horsman]

So following the rules = excuses for playing poorly? Great Logic :clap:

Many people have already pointed out your logic on what you think it is to hole out. Thats what Im talking about. So just because you think you are reading the fine print correctly and implementing it correctly does not mean that you actually are.

So in this case.

Following your understanding of the rules = excuse for playing poorly

 

[iacas]

How often does wedging even really happen? I've never seen it happen. Never seen it close to happening.*

And if baskets had smaller openings in the sides, they'd never occur.




* Then again, a lot of discs don't pass the flexibility standards.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

Did anyone watch Monday night football this week? The part when John Gruden gets really POed at the guess referee because the game basically devolved into a lawyering session for 30 minutes?

 

[ru4por]

How often does wedging even really happen? I've never seen it happen. Never seen it close to happening.*

And if baskets had smaller openings in the sides, they'd never occur.




* Then again, a lot of discs don't pass the flexibility standards.

More often than you think. I do it a few time a year. Usually with my soft magnet on an upshot or putter drive. Newer baskets seem to have smaller holes though.

 

[biscoe]

How often does wedging even really happen? I've never seen it happen. Never seen it close to happening.*

And if baskets had smaller openings in the sides, they'd never occur.




* Then again, a lot of discs don't pass the flexibility standards.

i have seen the same person wedge their putter twice in one round- have also seen at least 2 wedged aces before they changed the rule.

 

[grodney]

I know that one in every million shots would be "not good" by today's rule, but wouldn't "fully supported by the target" be a helluva lot simpler/better?

(Where "target" means the disc entrapment device or whateverthehell they call it these days.)

 

[luckless_pedestrian]

Seems pretty clear. Clear up the wording of the rule, because it could be stated more clearly. And use more metal in the baskets.

 

[krupicka]

"Solely supported by the target" is much simpler. Does it really matter that the occasional DROTs and wedgies would then count as good? I think this is a case where the potential simplicity in the rules trumps the need to make it still feel like we were throwing at trees.

 

[iacas]

"Solely supported by the target" is much simpler. Does it really matter that the occasional DROTs and wedgies would then count as good? I think this is a case where the potential simplicity in the rules trumps the need to make it still feel like we were throwing at trees.

I would agree. And if you want to eliminate DROTs (some baskets could start to develop "baskets" on top), then say "supported by the target above the base of the basket and below the top of the chains."

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I think with the rarity of a wedge finish, it would be less confusing to just count all of them, and I'm not biased at all due to the wedge ace I did with a Banshee on a Chainstar in 1998...

 

[Allurex]

"Solely supported by the target" is much simpler. Does it really matter that the occasional DROTs and wedgies would then count as good? I think this is a case where the potential simplicity in the rules trumps the need to make it still feel like we were throwing at trees.

Why should wedges count? If a player wedges his disc into the facemask, then he clearly made a mistake somewhere. If someone's putt is too short, why should it count?

Treat the basket like it's a solid cylinder instead of a cage. If a disc can't pass through a solid cylinder, it shouldn't count.

 

[DavidSauls]

Why should wedges count? If a player wedges his disc into the facemask, then he clearly made a mistake somewhere. If someone's putt is too short, why should it count?

It's payback for those putts that were dead-on target, and bounced off the chains.

 

[jenb]

It's payback for those putts that were dead-on target, and bounced off the chains.

If so, I'm owed a few thousand wedges.

 

[scarpfish]

Does it really matter that the occasional DROTs and wedgies would then count as good?

Yes it does, because basket tops and face masks are not themselves intended to be the target, they are a part of the target assembly that needs to be there to make sure that what is the target (namely the inner cylinder referred to in rule 802.05) works properly.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Why should wedges count? If a player wedges his disc into the facemask, then he clearly made a mistake somewhere. If someone's putt is too short, why should it count?

Treat the basket like it's a solid cylinder instead of a cage. If a disc can't pass through a solid cylinder, it shouldn't count.

:clap: