Is it in?

@ru4por redirected me to this thread from another thread. I'm pretty sure he stated it was in or he can correct me. At the time I ruled myself out based on the on top of the basket rule, then my playing partner ruled in, it didn't make since to me to be in. So far were the only two on DGCR that would rule it out. I've shown the photos to others "in or out", it's been split in half. All part of the fun.
With the change in rules, discs hanging on the nubs definitely count as IN.
I think the change in rules to count discs that are "supported" by the basket was a mistake.
In my opinion, a disc should have to travel over the top of the tray count as IN.
Discs entering through the cage should not count.
It's just common sense to me...a disc hanging on the nubs outside the basket is not "in" the basket.
 
The title of this thread is "Is it in?"

But I don't believe the PDGA rules characterize it as "in". Or "caught" or "supported", for that matter. They describe when a hole is completed. (Though I may be mistaken, but too lazy to look).

I think of the target's job to catch a disc, to confirm a good shot. So I'm in the "caught" camp. It tends to be more straightforward and requiring less judgment calls, though it's still imperfect, particularly for oddly-installed baskets.

But the exceptions, in either case, are a tiny percentage of made shots, so it's not a big deal either way. I can live with the very rare freakish event of a disc hanging from the nubs, or falling through the top, or whatever.
 
I've been arguing to count DROTS for about 30 years. For simplicity, and any injustice would be extremely rare.
You can argue for another 30 years, and you'd still be wrong. :p

The "for simplicty" and "extremely rare injustice" arguments could be made for a number of sports, including ice hockey, field hockey, team handball, soccer, and water polo, but none of those sports--nor any other that I'm aware of--count a ball or puck that comes to rest ON TOP OF the goal rather than IN the goal. (None of them allow a ball/puck that enter the goal through the side of the goal (nor one that merely "breaks the plane") to count, either, but that's a different argument.)
 
Yeah, but many of those sports count a shot that goes into the goal and comes back out, which we don't.

Perhaps we shouldn't call our targets "goals". Oh, we don't.

And, sure, even if I was named Rules Czar and decreed DROTS to be good, I'd probably be dethroned for it. Even when the PDGA lightened up on the rest of the rule, they excluded DROTS. My campaign for them has clearly gone nowhere.
 
I'm not 100% against the change, (maybe 85%).
I do however really dislike the idea that a disc that is leaning against the tray and is propped up by a branch, snow or whatever should count. The basket did not catch that disc and it isn't in.
 
If I had a say in the matter the PDGA would go back to this 2013 wording:
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.
It is so much better than:
In order to complete a hole with a basket target, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the tray or the chains below the chain support.
 
Yeah, but many of those sports count a shot that goes into the goal and comes back out, which we don't.

Perhaps we shouldn't call our targets "goals". Oh, we don't.

And, sure, even if I was named Rules Czar and decreed DROTS to be good, I'd probably be dethroned for it. Even when the PDGA lightened up on the rest of the rule, they excluded DROTS. My campaign for them has clearly gone nowhere.
I have been a supporter as long as I can remember. Of course, I also think all baskets should have dome tops ala Earlewood.
 
That, too.

It wouldn't hurt to have wedgie-proof, or at least more wedgie-resistant, and nubless baskets in our standards, either.

But as I often say, rules have the deal with the world they find, and as long as we have baskets that allow such things (and even drop-throughs), and are sometimes installed in non-standard ways, the rules will have to account for rare and unusual results.
 
Imagine the NBA (and every level down to peewee basketball) considering these a made basket and counting for points. Yet here we are in disc golf thinking and writing rules with the thought process, "totally makes sense to call these hole completed". Based on the OP's original question, do any of these look "in"?

1728304638024.png

1728304658841.png

1728304686962.png
 
Basketball's the opposite of disc golf. It doesn't count only shots that stay in the basket, but ones that pass through. We count discs that stay in the chains, but not those that pass through and hit the ground.
 
Basketball's the opposite of disc golf. It doesn't count only shots that stay in the basket, but ones that pass through. We count discs that stay in the chains, but not those that pass through and hit the ground.
It started as counting the ones which stayed in the peach basket.
 
Basketball's the opposite of disc golf. It doesn't count only shots that stay in the basket, but ones that pass through. We count discs that stay in the chains, but not those that pass through and hit the ground.
Yes and no. There are target courses (tone poles) etc where the disc doesn't have to be caught by anything that still exist and can have PDGA sanctioned events held on courses with tone poles. But I get what you were saying and agree.

I wasn't being literal with my basketball photos more figurative of how funny the rules have gotten on what constitutes a made putt. I was using it as a common sense should work here in disc golf but we somehow managed to politic it into craziness instead. But even you said "we count discs that stay in the chains" but we don't even do that entirely. We count discs that never hit chains, never fully entire the basket, get wedged in the cage, hang on nubs, etc (but don't count discs resting on top of the basket?) Even basketball doesn't count a ball that passes through the net from the bottom. Technically basketball started with peach baskets too, I'm sure the hole in the bottom was added for ease of ball retrieval rather quickly. But I wonder if the ball had to stay in the peach basket originally to count? lol
 
Historical fact: The target was invented to "confirm" the disc hit the target especially on blind throws. Thus, the disc being suspended by the target in any manner should be considered holing out. The disc hitting the target should also count when the group sees it when you consider DG was founded as a target sport and not golf.

If Ed was truly trying to emulate golf, he wouldn't have been against discs entering the basket thru the top of the chain support (per Jim Palmeri). In fact, he designed the target so discs had to enter below the top and above the tray rim just like a target. And yet doing so was not considered holing out unless it stuck. So, was the target supposed to work like a target, golf hole equivalent or both?

Note that for some reason, just hitting chains does not count even though that's the origin for completing a hole. It's still the rule for sanctioned C-tier object targets where the TD can specify how players complete the hole. So, we have a conflicted origin for what the target is supposed to do and how to score it that continues today. The RC flip-flops on holing out based on whether it tilts toward the target perspective or golf perspective. Why not a hybrid perspective?

Just hitting the target, which most would agree is more skillful than missing it, is a risky proposition even though that's what you're supposed to do with more risk of cut-thrus, bounce backs, roll-aways and even penalties.

Ace races and playing 51 have always recognized hitting metal as scoring along with doing so in some putting leagues. So, it's been accepted that making target contact is skillful and should be rewarded, not randomly penalized. At minimum, just hitting the target, tray and higher, could be considered as skillfully completing the hole but add one more stroke, i.e., "Done plus 1". Just hitting the target would score 2 (recognizing the target origin of our sport), landing suspended by the target would score 1 (recognizing the golf nature of the game). Simple for players to understand and defines a hybrid target/golf game where success can be achieved with skillful execution and man-made randomness and penalties are minimized. The natural flukiness will still be there.
 
The further you get into other sport comparisons, the more the analogies break down. Even when the other sport is golf.

It's up to disc golf to decide how to complete a hole -- when inside a goal (with the rare uncertainties of things like wedgies) or caught by the target (with the rare uncertainties caused by unorthodox installations) or just contact with the target.
 
Historical fact: The target was invented to "confirm" the disc hit the target especially on blind throws. Thus, the disc being suspended by the target in any manner should be considered holing out. The disc hitting the target should also count when the group sees it when you consider DG was founded as a target sport and not golf.
If you just slip in a little bit of non-truth you can make a case for any idea.

The target was the pole. Specifically, the pole from a certain point up. Chains and trays are things that are near the target to catch discs that did, or would have, hit the target. Chains, tray, and the top were never the target. It was never intended that hitting them should count.

About 7 or 8 throws from long putt or throw-in range will hit metal for every throw that would have hit the pole (and therefore get suspended and count as a made putt).

Putting does not need to become many times easier.
 
If you just slip in a little bit of non-truth you can make a case for any idea.

The target was the pole. Specifically, the pole from a certain point up. Chains and trays are things that are near the target to catch discs that did, or would have, hit the target. Chains, tray, and the top were never the target. It was never intended that hitting them should count.

About 7 or 8 throws from long putt or throw-in range will hit metal for every throw that would have hit the pole (and therefore get suspended and count as a made putt).

Putting does not need to become many times easier.
The original pole target at Oak Grove was the complete pole when first installed as confirmed by those who played it. That's because skip shots were considered a skillful way to throw the Frisbee. In Minnesota, there were complete unmarked-target-area objects used for holing out in the Kenwood Classic events.

But actually, history doesn't matter. The sport, especially one that borrows from other sports, can define scoring for each related or derivative game within its universe (doubles, match play, mulligans) in a way that makes sense and ideally rewards skillful play. As sports learn more and conditions change, they can revise scoring just like basketball, football and other sports have done for a hundred years.

As long as every player knows what the scoring rules are for a competition game, it can work. Game revisions should determine the new rules, not the current rules restrain evolving to a more skillful game. Putting won't be any easier, just less randomly punitive.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top