dtmoore1971
May 11 2010, 05:28 PM
Ok, so I recently found myself deep within a largish bush that was inside the 10m circle around the basket. My only route out was to jump as high as I could and chuck a grenade out of the top of the bush. I asked my group what they thought, and they agreed it was legal, provided that I landed and re-established balance on support points in a legal stance behind my marker. I carried out the "putt", and managed not to fall forward after it, so they agreed I shouldn't have to take a penalty/re-putt.

However, upon checking the rules, it seems that this situation is not explicitly covered. So was my "putt" legal or not?

veganray
May 11 2010, 05:37 PM
If you released the disc with "at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc" (803.04A[1]), it was legal.

If you released the disc while you were in the air (and the way your description is worded leads me to believe you did), it was not.

DShelton
May 11 2010, 06:11 PM
Ok, so I recently found myself deep within a largish bush that was inside the 10m circle around the basket. My only route out was to jump as high as I could and chuck a grenade out of the top of the bush. I asked my group what they thought, and they agreed it was legal, provided that I landed and re-established balance on support points in a legal stance behind my marker. I carried out the "putt", and managed not to fall forward after it, so they agreed I shouldn't have to take a penalty/re-putt.

However, upon checking the rules, it seems that this situation is not explicitly covered. So was my "putt" legal or not?

Like veganray said, not legal. Read Section 803.04 of the rule book

A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.04 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

dtmoore1971
May 12 2010, 09:46 AM
Ok .. seems clear enough now that you point it out. I guess I just wasn't reading carefully and I missed that part about "when the disc is released". Look like I was wrong (and so was the group). Thanks.

However, it seems like this is a bit overly restrictive in this case. I was able to make a controlled release without falling forward, and I took off and landed from a legal stance. I had thought, and I guess the group agreed that my throw was within the spirit of the rules. Would allowing the kind of shot I threw really add so much ambiguity to the rules as to open things up for abuse? What do you think about allowing jumps where a player travels straight up and down, and requiring him/her to take off and land in a legal stance? Is it just a case of not wanting to clutter the rules with special exceptions for extraordinary circumstances?

I don't have a ton of tourney experience, but I can't imagine a case where a player would choose to do this to gain an advantage when it was not explicitly required (as in my case).

krupicka
May 12 2010, 10:03 AM
I don't have a ton of tourney experience, but I can't imagine a case where a player would choose to do this to gain an advantage when it was not explicitly required (as in my case).

Seems like you jumped so that you could get an advantage. If you didn't jump, your putt would have been much more difficult. I'm pretty sure the TD didn't have anything in the course rules "explicitly requiring" you to jump in that bush. You might have been able to throw a tomahawk, thumber, pancake, turbo putt, or butterfly to get out. You might have also been able to roll one out too. I didn't see the bush or your lie to know. But if you could get your body to your lie, then you can get the disc out without resorting to jumping. If there's no way to throw it, then take the unplayable lie penalty and move on.

stringfinger
May 12 2010, 11:43 AM
possibly use the unplayable lie rule, plus within 10 meter circle you have to maintain balance until the disk rests... right

krupicka
May 12 2010, 11:52 AM
possibly use the unplayable lie rule, plus within 10 meter circle you have to maintain balance until the disk rests... right


You do not need to maintain balance until the disk[sic] rests. You only need to demonstrate balance before moving ahead of your lie. Whether the disc is moving or not is irrelevant.

rizbee
May 12 2010, 02:50 PM
Pretty bad course design to have a bush that large and dense within the 10m circle, if you ask me.

MTL21676
May 12 2010, 03:07 PM
The distance of the putt has no bearing on the release point. All the distance of the putt has control over is can you follow through past your mark or not. Releasing with out a supporting point on the ground, whether its 5 feet or 1000 feet away, is not a legal throw.

veganray
May 12 2010, 03:14 PM
Releasing with out a supporting point on the ground, whether its 5 feet or 1000 feet away, is not a legal throw.

Careful with your words, MTL; there exist playing surfaces other than the ground.

MTL21676
May 12 2010, 03:48 PM
Careful with your words, MTL; there exist playing surfaces other than the ground.


Yeah, you are right. But you get the gist of what I was saying....

rizbee
May 12 2010, 05:38 PM
Another situation where a comparison to ball golf is useful: You don't see ball golfers tossing their ball up into the air before they take a swing at it. The lie is just that, the lie. It's where the ball (or disc) lies on the playing surface.

veganray
May 12 2010, 05:47 PM
Thanx, riz. I will use your analogy & jump no higher than 101.6mm just before releasing my next tee shot. :p

DShelton
May 12 2010, 06:53 PM
Would allowing the kind of shot I threw really add so much ambiguity to the rules as to open things up for abuse?

Imagine that I am 31 meters out and can long jump about 25 meters (a stretch, yes, but bare with me). I could, in theory, long jump, leaving the ground at 31 meters and just before I land, make a toss at the basket from 6 meters out. Now that is an advantage over someone who could only jump 10 meters.

What do you think about allowing jumps where a player travels straight up and down, and requiring him/her to take off and land in a legal stance? Is it just a case of not wanting to clutter the rules with special exceptions for extraordinary circumstances?

First, a jump putt must be released prior to leaving the ground like all other throws. As to the second part, it's so that our sport doesn't turn into a slam dunk contest. Of course, that may not be the "official" reason, but it is the one that I've heard used most often.

dtmoore1971
May 12 2010, 07:49 PM
Imagine that I am 31 meters out and can long jump about 25 meters (a stretch, yes, but bare with me). I could, in theory, long jump, leaving the ground at 31 meters and just before I land, make a toss at the basket from 6 meters out. Now that is an advantage over someone who could only jump 10 meters.


Ok .. I see, but notice that I specifically stipulated that the stance must be legal before and after the jump. Therefore, the player could not possibly travel forward as you describe. I was specifically wondering about "up and down" motion, where the player lands with one support point on the line of play behind his/her marker by no more than 30 cm. I got my answer too .. I just don't really see the point of the rule, or to phrase it differently, I don't see what would be lost by allowing "vertical jumping" as I describe.


First, a jump putt must be released prior to leaving the ground like all other throws. As to the second part, it's so that our sport doesn't turn into a slam dunk contest. Of course, that may not be the "official" reason, but it is the one that I've heard used most often.

Yeah, I have read that rule a whole bunch of times, but I never really thought about it in the context of jumping during a throw until now. I am pretty sure I have witnessed jump putts where the player released the disc after leaving the ground. I guess that should have constituted an illegal throw, requiring a warning and re-throw for the first offense, right? With a 1-stroke penalty and re-throw for subsequent incidences?

Also, not that they are any indication of correct play, but many of the videos on YouTube purporting to instruct players on how to jump putt, the players seem to release the disc without a support point on the ground. Check out Ulibarri's putt at about 4:12 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F-tExi69E). The other guy's putt at around 4:50 looks illegal too, especially in the slo-mo replay at around 5:10.

tkieffer
May 13 2010, 11:51 AM
Freeze framing it, both look good to me. Foot still touching the ground when the disc has been released.

If you try this type of a putt, you'll find that there will be little power behind it if your foot leaves the ground before releasing.

JerryChesterson
May 17 2010, 04:30 PM
Imagine that I am 31 meters out and can long jump about 25 meters (a stretch, yes, but bare with me). I could, in theory, long jump, leaving the ground at 31 meters and just before I land, make a toss at the basket from 6 meters out. Now that is an advantage over someone who could only jump 10 meters.



First, a jump putt must be released prior to leaving the ground like all other throws. As to the second part, it's so that our sport doesn't turn into a slam dunk contest. Of course, that may not be the "official" reason, but it is the one that I've heard used most often.

Did you mean feet instead of meters? Nobody can jump 31 meters, let alone 10 meters. The current long jump record is just shy of 9 meters.

DShelton
May 17 2010, 06:32 PM
Did you mean feet instead of meters? Nobody can jump 31 meters, let alone 10 meters. The current long jump record is just shy of 9 meters.

LOL I did say bare with me.

veganray
May 17 2010, 07:00 PM
LOL I did say bare with me.

Bare with me? Is that some sort of lurid solicitation? I didn't think this was that kind of a message board.:(

JerryChesterson
May 17 2010, 07:19 PM
LOL I did say bare with me.

Although you may have stumple upon a new sport .. Extreme Disc! Picture it ...


Giant Plastic and Foam Baskets 30 meters apart
Trampolines
Full Pads
Fill in the rest of the detials!

lonhart
May 22 2010, 07:36 PM
I was told today (in a tournament) that for 2010 the "falling putt" rule had been modified, such that it included having both feet on the playing surface when demonstrating "full control of balance" after a putt inside the 10 m ring.

I looked up the rules on this web site and could find no such reference in section 803.04.

"C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc
to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the
thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the
marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole."

So, did I miss something or were these two players (both of whom typically know the rules) mistaken? In fact, one went so far to say this was a change resulting from top players in the Worlds hitting a put while on one foot (from very short distances), then stepping forward without planting the "away" foot, which had been up in the air.

Thanks for the help.
Steve

DShelton
May 22 2010, 10:59 PM
I was told today (in a tournament) that for 2010 the "falling putt" rule had been modified, such that it included having both feet on the playing surface when demonstrating "full control of balance" after a putt inside the 10 m ring.


I have already asked about his. It was a rule for the USDGA event but is not being upheld for the entire PDGA. The rule book is the standard to use.

lonhart
May 23 2010, 10:02 AM
Thanks. So it is a rule for the US Open at Winthrop. Got it.

exczar
May 23 2010, 11:14 AM
Unless they have already asked for and received a waiver, there are no special rules in this year's USDGC. While it may have been the case in the 2009 event, I believe that such waivers are only good for one event, and do not automatically continue for subsequent years' events with the same title.

gippy
May 23 2010, 11:42 AM
Why would they change rules for one event? It makes things a bit confusing. Within 10M you must show controll. Best way to do this is to pick up your mini while still behind it before advancing towards the basket.

Making players show controll by having to have both feet on the playing surface for one evnt is a bit harsh. Say you are a player that putts, and like most pick up your rear foot on follow threw, then you keep your back foot up bend down pick up your mini/disc and move on. Then you are gonna get stroked/warned because you didn't set your back foot down before picking up your mark.
I feel twists on the rules like this are what make enforceing the rules real hard.
Another note why have 2 rule books??? Makes no sense either

cgkdisc
May 23 2010, 12:09 PM
There are those who feel that putting off one foot and bending down to pick up the mini while moving forward does not demonstrate balance per the rules. So, the rule wasn't changed for the USDGC. They just made clear what constitutes demonstrating balance according to the rules. The definition of walking has been described as moving forward by continuing to put one foot in front of the other while constantly regaining balance.