807(B) and "supported," whatever that means.

[Doofenshmirtz]

"B. 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."

Was playing a round on Sunday and one of the players did this:

You may not be able to tell, but the putter is actually touching the chains and is slightly deflecting one of the strands of chain. When putting, the player hit the number and the disc slid back and perfectly caught like this.

Not remembering that there was a rule change last year, everyone accepted this as a made putt and two of us took a pic because we'd never seen that happen before.

Then, after looking up the rule yesterday when I thought about it, I saw the language quoted at the top of this post from 807(B) and immediately concluded that we had all made the wrong call. In thinking about it a little bit more, I think that maybe we didn't - even if it was through application of the wrong rule.

If the disc is deflecting the chain, even a little, then isn't is at least partly supported by the chains? My only comparison is the use of the word "supporting" when referring to a supporting point in relation to a stance. How much support is required for there to be "support."

 

[Agricolae]

If the chains were removed, would the disc remain in place? Could the disc remain in place without the aid of the chain support (hangers)?

I'd say "yes" to the first question above and "no" to the second; therefore, based on the rule wording you quoted, I'd say that it was not a made putt.

I am also reminded that the wording of the latest rule still leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If the chains were removed, would the disc remain in place? Could the disc remain in place without the aid of the chain support (hangers)?

I'd say "yes" to the first question above and "no" to the second; therefore, based on the rule wording you quoted, I'd say that it was not a made putt.

I am also reminded that the wording of the latest rule still leaves a lot to be desired.

Later, I had that thought too. If I were to push the chains behind the disk inward, toward the pole, and then the disk fell, would you then consider it to be a made putt?

Whether or not that is true, if the disk is deflecting the chain, I tend to lean toward the chains supporting the disc. Of course, this can't possibly happen enough to matter, but it struck me as an interesting question.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

 

[autocrosscrx]

If you took away the chain support, but were somehow able to suspend the chains in their current position, there is absolutely no way that disc is staying in place.

 

[biscoe]

If you took away the chain support, but were somehow able to suspend the chains in their current position, there is absolutely no way that disc is staying in place.

True but not relevant to the question at hand. "Supported" doesn't mean "solely supported." Whether it should or not is a different can o' worms.

 

[autocrosscrx]

True but not relevant to the question at hand. "Supported" doesn't mean "solely supported." Whether it should or not is a different can o' worms.

...but it kind of does. Bear all or part of the weight of. Hold up.

 

[chevis]

i liked the previous rules where this hanger is good, but as of now it is no good. it's a weak argument that it is supported by chain just because it is touching chain. maybe the next rules iteration can work in "touching chain".

 

[chevis]

...but it kind of does. Bear all or part of the weight of. Hold up.

thinking further on this & using the definition of supported, the chain may be holding the disc in place, hence "supporting" it from moving; therefore the chains are bearing the part of the weight. but like the op, i've already answered the poll & the decision i made in the past cannot be changed... going forward in the future, if the hanging disc is touching chain it is being supported by chain & counts... or does it... the rule says chains, so close rule examination says only good if it's touching more than one chain.

 

[seedlings]

or does it... the rule says chains, so close rule examination says only good if it's touching more than one chain.

Yes. Upon even closer examination, the rule is written in English. Anyone who does not speak English, can do whatever they want.

opcorn:


[thatsthejoke.jpg]

 

[Steve West]

Yes. Upon even closer examination, the rule is written in English, Amharic, Finnish, Icelandic, Japanese, Latvian, and Mandarin Chinese. Anyone who does not speak English, Amharic, Finnish, Icelandic, Japanese, Latvian, or Mandarin Chinese, can do whatever they want.
...

FTFY

 

[Smigles]

is that up to date? There were so many changes, i am confused. I was sure that the red disc under the "hold my beer" one would count since it is clearly inside the target area and supported by chains.

also, did they remove the whole "it depens whether it wedged from the inside or outside" debate around wedges?

 

[Rastnav]

also, did they remove the whole "it depens whether it wedged from the inside or outside" debate around wedges?

Yes, in the last update they removed the part of the rule that required the card to know how the disc entered the basket and just made "supported by the basket" count in all situations. I believe this was in an effort to remove potential ambiguity from the rule.

 

[dmoore1998]

is that up to date? There were so many changes, i am confused. I was sure that the red disc under the "hold my beer" one would count since it is clearly inside the target area and supported by chains.

also, did they remove the whole "it depens whether it wedged from the inside or outside" debate around wedges?

The red disc you're talking about isn't supported by chains, it's supported by the chain support...the piece of metal the chain hangs from but not the actual chain itself. It's kind of tough to see in the pic...if it were hanging by the actual chains it would be good.

And yes, it doesn't matter if it wedges from the inside or outside now.

 

[BillFleming]

also, did they remove the whole "it depens whether it wedged from the inside or outside" debate around wedges?

One of the official rules folks on this forum may be able to provide actual information....but what I heard caused the change was....

A player threw a blind shot to a basket, they thought they heard it hit chains and found the disc stuck in the tray. Since no one saw the disc hit/enter the basket, they couldn't confirm that it got stuck after entering the tray. It could have gotten stuck entering from the outside of the tray and they just misheard the chains being hit. Since there was no proof of how it got wedged, it didn't count...the player had to mark under the disc and do a drop in putt.

The rule change does away with the cases of a blind throw-in; all that matters is where the disc is at rest.

 

[Steve West]

One of the official rules folks on this forum may be able to provide actual information....but what I heard caused the change was....

A player threw a blind shot to a basket, they thought they heard it hit chains and found the disc stuck in the tray. Since no one saw the disc hit/enter the basket, they couldn't confirm that it got stuck after entering the tray. It could have gotten stuck entering from the outside of the tray and they just misheard the chains being hit. Since there was no proof of how it got wedged, it didn't count...the player had to mark under the disc and do a drop in putt.

The rule change does away with the cases of a blind throw-in; all that matters is where the disc is at rest.

There are a lot of reasons why that story could not be the source of the change.

The change was simply to get back to the idea that where the disc stops is what matters, not what happens to it along the way.

Yes, there are exceptions to that principle, but completing the hole does not need to be yet another one.

 

[Smigles]

Thanks guys for clearing this up

The change was simply to get back to the idea that where the disc stops is what matters, not what happens to it along the way.

cough new mando rule cough

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I wish that picture helped.

 

[ThrowaEnvy]

I wish that picture helped.

It's easy.. White is good, red is not. I liked the pic that's why I liked it and piked it from a Facebook group.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

It's easy.. White is good, red is not.

Right, I get that. That is the part that isn't helpful.

You haven't indicated that the source of the rule is authoritative nor made any argument why it is applicable to the question in the original post.

It also seems to show that the disc in the position most similar to the disc pictured in the OP isn't touching the chains when the disc in the OP was touching and deflecting the chains. It was that touching and deflection that was the heart of the question at issue.

I liked the pic that's why I liked it and piked it from a Facebook group.

The pic you posted is just someone's unsupported interpretation of the rule. That's why it isn't helpful.