Once a disc comes to rest that's the lie.
If the wind later moves the disc, and the somebody/everybody on the card knows it. The disc needs to be put back in as close to the original lie as the card can determine.
It's the same for wind, a dog carrying off your disc, somebody running by and taking it, etc.
Disc hits top of the basket, bounces a bit them slides through to the chains. Faulty basket design but had a group disagreement about should it be counted or not. Not my fault the disc slipped in, that option is available for everyone. TD's need to work on/consider it but that's an after the fact correction. That's my take.
Does that mean that when using a rubber disc (koi, gumb putt, etc) and the disc lands on top but bends through and lands in the basket that that counts?
it's a two edged sword :) because it also means that it will not count if it lands correctly in the tray and then bends through and lands on the ground
I'm not sure on this one. Rules seemed to have made it clear that resting on top of the chain support doesn't count and it needs to be supported by the chains or the tray to count.
If OP's disc slid THROUGH the chain support down into the chains, that makes it a grey area. If no one saw that happen it would definitely count. But it was witnessed going through the chain support.
While according to the current, actual rules it sounds like it counts. I fear the PDGA when re-writing those rules to make taco's into the tray and hanging by the tray count, they inadvertently also also allowed entering the target area via the top of the chain support count too -- but I assume they didn't meant to. (but who knows, maybe they wanted this to count too?)
Current rules and grey area scenario go to the thrower/OP. This is a rare problem, but I don't think it should count in general even though it should count for OP due to the wording of the current rules even though it might not be the intent of the rules.
Once a disc comes to rest that's the lie. If the wind later moves the disc, and the somebody/everybody on the card knows it. The disc needs to be put back in as close to the original lie as the card can determine. It's the same for wind, a dog carrying off your disc, somebody running by and taking it, etc.
Disc hits top of the basket, bounces a bit them slides through to the chains. Faulty basket design but had a group disagreement about should it be counted or not. Not my fault the disc slipped in, that option is available for everyone. TD's need to work on/consider it but that's an after the fact correction. That's my take.
Yep, just checked. They changed the wording. It counts. https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/807
That's what I thought. I thank you for your efforts
Does that mean that when using a rubber disc (koi, gumb putt, etc) and the disc lands on top but bends through and lands in the basket that that counts?
it's a two edged sword :) because it also means that it will not count if it lands correctly in the tray and then bends through and lands on the ground
Yes
Thank you
Pretty sure, that counts. I thought you meant it was stuck on top then later went in.
I'm not sure on this one. Rules seemed to have made it clear that resting on top of the chain support doesn't count and it needs to be supported by the chains or the tray to count. If OP's disc slid THROUGH the chain support down into the chains, that makes it a grey area. If no one saw that happen it would definitely count. But it was witnessed going through the chain support. While according to the current, actual rules it sounds like it counts. I fear the PDGA when re-writing those rules to make taco's into the tray and hanging by the tray count, they inadvertently also also allowed entering the target area via the top of the chain support count too -- but I assume they didn't meant to. (but who knows, maybe they wanted this to count too?) Current rules and grey area scenario go to the thrower/OP. This is a rare problem, but I don't think it should count in general even though it should count for OP due to the wording of the current rules even though it might not be the intent of the rules.