The rule book is clear about the procedure for dealing with an incidence of a stance violation. What is not clear to me from the rule book, is that a falling putt is, indeed, a "stance violation." It is clearly a "stance rule" since it is declared within 803.03 entitled "Stance."

The only place on the web that explicitly states the precise procedure for dealing with a falling putt the way I understand it is on the glossary page at innovadiscs.com. Am I the only one that feels that this rule should be rewritten so that the penalty and procedure for dealing with a falling putt is clear? Everytime this comes up, I have to deal with a) the confused newbie that was called for the falling putt and b) the bunch of irate intermediate players that want to immediately stroke the poor guy.

You are correct that it is a a stance violation, and 803.03.F, G & H clearly state how to handle stance violations.

If it is a putt, the thrower is allowed to retrieve the disc, and must rethrow. On the first called stance violation the player receives a watning and must rethrow, any subsequent violations is a 1 stroke penalty and the disc must be rethrown.

If the player has already received a warning for a stance violation on a drive (or putt), the falling putt would be a penalty stroke, not a warning.

i seem to remember reading somewhere that you could call yourself on stance violations.... so if it's late in the round and you let go a putt that you know is low/high/wide, you could "fall" ahead of your mini before the disc settled and call yourself on the violation: therefore allowing yourself a rethrow.

I for one would never do it, it just doesnt seem like fair play to me. but I'm curious what others think. Valid strategy, or DQ for "willful circumvention of the rules"? :)

All stance violations must be called and seconded within 3 seconds.

It is a courtesy violation to not call a rule that has been broken, and it is cheating to fall down on purpose after a bad shot.

It is unlikely that the call will be seconded if it works in your favor, and it could start a bigger argument about cheating. Especially if you fall down and are the first one to call the infraction.

It is unlikely that a stance or falling putt will EVER be seconded. I call a foot fault or falling putt every once in a while in tournament situations. I have never had them seconded. Sometimes the person that it was called on gets immediately defensive and sometimes they just smile or nod their head. Everyone else in the group just watches with morbidly curious looks on their faces as if I'd just pulled a squirrel out of my bag and commenced to fileting it on the spot. Then this is followed about 15 seconds later with some asking "So, what happens now?" to which I reply "Nothing, no one seconded it. He would have gotten a warning and had to rethrow--next one would have been a penalty. There is no warning because no one seconded the call."

I should point out that I played Rec last year and have been playing Intermediate this year. I think in the higher divisions all the players know what happens next. Still, no one calls anything, but I think they know.

actually it's one of those rule/myths that a stance violation must be called AND seconded within three seconds. It must be called within three seconds, yes, but it must "subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group" which is not limited to happening also within those three seconds.

803.03 F.


F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

Well now, I do believe he is correct. This could add a little drama to the call.

I agree with that as well. Seems as though you could briefly lobby for a second to your call as long as you didn't delay the game.

But what about this. Would you not be able to appeal the ruling of the group, i.e. that they would not second your call? Wouldn't you be able to do a provisional and settle the matter back at tournament central after the round?

im not sure i understand your question. under what scenario are you calling for a provisional?

Under 803.00(C)(3), it seems as though you would be able to throw a provisional if you don't agree with the group's majority decision not to second your foot fault call.

"The use of provisional throws is encouraged in all situations where the thrower questions the group's or officials ruling."

Well the majority of the group favored the thrower. Not seconding the falling putt. He choses to go with the majority you can't force another to throw a provisional. IMHO

I never thought that it needed to be seconded within 3 seconds, but I never thought of lobbying for someone to second it either. I'm not sure that a provisional is called for in this instance. If a foot fault were to be actually seconded, the player could declare they are playing provisionally if they want to appeal the call to the TD. I don't think the rules allow someone else to force a player to play provisionally.

Let me clarify a bit further. Say a player tees off and in doing so, steps past the tee box and plants his supporting point on the ground at the time of release. He calls a foot fault on himself and asks for a second. He gets no second. I think under that scenario it would be legal for him to disagree with the majority decision not to second the call and throw a provisional.

Let me clarify a bit further. Say a player tees off and in doing so, steps past the tee box and plants his supporting point on the ground at the time of release. He calls a foot fault on himself and asks for a second. He gets no second. I think under that scenario it would be legal for him to disagree with the majority decision not to second the call and throw a provisional.



In that case, then I would not stop the player from throwing a provisional. As a TD, I would be likely to let the foot fault stay as called or not called by the group unless the player effected can give a good argument for reversal. Usually most questions brought to me after the round are because no one knows the rule, not because they disagree over a judgement call.

I'm not saying "force" them to play a provisional. And I agree, I don't think you can do that. I'm saying if the player calls a foot fault on his/herself in order to be able to take another shot, and the group will not second the foot fault call, that player has the right to appeal the majority decision and play a provisional. The player could then discuss it with the TD saying "My supporting point was clearly and obviously outside of the tee box when I released the disc and I called a foot fault and got no second."

I think you'd be out of luck. It's a visual call. How could any TD in good faith overrule the group.

I called a foot fault on myself cause I worm burned no one was silly enough to second. They just smiled.

The player could then discuss it with the TD saying "My supporting point was clearly and obviously outside of the tee box when I released the disc and I called a foot fault and got no second."


I suppose that if the TD agreed with said player then courtesy warnings would have to be issued to all the other players on the card, and if any of those players had a courtesy warning already during the round then penalty throws would be assessed.

Actually, when the foot-faulting player fails to get a second, s/he should immediately give courtesy violations to all the other players.

Absolutely. It's not a common scenario, but I agree with you. The TD may end up having to adjudicate the situation based on the testimony of the group, taking into account the credibility of those involved.

As a TD, I would be likely to let the foot fault stay as called or not called by the group unless the player effected can give a good argument for reversal.



Fair enough, certainly. But in my example, the call goes un-seconded not because the others don't agree that it was a fault, but because they don't want the player to get another throw. Under that scenario, it would be unfair to allow the majority decision to stand in the appeal.

This is at least one way around the culture of not seconding a self-imposed foot fault call in order to gain unfair advantage.

Now, I would also support the reverse of that. If the majority of the group testifies that the player called a foot fault solely because of a bad drive/shot and they swear up and down that it was nowhere near being a valid foot fault, then that player should be DQ'd for cheating.

As a TD, I would be likely to let the foot fault stay as called or not called by the group unless the player effected can give a good argument for reversal.



Fair enough, certainly. But in my example, the call goes un-seconded not because the others don't agree that it was a fault, but because they don't want the player to get another throw. Under that scenario, it would be unfair to allow the majority decision to stand in the appeal.

This is at least one way around the culture of not seconding a self-imposed foot fault call in order to gain unfair advantage.

Now, I would also support the reverse of that. If the majority of the group testifies that the player called a foot fault solely because of a bad drive/shot and they swear up and down that it was nowhere near being a valid foot fault, then that player should be DQ'd for cheating.



If you are going to DQ someone for calling an invalid foot fault on themselves, would you then DQ the rest of the group if they did not second because they didn't want the player to rethrow?

...
Actually, when the foot-faulting player fails to get a second, s/he should immediately give courtesy violations to all the other players.



Perhaps someone just doesn't agree that it was a foot fault. You can't give a courtesy violation for a difference of opinion, can you? Either way, I doubt I would ever give a courtesy warning for not seconding a foot fault call.

If it is blatantly obvious, where the thrower misses the mark by several feet, then a warning would be in order in accordance with 801.01.A.

There are two possibilities here: either the group saw the footing and didn't think it was a foot fault, or else no one else was watching the throw. Not watching is grounds for a courtesy violation.

Since a stance violation has to be called within 3 seconds, the other players who are theoretically watching the disc fly should be able able to look down at the throwers feet upon hearing the call of "foot fault" and verify the foot position.

This is all purely for discussion, though, since foot faults don't get called in PDGA tourneys.

If you are going to DQ someone for calling an invalid foot fault on themselves, would you then DQ the rest of the group if they did not second because they didn't want the player to rethrow?



If there is clear and convincing evidence that lying is taking place, someone should be sent on their way. But in the example you give, you can't expect the rest of the group to second a foot fault call that is totally bogus and without merit, whether they want the player to have another throw or not. The player making the bogus call is the only one who should be DQ'd.

Jon is the only person I know of in the history of the sport who has had a falling putt called and seconded on him according to the rules. I'm sure there are others. They are rare.

I saw a lot of failure to demonstrate balance putts at Lombard. I was ready to second anybody's call, but since I was not in their division the first round and deep DFL the second, it did not seem like any of my business.

the rule should be changed so that the thrower cannot make a foot fault call on himself. too much of a can of worms as to gaining advantage if it was a bad throw and whether it was intentional. IMO foot faults in the field shouldn't be called unless the person is repeatedly faulting AND gaining an advantage. usually in the field the 1-6 inches gained is not really that much of an advantage. on putts though, i think the rule needs to be tightened up. many players, including top pros, foot fault all the time on jump putts and definitely gain advantage.

not sure who to reply to, so i just picked on jon for no real reason...

if i slip off the front of the teepad when driving, i have committed a foot fault. there is no doubt about that at all. since i darn well know it occured, i would be subject to a courtesy warning if i failed to call myself on the foot fault. therefore calling myself is NOT a slick technique to garner a mulligan... it is the rules and avoidfing a courtesy warning.

further, should my cardmates fail to second the self-called warning, they must be assessed a courtesy warning. especially if they said something like "oooh.. you OK?" after my mishap. obviously they saw the infraction.

further, if they smiled at, and then ignored, my request for a second, they absolutely should be DQ'd for willful maniulation of the rules. they are, in fact, cheating. they are deliberately ignoring the rules in order to gain an advantage.

that is the application of the rules as written. whether it makes complete sense or not it beyond the scope of this morning's thinking. but it IS the rule.

the rule should be changed so that the thrower cannot make a foot fault call on himself.



That is a very wise suggestion.

not neccesarily. falling off the pad is NOT a foot fault. if you actually read the rules, you may cross the tee line after releasing the disc. since it happens in a split second, even someone watching closely might have a problem determining if it was actually a foot fault. obviously if you call a foot fault on yourself it is most likely that you had a bad shot, so unless someone is 100% sure it was a foot fault, don't expect a second. this is why the rule should be changed to exclude the thrower from being able to make that call. and unless you can prove that the other people in the group saw the violation that happened in a microsecond, i would say a courtesy violation for failure to second is a stretch also.

while it is admirable that someone would call themselves on a violation, it is just not practical. there is no parralel in ball golf to this. the advantage that could be gained on a bad shot is too great. maybe just change it to if the thrower calls it on themselves there is no warning, and an automatic stroke.

agreed that changing the rule to disallow the calling of it on oneself would make sense.

however, there are paralels on bolf. you're deep in a sand trap close to the front, but with a steep 5' incline in front of you. your chip attempt hits the top of the trap and richochets the ball back into your arm/leg/chest. you call the interference penalty on yourself. happens frequently enough.. even happened on last years PGA tour... i forget what player/tourney tho.

as far as the split second things goes, yes, your scenario could happen. but so could mine, so they are not mutually exclusive.

yes, but if you call the interference penalty on yourself in golf it is a stroke, right? no warning. that would be the difference.

you are right, that someone seeing it and failing to second would not be in the right, but a split second action and only 3 seconds to second the call. if you think about it at all it's too late. i just can't see penalizing someone for failing to second within 3 seconds.

you are right, that someone seeing it and failing to second would not be in the right, but a split second action and only 3 seconds to second the call. if you think about it at all it's too late. i just can't see penalizing someone for failing to second within 3 seconds.

Three seconds to call, no time limit to second:
803/03 Stance, Subsequent ot Teeing Off
F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must <font color="red">subsequently</font> be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

...further, should my cardmates fail to second the self-called warning, they must be assessed a courtesy warning. especially if they said something like "oooh.. you OK?" after my mishap. obviously they saw the infraction.

further, if they smiled at, and then ignored, my request for a second, they absolutely should be DQ'd for willful maniulation of the rules. they are, in fact, cheating. they are deliberately ignoring the rules in order to gain an advantage.

I think it's too much of an absolute to call a courtesy violation for failing to second....intentional faulting by the thrower, blatant, or only alleged. The rules require everyone in the group to TRY and observe the throw. It's not practical to expect total recall of every aspect. The thrower's awkward motion might also obscure the support point...then there's always sneezing, and missing the call unintentionaly...that's not punishable, is it? :o

...now, if one should answer, "I wasn't paying attention"...THAT's clearly a lapse in responsibility, and in violation of the rules.

or reply "I wasn't paying attention to his feet, only his throw".

I was a bit taken aback by this reply--but I may not be interpreting the message correctly. So the thrower clearly faults on a drive, touching a point beyond the teebox prior to releasing the disc, then calls the violation on himself. However, none of the other three players in the group second it--they were not paying attention. Rhett says they can be given a courtesy warning (or a stroke if one had been given previously during the round)?!

Here's the rule:

"A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules."

It does not say you must.

Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Steve

No Steve, you aren't missing anything in the rules.

It's a long debated topic based on 801.01.C. Refusal to perform an action expected by the rules, ....

If rule 801.01.A expects (the word "should") you to watch other players for rule violations, refusal to do so can be considered a violation.

I also think that the rule goes on to say that while you should watch the throw for locating errant throws, it is also to ensure compliance with the rules

This is so that the watchers can call non-compliance not the watchee. I always watch the throwing player, it is simply good manners.

I will say this about foot faults, if a player does it once go to another player and point it out. Generally, players that foot fault do it as a habit and they will repeat it. I have also gone to players and told them what it appeared that they were doing and they might want to watch out for it. With that suggestion and another player watching, calling a foot fault becomes very easy to do.


I was a bit taken aback by this reply--but I may not be interpreting the message correctly. So the thrower clearly faults on a drive, touching a point beyond the teebox prior to releasing the disc, then calls the violation on himself. However, none of the other three players in the group second it--they were not paying attention. Rhett says they can be given a courtesy warning (or a stroke if one had been given previously during the round)?!

Here's the rule:

"A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules."

It does not say you must.

Am I missing something here?
Thanks,
Steve

Our rule book uses "should" all over the place when "shall" would be the obvious choice for clear wording.