In a recent tournament another player pointed out to me that my interpretation of 803.3 is incorrect (rightly so). I have always played that the 30 cm rule provided for placement of the foot in an arc extending from behind the lie when taking a run up. However the rule clearly states that your foot must fall directly behind the marker disc. Subsequent clarification from Dave Nezbit confirmed that the planting foot must have some portion directly behind the marker upon release. Dave noted that if you decide to use your previously thrown disc as your marker that you would have an advantage over a player who used a mini to mark his/her lie.

My problem is two fold. The first is obvious, there is an inequity between using a mini and a thrown disc as a marker. Second, following this rule is very difficult. I watched a large number of players, including the player who pointed out the rule to me, and noticed that many, if not most, players break this rule when their second drive involves more than a single step before release. (I observed approximately 20 players over about 45 drives after their initial T-off. Twenty-nine of the second drives involved foot-faults. In the remaining cases where there was no foot-fault, the second drive was often a putt or a short approach shot to the green where the player planted their foot behind the marker and did not take a runup. There were 4 cases where players took full runups and did not foot-fault. Keep in mind that I was standing back from play and making the best observations I could. Also, I excluded individuals that used a full sized disc as their marker.) My conclusion is that it is very difficult to take a run up and make sure that some part of your foot falls in a three inch by 30 cm space upon release. Especially when you are focused on driving form.

I would like to know what the DGRZ think about this issue.

First, I can't believe that's what Nez told you. Some part of your body has to be "on the line of play" (read 803.03A(1)) that goes straight thru the heart of the mini or the previously thrown disc. There's no extra room side-to-side because your disc is used instead of a mini. I suspect you may have seen even more foot faults based on this.

The advantages for using the previously thrown disc as your mark for the next shot are convenience and more importantly, when that extra 21cm puts you back enough to have more room or better stance for the next throw.

No DGRZ here, but there isnt really an advantage using the FULL Disc, vs. a MINI, as you must be in line from the direct center, not just "any" part of the marker....

The only advantage in using the disc rather than marking your lie with a mini (in accordance with the rules) is that it allows you to:

A. Utilize the length of the disc away from the hole before starting their 30 centimeters directly behind the disc.
B. Not have to jab your hand down into a thorn bush or other undesirable place to mark your lie with a mini marker.
C. Gives you the length of the disc away from the hole to avoid bad footing conditions (i.e. roots, stones, etc.)

There is no side-to-side advantage, though arguably there is because the further you are from an immediate obstacle, the better the angles to the hole.

RULE: 803.02 MARKING THE LIE
A. After each throw, the thrown disc must be left where it came to rest until the lie is established by the placing of a marker. This can be done by placing a mini marker disc on the playing surface between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole, touching the thrown disc. A player may instead choose, without touching or repositioning the thrown disc, to use the thrown disc as the marker. The marker may not be moved until the throw is released. A marker inadvertently moved prior to the throw shall be returned to its correct location.

B. A player is only required to mark the lie with a mini marker disc when repositioning the lie under the rules. This includes the following rules: out-of-bounds, disc above the playing surface, lost disc, unsafe lie, relocated for relief, interference, or repositioning the lie within 1 meter of the out-of- bounds line.

RULE: 803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.03 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

DGRZ #005

Most violated. Least called. Just try to call a player for missing his mark and see how much fun the rest of the round is.

Most violated. Least called. Just try to call a player for missing his mark and see how much fun the rest of the round is.



Must agree FULL-HEARTEDLY.......

Calling of most any rule, can lead to a sticky situation/ Bad Mojo on the card....

I have to agree that it is very difficult to always hit your mark when you have a fairway drive. I know I try very hard to follow this rule. I wear soccer cleats that leave a circle cut in the ground after I spin the foot on follow through. I always check after I throw to see if I planted in the right spot or not. Even with this constant checking and feedback, I am not always successful.

It is one of those calls that I only mention when the player either makes no attempt to plant behind his mark, or looks to be trying an advantage around an obstacle by missing the mark.

O.K., so that there is a possible answer for the first part of the question. If you use a line-of-play running through the center of the disc straight back then the small side to side advantage one might gain is gone. What Nezbitt said was that he is a litteralist in his interpretation of the rules and since the rule states "directly behind the disc," he assumed that to mean directly behind the disc edge to edge (he may have mentioned lines of play but I have to admit I don't recall). Of course, we did not directly consult the rule where it says "on the line of play" but even had we, one can still have lines of play that extend through the center of the disc, or down each edge of the disc. Dave did make the distinction that you would have a wider space where one could place one's foot and demonstrated with a full size disc laying the very tip of his cleat behind the edge of the disc and saying that it was a legal stance. (If he reads this he is going to verbally slap me for interpreting his comments - hope I'm not too far off...)

I do like the interpretation of a line through the center of the disc but I didn't read that in the rule.

However, even if you accept the line through the center of the disc interpretation, it still doesn't solve the observation that many people still foot-faulted in my little study. My observations weren't that the thrower wasn't in a line of play through the middle of the disc, rather that the foot-fault occurred outside the edge of the mini, sometimes landing on the side of the mini. One thing I did not mention is that the conditions were attrocious, very sloppy and this no doubt contributed to the faults (I left this out because I'm more interested in the rule than in contributing conditions, and mentioning it would have left an easy out). And nonetheless, foot-faults do occur even under great conditions, please see - http://www.usdgc.com/gallery/thursday_afternoon/pages/DSC_0170.htm

I do admit that if you do a full perusal of the USDGC pics you see both correct and "apparently" incorrect stances but only a limited number of each.

I did it at the MADCi, a guy, a good friend did it on their second throw, missed it by a good foot and half to the right, no one seconded it and we moved on. No problem.

2 holes later I warned an even better friend about my pet peeve rule, Speed of Rudeness (I mean Play) Rule. That you need to ask the away player and get an affirmative response before putting out and I think the word �d-head� was used in response, upon which I warned them that there was no need for that, that a simple, �OK� would suffice, furthermore that that was a Courtesy Violation. I didn�t back down, I didn�t run and hide, and I didn�t tolerate it, even from a friend of 15 years.

Calling the rules and informing, those who obviously don�t know them, of the rules need not be confrontational. I do it as matter of fact as possible. Most of the time it is simply to inform them of the rule so that they know it. I can�t remember a time when a person purposefully broke a rule. (Well, very few times anyway.) And a rule being called just to spite someone!?! Pull-ease! Whether it becomes confrontational is completely up to the person being called.

The idea that knowing, playing by and calling the rules is somehow confrontational or being a tightwad is something everyone who really cares about the future of our game needs to come to terms with. Simply put it is just a part of the game. Same as tee assignments, tallying cards, or wiping off a dirty disc. I mean do you get upset when informed of a rule you didn�t know about in Monopoly? No, you just accept it and move on.

one can still have lines of play that extend through the center of the disc, or down each edge of the disc.



Nope. Line of Play is a formal term defined in the Rules Glossary. "The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target <font color="red"> through the center </font> of the marker disc and beyond."

(Not a real DGRZ but I play one on this discussion board.)

Lyle, this widespread disregard for the stance rules on fairway runups are the basis of periodic discussion on this board of outlawing fairway runups. Players are actually penalized for follwing the rules in this instance becaue, it seems, almost no one else does.

The most common argument is "what difference does half a foot make on a 300 foot shot????" Well, paying attention to your feet and ensuring that you land within 30cm on the LOP makes a huge difference in the effectiveness of your shot compared to just staring at the basket and wailing away with no regard to footing!

Another counter to the "what difference" argument is this: why is it that the mark is *ALWAYS* missed to the "good side" if it doesn't make any difference? That's right, 100 out of 100 misses of the LOP on a shot with an immediate obstacle to the throw will be to the "open" side where an absolute advantage is gained.

Lyle,

I agree with what Chuck and Nick stated: There is an imaginary line (actually a ray, I believe :D) going from the target through the point on the disc used for marking that is closest to the target. The player must have a supporting (weight-bearing) point on the line segment that starts at the point where the ray leaves the disc and has a length of 30cm. Therefore, the width of the marker disc has no effect on the legality of the placement of the supporting point.

As far as foot faults on fairway drives go, they are in effect self-policed, because the players are usually scattered, as they are usually going to where each one's drive landed, so there are not 2 witnesses to the foot fault. I applaud those who are conscientious enough to put effort into having a proper foot placement. This will be more and more of a dilemna as the sport grows, not only in prize money, but also in hole length, which means that there will be more fairway runup shots. Many have suggested that any throw not on the teepad must not have a runup, in order to assure compliance with the rules, but this has not been a popular suggestion.

Many accolades will be bestowed on the one who successfully combines the need for rule compliance with the practicality of needing witnesses to call a rule violation. Ball golf calls for self-policing of the rules. Hopefully, disc golf will get to a similar point in the near future, when the general integrity of the players is not questioned, and when the violations of rules is more severe.

This weekend, at the Z10 Final, I had to speak up in my group. There was one individual that was putting out when his disc was not away. Granted, most if not all of the discs were in the gimmee range, and putting out early did not give the player any advantage, for there were no gusts of wind, or blazing heat issues to deal with. After a couple of holes, I brought this subject up to him, when all of the group was walking to the next hole, about how the rules called for the away player to give permission for another to putt. He mentioned the "flow of play" rule (801.02C), and asked if we could just say that, basically, if everyone was very close to the basket, it was OK to go ahead and drop the putt in. I said something like,
"Sure. And is it OK if I use my 210 gram Super Puppy to putt with?", in a joking manner. I followed with a statement that I am for the flow of play as much as anyone else, but the rule stated that they away player had to give the OK.

The rule states that the non-away player can throw if "the away player consents".

Here is a point for your consideration. I interpreted that phrase as the away player must give active, verbal consent for every instance. I don't believe that one can give passive consent at the beginning of the round that anyone can throw even if it is another player is out. He obviously was applying this "blanket consent" to short putts. I just didn't think is was too much to ask a player that has been playing for over 20 years to ask the away player if he could putt out. A few holes later, I was marking my disc within arms reach of the hole, and the away player (not the player in question :D), told me I could go ahead and putt out.

We have a hard enough time with rule enforcement, without starting down the slippery slope. Sure, there are several rules, that in most instances, can be violated with virtually no effect on anyone's score, but I don't want to go there, because, personally, if we go outside the rules, I don't know at what point we can/should stop.

I figure that one speaks up first in defense of a rule that, in an instance that generally and apparently has little effect on the immediate circumstance, that it will be easier to broach the subject later when there is an instance of a rule violation that has more of an immediate effect on the player's score.

I sincerely was not trying to be a hard---, and I think the player in question could sense that, and there was no animosity going forward. I praise the Lord that I was able to verbalize my thoughts in a way that seemed to be non-antagonistic.

"It's not only what you say, but also how you say it."

<font color="red"> NOTE: </font> I added this note as an edit to the post, because I wrote this message before I read Nick's post about enforcing the "flow of Play" rule. Thank you Nick, it sometimes (most of the time? always?)takes courage to stand up for someone who can't stand up for themselves (the Rules) despite the personal cost. I am thankful that on one occasion I made the right decision, which in this case was to name you DGRZ 005.

I am proud of you. Thank you.

this thread is now addressing two topics.
one - stance violation in relation to the marker disc, and
two - speed of play.
can the first issue be addressed by the td before a tournament as to what is allowed and not allowed? this happened at the pro worlds,,,,,,,the answer by the appropriate officials at that tournament was that any part of your foot can be behind the marker disc , not on a center line from the marker disc, but EDGE to EDGE. using your original disc with a wider diameter therefore gives you a huge advantage.....especially when playing your second or third shot from behind trees or bushes. this also came up and was addressed by the td at an A tier event last month and this ruling was confirmed, before the tournament started. Im not trying to be argumentative about this issue but i dont think this issue is cut and dry, (black and white) (shades of grey)?
issue two - cant we all just get along? isnt being considerate to one another part of this "speed of play" rule?

The rule is as cut and dried as any in the rulebook regarding the stance. The only improvement I could see is to capitalize 'Line of Play' in 803.03A(1) to increase the formality even more. The top official at Pro Worlds was Nez. If what he said is any part of a supporting part of the body can be anywhere behind the marker, it's wrong. This was one of the few Worlds that Carlton didn't attend but I'm certain he would have corrected those remarks if he were there.

1) Sorry for splitting the thread into discussing two rules, but Nick did it first! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

2) re: Clarity of foot placement:

"RULE: 803.03 STANCE
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc..."

and from RULE: 806 GLOSSARY:

"Line of Play: The imaginary line on the playing surface extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond."

I can understand the confusion about supporting point placement if only Rule 803.03A(1) is read, but if the def. of "Line of Play" is addressed, then I, speaking for only myself, do not find much gray area in this rule.

Do others agree, that if the first rule is read, without referring to the def. of LOP, then it is understandable to interpret it to say that if a supporting point (SP) is behind the mark and within 30cm, then it is a valid stance, but in conjunction with the def of LOP, the rule is pretty much very clear?

I am always willing to get, and indeed solicit, feedback to my interpretations. A true DGRZ vigorously enforces rules, yes, but also encourages consensus on his/her interpretations and applications.

Pharisees we are not!

I concur with Bill and Chuck. If Nez said that at worlds, he was wrong.

(I was out picking up portable baskets at Thorpe, and missed part of the payer's meeting).

Chuck,

Are you sure you're not a DGRZ? O.K., so now that I'm looking at the rules glossary.... Doh! :o

That still leaves the "most violated, least called" rule. I think it is clear that players are, for the most part, not violating this rule purposefully. Selfishly, I would love to see it modified (being inept on my feet, in order to not violate, I have to almost look down thus throwing off my drives - they're bad enough as it is). Does anyone have any suggestions?

Very quickly, Nez did not say this at worlds. In his defense, it was a casual conversation at 6:30 a.m. and he was not making a formal ruling, just conversation.

"RULE: 803.03 STANCE
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the imaginary line extending from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond." and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc..."

Perhaps it would be a good idea to place the definition in place of the term in this specific case?

Line of Play is used in a variety of places so the glossary is a more efficient place to have it I think. Using Caps might help when used though.

I just realized that I had not read everyone's replies before I reposted. I am in real agreement with Rhett on this. Small margins offer small advantages that can result in a stroke and a win or a loss. As in my last post, exacting positions are difficult in this situation for me (and I think for other players). A rule change that brings about uniformaty evens the playing field.

I really like Nick's new name for the "Speed of Rudeness" rule. :)

I used to hate this rule because when it was first enacted I had the follwing happen in 2 out of the next 3 tourneys I played: I was away, had marked my lie, was into my putting routine, and another player walked across my line commenting "mind if I clear?" In both cases they were "working me" and only did that to try and get me to miss my putt. Technically I suppose I could've called a courtesy violation, but the argument of the offenders would no doubt get heated as they would try to claim they could do that with the new rules!

Nobody has done that in quite a while. Now when it comes up the first time in my tournament group I tell the group how I believe the rule should be used, and I do in fact give "blanket approval" for a specific situation. I tell them:

If you can mark your disc and clear the basket before the away person gets to their lie, just do it as you say "mind if I clear?" If you can't be out of the basket and away, don't ask. Some people start their putting routine as they mark their lie.

What rule change? Eliminate stance requirements? I proposed this long while ago on the discussion board. Something along the lines of "Why do we have Stance rules if we aren't going to follow them?" :)

This rule is about as cut-and-dried as any rule in our book. No interpretation necessary. You either are following it or breaking it. If you can't land your foot right you need to slow down, take something off your drive, or just "stand and deliver." No rule change required!!!

That still leaves the "most violated, least called" rule. I think it is clear that players are, for the most part, not violating this rule purposefully. Selfishly, I would love to see it modified (being inept on my feet, in order to not violate, I have to almost look down thus throwing off my drives - they're bad enough as it is). Does anyone have any suggestions?



My suggestion is to leave the rule as it is and continue to not enforce it unless an advantage is gained. I do not look forward to the day when we have marshalls monitoring foot faults on wide-open, 500 foot upshots. If they monitor shots where stance really matters, that's OK. Otherwise, just forget about it and continue playing.

That's a good way of thinking about it Rhett. I know that my putting routine starts when I mark my disc. It is really bothersome to mark my disc do my 2 "no-look" strokes then laser beam the basket only to see someones back as they drop in. (Without even asking.) This can get quickly out of had with larger groups at full events.

I don't think that there is any problem whatsoever with the rule, only that people are not considerated enough of other players to follow it properly.

Sorry, that's the way it looks.

Disc golfers should be known for their great care to be courteous and considerate of other players, not as "let's finish up and get outta here" players.

My suggestion is to leave the rule as it is and continue to not enforce it unless an advantage is gained. I do not look forward to the day when we have marshalls monitoring foot faults on wide-open, 500 foot upshots. If they monitor shots where stance really matters, that's OK. Otherwise, just forget about it and continue playing.



Rarrr! It makes a HUGE difference to your shot if you follow this rule on a 500 foot fairway shot!!!!!!!!! It's a freakin' rule, follow it! If you hoestly feel that no advantage is gained on a wide open 500 foot shot, they why do you not want to follow the rule there? No advantage, no problem just do it right, right?

But you know that it will affect your shot if you have to make sure you land your foot legally. That is the difference between a tee-shot and a fairway shot. Please think about that. That advantage gained by breaking this rule is not limited to being able to lean a little further around a tree!

Very quickly, Nez did not say this at worlds. In his defense, it was a casual conversation at 6:30 a.m. and he was not making a formal ruling, just conversation.



this has been taken out of context and continued elsewhere, i will inform the td from that a-tier i was at. the addendum about center lines makes it perfectly clear....

That still leaves the "most violated, least called" rule. I think it is clear that players are, for the most part, not violating this rule purposefully. Selfishly, I would love to see it modified (being inept on my feet, in order to not violate, I have to almost look down thus throwing off my drives - they're bad enough as it is). Does anyone have any suggestions?



My suggestion is to leave the rule as it is and continue to not enforce it unless an advantage is gained. I do not look forward to the day when we have marshalls monitoring foot faults on wide-open, 500 foot upshots. If they monitor shots where stance really matters, that's OK. Otherwise, just forget about it and continue playing.




I agree fully.....if there arent any obstacles, you are gaiing an advantage off of, and you dont go past it before release, its anal, to care if someone is 6" to the side, on a run up approach....

Of course, thats why I'm not a true DGRZ....some rules, are more important to enforce, than others, IMO.....

It is hard (nay - impossible) to argue against Rhett's logic. His notion that it is a rule and needs to be obeyed is clear, clean and fair. It is too bad that many players do not self-police. I do not mind following this rule (even if I am not good at it now with time I will have to be) but it still does not result in an even playing field if others do not. Yes, I understand that if I don't like others violating the rules it is my job to enforce, but as Cong posted (I just can't call him Schmack-Daddy) that's a lot of bad mojo. Furthermore, I have real problems, as James McCaine posted, in penalizing someone on a 500 ft open field shot.

However, I have gotten a lot of unique insight out of this post... Thanks!

"Of course, thats why I'm not a true DGRZ....some rules, are more important to enforce, than others, IMO....."

I won't say that some rules aren't more important than others, I will say that they are all our rules, and that a REAL disc golfer does their best to know, follow, and call all of them as a matter of courtesy and respect to other players and the game itself.

I may be just a Rec Woman, but I believe these rules are most of what separates the PDGA member tournament players from the casual players out for an afternoon with their friends. These two rules discussed on this topic are the two most violated rules I see. Yet, they are also two of the most black &amp; white rules. I, too, saw them violated this weekend. I saw them during play with the others in my division. Worse, I saw them when I played a mini on Sunday morning . Worst, I saw them Sunday afternoon, while observing the Pros. My dilemma is my division, rating, and level. I do not feel comfortable calling someone of higher division on them (like in the mini). I do not feel comfortable calling someone in the Rec Women's division (partially because the term Rec). I actually called Novice Women (more like discussed the violation). I know it is the same division, just a name change.
BTW - Bill B, I e-mailed you.

I generally will "casually" mention an infraction to a player, after they have made thier shot....9 times out of 10, I'm considered a "RICHARD" for doing it....go figure.....

It is only "Bad Mojo" if it is done from a position of bad motivation. I have never in 15 plus years seen someone purposefully call a rule out of spite, unless it is because they have been flat out caught cheating.

Call with a clear conscience, and if called, examine the rule, your actions, and grow from the experience. Questioning the motives of the caller only adds fuel to the evidence that you have made and error, and not just as far as our Rules of Play go...

Rarrr!


:D

Rhett, I've been considering your argument that minor stance violations really matter. It's one of those things that makes sense, is logical and all, etc. However, I'm not always persuaded by logic and I still don't think minor foot faults matter much at all.

By the way, I do try to comply with this rule the best I can (will do one/no steps if I think an advantage would be gained), but on most shots, I don't care if others do. :)

ps: I know that non-enforcers, relativistic ethics people such as myself are a pains in the buts to rules-minded folks, but hey, I'm just being honest.

"I won't say that some rules aren't more important than others, I will say that they are all our rules, and that a REAL disc golfer does their best to know, follow, and call all of them as a matter of courtesy and respect to other players and the game itself."

AMEN!!!!!!! :D

It is what separates the casual players from the real PDGA member/tournament players! If you care enough about the game to join its organization and play its sanctioned events, then please care enough to learn the rules and follow them!
Now, some one, please give me the balls to actually call people on them. :o

I have to agree with Rhett. For many people it ALWAYS makes a difference if they are concentrating on hitting the LOP as well making the throw. Try it next time you are out practicing field throws. I can "stand and deliver" a forehand a lot farther than a backhand, but sometimes that route just isn't available. Being able to throw with little or no concern about where my feet end up would be an advantage.

JK

Actually to annoy you even more, I think most foot faults are just as important as this rule on scoring " The called player shall answer with the score in a manner that is clear to all players of the group and the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper shall record that score and read it back, in a manner that is clear to all players of the group. ." When people mumble, say star birdie, or don't repeat my score, I get ******. After all, all rules are equal :)

I can't give you the balls, I need the ones I got , but I will definitely back you up here and elsewhere if you make up your mind to call the rules as a matter of courtesy and for the betterment of the game.

I think that you have a few other folks there in Texas that would have your back as well.

We have to change the fear of being thought a Richard, into a feeling of empowerment that we are protecting our game from those who would destroy it out of ignorance or malice.

[quote

Now, some one, please give me the balls to actually call people on them. :o

[/QUOTE]

Laura, dont you have Dons in a jar, on a shelf now?

:D

Line of Play is used in a variety of places so the glossary is a more efficient place to have it I think. Using Caps might help when used though.



In insurance documents and other consumer contracts, bold type is often used for terms which have a technical definition elsewhere in the document. Whenever the rules are rewritten to accomodate all of the rule changes that are not in the book, that would be something to consider.

Don still has his intact. I like my men to have them fully intact...besides there is no room on the shelves for a jar. All the shelf space is taken by discs and trophies. :D
Okay, here is another rule question.
It actually seems we have settled on answers for the first two on the post.
Is the sticker that is usually on the back of a disc when purchased (has name of disc, weight, and upc code-I think) allowed on the disc or does the player have to remove it prior to carrying in their bag. 802.01C seems to address it. However, the player did not make the post-production alteration by adding the sticker, even though it is a post-production change. I have heard some people say it is a rule violation. Other people state it is not. I can not find where it states clearly. Also, would the sticker weigh enough to actually change the flight characteristics (still referring to 802.01C and to the glossery)?

If they monitor shots where stance really matters, that's OK. Otherwise, just forget about it and continue playing.



If someone doesn't think he has to pay attention to placing their foot in a precise spot using a run-up approach, then he's got an advantage. Period James. You try and do a run-up and step in a precise place the size of a dime every time... If you don't pay attention to it, and I do, then just who do you think has the advantage there?

If the sticker is applied by the manufacturer such as the weight, it's OK (considered part of production). If a price sticker is applied by a retailer, it must be removed (post-production) before play.

Old question: is removing the manufacturer applied sticker considered a post-production modification and as such an illegal action?

If someone doesn't think he has to pay attention to placing their foot in a precise spot using a run-up approach, then he's got an advantage. Period James. You try and do a run-up and step in a precise place the size of a dime every time... If you don't pay attention to it, and I do, then just who do you think has the advantage there?



Larry, a couple of points: Like Rhett, your logic is sound, but unconvincing to me. On a long open fairway shot, I have never personally felt like someone who foot faulted had an advantage over me. In fact, since most people do attempt proper foot placement, a foot fault is often a sign of a bad shot.

Secondly, if we are going to read the letter of the rule, (it mentions the supporting point on the line of play when the disc is released), let's get real serious about rule enforcement and look at the micro level. People who plant on the line and rotate on their toe, their foot may an eighth inch above the line but not in contact at the moment of release. FOOT FAULT. Huge advantage. :(

Sorry for the sarcasm, but if someone throws a great shot and steps two inches (or even six) off the line of play, I'm going to congratulate them and move on.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but if someone throws a great shot and steps two inches (or even six) off the line of play, I'm going to congratulate them and move on.



And herein lies another symptom of the biggest hindrance to our sport advancing to the sposorship levels we aspire to: a great majority of our members don't care about following or enforcing the rules. It's not just you James.

I brough this up before that if we don't want to enforce the stance rules and aren't willing to follow them, we should change them. Thing is, if you changed it to "have a supporting point within 50 feet of your marker disc when you release the disc" some people would go all the way to the 50 foot edge and instead plant at 51 feet, and others would think it was no advantage.

So why do we even have any rules?

Uh oh! This is the second time today i'm agreeing with Rhett!!

(Check out the controversial sticker on my Magnet!!)
<=========================

Come on now Rhett, you must be talking about other rules besides foot faults. Sponsors no nothing of foot faults.

By the way, I am aware of my apparent hypocrisy and understand the logical conclusion of "if you're unwilling to enforce the rules, why have them at all," but I maintain that no formal set of rules can ever be sustained without the underpinning of common sense and discretion. Our legal system requires it (judicial discretion), pro sports require it (there's some form of holding on every football play but only some holds matter), and there are many other examples if I was smart enough to think of them.

In summary, we have to have stance rules, but we should also know when strict enforcement is most needed. Common sense enforcement is the foundation of all rule systems, rather than the ruination of them.

James has a really interesting point that I had considered when I started this topic. The question can be asked is this a good rule as it stands? It seems that the rule was written to address cases where an inadvertent throw places your disc behind an obstacle. The rule is to prevent the player from stepping out from behind the barrier for his/her throw. Secondarily, the rule is intended to make the thrower play from a position in close proximity to their disc placement on secondary drives. An unintended side consequence is that the rule also directly effects how one approaches their secondary drives. To remain in compliance you have to adjust your approach on secondary drives. Is this a good (or bad) unintended consequence and does it matter.

At least initially, if the rule was strictly enforced it would probably change the game in that it would take some distance and some accuracy out of many player's secondary drives. That would, in my opinion, be a bad thing, both for the sport and for the individual players involved. Over time, players would adjust to the rule and they would overcome the difficulty. Would accuracy and distance be fully restored? Probably not since the more things the thrower has to think about the less accuracy and distance he or she is likely to have on average. Again is this good or bad? While it seems bad, in fact it is at worst neutral. It only seems bad because we have put it into the context of hurting the game. Going to another example, in the NBA many players regularly take three steps (they travel) when driving to the basket. Many argue this makes the game more exciting. However, if you go back 30 or 40 years before this became the practice, the game was actually better. There was better ball control, better passing and better shooting. The game was different but nonetheless very exciting.

In other words, a game where one has to carefully place their foot within 30 cm on a line of play behind the disc has certain elements of beauty that are lost when that rule is not obeyed. An ability to achieve distance and accuracy under exacting conditions is a high skill.

James, it permeates our whole sport. We should all be trying to play by the rules, not trying to get over on them. If the rules don't make sense anymore we should change them.

But remember, a fairway shot is not a drive. It's like ball golf. Only off the tee do you get to put the ball up on the little stick. Once you're in the fairway (or not) you have to whack the ball off the ground. I believe there was no "unintendedness" to the current disc golf rule. Fairway shots are different than tee shots. Off the tee, all you have to do is land one foot within the big rectangle. Anywhere in it. On the fairway, you have to land your foot on the LOP within 30cm. It's not hard to see that tee shots and fairway shots are not same under the rules.

Violating this rule by disregarding the foot placement is just like putting your ball on a tee every shot until you are putting. Sure you can do it, but it sure ain't golf per the rules.

The planets have aligned. I am in complete agreement with Rhett. :o

IMO there should be no run-up after your initial drive. This would go along way towards alimenating this argument.

If the rules don't make sense anymore we should change them.




When I stopped playing in the 90s and courses were starting to get longer and long second shots became more common, I thought the rules committee looked at changing this rule. Does anyone remember this? If the committee did look at this, why didn't they change it?

By the way, if I am 500 feet from the basket, no obstacles near me, trying to obey the rules (this is the important part) , but step two inches to the left of the line of play or something, the "advantage" I gained is hardly comparable to putting a golf ball on a tee.

The advantage gained on a fairway drive with no obstacles is from not having to think about planting the lead foot in the proper spot. The advantage is not gained when the player actually attempts to make a legal throw, the advantage is gained when no attempt is made.

I like the idea of no run up but you fundamentally change the game if you incorporate this modification. However, this would be a lot easier to regulate/monitor than the foot-fault problem.

I too would like to know what changes the rules committee thought about.

I think stand still second shots, woudl be great.....

Some people who already stand still on the Tee, woudl have an advantage, but we woudl all learn to cope.....

If a ball golfer swings two inches to the left or right, the result is ugly. The intent of the rules in DG is to emulate the "play it where it lies" mantra in BG as well as possible. Forget about teeing it up on the fairway. Ball golfers can't even adjust the position of the ball 1/4" unless they are playing recreationally under "winter rules". Not following the correct foot placement rule in DG is little different from playing by the unofficial "winter rules" in BG.

The original stance rule from Steady Ed was to place your supporting point somewhere within or touching the 'circle' made by the disc you just threw. So, the current rule is a little more restrictive, but in theory, easier to monitor.

Frost is forming on Satan's tail. Duke is dead on in his assessment!

I have noticed that some folks seem to think that the width of the line of play is the same as the width of the disc being used to mark the lie, either thrown or mini marker. But the line is a single series of points and accordingly, if your supporting point isn't in line with the middle of the disc, you're foot faulting. If your supporting point falls behind the disc, but to the left or right of the center where the line of play is located, you're foot faulting.

I had more than one opportunity to call this violation at the USDGC, but the standing orders were to let the group make those calls and decisions and if they can't and you are asked to rule, then do so, but not until that time. Those are good orders for the most part, but it does require looking the other way when you see something that none of the players will call.

Mike, I hope the proposed marshalls that will be used next year have the exact same standing orders.

Yeah, me too! God forbid we have players concerned about playing by the rules. :eek:

It would change the nature of the game! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Hmmmmm. So where does that leave us? I have to say that more and more I agree with Rhett. Either insist that the rule be obeyed, or modify it so that it can be obeyed (as per Steve's proposal).

Mike, who says what width the "LINE" is....maybe they used a REALLY Fat marker, maybe its the same width as the pole, maybe its the same width as the basket....

I dont THINK, that is clearly stated, so maybe you ARE allowed to be slightly off, from dead center of your mini.....

(Devils advocate speak)

:D

I like your thinking Cong! I'm playing all my rounds on your card from now on.

Mike,

I am assuming that you are a certified PDGA Official. That being said, allow me to comment on your post.

The USDGC wanted you to act as a "passive" official, that is, only become involved when you are asked to by the group. I have no problem with that.

The problem I <font color="red"> DO </font> have, however, is SEEING a violation and then not CALLING it.

If you were to act as a passive official, you should not have been in a position to make any active calls. From your post, I infer that you could see some fairway drive foot faults. If you were that close to the action, you annulled your passive status at that point, and became an active Official, and it was your fiduciary duty to make the call!

Let me be clear. I am casting no aspersions upon your character. You were obeying the instructions that you were given. Granted, nowhere in the Rules does it say that a player (or Official) must make a call when a violation is observed (or does it, please forgive my lapse), but when one voluntarily qualifies for and is granted the title of Official, one takes on the cause of actively defending that which is defenseless, which are the Rules Of Play.

If any finger of blame is to be pointed, I would do so at the PDGA, the USDGC, and more specifically, the Rules Committee, because they administer the process by which one becomes an Official. They should detail the obligations of an Official, and in my opinion , one important obligation is to make calls when a violation has been observed.

If you had closed your eyes right before the plant and throw, you would not have compromised what the USDGC had asked of you. As you said, being a passive Official meant "looking the other way", and again I say, I have no problem with that. But when "looking the other way" happens after a violation and not before, well...

Again, Mike, I am sure that you are of good character, because you obviously were troubled by what you were instructed to do, but the thought of an Official not making the call on an infraction that said Official witnessed, gosh, this will read funny, but it's almost a nauseating feeling. :(

how about amending the rule to extend the lop on fairway shots from 30 cm to something like 60 cm which will eliminate the need for foot faults as long as the player releases directly behind the center line of the marker?

how about amending the rule to extend the lop on fairway shots from 30 cm to something like 60 cm which will eliminate the need for foot faults as long as the player releases directly behind the center line of the marker?




And reduce/remove the penalty of landing behind a tree?

How about amending to say "behind the marker disc and in close vicinity", except when there is an obstacle within X meters of the mark"?

This way, we could all act the same way on a fairway drive in an open area. As has been stated before, an inch here or there won't matter in the end result, if everyone is putting the same effort into a proper stance upon release.
However, if there is a nearby obstacle, an inch or 2 could make a substantial difference in the shot, so in that case, the 30cm on LOP would be the rule.

One thought I had is, would the person have to declare or ask the group if a nearby obstacle is within X meters? I say no, because the "no falling putts within 10M" rule, does not involve a declaration by the thrower of the distance, so this shot should not either. If another player wants to question an "errant" stance of a fairway drive, this should be the same as a player questioning the fall after a putt from a distance that could be less than 10M.

I am sure that you are of good character, because you obviously were troubled by what you were instructed to do



If the flip side is true, I gotta real character problem. :) Do you think cops rush to confession over the jaywalkers they did not arrest?



Also Nick, ALL RULES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.

you get one meter relief from casual ob even if it gets you closer to the hole, not to digress here but some rules improve your lie.....i dont think allowing a 60 cm stretch away compared to 30 cm from a tree will make it that much easier. it might even keep you from hurting yourself. :D

you get one meter relief from casual ob even if it gets you closer to the hole...



Dude, there is no such thing as "casual OB" and phrasing it like that just adds confusion to some of our more clear rules.

Just to let you know, the whole reason for 1 meter relief from OB is that you are not allowed to have point of contact in OB territory. The relief is there so that you can take a legal stance. That's right, you are not allowed to have a foot in the OB street when you throw.

Casual OB? Where?

The 1 meter from OB rule exists because you cannot throw from OB (or have a point in OB).

Keeping from hitting trees with your hand is part of the penalty for landing next to the tree. In that situation, your safety is your problem.

Czar, with all due respect, I think your suggestion would make a bad situation even worse.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really think we should go to No Fairway Runup.

RULE: 803.03 STANCE, Subsequent to Teeing Off
A. When the disc is released, a player must:
(1) Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface on the line of play and within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc (except as specified in 803.03 E); and,
(2) have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
(3) have all of his or her supporting points in-bounds.

This is our rule. It is in our rule book. It is both intended to be known, played by and called. For fair play to be ensured all three must occur at the same time. This is not an earthshattering idea, it is the same as any other sport or game. Golf is traditionally self-officiated, though others are more than welcome to make any call (even someone watching it on TV 1000 miles away).

Do you think that Ball Golfers know their rules? Do you think they do their damnedest to assure that they and everyone else complies with them? Has this done injury to their sport in any way?

Believe me, I ain't no conformist, but without rules of fairplay there is NO GAME to rebel against. It's more like 5 year old checkers where you can make up your own rules moment by moment.

Know the rules. Play by the rules. Call the rules. Be a REAL disc golfer.

Nobody wants to comment about the size of the line in question?

A true line, by definition, has no width. It exists in a single dimension and is defined by two points along it's path. Those two points are fairly clearly defined as the "the target" (should be "center of the target"?) and the center of the marker. No width involved.

Any more comments about tee shots and fariway shots be different type shots? They are according to our rules.

A line has no thickness in classical geometry and is the default definition unless a thickness is actually specified in the rules, and it isn't. If the rule specified ' <font color="red"> Lines </font> of Play' defined by the lines running from the center of the target passing tangent to the outside diameter of the disc marking the lie, then that would be OK but that's not the way it is now.

Thanks Rhett and Chuck. I was too busy laughing to answer that one... :D

A line has no thickness in classical geometry and is the default definition unless a thickness is actually specified in the rules, and it isn't. If the rule specified ' <font color="red"> Lines </font> of Play' defined by the lines running from the center of the target passing tangent to the outside diameter of the disc marking the lie, then that would be OK but that's not the way it is now.



thanks for not flaming chuck.....i thought we were discussing a specific rule here, not generalizing the topic at hand??? rules can be changed, can they not, if the majority deems the change worthy?? changing or amending 803.03-A.1 (to allow foot placement furthur behind the marker thereby reducing stance violation calls) thats all im talking about....

An idea...

What if the LOP was defined as being the width of the pole? Instead of a impossibly small line to step on, then a player would have a "stripe" roughly the size of the mini to aim for.

Easier to see, to hit, and to call....maybe?

Czar, with all due respect, I think your suggestion would make a bad situation even worse.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really think we should go to No Fairway Runup.


Haupoj,

I think we have had that discussion before here, and we came to the conclusion that a change like that would not fly. I've read a lot worse suggestions though.

These well intended attempts to widen or increase the lie would not solve anything. People would simply take even greater liberty and ignore the rule to an even greater degree.

Let me ask this: Are you able to tee off within the tee area provided? Do you make a conscious effort to do so? Do you watch that others do so? What happens if a player does not?

Now: Why? Why? Why? and Why?

There is no significant difference between this and what happens anywhere else on the course. Rules are either known, followed, and called or they are not. If they are not known, followed and called then our sport suffers. Simple.

Here's an interesting option. What if instead of a marker, a towel or some other appropriate material (player choice) of a specific size like 8" x 18" was used to mark lies? Some part of the player's supporting point had to be on/touching this surface at the time of release. Kind of like using a mini-tee pad.

It would be much easier to both comply and see compliance. And, it might improve safety. A variety of materials appropriate for different conditions could be created by entrepreneurs as long as the area dimensions meet the standard. The tops could be rubberized and the bottoms could even be nubby.

I'd have to look it up but I suggested that about 3 years ago.

I called it "The Lie".

Disc makers could marked them with different tread and configurations though they'd be essentially round and flat.

The slogan - "No need to lie, get The Lie!" :p

Here's an interesting option. What if instead of a marker, a towel or some other appropriate material (player choice) of a specific size like 8" x 18" was used to mark lies? Some part of the player's supporting point had to be on/touching this surface at the time of release. Kind of like using a mini-tee pad.

It would be much easier to both comply and see compliance. And, it might improve safety. A variety of materials appropriate for different conditions could be created by entrepreneurs as long as the area dimensions meet the standard. The tops could be rubberized and the bottoms could even be nubby.




interresting for sure......sounds dangerous though.....

I have seen a couple of really good ideas here. Especially this one. I like it a lot as it makes the call very easy. It also reminds each player what the rule is and what they have to do to be in compliance.

It does have one shortcoming; playing in the rough. Getting the towl to lie down would be tough.

Is there any format for posing some of these suggestions to the rules committee and seeing if a possible change could be placed for a vote to the appropriate body? (Presumably the PDGA as a whole?)

Well, Bill, a few thoughts.
I was not told to stay any certain distance from the players. I stood or sat where I needed to so that I would be out of the way while a shot was being made. Sometimes that caused me to be close enough to note foot placement. And as said before, I noticed at least one person commit a foot fault. But in light of the directive, I did not feel that calling that foot fault was something that the tournament directors wanted me to do. I was their guest, a volunteer on vacation. Imagine the scenario of me calling the foot fault and arguing with the TD whether or not I should have called it. That's not a battle I was ready to fight. I was there to provide free assistance, watch some great golf, and have a good time. I was not there to tell the TD how to run his tournament. Now, If I had seen someone burnin' a doobie, that's a different story. But my interpretation of the directive was not to act as an official unless the group of players asked me to make a ruling.

I understand your theory on fiduciary duty and I agree. But I was in Rome doing as the Romans do and was not about to buck the system over a foot fault.

Perhaps it would be in the PDGA's best interest to more clearly define the rights and responsibilities of being a Certified Official. Under that scenario, perhaps I could have made the call and the TD would be required to honour it. But under the current scenario, there is no such requirement and in fact the TD has wide discretion under 803.00C(4) &amp; (5).

I have no idea what the purpose of the directive was, unless it was to avoid cases of officials getting too involved in the game and disrupting play. A better directive would have been to call what you see, but don't go out of your way to find infractions.

I realize you're not casting aspersions on me and I appreciate that. No offense intended your way either. But to say that I should have done such and such is your opinion and I think that needs to be made clear. If you and I were running the USDGC, the call would have been made! But in consideration of all factors, I know I made the right choice.

To have made the call would have caused me to be in a confrontational situation with the TD and the Rules Official. I was their guest and not about to do that.

If this nauseates anyone, then it is definitely time for a clarification of the responsibilities of a Certified PDGA Official.

RULE: 801.01 COURTESY
A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.



There you have it straight from the rule book: you are required to watch people's feet and make the call! Not to do so is a courtesy violation.


Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.

I think the "should" should be replaced with "shall", although since this is in the courtesy section it sures seems the same.

...(to allow foot placement furthur behind the marker thereby reducing stance violation calls)...



BWAA-HA-HA! You can't reduce zero! :D

Oh, sorry. I thought the goal was to makes the rules clear enough that we would reduce violations, not calls.

The line-of-no-thickness is not hard to hit. If we are using a mini-marker it fairly easy to tell, even from a distance, whether the foot is behind the mini or to the side. A foot that is pretty much behind the mini but maybe missing the actual LOP by 2 cm is the call that can't be made, and benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower. This is not a problem. The foot that is not behind the mini or close (in terms of the size of the mini) to behind it is the violation to call.

I really haven't ever seen as a problem or been concerned with the 30cm back from the edge of the marker. 30cm isn't a tiny distance. It's (TA-DA!) roughly the size of beach frisbee. If you think about our mini marking ritual, you will see that it is a codified process to put your foot exactly where the beach-disc-sized disc was at. In the old days you would cram your foot into exactly where you picked you one disc up from. I'm sure the need to formalize this process came about when people first started playing for money. This is a very good process, IMNSHO, for putting your foot exactly where your previous throw landed.

I do not believe it should be changed just because there are players who ignore it. I think the players should be educated about it. As was mentioned earlier, "play it where it lies".

i wouldnt have expected any other kind of response from a DGRZ member.... :eek:

...Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.



There you have it straight from the rule book: you are required to watch people's feet and make the call! Not to do so is a courtesy violation..



He was an official, not a player. You gonna call a courtesy violation on a non-playing official? After his 2nd courtesy violation does he get a one-official's-call-penalty?

Man, y'all are true zealots.

I think I have a win-win solution. It should please those that want easy and clear language to preserve the integrity of the sport and please people like me who care little about foot faults on many throws.

"for shots over 300 feet (to confuse the Euros)with no obstacles within 3 meters (to confuse me)of the lie, the thrower, upon release must have both feet farther from the basket than the lie and one foot within 30 centimeters behind the marker on the line of play. If at least six members of the group witness the violation, the player must rethrow."

There, it's a clear rule and easy to enforce. The integrity of the game remains intact.

Mike August:...my interpretation of the directive was not to act as an official unless the group of players asked me to make a ruling.



Exactly.

At that level of play, players ought to be expected to pay attention to the game and make the calls themselves. The rules state only that "Non-playing certified officials <font color="red"> may </font>actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness...The official's ruling supersedes the ruling of the group, but appeal may be made to the tournament director.(804.09 D)" <font color="red"> Nothing states that the official is expected to, required to, morally bound to, ethically mandated to, or any other such thing. </font>

I served as an on course official both during 2003 Pro Worlds at the request of the Competition Director and the 2003 USDGC at the request of the Head Rules Official. On both occasions, the players were aware of my presence and status as an official. They were still expected and empowered by the Rules of Play to make their own calls, but I (as well as others) were also there to actively make calls and rulings.

Even though the rules allow a non-playing official to make calls, there could be controversy over that action, if the official is not prepared to identify him/herself as such. Is he/she carrying their Official's Identification Card? Are they clearly identifiable to the players as someone that can be called upon for rulings? An official (and there are lots of them out there) could be in the gallery and feel obliged to make a call, but could also be overruled by the TD if the player(s) in question make a case that the official was not in a clear position or otherwise compromised.

In other sports, officials generally take a clear position on the field of play and have direct responsibility for certain areas. In the event of a disc golf foot fault, is the official moving around the course, observing each player's fairway throw? Or is he just calling those that happen to occur within a certain distance of where he has parked himself on the course?

I've always thought that an official should identify themselves to the players, either by being introduced in the players meeting before the round, or by wearing some distinctive identifying garment (shirt or vest or armband).

Just more food for thought.

<font color="red"> (Shameless self-promotion: Support PROACTIVE leadership for the PDGA. Vote for Jon Lyksett for Regional Director, 2004-2006) </font>

He was an official, not a player. You gonna call a courtesy violation on a non-playing official? After his 2nd courtesy violation does he get a one-official's-call-penalty?



Sorry Jim, I've moved on from that and was addressinhg the people that don't think they have to watch or make calls in their own group. Actually, the people who have stated on here that they will not make foot fault calls.

And Jim, is that an album cover from The Romantics in your profile now?

And Jim, is that an album cover from The Romantics in your profile now?




Looks like a scene from Reservoir Dogs, to me.....

I often wonder about the 'Spectating Official' situation. Do all certified officials have to check in with the TD at an event?

If a certified official made it just in time go join the gallery for the playoff at this years USDGC could he/she make calls? Do they HAVE TO make calls?

As far as 'the Lie' or any type of string/towel/pad used to indicate the LOP, the other members of the group will still have to watch each throw. The rule and the equipment are just fine the way they are. We just need to open our eyes and our mouths when appropriate.

And Jim, is that an album cover from The Romantics in your profile now?




Looks like a scene from Reservoir Dogs, to me.....




ding ding ding ding.
Note, that's it's the collector's edition colorized version.

Regarding spectating officials and making calls: A ruling from the Chair of the Rules Committee. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=Rules&amp;Number=16615&amp;Forum=A ll_Forums&amp;Words=carlton%20official&amp;Match=And&amp;Searc hpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=allposts&amp;Main=16588&amp;Search=tr ue#Post16615)

In my opinion, one of the top three worst rulings ever. But that's just my opinion. :p

My suggestion is to leave the rule as it is and continue to not enforce it unless an advantage is gained. I do not look forward to the day when we have marshalls monitoring foot faults on wide-open, 500 foot upshots. If they monitor shots where stance really matters, that's OK. Otherwise, just forget about it and continue playing.




I agree fully.....if there arent any obstacles, you are gaiing an advantage off of, and you dont go past it before release, its anal, to care if someone is 6" to the side, on a run up approach....

Of course, thats why I'm not a true DGRZ....some rules, are more important to enforce, than others, IMO.....





I'm not a true zealot either but think we need to seriously evaluate this rule and it's usage.

1) If the rule is too restrictive change it.
2) If we aren't going to enforce the rule get rid of it.

Just don't ignore it.

JimG,

I know you are a DISCussion board search master. I'm pretty sure that we already discussed the nature of the rule Rhett sites.

And I am quite sure that the nature of "Shall" within our rules has been officially clarified to mean "Must" or "Should" or "Required".

Nick

hey neon, ------ "Frisbee Golf,---------FRRIIIIZZZZBEEEEEE GAWLFFFF....." :D

I realize you're not casting aspersions on me and I appreciate that. No offense intended your way either. But to say that I should have done such and such is your opinion and I think that needs to be made clear.

Yes, I agree, there is nothing in the rules that requires an Official who sees an infraction to speak up. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :D
But in consideration of all factors, I know I made the right choice.

To have made the call would have caused me to be in a confrontational situation with the TD and the Rules Official. I was their guest and not about to do that.

Thanks for your deeper definition of your role at the event. My post should have had the tone of,in my opinion, you made a decision that I believed was not the best decision, and not that you made the wrong decision.


If this nauseates anyone, then it is definitely time for a clarification of the responsibilities of a Certified PDGA Official.

My Sentiments Exactly!

Thank you for volunteering your time for what is arguably the most prestigious event in disc golf!

JimG,

I know you are a DISCussion board search master. I'm pretty sure that we already discussed the nature of the rule Rhett sites.



Which one? This topic has wandered quite a bit, and I'm having a hard time keeping up.


And I am quite sure that the nature of "Shall" within our rules has been officially clarified to mean "Must" or "Should" or "Required".



The problem is that the rule the rule on observing other players does not use the word "shall". It uses "should". There's a huge difference in meaning.

Shall means "must do" or "required"
Should means "it's a good idea", or "it would be nice".

Both are used extensively throughout the rule book, and it seems clear to me that "shall" is used when it directly impacts play; "should" is used in more secondary situations.

JimG,

Which one? This topic has wandered quite a bit, and I'm having a hard time keeping up.



Players needing to watch each other for compliance with the rules.

"Should" is awful language and will always lead to problems in rules or contracts. We SHOULD rid our rule of every "should" and replace them with "shall" if something that needs to be done and drop it from the rules if it's something "that would be nice" to do.


RULE: 801.01 COURTESY
A. Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present. Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.

Players should also buy a guy a sandwich if he is starving and broke, and we should give some money to charity if they doing okay financially. But that SHOULDN'T be in the rules. Either you SHALL watch the others on your card to ensure compliance with the rules (which I am extremely confident is the "hidden intent" of this rule) or else don't even put it in there. Hey, if I should then I don't have to.

Yes it seems really anal, but, IMNSHO, me and Discette should be able to go to the rule book to figure out what to do with the same scenario in different states and come up with the same ruling. The real problem is when Steve Ganz and I are playing in the same tournament in the same division on different cards and we each go to the rule book for that same situtation and come up with different rulings.

It's a rule book. It SHOULD be worded anally to avoid different interpretations.

Go to the online rulebook and search on the words "should" and "shall".

I think the writers intentionally chose those words. As I said above, "shall" is used when it directly affects the game, "should" is usually used in secondary situations. Examples:

<ul type="square"> Pros and Ams should not be grouped together.
Players should not throw until they are certain that the thrown disc will not distract another player or potentially injure anyone present.
Courtesy dictates that players who smoke should not allow their smoke to disturb other players.
Players should not stand or leave their equipment where interference with the flight or path of a disc could easily occur.
[/list]
<ul type="square"> Any specifically non-approved disc (per the director) shall be considered illegal
If a disc at rest on the playing surface is moved, the disc shall be replaced as close as possible to its original location
During a round, a player shall not use any artificial device that may assist in making a throw...
Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area.
[/list]

How did I get dragged into this? ;)

Jim, I basically agree with that conclusion, but here's an outlier counter to the interpretation of "shall.".


At the end of the round, each player shall sign his or her scorecard indicating that he or she attests to the accuracy of the score on each hole and the total score.



As we all know, the rule goes on to say "Players whose scorecards are turned in unsigned accept responsibility for the scores reported." This diminishes the unequivocal interpretation of "shall"

Also, you zealots, why no passion over the previously mentioned most abused rule of all:


After each hole is completed, the scorekeeper shall call out each player's name. The called player shall answer with the score in a manner that is clear to all players of the group and the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper shall record that score and read it back, in a manner that is clear to all players of the group.



Think about it, y'alls lack of passion over this routinely abused rule shows that ultimately, y'all too don't think all rules are created equal. I'm not really trying to irritate y'all, just pointing out that unless a rule is viewed by players as important, (not just merely in the rulebook) it won't be enforced.

Summary

Two key issues have been discussed:

1. Non-compliance with the location of the pivot foot on drives after tee off within 30cm of the lie and on the LOP resulting in foot-faults

2. A digression occurred to the responsibilities of players and officials in calling fouls with a number of issues being raised including what obeyance of rules in general.

Each of these topics are important but I would like to bring the discussion back to the original topic to see if we can actually do something to address the problem of foot-faults on secondary drives. If you will bear with me I will fold in the second issue in the context of better rule observation.

First I would like to point out that the issue of foot-faults has been discussed many times (a fact I learned from the posts here) and has not been satisfactorily addressed as of yet. I would like to use this forum as a way to actually do something about this issue that will help the DG community. That was my original goal in starting this post.

There have been two opposing views stated here. The first is: The rule is cut and dried obey it. The second is: The rule within the context of second drives in the open is inconsequential so should be ignored.

Therein lies the problem. Because of these opposing views the rule is mostly ignored. (Even with official acceptance - nudge, nudge - wink, wink - in some cases)

There have been two main solutions offered. The first is to get people to obey the rule. The second is to modify the rule so it is more easily followed. A number of suggestions have been made for the modification of the rule but none for how to obtain compliance.

I see a couple of �practical� ways to obtain better compliance. The first is to ask TDs to discuss the rule during the player meeting telling each player to monitor their foot-faults and those of the other players on their card. Obviously there are many rules that a TD could discuss and we would all love to have our pet peeve discussed during the player meeting but that would require covering the entire rulebook. To control this the PDGA could say for the next six months we will focus on this rule. (�Most violated, least called�) A second possible solution is to issue a reminder to obey all rules. For example the PDGA could sell a disc with �I play by the rules� emblazoned boldly on it. Just the sight of this disc in a player�s hands would be a reminder to the players on his/her card that they should obey the rules. (Talk about non-confrontational, my wife would send me to the couch for proposing this)

The problem with these solutions is that you still have a scenario where some (many?) players think the rule is not important in the context of an open drive and this will always lead to their ignoring it. This is further exacerbated in my opinion by the fact that the rule takes a concentrated effort to obey, do to the nature of how most players drive (even players who think the rule is important foot-fault unintentionally). Because of these issues I advocate either changing the rule to something the majority of players do think is important and are willing to actively remind other players to obey - or if the rule is important as is, making it so that players have to obey it by forcing them to change how they throw on second drives.

The two best solutions I have seen are to eliminate the run up on second drives (Steve Beckman, and probably many others in other discussions) or to change the area where one has to place their pivot foot during drives after the tee off. (T. Bender and J. McCaine both listed some options that might work with some modifications)

�How about amending the rule to extend the lop on fairway shots from 30 cm to something like 60 cm which will eliminate the need for foot faults as long as the player releases directly behind the center line of the marker?�

�For shots over 300 feet (to confuse the Euros) with no obstacles within 3 meters (to confuse me) of the lie, the thrower, upon release must have both feet farther from the basket than the lie and one foot within 30 centimeters behind the marker on the line of play. If at least six members of the group witness the violation, the player must re-throw."

I am not saying that either of these solutions is perfect, rather that they are something to work with.

you GO boyyee!!!!

Think about it, y'alls lack of passion over this routinely abused rule shows that ultimately, y'all too don't think all rules are created equal. I'm not really trying to irritate y'all, just pointing out that unless a rule is viewed by players as important, (not just merely in the rulebook) it won't be enforced.



If you'd ever played on my card in a tournament you would realize that your ASSumption is patently incorrect. Within a couple of holes my card is usually in full compliance. :)

DAMMMM!!!!! You are correct sir. I assumed that noone really enforced that rule. Never seen it enforced, nor even ever heard anyone say it should be enforced. Is a violation a warning, then a stroke? :D

"uh, you mumbled that four there, STROKE" :D

Honestly, I'm sure you find my lack of consistency annoying, but I am truly astonished that anyone enforces THAT rule. I'm out of strategies to expose hypocrisy in zealotry. It truly exists in its pure form.

Jim, I basically agree with that conclusion, but here's an outlier counter to the interpretation of "shall.".


At the end of the round, each player shall sign his or her scorecard indicating that he or she attests to the accuracy of the score on each hole and the total score.





Hush. I glossed over that one on purpose.


Also, you zealots, why no passion over the previously mentioned most abused rule of all:


After each hole is completed, the scorekeeper shall call out each player's name. The called player shall answer with the score in a manner that is clear to all players of the group and the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper shall record that score and read it back, in a manner that is clear to all players of the group.



Think about it, y'alls lack of passion over this routinely abused rule shows that ultimately, y'all too don't think all rules are created equal.



That one is enforced on my card.


I'm not really trying to irritate y'all, just pointing out that unless a rule is viewed by players as important, (not just merely in the rulebook) it won't be enforced.



No kidding, see 804.05 A. (4)

James,

I don't keep track of other people's throws in my head during a tournament. I just try to focus on the next shot. When the scorekeeper tries to keep track of everybody else's score and write them down without anyone sayign anything, two things happen to me:

- I wonder if they got my correct score
- I have no idea what the order is

So I will say, for a couples of holes, "did you get my three?", "did you get my three?", "did you get my three?", and then point out the rules say to have everyone call out their score, and that I need that to know the order. It's not hard to do and most people don't mind.

I have never written down a warning or issued strokes for it, but I can get pretty darn annoying in how I ask "did you get my three?", not to mention constantly asking "what's the order? I didn't hear any scores" on every single hole. :)

Summary

There have been two main solutions offered. The first is to get people to obey the rule. The second is to modify the rule so it is more easily followed.



lyle your whole summary of the situation is rational and well thought out,
if you change the rule so it is more easily followed then it follows it will be easier to obey.
without even being at every tournament that occurs around the world, i can safely say that this violation happens at least once at every tournament in one form or another and is not called. amend it to conform to realistic play one way or another and then call foul.
whether you tighten up the violation with no run up on fairway shots, or the other way with less stringent guidelines, whatever........

Usually takes no more than a simple reminder to keep the card in compliance with the score keeping rules. Even if it is sometimes done with a little too much enthusiasm after the reminder.
:D

The 30 cm is not the hard part to hit. Most offences are to one side or the other. I have watched players that never came close to hitting the mark, and could never figure out why. The player did not gain an advantagous line by being 6 inches right on every second drive, but that is where he was driving (and often putting) from for the entire round.

No, the event was not sanctioned.
No, it was not on a cashing card.
No, I didn't call it.

I don't remember if I even mentioned it to the offending player, but I did discuss it with a couple of the others on the card.

Rhett, I would do the same, but that is hardly strict enforcement of the rule I cited.

Jim, what are you saying? If this situation occurs: someone says star birdie, everyone shakes their head, the scorekeeper writes downs 2s, and nothing else.

Would you really force each person to call out 2 and the scorekeeper repreat it? (oh, nevermind)

Also, are you maintaining that the scorekeeper (and possibly everyone else) is in violation of 805.05(what?) If you are implying that that scenario is cheating, that's absurd.

ps. Sorry Lyle for the thread drift, and my solution should be removed, because it was merely lame sarcasm. But you do ignore the silent majority's (in my experience at least) third option. Leave the rule as it is, and use common sense on when to apply it.

Sorry Jim, I see what you meant by 804.05 a4

If I am writing the scores and someone says all-star whatever, I still call each players name so they can acknowledge the numeric score as it is being written down. If another player is keeping score, and say all-star, I respond by saying the score I took. This normally results in all of the other players doing the same thing.

Actually James I understood that your comment was sarcastic. That does not eliminate the value of your notion that a better rule would solve the problem.

The problem with only applying the rule when it is applicable is that you have to determine when it is applicable. In essence, your sarcastic (and humorous) reply gave one way to do this. Expand the area where one can place their foot in open field drives. (Essentially what is currently happening) I am just suggesting that we might codify that and add it to the rules. Then the problem goes away.

just wait till you become a "member" :D Those programmers are a cold bunch.

Ok, so I don't follow the rule to the letter. If someone calls out "all 3s?" or "all 2s?" and everyone responds affirmatively, I'll let it go.

What I do see quite often, and I'll call them on it, is the scorekeeper not calling out his own score.

So I will say, for a couples of holes, "did you get my three?", "did you get my three?", "did you get my three?",



Are you sure there wasn't a 'Four' in there somewhere? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


The argument that by relaxing the rule you will have more compliance is a fallacy. It sounds like an excuse to not watch for foot faults and not make the call. If you lengthen it to 60cm or widen it a bit, people will be pushing those dimensions as well.

I'm not sure I agree Greg. The question is why do players ignore the rule. Not, in most cases, to gain an advantage. Yes, there are some cheaters who are going to try and cheat on any rule but that is a different issue. The problem now is that it is relatively difficult to comply with the rule as it currently exists. You really have to make an effort to hit a 30cm long line on a three to five step run up. As we've seen, this effort is causing players and officials to ignore the rule. To get better compliance we need to make the rule easier to obey without damaging the sport. This, hopefully, will help the sport.

just wait till you become a "member" :D Those programmers are a cold bunch.



Great, I can hardly wait... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

To get better compliance we need to make the rule easier to obey without damaging the sport. This, hopefully, will help the sport.



Can you write out for us a better more easy to follow rule?

I thought not. Because it will still rely on YOU to make the call. What needs changing is the attitude we, in general, have to knowing, following and calling our rules. Not new rules. At least not in this case.

Thanks for clarifying Bill. When the rule book says something to the effect of "All players and certified officials are required to call all rules violations they witness. Tournament Directors shall honour the calls of any Certified Official in good standing.", then I will call the foot faults every time. As it is now, the TD has the discretion to disregard the official's call.

And by the way, in response to the "visibility" question, all of us who were course marshals at USDGC wore red parkas that were quite visible with the word "staff" on the back. We were also brought up on the stage at the players meeting so that the players could get a look at us and be familiar with those running the show.

I have a related anecdote.

At the USDGC this year, the person for whom I was caddying got SKEE-REWED by a USDGC-staffed spotter.

The player had thrown OB over a fence. The spotter marked the spot about 20 feet farther up the fairway than where it actually went out. Normally this wouldn't be a bad thing. But in this case, the spot was right behind a tree. This left the player with no way to execute a backhand shot, and they were forced to try a much more delicate and tricky forehand flip. From the actual spot of last in-bounds, it would've been a relatively simple backhand.

A few notes:
1) This was nowhere near the lead card, or even cash.
2) The player didn't question the spot publicly, probably because of #1 above, but maybe because of #3 below.
3) I personally feel if they'd questioned it publicly, they would've looked like a whiner/cheater to the other players, even though they were absolutely correct.

So what's your take? Does a player have to use the spot of an official/spotter? Should the player have asked the rest of the group to agree on the actual spot? (By the way, with a spotter already there, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the rest of the group had no idea where the disc actually went OB.)

To me, the lessen-learned here is that the tournament staff should make it very clear to the players and to the spotters/officials exactly what their duties are and what the rights of the players are.

Player also has the right to throw from their original lie if that would have helped. You seem certain that your assessment of where it went OB is correct. How are you so certain if the spotter was much closer?

Can you write out for us a better more easy to follow rule?

I thought not. Because it will still rely on YOU to make the call. What needs changing is the attitude we, in general, have to knowing, following and calling our rules. Not new rules. At least not in this case.



this isnt a new rule issue. its amending a rule that doesnt address the issue of fundamental physical mechanics for fair play for all levels of competing disc golfers, (wait - dont say thats why there are different levels of disc golfers).
behavior and attitude is important, but it makes players conform to a situation that doesnt improve their outlook on disc golf, but rather detracts from their outlook, thus creating non-conformity to a rule lots of players feel isnt up to standard play.

Well, the shot went a couple-hundred feet before it went OB, so going back to the original spot wouldn't have been better.

The spot was pretty obvious. Mostly due to very identifiable markers (trees, etc.), but also due to our angle because the throw was so bad. :( As far as I'm concerned, the spotter was in a worse location than us to see the spot.

(If you're familiar, it was 2nd shot on hole 8, from right-center of fairway. Player tried to throw a turnover driver all the way to the pin, but it never got turned, flew straight most of the way, and actually hyzered a little as it got to the fence. So we were at a really good angle to watch it go out.)

Two points: The first is that I do have a better rule. More on that in a moment. Second, to reiterate, I strongly believe that the issue here is about ease of compliance. I think that it is not just tough, but almost impossible to comply with this rule over a full round of golf (assuming that 9 out of 18 holes require a second open field drive). I don't know very many people that can look downfield, take 3 to 5 steps (especially when their focus is not on their feet) and hit a mark that is the width of a line. Getting within 30 cm of a lie is relatively easy, it is placing your foot within a space that is essentially 4-5 inches side to side on a run up that is difficult. I have yet to see a person cheat on this rule when they have a bad lie. They place their foot squarely on the mark and throw. This suggests to me that people aren't purposefully cheating, rather that the physical capabilities of the average human are superceded by the rule. That makes it a bad rule.

It is true that players could self-police and eliminate their run up taking all second drives from a stand still. This is unlikely given that it will negatively impact their game and that the current approach is to ignore the rule.

The notion that what is needed is better rule compliance keeps coming up. When TDs and officials are ignoring the rule and the majority of players are breaking it because of the nature of the rule, it is unlikely that better compliance is going to occur. We need to fix this rule.

Nick, and others, are correct we could force better compliance. My bet is that if the upcoming Marshals try and enforce this rule there is going to be a firestorm of complaint from players. There will be multiple foot-faults called. If you disagree, I suggest watching your own foot placement on second drives the next time you play. Unless you are a flatfooted thrower, my guess is that you are going to find that you foot-fault repeatedly on second drives after teeing off. Even in the event that a player only foot-faults on occasion, if all foot-faults are called, the one stroke a tournament that it is going to cost that player is going to make him/her nuts.

To answer Nick's question on a rule change. On unobstructed throws (throws where there is no obstacle within a two (or three) meter wide cylinder centered on the lie and going straight up two meters) the players pivot foot can be placed in a space that is 30 cm square that is centered on the LOP and falls directly behind the lie.

Can you write out for us a better more easy to follow rule?

I thought not. Because it will still rely on YOU to make the call. What needs changing is the attitude we, in general, have to knowing, following and calling our rules. Not new rules. At least not in this case.



this isnt a new rule issue. its amending a rule that doesnt address the issue of fundamental physical mechanics for fair play for all levels of competing disc golfers, (wait - dont say thats why there are different levels of disc golfers).
behavior and attitude is important, but it makes players conform to a situation that doesnt improve their outlook on disc golf, but rather detracts from their outlook, thus creating non-conformity to a rule lots of players feel isnt up to standard play.



I agree whole-heartedly. This issue and others like it are really hurting how players look at the sport.

I don't know very many people that can look downfield, take 3 to 5 steps (especially when their focus is not on their feet) and hit a mark that is the width of a line.

If you disagree, I suggest watching your own foot placement on second drives the next time you play. Unless you are a flatfooted thrower, my guess is that you are going to find that you foot-fault repeatedly on second drives after teeing off.



It's not hard. When I do a fairway runup I focus on my feet first, then on my shot. And you know what? I throw farther on tee-shots than fairway shots! I also see no problem with that seeing as how they are different type shots.

I focus on my feet first because if you miss the mark, you risk having to do it all over again. Continue to miss the mark and you risk strokes.

Lyle, here's a guess from me. I am guessing that if you went out to an open field, put down an mini, and practiced fairway runup shots where you concentrated on landing your foot within 30cm of the mini and on the LOP like the rules disc golf state you must that you would be able to hit that mark consistently within an hour.

Right on, Rhett.

Sorry Lyle, but I completely disagree with you. The reason people miss their mark when running up in the fairway is not because it is physically hard to hit, but because generally they aren't thinking about it.

Like Rhett, I concentrate on my feet first, and on my shot second. I'd say I hit the mark better than 95% of the time, and when I do miss, I expect to be called on it. If I'm in a position where I don't think I can hit the mark AND make a good shot, I stand still to make sure I do hit the mark. Because what good is a 400 foot shot from the fairway if it can be called back on a penalty?

If everyone was concentrating on hitting the mark, and everyone was watching and calling foot faults consistently, AND we still had trouble complying with the rule as written, then maybe a re-write or a change is in order. As it is, it's a matter of ignorance of the rule that is the problem, not the rule itself.

--Josh

A few comments concerning Lyle�s recent post.


I don't know very many people that can look downfield, take 3 to 5 steps (especially when their focus is not on their feet) and hit a mark that is the width of a line.



Then these folks are cheating and getting an unfair advantage over the folks that have practiced hitting their mark and always focus on complying with the rule.


This suggests to me that people aren't purposefully cheating, rather that the physical capabilities of the average human are super-ceded by the rule. That makes it a bad rule.



Yes, they are cheating. If they are aware that they are out of compliance with the Rules of Play but continue to cheat anyway, never attempting to improve this part of their game, they are purposefully cheating.


The notion that what is needed is better rule compliance keeps coming up. When TDs and officials are ignoring the rule and the majority of players are breaking it because of the nature of the rule, it is unlikely that better compliance is going to occur. We need to fix this rule.



By this logic how can we expect compliance with any Rule of Play?


My bet is that if the upcoming Marshals try and enforce this rule there is going to be a firestorm of complaint from players. There will be multiple foot-faults called. If you disagree, I suggest watching your own foot placement on second drives the next time you play. Unless you are a flatfooted thrower, my guess is that you are going to find that you foot-fault repeatedly on second drives after teeing off. Even in the event that a player only foot-faults on occasion, if all foot-faults are called, the one stroke a tournament that it is going to cost that player is going to make him/her nuts.



I watch that I am in compliance with this rule every time I throw. It is part of the game. It has always been part of the game and without it the game would cease to be disc golf and enter the realm of 5 year old make up your own rules checkers. If PDGA Marshals enforce the rule, all of the rules, yes, folks that have never taken the time to learn them, practice and play by them, or watch others for compliance of them, will suddenly find that they should have done those 3 things all along and they would be better positioned to compete within our rules of play. These players will quickly learn that they need to know and play by the rules as they have been written and played by real disc golfers for some time now.

Their complaints would be the whining of babies. There is no excuse for not knowing our rules, and once known, to purposefully ignore them is cheating, pure and simple.


To answer Nick's question on a rule change. On unobstructed throws (throws where there is no obstacle within a two (or three) meter wide cylinder centered on the lie and going straight up two meters) the players pivot foot can be placed in a space that is 30 cm square that is centered on the LOP and falls directly behind the lie.



This represents no change what so ever. Without a change in attitude towards �Compliance� the same abuse would continue, but this time with folks caring even less if they were able to compete within the bounds of our Rules of Play. If people aren�t paying attention to their foot placement with a 30cm Line of Play what makes you think they suddenly will with a 30cm Square of Play?

No, the answer is in encouraging greater knowledge of and compliance with this rule.

You need to come to the understanding that rules can not be written that make themselves known or are able to call themselves, we are responsible for that part of our game.

Rhett, Josh and Nick make convincing arguments. I would like to suggest an experiment if you guys are willing.

I take an hours practice every day at lunch. Over the next two months I will focus on foot placement on my drives with the goal of full compliance. I will take a measure today of the number of times I misstep and then compare it to the number of missteps at the end of the two month period and post the change.

In turn you guys, before each round you play, work on the compliance issue. Inform the people you are playing with that you feel compliance on the foot fault is sorely needed. Ask them to help you out on this issue by carefully watching your foot placement on your throws making sure to stroke you if you misstep. At the end of two months you can post the number of foot fouls you have had. (presumably 0)

This scientific experiment, if carried out meticulously should prove your point readily. Are you game?

One way to gain better compliance of the rules is to request that the people you play with carefully observe your own obeyance.

Sounds good to me. I consider it a courtesy for someone to call me on a rule infraction, as I do when I call him or her.

And I did not say that I never misstep, instead that I make a conscious effort to comply with the rules every throw. Through this consistent effort I�ve reached a pretty high level of proficiency with it. Most folks that know me and play with me at events will tell you that I call rules with no hesitation (that they know of) and that more times than not I will select a �Stand and Deliver� stance to avoid any chance of foot faulting.

This may sound like it involves a great deal of effort. But I think most folks, particularly the ones I am interested in reaching, would find that it is surprisingly easy to know the rules, practice and play by them, and just call them as you see them. Making the decision to try and master it is probably the most difficult part of it. From there it is all down hill. And I�m not saying that I know everything about the rules, or that I don�t make mistakes, or even that I don�t hold my tongue from time to time, only that I have made up my mind to do the best that I can to do the right thing as concerns our Rules of Play and our sport as a whole, and that that takes a little of the pressure off.

I will certainly do as you suggest this weekend at Nockamixon. It should be enlightening.

I just had a miserable practice. Out of 24 throws where I worked on second throw foot placement I missed 24 times. (I'm close and behind the disc just not on the line) I agree Nick, this is going to be enlightening. (I also threw for beans...) I think next time I may just keep my big mouth shut.

Actually, my expectation is that you guys are going to be very acurate in your foot placement. The question is, is very accurate good enough? I don't have an answer. It may be that being stroked once or twice a round for something like this is acceptable.

You're a dam cheater!!!!! :D

I would like to extend an invitation to anyone else that would like to participate in this experiment. On either side, Compliance or learning. If your interested either ask other players to score your foot-faults and post after two months how it went or do a control observation on your foot-faults now, post and work on improvement over a two month period and post your results. Either way, the sport wins and we should get some interesting results.

Are you game?

I guarantee that if you get called a time or two, or even if someone just tells you to watch your feet that you will be more conscious about following the rule.

Furthermore, if money were on the line, it wouldn�t take long for players to start doing whatever it takes to avoid violating this vital rule.

In all of this, I would hope that the emphasis is on self-policing and increasing our own awareness in complying with our Rules of Play. I am not interested in creating a long-term practice of policing each other. Hopefully there would be a period of time when compliance was being developed and then a long period of violations being extremely rare. But either way you slice it, increased knowledge and compliance is the goal.

You should be able to land 12 out of 24 if just chant this mantra:

A fairway drive is not a tee-shot...
A fairway drive is not a tee-shot...
A fairway drive is not a tee-shot...


I don't throw anywhere near as far out of the fairway as out of the teebox. Some people, those destined for success in the Open Pro division, get it down quick and nail the foot placement with barely any loss of power. I am not one of them nor will I ever be. :)

All-in-All then, the burden is on your shoulders to produce a plan on how to get better compliance. I don't mind if the solution is "make everyone obey and stroke them if they don't." I have to admit, I don't like the idea that you are going to take away some distance from a lot of players if you enforce the rule but can live with that. I just want uniformity of play across the board. So what is your solution; how do you stop the nudge, nudge, wink, wink that is currently going on? How do you get the PDGA and through them the TDs to emphasize the rules? It is good to show why alternatives won't work but then you have to show how your view can work.

By the way, part of the issue for me goes beyond this point. There are many discussions at this site concerning the growth of discgolf. I experienced the growth of running in this country first hand. I started running in "73" (about the time DG was getting going) and competed for 20 years. Running has gone from that sport of Cross Country Wienies that no one participated in to one of the most popular participation sports in the world. In the U.S. alone there are over 500,000 people that belong to running clubs. Why hasn't discgolf grown the same way? I worry that the difference is that discgolf is too exacting and not easy enough for the casual player to participate in. Yes, I know that changing the rules to make it easier would ruin the sport /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif but....

I believe your growth concerns are more related to disc golf heritage activivties that anything else at all. But that's just my opinion.

I believe your growth concerns are more related to disc golf heritage activivties that anything else at all. But that's just my opinion.



Truer words have rarely been read that these... :(

I actually believe disc gold is growing just fine, but I guarantee one thing: the growth of disc golf has absolutely no correllation to the enforcement of the foot fault rule.

By the way, while I'm not interested in calling certain foot faults (solely included to annoy ;)), I AM interested in measuring the growth of disc golf.

The growth of PDGA members seems readily accessible, but doesn't seem to be a good measure due to casuals. The growth in the # of courses would be interesting, but hard to translate into people. If I were an investor in this sport, I would want to know the growth rate as measured in # of discs sold. I realize this is confidential and scattered amoungst various manufacturers, so I'll never see this number.

But to stop rambling, what measure does the PDGA use when they try to market the sport? Anyone know?

As I`ve mentioned before , any shot that is`nt in the teebox should be stationary with NO runup. This would make less foot faults and would create less controvesy and maybe speed play. Also, with new disc technology making more and more courses easier, the less distance generated from no runup might not be a bad thing .

Our local sponsor only asks if the dgers are beer drinkers

run up is a skill just like any other in the sport. But like Mr. McCaine, I feel that there is a lot of difference between a wide-open fairway shot and a shot from behind and obstacle. If I thought a player was trying to get an advantage from his (off target) run-up I'd bust out the "footfault" card in a second

I mean that I might overlook about a foot behind or to the side of the disc. I might let a guy get away with stepping in front of his disc without a comment the first time but really watch him after that...

marker, not disc

Hmm...

I make almost all my fairway shots flat-footed. The few times I have used fairway runups I have paid careful attention to my foot placement, including taking a practice run-up or two to make sure I know where my feet are going and how I want to release the disc. I don't have much of a follow-through, partly because I throw forehand more often than not, so my plant foot is in the same place after the throw as during the release. I actually was thinking I had been missing that last step more often than I really was until this thread came up because I was thinking 30cm was less than it is. I guess that explains why no one ever seconded when I called myself for a foot fault.

What amused me was the time I saw a player warn someone else for his foot placement when the player making the call had been consistently placing his foot in a manner that led me to believe he thought he had to point his foot at the mini, not be directly behind it.

I can't remember if I pointed out his error. It was a casual round and I had a sore throat, so I doubt it.

Though involving a tad more nad, but it would have been better if you had called the person violating the foot-fault the first time (no internal warning). That way they would take greater care to be in compliance with the rule. I believe that it actually is courteous to do this, more so that building a covert case against them.

I mean, what are you going to say, " I've been noticing you miss your mark for 9 holes now and had to make the call!"

The guy should answer, "Well why didn't you have the courtesy to call it the first time so I could avoid the next 10 times or at least have the opportunity to do so."

I�ll grant that most people are unaware that they are foot-faulting, and others just don�t even know the rule, then there are those who know it and count on other players either not knowing it or not calling it. All of these situations are a negative for our sport, and all of them are correctable.

Know the rules.
Follow the rules.
Call the rules.

KFC baby! Be a REAL DISC GOLFER!

Okay Lyle, I'll plunge in...today in a casual round with my honey, I had 2 falling putts and one run-up stance violation during my round of 18 holes. I try really hard to be careful too! I called myself on the falling putt for the first time, but Andi didn't see it. The second time I lost my balance throwing a short hyzer around a tree and stepped forward of my marker.

I have to admit, that I kind of like Lyle's suggestion about not allowing a run-up except on the tee off. Thereafter, make everyone plant their feet and throw. It seems like it would enforce consistent compliance with one rule. It'd be easy to tell if someone foot faulted from a long way away.

Can't disagree with you, Nick, but I don't often go into a casual round with that kind of mindset because some of my friends (including a couple who are very rules-conscious in organized play) more or less waive minor stance violations and most nondestructive courtesy violations in casual rounds. I think this started back when not all of us had minis yet and continued in the interest of speed and convenience.

Had it been a tournament, I probably would have pointed it out the first time I noticed, although given that on this particular day I had to take a sip or two of water before I could produce audible speech I doubt it would have been within three seconds. ;-)

Then I would suggest, though this is not in the rules, that you might want to exercise the use of a casual informative question as to whether they know the rule concerning proper stance or (if they are rules know-it-alls and might get bent out of shape) something along the lines of as a courtesy I thought you should know that you footfaulted on that throw. (And if the are the type to get bent out of shape for the second option, I'd suggest finding other people to play your casual rounds with, cause playing with intentional cheaters is going to do nothing for the improvement of your own game, and certainly have a negative effect on your own mindset in playing the game correctly.)

Believe me, I am well aware of how entrenched not making any calls, even casual courteous calls is in our sport, but this really does have to change, and it can only change if each of us makes up our minds that it needs to and that we will do what we can to help it. I am not obsessed with it, I simply have made it a part of my game, like placing my mini pointed towards the hole or straightening my cap before I putt. Routine.

Some 700-800'+ holes come to mind...when I consider not using a run-up for my second drive...how many feet would I be sacrificing w/o a run-up?
"A" solution would be a .25 meter of tee area either side of my marker...just to eliminate the pin-point rules zealot accuracy of a fairway drive on uneven ground.
Worrying about my plant foot when I'm 400' out seems tedious...

Worrying about my plant foot when I'm 400' out seems tedious...



Means:
"Worrying about following rules when I play disc golf seems tedious."

Or:
"Worrying at all about following the established rules of disc golf when I have a tough lie seems tedious."



You play how you practice. Ignore your feet during casual rounds and you will have a very hard time folowing our established rules of play during a tournament. I played a casual round yesterday and landed 2 out of 2 fairway runups on the LOP and within 30cm. One of them even led to a 3 on El Dorado hole 12 medium long.

I played Lake Nockmixon, which has about 6 out of the 14 holes with second tee shots needed and did not see or do a single foot fault. That's hitting the LOP within the 30 cm.

Now there was one spot where I had to kneel down with my right toe on the lie, leaning back, kind of a longish approach, where I suspect that my toe came off of the ground close to when I released the disc. But I, obviously couldn't tell (visually), my partner (doubles event), whom I had asked to please watch for and call footfaults (She was the TD of a National Tour event, so she's not shy...) and she didn't say it was a footfault.

That all being said, I have no doubt that from time to time I do miss it. I think that perhaps it is far rarer for me because I know, follow, and call the rules. Moreover, because I KFC I think that I would have less trouble accepting that I may have foot faulted if called.

That is what this is all about, not trying to make people feel like cheaters or dopes, but helping disc golfers know, follow, and call our rules as a inherent part of the game, and moreover as a courtesy to fellow players. Changing the attitude concerning KFC is important as well.

Thanks Ching,

I would like to add an update and some observations. The first is that my reason for inviting people to participate is not that I think those people who think this rule is good will find they can't meet it. I think they will be able to meet it in excess of 90%. Maybe even higher. The problem is that if you meet the rule at 90% over a round of golf, you've added two strokes to your score. That is a significant difference. If everyone plays by the rules everyone will add two stokes and it averages out. (If everyone plays by the rules)
Of course, that will vary. As Rhett and Nick have pointed out there are some pros out there that can hit this on the head every time. My fear is that for the rest of us there is going to be a lot of frustration.

I play in Houston, and while I don't know Ching, I read a lot of his posts and have heard a lot about him. He cares passionatly about the game and obeys the rules. The fact that even he finds himself foot-faulting on occasion is telling.

What I would really like is for a lot of people to weigh in on this. I don't want people adding strokes to their game, I want to know what they see, especially for people from each side of the issue. It does us no good to hear from someone who hates the rule to say I saw everyone foot-fault. It also doesn't help to hear from someone who supports the rule who says everyone I saw hit their spot on the button (unless this is what they truly see). If we can actually paint a picture of what happens then we can make an informed decision. It is also good to know where the people you are observing fall on the rule. Obviously people who care more are going to work harder at observance. The question I feel is important is: are we willing to accept the low number of unintentional foot-faults that occur (or do not occur)? While I believe there is a low level that occurs (even in those that work hard at obeying the rule) and that even that level is unacceptable, I have been proven wrong on many things. It may be that this rule is easier to obey than I believe.

An update: My first day of working on second drive foot faults was11/20. I said in an earlier post that I missed every one. I was not working hard at the step rather just observing. On 11/21 I went out and worked at the rule. I laid out steps and approached my throws carefully. I was not playing a round, I laid this out on a football field (did you know that football was invented so that discgolfers would have a place to practice their throws) I hit 86% (43/50) of my second strides on the 30cm LOP mark. My throws varied. Some were good but a number were off target, significantly so. Here is the interesting thing. I added some distance to my throws. I'm a pathetically bad thrower. My distance ranges from 280 to 310 feet. When I work hard at my foot placement I am throwing 300 to 350 ft. I have changed my throwing style in that I am taking a longer final step to hit the mark and I'm guessing this changes my upper body dynamics or allows me to get more torque out of my lower body. 11/22 no practice just played. 11/23 Hit 53% (16/30) of my second throw attempts on the mark. I had discovered I was adding distance to my throws and was a little more focused on it than on foot placement. Average distance 330 feet. Alright Nick/Rhett, I know what you are going to say. "See obeying the rules makes you a better player." :)

Thanks Nick for keeping us updated on what you are observing. I'm curious to get more input from other posters.

Believe me when I say that I thought long and hard over even posting what I chose to say...seeing as it is a "RZ" thread! :D
I am quite concientious when it comes to 'playing by the rules', BTW. My intent was to add my .02 worth, as this is a common infraction which bears a good looking over. Some shared thinking with other golfers is what I proposed...a small teeing area for 'fairway' drives when a run-up is desired. Nothing more, nothing less. :p

You may recall that I was outspoken about officials making calls if they see an infraction, whether the group invites the official to examine the infraction or not.

Well, it was brought to my attention that, in Major League Baseball, if the fielding team appeals to the "official" in the case of a base runner not touching a base en route to another base, the "official" will make a call, otherwise, no call is made.

Let's say the base runner hit a double, and the fielding team is in doubt whether the base runner tagged (touched) 1st base on the way to 2nd. The fielding team must, before the next pitch, appeal by the pitcher throwing the ball to first base, and this is a de facto request for the 1st base linesman to make the call.

Most of the time, the official will make an active call (ball, strike, foul tip, balk, fair or foul ball, etc), but as I stated above, the linesman could witness the base runner not touch the base and not make a ruling until the fielding team appeals.

Now, baseball is a team against team sport, and golf is a person against the course sport, and that, in my opinion, makes a difference to me as to the active/passive status of a DG official. As the fielding team exercised its right to appeal, no such mechanism exists for the DG course to appeal. That is why I proposed that the Official is the advocate for the course, and as such, has a duty to exercise the course's "right" when its rules have been violated. Also, this would take the onus off of the other players to make calls when the official is there.

But, I quite understand what the USDGC asked of its Officials, and I apologize if I gave the impression that the USDGC was asking their officials to do something that they have a duty not to do (be totally passive), since it is not specifically stated anywhere that I could find about officials' responsibility in making infraction calls outside of a group calling the official in.

But let me finish that an Official is clearly empowered to have the option of making stand-alone calls, since many rules call for a witness of two players or an official, and if an official was empowered only to assist groups in interpreting rules and making rulings when requested, the above language would not be in the rules.

I just realized that I had missed Rhett's post here. We now have two people who work hard at obeying this rule posting to say they hit the 30cm LOP mark 100% of the time (Rhett and Nick). I would love to see more information on this issue.

One other thing, I have to agree with Rhett. Not obeying this rule because it is tedious is not the same as saying the rule is difficult enough to obey that it significantly impacts the sport as a whole. Tedium is not a good enough reason to change a rule. I am interested in change only if as a whole the body of the PDGA observes that they can't readily obey this rule. If this rule is significantly effecting everyone's scores (by a stroke every four rounds or so (I think one stroke a tournament is too much)) I think it is a bad rule.

A little off topic here. Does anyone know how the marshalls thing will work. I'm assuming that there will only be a limited number and they will follow the leader groups. It seems as if they are just hawking over the lead groups and calling foot faults, that is unfair to the leaders. If the scenario above is what happens, I don't see the "marshall program" as being successful.

What was the intent of the "marshall program" anyway? I just assumed it was intended to enforce sportsmanlike behaviour since this is appears to be a big issue on the top circuit. Most importantly, if these officials nitpick over foot faults and fail to enforce against bad behaviour; or fail to realize that pencil whipping is cheating, then who needs them.

Wow, marshals in DG! I think we are a loooong way from that.

It seems to me that the only way a marshal program could work is to have marshals on every hole that stay with that hole until all groups have played through. I have marshalled at PGA events and when a player or group asked for a ruling they got the Head Marshal or someone from the Rules Committee (like bringing out the TD) Believe it when I say that the average marshal is not qualified to make a lot of technical calls. We were there mainly for crowd control, warning the gallery if a bad shot was heading their way, and spotting shots in the rough and clearing people away.

James,

The only information I could find was from the "2004 PDGA Tour Overview - Introduction and overview (10/24/03)" document on the PDGA website, which states that an Operations Marshall will assist TDs of leading events in making rules calls and in assuring events run smoothly.

It doesn't say anything about a Marshall following the lead group around.

It reads to me that a Marshall is a PDGA liaison that is also an Official.

Does anyone know anything more or different?

If this rule is significantly effecting everyone's scores (by a stroke every four rounds or so (I think one stroke a tournament is too much)) I think it is a bad rule.



Lyle, I'm not sure I'm following you here. Do you mean that the rule is affecting players because they may be stroked (assuming the rule is called uniformly and consistently) on the occasions in which they break the rule? Or do you mean it is affecting players because the extra concentration on footwork may shave distance/accuracy/whatever from shots and may result in more shots being taken during the round/tournament?

I would say that in either case, it does not mean that the rule is bad. In the first case, the rule is being broken and punishment given out. Extra strokes because they deserve it. Simple.

In the second case, how does having to take an extra shot because of following the rule equate to the rule being bad? It's like saying that the "travelling" rule in basketball (which, like this stance rule, is greatly ignored now-a-days) is a bad rule because strict enforcement of it would make it harder to move with the ball and scoring would probably go down.

Bad rule because it raises scores? Maybe we ought to re-think OB penalties or any other rule that makes it harder to shoot a low score. They must be bad too.

It is not a hard thing to do, throwing from the proper mark. I refuse to believe that in needs re-consideration because it is too difficult. If you can't hit the mark on a run-up, then don't run-up. It should be about adjusting the player to follow the rules, not adjusting the rules to fit players.

--Josh

I don't have any further details on the PDGA Marshals Program. I think that it is a great idea and similar to other PDGA programs should get better with time.

Lyle, here is another way of looking at this:

Knowing the rule, and practicing Following it over a long period of time, gives you an advantage over those who do not (that is if the rule is being Called in the first place). It�s like a video game where you have practiced a certain move a million times, a move that a first time player or even someone who has never even known about it to practice it just can�t do. Because you know it and have practiced it into second nature you have a huge advantage over those who have not.

So if a player doesn�t know how, or hasn�t practiced hitting their mark, and they miss it 60% of the time (and , of course, it is Called uniformly), then it is likely that they will take some time to practice it so that they don�t get penalized as much (if at all). Kind of a right of passage, from out of control to skilled player.

As sports in general show, players can do just about any difficult task so long as they know that it is possible, practice it into second nature, and remain consistent. Playing your lie correctly in disc golf is no different.

All players should, with practice, hit their mark a high percentage of the time.

This does not mean that the player can throw an all out tee shot from the fairway all of the time.

It does mean that the player may not be able to throw the preferred shot for a given situation because the mark would be very difficult to hit.

If this rule is significantly effecting everyone's scores (by a stroke every four rounds or so (I think one stroke a tournament is too much)) I think it is a bad rule.



Bad rule because it raises scores? Maybe we ought to re-think OB penalties or any other rule that makes it harder to shoot a low score. They must be bad too.




Hey, that's what I was going to post. Also, with that logic the holing out rule should be re-written because I can't tell you how many strokes are added to my score (and many many many other peoples!) due to doinking the tray. :D That adds more strokes to people scores than calling foot faults ever would!

One other thing: I don't claim to hit the maro 100% of the time, but I did go 2-for-2 on Saturday. I just might be 100%, though, because I only do a fairway runup as a last resort and I slow it down a lot from a tee-shot and my #1 goal is to hit the spot. Executing a good shot is #2.

Let�s see if I can respond to some very good counter arguments made here. I�ll start with - you guys are way too smart. This has become hard work. Fun, but�.

Let me start with Josh. My intent was to say if you foot-fault and add a stroke the rule is bad. Perhaps I should have been clearer. If the foot placement rule adds nothing to the game except that it adds strokes to people�s games, it�s a bad rule. Whether it adds a stroke because a person foot-faults or because it throws off their game is irrelevant. If the only outcome of the rule is to cause you to think more carefully through your throw it�s a bad rule. For example, we could envision a rule that says you must throw using an X step approach that covers a box of 5 feet by 12 feet with your first foot falling in the lower right hand corner of the box and your last step falling on the upper left hand corner of the box. To place your feet in the right places you would have to think very carefully, but would it help the game. Not really.

The argument made here that not following this rule gives a player an advantage is correct. That isn�t the point. I can invent a million rules to make the game more difficult. The question is do they help the game. The counter argument here is that adherence to this rule in an open field situation does not help the game. It just adds a level of difficulty that some players will be better at than others. My concern is: are you a better discgolf player than me, not can you place your foot more carefully on second shots than I can. I want to be beaten by a person who can drive better (distance and accuracy) and putt better than I can; not one that can place his foot on a narrow strip before release.

Nick is correct in that if you practice something long enough you can get good at it. I am sure that I could incorporate a full cartwheel into my run up and with enough practice get reasonably good at. Would it add to my game? No. At my age it would simply slow me down and add no benefit. The question I ask is: even with a lot of practice can you get so good at this that it doesn't effect your game anymore? I don't have an answer to that.

Is this an absolute? Should we get rid of all rules? Obviously not. A reference to OB penalties was made. OB serves several purposes. OB protects people (bystanders and players) and wilderness areas from injury. It also serves to make the game more or less difficult. (Anyone who has thrown out of the rough and hit a branch can tell you they would have rather taken an OB stroke) Arguments have been made that artificial barriers to play that are incorporated to make the game more difficult are, shall we say, annoying (I believe the argument goes, if you can�t lay out a difficult course using what nature gave you find another hobby). That is an argument for another day. The use of OB to protect people and other areas from damage is not equivalent to rule 803.3. It serves a clear function that is necessary and prudent.

I look at this in terms of rules that level the playing field and that make the player play honestly. If you threw behind a tree you are stuck with that throw. If you laid a beautiful drive in the middle of the fairway should you be punished with a difficult step up process before you can make your second throw? Ball golf has a similar rule that is currently giving them fits. If you hit the ball into the fairway on a rainy day and it picks up mud you aren�t allowed to clean the ball. The mud on it can really wipe out your second shot ask any player. If on the other hand you shank your shot into the rough where there is no mud, you get a clean ball to hit on your next drive. A lot of ball golf pros are commenting on this rule and how bad it is.

If the argument is that we should keep the open field foot-fault rule simply because it makes the game more challenging that is O.K. (although I disagree) but how are you going to enforce it given that a lot of people/TDs/PDGA personnel are ignoring it because they think the game is difficult enough as it is.

Finally, I think Rhett�s last comment is very important. On his drives after T-off, his primary focus is on his foot placement, then on his drive. I think discgolf should be about the drive first and then foot placement second. If I wanted to dance, I�d be in the ballroom. :)

Lyle, you are liberally using my favorite ploy of hyperbolizing the argument of the other side in order to make your point. That only works when you are trying to incite a flame war. People need to be emotional to succeed with that strategy. :)

This whole "define a rectangle and then require specific foot placement within that rectangle" is ridiculous. What was the point of that??? To throw us off track? Our current rule is nothing like that. You are the one proposing new rules not us. So knock it off. :cool:


Here is the premise of disc golf, the underlying principle of disc golf in a nutshell as perceived by Rhett in SoCal:

Throw the disc at the target. Play the disc where it lies, meaning put a foot or a hand or something in the spot where the disc landed. Hole is over when you are in the basket or hit the object. Lowest score wins. Most fun wins.



A key part of this game of golf is to play it where it lies. To throw from where the previous throw came to rest. Not from "about where", not from "near", and not from "in the vicinity of", but to actually throw from where the previous throw landed.

It's pretty simple. It's not about trying to add strokes to people's scores by making the game harder for no reason, it's about teeing off and finishing the hole in the least number of throws. When you tee off, you have no previous lie so you get more leeway on your shot. Just throw from the tee area to start a hole. After that you have to throw from where the previous shot landed. Until you hole out and start over at the next hole.

So there is only one tee shot per hole. Only one shot per hole that gets the "who cares where my foot is as long as it is close" lenience. All other shots must be made from where the previous shot lended.

I guess you are proposing that we change the fundamental basis for our sport, right? To make all shots tee shots, as if there were never a spot from the previous throw?


And before anybody jumps on it, if you land where you can't throw from the previous throw, like OB or up in a tree, there are rules to cover that. You pretty much get a penalty if you can't legally throw from where the previous throw landed, which adds that much more weight to the "play it where it lies" idea.

Rhett....Lyle is only angry becasue his rating is so low.....

:cool:


But a great staffer!!!

Pretty nice guy once you get to know him....

he theorizes ALOT...

Lyle, the rule isn't there to make the game more difficult (or to add strokes). It's there to give a level playing field to all competitors. You state that's your goal in this. The rule is designed to be uniformly applied to ALL shots subsequent to teeing off. I'm playing disc golf with the understanding that everyone else is following the same rules and doing as I am doing. Throwing a tee shot, then throwing the next shot from that SPOT...not from the general area of the spot.

The ball golf rule you cite gives players fits for how it is written (it differenciates between two things that logically should be treated the same, one way or the other). The stance rule itself does not give anyone fits. The lack of compliance and enforcement does. The rule isn't at fault, it's the players who choose to ignore it. Making a more leniant rule won't alleviate anything. Expanding the "spot" will make it more difficult to enforce than the current rule is, there's no getting around that, especially if a change is introduced to the already leniant and generally rules ignorant pool of players that exist currently.

If you want to make a true ball golf comparison, changing our stance rule to be more leniant would be the same as allowing a ball golfer to move his ball left or right into a position that makes the player most comfortable. If he prefers that his feet are above the ball for his approach, he can put the ball in a favorable position so he can place his feet above the ball. Or if the ball is sitting on an downslope that would make it difficult to get under the ball and lift it, he might want to set the ball in a spot a few inches away that allows him to get under it.

Golf, ball or disc, is supposed to be as much a mental game as physical. The mental challenge of making sure you are on your mark is as important a part of the game as throwing a quality shot from the fairway. Putting it all together is what makes golf, golf.

--Josh

Cong, I think you misspoke, not angry, mad, as in loopy. Now one could make an argument that insanity is linked to low ratings.... :)

:p

lyle, your rite and thayre wrong!!!! U GO BOYYEE :p

Rhett,

The last thing on my mind is a flame war and I have to admit that as soon as I put up my last post I had some second thoughts. When the other side has good arguments sometimes you go digging for equally potent replies. Always a bad idea.

Nonetheless, my notion was to try and demonstrate possible rules that do not add to the sport for comparison purposes. Not to bust your, um... smiley face. Since that was a bust let me come back to two points that I've posted before. The first is that until we get a good measurement of what everyone is doing in terms of this rule, we don't really know where we stand. If indeed, my suppostion is correct that there is a lot of foot-faulting going on, even by those who try and obey the rule, there is a potential problem.

In the event that with some effort everyone can be in compliance then how do you convince the population as a whole to comply? How do you convince, say James McCaine or Circle_2, that they need to obey this rule when they are in the open fairway and 400 ft from the hole? How do you give them your passion for the rule and the need to obey it when they appear to be convinced it isn't necessary? KFC is good and I agree but I've been reading posts about KFC for several years now and it doesn't appear to be working. Is the only answer to have Marshals at every event?

Perhaps the direction of this thread should be changed or a new one started. Something like KFC or Rules Compliance. I am less worried about changing this specific rule than equivalency across the board. I am even willing to say that I don't find this rule that important in the face of the argument that tournaments are possibly being won and lost based on the observance of rules.

I do agree with those of you who promote players calling infractions but that isn't happening either. So once again, what do you suggest?

Let's look at it this way.....

The rule is basically play it where it lies.

That means one supporting point must be where the last throw was (30cm on LOP from the mark). If you practice your approach enough, then you can take advantage of your practiced ability to perform a limited run-up and still land your plant foot on your mark.

This is the way it should be, but some people think it is too restrictive to require players to actually put their plant foot on the actual mark. This is from players that haven't practiced the fairway runup enough to be proficient at hitting the mark and making a good throw.

If you are not able to hit the mark with a run up; then you are required to stand and deliver.

Lyle, I enjoy your persistence on addressing this subject and hoping for a solution. I have a couple of observations on why it won't be addressed anytime soon.

First, a disclaimer. I've never surveyed people on this topic and my observations are based on open division players, most who have played for a long time and although they may not reach "full" compliance with the rule, I suspect they are better at not foot-faulting than the other divisions.

Alright, disclaimer done. The "issue" of most (important distinction) foot fault noncompliance will not be resolved because I maintain it is not considered important to the majority of players. In fact, I don't even think a sizable minority of the players consider "minor" foot faults to be a burning issue. However, I suspect almost all open players feel compliance is absolutely necessary if they think an advantage were to be gained by the foot faulter. I just don't get the idea that many players care about foot faults on wide open long shots.

Secondly, previously unmentioned in this long thread, is the dirty little reality involving the warning/then stroke penalty nature of the rule. Realistically, if I totally shank my shot into OB, no two people are going to bail me out with a foot fault call. However, you feel about this, whether it violates the code of the way people should act, the fact remains that first foot faults are rarely called or seconded after poor shots. If foot faults are called at all, I bet they are generally called after good shots. This apparent "randomness" also contributes to the reason this rules is not enforced much.

ps. I really do try to obey this rule. I'm not a willing offender. However, I don't know if I do or not. Unless I leave cleat marks or step on the mini, I never know (I'm not looking at my feet at release).

Secondly, previously unmentioned in this long thread, is the dirty little reality involving the warning/then stroke penalty nature of the rule. Realistically, if I totally shank my shot into OB, no two people are going to bail me out with a foot fault call. However, you feel about this, whether it violates the code of the way people should act, the fact remains that first foot faults are rarely called or seconded after poor shots. If foot faults are called at all, I bet they are generally called after good shots. This apparent "randomness" also contributes to the reason this rules is not enforced much.




While I understand your larger point, properly called foot faults would occur before the flight of the disc is complete, at least most of the time. The rule states:


803.03 F. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group.



I would argue that if the rule were followed to the letter, the call would be made before the outcome of the shot is known. And the second would have to come regardless of the outcome. Either an honest answer or a outright lie. Not seeing it should not be a valid excuse for avoiding the call or not seconding.


801.01 COURTESY A. ...Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.



So I think the "apparent randomness" of calling the rule can be eliminated too. All it would take is a bit more gumption on a few more peoples' parts to call everything.

--Josh

801.01 COURTESY A. ...Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.



So I think the "apparent randomness" of calling the rule can be eliminated too. All it would take is a bit more gumption on a few more peoples' parts to call everything.



And that brings us back to the "should" vs. "shall" discussion.

Can we work DROTs and the 2 meter rule into this thread also?

A player has marked their lie. It is located slightly inside a small thorn bush with a dead thorny vine hanging from a tree above and slightly in front of the lie but with part of it hanging behind the lie. When the player takes their normal stance, part of the vine is in contact with their body. The player in practicing their throwing motion knocks the vine down creating a clear path from their lie to the target. What is the call?

Second Case: (Same situation) but the player rears back and kicks the vine down with his foot. Where he is kicking is clearly in front of his lie, though part of the vine is behind the lie. Is this a different call?

I know this has been discussed before, just wondering what your thoughts are on this situation.

In both scenarios, the player is in violation by moving an obstacle between the lie and the hole other than with incedental movement caused by a throwing motion. Practice of the throwing motion is not the same as the throwing motion.

In both cases, there is a one stroke penalty without warning.

In the first case, if the players "normal stance" caused movement of the obstacle, then the player is not allowed to take a "normal stance" and must take a modified stance that results in the least movement of the obstacle.

In the second case, if the movement of the obstacle was intentional, it is an automatic 2 stroke penalty without warning, and possible DQ and suspension under 804.05(A)&amp;(C).


803.04(B). Obstacles Between the Lie and Hole: A player may not move, alter, bend, break, or hold back any part of any obstacle between the lie and the hole, with one exception. A player may move obstacles between the lie and the hole that became a factor during the round, such as spectators, players' equipment, open gates, or branches that fell during the round.




803.04(E). A player shall receive one penalty throw, without a warning, for violation of an obstacle or relief rule.




803.04(F). A player who purposely damages anything on the course shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player may also be disqualified from the tournament, in accordance with section 804.05 A (2).

804.05(A). A player may be disqualified by the director for meeting any of the necessary conditions of disqualification as set forth in the rules, or for any of the following:

804.05(A)2. Willful and overt destruction or abuse of plant life, course hardware, or any other property considered part of the disc golf course or the park.

804.05(C).A player in violation of any section under 804.05 A is also subject to suspension from the PDGA Tour.

gary, why 2 seperate posting names/profiles?

I had a problem with my email address at home when the change to the new board was made. I couldn't get my password and sign on, so I made a new ID. I use one when I am at work the other from home.

After a year (or so) I thought I might bring this issue back to the front for some addition, besides, I'm bored with the 2M and jump putt topics. :)

I started this thread with the intent to bring up the possibility of modifying the 30cm rule because I thought it was impossible for most players to obey - given that the rule is often ignored. Somewhere in the bowels of this thread I challenged Rhett to keep track of his foot fouls and told him I would work hard at my own foot placement to see how it went. In the past year I have practiced diligently to develop good foot placement on drives/approaches from the fairway and feel I have a achieved a good success in this area. In fact so much so that I have to admit that Rhett and those who actively support the maintenance of this rule are correct. It takes a conscious effort, but with diligence you can not only hit your foot placement, but also achieve good accuracy and distance while doing so.

As Rhett has pointed out it is more difficult, and those who do not follow the rule gain an advantage over those who do. In fact this is the reason I am revisiting this rule. My observation is no different than it was last year. Many people do not follow this rule (including some pros), although I fully admit that a most pros hit their mark 90% of the time. However, 90%, in a four round event is still 4 - 8 strokes. This is making a very untenable situation in my mind. Essentially, in every tournament being played the winner, in all likelihood, is being determined by this rule, or the flaunting of it.

Along with my efforts to adhere to this rule I have watched the efforts of other players in this area. By and far I see a mixed bag in terms of compliance. I see a few who consistently work at obeying the rule, a large group who mostly obey the rule (hit their mark on putts and upshots but only rarely on drives from the fairway), a large group that partially obey the rule (hit their mark on putts and occasionally on upshots) and a smaller yet substantial group who rarely hit their mark even on putts. It's somewhat appalling, and frankly not very fair, that this single rule which is a key component of all throws, is likely to be the most influential event in wins and losses.

So, what is too be done? How can this be changed? Keep in mind that from what I can see, event the results of some NTs probably would be different if this rule were adequately applied. Either we need to get behind this rule and call it, or we need to change it to a rule that the body of the PDGA can get behind and call. I favor calling this rule as per the idea of playing the disc where it lies (the basic philosophy of disc golf) but that will only happen if everyone enforces the rule. The question is, how can we accomplish that?

I talked with Board member Pete May about this a while back and we were thinking one option might be to introduce a 'stance towel' to mark where your foot had to touch before release. This would be a light colored towel of an exact size and shape that would be placed behind your mini or your mini might even be attached to the towel for even more precision. The edges of the towel might even have lead weights sown in to keep it flatter on the ground. This would provide a more visible reference both for the player to hit on their runup and make it easier for the group to identify foot faults.

One idea that I have heard is to have the TDs pick one rule that is to be emphasized in a tournament.

Just pick one rule for the event, one rule each day. Go over the rule in the players meeting to make sure everyone understands what the rule means, and encourage players to call all rules, and the emphasized rule specifically.

At the least, this makes sure everyone at the meeting understands what the rule means, and hopefully, it will make them think about how to abide by that rule, and get them in the habit of watching themselves and others for violations.

I like this philosophy. I am fairly sure that this rule is most often abused because people just don't think about it. It's not even on their radar. It is obvious that the pros are aware. Just watching DVDs of the big tournaments shows you that they are, but many Advanced and lower players obviously don't even consider it. How else can you explain foot faults on putts where they stand in without a foot behind their marker?

I talked with Board member Pete May about this a while back and we were thinking one option might be to introduce a 'stance towel' to mark where your foot had to touch before release. This would be a light colored towel of an exact size and shape that would be placed behind your mini or your mini might even be attached to the towel for even more precision. The edges of the towel might even have lead weights sown in to keep it flatter on the ground. This would provide a more visible reference both for the player to hit on their runup and make it easier for the group to identify foot faults.



While in general, in the past I would have hated this, now I'm beginning to think it might not be such a bad idea. It would act as a great reminder!

I talked with Board member Pete May about this a while back and we were thinking one option might be to introduce a 'stance towel' to mark where your foot had to touch before release. This would be a light colored towel of an exact size and shape that would be placed behind your mini or your mini might even be attached to the towel for even more precision. The edges of the towel might even have lead weights sown in to keep it flatter on the ground. This would provide a more visible reference both for the player to hit on their runup and make it easier for the group to identify foot faults.



While in general, in the past I would have hated this, now I'm beginning to think it might not be such a bad idea. It would act as a great reminder!



it sounds like a good idea on the surface, but wait until someone slips on a towel that the PDGA says you MUST land on and breaks and ankle or whatever - can you spell L-A-W-S-U-I-T !

i've toyed with the idea of something sized like a ruler - maybe 18" long that could be used to mark the lie. place it perpendicular to the LOP the center of it where the mini would normally go. then the player has a little bit of wiggle room on sideways foot placement (which is 99.99% the only foot "fault" that truly matters). plus, the surface of the ruler would retain all the advertising opportunities that minis currently offer.


alternatively, what about this: give the player two warnings per round. after the second warning the player MAY NOT take ANY runup or steps prior to releasing any shot other than a tee shot. in other words - he's proven he cant/wont follow the rule, so now he gets planted firmly in place.

I talked with Board member Pete May about this a while back and we were thinking one option might be to introduce a 'stance towel' to mark where your foot had to touch before release. This would be a light colored towel of an exact size and shape that would be placed behind your mini or your mini might even be attached to the towel for even more precision. The edges of the towel might even have lead weights sown in to keep it flatter on the ground. This would provide a more visible reference both for the player to hit on their runup and make it easier for the group to identify foot faults.



While in general, in the past I would have hated this, now I'm beginning to think it might not be such a bad idea. It would act as a great reminder!



For a training tool, it sounds great. But not for a competition round.

Why not? Seems a clear way to ensure compliance.

I agree Tony. Once again, I've never felt this is much of problem at all in the pro divisions. Certainly not enough of one to warrant this as a remedy.

Read Pat's answer above for one reason (liability). Requiring a towel to be set down opens the legal side up.

#2 - Is the PDGA going to provide these to us or are we going to have to pay for them? Our "cheap" sport and "cheaper" participants won't like that one bit.

#3 - If I lay a blanket out on the grass, I'm having a picnic, not playing golf. :) Seriously, it seems to take some skill from the game, IMO. Kinda like all the contraptions used in high-level archery, it is really skill or the machinery?

The liability should be no different from slipping on a mini or on muddy or icy ground from which you choose to throw. If you're concerned about footing, it's up to you to make the judgment on how much force to use or whether to stand and deliver.

In fact a case could be made that the towel improves footing in many cases as a safer and more consistent footing option.

The liability should be no different from slipping on a mini...



I disagree with that statement completely. Our rules forbid contact with the marker disc, so in order to injure yourself you would have to be breaking the rules.

The proposal would require you to make contact with the towel in order to be in compliance with the rules.

I think that is a humongous difference.

You still should be signing a waiver at events that holds the TD, sponsors and PDGA harmless for hitting someone, getting hit or injured from participating such as slipping off a tee pad so the towel would all be covered by that.

When has a waiver ever stopped anyone from filing a lawsuit?

I started a thread a couple of years ago called "Why do we have stance rules?", or some similar title, for the reasons you state in your observations.

I think you are leaving out a big and key component in why there are so many footfaults: there are many many many players who claim that it "makes no difference" so they make no effort to land on the LOP within 30.

Never. In fact, many waivers are not worth the paper upon which they are written.

No need for a towel. Just an awareness campaign via DGWN on what the correct footing is, along with enforcement.

30 cms of string attached to the mini would not cause anyone to fall and would provide an objective measure. I have used a bit of string when practicing and when teaching Kelsey and her friends to take a run up throw.

Speaking as a lawyer, and not as a musician, those waivers are effective in most states. They won't stop you from being sued because the lawyer on the other side won't know about it when he sues you. It will set you up for an easy win on summary judgment or summary disposition.

We use a plain English waiver at our tournaments:

If I get injured at this tournament, I will not sue anyone who helped make it possible.

I talked with Board member Pete May about this a while back and we were thinking one option might be to introduce a 'stance towel' to mark where your foot had to touch before release. This would be a light colored towel of an exact size and shape that would be placed behind your mini or your mini might even be attached to the towel for even more precision. The edges of the towel might even have lead weights sown in to keep it flatter on the ground. This would provide a more visible reference both for the player to hit on their runup and make it easier for the group to identify foot faults.



Copyright Theives!!! :) :D :p

"Disc Golf Lie" was created years ago just for this purpose...

Lyle, it is simply not within the realm of possibility to write a rule that forces players to call rules. The problem is not with the rules, it is with the culture of thinking those who do call the rules as being bad for our sport that is the problem.

Making our rules looser will not increase adherence, if anything it will decrease it as people stretch the outer limits of them.

The answer is to Know, Follow and Call the rules.

The answer is to Know, Follow and Call the rules.



or you could do what nick does and know, follow, and come on the board monday's after an event and say i SHOULD HAVE CALLED the rules violations i saw :eek:

Although I am trained as a musician, I did about 7 years as a litigation paralegal for a City Attorney until I "made it big" in the music business. :D

The waiver still does not prevent or preclude lawsuits against the PDGA from being successful.

But that's another topic/thread. I apologize for my digression.

Although I am trained as a musician, I did about 7 years as a litigation paralegal for a City Attorney until I "made it big" in the music business. :D

The waiver still does not prevent or preclude lawsuits against the PDGA from being successful.

But that's another topic/thread. I apologize for my digression.



Yuck! I get enough "lawyer-speak" watching Law & Order. Cut it out...

Yeah, let's put an estoppel to this :eek:

I think "know the rules, call the rules" sounds nice but it ain't happenin'. I reitterate the point, I think a lot of tournaments, including NTs, Supertours, and possibly even the USDGC and Worlds might have different outcomes if foot fault rules were called. For me this is beyond a mere matter of bantering, there are serious implications. Whenever there is money involved you really need to be on the up and up.

What is really incredible to me is that I'm seeing it on the Worlds, NT and USDGC DVDs. In theory there should be Marshals present at those events. I know they aren't ubiquitous and maybe it's happening at such a high frequency they they just can't catch it all. If that's the case then it's got to be happening a lot more even than I'm guessing. Given this we need some method to ensure compliance (or at least ramp it up a little). For sure if someone tries to cut a stroke there is going to be a lot of verbalization. In essence that is what is happening here. People are cutting strokes by using this rule to their advantage (whether intentional or not doesn't matter). A few inches here and there can make a 5 or 6 stroke difference (even on open fairway shots where you have to have a completely different focus in order to ensure compliance).

Furthermore, the one player I've seen call this infaction in the last year got seriously harrassed (some said he asked for it because he rode the offending player a bit hard) by both the offending player and by others. The problem seems to be cultural to the sport. I see foot faults and don't call it; it is way to entrenched and calling it might just get me a busted lip. Sans that it will likely get me a great deal of grief.

So, Rhett is correct, many feel this is acceptable and resent interferance. Given that, how do we change our permissive culture? Know the rules, call the rules isn't good enough.

When was the last time you called the police to report the license of someone who rushed thru a light after it turned red? That's the nature of the culture. So unless you ramp things up like using a towel or string, I doubt much will change even with raised awareness at some events.

I think a lot of tournaments, including NTs, Supertours, and possibly even the USDGC and Worlds might have different outcomes if foot fault rules were called.



This is merely speculation based on an assumption that hitting within the legal mark is an "harder" shot than trying to hit your mark and missing by a couple of inches.

I'm sure I've argued this ad naseum against y'all, but I have personally never felt anyone who tried to hit the mark and missed gained any advantage over me. In fact, I've seen people miss by a foot on a long fairway shot and I still didn't think any advantage was gained.

Unless someone is missing their mark to gain better angles, I really am not very concerned. Also, based on the actions of the majority of people I play with, I don't think they are that concerned either.

During my brief time on this board, this topic gets continually ressurected, but I've only heard it discussed once on the course where a competitor told while walking down the fairway that I missed my mark on a long fairway shot. He then preceded to tell me how he didn't care and that is why he didn't call it.

James, I have to agree with part of your statement.


but I have personally never felt anyone who tried to hit the mark and missed gained any advantage over me. In fact, I've seen people miss by a foot on a long fairway shot and I still didn't think any advantage was gained.


That is the point of the conversation. The advantage is gained by not trying to hit the mark. It's just that small portion of concentration that goes into trying to hit the mark that makes the difference. It's not the few inches in the line, but the lack of concerns outside of the throw that give the player that ignores the rule an advantage.

I can't read minds, but I suspect most players I see try to hit their mark. Usually, when they miss, it was bad footwork which resulted in an errant shot anyway. As for the stretching around the tree type shots, most people I know, including myself, will one-step or no-step those shots just to make sure that they are not gaining any advantage. Once again, to me, those are the only times I really care if someone hits their mark correctly.

James, I have to agree with part of your statement.


but I have personally never felt anyone who tried to hit the mark and missed gained any advantage over me. In fact, I've seen people miss by a foot on a long fairway shot and I still didn't think any advantage was gained.


That is the point of the conversation. The advantage is gained by not trying to hit the mark. It's just that small portion of concentration that goes into trying to hit the mark that makes the difference. It's not the few inches in the line, but the lack of concerns outside of the throw that give the player that ignores the rule an advantage.


Gary hit it on the head there.

James, Lyle used to firmly be "on your side" until he decided to try it out and concentrate on hitting the mark on every throw. After some field research, he changed his mind on this topic. :)

I'm going to go back to one of my standard questions about this topic:

If it doesn't matter, why not just make sure you hit the mark every time? That way you play your disc where it lies and you follow our rules.

We use a plain English waiver at our tournaments:

If I get injured at this tournament, I will not sue anyone who helped make it possible.

Make what possible: the injury, the tournament, or both? :D

Copyright Theives!!! :) :D :p

Not copyright, patent (if patented). Copyright protects intellectual property (published and unpublished literary, scientific, artistic, etc. works, whatever the form of expression, provided such works are fixed in a tangible or material form (printed, electronic, photographic, etc). Copyright protects the specific form of expression rather than the idea; so, e.g., the description of a machine could be copyrighted, but the copyright would only prevent others from copying the description; it does not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Patents protect inventions or discovery of any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. Also, a patent may or may not protect derivative works, depending on the terms under which the patent is granted.

:p :D

This, and every other discussion about this sort of rules question can and must be summed up with the following statement of pure fact:

Rules Do Not Call Themselves!

And dumbing down our rules only results in a dumbing down of our sport. Take pride in our sport. Be a part of the solution. DO WHAT YOU CAN DO:

STUDY OUR RULES
PLAY BY OUR RULES
EDUCATE OTHERS ABOUT OUR RULES

That should be a part of anyone who is a PDGA member�s commitment to our sport.

Present a living example of sportsmanship. Show that rules can be known, followed and called in a way that is beneficial to all involved.

Does it involve some fearlessness in a culture of slackness? Certainly, but it will empower you to take direct action and make a difference. Besides, what is the.alternative?

To whine endlessly here on the discussion board about folks and yourself not caring about the rules?

By all means let�s start a campaign to change our slack rules adherence culture. Get the PDGA Board and Rules Committee to back it, post whole page adds in DGWN and DGM, get shirts and discs made up, build a support network of members that pride themselves on being protectors of fair competition. Let�s do all of this.

But in the end, the battle to reinvent this lacks and lazy culture of not caring will be won or lost within each of us, one at a time. No program can do that, only YOU can.

Re: Committment

Nick, how many foot faults have you seen and not called and then posted here that you didn't call? :o

Let me restate this so there is no confusion. There is a huge difference between hitting your mark, trying to hit your mark, and not trying to hit your mark. Hitting your mark every time takes more concentration than sort of thinking about it and mistepping and missing. If the situation is a tough one that doesn't allow a clean step through I stand in and throw forehand to ensure I hit my mark. That is a huge difference in distance and accuracy. It required that I learn a whole new skill set that I still haven't mastered.

Gary and Rhett are absolutely correct. Those hitting their mark are playing a different game than those not hitting their mark, no matter what the reason and thought process. Rhett is correct, I only figured this out by doing it. I suspect that unless you make a serious effort to comply over a long period you won't really know.

To hit my mark I go through a two step process (almost three). I determine my line then I focus on hitting my mark. To do this I have to take my mind off my line. As I take my last step and my foot is approaching it's final placement (at this point I have about a 95% chance of hitting the mark with overstepping and hitting my mini being the biggest problem) I bring my attention back to my line and throw down it. This transition is tough at best and it took my a couple of months to get to the point where I didn't regularly throw a high hyzer or a worm-burner. To get it I had to take a lot off my throw and settle for less distance to get a clean snap with good accuracy. Even still I screw it up plenty. The best solution is to stand in and throw forehand (distance isn't great, 260 feet, but I never miss my lie :)).

Watch the pros on the USDGC and other DVDs. They all take a very careful approach on their fairway drives that is much more controlled than their other approaches.

So James, I also disagree with you, those guys are gaining an advantage. This sport is all about focus. Without it you can't have accuracy. Multi-tasking is a killer of focus. Hitting your lie while driving is multi-tasking. Those guys that doen't do it are gaining a much higher level of focus. Think about it, if that pays off as 1-3 strokes a round, how much of an advantage have they gained?

One other thing. Many players who we think are trying to hit their lie probably aren't. With a little practice you can lay out your run up so that you hit within a foot of your lie every time. You don't have to line things up and make sure your placement is correct, it is close enough for most players to accept. But again, you don't have to think about it and therefore gain a focus advantage.

Iamgine if a long jumper didn't pace back the proper amount on the runway, and instead, just started their runup anywhere and tried to adjust their step on the last two strides to hit behind the foul line.

I don't disagree with you Nick, In fact I agree totally with you. However, I also feel that a culture has grown. To combat that we need to take a step back. I have stated a couple of times that these foot faults are occuring at National events. I've been politely avoiding saying that TDs, Marshals and PDGA officials are standing around while this is happening but that is the case. If it is accepted there then it is going to be universal and those who call it are going to get lambasted. Remember what happened to Rhett at last years Worlds where he had the balls to point out a potential rules violation to another card. He got chewed up on this site. We need to build a culture where TDs remind us at every tournament that the rules are inforce and that certain rules which are regularly avoided need to be called.

Think about it. If I call foot faults on my card, and no one else is calling them then the guys on my card are going to feel screwed. There needs to be an awareness that everyone on every card is calling these infractions and that it is a good thing.

Good explanation.

Focus is everything when it comes to accuracy. The less you have to distract you, the better your accuracy can be. Why let a little thing like a mini (or rule) distract you from your shot ?

Chuck, I'm too stoopid to figure this one out. Do you mean that careful spacing is important? I agree. I'm just saying that, at least for me, it's not enough. Think about the number of times long jumpers scratch even though they carefully, to the cm, mark off their lie. It isn't enough to measure it, you have to be aware of your foot placement as it's happening and then be able to adjust to a focus on your throw. That is tough, at least for me. Not impossible, just tough. :D

I'm agreeing with the need for better foot placement in DG by saying that long jumpers can't perform properly without paying attention to foot placement and fouling raises the bar for them. I usually step back and take a practice runup to see where my foot placement will be. Brad Hammock is very deliberate with this process even on the tee.

Like the long jumper, the disc golfer who adjusts his footwork at the last possible second will have a bad shot. So they have already effectively punished themselves.

The practical problems of enforcing this rule are numerous:

1. On a long course such as the Hill at Wimberly, players will probably be nowhere near each other after one shot. You have probably added an hour to the round if you forced everyone to herd around together and nanny over every shot.

2. Like the jump putt, it is a difficult rule to call (obvious ones are not) alot of the times. It is hard to watch both the foot and the release at the same time. Moving the mini after release is OK, but judging that instant of release is not easy;

3. As discussed many times before, calling foot faults seems to only happen after good shots and never after bad ones. IMO, this natural "discretion in enforcement" has tarnished this rule. Furthermore, this discretion will always exist, despite cries over sportsmanship.

In sum, the enforcement of the rule comes with its own baggage. Is the baggage worth the crime. I say no.

The only legitimate fix is to not allow runups and that solution creates major changes in the sport as we now play it. I could live with this, but I still see it as unnecessary.

3. As discussed many times before, calling foot faults seems to only happen after good shots and never after bad ones. IMO, this natural "discretion in enforcement" has tarnished this rule. Furthermore, this discretion will always exist, despite cries over sportsmanship.


I don't recall this being debated very often at all.

The practical problems of enforcing this rule are numerous:


No they are not. The challenge is singular. You simply refuse to follow, know or call it.

1. On a long course such as the Hill at Wimberly, players will probably be nowhere near each other after one shot. You have probably added an hour to the round if you forced everyone to herd around together and nanny over every shot.


801.01 COURTESY
A. � Players should watch the other members of their group throw in order to aid in locating errant throws and to ensure compliance with the rules.
B. � Examples of discourteous actions are: throwing out of turn�and advancing on the fairway beyond the away player.
C. Refusal to perform an action expected by the rules, such as assisting in the search for a lost disc, moving discs or equipment, or keeping score properly, etc., is a courtesy violation.

2. Like the jump putt, it is a difficult rule to call (obvious ones are not) alot of the times. It is hard to watch both the foot and the release at the same time. Moving the mini after release is OK, but judging that instant of release is not easy;


Not easy, but required by the rules and possible to get good at if you are committed to being observant.

3. As discussed many times before, calling foot faults seems to only happen after good shots and never after bad ones. IMO, this natural "discretion in enforcement" has tarnished this rule. Furthermore, this discretion will always exist, despite cries over sportsmanship.


So what is your point? TO GIVE UP! To say there is no way to objectively, trust yourself to make the call as you see them? To say there is no use in knowing, following and teaching others about them? What point could you possibly be making that is worth making? Seriously?

In sum, the enforcement of the rule comes with its own baggage. Is the baggage worth the crime. I say no.


Again, the challenge is singular. You simply refuse to follow, know or call it. The same could be said of any rule and currently is by 99.9% of players out there.

The only legitimate fix is to not allow runups and that solution creates major changes in the sport as we now play it. I could live with this, but I still see it as unnecessary.


You base this conclusion purely on your own refusal to know, follow and call our rules of play. None of what you say would be true for you if you �CHOSE� to commit yourself to being a growing number of players standing up to show that not only is it possible but that YOU ARE DOING IT, and the right way.
Note: James, if you are saying can we improve our rules of play, then I am with you, but if as it seems you are saying that we must give up on developing a culture of the highest standards of sportsmenship because we refuse to make a commitment to it, then I categorically reject that characterization of futility.
Playing our game from where our lie is, is arguably the single most important rule we have to ensure fair play. If we give up on it, or dumb it down, then we might as well just throw the whole rulebook in the trash.

I'm not saying to be a Richard, just that you try to
<font color="blue"> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV </font>

It was brought up briefly on this thread last year and I pointed out then that properly called foot faults should be made and seconded before the disc is finished its flight. You get three seconds to make the call. If you are going to make the call, it should be immediately after the disc is released and most likely you won't know what the outcome will be.

If anyone is waiting to see the outcome of the shot to decide if they want to call the violation, then they are waiting too long to do anything at all.

So again, it comes back to an issue of properly knowing and calling the rules, not an issue of tarnished rules.

--Josh

Iamgine if a long jumper didn't pace back the proper amount on the runway, and instead, just started their runup anywhere and tried to adjust their step on the last two strides to hit behind the foul line.



I actually think this is a really bad analogy, for a number of reasons. Firstly, a long jumper has a HUGE run up. Secondly, they have a very small target, just a few inches.

A better analogy would be a spin bowler in cricket, who has a 3-5 step run up, and simply needs to keep part of his foot behind a line. I know you guys don't do cricket, but spin bowlers NEVER foot fault (called a "no ball" in cricket). Even the fast bowlers who have a long run up, because they have a target area the length of their foot (close enough to our DG target area) rarely bowl no balls. As an example, in the current test match, South Africa bowled just 4 no balls in 742 balls.

The key to this is a properly judged run up. There is no reason to miss your mark in DG, and no need to give it special concentration which could affect your shot, as long as you know your run up.

I agree with the last 3 posts emphatically.

Firstly, a long jumper has a HUGE run up.


Bruce, you obviously haven�t seen Mark Boyce or Bryan Gawler run up then� (he he he) :D

Of course, one of those posts was yours Nick ;)

Of course, one of those posts was yours Nick ;)



Yeah, that's probably my favorite one...

I'm not in the mood to rehash all this again, but for the last time. ;)

Nick, I guess people are violating 801.01 if they moving along to their disc and not hawking over each others throw. I can't argue that. However, in the interest of time, I am glad that this is another rule that people's discretion is wisely used.

Josh is also right. However, I still say that in my experience, foot faults are almost never called after bad shots (three seconds is a long time to determine if a shot is bad). Anyways, this experience/reality has always tarnished this rule.

At any rate, I'm sure that my lone voice will not have any effect on this discussion, but I still don't think most foot faults are that important in the whole scope of things and I suspect others quietly agree. Therefore, I bet this is a topic that will continually be brought up, discussed and shelved.

Again I disagree with you James. I used to be in your camp; experience has taught me better. There are two games being played in Disc Golf. One that involves people obeying this rule and one that doesn't. Those that don't are gaining a huge advantage that they don't realize. Only someone who has actively worked at obeying this rule can appreciate that. Previously, I could not since I had not fully tried to be in compliance. Oh I made a half arse effort but it just isn't the same. I don't think you will until you make a concerted effort to be in compliance on every throw. Even now I can hear Nick, Gary, Chuck and Rhett a year ago, politely laughing behind their screens as I made the same arguments that you are making. Give it a try, not half a try but a full try. Do it for a year. You will find that you are going to have some adjusting to make. The advantage to those not in obeyance is huge and until you adjust your game you won't realize how unfair it is to those who are in compliance.

You will also quickly realize why those at the top of our field work hard at compliance. They know how hard it is and they know that the scrutiny up there is going to be much higher because the other players up there know how hard it is. The fact is that those not in compliance are cheating. Even if it only adds a few feet, or even one foot (I will tell you that it is more based on what I've seen) to their throws they have gained an advantage. That's wrong!

My call on this is: You show me someone who has to concentrate to hit his mark, and I'll show you someone who needs to do some work on his run up...

Lyle, I've concentrated on hitting my mark since I first read the rule. That was a long time ago. Just because I don't share your opinion of this rule's importance doesn't mean I ignore it.

By the way, it is possible that someone has considered this rule as much as you, Chuck, Rhett and Nick and reached different conclusions.

James and Bruce,

I see the point you are making and I respectfully disagree. First, even the most accomplished player makes mistakes. I know this because I watch DVDs of the best and I see them make mistakes. Your assertion is that you don't have to think about it; that is you've gone out and learned the distance and measurement and gotten it down, so now you don't have to pay attention... i.e. you aren't making any mistakes. Unless you guys are better than the Barry Schultzs, Ken Climos and Steve Ricos of the world you are making mistakes. Just the fact that mistakes are occuring changes the dynamic of the game if for no other reason than the strokes will change the outcome.

However, if you think about it, in order to avoid those strokes, even the most accomplished players will have to slightly adjust their game and pay more attention. That is a huge factor.

All of this ignores another fact. That is my personal experience. You've made the assumption that all players can go out, learn the steps, and with relative confidence hit their mark every time (something I think based on observation can't be true). This idea is probably true, given my stated reservation, for a subset of players. However, there is also likely to be a subset of players for which it isn't true. Players who have to focus on their mark in order to hit it. I'm sure the same is true for bowlers in Cricket. Those who can't do it don't make it to the top. Right now in our sport we are giving those people a pass up to some of the top levels.

What I'm telling you is that for you, obviously two very talented players who can measure off their steps and hit their mark every time, there probably is a group of people who are beating you, and taking your money and prestige, because they are not hitting their mark and obeying the rules. That is unfair.

I'm not in the mood to rehash all this again, but for the last time. ;)


What is there to rehash James?
That we should make our rules looser?
That we shouldn�t be responsible for knowing the rules?
That we shouldn�t work at being more in compliance with the rules?
That we shouldn�t make calling the rules a natural part of our play and sport?


Nick, I guess people are violating 801.01 if they moving along to their disc and not hawking over each others throw. I can't argue that. However, in the interest of time, I am glad that this is another rule that people's discretion is wisely used.


I�m not glad about folks ignoring any of our rules of play, regardless of �saving time�. Particularly when the price for that �time saved� is �lack of sportsmanship� and �a detraction from fair play�! Don�t give me that, well, everyone does it so it doesn�t matter. I DOES MATTER! There are folks out there doing their best to know, play by and call the rules and every knucklehead that thinks, �well, it doesn�t really matter, we need to hurry up and finish this round�, moves our sport away from standards of the highest sportsmanship and excellence.


Josh is also right. However, I still say that in my experience, foot faults are almost never called after bad shots (three seconds is a long time to determine if a shot is bad). Anyways, this experience/reality has always tarnished this rule.


The only thing tarnishing this rule is that so many competitors and PDGA events don�t care to know it, practice it, play by it or call it.


At any rate, I'm sure that my lone voice will not have any effect on this discussion, but I still don't think most foot faults are that important in the whole scope of things and I suspect others quietly agree. Therefore, I bet this is a topic that will continually be brought up, discussed and shelved.


I agree with everything you said short of �I still don't think most foot faults are that important�. So long as players feel that way we will continue to have this discussion and this challenge to our sports level of excellence.

It is a choice. You either take pride in what you do or you do not.

I�m not saying that folks should never be confused about the rules, or not know one of them, or that they should never violate them, or ever not make a call. I am saying that they should do their best to get answers to rules they are confused about, study them, practice compliance, and yes, use their judgment in making calls (there is simply no way not to�). But more than any of this, we as a sport need to simply put our foot down and say, �The highest level of sportsmanship and excellence is our goal. Knowing, following and calling our rules of play to the absolute best of our abilities is the only way to accomplish this goal. The rest is just excuses.�

James, I�m not trying to pick on you, I know you care a great deal about our sport, this is more a general disclosure of my thoughts on this topic. I am saying it to myself as much as I am saying it to you or anyone else here. If we make a choice to make it each of our jobs to make our sport adhere to the highest standards of excellence, then there can be no doubt that we will see significant progress in our sport. If we chose to just go with the flow then our sport will remain likewise, a mediocre sport.

I also see your point Lyle, and I can appreciate that what I feel to be true for me quite possibly isn't true for others (though the sarcasm of "obviously very talented players" may have been uncalled for :p).

Let me put the argument back towards Nick's line of reasoning then. I won't be thinking about this on the course, ever, as I think I'm 'clean'. I don't need any more mental clutter when I'm playing.
Should someone call me on it, I'll take note. Should this happen a few times, I will be forced to reassess my run up, look at my foot placement, all the things you have done. But until I'm called on it, it is simply a rule I'm not breaking.

Looks like the trick is to call it then...

Yes, Nick, you are right on track. Everyone should make a committment to play strictly by the rules. The question is, how do we encourage that school of thought? How do we as an organization make it "cool" instead of "uncool" to call foot faults?

Because the "don't bother to call it" culture has entrenched itself in this sport, I think this will be a difficult task. But something must be done to encourage enforcement. The alternative is to water down the rules to match the culture.

I really am at a loss as to how to go about this. How can this organization turn the tide of a bad practice that is skewing the results of our tournaments?

I don't know how to change the culture of the sport, but know that for open fairway lies, I am like James and Bruce. I don't think about my mark after I line up my run-up. I have practiced this until I am confident with it, and the cleats I wear leave a noticable mark I can check after I throw. I do always check for that mark after the throw to make sure I was in compliance with the rules on the throw.

However the distraction of hitting the mark does come into play quite often when the lie isn't very clean. When there are objects step over or throw around and I am leaning back or approaching at an odd angle I have to pay attention to my footing to be on my mark. This will always subtract something from the quality of the throw compared to just being in the neighborhood of the mark and not worrying about hitting it exactly.

Just curious, how do you come to the conclusion that it is "skewing the results of our tournaments." Lyle has also stated that it accounts for 3 strokes a round and that so and so was seen gaining strokes on a DVD.

I suspect that y'all are simply asserting this as fact.

I have never felt that anyone won due to some footfault advantage. In fact, even if I hit my mark every time and my competitor tried to hit it and missed 33% and beat me, I would think he won fair and square. Y'all obviously feel differently. This is where our difference lies.

On a side note, I'm not that easy to **** off, but these platitudes about sportsmanship are getting irritating. I'm sure it wouldn't be well-received, but an argument can be made that nitpicking over a foot fault 500 feet from the basket is not the highest virtue of a "sportsman."

That is only because the current mentality is that pointing out a rules violation is "nitpicking". If the mentality was that all rules are equally valid and that competition is fair only when all players are following the same rules of play, then it would not be considered "nitpicking", but a required element of the game.

I am not picking on you James, just pointing out what I see as the biggest stumbling block to violations being called.

Some rules are more important than other rules and some rule calls are more important than other rule calls. This must seem heretical or immature to y'all, but at some level, I feel that many people believe this. And furthermore, I maintain that they should not be ashamed to feel that way.

Frankly, I have yet to meet those players concerned about missing the mark on a second shot 500 feet from the pin. Maybe they are just lemmings following the average bad actors, or maybe, just maybe, they have thought about it and concluded it is not that important.