Thread: Rule question?
View Single Post
Old 09-11-2013, 03:33 PM
araytx araytx is offline
Double Eagle Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 11.2
Courses Played: 177
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,839
Niced 86 Times in 59 Posts

Originally Posted by John Rock View Post
I've witnessed a disc at rest in the basket get blown out and away by the wind. The wind blows A LOT here.
Excellent! And that disc was "blown out" not by momentum of the thrower (it had stopped moving) but by the wind ONLY.

Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
I actually think its too scientific a term to use in the rules - phrased like that at least. It might be moving due to being thrown - but the 550 _meter_ roller is not in any way rolling due to the momentum the thrower put in it.
Huh? How can you come to that conclusion? "It moving due to being thrown" IS what they meant by "momentum imparted by the thrower." It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
If you throw a disc up into the wind, any momentum you put on it is gone the moment it starts falling backwards. It is no longer moving due to the momentum that you put on it.
Wrong. part of the reason it is flying at all is becasue of the momentum I imparted. Once again, direction does not matter.

If your example is correct (and you believe that) then a disc golfer could be limited from "using the wind" to aid his shot or help shape a line in accordance with the rules. ON windy days, I've twice (at least) seen players throw their shot very softly upward with the bottom of the disc to the wind, actually backwards away from the basket, and "allow" the wind to blow it toward the target in order to approach the circle when there were too many obstacles preventing other routes. Both times I thought the thrower was ingenius for thinking about AND for executing the shot. I thought that was smart play. But by your example, as soon as the wind started blowing it in the opposite direction it "no longer had momentum from the throw," and therefore by the current rules was "at rest." Gimme a break. You really believe this rule makes spike shots and all "use the wind shots" no good??? Without that spin and yes, that momentum from the thrower, those shots don't get wind-blown that far. And I stand by my statement on the "550-ft roller". NO WAY that disc can do that without the original throw or original force from somewhere -- absolutely no way.

Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
If I throw you a tennisball and you throw it up in the air and hit it with a racket, is it still flying through the air due to the momentum I put on it?
No, it is flying through the air due to the mometum I put on it -- regardless of it going in the direction I hit it, it bouncing off walls, it coming back down due to gravity, it slowing down to a near stop and then rolling down a hill, etc. -- at least partially in every case.

Originally Posted by bombmk View Post
How about:
"A disc is at rest once it is no longer moving by its own momentum."

That should cover stopping on moving branches or water as well.

Not sure its bulletproof, so fire away.
Maybe -- as long as the intent isn't changed. I still believe that intent is clear. Sme just want to be allowed something by letter that they KNOW was never intended by the spirit. If you think we should KISS, then a better wording is what you said ("no longer moving from being thrown"). It might just create more arguments. From that postion, then I say leave it as is.
Reply With Quote