Should top of the basket count?

[harr0140]

But my other arguement against the DROT is if a disc rests in the chains it still counts, even though its not resting in the basket.

What if a disc is hanging from the top apparatus and is touching a chain? does that technically count?

Any disc resting in the chains would be in the basket if it didnt hold up in the chains. Now you could say any dis resting on top would have rested in the chains if the top wasnt there . . . but I still come back and say, did you really intend to throw it on top . . . I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM STILL IN THIS THREAD . . . it irritates me to think this many people think an errant throw resting on top should be in! Like I have said before if you want to play ar ound where you try and land the disc on top fine I will play that all day with you but your intent is to put the disc into the chains or off the chains and into the basket . . . no way anyone would intentionally throw the disc on top!!!!

It is only my interpretation but I have to think I am not the minority!

 

[jhgonzo]

I think the "issue" is as clear-cut as the "foul/fair" ruling in baseball. If players were to organize and try to get certain foul balls counted as fair, they'd be laughed out of their sport.

 

[bettsjc]

Any disc resting in the chains would be in the basket if it didnt hold up in the chains. Now you could say any dis resting on top would have rested in the chains if the top wasnt there . . . but I still come back and say, did you really intend to throw it on top . . . I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM STILL IN THIS THREAD . . . it irritates me to think this many people think an errant throw resting on top should be in! Like I have said before if you want to play ar ound where you try and land the disc on top fine I will play that all day with you but your intent is to put the disc into the chains or off the chains and into the basket . . . no way anyone would intentionally throw the disc on top!!!!

It is only my interpretation but I have to think I am not the minority!

its just opinion, but everyone has had a moment or twenty where they've made some rediculous bounce off of somewhere on the basket and it has gone in.

My only question is, "why not?" I've been playing for almost 6 months now(please don't call me a newb trying to start a revolution in DG or anything) and not once have i landed a DROT. I mean, I'm sure it hardly ever happens, so what's the harm in counting it hole-out?

I'm starting to think the rule is intended to keep the integrity of the structure, what it was meant to do, and so that the creation of chains and a basket wasn't a waste of time? I don't know. All I know is I play by the rules, and will not count the DROT, unless the rule happens to be changed

 

[kerplunk]

I think the "issue" is as clear-cut as the "foul/fair" ruling in baseball. If players were to organize and try to get certain foul balls counted as fair, they'd be laughed out of their sport.

Do you think the foul pole counting as HR was such an easy decision? Or how about fan interference? Belittlement may be an effective debate technique, but shows no class.

 

[kerplunk]

It is only my interpretation but I have to think I am not the minority!

Duh, check out the poll!

 

[harr0140]

It is all about integrity as Bettsjc has said . . . if you intended to throw it on top then congrats (its harder to do than hitting chains and knocking it in). . . but if you try and hit chains and finish in the basket and it ends on top are you really proud of yourself?????????

Call that belittlement if you want I call it integrity and pride for doing what you intended. If anyone out there tells me they intended to land it on top I would like to meet them!!!! Nobody in their right mind would try and land a 50' on top!!!!! but they want to take claim for it as a made putt . . . wow is all I can say!

 

[harr0140]

My only question is, "why not?" I've been playing for almost 6 months now(please don't call me a newb trying to start a revolution in DG or anything) and not once have i landed a DROT. I mean, I'm sure it hardly ever happens, so what's the harm in counting it hole-out?

I have only done it once and it happened last week because noway in my right mind would I try and land a shot on top. A tap into the basket is easier than trying to land any shot on top!!!! There is a reason for that!

The top of all baskets are different and notice there probably are no regulations or recommendations for what happens above the basket (by basket I mean entrapment device) . . and the reason, that was never the intended goal!!!!!!

 

[bettsjc]

The top of all baskets are different and notice there probably are no regulations or recommendations for what happens above the basket (by basket I mean entrapment device) . . and the reason, that was never the intended goal!!!!!!

I do know that there is a regulation about the top structure of the basket that should not allow for a disc to be able to "drop through" the structure, ending up in the basket.

And, if you couldn't tell, I like to play devil's advocate with this stuff. I know a DROT is not a legal hole-out, but its all about exploring the reasons why. Usually an arguement about why a rule is not a good one usually leads to a better arguement in favor of the rule. You just have to look at it from all angles

 

[bettsjc]

to add to the above;

If I were to have a DROT, my reaction would not be "too bad the rule doesn't count that", I would look at it as a missed shot, knowing it doesn't count, and move ahead accordingly

 

[jhgonzo]

Do you think the foul pole counting as HR was such an easy decision? Or how about fan interference? Belittlement may be an effective debate technique, but shows no class.

I hope you weren't implying that I was belittling anyone with my last post! If so, apologies for wording my reply in such a way as to cause that confusion...

 

[harr0140]

I hope you weren't implying that I was belittling anyone with my last post! If so, apologies for wording my reply in such a way as to cause that confusion...

For a second I thought he meant I was belittling someone, which I clearly see wasnt the case. I just know I would never intend to throw it on top of the basket . . . even if ti was allowed because I guarantee you it is harder to do that than throw it into the chains.

I do agree that asking questions about rules is fine . . . but this is clearly people looking for a break. Did they intend to throw it up there or into the chains and have it end in the basket. Because a disc stays in the chains does not mean it was a bad throw because it is simply a shot that didnt drop straight down.

 

[Midnightbiker]

you guys are such post whores

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa. Just having fun.

 

[kerplunk]

I hope you weren't implying that I was belittling anyone with my last post! If so, apologies for wording my reply in such a way as to cause that confusion...

All good homie. And I've always enjoyed your signature.

 

[kerplunk]

I do agree that asking questions about rules is fine . . . but this is clearly people looking for a break. Did they intend to throw it up there or into the chains and have it end in the basket. Because a disc stays in the chains does not mean it was a bad throw because it is simply a shot that didnt drop straight down.

Just for the record, I am not looking for a break. This rarely happens to me as I try not to loft putt too much. I truly believe it is more logical for DROT to count because wedgies logically must also count. And there are a lot of shots in DG where the result ends up much better than the intent, so I really don't buy the intent argument either. Basically every sport, especially skill sport where there is no "defense," involves some aspect of luck. I do not ever count DROT nor have I since I learned the rule soon after I started playing, but I believe it is a more logical and simpler way to play. Being a scientist and otherwise logical person I believe the most logical and simple option is the best, but apparently I am in the minority both on DGCR and in the world in general.

I'm done with this topic.

 

[valkyrie]

I made a long put today and it landed on top of the basket, i couldent believe it! I dident know where i make my next shot from.

 

[Praetorian]

Cultivated from the PDGA Rules FAQ:

"Disc resting on top (DROT)
Question: I putted and my disc stayed on top of the basket. Now what?

Response: Applicable rules: 803.13, 803.07.B

The short answer is that it will take you one more throw to complete the hole. Formerly, you could leave it up there and give other players the chance to save you a stroke, but the rule that allowed that (in which a disc struck by another disc was played from its new lie) has been changed. Now, if a disc at rest is struck by another disc, it is returned to its original lie.

Since the person whose disc is on top has no chance of saving the stroke, it is reasonable to ask him to mark it if it may become a distraction."

 

[skinner21]

the short answer is no, DROT should not count. But neither should wedges. I understand the historical context as to why to they do count, but I don't believe the argument holds any water. wedges are a fluky, if not more so, than DROT. If you throw it soft and it hits the basket it misses, but if it hard enough it counts? Is there anyone who tries to do this? of course not. This rule needs to be changed. It's just silly that something like that exists.

 

[justin]

the short answer is no, DROT should not count. But neither should wedges. I understand the historical context as to why to they do count, but I don't believe the argument holds any water. wedges are a fluky, if not more so, than DROT. If you throw it soft and it hits the basket it misses, but if it hard enough it counts? Is there anyone who tries to do this? of course not. This rule needs to be changed. It's just silly that something like that exists.

I agree with Kerplunk whole-heartedly that we should drop it at this point but I just wanted to thank Skinner21 for possibly being the first person to be against DROT who agreed that wedges should not count. That's what were saying. Have both or neither. Thanks for actually addressing the question.

 

[Beable]

I realize I'm late to this party, and I don't really care one way or the other. On the one hand, I agree that you don't aim at the top of the basket. On the other hand, I think rules should be simple and the game should be fun. Quibbling about whether a shot is in or on the basket feels like a spirit foul to me. I would not relish the conversation I'd have to have with a newbie who doesn't read books of rules about this.

Now spirit fouls are not part of disc golf, but they're part of disc sports, IMO, so I was compelled to vote YES this should count. Maybe I'll feel differently after I've played for a few years.

 

[DavidSauls]

To make wedgies illegal, how would you word it?

I presume you'd want to count a disc that went in the basket and wedged itself while trying to move from the inside back out, which I've seen a number of times. Would you make a "50% inside the basket" rule? Would you word a rule to make wedgies illegal if seen to have entered the wedge from the outside, but good if it's not known which way they wedged? Or not good, unless they were seen to wedge from the inside?

I've also seen a soft putter not wedge, but go straight through the bars and stop safely in the basket. Just as bad a shot as a wedgie, how do we rule?

Ideally, basket specifications would be changed so wedgies didn't happen---but the 40,000 or so baskets already out there would still be a problem.