Thoughts on the lie and stance

[bruceuk]

As mentioned in the 2013 rules thread, we have been thinking about the issues with stance violations and how to address them.

The concept of 'tail marking' came up in another thread, and it is IMO almost a must for tidying up the stance area. The idea (and you can see it visualised further down) is to mark your lie with the back edge of the mini aligned with the back edge of the thrown disc, meaning that your lie is the same irrespective of whether you mark it or not. This helps with speed of play as the majority of lies will not require marking. The only down side I can see is that you may have more instances of solid object relief.

That is a bit of an aside as the following thoughts can also work with the current marking rules, but I include it as I believe it works visually in combination with other possible changes.

So onto actual stance rules.

There were discussions on this area before I joined the committee and you can see notes on the 2011 discussion here: http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2011/FallingPutt.txt

Please read it as I there are thoughts in there that I'm basing the following on, which is taken from an email I sent to the committee during the re-write we just completed.

[Email extract]
My feeling (as was Rick's) is that 60cm is too big for a general rule but rather than have two rules, why not stick with the existing 30cm leeway but extend it sideways. A 30x30cm square (makes more sense than a circle I think) gives a substantial area to hit during a run up, and only 15cm side-to-side relief in the case of a tricky lie. When we combine this with changing the marking behaviour, I think we get quite a compelling case.

See embedded image for how it would look (along with 60x60 & 60cm circle), the area to hit would only extend ~4cm to either side of a standard disc, or exactly the width of a standard mini (or an average foot) either way, and should be visually pretty easy to call particularly when you consider you would normally have the thrown disc as the visual indicator.



The proposed rule therefore would look like this:

802.04 Throwing from a Stance

A. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

B. When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface that is within a stance zone defined by a 30x30cm square directly behind the marker disc and,
2. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object (including the playing surface) closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
3. Have all supporting points in-bounds.

C. Supporting point contact past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting.

D. Putting: Any throw from within 30 meters, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is considered a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of a stance rule.

F. Any throw made from an illegal stance is disregarded. A re-throw must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.

I have pitched this whole concept to a variety of players from AM2 through to Pro and no one has voiced any concerns.

[extract ends]

Alternatives to consider include: removing the follow through but allowing a run up on all throws; a 30m or 50m fairway marker past which you are considered to be putting (as opposed to a putting circle); different lies for inside/outside the circle.

None of these have reached a proposal stage yet

[cgkdisc]

Putting would start at 30m or is that a misprint?

In addition to expanding to 30cmx30cm, I think having one of your stance points touching the 30x30 area AFTER your release would also make it easier to make the call. Either you stand and deliver or position yourself far enough back on the release so your follow thru step lands touching the 30x30 so your group has an easier way to see if you faulted.

[bruceuk]

Yes, although distance is subject to discussion. 30m might not be enough to get rid of jump putts, but 50m might be unfairly punitive to novices and juniors.

After is a tricky concept, how long after?

[cgkdisc]

How easily can you measure 30m during competition?

The idea would be to restrict your throwing options similar to pure stand and deliver but with more flexibility where you can stand and deliver or have a one step follow thru if that's more comfortable as long as your step thru lands on the 30x30 mark. If you do this then you don't need any putting circle and the complaints about pure stand and deliver causing knee injuries is mitigated. In addition, players could stretch out to the side farther where they release to the side on the left foot and bring their right foot down on the mark after release.

In terms of timing, maybe you require maintaining balance behind your mark for the hypothetical 2-count where the group can see that you hit the mark properly.

[Captain Bad]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Putting would start at 30m or is that a misprint?

Sorry to bring this up again, but are you sure you mean 30 METERS??? That's almost 100 feet. And 50m? That's over 160 feet! Who would consider a 160ft shot a putt? Some entire holes aren't even 160ft!

[Patrick P]

I appreciate the brainstorming and was happy with the conclusion:

9/5: No interest has been expressed. Issue closed.

Some people should simply not be making any proposals.

[DShelton]

I see a problem ith the marking suggestion. It would require you to move the disc on the ground if you want to use a mini to mark your lie (example, you want to use the disc on the next throw.) Other rules strickly forbid moving the disc UNTIL the lie is marked or you finish your next throw.

[wsfaplau]

If the issue is players aren't currently calling foot faults how would this proposal change that?

What were the arguments that convinced the BOD to not approve rear marking?

[cgkdisc]

I know some Board members liked the current strategy involved in deciding whether to mark with a mini or leave your disc which would disappear under the rear marking proposal.

[bruceuk]

In order of Qs asked, apologies if I miss anyone:

Chuck: A 30m distance could be measured the same way the 10m currently is, you ask the group 'am I outside 30?' and go with the decision. Granted if there is disagreement it takes slightly longer to pace it off.

Captain: Yes, 30 or even 50m. The goal is to eliminate the borderline violations associated with the jump/walkthrough putts by removing the incentive to attempt them, inside the distance (which could be called approaching rather than putting if that helps with your issue) you should have no incentive to lift your supporting point from your lie or follow through, making violations easy to call.

Patrick: Not sure if you're referring to the whole thing, or the removal of the 10m circle that the 9/5 update refers to.

DShelton: Moving of a disc is already sometimes necessary to identify who's disc is who's, and it is simple to place the rear of the mini on the rear of the disc and remove the disc from underneath. I played several months of practice rounds this way without encountering any issues.

wsfaplau: I thought the link covered the reasoning behind this, but maybe worth clarifying. The two perceived problems are: 1) that there are borderline cases related to long putts/short approaches where it is difficult/impossible to call in real time, and 2) that it seems our current lie is too difficult to hit consistently during a run up. Both of these issues have the potential to make the game look unprofessional on TV where every violation is subject to replay and analysis.

Currently violations in the circle are infrequent and relatively easy to spot, and hence (IME at least) pretty reliably called. The goal is to address the two issues so the same applies everywhere on the course, and then remove the warning from stance violations completely.

[bruceuk]

Missed the tail marking Q.

Largely 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', along with the strategic element Chuck mentions. The board seems a little change averse as they perceive the players to be change averse. My feeling from the start was that it was a better sell tied to the wider changes rather than a standalone change in the rewrite.


We can go more radical if you like. How about ditching the mini altogether in exchange for a 30x30cm towel you place behind your disc and must be in contact with when you throw. That'd be easy to call fairway violations on

[cgkdisc]

I had suggested the "official" towel idea to Harold many years ago but there were concerns about slipping on it unless you maybe had small cleats on one side to dig into the ground. If you went in this direction, instead of a towel I would suggest a brightly colored heavy duty string or ribbon 30cm long attached to the mini. You would be allowed to stretch the string on any angle behind the mini or even to the side (but no closer to the hole). You have to step on the string while releasing the throw.

[bruceuk]

Personally I'd have thought a towel would be less slippery than the majority of surfaces we play off, but maybe that's just the British weather

[wsfaplau]

Thanks Bruce.

I see the issue of people not calling out foot faults to be a people issue, not a too hard to call issue. I believe people can clearly understand what is a stance violation right now and see it but choose not to call it because the the ensuing drama and conflict.

They have no interest in getting into a mid round debate and creating distracting conflict while they are trying to keep focused on their own game to shoot the best possible round they can. Bringing conflict in the equation has less upside than calling a foot fault.

Earlier this year I called a foot fault on a player. He had a supporting point on the ground outside the tee area. HE declined to second it saying he lifts his foot before he throws (BS)... The other guy on the card said it was no foot fault. The last guy walked away to throw his next shot. half way up the fairway he agreed with me in whispered tones it was a foot fault but wasn't worth it to call it because of the resulting scene it would have created.

I believe that is the kind of attitude that leads to many of the non calls on stance violations.

Change the wording on the rule and you still have the people who don't want to get involved problem.

How can that be addressed?

[james_mccaine]

I haven't been following any PDGA topics for awhile. Kudos for trying to address this, as it is long overdue, IMO.

Why does this overall concept change require a change to the marking concept; it seems like it would work under the current marking rules. I share DShelton's concern about introducing uncertainty into something that previously had little.

Please don't employ any towel or marking strip concepts. Those are ridiculous.

Overall, the proposal can be nitpicked for sure, but it easily achieves two important goals, IMO: basically removing the jump putt from the sport, and providing necessary latitude for legal fairway stances.

It would be nice to see the BOD embrace positive change, instead of worrying about griping. You know, be leaders instead of followers.

[bruceuk]

Pete: I think I addressed this with my falling putt argument. IMO making violations obvious and infrequent will do a great deal to remove the perceived stigma in calling them. I've rarely seen an overbalanced putt inside the circle not called, maybe a couple of borderline ones where balance was dubious got a quiet word on the way to the next tee instead, but the majority are called.

James: The marking is not tied to it, it's quite possible to implement the rest with the existing marking rules, however I disagree on the uncertainty argument. The vast majority of lies would go unmarked as it would only be only necessary if you wish to use the thrown disc, or are already marking where the disc is not (OB, above/below ground). So most lies would be more certain, as you'd use the disc exactly where it lies.

Additionally, using the thrown disc is a far superior visual indicator of the lie area, you almost have to have some part of your foot behind the 'shadow' of the disc.

One man's gripe is another man's ridiculous But it's not something we've even talked about.

I'd be interested in thoughts on size/shape of the lie area. Is 30x30 small/right/large? Square or circle?
Also the concept of a fairway marker at 30m instead of a circle as per Ricks suggestion. This would mean that if you overshot the basket by >30m, you cannot follow through on your return shots.

[bruceuk]

I don't know if it's truly the case but one problem of being a touring player on the BOD I imagine is that you get a lot of grief from your competitors/peers if you approve something they don't like. Like S&D at USDGC leading to the BOD stripping the TD of the right to do it, and reluctance evidenced over the 2012 USDGC rule variance in the Aug minutes.

[james_mccaine]

My vote is for squares as I think people visualize squares better. Maybe I am just too square.

By the way, I think y'all will need to modify the 30m language to change the concept from 30m circle around the basket to an infinite zone defined on one side by an imaginary line extending from a point (defined as the center of the fairway, 30m teeside from the basket) and extending to infinity in two directions perpendicular to the line to the basket. Anything stance on the non-tee side of that line must meet the different stance rules.

The language is awkward, but logistically, TDs will only be able to mark the 30M in one spot (hopefully, the point I described) and one spot will create uncertainty using the circle concept for shots that are either way past the basket or way off to the side.

[cgkdisc]

I don't think the 30cm width whether circular or rectanguilar is particularly good in terms of either the player or group being able to visualize it. It would make more sense to make the width of the rectangle the diameter of the disc being used as a marker so everyone could see it (but leave the rectangle 30cm long as it is today.) Eliminate marking with a mini (unless player only wanted a 7-15cm wide stance zone.) Players would be allowed to use a different disc as a marker if they wanted to throw the one on the ground. They could use any disc in their bag as a marker so they may want to carry a Zephyr (24cm) or UltraStar (27cm) as a marker to get a little more width. The max diameter allowed for PDGA Approved discs is conveniently 30cm so no one would be able to exceed your 30cm wide proposal.

[bruceuk]

I do like the elegance and aesthetics of the fairway marker concept. It's just that I've played on courses where you can still end up 100+m away from the pin after having crossed that line.

Or, now you can carry range finders you just need a sextant and you can do the trigonometry

[JoakimBL]

A much simpler way of eliminating this perceived "problem" is to allow falling puts inside the circle.

[bruceuk]

Simpler? Will you still require supporting point contact at release? Then jump putts are still a problem. If not, presumably you will require release before landing? In which case you just move the problem. And regardless it does nothing about the fairway violation problem.

[wsfaplau]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

Pete: I think I addressed this with my falling putt argument. IMO making violations obvious and infrequent will do a great deal to remove the perceived stigma in calling them. I've rarely seen an overbalanced putt inside the circle not called, maybe a couple of borderline ones where balance was dubious got a quiet word on the way to the next tee instead, but the majority are called.

I believe there are way more stance violations in non-putting situations than in putting situations.

My example was on the tee. How would adding circles or squares or 30m marks have changed my situation? Just me making the call made a scene. One guy said he thew with a foot in the air, one guy said both feet were down and on the tee, I said both feet were down with only 1 on the tee. One remained quiet until later in the hole to keep himself focused.

We can tweak the rules all we want but until the players step up and enforce the rules it won't matter. The calls will remain infrequent and inconsistent. In a largely self officiated sport that is a huge problem. I don't have the answer.

I appreciate your efforts at improving the stance rules. Because I see the bigger problem to be on the people side and not as much on the technical definitions I am still skeptical on the impact however.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

A 30m distance could be measured the same way the 10m currently is, you ask the group 'am I outside 30?' and go with the decision. Granted if there is disagreement it takes slightly longer to pace it off.

I'm guessing the accuracy to which the group can judge 10m is far superior to their ability to accurately asses 30m or 50m.

In reality if it's close I see most groups just saying "you're outside" as the probability of hitting a 30m/98' shot is pretty low from either S&D or jump putt, and the hassle of pacing off 98' just isn't worth it in almost all cases. [The 2013 rules allowing laser range finders makes some of this easier though.]


With the existing 10m circle it's feasible for TDs to prep courses with painted 10m circles around baskets at major events to eliminate ambiguity. Increasing that to 30m or 50m makes it impractical.

Fairway markers sound good in theory, but implementing that at [all] existing courses is a huge undertaking. Holes with multiple pin positions require multiple markers or the markers to be moved.

[bruceuk]

It wouldn't Pete, you're quite right that it needs players to make the call. My conjecture is that there is a culture of calling falling putts (and players self calling them) and that is due to them being infrequent and obvious. My hope is that if you make all stance calls infrequent and obvious, the culture will change to match what we currently have in the circle.

Will it change overnight? Of course not. I reckon it would change pretty fast at the top level and filter down.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

Simpler? Will you still require supporting point contact at release? Then jump putts are still a problem. If not, presumably you will require release before landing? In which case you just move the problem. And regardless it does nothing about the fairway violation problem.

Simpler in the way that the rules don't change from drive to putt, so yes you would still require supporting point behind the mark.
The fairway violation problem is easiest solved by making the mark you have to hit be so huge there would be no logical reason tho miss it.

The problem is you are trying to solve problems that have nothing to do with the rules by making the rules more complex. None of these problems are caused by the rules being difficult to enforce, but by requiring players that are either ill equipped to enforce them, ot not interested in enforcing them to do exactly that.

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by JoakimBL

The problem is you are trying to solve problems that have nothing to do with the rules by making the rules more complex. None of these problems are caused by the rules being difficult to enforce, but by requiring players that are either ill equipped to enforce them, ot not interested in enforcing them to do exactly that.

Falling putts are difficult to enforce. Just refer to the page in the original post and the high-speed video. I see some every tourney and wonder if the putts were legal.

This problem can be avoided with different rules, and this proposal will go a long way in addressing the issue.

[JoakimBL]

But is it really a problem if you need high speed video to determine if it's "legal" or not? If it's to close to call, you can't call it and so be it. I don't see the big problem. It's hardly a huge advantage to the player, and every other sport also reveals violations that are not called by the officials, or other sort of wrong calls. Football/soccer has had goals alloed that was clearly not in on replays and the other way around. Also wrong off sides calls are made in almost every game. Baseball have marginal calls on whether it's a ball or strike. Tennis have balls called in or out wrongly all the time. Even with replays, the NFL gets calls wrong, even when it's not replacement officials making the calls. It's not like Disc golf is the only sport with questionable calls made in marginal situations.

[Captain Bad]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

In which case you just move the problem.

Isn't this true of your 30/50 meter circle as well? Granted, you're likely decreasing the number of times a jump putt would be used, but there's nothing in the proposed rule that would prevent me from "jump approaching" outside the circle.

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by james_mccaine

Falling putts are difficult to enforce. Just refer to the page in the original post and the high-speed video. I see some every tourney and wonder if the putts were legal.

This problem can be avoided with different rules, and this proposal will go a long way in addressing the issue.

Another way to deal with rules that are hard to enforce is the way we deal with a disc that lands near out of bounds in deep weeds. In that circumstance the rules require a player to play the lie in such a way that the other players in his group can verify that his disc was in bounds before he picks it up. If you play and pick up before anyone can confirm it as in bounds, the group can penalize you for out of bounds. Some self-called sports have a general rule of sportsmanship that the game should be played in such a way that your competitors can verify that you are playing by the rules.

Under the current rules, if one player says, "Foot fault," and the other two say, "I don't know. That happens so fast, I can never tell," we don't have a second. If you have a general rule of sportsmanship requiring observable compliance with the rules, those other two players are now confirming the call by their abstention rather than negating it.

Another way we could deal with all of the kinds of things that happen to fast to call would be to make that sort of play a courtesy violation.