Disc on top of basket rule change?

[biscoe]

If you really want to bang your head against a wall, try defining when a disc is "inside" the tray.

No need. Anything supported solely by any part(s) of the basket should be good (yes, including DROT). Next dilemma...

 

[Steve West]

No need. Anything supported solely by any part(s) of the basket should be good (yes, including DROT). Next dilemma...

Oh, I thought it was the "outside" part that bothered you.

So, resting on leaves that blew into the tray shouldn't count?

 

[Ahildy13]

If you really want to bang your head against a wall, try defining when a disc is "inside" the tray.

A disc is "inside the tray" when it's center of mass is located within the outside dimensions of the tray.

I think that should cover it?

 

[krupicka]

A disc is "inside the tray" when it's center of mass is located within the outside dimensions of the tray.

I think that should cover it?

That should be fun figuring out with an Aerobie Epic.

 

[Steve West]

A disc is "inside the tray" when it's center of mass is located within the outside dimensions of the tray.

I think that should cover it?

Not bad. Is the center of mass of a disc actually inside the plastic, or is it somewhere under the top plate?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

A disc is "inside the tray" when it's center of mass is located within the outside dimensions of the tray.

I think that should cover it?

This definition is BNM approved.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

That should be fun figuring out with an Aerobie Epic.

Almost worth chasing down an Aerobie sponsorship just to find out.

 

[biscoe]

Oh, I thought it was the "outside" part that bothered you.

So, resting on leaves that blew into the tray shouldn't count?

Being supported by something "outside" is indeed what bothers me. Just seems simpler to determine what is supporting a disc as opposed to what constitutes "inside" or "outside." The same thing supporting those leaves is supporting the disc- the semantics to define that seem easier than those to define in or out at this point. I suppose this could lead to an odd case where a 5 foot long pointed stick is sticking out of a basket and the disc impales itself on it and would be holed out but I think those instances will be few enough to be disregarded (everywhere but on DGCR). Seems better than a disc leaning on a tray from outside being good. YMMV.

 

[Ahildy13]

Not bad. Is the center of mass of a disc actually inside the plastic, or is it somewhere under the top plate?

It's definitely in space slightly below the flight plate, depending the plastic distribution. I imagine for the vast majority of discs it would be within a few mm of the sprue

 

[rhatton1]

Being supported by something "outside" is indeed what bothers me. Just seems simpler to determine what is supporting a disc as opposed to what constitutes "inside" or "outside." The same thing supporting those leaves is supporting the disc- the semantics to define that seem easier than those to define in or out at this point. I suppose this could lead to an odd case where a 5 foot long pointed stick is sticking out of a basket and the disc impales itself on it and would be holed out but I think those instances will be few enough to be disregarded (everywhere but on DGCR). Seems better than a disc leaning on a tray from outside being good. YMMV.

This ^

Arguments can be made both ways but one feels right (the disc is inside the confines of the basket just not resting on the bottom because of an outside interference, stick, leaves, snow etc, - the majority of people asked would call that good)

One feels wrong (disc is resting on the outside of the basket, the majority of people would call that out, especially when a disc resting on top of the basket would count as out)

I realise it's very very difficult to word for all occurrences but genuinely, and I ask here for an honest answer from the RC members rather than protecting a decision made by the committee answer, does it feel right to you that a disc leaning/wedged on the outside of the basket counts as holed out? Is anyone truly happy with that situation?

I believe if you polled the members the vast majority would say no. Hell if I asked my 7 and 9 year old they would both say no although they would debate one sitting on top of the basket.

 

[araytx]

This ^

Arguments can be made both ways but one feels right (the disc is inside the confines of the basket just not resting on the bottom because of an outside interference, stick, leaves, snow etc, - the majority of people asked would call that good)

One feels wrong (disc is resting on the outside of the basket, the majority of people would call that out, especially when a disc resting on top of the basket would count as out)

I realise it's very very difficult to word for all occurrences but genuinely, and I ask here for an honest answer from the RC members rather than protecting a decision made by the committee answer, does it feel right to you that a disc leaning/wedged on the outside of the basket counts as holed out? Is anyone truly happy with that situation?

I believe if you polled the members the vast majority would say no. Hell if I asked my 7 and 9 year old they would both say no although they would debate one sitting on top of the basket.

I agree with your thoughts on "feels right" and "feels wrong". And that is where we in disc golf get bogged down constantly. There are many rules where I wish it were "I know it when I see it," but because we have this need to have things defined in words, it creates the confusion because not every situation can be done concisely. Therefore I applaud Krupicka for going to the side of clear definitions, making calls easier to be defined, whether or not they "feel" right. I've had many discussion with people on the "new" mando rule accordingly. Yes there are parts that don't "feel" right, but no doubt it is cleaner and easier to call.

 

[roblee]

If these are in I'd suggest to think about the intent of our founders (like a Constitutional question). Would Ed think these were in? My speculation is he wouldn't. These require something other than the target to make it good. IMO the original intent should have precedent over the convenience of writing a definition.

 

[roblee]

I tried to add a photo but it failed. I must learn how. Scenarios are: wedged between the bottom of the basket and the mounting base, resting on rim but also supported by a branch, leaning against the outside of the basket on a ground level target.

 

[roblee]

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.ne...IdjKRT0TakVjaSptc4OZkvrUnMEY-zQwg&oe=6241D1FB

 

[txmxer]

Post #26 by Krupicka clarifies that a disc can hole out if it's on the outside of the tray and is supported in some way by the tray. Thus, a disc wedged between basket and tree pictured in post #27 would be good and the roller or any disc leaning on the tray at or near ground level in post #17 & 32 would also be good.

In the shot pictured in Richard's post above, the disc is supported by the snow and barely touching the tray wire such that the tray isn't providing support. So, this disc has not holed out because carefully (re)moving the tray would not cause the disc to change position. Whereas the wedgies and leaners discussed above would fall if the tray were removed.

Brings up an interesting possibility that might have occurred at Waco where the gap between the trash drums and trays was narrow enough such that a softer disc entering the gap didn't end up flat on the drum but was wedged in a way where a tray wire held it in position. Per the new rule, if moving the tray would cause that disc to move, it would qualify as support and the disc would have holed out. That would have produced quite the social media discussion, whether that situation was called correctly or not.

Seems that did happen at Waco—B Williams iirc? If they tray were gone the disc would not remain, but it was levered as opposed to supported. So I guess you have to take gravity out as well.

 

[krupicka]

If these are in I'd suggest to think about the intent of our founders (like a Constitutional question). Would Ed think these were in? My speculation is he wouldn't. These require something other than the target to make it good. IMO the original intent should have precedent over the convenience of writing a definition.

The origins of the game were to hit a tree, and then to hit a tree between two spots marked on the tree. Object targets (still in use in places) require you to simply make contact. The purpose of the introduction of basket targets was to help eliminate the guess work if you contacted the target when it could not be seen by catching the disc.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Guess I shoulda jumped on DG when object courses were all we had, because hitting trees is what I do best.


BNM 5x Tree Hitting Champeen signature line coming soon

 

[biscoe]

Horseshoes and hand grenades... and disc golf.

I have a hard time believing that the "disc resting on the basket and some other object" counting as good was the actual intent when the rule was written.

 

[Steve West]

Horseshoes and hand grenades... and disc golf.

I have a hard time believing that the "disc resting on the basket and some other object" counting as good was the actual intent when the rule was written.

"Intent" is not how to describe it. "Acceptable consequence" comes closer. But, yeah, the proper interpretation is that it counts as good.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

DG rule-smithing is a lot like getting arrested:
"Anything you say can and will be used against you."