Thoughts on the lie and stance

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by 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, .....

I see it 180 degrees differently. If I need high speed video to enforce the rules, I see it as a problem. I mean, I've never needed high speed video to enforce the putting rules within 10 meters.

As to the advantage, it is not a big deal to me, but I do think it is an advantage. Just witness how many people fixate over whether it is outside 10 meters (which is wrongly assumed to be 30 feet to most players I play with, btw). I think these people definitely feel it is an advantage, thus their fixation and the lengthy, non-precise step-offs I routinely witness.

Honestly, I do think the difficulty of proper enforcement is enough to justify the change, but I want it changed for other reasons. I do view the 35 foot jump putt as a crutch for some players. I also find it extremely annoying when certain players are always inquiring if they are "outside." Mainly, the sport has gotten too easy for the best players, and this proposal would toughen it up a bit, and force them too learn new skills.

[futurecollisions]

This seems to me like another shot at higher level players and pros. Am's are less likely to make jump putts or even attempt them so they probably couldn't care less. Just add this to the list of ways that rule makers are trying to punish pros under false premises.

[krupicka]

The problem with a 30cm square stance zone is that while it may be easier to hit, it will be even more difficult to call if someone violates it. Let's assume that a player is actually watching the throwers feet and can clearly see where the foot is planted. Knowing it is on the LOP is obvious. Determining if he is off by 16cm to the right/left becomes much more of a judgment call.

[cgkdisc]

Krupicka - Agree. See my post #19 for alternative.

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

This seems to me like another shot at higher level players and pros. Am's are less likely to make jump putts or even attempt them so they probably couldn't care less. Just add this to the list of ways that rule makers are trying to punish pros under false premises.

Couldn't disagree more. Any rule which ends up requiring more skill from the player only helps the top players. In no way would the 30M proposal level the field. If there was some valid, statistical way to measure pre and post variability amongst players, I'd bet big that this proposal would increase the variance rather than shrink it.

The fairway stance rule change would level the field a bit (since better, more coordinated players can hit a smaller spot), IF the rule was ever actually called, even by the top players.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

This seems to me like another shot at higher level players and pros. Am's are less likely to make jump putts or even attempt them so they probably couldn't care less. Just add this to the list of ways that rule makers are trying to punish pros under false premises.

Where can we view that supposed list? I could use a laugh or two.


I'm in the camp that no rule should be written or re-written to make it more "easily enforceable". The rules as currently written are perfectly enforceable, and those rules for which violations are by and large going uncalled are going uncalled due to player choice rather than the letter of the rule. Changing the letter of the rule won't change the culture (wish I knew a way to change the culture, but I'm at a loss).

I'm all for trying to find a better way to accurately call the legality/illegality of the jump putt/putt jump. But I don't think we need to go to the lengths of writing rules that essentially ban the practice altogether. IMO, that leads down the slippery slope of proposing bans on other throwing styles due to some perceived gain of advantage.

Accurate jump putting is a skill no different than backhanding, sidearming, overhanding, straddle putting, push putting, spin putting, etc. Players practice them and get better at them, or they find a way to play well without a particular skill. End of story.

[futurecollisions]

It amazes me everyone is sitting around scratching their heads about why players don't call many rule violations. The answer is simple, there is no competitive advantage gained when most of these rules or ignored, bent or not called.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by krupicka

The problem with a 30cm square stance zone is that while it may be easier to hit, it will be even more difficult to call if someone violates it. Let's assume that a player is actually watching the throwers feet and can clearly see where the foot is planted. Knowing it is on the LOP is obvious. Determining if he is off by 16cm to the right/left becomes much more of a judgment call.

james mcaine:
"The fairway stance rule change would level the field a bit (since better, more coordinated players can hit a smaller spot), IF the rule was ever actually called, even by the top players. "

thats right, right now a majority of competitive players do not call fairway stance violations because it doesnt give the thrower any advantage if he is off his mark and stays behind his lie by a centimeter, or ten, or twenty, or even thirty centimeters. the distance is still the same, its basically the same putt at the target....not talking about jump putts, but where your plant foot is in relation to your mark on the ground.
its a judgement call by the other players to NOT call a stance violation which serves no purpose anyways. now if the thrower blatantly crosses the LOP in relation to the marker, yeah you would probably say something i would think.

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

It amazes me everyone is sitting around scratching their heads about why players don't call many rule violations. The answer is simple, there is no competitive advantage gained when most of these rules or ignored, bent or not called.

No, the reason violations aren't called is because most people are afraid of confrontation. It has become the culture to let these things go, so anytime they do get called, the violating player gets indignant and acts like he's being persecuted unfairly.

There is absolutely an advantage gained by a violation. There's a very good reason that players who miss their mark on a fairway throw miss it to the side away from a potential obstacle...it's advantageous.

And for anyone who argues that a violation in a spot clear of obstacles gives the player no advantage, I dare you to actually try to hit the mark on a fairway run-up 10 times, then throw 10 times where you just throw (like a tee shot) and tell me the difference in the results. Players trying to hit the mark sacrifice a little something to comply with the rule.

I will absolutely call foot faults where the player misses their mark laterally, even on a wide open hole where the target is still 500+ feet away. The reason I do it is that I'm making an effort to hit my mark on such a throw, so you should too.

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by Martin_Bohn

james mcaine:
"The fairway stance rule change would level the field a bit (since better, more coordinated players can hit a smaller spot), IF the rule was ever actually called, even by the top players. "

thats right, right now a majority of competitive players do not call fairway stance violations because it doesnt give the thrower any advantage if he is off his mark and stays behind his lie by a centimeter, or ten, or twenty, or even thirty centimeters. the distance is still the same, its basically the same putt at the target....not talking about jump putts, but where your plant foot is in relation to your mark on the ground.
its a judgement call by the other players to NOT call a stance violation which serves no purpose anyways. now if the thrower blatantly crosses the LOP in relation to the marker, yeah you would probably say something i would think.

I totally agree.

There are two issues in this thread. I'd call them the jump putt rule and the fairway stance rule.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the existing fairway stance rule. However, I understand the sentiment that the rule is technically violated quite a bit, and to provide legitimacy to the sport, we should either become a group of people zealously monitoring fairway stances, or relax the rule so that violations are minimized. Since zealousness is not in our blood, the obvious course is to relax the rule. Remember, if I wanted to be a zealot on this rule, I could because it is observable and enforcable.

The jump putt rule is entirely different, IMO. Unlike the fairway stance rule, the jump putt rule is virtually impossible to call. I read a number of posts who act like it is simply a willpower issue on the part of other players. I think that is sort of disingenuous. Even if I'm a zealot on the jump putt rule, I cannot call the violation because it is impossible to honestly ascertain a violation. That is a problem. That distinguishes it from the fairway stance rule.

Whether the jump putt rule is a significant problem, or it offers an advantage to potential violators is a matter of debate, but whether there is an intrinsic problem with administering the rule is not.

In sum, shoring up the jump putt rule seems necessary to me; shoring up the fairway stance rule depends on how much stock you buy into the legitimacy argument.

edited to change "falling putt" to "jump putt" as that is more accurate.

[davidsauls]

What is the "jump putt rule" that needs shoring up, anyway?

I thought it WAS the fairway stance rule, and one issue people have with jump-putts is that technique is often violating the fairway stance rule, without being called.

[james_mccaine]

Not sure if this is a serious question, or a barb, but I was using the term for the purpose of this discussion. If it was not clear from my post, I was calling the idea of moving the 10m to 30m the "jump putt" rule to distinguish it from the other proposed idea.

[davidsauls]

It was a serious question, but only because I wasn't reading your post that way. The phrase "jump putt rule" threw me, but I got it now.

That, and I've spent too much time today reading about this, both here and on DGCR, and the various positions have run together in my head. Some people are talking about jump putt rules---either as if there's a rule to specifically allow it, or a rule proposed to specifically outlaw it. When I think it's more a case that jump-putts are pushing the boundaries of a broader rule about stance, and the proposed changes are broader than just outlawing jump putts.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

It amazes me everyone is sitting around scratching their heads about why players don't call many rule violations. The answer is simple, there is no competitive advantage gained when most of these rules or ignored, bent or not called.

Did you miss this DGCR thread:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums...ad.php?t=72339
(Posts #27 & 28 give you the general idea.)

[bruceuk]

Joakimbl & wfsaplau: Seems to me to be a pretty defeatist attitude to say "the players are a bunch of uninterested wimps who'll never call anything, so why change". I don't want to spend too much time addressing if things should change as not changing anything is a very easy option and I'd rather talk about what/how we should change. That said I'll cover a few of the points raised.

Other sports have bad calls: All sports I can think of have tweaked rules to minimise/discourage infractions or introduced technology to identify them where they are borderline. Also those calls are by independent parties that the players have to suck it up from.

Jump/walk putts aren't an issue: The committee reviewed available video and concluded that up to 1/3 were illegal. Seems a big enough issue to me and missing the mark is just as much a problem.

There is no competitive advantage gained when most of these rules or ignored, bent or not called: Then why have the rule? Either have a rule that matters and is enforceable, or write a new one. That's exactly what we're discussing. I think it matters, and is unenforceable. The latter is backed up by the fact that it isn't enforced.

No rule should be written or re-written to make it more "easily enforceable": Turn that one around. How about I introduce a rule in American Football that the QB must be touching the laces on the ball at the point of release. It's unenforceable and doesn't influence the outcome of the throw, so it's a bad rule. (I'm a Brit, forgive me if my analogy is somehow weak).

A jump putt is a skill: No, a legal jump putt is a skill, but it's not possible to tell in real time. I'd welcome any suggestion of how it might be possible to keep them whilst making it possible to easily call violations.

Ok, back to the actual discussion...

Captain: Yes, you would be moving it out. The only way to prevent players from trying a jump/walk throw is to deny them a follow through. Doing that everywhere seems too big a change, so it's a case of finding a distance that discourages it whilst remaining fair to shorter throwers. Or finding a way to keep it but make it easy to see if it's illegal.

Bruce_brakel: Interesting thought, essentially a group decision where "I don't know" means "I abstain". I think part of the problem is that most successful calls I see are seconded by the thrower themselves. While it's currently easy to see someone missing their mark it's difficult for the thrower to confirm.

Krupika/chuck: I don't agree that seeing if someone is on an infinitely thin LOP line is easy, I think most players would be very satisfied with 'behind the mini'. The typical disc is 21-22cm wide, so to be certain of hitting a 30x30 lie you'd need to be 'behind the disc', or very fractionally (<2") to the side. I agree that the percentage of miscalled or uncalled edge cases would not change, but I think you'd see a dramatic reduction in the number of those cases.

[Karl]

A lot of interesting stuff...just a few thoughts:

Eliminate the 'jump putt' - because ANY rule that can't easily be determined (if it's been violated or not) is NOT a good rule. Remember, we're talking about people here!

As Chuck stated previously, maybe eliminate the mini alltogether. Your lie is the back-most point of your previously thrown disc (in relationship to a straight line to the basket...or where the group assesses the basket to be). The heck with any mando or intended flight path worries. Keep it simple! We ALL have to play by the same rules so they don't favor anyone.
If you want to use that same disc again, put another disc down in its place. We have to believe there are SOME ethics in disc golf / disc golfers - so I'm not worried about someone placing the newly placed disc slightly askew to benefit themselves (that can be done presently anyway if you think about it..).

Keep the line-of-play aspect there though. As K (I think) stated, it's relatively easy to see if they keep a contact point on the LOP but much harder if they're off "just a wee" on some 'box' in back of the lie.

Or find a way to write in the rules that you have to HAVE contact with your mini / disc upon throwing your next shot!
Half-kiddingly I say "Stand and deliver...or stomp your mini into the ground"!
But half-not-kiddingly I say "Why not (these)?" Think about this before you dismiss it; there IS merit!

Karl

Ps: And "thanks" to the board for opening up discussion / working toward betterment on such rules.

[futurecollisions]

The line of play already works fine, there is no need for this phantom 'box'. Jump putts are part of the game just as overhand and sidearm shots, even though many of us do not use them. If we are going truly purist here, then just ban everything except backhand, but do not pick and choose which techniques you wish to punish.

[cgkdisc]

I think the idea to allow all types of throws as long as a supporting point touches an area behind the marker immediately after release and demonstrating balance behind the marker deserves serious consideration. The putting circle would be eliminated and jump putts including those where the release is in the air would be allowed since it all starts and ends behind the marker.

The stance target area could be a square the size of the disc up to 30cm used as the marker. If you jumped, some part of your landing foot would have to land touching this stance area while maintaining balance before advancing past the mark or you can fall as long as you stay behind the marker.

There's a game design elegance in this concept where not only are you trying to land your disc in a target area, your foot/supporting point must land/remain on the stance target area upon release. Players would still be able to run up from all different directions, throw and learn how to position themselves so their follow thru foot lands on the stance area. It's like a long jumper who learns how to take the proper number of steps to take off just before the foul line. Of course, a simple one step follow thru or stand and deliver would be fine.

This would be easy for the group (and player) to see faults. All players would have the option to develop more elaborate run ups and jumps as long as they also develop the skill to eventually land properly upon release. That's how the more athletic get rewarded for their training developing these skills.

[bruceuk]

No one is targeting any technique, the problem is illegal throws. What is the point in a rule that says you must have contact on the LOP, if you then allow players not to do so? If I'm stuck behind a bush and jump straight up to throw an overhead over the top, that is no less illegal than as many as a third of jump putts. Do not pick and choose which illegal shots you wish to punish!

[bruceuk]

I can think of some pretty kooky looking shots that would meet that requirement! I think with practice I could reliably throw up to 1.5m in front of my lie and hop backwards, and likewise to either side. Would it have to be the first point of contact after release, or do I have a time limit so I can throw and sprint back and slide to my lie like baseball?

I think what you're suggesting is if you are in contact at release, then that must be on and remain on the lie, and if you're airborne at release you must land on and remain on the lie? In which case I think you just made the other 2/3 of jump putts illegal instead

[cgkdisc]

The release would have to be behind the lie even if in the air. So starting a run up in front of your lie would only work if you waited to release it from behind it. The key feature of my proposal is that all types of throws could be made including new ones involving jumping behind the lie with the ability to determine if it was executed properly in terms of stance requirements. The only players who might be constrained are those who currently have multi step follow thrus. But if you watch any of the driving videos, I think you'll see most players only need to take a single step after release.

Even then, why not just allow a single follow thru step for fairway shots? It's superior to the sometimes proposed stand and deliver restriction. Players can get almost max power on throws if they learn how to place themselves for a proper follow thru to land on the stance area. This also has a built in safety element since players up against a tree trunk can legally release from farther back with a one step follow thru.

Eliminating the putting circle completely is also a big bonus with this proposal. Demonstrating balance would continue since a player must do that before moving past any lie.

[james_mccaine]

Originally Posted by futurecollisions

The line of play already works fine, there is no need for this phantom 'box'. Jump putts are part of the game just as overhand and sidearm shots, even though many of us do not use them. If we are going truly purist here, then just ban everything except backhand, but do not pick and choose which techniques you wish to punish.

You continually ignore the core of the discussion: many jump putts are probably illegal, but no one can tell for sure. That is a problem.

btw, I have no problem defending it on character/aesthetic grounds either. Sports make judgements like this all the time. The problem with this sport is that it functions as some kind of disfunctional democracy where the stewards always worry about about the outcry from those predisposed to outcry.

[futurecollisions]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

The release would have to be behind the lie even if in the air. So starting a run up in front of your lie would only work if you waited to release it from behind it. The key feature of my proposal is that all types of throws could be made including new ones involving jumping behind the lie with the ability to determine if it was executed properly in terms of stance requirements. The only players who might be constrained are those who currently have multi step follow thrus. But if you watch any of the driving videos, I think you'll see most players only need to take a single step after release.

Even then, why not just allow a single follow thru step for fairway shots? It's superior to the sometimes proposed stand and deliver restriction. Players can get almost max power on throws if they learn how to place themselves for a proper follow thru to land on the stance area. This also has a built in safety element since players up against a tree trunk can legally release from farther back with a one step follow thru.

Eliminating the putting circle completely is also a big bonus with this proposal. Demonstrating balance would continue since a player must do that before moving past any lie.

This sounds reasonable, I think this would solve it. Then the player who wants to jump putt or run-up for a fairway shot can still do so, they just need to start further back and not continue past the LOP. I don't think anyone would have a problem with this and its a much better alternative than 'stand & deliver' or trying to eliminate the jump putt.

[bruceuk]

I'm still not clear on the mechanics of the suggestion, would all contact points during and after release have to be on the lie? Or can I start as far as I like behind or to the side of my lie as long as I 'come to rest' on the lie?

[cgkdisc]

The only contact point that has to be on the stance area is one following the throw whether it was the one that was on there during the throw (stand & deliver) or after taking one step following a run up, step up or standing with follow thru. No playing surface contact allowed past the lie until balance demonstrated.

Yes, the player could release one step to either side of their lie but not in front of the lie as long as their step lands on the stance area. I could see a player coming 90 degrees from the side toward their lie and jumping up just one step before reaching their lie and landing on the stance area with their other foot or even falling down on it as long as there's no contact in front of the lie.

Yes, this provides a bigger surface area left, right and behind the lie than currently allowed for the player to release the throw. But it also requires more skill for players to execute more difficult throws successfully and end up on the stance area. The fact that the group could easily observe whether the player faults or not I believe would increase the number of calls being made because the thrower can actually look down and see that they faulted if their final position is NOT on the stance area. The problem with making some stance calls under current rules is a fairway fault is usually fleeting. The "fault caller" can't be sure they saw the fault accurately to call it and then can't prove it to the thrower that they did fault short of video replay (not allowed yet).

[bruceuk]

So what you're saying is something like:

B. When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Make contact with a stance zone defined by a 30x30cm square (or variant, or existing lie) directly behind the marker disc with;
a) at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface or,
b) the next subsequent supporting point contact with the playing surface; 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 closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is not permitted and is considered a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

No need for D.

Slightly ugly wording, but you get the idea I hope.

[cgkdisc]

Yes. In thinking further about this whole issue, ball golf has the advantage that everyone can see that the ball is played where it lies all the way from the start of a player's process until the ball is struck. In disc golf we don't play it where it lies. We must place a supporting point where the throw lands at the time of release which can occur at any point between the start and end of our complete throwing process depending whether we run up, just stand and/or follow-thru (when outside 10m).

Because we've chosen to have the critical moment for observing a legal stance mostly in the middle of the throwing process, we've made it more difficult to both execute and observe a legal stance for many throws due to the speed of the actions. Two alternative options would be to make the legal stance call at the beginning of a throw or end of a throw. Of course, making the call at the beginning would be foolish since the player could then proceed past the lie before throwing, doing improper actions after the stance call was good.

Making the legal stance call at the end of all throwing motions makes more sense because both the player and the group can see if it was done legally. We already do this now with putting inside the 10m circle. Of course, it's necessary to continue requiring the player to release the throw while supporting points are behind the mark which can easily be observed.

So rather than moving the putting circle outward and maintaining the more restricted putting motions where there's no follow-thru and a supporting point has to be on the ground at release, let's move the circle way back by eliminating it completely and at the same time free up the type of throws allowed as long as they're made behind the mark. Seems like that provides freedom to legally make more types of throws from near and behind their lie and makes sure the player executes them so their final motion is connected to their official lie so player and group can confirm it.

[davidsauls]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

So rather than moving the putting circle outward and maintaining the more restricted putting motions where there's no follow-thru and a supporting point has to be on the ground at release, let's move the circle way back by eliminating it completely and at the same time free up the type of throws allowed as long as they're made behind the mark. Seems like that provides freedom to legally make more types of throws from near and behind their lie and makes sure the player executes them so their final motion is connected to their official lie so player and group can confirm it.

Wouldn't that open up a lot of debate as to what was part of a "final motion"?

For a while, due to a flaw in my delivery, I was following through 10-15'. Unless a root tripped and stopped me sooner. Would I be granted the same room on a fairway shot---to release 10' behind the lie, maybe 10' off the the side of the lie, as long as my follow-through left me on my official lie?

And would that extend the vague "demonstrate balance" to many more shots, trading one gray area (jump putts) for another?

*

My personal feeling is that jump-putt objections are a tempest in a teapot, and the cures offered are worse than the disease. In spite of which, I'll toss in the notion of a 20-meter circle. That seems short enough to visually estimate and, if desired, pace off (still an estimate, of course). Beyond 20 meters, the frequency of made putts is fairly small, and the frequency of made jump-putts compared to stationary putts is of little significance.

[cgkdisc]

You would only be allowed one step on the follow thru at least in tournament play where your follow thru foot hits the mark either balanced or falling down behind the lie and still touching the mark.

The proposal reconceptualizes the sport but not necessarily the game by requiring more skill to properly execute powerful fairway throws, allowing some more athletic throws, providing more liberal left-right-back space from which to release throws but at the same time making faults easier to call.

[JoakimBL]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

Joakimbl & wfsaplau: Seems to me to be a pretty defeatist attitude to say "the players are a bunch of uninterested wimps who'll never call anything, so why change".[...]

I don't think I have a defeatist attitude. It's just that I think that your solutions are a lot worse than the problem. I think the current stance rules are pretty simple. Making them more complicated is not going to make people call more infractions.

I think educating players on the rules is a much better solution. I realize that does not change the "too close to call" jump putts, but I still think that is a non issue.