Disc resting on top of basket. Why doesn't this count.

[nohr]

One thing that has annoyed me since I joined the PDGA is that if a disc lands on top of the basket it doesn't count.

Last year I saw this only happen once. Seems like a pretty rare event and actually pretty hard to do. In fact I think I have witnessed more aces than someone landing it on top of the basket.

Has anyone ever heard of a member or a group of members trying to change a PDGA rule? I am not sure if this should be in the Rules section or General Discussion. Sorry if it is in the wrong place.

[Chuck Kennedy]

If the rule was changed, it's only because it would reduce controversy, not because it's a good throw. There's no question a disc on top came into the target too high. There are several discussions on this and other discussion boards regarding why these (DROT) do not count and wedgies do count. As far as changing the rule, this is the year to try and change it since the Rules Committee is supposed to be looking at the next rulebook overhaul for 2011.

[nohr]

Do you happen to know how to contact the Rules Committee?

[Chuck Kennedy]

CONTACT submenu is right under the PDGA HQ menu on the PDGA Home page.

[JHern]

This is a slippery slope...

For example, if they allowed landing on top to count, then basket designers could begin to think about ways to design the top of the basket so that it catches discs more easily. And after that, where does it end?

Its best to say that the basket is the basket. Period. This keeps things simple.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I think disallowing wedgies to count would be better for overall consistency than allowing DROTs to count. Most wedgies are low shot "misses" that stick from the outside. For the few wedgies that occur from inside, it wouldn't be that big of a penalty to not count them, at least no worse than cut-thrus which happen much more often.

[chiggins]

then basket designers could begin to think about ways to design the top of the basket so that it catches discs more easily.

Perhaps the answer lies the other way, the tops of baskets should be highly angled so things can't set down on them. A "slippery slope", so to speak. Seems to me that wedgies would be pretty easy to design around too, more upright pieces on the sides to make the space too small?

But then of course there'd have to be rules for legacy designs since there's a few tens of thousands of these things already in the ground...

[Jeronimo]

This all goes back to the beginnings of disc golf and one of the reasons they will not change this rule is due to our sports patron saint, "Steady" Ed Headrick. He is really responsible for much of the surge of all disc sports due to his time with wham-o. When he first saw disc golf being played back in a time when it was a part of what I'll call "frisbee expositions", sort of an olympics of various disc based games were played, he witnessed people putting at a hole which was pretty much literally a hole on the ground you wanted your disc to land in. Because of the nature of this "hole" he saw people throwing their discs in almost a lawn dart manner in order to sink the putt. This disgusted him, it was not how a flying disc was meant to be thrown. Thus he went into his garage and built the prototype "hole", the steel pole with chains and baskets, so that when playing disc golf you would always use a disc like a disc. The intention was always to fly the disc into the chains and drop in the basket. As was said earlier, allowing putts that would potentially aim to drop the disc down through the top of the basket would open up a pandoras box of basket design and would lead the sport away from the path our disc forefathers set for us.

The wedgie rule only exists because of the scenario where a blind ace or putt that truly does go IN the basket but wedgies OUT is still counted good.

I may not be 100% with the details of this history lesson because it's been a while since I read it all myself.

[nohr]

I was wondering if this would make eddie pissed off.

If his vision was that discs should fly then a roller or tomahawk shouldn't be allowed either.

[JHern]

Good discussion, and history lesson!

The wedgie rule only exists because of the scenario where a blind ace or putt that truly does go IN the basket but wedgies OUT is still counted good.

This is a good point. I was thinking that wedgies should be not counted, but now...

If his vision was that discs should fly then a roller or tomahawk shouldn't be allowed either.

The problem here is that you have to determine somebody's intention. E.g., so then what do you do if the disc lands right next to the basket, but then rolls down a 200' hill. Is the rolling part of the throw negated, and you get to putt in next to the basket? Again, another slippery slope. You have to allow rollers.

Tomahawks are a legitimate air shot. I see no problem with that at all!

[Chuck Kennedy]

Ed did not like rollers and Ralph Williamson was his nemesis because he used them where he could. I don't remember hearing him comment on tommies but that's partly the reason for a top on the basket.

[stoneman]

If THAT'S the reason it doesn't count, then it makes no sense that wedging one into the side of the basket should count.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Au contraire. If you do not observe the shot (blind basket), "How do you know whether the disc wedged in from the outside of the basket or was exiting from the inside?" For this reason, the benefit of the doubt was written into the rule for wedgies in favor of the player, even if everyone observes the shot wedging in from the outside.

[black udder]

Rule seems fine like it is. Object is to put the disc in the basket.

Much like basketball is to put it in the hoop. It doesn't count if it wedges between the rim and the backboard.

For the # of wedgies you see, I have no issues counting them either. At least they're partially in the basket.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The specs were changed so the gaps on the sides of baskets will be smaller on newer basket models but it will take a while for that impact to be felt.