Patrick P
Sep 03 2012, 05:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tK51pUTJe0

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 08:13 AM
No way that isn't a falling putt.

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2012, 09:35 AM
See putting balance example that starts at 4:15
http://www.pdga.com/demonstrating-balance-putting
You can place your hand on the ground in front after release as long as you wait a few beats. Looks like the putter in your clip put his hand down too soon.

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 09:38 AM
The reason this player puts his hand down is to catch himself as he starts toppling forward. That's the epitome of not demonstrating balance.

futurecollisions
Sep 03 2012, 10:38 AM
not a falling putt, disc was in the basket already, always give the benefit of the doubt to the player

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2012, 11:10 AM
What happens to the disc has no bearing on a stance violation/foot fault call. Try to find that in the rulebook.

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 12:50 PM
not a falling putt, disc was in the basket already, always give the benefit of the doubt to the player

What doubt is there to give the player the benefit of? He never demonstrated balance, then contacted the playing surface between his marker and the target. It's the rulebook definition of a falling putt.

And for goodness sake, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE DISC IS. It never does when talking about a stance violation.

futurecollisions
Sep 03 2012, 03:55 PM
What doubt is there to give the player the benefit of? He never demonstrated balance, then contacted the playing surface between his marker and the target. It's the rulebook definition of a falling putt.

And for goodness sake, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE DISC IS. It never does when talking about a stance violation.

he looks balanced to me. he threw the putt, it went in the chains, then he leaned down to get his mini and hes done

give people a break, step up your own game if you are having trouble winning.

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 04:18 PM
he looks balanced to me. he threw the putt, it went in the chains, then he leaned down to get his mini and hes done

give people a break, step up your own game if you are having trouble winning.

He's not reaching to get his mini. In fact, the mini is in front of his left foot and he picks it up off the ground with his left hand afterhe makes the illegal contact with his right hand.

Again, I have to stress that it doesn't matter where the disc is. You keep referencing the disc in the chains. It's irrelevant to the discussion. He releases the disc, there's barely a pause then he puts his hand on the ground (the counter on the video shows release at 10 seconds and the hand touching the ground at 11). He did nothing to demonstrate balance in that split second in between.

And give me a break with the "step up your own game" crap. Play by the rules or find a new game to play. The attitude that the person correctly calling a rules violation is the bad guy is the #1 thing that is wrong with the way people play this game.

cgkdisc
Sep 03 2012, 04:19 PM
Doesn't matter if he looks balanced to you. He puts his hand down to gain better balance and does it too quickly to properly demonstrate balance long enough per Rules Committee. Watch the video on the link above at 4:15 and you'll see the difference.

bruce_brakel
Sep 03 2012, 04:47 PM
Follow through is what determines whether something is a falling putt, not balance:

"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 ."

Touching the ground there was part of his follow through. I cannot see the mini in my picture, perhaps because I'm color blind, but if he touched the ground closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini, it was a falling putt.

You also have to demonstrate full control of balance, whatever that means, but that sentence is apart from the sentence that defines a falling putt.

"The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole."

I never have full control of my balance. People who have laughed at me while doing my balance exercises can attest to that. :D

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 05:46 PM
Follow through is what determines whether something is a falling putt, not balance:

"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 ."

Touching the ground there was part of his follow through. I cannot see the mini in my picture, perhaps because I'm color blind, but if he touched the ground closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini, it was a falling putt.

You also have to demonstrate full control of balance, whatever that means, but that sentence is apart from the sentence that defines a falling putt.

"The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole."

I never have full control of my balance. People who have laughed at me while doing my balance exercises can attest to that. :D

Some fine lawyer nit-pickin' there, Bruce. :D

Bottom line is that the player can't advance toward the target until he has demonstrated full control of balance. Advancing toward the hole would clearly have to involve contacting the playing surface closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini (unless we're talking Superman flying to the hole and back). So if you can't advance before demonstrating balance, it would stand to reason you can't contact the playing surface between the rear edge of the mini and the hole before demonstrating balance, whether it's in the act of following through or not.

Guess we can still debate what exactly "full control of balance" is in an abstract sense, but I think it's fairly clear in that video that the player isn't at all balanced following the release of the disc until he puts his right hand on the ground to steady himself. And it sure looks like where he placed his hand is closer to the hole than the marker disc.

Incidentally, I can't see the marker clearly at all, but as he's trying to get up he reaches with his left hand and appears to pick up a mini from in front of his left foot, then sort of stumbles as he reaches for and fumbles the towel (?) that was under his right knee. So I'm presuming that his left foot is behind the marker as close as he can get it, and that his knee is behind but as close to the arc (the radius defined by the distance from the target to the rear edge of the marker) as he can get it. If that's the case, then putting his right hand down a foot in front of his right knee would have to be contacting the playing surface at a point closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc.

Patrick P
Sep 03 2012, 06:28 PM
There's a post on FB with 225 comments about this video, great discussion. Player was called out by the current world champ and the other players on the card were not in position to see it. There was a lot on the line when this falling putt occurred in the Final 9 of the event. Players need to have some integrity and call themselves on a falling putt first.

jconnell
Sep 03 2012, 08:26 PM
There's a post on FB with 225 comments about this video, great discussion. Player was called out by the current world champ and the other players on the card were not in position to see it. There was a lot on the line when this falling putt occurred in the Final 9 of the event. Players need to have some integrity and call themselves on a falling putt first.

Nice to hear that someone saw it and called it though we don't hear the call on the video (or are my speakers just not strong enough?).

Really disappointed that no one else was in a position to see it. Players are supposed to watch other members of their group for rules compliance, and it's a potential courtesy violation for not doing so (801.01A). Even more disappointed that the player himself didn't second the call. I know I wouldn't want to win that way.

JoakimBL
Sep 04 2012, 05:18 AM
Where is the Facebook discussion?
Never mind. Found it on Paul McBeths FB Page.

eupher61
Sep 05 2012, 12:47 AM
It's hard to tell, frankly, but it almost looks like he was kneeling on the mini, based on where his knee is, and where he reaches to pick up the mini. I really doubt that was the case, but that was my reaction, after thinking it's definitely a falling putt.

amj1075
Sep 05 2012, 09:05 AM
very obvious falling putt, he lost his balance and touched the ground right after the release.

krupicka
Sep 05 2012, 10:49 AM
FWIW the offending player after seeing the video agreed that it was a falling putt.

wsfaplau
Sep 05 2012, 11:55 AM
It's hard to tell, frankly, but it almost looks like he was kneeling on the mini, based on where his knee is, and where he reaches to pick up the mini. I really doubt that was the case, but that was my reaction, after thinking it's definitely a falling putt.

Take another look. I think his right knee is kneeling on a towel and his mini is by his left foot. See if you agree.

Falling putt.

chainmeister
Sep 05 2012, 12:48 PM
I just held my curser in front of his knee and saw the hand touch well in front of it. No question its a falling putt. The shame is he really does not seem that unbalanced and did not have to put the hand down or at least really did not have to put the hand down there.

One of the posters above rasied an intersting policy question. I agree the rule requires balance without regard to when the disc goes in. The question is whether the rule should consider when the disc hits the chains or basket. If a putter stays behind his/her mini, holds balance and does a face plant after the putt has landed should the rule allow that putt to stand? I think the rule reads the way it does now because its thought that would be easier to call. I find it easier to call by referring to when the disc hits the metal. Its like a first base umpire calling a close play. He watches the runner's foot hit the base but listens for the ball to hit the first baseman's glove. The umpire cannot look two places simultaneously. Rather than assess when balance is achieved we can listen for the chains and as long as the player is behind the line we don't need to see anything else othere than whether the disc is in the tray. Until and unless a change is made I will continue to be a dance critic and ask if the putter has held the position rather than be an umpire listening for the chains.

pterodactyl
Sep 05 2012, 01:12 PM
That's Jim Oates during the final 9 at the End of the Trail tourney in Visalia this weekend. He ended up beating Paul "WC2012" McBeth by 2 throws. I talked to Jim extensively after the tourney and he never thought that he made an error/falling putt. After seeing for myself, I'd have to say he did do a falling putt. Too bad nobody was in position to call the violation other than Paul.

Who knows what would have happened if he would have reputted.

I was thinking that if you are a TD and plan to have a Final 9, that you should also have a ceritified official watching every shot like a hawk. $.02

BTW: Jim said that he was kneeling on a pad and that the pad moved the mini, not his knee during the throw. What's the ruling on that?

jconnell
Sep 05 2012, 01:28 PM
I just held my curser in front of his knee and saw the hand touch well in front of it. No question its a falling putt. The shame is he really does not seem that unbalanced and did not have to put the hand down or at least really did not have to put the hand down there.

One of the posters above rasied an intersting policy question. I agree the rule requires balance without regard to when the disc goes in. The question is whether the rule should consider when the disc hits the chains or basket. If a putter stays behind his/her mini, holds balance and does a face plant after the putt has landed should the rule allow that putt to stand? I think the rule reads the way it does now because its thought that would be easier to call. I find it easier to call by referring to when the disc hits the metal. Its like a first base umpire calling a close play. He watches the runner's foot hit the base but listens for the ball to hit the first baseman's glove. The umpire cannot look two places simultaneously. Rather than assess when balance is achieved we can listen for the chains and as long as the player is behind the line we don't need to see anything else othere than whether the disc is in the tray. Until and unless a change is made I will continue to be a dance critic and ask if the putter has held the position rather than be an umpire listening for the chains.

At what point is the line drawn in terms of what happens to the disc? When it contacts metal? When it comes to rest? What happens if it rolls away? Does a player have to hold his balance until it finally meanders to a stop?

And as far as the umpire trick of listening for the chains while watching the player, what if the putt misses the chains entirely and there's nothing to hear? We don't call the violation because, hey, he missed it and we don't want to give the guy a free second chance to make it, right? Of course not. The call has to be made regardless of what happens to the disc. Either the stance/throw is legal or it isn't. I think adding anything about where the disc ends up just complicates the rule more than it needs to be.

It really isn't that difficult to judge whether a player is balanced or not. If the player isn't in control enough that he needs to put a supporting point down in front of the mark to catch himself, he's not balanced enough to satisfy the condition of the rule.

Seems to me if the player is inside 10 meters, he's close enough that he shouldn't need to do anything that would result in toppling forward on the follow through. If you can't make a 9.99 meter putt without risking falling forward, you need to keep practicing or find a new way to putt. On a knee like in the video really should be no different. If you can't stay balanced the way you're throwing, do it in a different way...a way that doesn't cause you to fall over. Take a little off, lean back, whatever.

chainmeister
Sep 05 2012, 01:57 PM
At what point is the line drawn in terms of what happens to the disc? When it contacts metal? When it comes to rest? What happens if it rolls away? Does a player have to hold his balance until it finally meanders to a stop?

And as far as the umpire trick of listening for the chains while watching the player, what if the putt misses the chains entirely and there's nothing to hear? We don't call the violation because, hey, he missed it and we don't want to give the guy a free second chance to make it, right? Of course not. The call has to be made regardless of what happens to the disc. Either the stance/throw is legal or it isn't. I think adding anything about where the disc ends up just complicates the rule more than it needs to be.

It really isn't that difficult to judge whether a player is balanced or not. If the player isn't in control enough that he needs to put a supporting point down in front of the mark to catch himself, he's not balanced enough to satisfy the condition of the rule.

Seems to me if the player is inside 10 meters, he's close enough that he shouldn't need to do anything that would result in toppling forward on the follow through. If you can't make a 9.99 meter putt without risking falling forward, you need to keep practicing or find a new way to putt. On a knee like in the video really should be no different. If you can't stay balanced the way you're throwing, do it in a different way...a way that doesn't cause you to fall over. Take a little off, lean back, whatever.

The point is contact. The instant it hits a chain, a basket, the ground it would no longer be an issue. I would listen for first contact unless we are talking about a branch or a limb on the flight. Your example of a player completely missing is well taken. I am assuming a player is in an awkward position inside 10 meters and at least hits something. As another player on the card its just easier for me to judge by listening rather than judging balance. I was imagining a simpler rather than more complicated rule such as- "A player must have all portions of his/her body that are on the playing surface behind his/her mark until such time as the disc strikes any part of the basket." If the rule read this way you are correct that a completely botched putt that does not even hit metal would be hard to judge. However, with my rule no call is made. It only matters if you make it. There is no benefit to the player as I am not allowing him to keep an illegal putt. If you take an illegal stance and miss your putt you play your next shot where it lies. That seems pretty simple to me and also seems within the spirit and intent of the rules of the game. You correctly point out that under the current rule some players chose not to enforce the rule on a missed putt. We then have one of those weird situations where rules are selectively enforced. No such issue with my rule. I think the rule would more enforced on a more consistent basis.

jconnell
Sep 05 2012, 02:17 PM
The point is contact. The instant it hits a chain, a basket, the ground it would no longer be an issue. I would listen for first contact unless we are talking about a branch or a limb on the flight. Your example of a player completely missing is well taken. I am assuming a player is in an awkward position inside 10 meters and at least hits something. As another player on the card its just easier for me to judge by listening rather than judging balance. I was imagining a simpler rather than more complicated rule such as- "A player must have all portions of his/her body that are on the playing surface behind his/her mark until such time as the disc strikes any part of the basket." If the rule read this way you are correct that a completely botched putt that does not even hit metal would be hard to judge. However, with my rule no call is made. It only matters if you make it. There is no benefit to the player as I am not allowing him to keep an illegal putt. If you take an illegal stance and miss your putt you play your next shot where it lies. That seems pretty simple to me and also seems within the spirit and intent of the rules of the game. You correctly point out that under the current rule some players chose not to enforce the rule on a missed putt. We then have one of those weird situations where rules are selectively enforced. No such issue with my rule. I think the rule would more enforced on a more consistent basis.

I disagree with the bolded. The spirit and intent of the rules as they're currently written is that no shot that is thrown illegally is to be used, regardless of outcome. Sometimes that benefits the player, sometimes it doesn't, but it is uniform from tee to green. The rules aren't intended just for punishment. They're there to provide a level playing field for all.

Let me add another wrinkle to the "listening for contact" idea: deaf players. I don't know about where you live and play, but I know around here we have quite a few active players who happen to be deaf. How would they call a violation under your rule? Would they have to watch two things at once since obviously they can't listen for the tell-tale ching of disc on chain?

Seems like they'd be unfairly burdened by the wording of your rule where as the current rule only requires them to watch the player and make a judgment solely on the player's actions with no regard for what happens to the disc and most importantly, with no sound needed at all.

Patrick P
Sep 05 2012, 02:42 PM
That's Jim Oates during the final 9 at the End of the Trail tourney in Visalia this weekend. He ended up beating Paul "WC2012" McBeth by 2 throws. I talked to Jim extensively after the tourney and he never thought that he made an error/falling putt. I'm fairly certain Mr. Oates has been playing for quite some time and through the admiration and respect he has earned, he should have an extensive knowledge and experience of the rules. I've only played a few years, and when it comes to knee putts in the circle, maintaining balance and not falling forward is second nature. Not sure if he was in a self-denial mode when it originally occurred. He seemed to react a little awkward and fluttered when attempting to pick up his mini and incidentally flinging it behind him. One could surmise that he was acutely aware what he did and went on to play coy. His heat in the moment comment on the next hole to Paul may suggest a cover up of self-shame, who knows. But I guess like they say, "if in doubt, benefit goes to the player" (as in the case of his mindset), not trying to take anything away from Jim.

After seeing for myself, I'd have to say he did do a falling putt. Too bad nobody was in position to call the violation other than Paul.

Who knows what would have happened if he would have reputted.

I was thinking that if you are a TD and plan to have a Final 9, that you should also have a certified official watching every shot like a hawk. $.02 I know were not accustomed to having an official follow a card on every hole and every shot. But I think when you have an A-tier, a final 9, and a full gallery, it would behoove the TD to designate a knowledgable, well experienced, certified official to be on hand in these particular situations to assist the players on the card at all times.

BTW: Jim said that he was kneeling on a pad and that the pad moved the mini, not his knee during the throw. What's the ruling on that? No stance violation. As per 803.04A(2) the key here is no supporting point contact with the marker disc. A supporting point is any part of a player's body. It seems to be grasping at straws to say that the pad is an extension of the player's body. But following this logic one could argue that the outer surface of a shoe is not part of the player's body and yet we call stance violations when it touches the mini. I would look at the pad moving the mini as a stick below a player's foot that moves the mini during the putt. 803.03A states the marker may not be moved until the throw is released. The only consequence if the marker is inadvertently moved prior to the throw is that it shall be returned to its correct location. There's no rule that states what happens if the marker is moved after the throw.

I had a similar issue on a downhill slope putt. As I went to lift up on my front toes, it compressed the dirt down, which caused the mini to move and slide down the hill. Not sure if the mini moved before or after I released the disc as my eyes were focused on the basket. I only glimpsed down after the putt to see my mini rolling down the hill, and I was a good 7-8 inches behind the mini, so I know I didn't come in contact with it. It was during a casual round, so I got a little ribbing for it, but the other players saw what had happened, and let it go. Who knows what the right call is on this?

cgkdisc
Sep 05 2012, 03:15 PM
Under current rules, any certified official in the crowd could have seconded the call.

Patrick P
Sep 05 2012, 03:41 PM
Under current rules, any certified official in the crowd could have seconded the call.Oh boy, I would of loved to have been there. Keen to this rule, I would have jumped out of the crowd, seconded McBeast's call and whipped out my certified official card if need be. Oh wait, darnit, PDGA stopped sending out the certified official card; no whipping on my part.

chainmeister
Sep 05 2012, 03:44 PM
Let me add another wrinkle to the "listening for contact" idea: deaf players. I don't know about where you live and play, but I know around here we have quite a few active players who happen to be deaf. How would they call a violation under your rule? Would they have to watch two things at once since obviously they can't listen for the tell-tale ching of disc on chain?

Seems like they'd be unfairly burdened by the wording of your rule where as the current rule only requires them to watch the player and make a judgment solely on the player's actions with no regard for what happens to the disc and most importantly, with no sound needed at all.

Excellent point. I have played with deaf players. Frankly, I think they would be better at calling the falling putt under the current rules as they rely soley on sight and generally are better at doing so.

araydallas
Sep 05 2012, 07:03 PM
The point is contact. The instant it hits a chain, a basket, the ground it would no longer be an issue. I would listen for first contact unless we are talking about a branch or a limb on the flight. Your example of a player completely missing is well taken. I am assuming a player is in an awkward position inside 10 meters and at least hits something. As another player on the card its just easier for me to judge by listening rather than judging balance. I was imagining a simpler rather than more complicated rule such as- "A player must have all portions of his/her body that are on the playing surface behind his/her mark until such time as the disc strikes any part of the basket." If the rule read this way you are correct that a completely botched putt that does not even hit metal would be hard to judge. However, with my rule no call is made. It only matters if you make it. There is no benefit to the player as I am not allowing him to keep an illegal putt. If you take an illegal stance and miss your putt you play your next shot where it lies. That seems pretty simple to me and also seems within the spirit and intent of the rules of the game. You correctly point out that under the current rule some players chose not to enforce the rule on a missed putt. We then have one of those weird situations where rules are selectively enforced. No such issue with my rule. I think the rule would more enforced on a more consistent basis.

And chainmeister, I have to disagree with you and agree with jconnell -- even if it's not a deaf dg'er. A player CAN have no demonstrated balance even if he waits until after the disc hits the chain. See C-1 in Chuck's example, (http://www.pdga.com/demonstrating-balance-putting) which I believe was confirmed by the rules committee as a fault. Clearly here he did not demonstrate balance even though he didn't hit past the marker until after the disc hit chain. I just don't think that would be a good way to interpret the rule, and I like it as is -- if called correctly. Chuck’s example F-1 is closer to this situation. And, to me, even Chuck is close to a foot fault there. But I think that the RC said that the hesitation in bringing his arm to his side counted as the separate motion which demonstrated balance.

cgkdisc
Sep 05 2012, 07:27 PM
The other subtlety in F-1 is I think it's apparent I'm putting my hand down in order to stand up. Whereas in the tournament example, it appears he's putting his hand down to regain balance.

tafe
Sep 06 2012, 11:30 AM
The point is contact. The instant it hits a chain, a basket, the ground it would no longer be an issue. I would listen for first contact unless we are talking about a branch or a limb on the flight. Your example of a player completely missing is well taken. I am assuming a player is in an awkward position inside 10 meters and at least hits something. As another player on the card its just easier for me to judge by listening rather than judging balance. I was imagining a simpler rather than more complicated rule such as- "A player must have all portions of his/her body that are on the playing surface behind his/her mark until such time as the disc strikes any part of the basket." If the rule read this way you are correct that a completely botched putt that does not even hit metal would be hard to judge. However, with my rule no call is made. It only matters if you make it. There is no benefit to the player as I am not allowing him to keep an illegal putt. If you take an illegal stance and miss your putt you play your next shot where it lies. That seems pretty simple to me and also seems within the spirit and intent of the rules of the game. You correctly point out that under the current rule some players chose not to enforce the rule on a missed putt. We then have one of those weird situations where rules are selectively enforced. No such issue with my rule. I think the rule would more enforced on a more consistent basis.

As I read it, abiding by your rule someone could do a falling dunk so long as the disc contacts the basket first. I think the rule is fine as it is. Maybe "demonstrating balance" could be further defined, but I think that would needlessly complicate things.

futurecollisions
Sep 06 2012, 11:33 AM
Doesn't matter if he looks balanced to you. He puts his hand down to gain better balance and does it too quickly to properly demonstrate balance long enough per Rules Committee. Watch the video on the link above at 4:15 and you'll see the difference.

Can we accurately define "too quickly"? That's a matter of opinion. Once the disc is released it shouldn't matter what he does. In this case the disc hits the chains, then afterwards his hand touches the ground.

krupicka
Sep 06 2012, 11:49 AM
Actually it doesn't matter what the disc does. It only matters what the player does. By putting his hand down too quickly he was demonstrating a lack of balance.

I applaud Chainmeister for thinking outside the box. Throwing out ideas like that is good in not only exploring ways to improve the rules, but also understanding better why the rules are written the way they are.

cgkdisc
Sep 06 2012, 12:28 PM
Can we accurately define "too quickly"? That's a matter of opinion. Once the disc is released it shouldn't matter what he does. In this case the disc hits the chains, then afterwards his hand touches the ground.
It has been defined. It's less than two beats. But more importantly, a player must do some other action (including nothing at all) indicating balance after release. It's clear in this example that putting his hand down is a continuation of his follow thru with no hesitation.

futurecollisions
Sep 06 2012, 12:42 PM
It has been defined. It's less than two beats. But more importantly, a player must do some other action (including nothing at all) indicating balance after release. It's clear in this example that putting his hand down is a continuation of his follow thru with no hesitation.

Yes, you are probably right.

But what do you mean by 'beats'?

cgkdisc
Sep 06 2012, 01:09 PM
It's basically 2 seconds or counting thousand one, thousand two. But more importantly, it's doing some separate action (or nothing at all) after stopping your follow thru that demonstrates balance before moving forward or touching anything in front of your lie. The RC is not going to specify in writing that it's at least 2 seconds because it's a combination of timing and actions that determines a fault or not. However, they indicated it was at least two beats based on the video clips in the Demonstrate Balance video - those where the player moved past the mark in less than 2 seconds were deemed Faults and those more than 2 seconds were Okay.

jconnell
Sep 06 2012, 04:22 PM
Can we accurately define "too quickly"? That's a matter of opinion. Once the disc is released it shouldn't matter what he does. In this case the disc hits the chains, then afterwards his hand touches the ground.

So you think jump putts and falling putts should be allowed within the 10-meter circle? Based on the bolded, one would think so. That might explain why you've been the only voice in this thread implying that there wasn't a violation committed on the shot in the video.

As has been stated repeatedly, where the disc went after it left his hand and how long it took it to get there are irrelevant to determining whether or not a violation was committed. It is 100% based on what the player does. And in this case, he appears to put his hand down in front of his mark as an uninterrupted continuation of his throwing motion after the release (his follow through). That constitutes a violation. The real shame of it all is that it was called and no one spoke up to second such an obvious fault.

discgman
Sep 11 2012, 02:43 PM
Maybe the real shame is that if there was a foot fault or stance violation, it was not properly called out within a reasonable amount of time giving the violator and the others in the group a chance to respond to it accordingly. The rule is 3 seconds after the violation if I am correct on that. Anytime after that is just a verbal "heads up". I am sure if the violator of the infraction actually heard the call in time, he would have stopped where he was at and possibly agreed to re putt. But to force the call after the 3 seconds is asking alot.

jconnell
Sep 11 2012, 02:54 PM
Maybe the real shame is that if there was a foot fault or stance violation, it was not properly called out within a reasonable amount of time giving the violator and the others in the group a chance to respond to it accordingly. The rule is 3 seconds after the violation if I am correct on that. Anytime after that is just a verbal "heads up". I am sure if the violator of the infraction actually heard the call in time, he would have stopped where he was at and possibly agreed to re putt. But to force the call after the 3 seconds is asking alot.
The rule is only 3 seconds for the initial call, and in the situation in question, there was a call within 3 seconds (McBeth called it immediately).

There is no time limitation on seconding the call, however. So once the call was made, it's up to the group to respond with a second but they don't have to do it immediately (though obviously it should come before another throw is attempted by any other player in the group). The real shame is they had the time to respond but no one, including the violating player, would second the initial call so it couldn't stand.