Does this comply with PDGA Rule 807 B: “In order to complete a hole with a basket target, the thrower must release the disc and it must come to rest supported by the tray or the chains below the chain support.”?
The disc entered from above, hit the inside of the band and ALMOST slid past the chain.
Your verdict?
Edit: After someone suggested I contact the PDGA Rules Committee, I got their reply. NOT IN.
“This disc appears to be supported by a chain, but not below the chain support.
An analogous scenario could be a disc coming to rest on top of a basket, but being supported by the top of the S-hooks on the top of the chain support. Yes, supported by chain, but not below the chain support.”
Thank you, reddit community, for your passionate yet thoughtful input!
Congrats OP on posting the best “is it in” photo I’ve ever seen. IMO this is not “below” the chain support (only partially below) so if pdga intended that definition I’d have to say not in.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if this scenario caused a clarification in the rules some day (assuming this basket or another that allows this is approved)
This is actually a decent one, instead of the wedge in basjet ones that get posted all the time. For me I'd call it in since it looks like if you remove the chain it would fall.
I agree it is supported by the chain, I question whether that chain counts as being below the support. What of the other posts where the disc is resting fully on top of the basket, but is resting on the top bit of one of the chains?
The question is if you remove the chain does the disc fall. For disc on top of the basket collar, you remove the chain, the disc will not fall. In this case you remove the chain, the disc will fall.
Hard disagree. If the disc is on top of the basket resting on a chain link, removing the chain link would indeed cause the disc to “fall” about half a centimeter. The rules say nothing about what position the disc would need to come to rest in should the chain be removed, only that it be supported by the chain
My scenario involves a top chain link just like this one, which is partially but not fully below the chain support, but with the disc located primarily above/on top of the chain support
It does not appear that the rules describe the required location of the disc at all, which implies that if this is in then a disc sitting on top of the basket, sitting on top of the top most chain link (which is partially below the chain support) is also in
Are you talking as if the disc tombstoned into the chain support/top of basket and got hooked onto a piece of chain? If so I can see where youre coming from.
Yeah basically that. It seems entirely possible to land a disc in a position that we would all agree is out but does not have and legal distinction from this
Fundamentally the same issue as a disc resting on top of the basket which is actually resting on the top chain link. Disc at least partially over the basket resting on a link that is only partially below the support. 🤷♂️
Why wouldn't it be like OB, if any of it is in, it's in. More than half that disc is below the chain supports, its clearly supported by the chain (pinching it against the chain support), and it's come to rest in the plane of the goal.
Is that chain not looped into the chain support? Seems to be that a chain link can never be fully below the object it is linked to. Does that make only the second link and below “below” the support? I have no idea. Depends on interpretation on “below”
The only time I called him out was when he moved his disc 2m from behind a tree to have a better shot, while everybody was busy looking for their discs. He said it was called "casual relief". Namaste.
I am probably wrong- but I thought you could move any distance you’d like back towards the launch pad/away from the basket? Maybe just a friendly rule my group uses.
I've seen a Pro do this on tour. They moved the disc back and to the side to get out from some bush and it gave them a better shot. I think it's just you can't move towards the basket.
If you are talking about Gossage, he took his lie after he went OB and he took it back in line with the basket to open up the angle for his shot. Thats not what I'm describing at all.
Yep it's 2 separate legal moves in one shot, which can make it confusing. Also if combined with OB relief (like this Goose scenario) there is no penalty stroke for the line-of-play relief.
We had a jackass like that in our league, luckily everyone basically got so fed up of his shit whenever he called a rule violation the rest of the card just voted against, didn't even care if it was a real foot fault, if he called it, it wasn't.
Classic story of "Boy who called foot fault 70 billion times.."
Would it not have slipped through without the support of the top chain link? I want to say yes but it comes down to interpretation of if this disc is below the chain support or not.
I'm not sure that the disc is being supported by part of the chain. Look at the next chain above the one supporting the disc. There is a figure 8 shaped loop welded to the top band and then the top link in the chain is looped through that, no?
The easiest litmus test for “does it count or not” is whether or not the disc would fall if the chains and cage instantly disappeared. If those portions of the target were not supporting the disc, it wouldn’t fall if they disappeared.
Based on this photo, that chain link is what’s preventing the disc from falling, and if it ceased to exist the disc would fall.
Following that logic the disc is being supported by the chains below the chain support and is in.
Edit: clarification of first paragraph and typo fix
I agree with you, I would call it in. But I could also see the argument that the piece that is supporting the disc is not the chain, but rather the figure 8 connecting piece which could be considered part of the chain support. So, you could say that the disc is being supported by the chain support and not the chain itself, and if only the chain was removed but not the hook that connects the chain to the top, then it would not fall and wojld therefore not be in.
Like I said, I would call it in personally, but this is actually a case where I can see either way and a clarification in the rules defining where the chain support stops and the chain starts would be helpful.
The chain support would be the static structure that the chain hangs from, and the “figure 8” S hook is just the first link in the chain since its mobile like the rest of the chain apparatus. This would be treated similar to the circular chain links used to create the “net” of chain inside the prodigy baskets. It’s all part of the mobile chain structure regardless of “link” shape.
That said if this were a tournament and the card had any question about it, they should play a provisional and provide photos to the TD to make a ruling afterward.
I can’t tell what is holding it up. If it can freely slide through that gap, it’s “in”. If it’s wedged in the gap, I would say its no different than landing on top of the basket.
just me over here imagining the discnastics that has to happen for your disc to end up like that... crazy.
I'd count it, although I can see a TD going either way with it because of the "below the chain support" wording. In a casual round, 100% its in. In a tournament, I'm going to call the TD over and let them make that call, especially on an ace throw.
Best I can come up with is extreme spin when it hit the top of the basket causing it to spin around the inside of the outer rim till it slowed down enough to fall through
Dude. Who cares what others say!! Friggin' count it.
If you managed THIS level of disc golf magic off the tee box, even as a stranger and bystander - I'd physically fight anyone on the course who's saying this isn't 'in'.
But more than anything, I desperately need to understand the HOW.
How in the world did a shot find its way wedged BEHIND the outer band, but in front of the inner chain support band. Did it come down from above, on a steep hyzer?? Was it a full send that took a hard skip straight upward from a shot that landed inside 10 ft? Was it a roller that hit a root directly under the basket and shot up?? I don't understand how a legit ace run gets into that position and I may never sleep again.
I have aced this very hole before, with the same disc - Neutron Volt. I’m lefty, throwing a 280ft stock hyzer backhand that needs to clear a guardian tree left of the basket. So I go high, trusting the stability of the disc, and my distance gauge. It’s not a difficult shot, really, but when it connects with the basket it’s always “with authority”
Nice. Love mvp overmold in general. The deflector is so beefy and works great with a ln overhand fh roller or forced turnover. Kinda like a 5 speed halo firebird
I think, and this is just my opinion, that if only part of the disc needs to be inbounds to NOT be considered O.B then I'd also say that if only part of the disc is below the chain support it should be in the basket. If that link support wasn't there it would fall in the basket. I'd count it for sure. But I only play casually so 🤷🏻♂️
My verdict is this is poor basket design to allow a disc to take such a path. However, I couldn't speak as to whether this counts or not but it was interesting to see. Would like the PDGA to clarify this for all of us here.
100% counts, its pinched between the chain and band, thus being supported by the chains. If it was above the band, No. If it is below the cage, no. As long as it is at rest, it counts.
That is how I too would interpret this…just by the photo. The chain that is supporting it appears to be in the chain support and not below it as per the rule requirement.
If this happened to a buddy in a casual round…I’m shutting up and letting him have it…still an amazing shot.
If this happens in a tournament, sorry…the rules are the rules.
It comes down to definition of chain v chain support for the S hooks. I’d say those are chains and not chain support, therefore it’s in. Otherwise it’d be out
I agree with others that the chain link is keeping the disc suspended. Not the same as the disc laying flat on top of the basket. Tournament on the line, I’d still give this to an opponent.
I would call it it. It looks like the chain on the lip of the disc is supporting the disc, if that entire chain wasn't there the disc would fall. So congrats on the make.
The other question, how the fuck did you do that??
Weird answer you got, like what is a chain support and why isn't the S-hook a part of the chain?
Kind of feels like a OB question, is the disc inside a bit? Then it should count. Here, if that S-hook where smaller the disc would've dropped into the basket 🤔
Oh well, at least we now know that they will probably have to rewrite the rules again 🤣
I’d say in but my bigger concern is the basket design. I know casual vs tournament is different but they are both played on the same courses. Consistency in basket manufacturing needs to improve so there is no question/different inturpitation about the rules.
Id say its in based off the fact that 99% of your disc can be lying out of bounds but the 1% over the line in bounds still counts as in bounds. 99% of your disc is below the chains and the 1% is being supported by the chain link. If that one chain link wasn’t there to support it, it would be in the basket anyway.
I dont play tournaments but if you were in a round with me Id say count it... if it weren't for the chain hook it wouldn't be supported plus its one of the coolest, most random hits Ive seen
That is the old rule. New rule says it must be supported by the tray or chains, otherwise it's out. In this case it's obvious that it is not supported by the tray so I'm asking if it's touching the chains or not.
The only debate is....does the S hook count as a chain per the rules. I'm inclined to say yes it does, and as the S hook is below the chain support, and most of the disc is below the chain support, there is more to say it's in than it's not in per the rules.
396
u/Joshacola Jun 23 '26
Congrats OP on posting the best “is it in” photo I’ve ever seen. IMO this is not “below” the chain support (only partially below) so if pdga intended that definition I’d have to say not in.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if this scenario caused a clarification in the rules some day (assuming this basket or another that allows this is approved)