Rule question?

[bombmk]

I had to reread the rule, important aspect bolded.

"A disc in water or foliage is considered to be at rest once it is moving only as a result of movement of the water, the foliage, or the wind."

This is not a general rule that applies to any throw. It applies to a throw that lands in water or in a tree or bush.

The wind aspect is essentially just saying that a disc cannot be blown out of a tree by wind.

There is a sentence before that.

 

[bombmk]

Was it rolling downhill? I can't even begin to picture this happening on flat ground.

See the video I posted just before your comment. That is started with a forehand roller, that goes sideways and is about to die as the wind takes it.
Basically what happened to me - thankfully mine did not roll 550 meters.

 

[bradharris]

There is a sentence before that.

"Momentum imparted by the throw" does not mean "momentum in the direction of the throw."

Lets say you have a very steep downhill hole. If I set my disc on edge, give it a slight nudge to get it moving and then let gravity do the rest, you could argue that it was gravity giving it it's momentum and not my throw.

But my throw is what caused the series of events that led to it rolling down the hill. Thus, it is all considered momentum imparted by the throw.

 

[bombmk]

Thus, it is all considered momentum imparted by the throw.

Let me be rude for the sake of argument: Says who?

That argument can be used for a disc that lands on top of a basket stops and is then blown into the basket as well. Its all a result of the momentum I imparted on the disc.

I think we all know what is right here - but the way the rules state is definitely flawed.

 

[araytx]

How about something like this, then?



That disc is traveling in the entirely opposite vector from the one imparted on it by the player.

Seen that one many times. Again, the key is ONLY. Even in that scenario above, that disc is flying the opposite way because of the wind AND the original spin/momentum placed on it by the thrower. Without any spin, that disc isn't doing the same thing. Direction is a non-issue. In this same scenario at this same time (and I know because I was AT the GBO in that wind), every time I held a disc up in that wind and let it go, it went straight down to the ground and stopped.

 

[Steve West]

"A disc is considered to be at rest once it is no longer moving as a result of the momentum imparted by the throw. A disc in water or foliage is considered to be at rest once it is moving only as a result of movement of the water, the foliage, or the wind. "

Anyone else find that to be a somewhat problematic description of what constitutes at rest?

I can't be the only one to have had roll-aways moving due to nothing else but wind? I once had a putt bounce off the front of the cage, drop down - and then the wind took it and rolled 60+ feet away on flat ground - past the basket from my position. (OB even)

Any momentum imparted on it by the throw was clearly lost the moment it hit the ground.

I think you make a good point. Now. propose a revision that covers the situation.

 

[mashnut]

Is it a good point though? Without the momentum of the throw, the disc isn't sitting on edge in a way that the wind can effect. That's still a result of the momentum imparted by the throw.

 

[bombmk]

Is it a good point though? Without the momentum of the throw, the disc isn't sitting on edge in a way that the wind can effect. That's still a result of the momentum imparted by the throw.

For any practical application of the rules, I would concede the point immediately.

But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.

And I must admit I am raising the question without a proposal for correction at hand. I recognize this is a definition that is hard to make.

 

[bradharris]

But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.

That isn't the criteria. The only time wind is even mentioned is in the sentence related to foliage or water.

 

[araytx]

For any practical application of the rules, I would concede the point immediately.

But if the criteria is that the wind is able to move it, that should basically demand that doubt goes to the player in any case where the disc has seemingly stopped moving due to throw, but subsequently moves anyways.

And I must admit I am raising the question without a proposal for correction at hand. I recognize this is a definition that is hard to make.

Personally I don't agree that's the criteria and therefore there is no "doubt goes to the player in this case. See my last paragraph below. The criteria is not "that the wind is able to move it;" the criteria is "it's no longer moving due to momentum imparted by the throw." Part of the momentum the thrower is imparting is the spin he/she puts on the disc to make it fly.

Maybe it's because I have a degree in science. There is no way the laws of physics say that even "the 550-ft roller" is moving ONLY due to the wind. That disc is moving due to the original momentum AND the wind. Many shots do that. Very likely in the roller case and in the case of bombmk's putt it's 80, 90, maybe even 95% due to the wind -- but not ONLY. Let's examine the examples he gave us. On bombmk's downhill example notice he said, "give it a 'slight nudge'." From his own words in the roller example, "it was about to die (meaning it hadn't 'died' yet) as the wind took it." Even in both of those examples the disc was moving due to momentum from the thrower AND wind. So, I do not find it problematic on the "letter of the rule" as currently written.

Now my other point is always one I bring up in rules debates. Every rule (and every law) has both a letter of law and a "spirit of the law". Maybe I'm wrong, but it layman's terms the intent to me is clear. The intent is "once a disc is observed to have stopped moving, then that's it -- it's stopped." I believe the RC worded it the best way possible to attempt to clarify it's intent.

 

[bombmk]

That isn't the criteria. The only time wind is even mentioned is in the sentence related to foliage or water.

It was specific to the comment I replied to.

 

[bombmk]

Personally I don't agree that's the criteria and therefore there is no "doubt goes to the player in this case. See my last paragraph below. The criteria is not "that the wind is able to move it;" the criteria is "it's no longer moving due to momentum imparted by the throw." Part of the momentum the thrower is imparting is the spin he/she puts on the disc to make it fly.

Maybe it's because I have a degree in science. There is no way the laws of physics say that even "the 550-ft roller" is moving ONLY due to the wind. That disc is moving due to the original momentum AND the wind. Many shots do that. Very likely in the roller case and in the case of bombmk's putt it's 80, 90, maybe even 95% due to the wind -- but not ONLY. Let's examine the examples he gave us. On bombmk's downhill example notice he said, "give it a 'slight nudge'." From his own words in the roller example, "it was about to die (meaning it hadn't 'died' yet) as the wind took it." Even in both of those examples the disc was moving due to momentum from the thrower AND wind. So, I do not find it problematic on the "letter of the rule" as currently written.

Now my other point is always one I bring up in rules debates. Every rule (and every law) has both a letter of law and a "spirit of the law". Maybe I'm wrong, but it layman's terms the intent to me is clear. The intent is "once a disc is observed to have stopped moving, then that's it -- it's stopped." I believe the RC worded it the best way possible to attempt to clarify it's intent.

I actually think its too scientific a term to use in the rules - phrased like that at least. It might be moving due to being thrown - but the 550 _meter_ roller is not in any way rolling due to the momentum the thrower put in it. If you throw disc up into the wind, any momentum you put on it is gone the moment it starts falling backwards. It is no longer moving due to the momentum that you put on it.

If I throw you a tennisball and you throw it up in the air and hit it with a racket, is it still flying through the air due to the momentum I put on it?

How about:
"A disc is at rest once it is no longer moving by its own momentum."

That should cover stopping on moving branches or water as well.

Not sure its bulletproof, so fire away.

 

[bradharris]

I actually think its too scientific a term to use in the rules - phrased like that at least. It might be moving due to being thrown - but the 550 _meter_ roller is not in any way rolling due to the momentum the thrower put in it. If you throw disc up into the wind, any momentum you put on it is gone the moment it starts falling backwards. It is no longer moving due to the momentum that you put on it.

If I throw you a tennisball and you throw it up in the air and hit it with a racket, is it still flying through the air due to the momentum I put on it?

How about:
"A disc is at rest once it is no longer moving by its own momentum."

That should cover stopping on moving branches or water as well.

Not sure its bulletproof, so fire away.

It's purely semantics. Maybe momentum isn't the right word to use from a scientific standpoint. In a scientific sense, momentum is simply a measure of movement. It has no source, it's just mass*velocity. With the multitude of forces at play in the flight of a flying disc, it's impossible to quantify the specific cause of movement.

However, from a layman's perspective, it's the best word to use to convey the intent of the rule.

The intent is to say that the disc is at rest when it stops moving. However, for cases where it lands in water or a tree swaying in the wind, it's motion may never completely stop. So in those cases, it is at rest when it's movement is caused only by the motion of the water or tree.

 

[John Rock]

This exact discussion is ongoing in another thread.

Keep in mind that momentum is not necessarily forward. You can hit the ground and have the disc bounce around and it's all momentum from the throw. If, in the process, it stands up on edge and begins to roll, that is still momentum from the throw.

I can't imagine any way a disc can be propelled by wind alone. Certainly it can be aided by the wind, but there's no way the wind can actually be the only force propelling your disc forward.

I've witnessed a disc at rest in the basket get blown out and away by the wind. The wind blows A LOT here.

 

[araytx]

I've witnessed a disc at rest in the basket get blown out and away by the wind. The wind blows A LOT here.

Excellent! And that disc was "blown out" not by momentum of the thrower (it had stopped moving) but by the wind ONLY.

I actually think its too scientific a term to use in the rules - phrased like that at least. It might be moving due to being thrown - but the 550 _meter_ roller is not in any way rolling due to the momentum the thrower put in it.

Huh? How can you come to that conclusion? "It moving due to being thrown" IS what they meant by "momentum imparted by the thrower." It's as simple as that.

If you throw a disc up into the wind, any momentum you put on it is gone the moment it starts falling backwards. It is no longer moving due to the momentum that you put on it.

.
Wrong. part of the reason it is flying at all is becasue of the momentum I imparted. Once again, direction does not matter.

If your example is correct (and you believe that) then a disc golfer could be limited from "using the wind" to aid his shot or help shape a line in accordance with the rules. ON windy days, I've twice (at least) seen players throw their shot very softly upward with the bottom of the disc to the wind, actually backwards away from the basket, and "allow" the wind to blow it toward the target in order to approach the circle when there were too many obstacles preventing other routes. Both times I thought the thrower was ingenius for thinking about AND for executing the shot. I thought that was smart play. But by your example, as soon as the wind started blowing it in the opposite direction it "no longer had momentum from the throw," and therefore by the current rules was "at rest." Gimme a break. You really believe this rule makes spike shots and all "use the wind shots" no good??? Without that spin and yes, that momentum from the thrower, those shots don't get wind-blown that far. And I stand by my statement on the "550-ft roller". NO WAY that disc can do that without the original throw or original force from somewhere -- absolutely no way.

If I throw you a tennisball and you throw it up in the air and hit it with a racket, is it still flying through the air due to the momentum I put on it?

No, it is flying through the air due to the mometum I put on it -- regardless of it going in the direction I hit it, it bouncing off walls, it coming back down due to gravity, it slowing down to a near stop and then rolling down a hill, etc. -- at least partially in every case.

How about:
"A disc is at rest once it is no longer moving by its own momentum."

That should cover stopping on moving branches or water as well.

Not sure its bulletproof, so fire away.

Maybe -- as long as the intent isn't changed. I still believe that intent is clear. Sme just want to be allowed something by letter that they KNOW was never intended by the spirit. If you think we should KISS, then a better wording is what you said ("no longer moving from being thrown"). It might just create more arguments. From that postion, then I say leave it as is.

 

[John Rock]

Excellent! And that disc was "blown out" not by momentum of the thrower (it had stopped moving) but by the wind ONLY.



Huh? How can you come to that conclusion? "It moving due to being thrown" IS what they meant by "momentum imparted by the thrower." It's as simple as that.

.
Wrong. part of the reason it is flying at all is becasue of the momentum I imparted. Once again, direction does not matter.

If your example is correct (and you believe that) then a disc golfer could be limited from "using the wind" to aid his shot or help shape a line in accordance with the rules. ON windy days, I've twice (at least) seen players throw their shot very softly upward with the bottom of the disc to the wind, actually backwards away from the basket, and "allow" the wind to blow it toward the target in order to approach the circle when there were too many obstacles preventing other routes. Both times I thought the thrower was ingenius for thinking about AND for executing the shot. I thought that was smart play. But by your example, as soon as the wind started blowing it in the opposite direction it "no longer had momentum from the throw," and therefore by the current rules was "at rest." Gimme a break. You really believe this rule makes spike shots and all "use the wind shots" no good??? Without that spin and yes, that momentum from the thrower, those shots don't get wind-blown that far. And I stand by my statement on the "550-ft roller". NO WAY that disc can do that without the original throw or original force from somewhere -- absolutely no way.


No, it is flying through the air due to the mometum I put on it -- regardless of it going in the direction I hit it, it bouncing off walls, it coming back down due to gravity, it slowing down to a near stop and then rolling down a hill, etc. -- at least partially in every case.



Maybe -- as long as the intent isn't changed. I still believe that intent is clear. Sme just want to be allowed something by letter that they KNOW was never intended by the spirit. If you think we should KISS, then a better wording is what you said ("no longer moving from being thrown"). It might just create more arguments. From that postion, then I say leave it as is.

Yes. This was back when the rule was if something knocked your disc out of the basket before you removed it, it didn't count as holed-out. Sad times when a 10' putt gets blown out of the basket while you are gathering up your gear to go retrieve your disc. The look on the guy's face was priceless.