Disc on top of basket rule change?

[BillFleming]

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.

And this is part of the reason there is a rule book today.

Before, it was a friendly little game where all you had to do was hit trees (telephone poles, whatever) with your Frisbee. Then it became more organized, but still mainly a fun game. Think of a pickup, neighborhood basketball game or sandlot baseball game. There are rules, but they aren't always enforced or some are made-up and others ignored based on the people playing and the court/field. Giving another player a 'gimme' putt wasn't a big deal.

Then it got bigger and more money became involved. Now players are arguing everything that could give them an advantage towards winning. Now it's no longer a pickup game, it's NBA, MLB, etc. Huge money is on the line. As we see from this and other threads in this section....it's easy to argue the intent or interpretation of some rules. Now giving a player a "gimme" putt is pretty much out of the question....heck, they could miss that 5 footer and have to take another stroke. So there's a rule saying what determines if the hole is finished and the putt is good.

I'm just thankful that disc golf's rule book has stayed simple....check out ball golf's rule book...you almost need a lawyer to understand that thing.

 

[roblee]

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.

I'll accept the rule when everything is finalized but I'd like to keep this discussion going. My suggestion wasn't to go back to the Wood Age but rather the 20th Century when the first "official" rules were written.

The gist of the Hole Out rule over time was that the disc must be "IN" the target. Now it can be OUTside the target & even enabled by items other than the target. This is a "feels wrong" for me and not logical, traditional, or sensical.

In the Steady Ed 1982 Rule Sheet, Completion of the Hole was: "A disc that comes to rest in the Disc Pole Hole, basket constitutes completion of that hole.

PDGA 1982-83. Didn't see any mention of completing the hole.

PDGA 1986: Definitions. Holed-Out: "...a disc is in a basket and the player may proceed to play the next hole."

PDGA 1990 802.06. Targets. The disc must be supported by the chains or the basket in order to finish the hole. This could be used to justify the new rule.

PDGA 1997 803.12 Hole Out. :...supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections." Includes wedgies & hangers but not DROTs.

PDGA 2002 803.12B Holing Out. "...supported by the chains or within one of the entrapment sections." Including wedgies and basket hangers but not DROTs & upper support hangers.

PDGA 2006 Holing Out 803.13B. "...supported by the chains and/or inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray." Outside-In wedgies don't count.

PDGA 2011. 803.13B. Same except going through the top of chain support added as no good.

PDGA 2013 802.05. Same, just said differently.

PDGA 2018. 807B. Must enter the target above rim & under chain support & come to rest supported by the target.

PDGA 2022. 807B. ...supported by the tray or the chains below the chain support.

 

[rhatton1]

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.

I do agree and I think we are all on pretty much the same page.

However this rule change has led to something that is beyond "feeling" wrong it's created a situation that is clearly wrong but counts as right for the sake of clarity. I ask again is anyone actually happy with some of these scenarios shown in the previous pages counting as good?

I don't know the perfect wording but I am sure it is not the latest iteration of the rules and I hope this will be considered further in the future.

IMO a good test of a rule would be to take it outside the sport and ask non playing groups what makes logical sense to them in a given situation.

I would be pretty confident that the vast majority of respondents would say a disc leaning against the outside of a basket or wedged under one would not/should not count if shown a picture and even if they had the exact wording of the rule in front of them.

The rule should be written in a way that definitely doesn't allow these discs fully outside the basket to count even if it creates some uncertainty about other potential scenarios (wedgies for example)

There has been some great clarity in other areas but on holing out, which is one of the most important, it's got murkier than ever.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I'm waiting to see a disc wedged between the tray and the drums or stands they are placing under some of the baskets in DGPT events and how they call it.

 

[rhatton1]

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?

I like this more than the current!

It would need a definition over what constitutes the outside dimensions of the basket (with most baskets the basket is wider at the rim than at the top of the chains, does the line go straight up from the basket rim and then in at a right angle to the outer most part of the catching assembly or up at a diagonal?)

Unless for a very strange tree/bush growing through basket and holding the disc in the air without touching any metal incident or a very unfortunate inside out Wedgie occurring it would fairly cover just about any scenario possible. Some outside in Wedges might get lucky but they have to be few and far between and very unlikely on top spec baskets.

As for Epic and center of mass issues, neither would be harder to judge than whether a disc is in or out of OB when right on the edge and at the end of the day it would fall on a group decision made within the rules.

 

[rhatton1]

I'm waiting to see a disc wedged between the tray and the drums or stands they are placing under some of the baskets in DGPT events and how they call it.

Some people just want to see the world burn Chuck ;D

 

[seedlings]

Is it possible that the PDGA expects baskets to be at least one disc height above ground AND one disc length away from any obstacle/tree?

 

[araytx]

I do agree and I think we are all on pretty much the same page.

However this rule change has led to something that is beyond "feeling" wrong it's created a situation that is clearly wrong but counts as right for the sake of clarity. I ask again is anyone actually happy with some of these scenarios shown in the previous pages counting as good?

I don't know the perfect wording but I am sure it is not the latest iteration of the rules and I hope this will be considered further in the future.

IMO a good test of a rule would be to take it outside the sport and ask non playing groups what makes logical sense to them in a given situation.

I would be pretty confident that the vast majority of respondents would say a disc leaning against the outside of a basket or wedged under one would not/should not count if shown a picture and even if they had the exact wording of the rule in front of them.

The rule should be written in a way that definitely doesn't allow these discs fully outside the basket to count even if it creates some uncertainty about other potential scenarios (wedgies for example)

There has been some great clarity in other areas but on holing out, which is one of the most important, it's got murkier than ever.

Rhatton, I do think that you & I are on the same page on some of these things. I will also say, that some of the issues are being caused/created not by the rules committee, but by a "creative" or "out-of-the-box" or "unusual" (the words I'd personally use are crazy or outlandish) course designer/TD. The leaner isn't a factor if the basket isn't in a ground hole (literally) or in some sort of box, tree, or other object.

We'll see if you & I agree on this or not: if it were up to me there'd be a standard basket height and clearance for competitive play. Those "creative" things are fine for beginner or recreational, putt-putt types of courses but not competitive imho. And the reason is that for an event with 1 or 2 of these holes, you're creating ratings where those holes aren't being played like the rest. Personally I wish the PDGA (& Chuck or whomever) would count those events as X-tiers (that have such basket placements) to eliminate the hassle. I just don't like 'em. And yes they don't feel like they are rightly "in" the basket to hole out (to reinforce your point), but that's because of the design not the rule.

But on your other point (and this may need to be a new thread), I absolutely agree about a good test being asking a non-playing person, who understands athletics or sports but not a disc golfer, what they think. You're right. They'd likely say those "hole-in-the-ground-basket-landers" and "strange-wedgers" are no good. I've done exactly that a few times — watched a disc golf event with a friend who's plays sports other than disc golf. You know what those people do ask me, though? This: "How is it that the disc can go perfectly into the goal (that's what they say) and still bounce back out and be no good? That could never happened in football or basketball." I've gotten that more than once. Yet for some reason in disc golf we are reluctant to change the center pole of the basket to a thinner metal wrapped in some cushioning material like soft rubber. I've pitched it and numerous times I've heard, "putt softer," or "them's the breaks," or just simply, "yeah you may be right, it not interested"

 

[BillFleming]

Rhatton, I do think that you & I are on the same page on some of these things. I will also say, that some of the issues are being caused/created not by the rules committee, but by a "creative" or "out-of-the-box" or "unusual" (the words I'd personally use are crazy or outlandish) course designer/TD. The leaner isn't a factor if the basket isn't in a ground hole (literally) or in some sort of box, tree, or other object.

<<some stuff left out>>

About the bolded part....the thing about rules is that the person/people who make them try to think of all possibilities and word the rules appropriately. Then someone comes along and does something that the rules people didn't think of. "Why would someone do that? " "Because they wanted to".

Look at the "balled up disc" issue. In the Official Rules, there isn't anything clear that says it can't be done. Probably because the rules people didn't think anyone would try it. BUT, the rules (813.01.A) do say you have to abide by the PDGA Technical Standards; which describes what a disc is.

So, eventually a question comes up, it gets clarified and usually ends up in the QandA part of the rules (I think the "balled up disc" question should end up there to make it clear what the rule is).

It's the toughest part about creating and wording rules....there is always someone who will try something not thought of or has an experience that wasn't thought of before. Then a rules person has to make a decision and the rules eventually get updated/reworded.

One example that never came into play, but easily could have....at the Memorial, hole 1 had a triple mando, just past the left side of the mando is a tree. It is possible to enter the triple mando correctly, hit the tree, and land close to the mando line. Then your stance could cause your disc to cross the mando line during your throw. This possibility was "missed/overlooked" during the 2022 update and a new update/clarification to the rule had to be made.

 

[krupicka]

About the bolded part....the thing about rules is that the person/people who make them try to think of all possibilities and word the rules appropriately. Then someone comes along and does something that the rules people didn't think of. "Why would someone do that? " "Because they wanted to".

This is why I have been keeping a collection of images of interesting basket installations. Just when you've seen it all...

 

[rhatton1]

https://imgur.com/a/vlJm3Ay (Can't seem to embed properly so here's the direct link)

Another one for your images folder Krupicka. From the Finnish facebook page, can't say I've seen this before, but current rules would make it good?

 

[krupicka]

https://imgur.com/a/vlJm3Ay (Can't seem to embed properly so here's the direct link)

Another one for your images folder Krupicka. From the Finnish facebook page, can't say I've seen this before, but current rules would make it good?

The way the rules are written it would be good (the S hooks are considered part of the chains), but I'm pretty sure this picture only exists because someone thought it would be funny to see if they could attach their disc to the chain and hang it there. Glad they took the time to make sure the stamp was rotated properly.

I've added it to my collection. Thanks.

 

[txmxer]

I agree that competitions should have at least some language about baskets to insure that the oddball scenarios are eliminated.

Re: wrapping the pole with foam. So, I did this to one of my cheap practice baskets to see what effect it would have. The foam is ~3/8" yoga mat, single wrap with duct tape wrapped top to bottom to secure it. I think it's causing more bounce outs than just the metal pole.

Could be a few different reasons. I think the mat adds a little more springiness. Also, although not very thick, the distance from edge to center pole is slightly less. The bounce out doesn't have as far to travel.

I mostly putt SSS wizards. At some point I'll try some stiffer putters and see if there is a meaningful difference.

 

[BillFleming]

I agree that competitions should have at least some language about baskets to insure that the oddball scenarios are eliminated.

Re: wrapping the pole with foam. So, I did this to one of my cheap practice baskets to see what effect it would have. The foam is ~3/8" yoga mat, single wrap with duct tape wrapped top to bottom to secure it. I think it's causing more bounce outs than just the metal pole.

Could be a few different reasons. I think the mat adds a little more springiness. Also, although not very thick, the distance from edge to center pole is slightly less. The bounce out doesn't have as far to travel.

I mostly putt SSS wizards. At some point I'll try some stiffer putters and see if there is a meaningful difference.

Since you are talking about bounce outs, it seems like the foam you are adding is on the pole inside the chains area....but wouldn't modifying a basket by wrapping that part pole with foam mean that form of the basket isn't approved? It seems like the rules allow alterations below the tray and above the chain support (top of the basket)....but not within those areas.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Since you are talking about bounce outs, it seems like the foam you are adding is on the pole inside the chains area....but wouldn't modifying a basket by wrapping that part pole with foam mean that form of the basket isn't approved? It seems like the rules allow alterations below the tray and above the chain support (top of the basket)....but not within those areas.

Alterations within the chain assembly are okay. This is from Section (H) in the PDGA Target Tech Specs: "Any owner-created additions/modifications must be located completely within the approved deflection assembly with no elements projecting beyond its outer boundaries. Any elements added must be spaced uniformly around the radius of the target and the target must at least meet the specifications for a target at the level it was approved. If this modified target is installed or used on a course, all targets of this same model must be modified this same way to maintain target zone uniformity."

 

[txmxer]

Since you are talking about bounce outs, it seems like the foam you are adding is on the pole inside the chains area....but wouldn't modifying a basket by wrapping that part pole with foam mean that form of the basket isn't approved? It seems like the rules allow alterations below the tray and above the chain support (top of the basket)....but not within those areas.

It's just for my backyard/practice baskets. Just trying out different things plus even though I'm out in the country, the chains clanking late at night could be a nuisance because there's not really anything to stop the sound from carrying.

I also adjusted the chains on one of the baskets to be more like a bullseye. To get it to catch, you need to hit dead center on the pole, generally with a soft touch.

The pipe foam others have used might do a better job of absorbing the hit rather than causing more bounce outs.

Of course each basket is different as well. Course baskets have the larger diameter poles and heavier chains.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Just remove the chains completely for reduced noise practice. Count putts that hit the pole as IN even if they don't stay in the basket. Other than bounce backs, shots that hit the bare pole would likely be caught.

 

[txmxer]

Just remove the chains completely for reduced noise practice. Count putts that hit the pole as IN even if they don't stay in the basket. Other than bounce backs, shots that hit the bare pole would likely be caught.

I tried that as well. I didn't like it. Telling yourself a pole hit counts as in is not the same as seeing it in the basket. Granted it's basically a tone pole at that point and hitting the pole would be a good throw. What wasn't fun is watching anything that doesn't actually touch the skinny little pole go sailing past.

 

[BillFleming]

Alterations within the chain assembly are okay. This is from Section (H) in the PDGA Target Tech Specs: "Any owner-created additions/modifications must be located completely within the approved deflection assembly with no elements projecting beyond its outer boundaries. Any elements added must be spaced uniformly around the radius of the target and the target must at least meet the specifications for a target at the level it was approved. If this modified target is installed or used on a course, all targets of this same model must be modified this same way to maintain target zone uniformity."

I saw this and thought it applied:
G: Re-Testing

(a) Configuration Changes - If there are certain changes to a target model that had been
previously approved, the newly configured target may have to be re-tested. This includes a
permanent or temporary upgrade kit designed to enhance performance of a currently
approved model

And the foam addition would seem to be a "permanent or temporary upgrade kit designed to enhance performance...."

 

[Cgkdisc]

I saw this and thought it applied: G: Re-Testing
And the foam addition would seem to be a "permanent or temporary upgrade kit designed to enhance performance...."

Section G has to do with a manufacturer making changes to an approved model. Section H is for consumers making changes to approved baskets such that they retain their level of approved status.