JerryChesterson
Apr 30 2009, 11:20 AM
This came up at a mini yesterday and I want to make sure I interpreted the rule correctly. Chuck please confirm this was the correct interpretation.

Situation
Jerry Chesterson commits a falling putt within 10 meters of the basket.
The stance violation was called and seconded by the group. This is Jerry's first stance violation of the round.
Jerry receives a warning and must re-putt from the spot where the stance violation occured (original lie).

Interpretation
The outcome was, Jerry received a warning and had to re-putt. No penalties where assessed and the falling putt in essence didn't count against his score, only the re-putt counted.

This interpretation was based on a combination of sections of rule 803.04 ...
803.04, 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.

803.04, G. Any throw that involves a validly called and seconded stance violation may not be used by the thrower. Re-throws must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.

johnbiscoe
Apr 30 2009, 11:34 AM
that is correct.

cgkdisc
Apr 30 2009, 12:24 PM
d i t t o .

reallybadputter
Apr 30 2009, 08:38 PM
And the part of the rule that is annoying is that when you miss a putt, if you get called for the first falling putt of the round you get to try it again for free.

My opinion, the rule should be changed to:

Falling putt...
If the putt is made, the stroke is canceled and must be replayed. If the putt is missed, play from where the disc comes to rest.
Violations after the first during a round result in a one stroke penalty in addition to the above.

Imagine you are in this scenario: A golfer is under a cedar tree, kneeling in an awkward stance, but only 10 feet from the basket. They should make 2 out of every three putts from this position, especially if you give them two tries in a row... Golfer putts, chains out, and falls forward on their hands. Why should they get another run at it for free if its their first violation of the round?

I say, count the stroke, play it where it landed, mark the warning.

If you are looking at what's fair to the rest of the golfers, the current thing that you should do is say in your mind "Hey! Did that guy just commit a falling putt?... but he missed it... and it was his first violation of the round... if I call him for it, he gets a free extra chance just because he violated he rule... sure he gets a warning and a penalty if he does it again during the round... but the rules say that I should call him on it anyway... oh darn, was that more than three seconds that I've been thinking about this? Yup, I think it was more than three seconds, so I guess I can't call it anymore..." So you eventually tried to do the right thing, but time had expired...;)

geo
May 01 2009, 11:22 AM
...and you can retrieve your disc to putt with again if you like.
It's a weird rule--late in a tourney if you missed a putt you would be able to call yourself for a falling putt and if seconded you get another chance with the same disc...should just be a warning and penalty there after if occures again.

chainmeister
May 01 2009, 12:08 PM
I thnk this is why most times I play we commonly do NOT call a first falling putt if the guy misses the putt. Although this may not be in accord with the rules I think its clearly within the spirit of the game. No reason to give somebody who violates a rule a second chance to score. I have occasionally missed a putt from an awkward or screwy position where I felt that I moved my foot and have said that I was not calling myself but believed that I did not putt from behind my lie. No way am I going to take advantage of something I did wrong.

JerryChesterson
May 01 2009, 01:04 PM
And the part of the rule that is annoying is that when you miss a putt, if you get called for the first falling putt of the round you get to try it again for free.

That is exactly what happened and nobody in the group could fathom that Jerry actually got a second shot at his 15 foot putt which he had missed.

RhynoBoy
May 01 2009, 02:16 PM
I also agree that this would be a good circumstance in which to not enforce a rule. I know that people say:

"Not calling rule infractions is as bad as committing them,"

or

"How can you follow some rules, but not all of them. You can't just pick and choose rules to follow."

But if the putt is missed, why give the person who committed the infraction a second shot? I think that would be in spirit of the game.

An example of a sport that does something similar to this, is arguably the biggest sport in the world, soccer. If someone commits a foul, but it puts them at a disadvantage in the play, the referee will not call it sometimes.

krupicka
May 01 2009, 03:05 PM
But if the putt is missed, why give the person who committed the infraction a second shot? I think that would be in spirit of the game.


I'd call it because it's the right thing to do. I don't care if they landed in bounds or out of bounds, I'll call the foot fault. Unfortunately, the spirit of the game seems to be to ignore the rules. If someone doesn't have the guts to call a foot fault for what may or may not be a single throw change in score, I can understand why larger issues which might be DQ'able are ignored.

RhynoBoy
May 01 2009, 03:15 PM
I'd call it because it's the right thing to do.

This would be a situation where I believe the rule, is not aligned with what I believe to be right.

Unfortunately, the spirit of the game seems to be to ignore the rules..

The rules are meant to keep the game fair, on a more level situation for everybody. Not give those who break them an extra chance at redemption. Keep in mind I am just talking about this one situation.

chainmeister
May 01 2009, 06:26 PM
I'd call it because it's the right thing to do. I don't care if they landed in bounds or out of bounds, I'll call the foot fault. Unfortunately, the spirit of the game seems to be to ignore the rules. If someone doesn't have the guts to call a foot fault for what may or may not be a single throw change in score, I can understand why larger issues which might be DQ'able are ignored.


Mike

I have to disagree with you on this one. Following the letter of the law gives a break to somebody who does not deserve it. By not following the rule I am taking the tougher stance than you in this case. I will not give somebody who commits a foot fault a second shot. That being said, true to your word, you did call a foot fault on me last year on a shot that landed OB. I received a warning and was allowed to take the shot again. I landed inbounds that time. I knew that I had foot faulted but would have never called it on myself in that situation. It would be like cheating. Had you done it I would not have called the foot fault. However, if you called it on yourself or if somebody else made the call I would not lie and would second it. I like the suggestions in this thread for a rule change. I think that would be more rational than the current procedure.

krupicka
May 01 2009, 10:11 PM
If people don't like a warning, then the rule should just be changed to a penalty on the first occurrence. The penalty for an infraction incurred while throwing a disc should not be dependent upon the result of the shot. This would get highly subjective. It could get rather confusing if the result of a foot fault could be a non-call, a warning, or a penalty.

Of course, right now, we typically just see non-calls. Good luck tomorrow Dave. I'm playing on Sunday.

JHouston
May 01 2009, 10:42 PM
i agree why should you get a second chance when you have just comitted an infraction.
You should take a stroke, if you make this change i guarantee more people would be more willing to make the call. The rule should be more cut and dry. That way there really would be no confusion on the decision to be made! Lets change this rule !!!

CGPRush
May 03 2009, 02:23 AM
That is exactly what happened and nobody in the group could fathom that Jerry actually got a second shot at his 15 foot putt which he had missed.

I was one of those non-fathomers! After checking the rule book (again) when I got home later that evening, I realized that JC had it right.

The suggestion to change the rule to not allow a re-putt if the original was missed seems sensible. But, why is a warning necessary? The suggestion to make the first occurrence a penalty rather than a warning avoids any issues with reputting after the warning.

PhattD
May 04 2009, 12:01 AM
Isn't the purpose of calling a stance violation within 3 seconds so you can't use the outcome of the "illegal" throw to influence your dicision on the foot fault? Now with a putt you have time to see the outcome and still call it in under three seconds butt if you are deciding whether or not to call the violation based on the sucess of the putt I would say you are manipulating the rules to gain an unfair advantage. If the stance violation is called regardless of whether or not the putt was made the golfer still doesn't get two shots at the putt he gets one, the second one.

JerryChesterson
May 04 2009, 07:28 PM
Chuck,

What is the best way to petition the rules committee to change the said rule. Perhaps to request that the warning be removed altogether or in the instance of a falling putt to remove the ability to re-putt (although I still see flaws in this approach as on windy days a falling putt is sometimes desireable on a 31' lay up)?

exczar
May 05 2009, 05:26 PM
Leave a message for the Rules Committee Chair:

http://www.pdga.com/contact