Ace or no?

[Jerbob]

The ace pot at a doubles league night stands at $784. A guy hits a wedgie with a driver, but it is finally determined by the owner of the course and guy who runs the league that it is not an ace. I know the rules about un-witnessed blind shots and such, but I'll let you guys have some opinions. I'm throwing in some links as I suck at actually adding pictures to the text area. I have no real feelings either way about the outcome because my partner and I took home $80 a piece for a first place finish.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course_pi ... ceed9d.jpg

The basket is straight away just to the left of the small birch lit up by the sunlight. You can the basket from the tee pad, but not very well. You would get lucky to go up the middle, but there are lanes up the left and right side that most people use.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 7590_n.jpg

Here is a picture of his shot. The shot went up the left side. Neither of the doubles teams claim to have seen the shot, but definitely heard it hit the cage, but no sounds of chains. That is the front left side of the basket.
Is it really a blind hole or were either of the teams actually paying attention? I can see the basket when I throw from the tee, but who knows what other people do after they throw their disc. Physics might say the way the disc was angled it couldn't have hit from the inside and wedgied on the way out? Perhaps there was another thrower on the grassy knoll?
What do you think?

[Jeronimo]

Heard about this one. I think the administration made the right choice. That's really not even a blind shot, I can see the basket from the tee. I had no idea the ace pot was that high too! I may have to have a run at that!

[tgm]

If no one saw it I think from this link it should be in.

http://www.pdga.com/rule-changes-2011

[MIdiscgolfer]

This is why I hate the new wording of the rule. Two Identical shots result in different scores depending on whether or not people on the card were paying attention.

[fore]

Neither of the doubles teams claim to have seen the shot, but definitely heard it hit the cage, but no sounds of chains.

No ace.

They did not hear chains.

They definitely heard it hit the cage.

Where was the disc relative to the teepad? 10:00? 2:00? 4:00? 7:00?

Unless the disc was wedged at 4:00, there's no way it could have been going fast enough to wedge from inside the basket without rattling the chains, and the probability that a thrown disc could enter the basket at precisely the right trajectory with enough force to skip off the bottom of the basket, as evidenced by the angle of the disc, and wedge from the inside without disturbing the chains is infinitesimal.

[7ontheline]

Looks like it tried to go through the side of the basket, therefore only a nice shot.

[MIdiscgolfer]

I agree that there is ample evidence that the disc was entering from the outside of the basket. Therefore had it been witnessed it would not have counted. However the rule is very specific on this:

B. Disc Entrapment Devices: 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 observed by two
or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the
tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

The only question here is "was the disc observed by two or more players to have entered the target below the top of the tray"? I think the rule was specifically written ths way to give every benefit of the doubt to the player. In this case as I read it no one "observed" the disc entering from the side and it counts.

[Two Scoops]

I think it's in. The rule revolves around it was "observed" (seen), to wedge from the outside. If not, benefit of the doubt goes to the player. This is the result even where everyone is convinced that it wedged from the outside, despite not having seen it.

It's situations like this why I think the rule should be changed to work the other way, i.e., wedgies should only count if it was observed to enter properly and then wedge on the way out. While I appreciate giving benefit of the doubt to the player, the current rule doesn't recognize the disparate percentages. I've seen discs wedge from the outside; I never even heard of a disc wedging on the way out until this rule change. I don't doubt it happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if, on average, only one of those wedges occurred for every 100 the other way. The current rule, arguably, gives the benefit of the doubt to the player at the expense of denying reality, and far more often than not, gives an ace where it wouldn't have been earned if it was observed.

I guess the spirit of the rule can be summed up by this question: Is it worse to deny a legit ace, or grant an illegit ace? The current rule believes it is worse to deny a legit ace. I don't think that's a good policy choice where illegit outnumbers legit 100:1. Of course, my argument assumes my ratio is accurate, but even if it's only 20:1, or even 10:1, I still think the rule should be changed.

[money 21]

if this was sanctioned evet it should have counted based on the rules listed above.

[JHern]

You guys are barking up the wrong tree...

...must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray...

This disc was not at rest supported by the inner cylinder, it was wedged in the side. So it doesn't matter if it came in through the front or back...it simply wasn't in the basket.

[JTdisc]

You guys are barking up the wrong tree...

...must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray...

This disc was not at rest supported by the inner cylinder, it was wedged in the side. So it doesn't matter if it came in through the front or back...it simply wasn't in the basket.

It's not that simple any more. Follow the link posted above. The rules have changes from what's in the book.

"The orange wedgie is now NOT IN if the group observed it wedge from the outside. If the group did not see it or watched it clear the top basket wire then wedge on the way out, it is IN."

Since no one saw it, this is IN.

[JHern]

You guys are barking up the wrong tree...

...must come to rest supported by the chains and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and
inside wall) of the tray...

This disc was not at rest supported by the inner cylinder, it was wedged in the side. So it doesn't matter if it came in through the front or back...it simply wasn't in the basket.

It's not that simple any more. Follow the link posted above. The rules have changes from what's in the book.

"The orange wedgie is now NOT IN if the group observed it wedge from the outside. If the group did not see it or watched it clear the top basket wire then wedge on the way out, it is IN."

Since no one saw it, this is IN.

According to "Rules Changes 2011" link you posted, it is IN. But those aren't the rules. If the disc has to be resting on the inner cylinder (inside rim or bottom), then a wedgie can never ever ever be IN, regardless of whether it comes from outside or inside. A wedgie is wedged in the basket structure, it is not resting on the inner cylinder.

So, yet another rules ambiguity, in an area that closely intersects with basket design. A lot of the rules are becoming convoluted and very strange. Watch that bizarre Chuck Kennedy video on foot faults, if you want another example of rules insanity. Every time I teach a newbie about the sport, they are always like "WTF?!" when I explain the putting stances and rules. I agree with their sentiment.

[JTdisc]

According to "Rules Changes 2011" link you posted, it is IN. But those aren't the rules.

You lost me here. How are the Rules Changes not the rules?

[Jeronimo]

So from now on my card and I are going to look away on every shot so that in case of wedgies we get to count them, even when the basket is 150' dead in front of me with no obstruction of view.

[AcesAZ]

I think you have to count it since no one saw it "not clear" the top of the basket even though logically it most likely didnt.