The Community of Disc Golfers and About All Things Disc Golf
Highlights: Wedged putts do NOT count if 'witnessed' to have wedged in cage from the outside.
TD- Optional Drop-Zone for lost discs.
Player can't use first shot when throwing a provisional, the provisional shot is the correct lie (as I read it, a bit confusing).
Obstacle to stance- can move a stick in your stance if part of it extends in front of your lie now.
The "wedgie" rule is pretty stupid what with the whole witnessing thing. Didn't witness it, it is good. Did witness it, it doesn't count. If a tree falls in the woods...
I have to agree with Jamie that maybe a lot of this is just not necessary. The sport has been doing just fine for a long time with the rules as they are. Maybe somebody is just bored in the winter time. Who really cares about wedgies anyway. Now I want to see a wedgie ace. Of course it has to be blind (so I won't see it). Never saw one that wedged from the inside. I think that they should have just made all wedgies legal or none of them. This halfway stuff is pure BS.
Festivus is for the rest of us!
I think that the rules people are just bored and looking for something to do on this one.
Leave my wedgie alone. I earned that wedgie.
Let's say the original intent of the target was to do the best job possible to catch any disc that comes near it. That wasn't the intent but let's say it was. Targets would have been designed with larger openings between the top lip of the basket and bottom of the chain support, that is if chains were even used. The top of the deflector whether chains or or other device would have been as open as possible for drop thrus and there might have been a rim around the top piece so it could also catch discs (currently known as DROTs). There might have been nubs and all kinds of other hooks or projections on the outside of the basket and chain support to occasionally catch even a few more shots. There might not have been a limit on the diameter of the target until some Tech Committee set one.
The point is that our current target designs are not very great "catchers" in comparison to what designs would have been possible if "catching" were the goal of target design developments. But it wasn't. So any claims that holing out should involve a disc simply being supported anywhere on the target don't make sense since it's not the goal of our target in the sport. The goal is for a disc to properly enter a target area AND be captured in that target area. Our targets can be designed to do a better job at that, but it doesn't mean our rules should wait until those better targets get built and installed.
I find the name calling and use of expletives unnecessary in this discussion.
Would you like a little cheese with that whine?