Clarification on base of the target - 806.01 A (Putting Area)

[@CD-]

Any throw made from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt.

Does the base of the target change when a basket is mounted in a non-standard way above or below the playing surface ie. hanging/recessed/naturally (stump/rock) or artificially (tower/extended pole) elevated basket? What about for a target mounted at a standard height (82cm +/- 6cm) on the side of steep & uneven hill? or on a mound/valley?

Is the 'base of the target' the center of the basket projected extended to the playing surface of the marker disc ie. 10m radius horizontally determines the putting area from the pole?

 

[ru4por]

Good sense says the measurement should be from the pole on the ground. If not on the ground, it should be where the pole would hit the ground.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Good sense says the measurement should be from the pole on the ground. If not on the ground, it should be where the pole would hit the ground.

Agreed. The size or shape of the base shouldn't be a factor.

I don't know the exact wording of the rule, but it should equate to the circle being defined as 10m from where the pole the basket would typically be mounted on, as projected to the playing surface, regardless of how the basket is mounted or what it's mounted on.

The 10m circle shouldn't be determined by whether the basket is on one of those DGPT elevated boxes, a normal pole, hanging, mounted in/on a tree, or whatever.

 

[Discette]

Does the base of the target change when a basket is mounted in a non-standard way above or below the playing surface ie. hanging/recessed/naturally (stump/rock) or artificially (tower/extended pole) elevated basket? What about for a target mounted at a standard height (82cm +/- 6cm) on the side of steep & uneven hill? or on a mound/valley?

Is the 'base of the target' the center of the basket projected extended to the playing surface of the marker disc ie. 10m radius horizontally determines the putting area from the pole?

Good sense says the measurement should be from the pole on the ground. If not on the ground, it should be where the pole would hit the ground.

The problem is "good sense" isn't always apparent to everyone. This rule should probably be re-written to provide more clarity. Where is the base of this target? This isn't a temporary DGPT advertisement, this is the everyday set up.

 

[krupicka]

The RC is aware of this issue, but has not had a chance yet to rewrite the rule. One challenge is the current rule covers both object targets and basket targets.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The most consistent reference point to measure from on any hole/basket would usually be the top wire of the basket tray. That would be my recommendation for where the 10 meters is measured, from playing surface to top basket wire. That wire "should" always be accessible for measurement even when the basket is mounted flush with the ground. If the basket tray is mounted several feet higher than normal, the wire should still be accessible, so players can retrieve discs. In the rare cases it's not easily reachable or it's an object target, the onus would be on the course owner/TD to mark the 10m circle for sanctioned play or indicate where the measurement for 10m or CTPs should be made.

 

[DavidSauls]

Only worth the effort at the highest events. Elsewhere, by far, the majority of calls are made by eyeballing and estimating, or stepping off, which are pretty vague -- and that's when any call is made, at all. I've yet to see someone pull out a tape measure, and dispute where the measurement starts.

 

[krupicka]

The only time I've pulled out a tape measure and measured from the basket is when a CTP was too close to call. Difference was 1/2".

There are courses that have permanently marked a 10m circle. Changing the reference point would not go over well.

 

[biscoe]

Measure from the base of pole or where the base of pole would be. Let the places with oddball structures figure it out for themselves- it ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Personal preference would be to eliminate the 10m circle rule, but ideally it would be nice to provide default guidance, other than special target structures, for how to measure side game CTPs .

 

[biscoe]

Personal preference would be to eliminate the 10m circle rule, but ideally it would be nice to provide default guidance, other than special target structures, for how to measure side game CTPs .

I disagree- side games are irrelevant to the rules of play and should be governed by the people running them. I would be fine with eliminating the circle as well however.

 

[_MTL_]

the issue is not for CTPs and the PDGA should not in anyway provide guidance for them, ace pools, etc. The issue is for defining the distance when someone can jump or not.

With more and more things added to the base of baskets, the RC should not lean on "more courses have 10M circles" because that is not a requirement of PDGA events at any level. The RC needs to add this to a long list of updates needed. Sounds like they are aware.

 

[krupicka]

With more and more things added to the base of baskets, the RC should not lean on "more courses have 10M circles" because that is not a requirement of PDGA events at any level. The RC needs to add this to a long list of updates needed. Sounds like they are aware.

The RC's position is always that course markings of the 10m circle are advisory in nature and not official measurements.

My comment on the courses having permanent circles was not that they are a requirement or to lean on them, but more to be cognizant of the fact that if we decided to change the measurement reference from the pole to the edge of the tray, that could have unintended consequences on courses that have laid bricks, etc to mark the 10m circle. This includes both confusion if the marks are no longer accurate and costs for courses to adjust.

Rules updates are not made in a vacuum.

 

[Innova63]

Measure from the base of pole or where the base of pole would be. Let the places with oddball structures figure it out for themselves- it ain't rocket surgery.

Or "Brain Science"

 

[@CD-]

The most consistent reference point to measure from on any hole/basket would usually be the top wire of the basket tray. That would be my recommendation for where the 10 meters is measured, from playing surface to top basket wire. That wire "should" always be accessible for measurement even when the basket is mounted flush with the ground. If the basket tray is mounted several feet higher than normal, the wire should still be accessible, so players can retrieve discs. In the rare cases it's not easily reachable or it's an object target, the onus would be on the course owner/TD to mark the 10m circle for sanctioned play or indicate where the measurement for 10m or CTPs should be made.

Yes, I was hoping for clarification on the reference point of what is considered the 'target area' vs. 'target assembly/mount'. For a player, the target of the putt/throw is the target deflection area to complete the hole and not the base/cage.

Only worth the effort at the highest events. Elsewhere, by far, the majority of calls are made by eyeballing and estimating, or stepping off, which are pretty vague -- and that's when any call is made, at all. I've yet to see someone pull out a tape measure, and dispute where the measurement starts.

Measure from the base of pole or where the base of pole would be. Let the places with oddball structures figure it out for themselves- it ain't rocket surgery.

Depends on if the people doing the eyeballing/estimation are accustomed to measuring from the pole base for practice (most common) and if that is correct. Would be tough on a player that practiced & played smaller events with the wrong assumption only to be surprised with the difference playing in a higher tier event with a marked 10m measurement. I remember a local event put 10m string with a mini attached tied to the bottom base of the pole and was surprised that it seemed a couple feet further than I expected on level ground (string could have been slightly stretched out).

Locally at Water Works and Cliff Drive, I see it more as an issue with a few highly sloped greens where eyeballing/estimating by stepping off are highly unreliable or not possible when the green has multiple playing surfaces to consider.

I've seen some players recently take out their range finders around the green and was curious what part of the target they were ranging as well.

 

[Cgkdisc]

An approach more consistent with other DG line marking rules would be to simply allow course designers/TDs to invoke the putting distance by physically marking a green shaped however they wish in the same way they can mark OB lines in whatever way they wish. If no putting green marked, no "demonstrate balance putting" required.

By making the markings official, it opens up the possibilities for shaping green areas and not getting hampered with exact 10m measurements. Existing permanent markings on courses would become official. Perhaps make the design max distance 15m from the basket for the green but no minimum. It will be easier to mark the playing surface when baskets are near the edges of drop offs into rough surfaces or wooded areas that are hard to mark. The green marking loop would come in close to the basket so it can be seen. Every hole wouldn't have to have a green and greens could be different sizes and shapes just like ball golf. There would even be some design strategy in how the greens are shaped based on how players approach each green.

Basically, make our proposed marked putting green be handled the same way OB areas, relief areas, 2-meter and mandos are marked - at the option of the course owner, course designer or TD. The paraphrased rule would be something like, "A green is an optional marked area encircling the target. If your lie is marked on a green, you must demonstrate balance upon releasing your throw before advancing toward the basket."

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Please pardon the digression but...

I'd be fine with eliminating the 10m rule completely. I honestly don't see why the definition of a legal throw, from a legal stance, should suddenly change when we reach the 10m circle.

As long as the player's supporting points are behind the lie when they release, a follow through should be fine. That would eliminate the need for a 10m circle from a competitive perspective. Allowing all players to however they want, from wherever they want, maintains a level playing field.

Let TDs figure out how they want to measure CTPs on their own. Same with UDisc C1 &C2 putting stats.

 

[Rastnav]

I'm not sure why the official rule isn't "the center point of the basket" (extended vertically to the playing surface). I understand that means that technically lots of current markings are off by half the width of the pole, but is that really an impediment? They are advisory and not official after all, correct?

As to whether a circle should exist, I think we people may not like the outcome if it were removed. You are going to have some people step putting nervy very short putts and the advantage in taking 20%, 33% or even 50% off the length is going to really ramp up the "was that actually legal or not" conversation. It's one thing when the advantage you gain is almost entirely in momentum. It's another when you look like you are trying to Michael Jordan foul-line dunk the disc in the basket. Think about how much ground Conrad could eat up inside the circle.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm not sure why the official rule isn't "the center point of the basket" (extended vertically to the playing surface). I understand that means that technically lots of current markings are off by half the width of the pole, but is that really an impediment? They are advisory and not official after all, correct?

As to whether a circle should exist, I think we people may not like the outcome if it were removed. You are going to have some people step putting nervy very short putts and the advantage in taking 20%, 33% or even 50% off the length is going to really ramp up the "was that actually legal or not" conversation. It's one thing when the advantage you gain is almost entirely in momentum. It's another when you look like you are trying to Michael Jordan foul-line dunk the disc in the basket. Think about how much ground Conrad could eat up inside the circle.

The other rule you change is that players have to remain behind their lie in their first contact after release, similar to the bowling foul line.

 

[Rastnav]

The other rule you change is that players have to remain behind their lie in their first contact after release, similar to the bowling foul line.

I think I'm not understanding the proposed rule change or something.

How's that going to work on full runups for up shots? You would make a normal follow through illegal?

That, or you are just reiterating the existing rule that you have to be in contact with the lie when you release, because that would comprise "first contact".