Wedge ace?

[Steven Dakai]

It could have always hit the center pole and bounced back to the front of the basket and got wedged that way. I highly doubt it but that's how you have to view it.

While a bunch of us were warming up for league a couple weeks ago, someone had a putt do just that. It went in hard and bounced back off the chains and wedged itself, from the inside, into the side of the cage (wasn't even a soft putter...I think it was one of those rubber-rim, plastic-flightplate hybrid things). I even said when it happened that it was a perfect example of why the blind wedgie counts according to the rules, and why all wedgies used to count...because a wedgie can happen like that as easily as wedging from the outside.

So, in that situation, and given the last post by chuck, would that putt be no good? If so, that would be so incredibly stupid. Who makes these decisions that affect our sport? Do they ask a majority of members before making these decisions?

This is a great question !!!

[Josh Connell]

It could have always hit the center pole and bounced back to the front of the basket and got wedged that way. I highly doubt it but that's how you have to view it.

While a bunch of us were warming up for league a couple weeks ago, someone had a putt do just that. It went in hard and bounced back off the chains and wedged itself, from the inside, into the side of the cage (wasn't even a soft putter...I think it was one of those rubber-rim, plastic-flightplate hybrid things). I even said when it happened that it was a perfect example of why the blind wedgie counts according to the rules, and why all wedgies used to count...because a wedgie can happen like that as easily as wedging from the outside.

So, in that situation, and given the last post by chuck, would that putt be no good? If so, that would be so incredibly stupid. Who makes these decisions that affect our sport? Do they ask a majority of members before making these decisions?

Given that that post by Chuck is more or less bunk, that putt would be good. And frankly, there's no reason that it should ever not be good.

As for who makes the decisions about rules and rules changes, according to the most recent rule book, these are the members of the PDGA Rules Committee: Conrad Damon (Chairman), Peter Bygde, Gary Duke, Harold Duvall, Jim Garnett, Shawn Sinclair, Rick Voakes.

I believe that the rules committee determines if any rules need change or revision, debate and revise the rules, then present revisions to the Board of Directors for approval. Those rules changes and revisions that are approved by the BoD go into a re-issued edition of the rule book. They generally revise the rule book every five years or so (all previous editions of the rule book are online here), the last revision being in 2011. I wouldn't expect any significant changes in the near future.

[Chuck Kennedy]

You would be off regarding the timing of the next update. There will be a major update to the rulebook for start of 2013 with complete reorganization of the rules and numbering system. So some of the discussion you'll be seeing is related to those tweaks to wording.

BTW, it's a lot cleaner/fairer if no wedgies count rather than those not observed counting.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

BTW, it's a lot cleaner/fairer if no wedgies count rather than those not observed counting.

So downhill shots that clear the front rim and wedge on the way out the back would not count?

[Karl Molitoris]

I think the RC may now be disallowing all wedgies even if not observed based on the holing out rule which requires the disc to (only) be supported by the chains, bottom and/or inner wall of the basket and pole. That does not include the "sides" of the basket wires which are involved in a wedgie. Wedgie no good. A disc completely in the basket would count even if it passed completely thru the basket wires but was not observed.

WAY too complicated as one could juxtipose a disc (in some of the baskets) that could be "wedged" mostly 'inside' the basket yet 'wedged' (a little) both in the side AND in the bottom.

BTW, it's a lot cleaner/fairer if no wedgies count rather than those not observed counting.

And cleaner/fairer STILL if EVERYTHING solely supported by the 'entrapment device' counted (this would enclude DROTS, wedgies, etc.)!!!

Karl

[Josh Connell]

You would be off regarding the timing of the next update. There will be a major update to the rulebook for start of 2013 with complete reorganization of the rules and numbering system. So some of the discussion you'll be seeing is related to those tweaks to wording.

BTW, it's a lot cleaner/fairer if no wedgies count rather than those not observed counting.

Seems like every year there's talk of updating the rule book, and it usually doesn't happen. So I'll take a see it when I believe it approach here.

And BTW, it's a lot cleaner/fairer to count ALL wedgies. As has already been pointed out, discounting all wedgies no matter what means discounting shots that entered the target correctly and by stroke of bad luck and bad target construction, gets wedge into the side of the cage. If we're looking for "clean/fair" in the way the rule is written, the way it was written was the best way to accomplish that. Sometimes the simplest path is the one that doesn't involve re-writing and changing the meaning of the rule in the first place, especially if that initial re-write is going to be re-written again two years later.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Preliminary feedback from head of RC (Conrad) is in agreement with the interpretation that I posted where no wedgies count. However, he would like to see a way to write the rule to still allow putts that wedge after passing over the basket rim and maybe wedgies that are more in than out of the basket but that may be more complicated.

[Matt Stroika]

And cleaner/fairer STILL if EVERYTHING solely supported by the 'entrapment device' counted (this would enclude DROTS, wedgies, etc.)!!!

Karl

K.I.S.S. at its finest. And in the meantime, lose that rediculous picture of 16 different discs sitting in basket pointing out which ones count and which ones do not.

[Josh Connell]

Preliminary feedback from head of RC (Conrad) is in agreement with the interpretation that I posted where no wedgies count. However, he would like to see a way to write the rule to still allow putts that wedge after passing over the basket rim and maybe wedgies that are more in than out of the basket but that may be more complicated.

What you posted was not an interpretation. It was a work of fiction, at least based on the current rules of play.

I get that you are trying to say that there is a possibility that the RC will change the rule to "no wedgies count ever" in the future, but in that case, it's still not an interpretation, it's a prediction. Until they make that change, some wedgies (the unwitnessed and the wedged from the inside) do count.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Not really. Conrad agrees with the "no wedgie" interpretation of the current rules and Q&A but is waiting for further support from the other RC members. He would like to potentially allow some wedgies as noted in my last post in the next rules update if the wording can be tweaked accordingly.

[Mike Connell]

Josh, I am not paying for your forehead reconstructive surgery.

[Josh Connell]

Not really. Conrad agrees with the "no wedgie" interpretation of the current rules and Q&A but is waiting for further support from the other RC members. He would like to potentially allow some wedgies as noted in my last post in the next rules update if the wording can be tweaked accordingly.

Holy [bleep], this is worse than I thought, then.

What has changed in the last 8 months or so to warrant a 180 on the OFFICIAL interpretation of rule 803.13 published by the PDGA on January 1, 2012 in the OFFICIAL Authoritative Rules Q&A? QA34 specifically addresses the issues regarding wedgies, specifically an un-witnessed wedgie, and unequivocally states that they are to count as in since "benefit of the doubt is given to the player".

If Conrad says now that wedgies should never count, did he not believe this when the Q&A was approved as official as of 1/1/12? If he did, would it be reasonable to assume that the rest of the committee or at least a majority of them disagreed with him enough that QA34 was written as it's currently published? If that's not the case, then how did we end up with QA34 as currently written? There hasn't been a big turnover in who comprises the committee, has there?

If the committee hasn't changed, then I don't see any reason to expect they as a whole will completely reverse the current QA34 before even a single year has passed since they first published it. If they do reverse it, why didn't they rule that way in the first place? It's insanity.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Read QA34 closely. It does not say anything about wedgies and being good or not. It only comments on a disc completely entering the basket thru the side.

[Josh Connell]

Read QA34 closely. It does not say anything about wedgies and being good or not. It only comments on a disc completely entering the basket thru the side.

Fine, it doesn't address wedgies specifically.

But you'll have a hard time convincing me that a wedged disc is not supported by the inner cylinder of the tray. Most support wires in a target are round. Where does the "inside wall" end and the "outside wall" begin? So as far as I can tell, QA34 addresses unwitnessed wedgies when it "gives the benefit of the doubt to the player". If no one witnesses the disc completely entering a target incorrectly, how would they know to suspect it? The only instance where anyone would question the path that a disc took to arrive, and need to give the player the benefit of the doubt, is if it's wedged into the side of the cage.

funk. If the intent was to not have wedgies count any longer, why didn't they write the new rule to explicitly say that? The old rule was explicit about wedgies counting, after all.

Old rule:
"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 or within one of the entrapment sections. This includes a disc wedged into or hanging from the lower entrapment section but excludes a disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section."

New rule disallowing wedgies, which was apparently the intent of the RC in the first place:
"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 or entirely within the lower entrapment section. A disc wedged into or hanging from the outside of the lower entrapment section is not holed out. A disc resting on top of, or hanging outside of, the upper entrapment section is not holed out."

No grey areas, no real need for defining how the disc got where it got, and it's written in fewer words than the 2011 version of the rule. If it's not in the chains or 100% inside the cylinder, it's not in. I'd take that over the convoluted language in the current book, that requires not one, but apparently two Q&A interpretations to be completely foolproof.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The intent with the next and future rulebooks is to eliminate as many Q&As as possible each time by writing rules text where a Q&A shouldn't be needed.

[Josh Connell]

The intent with the next and future rulebooks is to eliminate as many Q&As as possible each time by writing rules text where a Q&A shouldn't be needed.

A worthwhile goal that should be the intent with EVERY revision to the rulebook. But not one that was met with the 2011 re-write of 803.13 B, obviously. I don't recall any Q&As being necessary for the 2011 wording.

[Titan Bariloni]

so if you putt and it goes through the cage and in..it is no good right?

what if(happened yesterday in a round with some local friends)

you putt it goes in correctly then goes back out through the cage..is this a good putt?

I can't see how if it doesn't count going in why it should not count if it goes out through the cage

stupid blowflies

discuss
TY

[Josh Connell]

so if you putt and it goes through the cage and in..it is no good right?

what if(happened yesterday in a round with some local friends)

you putt it goes in correctly then goes back out through the cage..is this a good putt?

I can't see how if it doesn't count going in why it should not count if it goes out through the cage

stupid blowflies

discuss
TY

Does not count. It has to come to rest within the cylinder as well as enter the target correctly. Can't have one without the other and still count it.

[Titan Bariloni]

cool..ty

forgot about that comes to rest part

first time I ever actually witnessed that...

why the heck won't manufactures just put an extra bar on the cage to prevent this is beyond me

[Josh Connell]

why the heck won't manufactures just put an extra bar on the cage to prevent this is beyond me

Because the technical standards by which they built them didn't require it. For a long time, tech standards were more or less based on the first pole hole target. The first pole holes were designed with lids in mind, because the smaller diameter, bevel-edged discs didn't exist.

The tech standards have been modified in the last couple years and the minimum gaps on the targets are now smaller, so targets going forward will be less apt to allow for wedges from the outside or inside. But everything that was built/approved prior to the new tech standards has been grandfathered in.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The new Innova basket at 17.7cm now meets the updated 18cm max gap spec as do most targets in the Championship category except the Gateway Titan-24 and baskets made by DGA still at 19cm.

[jim tufts]

The actual issue with this scenario (and I was there) was that the ace was NOT on a blind hole by ANY means and it was on a card of 6. Oddly enough, we came to find out a week or so later that the card was splitting the pot if hit! Scumbag central. $800+ ace pot, card of 6, disc heading on line and nobody saw it on a sub 200' hole? Bullsh!

When approached, immediately following the ace, I made the mistake of stating the rule before inquiring further. Their story changed along with their reaction to my knowledge on the rules.

Moving forward, I think that wedgies SHOULD count. If you're gonna go all or nothing, I'd say flex the ruling more to allow potential "clean" shots rather than discredit all shots regardless of observation. Wedgies have counted for how many decades? Changing a rule like this is pathetic. Changing basket dimension is the only plausible, true-to-the-sport method of remedy in this situation.

[Karl Molitoris]

...if EVERYTHING solely supported by the 'entrapment device' counted (this would include DROTS, wedgies, etc.)!!!

[Jeff Prendergast]

A disc completely in the basket would count even if it passed completely thru the basket wires but was not observed.

That is literally a loophole in the rules if there ever was one.

[Chuck Kennedy]

No more of an infraction than actions that should be penalized but not seen by officials in other sports.