bruceuk
Oct 01 2012, 12:44 PM
As mentioned in the 2013 rules thread, we have been thinking about the issues with stance violations and how to address them.

The concept of 'tail marking' came up in another thread, and it is IMO almost a must for tidying up the stance area. The idea (and you can see it visualised further down) is to mark your lie with the back edge of the mini aligned with the back edge of the thrown disc, meaning that your lie is the same irrespective of whether you mark it or not. This helps with speed of play as the majority of lies will not require marking. The only down side I can see is that you may have more instances of solid object relief.

That is a bit of an aside as the following thoughts can also work with the current marking rules, but I include it as I believe it works visually in combination with other possible changes.

So onto actual stance rules.

There were discussions on this area before I joined the committee and you can see notes on the 2011 discussion here: http://conraddamon.com/pdga/2011/FallingPutt.txt

Please read it as I there are thoughts in there that I'm basing the following on, which is taken from an email I sent to the committee during the re-write we just completed.

[Email extract]
My feeling (as was Rick's) is that 60cm is too big for a general rule but rather than have two rules, why not stick with the existing 30cm leeway but extend it sideways. A 30x30cm square (makes more sense than a circle I think) gives a substantial area to hit during a run up, and only 15cm side-to-side relief in the case of a tricky lie. When we combine this with changing the marking behaviour, I think we get quite a compelling case.

See embedded image for how it would look (along with 60x60 & 60cm circle), the area to hit would only extend ~4cm to either side of a standard disc, or exactly the width of a standard mini (or an average foot) either way, and should be visually pretty easy to call particularly when you consider you would normally have the thrown disc as the visual indicator.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-U00AXxNAA6Q/UFchH-2nA8I/AAAAAAAAATc/_RGL-T7hJY4/s400/Lie%2520options.jpg

The proposed rule therefore would look like this:

802.04 Throwing from a Stance

A. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course. Once a legal stance is taken, the player may not move an obstacle in any way in order to make room for a throwing motion. It is legal for a player's throwing motion to cause incidental movement of an obstacle.

B. When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface that is within a stance zone defined by a 30x30cm square directly behind the marker disc 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 past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released, except when putting.

D. Putting: Any throw from within 30 meters, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the target, is considered a putt. Supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

E. A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of a stance rule.

F. Any throw made from an illegal stance is disregarded. A re-throw must be taken from the original lie, prior to subsequent play by others in the group.

I have pitched this whole concept to a variety of players from AM2 through to Pro and no one has voiced any concerns.

[extract ends]

Alternatives to consider include: removing the follow through but allowing a run up on all throws; a 30m or 50m fairway marker past which you are considered to be putting (as opposed to a putting circle); different lies for inside/outside the circle.

None of these have reached a proposal stage yet

cgkdisc
Oct 01 2012, 12:52 PM
Putting would start at 30m or is that a misprint?

In addition to expanding to 30cmx30cm, I think having one of your stance points touching the 30x30 area AFTER your release would also make it easier to make the call. Either you stand and deliver or position yourself far enough back on the release so your follow thru step lands touching the 30x30 so your group has an easier way to see if you faulted.

bruceuk
Oct 01 2012, 01:18 PM
Yes, although distance is subject to discussion. 30m might not be enough to get rid of jump putts, but 50m might be unfairly punitive to novices and juniors.

After is a tricky concept, how long after?

cgkdisc
Oct 01 2012, 01:41 PM
How easily can you measure 30m during competition?

The idea would be to restrict your throwing options similar to pure stand and deliver but with more flexibility where you can stand and deliver or have a one step follow thru if that's more comfortable as long as your step thru lands on the 30x30 mark. If you do this then you don't need any putting circle and the complaints about pure stand and deliver causing knee injuries is mitigated. In addition, players could stretch out to the side farther where they release to the side on the left foot and bring their right foot down on the mark after release.

In terms of timing, maybe you require maintaining balance behind your mark for the hypothetical 2-count where the group can see that you hit the mark properly.

Captain Bad
Oct 01 2012, 06:15 PM
Putting would start at 30m or is that a misprint?

Sorry to bring this up again, but are you sure you mean 30 METERS??? That's almost 100 feet. And 50m? That's over 160 feet! Who would consider a 160ft shot a putt? Some entire holes aren't even 160ft!

Patrick P
Oct 01 2012, 08:11 PM
I appreciate the brainstorming and was happy with the conclusion: 9/5: No interest has been expressed. Issue closed. Some people should simply not be making any proposals.

DShelton
Oct 01 2012, 11:34 PM
I see a problem ith the marking suggestion. It would require you to move the disc on the ground if you want to use a mini to mark your lie (example, you want to use the disc on the next throw.) Other rules strickly forbid moving the disc UNTIL the lie is marked or you finish your next throw.

wsfaplau
Oct 01 2012, 11:58 PM
If the issue is players aren't currently calling foot faults how would this proposal change that?

What were the arguments that convinced the BOD to not approve rear marking?

cgkdisc
Oct 02 2012, 12:03 AM
I know some Board members liked the current strategy involved in deciding whether to mark with a mini or leave your disc which would disappear under the rear marking proposal.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 09:46 AM
In order of Qs asked, apologies if I miss anyone:

Chuck: A 30m distance could be measured the same way the 10m currently is, you ask the group 'am I outside 30?' and go with the decision. Granted if there is disagreement it takes slightly longer to pace it off.

Captain: Yes, 30 or even 50m. The goal is to eliminate the borderline violations associated with the jump/walkthrough putts by removing the incentive to attempt them, inside the distance (which could be called approaching rather than putting if that helps with your issue) you should have no incentive to lift your supporting point from your lie or follow through, making violations easy to call.

Patrick: Not sure if you're referring to the whole thing, or the removal of the 10m circle that the 9/5 update refers to.

DShelton: Moving of a disc is already sometimes necessary to identify who's disc is who's, and it is simple to place the rear of the mini on the rear of the disc and remove the disc from underneath. I played several months of practice rounds this way without encountering any issues.

wsfaplau: I thought the link covered the reasoning behind this, but maybe worth clarifying. The two perceived problems are: 1) that there are borderline cases related to long putts/short approaches where it is difficult/impossible to call in real time, and 2) that it seems our current lie is too difficult to hit consistently during a run up. Both of these issues have the potential to make the game look unprofessional on TV where every violation is subject to replay and analysis.

Currently violations in the circle are infrequent and relatively easy to spot, and hence (IME at least) pretty reliably called. The goal is to address the two issues so the same applies everywhere on the course, and then remove the warning from stance violations completely.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 09:52 AM
Missed the tail marking Q.

Largely 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', along with the strategic element Chuck mentions. The board seems a little change averse as they perceive the players to be change averse. My feeling from the start was that it was a better sell tied to the wider changes rather than a standalone change in the rewrite.


We can go more radical if you like. How about ditching the mini altogether in exchange for a 30x30cm towel you place behind your disc and must be in contact with when you throw. That'd be easy to call fairway violations on :)

cgkdisc
Oct 02 2012, 10:06 AM
I had suggested the "official" towel idea to Harold many years ago but there were concerns about slipping on it unless you maybe had small cleats on one side to dig into the ground. If you went in this direction, instead of a towel I would suggest a brightly colored heavy duty string or ribbon 30cm long attached to the mini. You would be allowed to stretch the string on any angle behind the mini or even to the side (but no closer to the hole). You have to step on the string while releasing the throw.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 10:24 AM
Personally I'd have thought a towel would be less slippery than the majority of surfaces we play off, but maybe that's just the British weather :D

wsfaplau
Oct 02 2012, 11:20 AM
Thanks Bruce.

I see the issue of people not calling out foot faults to be a people issue, not a too hard to call issue. I believe people can clearly understand what is a stance violation right now and see it but choose not to call it because the the ensuing drama and conflict.

They have no interest in getting into a mid round debate and creating distracting conflict while they are trying to keep focused on their own game to shoot the best possible round they can. Bringing conflict in the equation has less upside than calling a foot fault.

Earlier this year I called a foot fault on a player. He had a supporting point on the ground outside the tee area. HE declined to second it saying he lifts his foot before he throws (BS)... The other guy on the card said it was no foot fault. The last guy walked away to throw his next shot. half way up the fairway he agreed with me in whispered tones it was a foot fault but wasn't worth it to call it because of the resulting scene it would have created.

I believe that is the kind of attitude that leads to many of the non calls on stance violations.

Change the wording on the rule and you still have the people who don't want to get involved problem.

How can that be addressed?

james_mccaine
Oct 02 2012, 11:23 AM
I haven't been following any PDGA topics for awhile. Kudos for trying to address this, as it is long overdue, IMO.

Why does this overall concept change require a change to the marking concept; it seems like it would work under the current marking rules. I share DShelton's concern about introducing uncertainty into something that previously had little.

Please don't employ any towel or marking strip concepts. Those are ridiculous.

Overall, the proposal can be nitpicked for sure, but it easily achieves two important goals, IMO: basically removing the jump putt from the sport, and providing necessary latitude for legal fairway stances.

It would be nice to see the BOD embrace positive change, instead of worrying about griping. You know, be leaders instead of followers.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 12:06 PM
Pete: I think I addressed this with my falling putt argument. IMO making violations obvious and infrequent will do a great deal to remove the perceived stigma in calling them. I've rarely seen an overbalanced putt inside the circle not called, maybe a couple of borderline ones where balance was dubious got a quiet word on the way to the next tee instead, but the majority are called.

James: The marking is not tied to it, it's quite possible to implement the rest with the existing marking rules, however I disagree on the uncertainty argument. The vast majority of lies would go unmarked as it would only be only necessary if you wish to use the thrown disc, or are already marking where the disc is not (OB, above/below ground). So most lies would be more certain, as you'd use the disc exactly where it lies.

Additionally, using the thrown disc is a far superior visual indicator of the lie area, you almost have to have some part of your foot behind the 'shadow' of the disc.

One man's gripe is another man's ridiculous ;) But it's not something we've even talked about.

I'd be interested in thoughts on size/shape of the lie area. Is 30x30 small/right/large? Square or circle?
Also the concept of a fairway marker at 30m instead of a circle as per Ricks suggestion. This would mean that if you overshot the basket by >30m, you cannot follow through on your return shots.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 12:13 PM
I don't know if it's truly the case but one problem of being a touring player on the BOD I imagine is that you get a lot of grief from your competitors/peers if you approve something they don't like. Like S&D at USDGC leading to the BOD stripping the TD of the right to do it, and reluctance evidenced over the 2012 USDGC rule variance in the Aug minutes.

james_mccaine
Oct 02 2012, 12:31 PM
My vote is for squares as I think people visualize squares better. Maybe I am just too square.

By the way, I think y'all will need to modify the 30m language to change the concept from 30m circle around the basket to an infinite zone defined on one side by an imaginary line extending from a point (defined as the center of the fairway, 30m teeside from the basket) and extending to infinity in two directions perpendicular to the line to the basket. Anything stance on the non-tee side of that line must meet the different stance rules.

The language is awkward, but logistically, TDs will only be able to mark the 30M in one spot (hopefully, the point I described) and one spot will create uncertainty using the circle concept for shots that are either way past the basket or way off to the side.

cgkdisc
Oct 02 2012, 12:53 PM
I don't think the 30cm width whether circular or rectanguilar is particularly good in terms of either the player or group being able to visualize it. It would make more sense to make the width of the rectangle the diameter of the disc being used as a marker so everyone could see it (but leave the rectangle 30cm long as it is today.) Eliminate marking with a mini (unless player only wanted a 7-15cm wide stance zone.) Players would be allowed to use a different disc as a marker if they wanted to throw the one on the ground. They could use any disc in their bag as a marker so they may want to carry a Zephyr (24cm) or UltraStar (27cm) as a marker to get a little more width. The max diameter allowed for PDGA Approved discs is conveniently 30cm so no one would be able to exceed your 30cm wide proposal.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 01:22 PM
I do like the elegance and aesthetics of the fairway marker concept. It's just that I've played on courses where you can still end up 100+m away from the pin after having crossed that line.

Or, now you can carry range finders you just need a sextant and you can do the trigonometry ;)

JoakimBL
Oct 02 2012, 02:30 PM
A much simpler way of eliminating this perceived "problem" is to allow falling puts inside the circle.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 02:47 PM
Simpler? Will you still require supporting point contact at release? Then jump putts are still a problem. If not, presumably you will require release before landing? In which case you just move the problem. And regardless it does nothing about the fairway violation problem.

wsfaplau
Oct 02 2012, 02:49 PM
Pete: I think I addressed this with my falling putt argument. IMO making violations obvious and infrequent will do a great deal to remove the perceived stigma in calling them. I've rarely seen an overbalanced putt inside the circle not called, maybe a couple of borderline ones where balance was dubious got a quiet word on the way to the next tee instead, but the majority are called.



I believe there are way more stance violations in non-putting situations than in putting situations.

My example was on the tee. How would adding circles or squares or 30m marks have changed my situation? Just me making the call made a scene. One guy said he thew with a foot in the air, one guy said both feet were down and on the tee, I said both feet were down with only 1 on the tee. One remained quiet until later in the hole to keep himself focused.

We can tweak the rules all we want but until the players step up and enforce the rules it won't matter. The calls will remain infrequent and inconsistent. In a largely self officiated sport that is a huge problem. I don't have the answer.

I appreciate your efforts at improving the stance rules. Because I see the bigger problem to be on the people side and not as much on the technical definitions I am still skeptical on the impact however.

ERicJ
Oct 02 2012, 03:00 PM
How easily can you measure 30m during competition?A 30m distance could be measured the same way the 10m currently is, you ask the group 'am I outside 30?' and go with the decision. Granted if there is disagreement it takes slightly longer to pace it off.
I'm guessing the accuracy to which the group can judge 10m is far superior to their ability to accurately asses 30m or 50m.

In reality if it's close I see most groups just saying "you're outside" as the probability of hitting a 30m/98' shot is pretty low from either S&D or jump putt, and the hassle of pacing off 98' just isn't worth it in almost all cases. [The 2013 rules allowing laser range finders makes some of this easier though.]


With the existing 10m circle it's feasible for TDs to prep courses with painted 10m circles around baskets at major events to eliminate ambiguity. Increasing that to 30m or 50m makes it impractical.

Fairway markers sound good in theory, but implementing that at [all] existing courses is a huge undertaking. Holes with multiple pin positions require multiple markers or the markers to be moved.

bruceuk
Oct 02 2012, 03:06 PM
It wouldn't Pete, you're quite right that it needs players to make the call. My conjecture is that there is a culture of calling falling putts (and players self calling them) and that is due to them being infrequent and obvious. My hope is that if you make all stance calls infrequent and obvious, the culture will change to match what we currently have in the circle.

Will it change overnight? Of course not. I reckon it would change pretty fast at the top level and filter down.

JoakimBL
Oct 02 2012, 03:47 PM
Simpler? Will you still require supporting point contact at release? Then jump putts are still a problem. If not, presumably you will require release before landing? In which case you just move the problem. And regardless it does nothing about the fairway violation problem.

Simpler in the way that the rules don't change from drive to putt, so yes you would still require supporting point behind the mark.
The fairway violation problem is easiest solved by making the mark you have to hit be so huge there would be no logical reason tho miss it.

The problem is you are trying to solve problems that have nothing to do with the rules by making the rules more complex. None of these problems are caused by the rules being difficult to enforce, but by requiring players that are either ill equipped to enforce them, ot not interested in enforcing them to do exactly that.

james_mccaine
Oct 02 2012, 04:19 PM
The problem is you are trying to solve problems that have nothing to do with the rules by making the rules more complex. None of these problems are caused by the rules being difficult to enforce, but by requiring players that are either ill equipped to enforce them, ot not interested in enforcing them to do exactly that.

Falling putts are difficult to enforce. Just refer to the page in the original post and the high-speed video. I see some every tourney and wonder if the putts were legal.

This problem can be avoided with different rules, and this proposal will go a long way in addressing the issue.

JoakimBL
Oct 02 2012, 04:44 PM
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, and every other sport also reveals violations that are not called by the officials, or other sort of wrong calls. Football/soccer has had goals alloed that was clearly not in on replays and the other way around. Also wrong off sides calls are made in almost every game. Baseball have marginal calls on whether it's a ball or strike. Tennis have balls called in or out wrongly all the time. Even with replays, the NFL gets calls wrong, even when it's not replacement officials making the calls. It's not like Disc golf is the only sport with questionable calls made in marginal situations.

Captain Bad
Oct 02 2012, 04:58 PM
In which case you just move the problem.

Isn't this true of your 30/50 meter circle as well? Granted, you're likely decreasing the number of times a jump putt would be used, but there's nothing in the proposed rule that would prevent me from "jump approaching" outside the circle.

bruce_brakel
Oct 02 2012, 05:27 PM
Falling putts are difficult to enforce. Just refer to the page in the original post and the high-speed video. I see some every tourney and wonder if the putts were legal.

This problem can be avoided with different rules, and this proposal will go a long way in addressing the issue.

Another way to deal with rules that are hard to enforce is the way we deal with a disc that lands near out of bounds in deep weeds. In that circumstance the rules require a player to play the lie in such a way that the other players in his group can verify that his disc was in bounds before he picks it up. If you play and pick up before anyone can confirm it as in bounds, the group can penalize you for out of bounds. Some self-called sports have a general rule of sportsmanship that the game should be played in such a way that your competitors can verify that you are playing by the rules.

Under the current rules, if one player says, "Foot fault," and the other two say, "I don't know. That happens so fast, I can never tell," we don't have a second. If you have a general rule of sportsmanship requiring observable compliance with the rules, those other two players are now confirming the call by their abstention rather than negating it.

Another way we could deal with all of the kinds of things that happen to fast to call would be to make that sort of play a courtesy violation.

james_mccaine
Oct 02 2012, 05:35 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 05:47 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 06:06 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 06:17 PM
Krupicka - Agree. See my post #19 for alternative.

james_mccaine
Oct 02 2012, 06:18 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 06:18 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 06:36 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 06:40 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 07:06 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 07:06 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 07:49 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 09:41 PM
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
Oct 02 2012, 11:04 PM
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
Oct 03 2012, 03:58 AM
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/showthread.php?t=72339
(Posts #27 & 28 give you the general idea.)

bruceuk
Oct 03 2012, 05:28 AM
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
Oct 03 2012, 09:19 AM
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
Oct 03 2012, 10:56 AM
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
Oct 03 2012, 11:38 AM
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
Oct 03 2012, 11:46 AM
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
Oct 03 2012, 12:01 PM
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 :D

cgkdisc
Oct 03 2012, 12:12 PM
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
Oct 03 2012, 12:26 PM
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
Oct 03 2012, 12:29 PM
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
Oct 03 2012, 12:50 PM
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
Oct 03 2012, 04:07 PM
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
Oct 04 2012, 10:49 AM
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
Oct 04 2012, 11:42 AM
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
Oct 04 2012, 12:27 PM
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
Oct 04 2012, 12:40 PM
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
Oct 04 2012, 12:51 PM
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.

Patrick P
Oct 04 2012, 03:08 PM
I think the whole premise of this discussion should be rephrased to "Old Men Can't Jump". Most everything you are spewing out Bruce is complete and bloody rubbish. I disagree with all of your proposals and reasons behind them. 95% of all stats are made up. 1/3 of jump putts are illegal? Yeah, ok, NOT. If it is very clear without question that someone has no supporting point on the playing surface upon release of the disc, then make the call. But if the release of disc and supporting point non contact are almost simultaneously, then seriously are you going to make that big of a deal about it? You come up with these off-the-wall ideas that are a) more intrusive for a TD (marking fairways out to 30m vs. a 10m circle), b) goes against the speed of play rule (dude, I'm going to go walk off 30m now vs. 10m), and c) makes the sport look pathetic (carry a little hanky and place behind your disc, or draw out a string).

A jump putt takes skill just like a perfectly executed roller or a 350ft accurate thumber. If a player exhibits a well executed jump putt then congrats to them. In my experience and the players I have competed with, jump putts are the least significant matter that needs to be addressed in this sport. Are there players that violate stance violations with their particular attempt at jump putting, yes? The same can be said about players that miss their LOP on fairway approaches. Typically competitive players will respectfully pull these players aside, and quietly address the issue with courtesy and respect to let the player know of these small insignificant nuances. Rarely is it the case that a player is attempting to gain an advantage from these minor miscues. But when it becomes apparent or repetitive then they should be openly addressed.

I think our attention of the embodiment of our sport needs to be steered in a different direction, how to grow the sport, how to increase viewership, how to encourage ethical sportsmanship of a gentleman's game.

Just to give you one example where I see the PDGA moving away from this ideology. We say this is a self-officiating sport, yet per a 2013 rule change, now a player cannot call a stance violation on themselves.

cgkdisc
Oct 04 2012, 03:51 PM
It's never been self-officiated but player or group-officiated.

bruceuk
Oct 05 2012, 05:40 AM
Disagree with me if you like, that is entirely your right. But be respectful about it or you run the risk of me ignoring your opinion by default.

I didn't make up a stat, we reviewed evidence (well someone else did, this pre-dates my involvement). For the record, I'm not old, and I jump putt. As I already stated, the conclusion of the discussion might well be 'do nothing', but without exploring options how can you tell if there might not be a better way?

To address your issues.
a) In 10 years playing I have seen precisely zero 10m circles marked. I can see how it will take a TD a lot longer to mark zero 30m markers. The fairway marker vs circle option would only require single flag to be placed, I think that would be faster personally.
b) No it doesn't. You have 30s to throw from when you reach your lie, regardless of what you choose to pace off.
c) We're tossing around ideas, some will be wacky. Get over it.

I'll state it once again, the justification for looking at this is not to be punishing players for minor infractions, or to get at pros and da yoof. It's that in an increasingly digitally recorded world infractions are captured and observed after the fact. We can shrug and wait for the winning putt at some future major to be seen as illegal live on the internet and messageboards flooded with people complaining before the prize ceremony has even happened or we can try to explore options for preventing it from happening.

I'm on the rules committee, I'm looking at rules, go figure. As UK national coordinator I look at all the other wonderful things you suggest

james_mccaine
Oct 05 2012, 09:44 AM
Nice on-point rebuttal Bruce. Calm, fact based discussions always yield more.

futurecollisions
Oct 05 2012, 10:45 AM
Nice on-point rebuttal Bruce. Calm, fact based discussions always yield more.

Great, Bruce gave a calm answer, but he's still wrong. I'll take substance over delivery. Do we want to go down this road of banning every pro player technique until we are all brought down to the level of novice players? To me this is disc golf socialism. All of this 'level playing field' talk is really dangerous. Maybe the group of players who want to stand still for every throw should look at forming another organization or another game altogether.

james_mccaine
Oct 05 2012, 11:10 AM
Great, Bruce gave a calm answer, but he's still wrong. I'll take substance over delivery. Do we want to go down this road of banning every pro player technique until we are all brought down to the level of novice players? To me this is disc golf socialism. All of this 'level playing field' talk is really dangerous. Maybe the group of players who want to stand still for every throw should look at forming another organization or another game altogether.

Well, since the point was entirely missed, let me try again.

This talk, which I have read from you and others, that shoring up the rule is "disc golf socialsim" or "intended to punish pros" leads to less than productive discussions. Why? Basically, they are emotional reactions that don't address the point. More importantly, they are emotional reactions that aren't even based on any well thought out fact. Nothing about non-jump putting from inside 30m punishes the pros or brings everyone to the same level. That is ridiculous.

Also, when people start coming up with reasons such as marking arguments and speed of play, you have to wonder what really motivates the reaction, because those reasons don't hold water.

futurecollisions
Oct 05 2012, 11:31 AM
I just can't see this as anything but yet another attack on the jump putt and the run-up under the false premise of 'improving the rules'. This is such a non-issue that its almost a joke that we are even debating it. Chuck had the only reasonable compromise I have read on here so far.

JoakimBL
Oct 05 2012, 12:22 PM
We can shrug and wait for the winning putt at some future major to be seen as illegal live on the internet and messageboards flooded with people complaining before the prize ceremony has even happened or we can try to explore options for preventing it from happening.


Personally I think that is a great idea. No need to be preemptive about a hypothetical scenario that might never happen. And even if it does happen, the discussion should be why it wasn't called, not why the rules doesn't disallow jump putts all together.
A lot of sports have judgement call that are called without uproar when once in a while the call is wrong. I really can't see why this is an issue at all.

I think it was Chuck ,but I might be mistaken, so correct me if I'm wrong, that said recently either here or in another forum, that putting is the most boring part of our sport, should it ever gain popularity as a spectator sport. Why take away the most exciting part of that? If we ever rise to the level where there is a public outcry because of a winning putt whit a foot fault that wasn't called, maybe we should look at having trained officials making the big calls.

cgkdisc
Oct 05 2012, 12:46 PM
That wasn't me who said putting was boring. But what I have said is putting is too easy in disc golf versus ball golf in terms of game balance. I do encourage ideas designed to increase the athleticism in the sport if they can be done either within the rules or by restructuring the rules.

krupicka
Oct 05 2012, 09:05 PM
I have advocated before to change the stance rules such that the supporting point on the line of play stays there until balance is maintained. This would allow for better enforcement of the stance rules and address the jump putt issue. It would still allow a run-up. Outside 10m, one could still follow through past the lie as long as their plant foot remained.

The criticism I generally here is that players would torque their knees or something along those lines. After I was done with my round, I watched the top 6 or 7 seven cards today throw their fairway drives on hole 5 at the USDGC. Roughly 80% of these throws would be legal under that proposal. Thus a number of pros at the top level are already doing this.

cgkdisc
Oct 05 2012, 09:35 PM
Would the other 20% perhaps also have complied with my proposal to allow the follow thru foot to hit the stance area?

krupicka
Oct 05 2012, 10:20 PM
Probably another 10% could have easily left their plant foot if they wanted to. There were a couple where I saw the mini kicked up on their follow through. They would have to work on it.

From my point of view, I don't know that their follow through step would be in a consistent spot per your proposal. I can't really say one way or the other on how they would have fared based on that criteria. Sorry.

davidsauls
Oct 05 2012, 11:32 PM
I have advocated before to change the stance rules such that the supporting point on the line of play stays there until balance is maintained. This would allow for better enforcement of the stance rules and address the jump putt issue. It would still allow a run-up. Outside 10m, one could still follow through past the lie as long as their plant foot remained.

The criticism I generally here is that players would torque their knees or something along those lines. After I was done with my round, I watched the top 6 or 7 seven cards today throw their fairway drives on hole 5 at the USDGC. Roughly 80% of these throws would be legal under that proposal. Thus a number of pros at the top level are already doing this.

That's an intriguing option to pure "stand and deliver". Doesn't seem like it would be terribly hard on knees, not even my old fragile ones.

Patrick P
Oct 06 2012, 01:05 AM
To address your issues.
a) In 10 years playing I have seen precisely zero 10m circles marked. I can see how it will take a TD a lot longer to mark zero 30m markers. The fairway marker vs circle option would only require single flag to be placed, I think that would be faster personally.
b) No it doesn't. You have 30s to throw from when you reach your lie, regardless of what you choose to pace off. I've only played 4 years in the PDGA and I've have seen numerous 10m circles in A, B & C tier events. If there is no circle, then a) ask the group if you are outside the circle; or b) walk out a good 11 paces, and if you are close, then consider it outside.

Enlighten me if I am wrong, but my understanding for this 'fairway flag' idea is that you are going to have each and every single basket marked off 30 meters from the basket with a little flag. So draw an imaginary circle with a 30m radius, and then put one single flag down on one point at the edge of this circle. How can you tell if you are 30m out from just this one flag? What if I am behind the basket, to the side? You do realize that is 1) approx 30+ paces, 2) a circle with a circumference of 188m, and 3) an area of 2,827m^2. Now I don't know if you just play in open fields of grass, but many courses are densely wooded, with elevations, creeks, bushes, etc. that makes walking out 30+ paces in a straight line nearly impossible. How do you expect a TD and staff to measure this distance out? How much time would it take to measure this out when changing basket locations between rounds? Some courses have multiple basket locations. If safari holes or new basket locations are setup, are you going to expect staff to spend all this extra time measuring out 30m? Maybe I am not understanding you, so I'll lend an ear.

Patrick P
Oct 06 2012, 01:22 AM
Patrick: Not sure if you're referring to the whole thing, or the removal of the 10m circle that the 9/5 update refers to. Let's start with Paragraph 1 after the 9/5 update:

Peter had recommended that we not allow follow through after passing a mark in the fairway that is 40 m from the basket. I would change this to 30 m, since that is very close to 100 feet (97.5 ft), a) so a relatively easy distance to learn to estimate for casual play. I feel this is plenty of distance to discourage jump putts. b) And it would be quicker for TD's to measure.
a) 30m is not a relatively easy distance to measure while traversing through forests, elevations, creeks, trees, bushes. 30m is not a relatively easy distance to measure even on a flat open surface of grass. What is easier to measure than 30m, is 10m.

b) How would it be quicker for TD's to measure 30m over 10m???

Patrick P
Oct 06 2012, 01:35 AM
Onto paragraph 2 I would also leave a default, that if no mark is provided, then you
are allowed to have falling putts at any distance (an option we had already considered anyway). a) It would not take much for a TD to step off the distance and poke a flag into the ground on courses where there is not a permanent marker. If this catches on, b)most heavily used courses would probably cement a post into the ground at the edge of the fairway . Or better yet, plant a stone or cinder block on the line of play 30 m from the most common pin placement. Most tournaments move the pins, so flags would still be needed for most tournaments.

a) So it would be easier for a TD to traverse 30m out through the aforementioned topography to poke a flag in the ground that somehow represents that this one point on the edge of a 188m circumference around the basket clearly defines from all positions that a player is outside 30m?

b) So now you want course designers to plant these cement posts all over the course for every basket location. Will there be color coded cement posts all throughout the fairway for different basket locations? Pin location A, red color post, pin location B, blue color post, etc... Will this be required to be marked on tee-signs? Will all the thousands of courses have to install these posts all throughout their fairways? What do you do with temp baskets, temp courses, or safari setups? How will there be any cohesion to this concept across all courses?

Patrick P
Oct 06 2012, 01:55 AM
Paragraph 3:

I believe this proposal can also solve the problem of players missing the lie with their plant foot. I had previously proposed enlarging the "stance zone" to a 60 cm diameter circle. This would be much easier to hit on a run-up, but might be too large a leeway when you are close to the basket, and you could get an advantage by stretching an extra 30 cm to the side to get around an obstacle. If we use the 30 m mark for a "no follow through" line, we could also use it for a "no 60 cm stance zone" line. Beyond that line, the player would take a stance on the line of play, as we do (or vaguely attempt to do) now.

So are you proposing that distances greater than 30m you can use this 60cm circle, but then inside 30m, stance is on LOP? So if a player's disc is 35m away from the basket and behind a bush, now that player is given an additional 30cm to the left or right of the LOP? Why would you eliminate the concept of the LOP? You should throw behind your disc, that's your lie. And so now the rule changes within 30m, you must be on the LOP, which goes back to distinguishing if you are +/-30m outside. I can just see it, player's disc lands behind a bush, and declares he is outside the 30m, so therefore he gets an extra 30cm to the L/R of the LOP to get around that obstacle. I think sometimes it's just easier to keep things simple. The LOP in all circumstances, whether it's a fairway drive or putt is easier to ascertain from another group member's view if the player has committed a stance violation.

Patrick P
Oct 06 2012, 02:05 AM
And onto Paragraph 4:

I know this proposal sounds a bit radical, but we are definitely going to have to make a major change in order to solve the stance issue. a) As we now play, a very large percentage of even the top pros foot-fault on almost every shot. If we were to b) drop the warning for foot-fault, it would be a disaster.[b] b) If we do nothing, the sport will start to lose credibility in the sports world, as more media and photo coverage will illustrate the laxity of our rules.

a) Really? It's exaggerating statements like these that diminish your entire credibility.

b) No need to drop the warning, simply call it out if it's obvious. If it's so close, then as we say, benefit goes to the player. If need be, pull the player aside, be genuine and sincere, and let the player know if you think his stances are very close to being called.

lonhart
Oct 08 2012, 12:56 PM
Hi Bruce UK,

Interesting discussion. I noticed that in a couple of your posts you mention concern over how the public will perceive disc golf when play is reviewed/scrutinized in the way many sports are on TV (slow mo, replay, etc.).

"It's that in an increasingly digitally recorded world infractions are captured and observed after the fact. We can shrug and wait for the winning putt at some future major to be seen as illegal live on the internet and messageboards flooded with people complaining before the prize ceremony has even happened or we can try to explore options for preventing it from happening."--Bruce UK

To avoid the perception that disc golf is not as 'serious' as other sports, have TD-sanctioned marshalls/officials walk with the last four groups on the final day. I think only the final group is followed at this point in time by the TV crew, but in our future we might have the luxury of watching on TV the last 2-4 groups play, and maybe a guy from the second group runs away with the title. So have a marshall/referee go with each group in contention on the last day.

Then you have a stamp of legitimacy that is similar to all other sports on TV. A ref made the call, good or bad. Blame the zebra, not the player.

But the reality is TV is not in the near future. A couple thousand disc golfers watching the USDGC on the web is cool, and an improvement, but not ESPN2 (yet).

For non-televised events, I share the sentiment that most people avoid making calls to reduce the amount of drama in the round. There are so many divas out there, and many with bad tempers, that to call them on something relatively minor is more disruptive than it is worth. I play disc golf for fun, not to make $. This is what I do to take a break from the rest of my life. The last thing I want is to add stress to my pursuit of sporting happiness. And I'd say most people playing in tournaments are interested in doing well, improving their game, and seeing how they measure up against others, but not at the expense of creating stress or conflict.

And if there is a concern over how the sport is perceived by non-disc golfers watching us on TV (praise be the day that actually happens to some real extent!), then have refs/marshalls, just like other sports. Then we remove the issue of players having to make calls, and they can just play.

Cheers,
Steve

wsfaplau
Oct 08 2012, 05:49 PM
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.



No defeatist attitude here either. Your quoted words in a sentence with my name attached kind of imply I said those words. I absolutely didn't say it or even agree with it.

To begin with, I have thanked you for your efforts to try to improve the rules in multiple threads, even thanked you post posting them for review ahead of printing them (even though that isn't what you actually did it turns out).

I cited a stance violation issue I had this year and your suggested stance violation rule improvements don't even address my issue.

I still believe the reason the rules aren't enforced are people issues, not the wording of the rule.

I am all for rule improvements that address the problems with the rules.
My opinion is that this rule change doesn't resolve the problem with stance violations.
I think that is a valid, reasoned, and defendable position even if it doesn't align with your position.

bruceuk
Oct 15 2012, 07:41 AM
Been on holiday, sorry for delayed response.

Patrick: You're missing the concept of the fairway marker, it wouldn't be a circle, think of it more like a mando. Although it doesn't matter which side you pass it on, once you have passed it, you are 'putting'. Determining if your lie is past the line is as simple as standing at the marker facing the basket with your arms outstretched and checking which side of the line you fall on. The only difficulty I see is on more extreme doglegs where the line might cross the fairway more than once and place the tee in the 'no-follow-through' area, so that would need thought on the wording.

The majority of your quotes are from the link which is a discussion that pre-dates my involvement on the committee I included for background. I think I've addressed most of your comments around marking 30m above. I thought my original post made it clear I personally would not support having different lie definitions either side of the line, I prefer a single definition everywhere.

I'd agree that the picture isn't as bleak as the quote makes out, but I think it's a pretty indisputable fact that the stance rules are broken a disproportionate amount relative to the rest of the rulebook, and largely goes unpenalised. The evidence is that the players are unwilling to rectify the latter, so the goal is to change the former, by making the stance rules easier to comply with.

Steve: That does resolve the TV issue, but not the underlying rule infraction problem. Still, a good suggestion.

Pete: My apologies, a poor use of quotes there, and a dubious paraphrasing. No doubt any rule change will not be a cure-all. Other rules do get called so I believe it is possible to formulate a version of this that will be. Stand & deliver for example would be, but I'm definitely against that, the trick is to find a sensible compromise position.

Krupika: That is certainly an option and I don't buy the injury argument either. It would completely rule out the jump putt but still allow a pretty dynamic step through putt, and we could retain the 10m mark. Actually, with a 30cm lie area as long as you start and finish in the area, you could jump putt to a certain extent.

bruceuk
Oct 15 2012, 07:46 AM
Chuck: An issue I thought of regarding your suggestion is where you have a lie in a bush. I can stand to the side of the bush, throw then place my next contact behind my lie but to do so I have to force it through some thin branches, have I hit my lie? Or did I miss it by making contact with the foliage?

cgkdisc
Oct 15 2012, 10:31 AM
You would be allowed to contact foliage during your throwing motion same as the current rule. I'm not sure how many people would want to risk jumping into a bush due to possible injury. But it would be allowed same as someone who currently might jump thru/out of a bush on their follow thru. The player would still be expected to contact the playing surface behind their lie not just end up contacting the bush in the general area.

bruce_brakel
Oct 17 2012, 11:13 AM
I still believe the reason the rules aren't enforced are people issues, not the wording of the rule. Good point.

jimimc
Oct 19 2012, 11:23 AM
First let me say I don't jump putt. Why not just do away with the 10 meter rule all together? Of all the rules I try to explain to some one just starting out, this is the one most don't get. Changing the rules inside any distance, 10, 30 or 100 meters doesn't make ant sense. Just make sure your foot is on the ground, behind your mini when you release your disc. Simple, to the point and people get it. Go ahead and try to make a jump putt inside 5' who cares.

lonhart
Oct 19 2012, 07:06 PM
Good point.
I agree that many (maybe most?) people choose not to enforce certain rules for reasons other than their understanding the rules (or not).

Besides ball golf, what other professional sports are officiated by the competing players? I know there must be some, but I cannot think of them at the moment. It seems professional disc golf has forced itself into a very narrow niche wrt to rules enforcement.

Cheers,
Steve

araydallas
Oct 22 2012, 08:15 PM
I agree that many (maybe most?) people choose not enforce certain rules for reasons other than their understanding the rules (or not).

Besides ball golf, what other professional sports are officiated by the competing players? I know there must be some, but I cannot think of them at the moment. It seems professional disc golf has forced itself into a very narrow niche wrt to rules enforcement.

Cheers,
Steve

Tennis does, except at the highest level
I believe maybe Andre Agassi talked about it in his book when he fell from the top 10 to like number 200 in the world, he mentioned something like, "playing on outer courts, calling his own lines," which is what colleges & high schools do except in championships.