And the PDGA strikes again!

[Harrishabitat]

I am not the biggest fan of the PDGA...A lot of reasons some professional some personal, I don't want to get into the details, it really doesn't pertain to this.

I got in the middle of a conversation with a local club about something that happened at a round recently. It was on a short, blind hole. When they arrived at the basket one of their drives (with a putter) was wedged in the side of the basket. They contacted the PDGA rules guru to ask about this and then also asked members of the group. Of course I replied that it is not holed out because the rules state it must be supported by the bottom of the basket (or chains or pole) which is how the rule is worded as well as the rules Q&A which shows this as a shot that is not holed out. So then they got this response from the official PDGA rules guru...

"Q&A #34 is written using a disc that ends up in the bottom of the tray as an example, but it can be extended to apply to any position a disc ends up in. I'd rule the ace good given the rule and the Q&A's as they are currently written. Q&A #34 tells us that since no one saw the disc approach the target, we can't assume how it got to its resting position. It is possible (though unlikely) that the disc you describe entered the target correctly between the top of the tray and the bottom of the chain support. The next question is whether a disc wedged in the side of the tray is good. The rule includes "inside wall" as something that can support the disc, and an argument can be made that a disc wedged in the side is at least somewhat supported by the inside wall. The assumption in Q&A #41 is that the wedged disc in the picture entered from outside the target."

I have to say to get that reply from the PDGA rules official is confusing at best. Is there something here that I am missing or just another example of the PDGA that can't even agree with itself?

 

[jenb]

This is nothing new. See http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011

The orange wedgie is now NOT IN if the group observed it wedge from the outside. If the group did not see it or watched it clear the top basket wire then wedge on the way out, it is IN.

Se also the rules Q&A number 34.

QA 34: Putts not Entering the Target Properly

Q:
Everyone in my group watched my soft putter push thru the side of the basket and land completely inside of it, not wedged at all. They said the putt was no good. Are they right?

A:
Starting with the 2011 rules, throws that are observed by the group or an official to enter the target by wedging through the tray or by dropping through the top of the chain support will not be considered good, even if they come to rest in the basket or chains. If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the benefit of the doubt is given to the player. Applicable Rules: 802.05 Holing Out.

 

[DavidInIowa]

I have to say to get that reply from the PDGA rules official is confusing at best. Is there something here that I am missing or just another example of the PDGA that can't even agree with itself?

The important part is where it says "I'd rule the ace good"

 

[Harrishabitat]

The important part is where it says "I'd rule the ace good"

But the problem is that is NOT how the rule is worded. It says it must be supported by the bottom AND the side, not "OR" the side. Plus I have a real problem with an "official" rule that says "give the benefit of the doubt to the player. Real rules should be black and white not up to discussion. This isn't figure skating!

 

[Harrishabitat]

This is nothing new. See http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011

Se also the rules Q&A number 34.

And this is my problem with rules like this. In a competitive situation someone in your group throws their shot and you see it wedge in from the outside, but the rest of the group says (we didn't see it) so it's good...because they are either trying to be nice or they are friends with the person that threw the shot...and please don't try to tell me that in tournament situations, things like this don't happen.

Plus the whole argument that the disc could go over the top of the lip, hit something and then wedge on it's way back out? I don't even see how this is physically possible.

 

[Kodachrome]

at the right angle and speed of descent it certainly could, but very unlikely. especially not without hearing chains.

i hear where you're coming from, but that's how it plays for now.

 

[DG_Before_Breakfast]

Seems clear to me. It isn't up for discussion. No one saw it, because it is a blind hole, therefore you give the benefit of doubt to the player, even when it is wedged into the side of the basket.

If only there was a tree blocking the Pin when I took the shot that is now my avatar on this forum, then my buddy couldn't prove it never made it inside the basket. Unfortunately, that was not the case, so I didn't get my second Ace, and lost the disc later that day cuz it was so tacoed it would no longer fly correctly

 

[Harrishabitat]

Seems clear to me. It isn't up for discussion. No one saw it, because it is a blind hole, therefore you give the benefit of doubt to the player, even when it is wedged into the side of the basket.

If only there was a tree blocking the Pin when I took the shot that is now my avatar on this forum, then my buddy couldn't prove it never made it inside the basket. Unfortunately, that was not the case, so I didn't get my second Ace, and lost the disc later that day cuz it was so tacoed it would no longer fly correctly

I guess my biggest issue is with a official rule that states "Benefit of the doubt", that is not how a rule should be written and leaves to many opportunity for personal judgement to creep in

 

[Jay Dub]

Seems clear to me. It isn't up for discussion. No one saw it, because it is a blind hole, therefore you give the benefit of doubt to the player, even when it is wedged into the side of the basket.

If only there was a tree blocking the Pin when I took the shot that is now my avatar on this forum, then my buddy couldn't prove it never made it inside the basket. Unfortunately, that was not the case, so I didn't get my second Ace, and lost the disc later that day cuz it was so tacoed it would no longer fly correctly

I say you have 1-1/2 aces. It's at least worth that much! :clap:

 

[jenb]

But the problem is that is NOT how the rule is worded. It says it must be supported by the bottom AND the side, not "OR" the side. Plus I have a real problem with an "official" rule that says "give the benefit of the doubt to the player. Real rules should be black and white not up to discussion. This isn't figure skating!

I respectfully disagree about the wording of the rule. It just says "supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder," and puts "bottom and inside wall" in parentheses to define what the inner cylinder includes. Your interpretation to require that the disc touch both the bottom and the inside wall would lead to the disc not being holed out even if it is on the inner bottom of the tray, but not touching the inner wall. With all due respect, I think that is an unreasonable construction of the rule.

802.05 Holing Out

Basket Targets: In order to hole out, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally supported by the pole. A disc that enters the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

 

[Basshunter]

I guess my biggest issue is with a official rule that states "Benefit of the doubt", that is not how a rule should be written and leaves to many opportunity for personal judgement to creep in

And in baseball, a "tie" goes to the runner, "interference" doesn't have to be intentional, in basketball "continuation" negates traveling...

Point being, in all sports, there is a subjective aspect to some rules and professional players/coaches have to live by them. In the example you gave, the official did exactly what the rule states.

 

[CaptainAnhyzer]

Some older baskets have wider gaps between the basket "spokes". I've had my 4X JK Aviar(pretty gummy) go in over the top and wedgie out the other side.

 

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

This is notva big deal. Really. How often does this happen on a blind shot

 

[blkwizardsonny]

And this is my problem with rules like this. In a competitive situation someone in your group throws their shot and you see it wedge in from the outside, but the rest of the group says (we didn't see it) so it's good...because they are either trying to be nice or they are friends with the person that threw the shot...and please don't try to tell me that in tournament situations, things like this don't happen.

Plus the whole argument that the disc could go over the top of the lip, hit something and then wedge on it's way back out? I don't even see how this is physically possible.

I have had a 40 foot knee putt hit pole kick to a 1/3rd wedge from inside ,so i could see it happening but highly unlikely

 

[Harrishabitat]

This is notva big deal. Really. How often does this happen on a blind shot

I wasn't trying to make a big deal about it...I wasn't calling for congressional hearings or anything. Just this topic came up today and I was stunned by the reply from the PDGA...which lead me to my usual frustration with the state of the ruling body of the sport we all love so much

 

[giles]

If it makes you feel better, most new basket (I've played on mach 3 & 5 like this) have a smaller gap on the "tray" so this can't even happen.

Always give the player the benifit of the doubt in all situations.

 

[ScottyLove]

And in baseball, a "tie" goes to the runner, "interference" doesn't have to be intentional, in basketball "continuation" negates traveling...

Point being, in all sports, there is a subjective aspect to some rules and professional players/coaches have to live by them. In the example you gave, the official did exactly what the rule states.

"... tie goes to the runner..." is a myth. There is no such rule in baseball.

That said, the rule here is very clear and this whole thread is dumb. There isn't really any other course of action on a blind shot.

 

[Basshunter]

"... tie goes to the runner..." is a myth. There is no such rule

My point exactly. It is a necessary interpretation of the rule which gives the official SUBJECTIVE, but accepted, grounds to make the call. In the case of the OP's scenario, the official sides with the "didn't see it, it is arguably in the basket, bene goes to the player" tradition. Some calls in sports aren't black and white. Which means consistent interpretation of the regulation among officials is the fairest scenario for the players.

 

[Harrishabitat]

"... tie goes to the runner..." is a myth. There is no such rule in baseball.

That said, the rule here is very clear and this whole thread is dumb. There isn't really any other course of action on a blind shot.

You are right this whole thread was dumb...How f-ing stupid I was to go on to a public web board to share a story and get some feedback and actually engage in a conversation. I will absolutely make sure to run any topic I might post on here with you to make sure it's acceptable to these hallowed grounds

 

[Harrishabitat]

"... tie goes to the runner..." is a myth. There is no such rule in baseball.

That said, the rule here is very clear and this whole thread is dumb. There isn't really any other course of action on a blind shot.

And just to make a observation...it was so dumb that you took time out of your life to comment on it :clap: