Made shot or no?

[krupicka]

It would be better to just simplify the rules for holing out rather than exacerbate the mess from the last update.

[Bombmk]

The disc has to come to rest in the target. The target being the basket and the chains. It can't go through the sides and the top.

Can't see that as being a mess.

[krupicka]

I can see it now.
Player #1 is getting ready to turn in the score card to the TD. "I had a blind ace on Hole #13"
A player from another card: "That was such a sweet ace. The disc was screaming. It skipped off the ground and just slammed through the cage"
TD: I guess your ace doesn't count. Not only will you not get the $300 ace pot, you'll have to take a 3 on that hole for inadvertently failing to hole out.

I would not want to be that TD...

[mobster]

I can see it now.
Player #1 is getting ready to turn in the score card to the TD. "I had a blind ace on Hole #13"
A player from another card: "That was such a sweet ace. The disc was screaming. It skipped off the ground and just slammed through the cage"
TD: I guess your ace doesn't count. Not only will you not get the $300 ace pot, you'll have to take a 3 on that hole for inadvertently failing to hole out.

I would not want to be that TD...

Unless the disc is seen entering the basket through the side by 2 or more of the thrower's group (or an official), it is considered good: 803.13 B. Player's from different groups cannot call violations on each other unless it's a courtesy violation: 801.01 F.

[Beable]

It would be better to just simplify the rules for holing out rather than exacerbate the mess from the last update.

I agree. What could be simpler than supported by some portion of the target = holed out?

[veganray]

Do you want a disc on the ground but leaning against the pole to count as good? How 'bout one that comes to rest on the wheel assembly of a portable target?

[Beable]

To be honest, no. The pole and the wheel are not the target. But I'd rather have those examples you listed be good than argue about whether wedgies or DROT are good. Requiring a picture like Chuck's to show which are good and not good is ridiculous, IMO. I do not enjoy that aspect of this game. Clear, simple rules are superior to nuanced ones.

[veganray]

The pole and the wheel are not the target.

Unfortunately for your proposed definition:

What could be simpler than supported by some portion of the target = holed out?

, they are. From PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf & Competition Manual, Section 800 - Definitions:

Basket Target: A disc-catching device designed to clearly determine completion of a hole. A basket target generally consists of a tray, chains, chain support, and pole.

Therefore, your not-very-well-thought-out proposal would include each of the scenarios I described.

Feel free to try again…

[Beable]

Why bother trying again? It isn't like I need your approval for my opinion to be valid.

[veganray]

Whoa! Slow your roll, playa. I agree with you that wegdies, wedge-throughs, and DROTs should be "in". But I don't agree that your oversimplified proposed wording allows for that without serious unintended consequences. I'm trying to prod you in the right direction to a simple, effective rewording of the rule without allowing the inevitable "leaner" or "base-lander" (or some other relatively unusual fucked up conclusion to a disc's flight that results in it being "supported by some portion of the target") to be able to be argued as "in". You seemed to be gung-ho for the task when you thought it could be no simpler; why not now?

[krupicka]

The wording should probably be solely supported by the target entrapment section. Target Entrapment section can then be defined appropriately.

[veganray]

Better, closer, warmer. Now we're getting somewhere. What definition of "target entrapment section" do you propose? Are you sure that you want to include the word "solely"?

[krupicka]

The word solely is intentional. It takes care of leaners. I recall a picture of a disc supported both by the tray and a rock. Should that be considered in? I'm not so sure of that. It also makes it clear that you still can't be hanging onto the disc for it to be considered in.

The only downside I see to the word solely would be cases where a competitor did not retrieve their disc already in the tray causing a subsequent disc to be supported by the first disc and not the tray.

[veganray]

Getting closer you are, Padawan learner. What about debris (maybe a potato chip bag or tournament flyer, let's say, or a toaster, if you want to make a semantic argument about a piece of paper being able to support weight) in the tray that partially supports a disc? What about a sapling growing up through the tray doing the same thing? What about a fallen branch that entangles with the chains & helps support a disc hanging in them?

[Wyno]

Getting closer you are, Padawan learner. What about debris (maybe a potato chip bag or tournament flyer, let's say, or a toaster, if you want to make a semantic argument about a piece of paper being able to support weight) in the tray that partially supports a disc? What about a sapling growing up through the tray doing the same thing? What about a fallen branch that entangles with the chains & helps support a disc hanging in them?

This doesn't sound like a tournament... actually, adding "solely" to the existing wording is sufficient, since they already defined the chains and the inside of the basket as good.
The only problem in this thread is the white disc being defined as good at some time, with "solely" put in the rules there would be no doubt about it not being good.