Wedge ace?

[Bryan Jordan]

A shot took place in which the card , while walking to the basket, noticed the disc wedged in the front of the cage. Nobody witnessed, or heard anything. This was for quite a large Ace pot too.
He was denied the ace saying wedges dont count anymore. I think he got an ace, accoriding to what I read in the rules. Please help here for the future.

[Titan Bariloni]

the rule guru's will break it down...moral they don't count anymore according to the pdga rules


edit..I bet rob tatro and scoontar would still be playing off if this rule was the case a few years back..a few will appreciate that memory

[Matt Grayum]

Isn't there something in the rules about "If it's not witnessed" and the angle of the wedge could possibly be from it almost exiting the basket (as opposed to it almost entering) that it could count? Because, if the disc entered the basket and almost exited (causing a wedge between the openings in the basket) that it technically entered and came to rest in the basket...

Maybe it has to be witnessed, but I thought I read something about the angle of the discs wedge and a group decision. I will defer to more knowledgeable rule interpreters.

[Brad Harris]

If there was any reason to believe that the disc could have actually gone in and wedged itself on the way out, then it counts. But if it's clear that it wedged in the front, or you actually saw it wedge in the front, then it doesn't count.

[Matt Grayum]

If there was any reason to believe that the disc could have actually gone in and wedged itself on the way out, then it counts. But if it's clear that it wedged in the front, or you actually saw it wedge in the front, then it doesn't count.

That's what I was thinking...

[Josh Connell]

803.13 Holing Out
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 and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally supported by the pole. A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

Authoritative Rules Q&A v12
QA34: Putts not Entering the Target Properly
Q: Everyone in my group watched my soft putter push thru the side of the basket and land completely inside of it, not wedged at all. They said the putt was not good. What gives?

A: Starting with the 2011 rules, throws that are observed by the group or an official to enter the target below the top wire of the basket or thru the top of the chain support will not be considered good, even if they come to rest in the basket or chains. If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the benefit of the doubt is given to the player.

Applicable Rules: 803.13 Holing Out

It counts.

[Bryan Jordan]

That's what I was looking for Josh! Even though this information was presented, the majority of the crowd decides it was not an ace! Of course they want the ace pot to carry over to the next week....

[Matt Stroika]

How was it wedged? Is there a picture? You Mainers do have cell phone with camera technology, right?

[Josh Connell]

How was it wedged? Is there a picture? You Mainers do have cell phone with camera technology, right?

Doesn't really matter how it was wedged. If no one saw it go in, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

This is why I think this rule change is one of the stupidest changes the PDGA has ever made. They took an inarguable rule (wedged = in, period) and opened it up to arguments and fuzzy interpretation. There shouldn't be ifs and buts with the rules.

[Titan Bariloni]

oooo...so if nobody sees it the benefit goes to the thrower?

that is cool...and yeah very dumb rule change do they want to just confuse us for fun?

[Matt Grayum]

803.13 Holing Out
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 and/or the inner cylinder (bottom and inside wall) of the tray. It may be additionally supported by the pole. A disc observed by two or more players of the group or an official to have entered the target below the top of the tray or above the bottom of the chain support is not holed out.

Authoritative Rules Q&A v12
QA34: Putts not Entering the Target Properly
Q: Everyone in my group watched my soft putter push thru the side of the basket and land completely inside of it, not wedged at all. They said the putt was not good. What gives?

A: Starting with the 2011 rules, throws that are observed by the group or an official to enter the target below the top wire of the basket or thru the top of the chain support will not be considered good, even if they come to rest in the basket or chains. If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the benefit of the doubt is given to the player.

Applicable Rules: 803.13 Holing Out

It counts.

So the rule doesn't say anything about the angle of wedge making a shot impossible to have entered correctly? So if you throw a 400 foot shot and the basket is below a small hill so you can't see it, and the wedge is in the front of the basket (making it impossible to have entered the basket) then you still give the benefit of the doubt to the player?

I thought I remembered hearing or reading somewhere that the angle of the throw has to be able to support the wedge having entered the basket first and then wedged on the way out.

[Josh Connell]

So the rule doesn't say anything about the angle of wedge making a shot impossible to have entered correctly? So if you throw a 400 foot shot and the basket is below a small hill so you can't see it, and the wedge is in the front of the basket (making it impossible to have entered the basket) then you still give the benefit of the doubt to the player?

I thought I remembered hearing or reading somewhere that the angle of the throw has to be able to support the wedge having entered the basket first and then wedged on the way out.

I've posted the entire text of the applicable rule. There's nothing in the rule about angles or evidence. It's not meant to be a forensics investigation, after all. Though I think they've complicated what was a simple rule, it is still rather black and white to apply. Wedgies don't count with one exception, and the exception is if the action of the disc wedging was unseen. If no one saw it, the player gets the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, rule 803.01 D states: "Appeals: (1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower." Can't reach a majority decision if no one saw the disc hit the cage, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the player. It counts.

[Kenji Cline]

Do you all really believe that a disc could wedge on the way out and not be quite obvious that it was going out and not on the way in? If more than half the disc was inside the cage and the spot where it is wedged was right (back side of the basket from where the throw came towards the basket) then I could believe it was wedging on the way out. More than half the disc on the outside of the cage the disc wedged on the way in and is no good. I dont think the momentum of a disc will allow the disc to stop with more than half the disc on the opposite side of the cage from where the disc hit the cage without popping though. I never seen a disc wedge on the way out only on the way in.

Titan I remember Scoontar's wedgie ace to win the playoff @ hyzer hole 3 before the rule change.

[Titan Bariloni]

I never seen a disc wedge on the way out only on the way in.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around does it make a sound?

lol

[Matt Grayum]

Do you all really believe that a disc could wedge on the way out and not be quite obvious that it was going out and not on the way in? If more than half the disc was inside the cage and the spot where it is wedged was right (back side of the basket from where the throw came towards the basket) then I could believe it was wedging on the way out. More than half the disc on the outside of the cage the disc wedged on the way in and is no good. I dont think the momentum of a disc will allow the disc to stop with more than half the disc on the opposite side of the cage from where the disc hit the cage without popping though. I never seen a disc wedge on the way out only on the way in.

Well, if you believe that it can't wedge on the way out, then why would there even be a rule stating that it counts if no one sees it. The only reason it would count if no one sees it is because it's possible that the disc was on the way out... hey I guess it could happen.

[Matt Grayum]

So the rule doesn't say anything about the angle of wedge making a shot impossible to have entered correctly? So if you throw a 400 foot shot and the basket is below a small hill so you can't see it, and the wedge is in the front of the basket (making it impossible to have entered the basket) then you still give the benefit of the doubt to the player?

I thought I remembered hearing or reading somewhere that the angle of the throw has to be able to support the wedge having entered the basket first and then wedged on the way out.

I've posted the entire text of the applicable rule. There's nothing in the rule about angles or evidence. It's not meant to be a forensics investigation, after all. Though I think they've complicated what was a simple rule, it is still rather black and white to apply. Wedgies don't count with one exception, and the exception is if the action of the disc wedging was unseen. If no one saw it, the player gets the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, rule 803.01 D states: "Appeals: (1) When a group cannot reach a majority decision regarding a ruling, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the thrower." Can't reach a majority decision if no one saw the disc hit the cage, so the benefit of the doubt goes to the player. It counts.

Ya, thanks for clarifying. It is a stupid rule for the reasons you already suggested.

Because it's in the rule book it would be ok, but what would really bother me would be a situation where no one saw the basket be hit, but the wedge is obvious to have stuck to the front of the basket in a way that would be impossible to have entered and then almost exited. The person who said they got an ace would have to feel pretty lousy to fight for that.

[Matt Stroika]

How was it wedged? Is there a picture? You Mainers do have cell phone with camera technology, right?

Doesn't really matter how it was wedged. If no one saw it go in, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player.

This is why I think this rule change is one of the stupidest changes the PDGA has ever made. They took an inarguable rule (wedged = in, period) and opened it up to arguments and fuzzy interpretation. There shouldn't be ifs and buts with the rules.

Agreed that it is the one of the stupidest changes the PDGA has ever made. It would be interesting to hear the counter arguement. I just cannot see anyone trying to wedge or throw through the basket as a viable attempt at holing out when there are 2 feet of chains above the rim.. same goes for DROT for that matter.

Had a wedge and a DROT on the same hole last week during a casual round. We didn't count either but why the heck not? Bring back the wedge, add the DROT... and the 2m rule

[Josh Connell]

Agreed that it is the one of the stupidest changes the PDGA has ever made. It would be interesting to hear the counter arguement. I just cannot see anyone trying to wedge or throw through the basket as a viable attempt at holing out when there are 2 feet of chains above the rim.. same goes for DROT for that matter.

Had a wedge and a DROT on the same hole last week during a casual round. We didn't count either but why the heck not? Bring back the wedge, add the DROT... and the 2m rule

Pretty sure the logic behind the change was that the original intent of the rule was supposed to be to have discs enter the target "properly", so they wanted to return to that original intent after, what, 25-30 years of straying. The problem with the original intent is that with the advance of disc technology (specifically, they got smaller), wedgies became a possibility where they weren't originally (a lid can't wedge in a Mach1, but an Aero can). They allowed for wedgies to count for all those years to cover for the targets not being required to be constructed in a way to prevent wedgies. Now, for whatever reason, they decided to reverse that tack.

In conjunction with the rule change, they did also change the technical standards to close the gaps allowed in the baskets in order to prevent wedgies. Personally, I don't see why they didn't just change the tech standards without changing the rule. They're grandfathering in all the old targets that allow wedgies, so they might as well "grandfather" the old rule about wedgies counting too. Saves a lot of confusion. Wedgies count no matter what, but the newer targets prevent them from happening at all so the rule doesn't need to be adjusted for them.

I always thought counting wedgies while not counting DROTs made perfect sense. The rule used to say that the disc needed to be supported by either the chains or the lower entrapment device (the basket). That gave a finite space in which the disc had to come to rest and be supported...the cylinder from the top link of the chains to the bottom of the basket and anywhere in between. If any of the disc was at rest in that space and supported by the target, it was in. No need for interpretation or witnessing or whatever. Inside the space was in, and anywhere outside that space, including resting on top of the target, wasn't in. Now you can be inside that space and supported by the target, but not be in if the disc didn't follow the prescribed path to get there. UNLESS no one saw it, then it's all good, it counts, the end. Way more complicated than necessary.

[Mark Valis]

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.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

Well, if you believe that it can't wedge on the way out, then why would there even be a rule stating that it counts if no one sees it. The only reason it would count if no one sees it is because it's possible that the disc was on the way out... hey I guess it could happen.

If a disc just clears the rim on the way in but wedges on the way out. Could happen with a downhill hole.

[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.

[Matt Stroika]

I think that Josh should go down to Augusta and give the rules committee a wedgie.

[Karl Molitoris]

Had a wedge and a DROT on the same hole last week during a casual round. We didn't count either but why the heck not? Bring back the wedge, add the DROT... and the 2m rule

2 out of 3 of those ain't bad . Betcha couldn't guess...

[Karl Molitoris]

I know 37 years later is wicked 20/20 hindsight, but our extremely odd "entrapment device" could've been designed to eliminate ANY possibility of wedgies. Why it wasn't, beats me.

I say "count'em all" !

[Chuck Kennedy]

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.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Karl, I believe no wedgies occurred with original pole hole design and the diameters of the discs that were used. The combination of smaller disc designs and softer materials later produced wedgies after many courses were already installed and its design was patented.

[Matt DeAngelis]

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?

[Titan Bariloni]

Who makes these decisions that affect our sport? Do they ask a majority of members before making these decisions?

good question..who are these PTB that keep altering changing the rules...

and what do they base their choices off from?

and is there any other sanctioning body for DG other then the PDGA?
IMO synergy would only help the sport anyways...another option for players would be cool to explore..and have heard from many players all over the country that they would support an alternative to the pdga

[Josh Connell]

I think the RC is now 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.

Until there is an OFFICIAL change to the wording of the rule book or an OFFICIAL change to the interpretation contained in the supposedly "authoritative" Rules Q&A, all you're doing is rumor-mongering and creating confusion where there need not be any. So stop it. Please.

You are pretty plugged into the PDGA, Chuck. No doubt. You talk to these guys more than most. But because of that, people think what you say is authoritative when it really isn't. I actually read on another site the other day where someone was waiting for you to chime in on a rules interpretation because you're the guy who writes the rules in the first place. But you don't. You're not even on the rules committee. But people think you do and think you are, so when you speculate on things like this, people take your speculation as gospel truth, and they really shouldn't.

Now we're going to get a case where a wedgie that by all official accounts of the rules should count (unwitnessed, wedged from the inside, whatever), but it won't because someone read that Chuck Kennedy said wedgies don't count anymore, ever. That would be wrong.

The rule book has to rule the day, not what someone said on some discussion forum somewhere. If it's not in the rule book, or in the competition manual, or an "authoritative" interpretation in the official Rules Q&A, it isn't an official rule of play.

Edit: Chuck edited his original post as I was responding, but I think my overall point holds. Please don't post speculative suspicions about what the RC might or might not be doing in the future. Let them do that...when they officially publish new or modified rules.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Getting official clarification from RC to post when available.