davistd0
Par Member
Would have been a better idea. But in my frustration, I had already picked up the mini and was heading down the hill.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
My weirdest putt ever
- Thread starter koogs
- Start date
Would have been a better idea. But in my frustration, I had already picked up the mini and was heading down the hill.
DG_Before_Breakfast
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
I thought I read where you would put your marker on the ground, directly below the Disc, under the basket, in this situation. As if it were a disc hanging in a bush below the 2 meter rule. But I'm no expert on DG rules.
If you look at the picture in the first post, you'll see why this was not possible.
DG_Before_Breakfast
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,410
Ok, I thought you could just balance it below there on one of the pyramid steps
Guess not. I would have enjoyed watching you scramble up there 
If it's in the chains it isnt in the basket either. Still counts though. I dont see the difference other than a technicality.
If a basketball gets stuck in the net, does it count? Yes, because it went in the way it was intended to go.
Time again for my MSPaint wizardry:
The bottom of the top chain assembly and the top rim of the basket are supposed to be roughly the same height as the top and bottom markers of a tone pole or other object-based pin. By not allowing DROT or wedgies, they're trying to stay true to the origins of the game.
Explained
Lol, not sure about that. But, if it wedgies or balances on top...it didnt go in. End of story. A soccer ball can go through the goal opening then through netting or get caught in the netting (same in lacrosse or hockey) seen both. Both count. You can't score a goal in soccer by kicking through the side of the net or in lacrosse by throwing through the net from behind the goal. I dont understand why this concept is so elusive to grasp. If it didnt go in between the top and basket it is not in, just like in all net goal sports. If it is stuck in the net, chains, or backing material after entering through the "gate" opening, it counts. Not really rocket science, except for by people that have lost a stroke or ace because of this, or feel like the game needs to be easier for some reason. If you compare it logically to other sports, the rule is right in line.
We can't compare to golf because there is no opportunity for a ball to get stuck, also entry is vertical not horizontal like in disc golf. There is a bottom to a ball golf cup, unlike in basketball where the goal has an open bottom. In basketball you cannot throw a ball through the bottom of the basket and score points.
Tennis, you have to pass over the net, not through it. Volleyball over not under. Badminton, you can easily pass through a net, but it does not count. Must i go on!? or is it just a minority of people that dont understand.
We can't compare to golf because there is no opportunity for a ball to get stuck, also entry is vertical not horizontal like in disc golf. There is a bottom to a ball golf cup, unlike in basketball where the goal has an open bottom. In basketball you cannot throw a ball through the bottom of the basket and score points.
Tennis, you have to pass over the net, not through it. Volleyball over not under. Badminton, you can easily pass through a net, but it does not count. Must i go on!? or is it just a minority of people that dont understand.
Last edited:
Old Dog
Eagle Member
Thanks ejvogie. Sort of a "strike zone" if you will. Which makes sence since a disc which touches or leans against the bottom of the poll directly under the basket does not count either.
But let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. If the original intent of the game was to strike a tone pole or other object based pin between two specified points as indicated in the diagram then couldn't it be argued that a disc which strikes the chains but passes threw them, deflects off of them or otherwise fails to be captured by them or drop into the basket should count also? After all the original intent of the game was to strike the target area not make the disc stick to a target area?
But let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. If the original intent of the game was to strike a tone pole or other object based pin between two specified points as indicated in the diagram then couldn't it be argued that a disc which strikes the chains but passes threw them, deflects off of them or otherwise fails to be captured by them or drop into the basket should count also? After all the original intent of the game was to strike the target area not make the disc stick to a target area?
Tone poles and the such are not legal targets for tournaments so... irrelevant really.
The obvious difference between the disc being on top and the disc leaning up against the pole at the base is that at the bottom it will be supported by the ground, not just the target.
If someone is so good that they can lay a disc on top of a basket on purpose why would they not just lay it in the chains? Where is the advantage to put it on top? This is why I think the rule is pointless. Instead of making up some convoluted way in which to mark an obvious drop in (we're talking about when it rests on top here), just count it. The only thing the disc is supported by is the target.
The question I am asking is: Where is the advantage in laying it on top? It seems to me that disc golf is looking to simulate ball golf in the way that you are looking to "put it in the hole/basket". The only thing stopping it from dropping directly into the basket from where it is resting is the target itself.
And @ the person who said these discussion are why disc gold sits in obscurity, I'm pretty sure it sits in obscurity because the main piece of equipment used is widely known as a child or dog toy. Unfortunate but true.
We can argue all day but the rule is pointless and only happens once in a blue moon. I'm on the fence about putting it in thru the side of the basket. In a way you would think if it's in, it's in, but there is a cheese factor involved with that situation imo.
The obvious difference between the disc being on top and the disc leaning up against the pole at the base is that at the bottom it will be supported by the ground, not just the target.
If someone is so good that they can lay a disc on top of a basket on purpose why would they not just lay it in the chains? Where is the advantage to put it on top? This is why I think the rule is pointless. Instead of making up some convoluted way in which to mark an obvious drop in (we're talking about when it rests on top here), just count it. The only thing the disc is supported by is the target.
The question I am asking is: Where is the advantage in laying it on top? It seems to me that disc golf is looking to simulate ball golf in the way that you are looking to "put it in the hole/basket". The only thing stopping it from dropping directly into the basket from where it is resting is the target itself.
And @ the person who said these discussion are why disc gold sits in obscurity, I'm pretty sure it sits in obscurity because the main piece of equipment used is widely known as a child or dog toy. Unfortunate but true.
We can argue all day but the rule is pointless and only happens once in a blue moon. I'm on the fence about putting it in thru the side of the basket. In a way you would think if it's in, it's in, but there is a cheese factor involved with that situation imo.
Old Dog
Eagle Member
How so? If the rule was made because the PDGA was "trying to stay true to the origins of the game."? If the game was indeed originally played by striking a target not landing in/on a target then I believe my question is valid.
Pedantic Clarification
Just to be clear - I am not arguing any of your points, just correcting one.
True you cannot go through it but you can go around it. A shot from a wide angle which may be below the height of the net but wide of the poles and which lands in the court is a legal shot.
Just to be clear - I am not arguing any of your points, just correcting one.
True you cannot go through it but you can go around it. A shot from a wide angle which may be below the height of the net but wide of the poles and which lands in the court is a legal shot.
Speaking of strange putts
Similar threads
