I have had reason to re-look at this rule lately.

I thought we discussed this on its own thread before but I can't find it, so I'm bringing it up again, especially since we now have a DGRZ structure now?

I personally think that we can and should do without the 10-meter, demonstrating balance rule.

The rule came about in the stone-age I believe, at the request of Headrick?, maybe because he saw people leaning/reaching/jumping over their lie to place discs into the basket instead of actually propelling them into the basket. I'm guessing this was back in the days of Mach Ones and ultimate discs, days when a 8-foot putt was not a gimme and there was perhaps an advantage (especially in the wind?) for that technique.

Those days are gone, as is Headrick.

With this putting rule gone, we can eliminate:

(1) the notion of "10 meters." [There IS a rule that says you can retrieve a disc after a stance violation from a <10 meter putt, because it doesn't unduly delay play. This rule can simply be changed to say "... you can retrieve your disc after a violation if it doesn't unduly delay play." This also means no need for 10-meter circles, and golfers saying "am I 10 meters away?"

(2) The notion of "demonstrating balance," and the controversies inherent in enforcing the rule.

(3) Probably the notion of "putt" (at least in the rulebook) since there will be no need to distinguish a putt from any other throw in DG. DGers will of course still refer to short shots with a "putting" motion as putts, as a convenience of terminology, just as we throw from a "teeing area" and throw to a "hole."

(4) Maybe a hundred less words in the rulebook. That will free up room for more DG rules! :)

In summary, less words in the rulebook and a couple less things for new golfers to learn about.

-----------------------------------

I would like to hear what people say pro or con on this issue (try to keep it short)

I cannot believe that people today would seriously entertain an 8-foot jump putt or leanover putt, anymore than you would expect a baseball pitcher to take advantage of a "jump pitch" or a basketball player to take advantage of a running-jump free throw.

Thanks for your comments. Gotta go

Were there not good rules in place, we would probably see running jump free throws and pitchers leaving the mound before release (to fake out runners ?).

also, a 30' putt is in no way a gimme. Let's take 20' for instance. While most experienced players will make a high percentage of these, they are certainly missable. If one were allowed to lean forward enough to disrupt balance, the effective distance of a putt would be greatly lessened. A jump-putt from 20' is really more like a 10' putt standing still. Obviously, it takes less skill to make a 10' putt than a 20' one.

I'm rather tall myself, and If I were allowed to ignore stance rules and take a full step forward while putting from 20' I would probably never miss. This would give a large advantage to those of us with a longer reach and stride.

I think the stance rules as they pertain to putting are just fine the way they are. If we were to make any change, I would think that perhaps the words "as approximated by the group" should be added. OR, what if we just eliminated the use of the jump-putt altogether? :D:D

i think you just opened pandoras box

Those who want to keep it need to realize that you must have a contact point at the time of release as is stated in the stance rule. This does away with running slam dunk jump putts even in the absence of the 10 metre rule. :cool:

There's no need for the 10 metre rule, and I fully support getting rid of it but good luck with this crowd. :D Change in this sport seems like elective amputation to most people is seems. :p :p /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

The 10 meter rule is a very integral part of the rules, and for a good reason. Without the rule, people of taller stature would have a huge advantage, which is unfair. There would also be HUGE controversies in the jump putt category, ppl would jump forward from within 10 meters and we would be left trying to decide if they were in fact touching the ground during the release of their disc.
Not to mention how sloppy and unprofessional people would be looking as they attempt to go for the "slam dunk".

Golf is a graceful game, and seeing people fall past their lies on a putt is pretty ridiculous IMO.

I don't think there is much, if any controversy as to what a "falling putt" is or maintaining balance, so I'm not sure how what would improve by eliminating that.

I think the fact that taller people would have a supreme advantage over shorter people is reason enough to leave the rule as it is. And the thought of people lunging towards that basket during a tournament makes me cringe.

Based on that logic, there should be no follow through of any kind on any shot. On whole I have a distaste for any rule that changes from place to place on the course.

We need one stance rule for the entire course. I'd even support a rule that you have to mark your lie within the teeing area prior to teeing off. I mean, in BG, do they tee up 500 balls and swing at all of them hoping to hit one of them correctly?

I think our fairway stance rule covers every stance possibility quite nicely. Drop the 10 meter and tee pad exceptions.

Here come all of the "Well, it's always been this way so that's the way it's gotta stay" arguments....

In ball golf there are multiple, and differing, lie rules. If your ball lies in a sand or water hazard you may not:

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;
b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

Not it's always been that way, but a metal mini on a concrete pad seems to be a safety hazard. If you miss and step on your mini, you are on the way to the ground.

Ball golf tee pads allow you to tee a ball up to make hitting it cleanly easier. It removes the problems associated with a lie from the equation. By not marking the exact spot on the Tee box we will release from, DG makes the tee shot easier than fairway shots. Well, easier for all of those players that actually make an attempt to hit their mark when they play subsequent shots.

[Never mind.]

note that the rules for tee shots and fairway throws seem to eliminate the jump-putt: "at least one supporting points must be within the teeing area at time of release" (from memory, not a direct quote). I believe the same holds true for fairway shots. This would indicate that there must be a supporting point at the time of release. Please correct me where I'm wrong

Q.Why do people jump putt from 32'9"?
A.To make it easier.

Q. What would be the goal (or the result for that matter) of eliminating the 10m rule?
A. Make putting easier.

Q.Why would we want to do that?
A. To have 100 less words in the rule book.

That sounds like a great idea NOT!!

I'd actually go to the opposite extreme Kurt, and say that the 10 meter rule should be increased to 15 meters (35' jump putts are so ridiculous they are insulting). And that ST/NT events should be required to have the distance marked on the ground (believe it or not - there are already courses that do this - and they are widely admired by those that play them).

I am not a proponent of the "it's always been that way - so keep it" mentality. Neither am I a proponent of the "my god our rules are so confusing - how will anybody ever learn them?" mentality. The history of this rule is irrelevant. It is a good rule, that if nothing else promotes fair play - and a little elegance to our many varied styles of play. If you need to fall down while playing disc sports - go play ultimate.

go play ultimate.



You must establish a pivot point behind your mini and have a standing 10 count to complete your putt. :D

I think Craig made some good points.

A part of me agrees with Nick, when he says, "Why should stance rules be dependent upon the distance from the target?", but I think that we have bigger fish to fry re: rules changes than the 10m rule, and I think that Nick would agree.

Hey if you want to add defense to the equation - then I'm all for eliminating the 10m rule :)

much bigger fish to fry /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
be very quite i'am hunting a rhett fish :D

OK

First off the "jump" in jump putt is about follow through....you don't actually putt while you're in the air? You putt from your last support point and follow through. If you�re going to be like that about it, you should say a player can't lift your back leg while putting either. Where would Julianna be then?

Obviously you don't know how to jump putt properly it's like you want to eliminate the follow through? or stepping off the tee pad after you release your drive? Why don't you do this? - because throwing a disc well fundamentally requires follow through.

It�s not like you run up to your lie, jump towards the basket, and release right before you touch the ground next to the basket? If you see some one doing that, then it's not a jump putt, it's falling putt.

That said, what makes you think they are any easier than any other putt? I'd like to see you do it half as well as Steve Rico or Brian Schweberger.

I know it's getting harder and harder each year for Kurt and you older folks to actually leave the ground all at once, but that�s why you can play Masters :eek: The jump putt requires great balance and agility.

You sound like that Vonnegut book where they tried to make eveyone equal by taking away the unique abiltiy of almost everyone. To the point where every one was artificially gimped or mamed in the name of equality. "the lowest common denominator" is that what you want? A game of utter mediocrity?

I quote:
" a little elegance to our many varied styles of play. If you need to fall down while playing disc sports - go play ultimate."

So where's the variety in your game gang 1040 ?

You obviously have forgotten the amazing things Steve Rico can do from 37 feet under a tree with an 18" elevation window, or your just plain jealous? I haven't and it's one of the most impresive things I have ever seen anyone do witha disc, or in all of sports for that matter, and you want to take it away???

If you'd rather not fall down while plaing disc sports.....you had better stay off of my ultimate field...

We don't need to be another pampered gimpish sport where people are afraid to get dirty. That would be Ball Golf, and theres already plenty of it thanks....just ask George Carlin.
:D

Well- after reading thorugh the thread again I am confused?

If you eliminate the 10 meter rule does that mean you could step through a 6 mter putt? Or does it mean no follow through from any where?

What if you were on a course designed with trees within 5 feet of the basket? not like a tree that guards the green, but those courses where the bramble has not been cleared around the baskett? Could you do some weird dive/jump thing from 12 feet to getaround the stuff?

Could you fall backward? A fade-away putt?

I kind fo like the way it is now, I'd hate to see the follow through taken away.

Now the 3 meter up rule? There is a rule who's time has come and gone....

You "Keep It" Crowd are hilarious. How about you get back to us when you have a logical reason the rule should exist. :o

Just a couple humorous examples:

It gives an advantage to tall people. Yeah, so does lots of things. :D :p

It makes people look stupid if you let them do falling putts. You want stupid, check out some pre-shot routines, some drives, or better yet, just look around you at a players' meeting. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :D

This isn't a court of law. The rule is not innocent until proven guilty. The rule is superflous until proven needed. It's not. :cool:

Craig is the worst of all. Boy, you need to separate yourself from your views on things. You are the worst offender, and it's on nearly every topic. Nobody can take you seriously if your view magically benefits you personally in every single case. :) :o:D:confused: :p

moriarti - you have very obviously misunderstood not only my post, but the rules as well. When i wrote "one supporting point" that in no way eliminates lifting your back leg. unless, of course you only have one leg. then you'd fall down. duh. As long as you have 2 legs, you can lift your back leg and still have ONE SUPPORTING POINT on the ground. your front leg. On that note, check out the gallery on texas10tour.com if you want to see what it really looks like to lift your back leg. Ms. Allen does some pretty acrobatic things when putting.

Also, I've apparently never seen anyone perform an actual jump putt. Every time I've seen it, must be hundreds of times, the disc WAS released while they were moving forward, and only a photo-finish camera could tell if they were actually airborn or not. It's not about follow-through at all. Follow-though is about completing a motion. You don't add effort and energy into follow-though, you just don't abruptly stop your momentum. It could be said that a falling putt is all about follow-through, but a jump putt? c'mon, get serious. The jump is intentional and requires effort. and if what you say is true about the putt being released while still upright, then all the effort is being put into the jump... *after* the putt.

Perhaps every jump-putt I've ever seen was way off and I've never seen a real one. If that's the case, then I'm wrong and will gladly admit it. Also, if that's the case, then the "jump-putts" I'm accustomed to seeing should be penalized. Perhaps you can provide us with a video demonstration of a proper jump-putt?

You can 'jump' off the tee after driving, jump past your lie on the fairway, but then you get to a magical, invisible area, and can't jump...and the reason for keeping this 'magical' rule is to..."make it harder"?!?

You could just eliminate ALL run-up/follow-through if 'making it harder' somehow did make sense.

'Balance' can be subjective; having contact with the lie [at time of release] is not...the latter condition should be sufficient anywhere from tee-to-target.

I have to ask.

Why should the ones that want the rule to stay have to defend their position ?

What good reasons are there to remove the rule.

The only one I have heard so far is to simplify the rule book by making all stance rules the same.

What benefit does walking through your putt or jump putting from within 10 meters give you ?

I have to ask.

Why should the ones that want the rule to stay have to defend their position ?




Well, because we don't want or need a bunch of rules for no reason. :) The original writers might have thought they had a reason for the rule. But if we can't come up with a good reason to have it, we should get rid of it.



The only one I have heard so far is to simplify the rule book by making all stance rules the same.




So not only are we losing nothing by getting rid of it, but we're gaining simplicity. Seems like a win-win. :cool:



What benefit does walking through your putt or jump putting from within 10 meters give you ?



Well none really. That's why we can get rid of it. Sure, some people will have an easier time putting inside 10m without the rule. So? No big deal. :D

IMPORTANT NOTE!!!!: By the way, I'd be nearly as happy to just have a "no follow-thru" rule on ANY shot, not just putts. :eek: The only reason that's a little worse is that, as Kurt said, the whole "balance" thing is a little subjective and hard to define. Not a big deal though. :cool: See, I just don't like the multiple rules and the added required measurement (10m). :cool: And by the way, it has nothing to do with my personal game. I can separate what is best for me from what is best in general. ;) :eek: :D

I don't think we have that many big fish to fry at all with our rules. Some just seem overkill to me. A single stance rule would be adequate IMO. Mark it and play. As I understand the way the PDGA RC works, which is limited (my knowledge of it that is), they only deal with stuff that is an above average challenge that happens often enough to warrant attention. There are other stance rulings that deserve more attention than this inconsistent section.

The one I�d really like to see some clarity added to our rules for are:

1) Playing Surface Definition � OB/IB
2) Changing the Conditions of your lie or stance � i.e. moving branches, holding back or stepping back into obstacles between your lie and the hole
3) How much time is REALLY allowed in taking your stance and throwing � abused to all high heaven in my experience. A stick under your foot that you kick away 30 seconds into your throw IS NOT A DISTRACTION that you can then take another 30 seconds to get ready to throw.

These are all bigger fish�

Craig is the worst of all. Boy, you need to separate yourself from your views on things. You are the worst offender, and it's on nearly every topic. Nobody can take you seriously if your view magically benefits you personally in every single case. :) :o:D:confused: :p



Not sure I understand what you're referring to splice. How is it that my opinion can be construed as benefitting me personally? You obviously don't know my game - as I have as much or more variety in my shot making abilities as just about anyone. I'm also pretty good at the jump putt - but don't use it inside 60'.

I believe the 10m rule is a good rule - sorry you don't. I think making people stay behind their lie within 10m is perfectly reasonable, and also pretty simple. Is it because I am able to putt and demonstrate balance that not wanting to allow others to not do this benefits me personally? If that's your logic - I don't get it - maybe I need to go back and get a different degree.

And tell me - what exactly does it mean to separate yourself from your own views on things?

I believe the 10m rule is a good rule - sorry you don't. I think making people stay behind their lie within 10m is perfectly reasonable, and also pretty simple.




Sure, it's pretty simple. But unnecessary. :) Like I said, if it weren't for the SLIGHT problem of the subjective call on demonstrating balance, I'd be happy to require no follow-through on ALL shots, not just putts. :eek:

It comes down to this: You can follow through on a 200 foot shot. You can follow through on a 35 foot shot. Why can't you follow through on a 30 foot shot? What's the logic? :confused:

Also by the way, to negate your "you want it changed just to make it easier argument", I would happily do away with all the chains on our current targets. I think putting is too easy. I think the 10 metre issue is completely separate. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D



Is it because I am able to putt and demonstrate balance that not wanting to allow others to not do this benefits me personally?




Yes. It keeps some people from closing a competitive gap on you. You know that getting rid of the falling putt rule would in no way help you personally, but it might help others, so therefore it would hurt you, and therefore you are against it. :p :)



And tell me - what exactly does it mean to separate yourself from your own views on things?



Just as above. It means separating what personally benefits you from what is the best and most logical decision, even if it's not in your best interests. :p :D

For instance, if somebody came up with a 100% iron clad reason that hook thumber crazy rollers shouldn't be allowed off the tee, you would still be against outlawing them because that's a bread and butter shot for you like on the triple mando hole. :cool:

You don't want a ratings based top division to be cut at 960 or 970, rather at 920 or 930, because the higher break would cut into your personal profits. :eek: :p

You don't want people to have a foot on the ground outside the tee pad just before release because you don't do it personally, so allowing others to do it gives them an advantage, and therefore you're against it. :D

Obviously this is just my own conspiracy theory black helicopter belief of your reasoning on each of these. :cool: You probably believe you have your own reasons. It's just that when every time you post, your solution or viewpoint just happens to benefit you personally, even indirectly, then one begins to wonder. :D :D

I'm just funning with you Craig. :cool::) Now that you're 40, if you continue to stump for a ratings based format with no parallel top masters division, then you're proving you don't have your best interests in mind, since you could clean up in masters. :D

And tell me - what exactly does it mean to separate yourself from your own views on things?



LOL! Yeah Craig! What's wrong with you! You mean to tell us that you actually believe in the things you say? Man! That is unforgivable...

I believe changing the stance rule for all distances from the target could improve the excitement and "watchability" of our sport for spectators. If the rule were changed such that a player must release the disc before any part of their body reaches the ground after leaping from a proper stance behind the mini, it would make some throws more exciting, especially around the basket. The player would still have to have a supporting point behind the mini, the same as today, as the last point touching the ground before release.

For example, the player is behind a bush 20 ft from basket. He could take a running start from the side of the lie, plant and leap as he passes behind the mini and release the shot in midair as he emerges from behind the bush. This stance rule would be the same all over the course to make Nick happy. But more importantly, it would add a little more athleticism to the game and provide for some spectacular putting which is the most boring part of the game for people to watch, especially on video.

Even though players could leap coming toward the basket, I'm not sure it would provide more control than a player's current method of putting and don't believe taller players would have additional advantage. It could be that players like Hammock would gain more with the new option to jump straight up (as if he needs more advantage). I see slam dunk type putts being used more as an emotional crowd pleaser when a player has a nice lead because it's likely the percentage for these putts will be less than a player's normal style no matter how much it's practiced. This proposed rule also eliminates the need to determine whether current jump putts are released before or after the player leaves the ground.

Try to release your shot in the air while leaping and see how difficult it is. That's why I believe it would only be used for specialty situations when your normal stances and style do not allow you much chance to hit the putt and the sideways or upwards leap from behind the obstacle is your best option.

Excellent points, particularly:


to make Nick happy

Sure, it's pretty simple. But unnecessary. :) Like I said, if it weren't for the SLIGHT problem of the subjective call on demonstrating balance, I'd be happy to require no follow-through on ALL shots, not just putts. :eek:



Maybe it's just me - but I don't have any problem discerning between a shot that demonstrates balance and one that does not. Not sure who has this problem or why. And usually - "slight" problems are not sufficient justifications for altering the rules of play.

[QUOTE]

Is it because I am able to putt and demonstrate balance that not wanting to allow others to not do this benefits me personally?




Yes. It keeps some people from closing a competitive gap on you. You know that getting rid of the falling putt rule would in no way help you personally, but it might help others, so therefore it would hurt you, and therefore you are against it. :p :)





Wow - Hank - that sure is a stretch. If I may rephrase - because I have developed skills and learned movements that are within the rules - it is of personal benefit to me to allow those that have done neither to change the rules to suit that condition? As a long time player, and teacher of many new players - balance and stance rules are basic foundations on which we build our development and skills. Saying that I benefit personally by allowing others to not go through that development is not a very strong argument for being "better in general". Closing a competitive gap should be based on practice and skill development - not on making the rules easier.


Just as above. It means separating what personally benefits you from what is the best and most logical decision, even if it's not in your best interests. :p :D

For instance, if somebody came up with a 100% iron clad reason that hook thumber crazy rollers shouldn't be allowed off the tee, you would still be against outlawing them because that's a bread and butter shot for you like on the triple mando hole. :cool:




Hank - that's pretty hypothetical - to an extreme. Hard to comment one way or another on that one as it's another type of topic all together - I thought this was a rules discussion. Don't know that there are any rules about how players are limited in propelling a disc (other than not being allowed to use artificial devices).


You don't want a ratings based top division to be cut at 960 or 970, rather at 920 or 930, because the higher break would cut into your personal profits. :eek: :p



Profits you say? If I wanted to play for profit - I'd play Masters :) This statement highlights to me that you may have read what I have to say on the subject - but haven't taken the time to fully understand it. Go do some statistical evaluation of scoring trends, and divisional overlap in scores - and then come back and we'll talk some more. By the way - at least 2 players in the 960-970 range cashed at the Patapsco Picnic ST - say to me with a straight face that the open division should be cut to only include what is currently the top third!!


You don't want people to have a foot on the ground outside the tee pad just before release because you don't do it personally, so allowing others to do it gives them an advantage, and therefore you're against it. :D



I don't do it personally because I believe it shouldn't be allowed. I believe the challenge to all players should be equal - and the only way to do that is to play from the same spot. Being half off the tee pad does not equate to the same spot - so I am against it.



Obviously this is just my own conspiracy theory black helicopter belief of your reasoning on each of these. :cool: You probably believe you have your own reasons. It's just that when every time you post, your solution or viewpoint just happens to benefit you personally, even indirectly, then one begins to wonder. :D :D



An interesting take on my past posting Hank. Unlike a lot of other board regulars - I tend to mostly post on topics I have strong opinions about. In those situations - it should not be surprising that I try and sway others opinions to my way of thinking. But I don't take it as providing only myself a benefit. I have always tried to act in the best interest of the DG community - wherever I am tied into it - the only benefit or profit I derive - have always been exclusively from my playing skills.


I'm just funning with you Craig. :cool::) Now that you're 40, if you continue to stump for a ratings based format with no parallel top masters division, then you're proving you don't have your best interests in mind, since you could clean up in masters. :D



Count on it!! I just won my first ST in Open as a 40y.o. - so I'm not looking for any protection any time soon :)

Maybe it's just me - but I don't have any problem discerning between a shot that demonstrates balance and one that does not. Not sure who has this problem or why. And usually - "slight" problems are not sufficient justifications for altering the rules of play.




Yeah, but getting rid of rules that can't be logically justified seems like a sufficient reason. :D

Note that about the ONLY part of my post that you didn't respond to was this: It comes down to this: You can follow through on a 200 foot shot. You can follow through on a 35 foot shot. Why can't you follow through on a 30 foot shot? What's the logic?

I'd LOVE to see a short, simple answer to that that actually makes logical sense. We've already shown that both "becasue tall people have an advantage" and "because people look ridiculous" are nonsense.




For instance, if somebody came up with a 100% iron clad reason that hook thumber crazy rollers shouldn't be allowed off the tee, you would still be against outlawing them because that's a bread and butter shot for you like on the triple mando hole. :cool:




Hank - that's pretty hypothetical - to an extreme. Hard to comment one way or another on that one as it's another type of topic all together - I thought this was a rules discussion. Don't know that there are any rules about how players are limited in propelling a disc (other than not being allowed to use artificial devices).




It was an ridiculous outlandish hypothetical just to make a dumb example of how your views would be carried to an extreme. :cool: Hope you didn't think I was being serious. :p



Profits you say? If I wanted to play for profit - I'd play Masters




Yep, as you saw, I covered that later on.

Gotta go now, time to blast on some weak analogies or sarcastic posts from alleged Mensa members. You think they'd know better than to use such weak forms. :D :) :D

My biggest problem with eliminating the 10 meter rule is that it will result in a lot of uncalled foot fouls from people releasing after their leading foot has left the ground. It is very hard getting players to call rules as it is. This is a rule that would be begging to be broken (I don�t even think it would be broken on purpose) and it would become the most abused rule on the course thus replacing the 30 cm rule. The rule as it stands is clear and easy to obey. A rule that essentially results in the timing of a release with a jump is going to be broken frequently. I like rules changes that make the game uniform and easier to play and call. Eliminating the 10 meter rule would not do this. I understand that even in the current structure the rule is being broken, but the advantage of breaking it from 30 feet is significantly less than the advantage of breaking it from 10 feet.


For example, the player is behind a bush 20 ft from basket. He could take a running start from the side of the lie, plant and leap as he passes behind the mini and release the shot in midair as he emerges from behind the bush. This stance rule would be the same all over the course to make Nick happy. But more importantly, it would add a little more athleticism to the game and provide for some spectacular putting which is the most boring part of the game for people to watch, especially on video.



Ouch!

On a more aesthetic note - while I'm all for making the sport more watchable and more even in terms of its rules (aka Nick's argument that every throw should be governed by the same rules) the idea of a slam dunk putt doesn't sit well with me. But then again, I am an old f***. :D

Personally, I find the slam-dunk in basketball boring. It�s an easy shot that takes little skill and which favors a heavy backside. When I see Rico drain a 30 foot putt or Schultz putt 35 feet up a hill for birdie, that excites me. Watching some guy leap into the air from 10 feet out, trip, smack his head on the basket and miss his putt, well, that I would also find exciting but in an amusement park sort of way....

Even in the case of putting from behind a bush, seeing a player forced to reach out and flip a nice little forehand putt around an obstacle and still put the disc in the chains is much better than watching a flying attempt from left field.

Well then, would you favor a single stance rule that allowed no follow through on drives and approaches either?

If it is more consistant, easily understood and easier to adhere to and call I would think that it is also worthy of serious consideration. (OK, NOW I'm ready for the "Well, that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it should be..." arguments.)

[QUOTE]

Note that about the ONLY part of my post that you didn't respond to was this: It comes down to this: You can follow through on a 200 foot shot. You can follow through on a 35 foot shot. Why can't you follow through on a 30 foot shot? What's the logic?



To me the logic might work along these lines. The basic and inherent motions involved with propelling a disc a certain distance - change - depending on the distance required. To propel a disc 3 or 400 feet takes most people a significant effort - and understandably would include some sort of follow through. The same might be said for even a 100-200 foot shot for many players who have not developed the balance or shot making skills to stand and deliver at that distance. I do not believe the same can be said for a shot inside 10meters.

There is no physical need to have to follow through in order to perform the shot. Couple that condition with basic notions of
a) attempting to keep a level playing field by not providing any player an undue advantage (be it from size, skill level, or any other reason)
b) the rule is not a complicated one to learn or enforce (until people try and find a creative way around it)
c) for whatever reason - 10m was chosen as a reasonable "transition" distance for having to perform a shot without a follow through...

.....and I just don't see any reason to change it (shrug)

FYI - I would have no problem eliminating all follow throughs - forcing players to throw completely behind their lie (much like a shot putter / hammer thrower / etc must execute the throw from behind a line. This would force people to develop skills which involve balance and control (which seems to be the issues addressed by this rule in the first place). Eliminating the 10m rule to allow people to fall forward IMO does the opposite.

What about the fairway run up :confused: :D

Thanks Craig, that's a nice reasonable response. :)

The poster after you joked about the fairway run-up, but wouldn't it be cool to get rid of it?

Skills required:
--- Tee shot = full run-up and follow-through
--- Fairway shot = no run-up, but can have a follow-through
--- Putt = no run-up, no follow-through

That would be pretty cool. :cool: I remember reading on here a suggestion of how to implement the no run-up. Something like the balk rule in baseball. I think it'd be easy to implement and would greatly enhance the game.
:) :) :)

What about it Mark? I would not suggest that runups be eliminated, only follow throughs that take you past your mark. Please remember this is a totally hypothetical suggestion. There are other related details that would have to be worked out. Namely the whole notion of where you can release the disc along the line of play. The physical realities of the game make runups necessary when confronted with great distances. Perhaps if for such shots - a runup is required - a player could release up to a meter behind the mark so that any follow through did not go past the mark - it could work. But then we have the same scenario we already have - different stance rules for different types of shots. I think the notion of having to have the same stance rule apply to all shots is a little misguided. If you use different discs to perform different sorts of shots, and there is latitude for how a player can approach any given lie - why is it unreasonable to have a variety of rules to cover the stances associated with them?

FYI - I would have no problem eliminating all follow throughs - forcing players to throw completely behind their lie (much like a shot putter / hammer thrower / etc must execute the throw from behind a line.


those sports allow a fairly wide angle for an "in bounds" shot - therefore permitting a much larger degree of rotation in the throwing movement. it doesnt matter too much what direction the throw is in.

disc golf requires a throw in a specific direction (usually), and therefore requires a deliberate line in the throwing motion. maximizing the throw's distance is aided by a followthru along the line of the throw.

of course putting requires a very specific line, true, but there's no way a followthru is required for distance.

the pros i have seen use a jump putt really burn the disc at the basket. both the speed and the line, and therefore accuracy, are aided by the followthru.

Hank - yes - it could make things interesting :)

I was just trying to yank nick's chain :eek:
Leave the rules the same: give a player a chance to run up and follow thru outside of 10 meters.

If you are talking about people releasing in the air, after they have left their release point, I'm not going to entertain you That's silly and you know it. That is a falling putt and you are required to call it. That�s not golf, it�s basketball, or on this case basket disc.

No follow through on any lie including drive? Why play?

Who said follow through requires no additional effort? Interesting planet you must live on? I hope you�re not like that at work?

Imagine some one like the Champ on the tee and you say, "now Champ, don't cross the tee line, or follow through, because that�s a penalty. In fact, that whole cross over step thing is going to kill you, so kind of stand real still and just flick the disc out there as best you can" I would guess the Champ would say, � ? I�m going to go play darts�

How silly does that sound? It would severely limit the game. Imagine telling Christian Sandstrom that he can not follow through when he goes for a distance record? You must have follow through on every shot as (quality) propulsion requires momentum. It is simple physics / biomechanics.

So carry this idea from the tee, to the approach, say from 150 feet. Why do you need to follow through on a shot from 150�? You don't, but if you want to increase your odds of moving the disc in a straight line toward the basket (and golf is all about increasing odds) you are better off to "push" disc forward, step through your lie (release before you cross last support) and follow through. If you have not figured out that this will improve your score much more than standing still and throwing the golf disc as you would a beach disc, with a wide arc of your arm, you have a friggin boat load to learn about human mechanics and golf.

Follow through allows you to move the disc in a straighter line, less arm motion (arc) equals straighter shots, equals more made fairways, equals more made pars, equals, more made putts.

If you don't believe me, go get yourself a personal trainer, or physical therapist, learn a little some thing about how human bodies work in general, it will help your game tremendously. Here's your first lesson. Your wrist follows your chin. No matter what you do, or who you are, where your chin goes, your wrist will follow. This is true for all human beings in all physical endeavors weather it�s putting, or darts Try it some time. Keep your chin pointed at the basket, make more putts, pull your chin to the right or left as you release, your disc will go that direction. *Thanks Crazy John Brooks where ever you are!

Now, if you agree that follow through is a good thing for humans to do in most physical endeavors, including drives, and approaches (here comes the logic) it must be good for the short putt too? But it gets awkward to think of some one stepping through a putt from 8 feet?

I agree with Chuck it would be cool if you were behind a tree or some thing to leap toward the target, but if you could do it then, then what would stop you from doing it when your 8 feet and clear? The line must be drawn because people are , well people for lack of a better term, and they tend to cut corners when they can. They will bend rules, or pretend to not understand them in order to help themselves out. That is why the rule came to be, because people follow through, or at least most of them understand that their odds are better when they do, but the game seems silly when you can do it from 8 feet.
You should be able to put enough momentum on the disc from 10 meters and in to not have to cross your lie. Why, because it makes the game a little more challenging, and a little less arbitrary. Why 10 meters? Why is a basketball basket 10 feet? a first down 10 yards? Because humans invent games with guide lines so that they can compare their abilities in a uniform manner at different places and different times.

you're just confused as to what follow-through means. it's supposed to mean the motion of your hand and/or body after the relase of the disc. Once the disc is released, there should be no need for more energy to be put into the throw. From that point, follow-through is just allowing your body to move fluidly without abruptly stopping its motion. If you imagine a throw in slo-mo, there would be a pull-back, a motion forward, a release, and a "wind-down" movement at the end. this winding down is the follow-through. Some people just try to stop their movement at the point of release, thus limiting the follow-through. you should not be expelling more energy after you release the disc, just to get better "follow-through". This is counterproductive and really makes no sense.

Baldguy, by how Moriati explained follow-through, I think he understands what he is talking about. I think you are the one that is confused about his explanation.

On another point, it is ridiculous to propose the elimination of the run-up on fairway shots. Have any of you guys ever played a hole over 1000 feet? There is a pretty definite chance that you won't reach the basket in one throw. I can throw over 450', that is a fact. However, if the hole is over 1000' that doesn't even put me, a "big arm", half-way there. And I will laugh at someone if they tell me that I am not allowed to run-up for my fairway shot, because it is going to take all my power to try to get within putting range on the second shot. And you can bet that I will then "follow-through" past my marker after I have released my disc.

Well then, would you favor a single stance rule that allowed no follow through on drives and approaches either?

If it is more consistant, easily understood and easier to adhere to and call I would think that it is also worthy of serious consideration. (OK, NOW I'm ready for the "Well, that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it should be..." arguments.)



An interesting idea that has come up a number of times. Actually, I favor it for exactly the reasons you gave, so does Rhett (wait, can it be Rhett and Nick agreeing on something :D). It makes for a consistent, easy to call rule. I admit, I'm addicted to the extra distance I get from a step through but that doesn't mean that those steps are good for the game.

.....and I just don't see any reason to change it (shrug)



Now Craig, what you mean is that you don�t see any compelling enough reason, if you don�t see any reason at all you need to check your reality intake valve. I mean I can see the reasons folks like it the way it has been since 1980 or so (no follow through inside 10 meters).

Try and see these:
1) but you can�t deny that it is completely incongruous with other stance rules and sticks out.
2) That it involves more verbiage within our rules, more explanation time out on the course,
3) and that it does in fact limit, at least to some degree, the freedom of technique
4) that might (I said might) add some excitement to the most boring part of our game.

There is no way you could completely disagree or �not see� any of those reasons for changing it. You just prefer the reasons for keeping it. Like:

There is no physical need to have to follow through in order to perform the shot. Couple that condition with basic notions of
a) attempting to keep a level playing field by not providing any player an undue advantage (be it from size, skill level, or any other reason)
b) the rule is not a complicated one to learn or enforce (until people try and find a creative way around it)
c) for whatever reason - 10m was chosen as a reasonable "transition" distance for having to perform a shot without a follow through...


Which I find less compelling than the reasons to do away with it, EVEN though I am able to see and understand your reasons for wanting to keeping it the same.

I would take issue with each though:
1) �There is no physical need to have to follow through in order to perform the shot. Couple that condition with basic notions of� Which really should read something like, within my limited unique experience under the rule as it now stands �There is no physical need to have to follow through in order to perform the shot� Because if we had never had the 10 meter rule and you had been playing disc golf for 20 years without that rule you most certainly would find a physical need to have a follow through, particularly in light of you inclination towards using an unusually wide variety of throwing techniques. This is a very weak argument.
2) �a) attempting to keep a level playing field by not providing any player an undue advantage (be it from size, skill level, or any other reason)� Physical advantage is a FACT of all sports. You can not make an entire sport negate the benefits of certain physical advantages without changing the fundamental nature of the sport. My guess is that some short guys with napoleon syndrome didn�t like a tall guy being able to do something they couldn�t. (Oh yeah! That is what happened.) If this �attempt to keep a level playing field� were a valid argument, then our divisions would be arranged by weight and height. This is a very weak argument.
3) �for whatever reason - 10m was chosen as a reasonable "transition" distance for having to perform a shot without a follow through...� Yeah! That is compelling� �for whatever reason�� of which I have no apparent idea.
You need to come up with at least one good reason here Craig. They do exist, I ain�t gonna supply them though for you. Particularly since the reasons for it�s removal are so much stronger and serve to benefit the consistency and integrity of our sports rules so much better.

C�mon! You know you want to say it you almost already did:


.....and I just don't see any reason to change it (shrug)



Go on, you know you want to: �The best reason to keep it is that you, Craig Gangloff, have grown accustom to it.�

Moriarti,

On several occasions I have read through your posts (on this and other threads) and have wondered who you were responding to. You seem to address pieces of several posts all at once, sometimes addressing specific people or statements, and sometimes addressing wholly disconnected topics or odd tangents. This is not a criticism, but merely a suggestion that it is helpful if when you click the respond button - do so on the post that you are responding to (instead of just the one at the end of the thread) - it's a little easier to follow your line of thinking that way. Thanks :)

Craiger#4010

Nick,

stinkycheesebrotha!!

I am not interested in participating in your argument. I have offered my opinions and the justifications for them. You are welcome to discount them in favor of your own whacka$$ opinions - that is your prerogative. :)

Yes, it is true I address more than one part of the topicas they tend to relate to one another, hence discussion. I have treid to refrain from naming names more often than not, because it�s not a personal thing.

I will say thanks to ryangwillim, for supporting my idea.

I do not agree that using more energy to follow through is counter productive, and that it does not exist. I would encourage the bald guy to talk to some one who knows more than either of us, like a sports therapist, or a physical therapist. I believe that expending energy on your follow through is beneficial, and it would improve your game. If you know any other professional athletes or coaches, I am sure that no less than 90% of them would tell you that expending energy on follow through has a huge impact on what ever it is you do, before you follow through.

A quality follow through not only has a direct impact on how your physical body will behave in the previous motion, but also has a tremendous effect on you mental state both before and after you throw. It keeps you body and mind geared in a straight line to the target, it provides routine and confidence in your flight path, not only in this putt, but all the ones that follow it.

If you are not hip to theses proven methods, I encourage you to study up on them, it will improve your game tremendously.

If you think follow through doesn't matter, that it's just some weird disjointed effect of motion, you will benefit even more when you learn that you have been mislead.

* No offense, but has any one out there ever been involved with professional sports outside of Disc Golf? Because this is fundamental stuff you should know as a professional athlete before you take the field. Golf is a very mental game, if you are playing in the open division, and you have not read anything yet about biomechanics or golf, you are missing the bigger part of the game.

Personally I like Bob Rotella, "golf is not a game of perfect" "putting out of your mind" and a few others. Not only will it improve your score, but your understanding and enjoyment of the game, Bob does not focus so much on exact mechanics, so it does not matter that he works with Pro ball golfers, rather he is focused on how the mental state effects the physical state, the importance of routine, and how to think in order to be successful. Again, don't take my word for it, stop at your local ball course, go ask the Pro there. If you do not spend as much or more time working on your mental game, as you do on your physical game, you are severely limiting your ability to win, or at least be satisfied with your game.

Example, you have probably birdied most or all of the holes at your local course at one time or another, proving that you have the physical ability to bird every hole on your course. So why can�t you go out tomorrow and shoot -18? Because of what Frank Zappa called "the ugliest part of your body" your mind -"I think it's your mind". It is very difficult for humans to repeat exact body actions over and over, not because of your body, but because of your mind . Follow through (and expending energy on it) is one of the many things that can help you get around this obstacle. I encourage all of you to contemplate this notion, not because I want you to say I'm right, but because I want all of you to play the best disc golf that you possibly can. This is a great sport, and to me there is nothing more enjoyable than watching people do well at it. *Thank you Magilla where ever you are, I wish I had understood you sooner.
:cool:

Chuck K. wrote:
I believe changing the stance rule for all distances from the target could improve the excitement and "watchability" of our sport for spectators. If the rule were changed such that a player must release the disc before any part of their body reaches the ground after leaping from a proper stance behind the mini, it would make some throws more exciting, especially around the basket. The player would still have to have a supporting point behind the mini, the same as today, as the last point touching the ground before release.



Thanks for making a great point, C.K.; had I posted this, it would have been widely ignored/scoffed, but coming from a cognoscente, people are going to consider it...

...it's a lot easier to 'judge' the last contact point than to 'judge' something subjective like balance.

Nick said


�for whatever reason - 10m was chosen as a reasonable "transition" distance for having to perform a shot without a follow through...� Yeah! That is compelling� �for whatever reason�� of which I have no apparent idea.
You need to come up with at least one good reason here Craig.



No actually Craig doesn�t and neither does any one else.

Tell me Nick, can you tell "one good reason" why 10 yards equals a first down? Why a basketball hoop is 10 feet, Or why a foot is 12 inches and not 13?

No you can't except this.

That we as humans have agreed that in order to get along in this world, and to creates games and sports, we have to have a certain consensus, so that we are on the same page so-to-speak. So that we know we are playing the same game with the same rules, some where generations before us, people had the wisdom to come up with these notions. The 10 meter rule is no more arbitrary, nor meaning less than the standard 20 yard depth of a football end zone.

Moriarti,

I understand what you are talking about as regards follow through. Perhaps your reaction to my words about follow through illustrates a minor misconception of my meaning.

In referencing "follow through" - I was talking about any follow through or momentum that results in moving past the lie. You can't eliminate "follow through" and be an effective thrower - you are very correct there. But - you can develop the skills to transfer energy to the disc, create an accurate and controlled flight, have a clean and smooth follow through motion - that does not result in moving past your mark. Which is kind of what I thought this discussion was about (i.e. the 10 meter rule).

Hi Craig.

I think I get it? But have hard time imagining? I may just be awkward that way? But it seems to me good follow through is at least better when you move through your lie? I am going out to Dela to try what you say? I hope it doesn't hurt ;)

I was thinking of a ball golfer, what if he just got really casul after he made contact on a drive? and just let the follow through happen? relax their hands and let the club fly out of their hands and into the gallery? Would their caddy be required to retrieve the club?

That would probably hurt sponsorship

Moriarti wrote:
"Tell me Nick, can you tell "one good reason" why 10 yards equals a first down? Why a basketball hoop is 10 feet, Or why a foot is 12 inches and not 13?"

There are sometimes 'good' reasons behind seemingly arbitrary measurements.

For instance, the 24 second clock in basketball is not a twenty-, or thirty-second clock, because 24 was the average time of possession when the rule was written, in 1954 [or so].

But 10-M for a putt? That seems arbitrary; designed to suit whomever made the rule.

p.s. [to all]: Look up 'arbitrary' in the dictionary; what you read may not jibe with your present definition.

WOW!!!!!!!

I just happened to have a few minutes and thought "hey maybe a couple of people replied to my post" so I logged in and DAAYAAMN MAN :) This board has skyrocketed since I was on it last.

I only had time to read the first couple of pages, (will finish the rest later this week) and there were some good points, but there was one point I was interested in.

A couple of people on the thread seem to be convinced that jump putts/falling putts/leaning putts are easier than normal putts within 10 meters, and that it would give a tall person a significant advantage.

My question to people that think like this is: do you have any evidence for your assertion? Of course, I have no evidence for my assertion either, but I can tell you this much:

If I practiced jump putts/slam dunk putts (or whatever you want to call them) for a month and then tested myself like this:

20 10-foot putts
20 20-foot putts
20 30-foot putts (I think 20 is enough)

with both a normal putt and a jump-putt-type putt, there is ABSOLUTELY NO FRIGGING WAY that the normal putt would have any chance of losing this contest. It wouldn't even be close, folks, it would be a drubbing.

But maybe it's because I'm old and old-school. So it makes me very curious, is there ANYONE out there who thinks a jump/slam-dunk is going to be better percentage putt for them from ANY distance (except perhaps within 3 feet)?

Thanks again for your [constructive] comments.

I'm thinking a falling down give-up-the-body leaning 12-footer in the wind might be a good candidate. If you time it right you can flick a 5-foot turbo before you start losing blood. I think a 5-foot turbo versus a 12 foot standing would be significantly better on a windy day.

I think a 5-foot turbo versus a 12 foot standing would be significantly better on a windy day.



And my point is look how entertaining that would be!

I can see it now. Everone practicing their ultimate inspired "dive for the disc drop in" putt.

Get horizontal - Play Disc Golf

That it involves more verbiage within our rules, more explanation time out on the course

let the record state that Nick Kight has come out AGAINST more verbiage. :D

Good to see you back on here Kurt.

317 words less than are currently gumming up our rule book and clouding comprehension of our stance rules:

803.01 TEEING OFF
A. Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from a selected lie, by marking it with a marker disc, within the teeing area.

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.

B. Stepping past the marker disc is permitted after the disc is released.

C. If a large solid obstacle prevents a player from taking a legal stance within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc, the player shall take his or her stance immediately behind that obstacle on the line of play. The player must comply with all the provisions of 803.03 A other than being within 30 centimeters directly behind the marker disc.

D. A stance violation must be clearly called within three seconds after the infraction to be valid. The call may be made by any member of the group or an official. When the call is made by a member of the group, it must subsequently be confirmed by another member of the group. A player shall receive a warning for the first violation of a stance rule in the round. Subsequent violations of a stance rule in the same round shall incur a one-throw penalty.

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

F. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw.

Reasons why this is better:
1) 100% consistent stance tee to holing out.
2) Easier to understand.
3) Easier to explain.
4) Easier to call.
5) Jump putting is still illegal. (I think you guys have been talking about Putt jumping, Jump putting is illegal under current rules, because you must have contact with your lie at release.
6) The distance at which an average player could efficiently slam-dunk a disc (without making contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc) would likely be less advantageous than just putting it in normally from 2 or 3 meters (Someone with a 3 meter reach would have to be about 7 foot tall). Making it extremely rare, though kind of cool if someone did get good at it, which I doubt, in consideration of Kurt�s illustration.
7) Likewise for Putt jumps within 10 meters, the advantage would likely diminish the closer you get to the pin; but it would be a useful throw to have in the bag say for downhill or into the wind putts.
8) It could make for more exciting throw techniques around the hole, similar to what can be found on the tee or fairway.

I�d even support lifting the illogical ban on not making contact with supporting points in front of the lie, so long as you are still in contact with your lie with one supporting point. (If you have ever seen newbies play you know that this is the intuitive way disc golf is played.)

Comparing these to the reasons to keep the rule that have thus far been mentioned is a little unfair. I can think of at least 2 good reasons to keep the rule as is, but I�ll leave that in the hands of advocates that want to keep it to present.

But maybe it's because I'm old and old-school. So it makes me very curious, is there ANYONE out there who thinks a jump/slam-dunk is going to be better percentage putt for them from ANY distance (except perhaps within 3 feet)?



Absolutely; at least one:
As someone who's never been able to generate much 'snap' [it's hard for me to get a 'straddle putt' up/to the basket outside 20'][no, I'm not joking], the 'jump' part of the putting isn't about giving me the extra 18" I'm getting closer to the basket [or 10 feet, if you're Baldguy :D]; it's a matter of getting some 'zip' on the disc.

Ergo: From about 15-45+ feet, I'm going to get a better percentage.

Keep the rules and learn balance.

I'm not afraid to learn something new, are you?

There are sometimes 'good' reasons behind seemingly arbitrary measurements.

For instance, the 24 second clock in basketball is not a twenty-, or thirty-second clock, because 24 was the average time of possession when the rule was written, in 1954 [or so].

Not so fast, my friend. The 24-second shot clock (http://www.nba.com/analysis/00422949.html) is based on the presumption of teams averaging 120 shots combined per game (30 shots per quarter), not on the average time of possession prior to the introduction of the shot clock.

The figure of 120 shots per game "average" that Daniel Biascone used to calculate the length of the shot clock (length of game in seconds / number of shots per game), however, is completely arbitrary since it was based, not on the actual average number of shots per game, but on what Biascone thought the ideal number of shots per game SHOULD be. Consequently, the 24 second shot clock, for all its apparent precision, is arbitrary since it is based on an arbitrary definition of the "average" number of shots per game. Despite the arbitrary nature of the 24-second shot clock, however, the shot clock DID accomplish its purposes, which were to increase scoring (the average jumped from 79.5 to 93.1 pts/game), to speed up the game, and to prevent stalling (think UNC's Four Corners "offense").

The important points for the present discussion are: (a) the fact that the logic behind a given rule is not readily apparent or widely known does not necessarily render the rule arbitrary; and (b) that the fact that a given rule or standard is arbitrary does not necessarily render the rule/standard illegitimate.

lets see... lots of sports include some sort of forward motion restrictions in only aspects of play:

1) bowling (actually, in all circumstances in this case)
2) serving in volleyball
3) serving in tennis
4) free throws in basketball
5) free kicks in soccer
6) forward passes in football
7) punting in football

god knows how many more...

notice that many of these are considered more of the finesse aspects of the game. why cant DG have a finesse aspect also?

btw, i do like the idea of not requiring contact with the "playing surface", but still requiring the landing to be behind the lie, when within 10 meters. and i also would like to make it legal to not have contact with the playing surface when the disc is released from any distance - as long as the last point of contact was at the lie. that would be cool.

pitchers stepping off the rubber......

pitchers stepping off the rubber......



And runners tagging up on fly balls.

If the 10 meter rule were changed to a 30 or 40 meter rule then the whole jump-and-putt nonsense would just go away.

Pat your list is essentially one reason. "Arbitrary" - OK, let's say this distance isn't arbitrary, now what other reason do you have for substantiating this rule that outweigh just these reasons for removing it?

1) 100% consistent stance tee to holing out.
2) Easier to understand.
3) Easier to explain.
4) Easier to call.
5) Jump putting is still illegal. (I think you guys have been talking about Putt jumping, Jump putting is illegal under current rules, because you must have contact with your lie at release.
6) The distance at which an average player could efficiently slam-dunk a disc (without making contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc) would likely be less advantageous than just putting it in normally from 2 or 3 meters (Someone with a 3 meter reach would have to be about 7 foot tall). Making it extremely rare, though kind of cool if someone did get good at it, which I doubt, in consideration of Kurt�s illustration.
7) Likewise for Putt jumps within 10 meters, the advantage would likely diminish the closer you get to the pin; but it would be a useful throw to have in the bag say for downhill or into the wind putts.
8) It could make for more exciting throw techniques around the hole, similar to what can be found on the tee or fairway.v

There is no such thing as a jump putt. Not within our rules that is. You are referring to a putt jump. And why do we want that to go away? So we can be an even less exciting sport? So imobility and unathleticism are even more engrained within the rules of our sport? To even further restrict the freedom and artistic expression in throw technique?

No, we want rules that are easy to understand and follow but allow our sport to put it's best foot forward to players and spectators(eventual).

A jump putt is fine, that is the name of the shot, not a description of when you putt and when you jump.

Also, can't we just stick with RBIs I hate RBI, just because some "smart" broadcaster decided to get cute a few years back :(

So we can be an even less exciting sport? So imobility and unathleticism are even more engrained within the rules of our sport?



In my opinion landing a putt from 28 feet without having to lunge forward and make a sloppy theatric about it takes a lot more muscle control and athleticism. Being able to do so within the clearly defined limits of our rules shows that we are professional athletes with the correct skills to compete in our wonderful sport. And that we don't just go and change the rules that we don't like because the guy that created them finally died.
My 2 cents, again ;)

"1) 100% consistent stance tee to holing out." - desiring something to be 100% seems rather arbitrary.

"2) Easier to understand." well, maybe for you.

"3) Easier to explain." aw come one, dont tell me your english skills are failing you now!

"4) Easier to call." aka - nothing to call.

counting the number of words it would eliminate is arbitrary, not too mention its a downright ridiculous reason.

btw, i think what we're talking about is what we call falling putts.

and anyway, what the heck is wrong with arbitrary???

Ed had nothing to do with this rule to my knowledge. Stork did.

Forget arbitrary, everyone is fixated on arbitrary. Try inconsistent, unintuitive and difficult to explain and understand, difficult to play by and enforce, and try needlessly complicating our rules. A more consistent, intuitive and easy to explain and understand, easy to play by and enforce, and certainly would simplify our rules option is ready made and waiting within our rules once the superfluous sections are removed.

Wait, I got it, we can have a slam dunk contest.
We will have guys running up and jumping from the 10 meter line, floating in the air and then jamming the disc in the basket.

NOW THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!!

That is not possible even under the proposed revision.

(Is it just me or have we all been here saying these exact same things before?)

I think he was being sarcastic Nick, because of how ridiculous this thread has become.

it's possible,it's possible /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

1) 100% consistent stance tee to holing out.
2) Easier to understand.
3) Easier to explain.
4) Easier to call.



While we're on the consistency and simplification kick, let's also eliminate the distinctions between casual and non-casual obstacles, obstacles between the lie and the hole, and obstacles to stance or throwing motion. Not only is the rule difficult to understand and explain, in many situations, it's even more difficult to apply. (Don't believe me? Check out the debate a few years back over what the phrase "least movement of any part of any obstacle" means, or the kerfuffle on the msg board following the 2002 AM Worlds.) In fact, let's eliminate the whole concept of "obstacles" and "relief" entirely. Not only would that simplify things be eliminating the need to make a call, it would save an entire page in the rule book. :D

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." � Walt Whitman

The PDGA Message Board: Where Red is Blue and neither is a color at all...

Forget arbitrary, everyone is fixated on arbitrary. Try inconsistent, unintuitive and difficult to explain and understand, difficult to play by and enforce, and try needlessly complicating our rules. A more consistent, intuitive and easy to explain and understand, easy to play by and enforce, and certainly would simplify our rules option is ready made and waiting within our rules once the superfluous sections are removed.



You have truly taken this to a new level Nick -unintuitive and hard to explain? How long does it take you to explain to a newbie they can't fall forward while putting? Wow - every rule you don't like is unintuitive, hard to explain and understand, and needlessly clogs up the rule book. It's no wonder this thread has become so absurd - you're up on top of that wooden burrow driving the lemmings over the cliff.

Characterizations aside, the fact remains that the rules are more intuitive and easy to understand and explain without the 10 meter junk in it. Even if it was a good rule, which I think it is not, this would still be true.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." � Walt Whitman



Actually it's: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

And it was said by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Just trying to be consistent! :cool:

--Mike

I think he was being sarcastic Nick, because of how ridiculous this thread has become.



DING DING DING
and what do we have for the winner, Jerry??
common sense!!!

:-)

We tested out the no follow through idea yesterday and came to the conclusion thatit is not possible to do well, so we must have a definition discrepency. But at least around here, we found that thoughtful follow through improves perfomance, and I like rolling around in the dirt a few times a round : )

To Kurt G.O.B. Mark Taylor did the same test you did, and came up with the same surprising results, he was actually better not jumping toward the basket, or at least ii is not any easier.

Rhett has good point. I love good layout putt. SOme of my favorites have landed me in puddles. I jutstend to only think of it going perpendicular to the basket, and therefor the 10 meter thing jives. The sideways turbo is a cool idea.
It's like a straddle lunge.



JS

If David was another meter or two in this photo:http://home.earthlink.net/~trisim/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/david_feldberg_jumputts_golden_state.jpg toward the magical 'Cone Of Headrick', that [often] invisible land wherein players of all styles, strategies, motions, and deliveries [not to mention abilities] must adopt uniformities of the projective motion favored by that royal arbiter, and his heirs, this putt would forbidden.

Is he getting ten feet closer to the basket? No, his foot was taking a legal stance at the time of delivery. Can he take a ten-foot-closer lean because of this delivery? I think you will agree he looks pretty upright...he'll end up a bit closer to the basket, but so what?

Now, I'm not even arguing for the type of putt described by CK in his excellent 207061 # post [although that would be pretty cool to watch if he had to leap out behind a tree to get this look], I'm using it as an example of a 'falling putt' which IS illegal just a scant distance closer to the hoop, er, target.

David made his attempt in this manner because he decided it was his best chance to get the thing in the basket. A tad closer, and that part of the game [making your best shot] is taken away. Good rule, from who's viewpoint? Not mine, as a player, nor a spectator!

Actually it's: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

And it was said by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Just trying to be consistent! :cool:
--Mike



Yes and No.

Though undoubtedly influenced by Emerson's "Self Reliance" (Essays: First Series (1841), the Whitman version appears (without attribution or acknowledgement of the dependence) in a collection of miscellaneous manuscripts ((Collection #1170/1/4) in the C. F. Sixsmith Whitman Collection in the John Rylands Library (Manchester University, Manchester, England), which I had the opportunity to consult several years ago.

In any event, the Whitman version is better suited to the polemical point of my earlier post. :D

How's THAT for consistency? :D

In any event, the Whitman version is better suitd to the polemical point of my earlier post.



Actually, I thought the additional adjective was particularly suited to your polemic point. :cool:

--Mike

I think there is room for both balance demonstrated putting and falling putting. Instead of ten meters, the "putting green" should be designated by the course designer. Then outside of that designated putting area, falling and step-thru type throws can be used. Think ball golf, you can't use a wedge on the green, and you wouldn't want to. At the same time, I wouldn't want to get out of a sand trap with a putter.
My two pesos.

Jay, That is a reasonable alternative. Our sport needs to grow in the area of "hitting the greens" and make putting a more important and exciting part of the game. We could have larger or smaller odd shaped greens where you cannot follow through past your lie making landing on certain areas of those greens more preferrable. Some greens with significant hazards around them might allow a puttjump from within 10 meters while others would not allow them from much further out than 10 meters. I'd really be interested to hear what some course designers like John Houck and Chuck Kennedy think about this.

For me it is in line with our need to define "Par". Like we just generically define the green as 10 meters, we just lump all holes together as par threes. This is a disservice to our sport and our game.

This idea has merit.

Or we could just make the implied definition of a green as a circle with a radius of 10m having the basket as its center explicit, for the benefit of those who need everything spelled out for them in black and white in order to be able to understand and/or explain the rules. :D

That is as stupid as saying everything is Par 3. If you want to substantiate no falling putts, then you'd better get at substantiating it, otherwise you sound like a close-minded chucklehead with "Well, that's the way it's always been, so..." tattooed on your forehead.

There are reasons for it, �10 meters� is not even close to one of them, as clearly illustrated by the universal fact that no living person could slam dunk a disc while still being in contact with their lie from 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, or even 3 meters. If that is the basis of your defense then 2 meters would be more logical and effective.

I think there is room for both balance demonstrated putting and falling putting. Instead of ten meters, the "putting green" should be designated by the course designer. Then outside of that designated putting area, falling and step-thru type throws can be used. Think ball golf, you can't use a wedge on the green, and you wouldn't want to. At the same time, I wouldn't want to get out of a sand trap with a putter.
My two pesos.



Now this is a cool idea. It accomplishes what some feel the sport needs, more excitement, by adding another dimension, while maintaining the integrity of the putt. You know where you stand by the defined green thus eliminating the need to ask yourself if you are within 10 M resulting in faster play. Mikey thinks he likes it...

no living person could slam dunk a disc while still being in contact with their lie from 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, or even 3 meters.



What about 5 meters? You didn't put 5 meters in your list! Is it possible from 5 meters? Huh? Is it? Huh?

Funny you should ask and very crucial to the topic. What are your thoughts on it?

Characterizations aside, the fact remains that the rules are more intuitive and easy to understand and explain without the 10 meter junk in it. Even if it was a good rule, which I think it is not, this would still be true.

taken to the logical end of that thinking, the rule book would become:

1.0 Throw the disc into the basket.

At the extreme I suppose you are right, this does not change the fact that it is true or certainly change the fact that it would be more intuitive without those specific phrases concerning 10 meters. This subtractive logic does not work with every rule, but it sure does with this one.

Characterizations aside, the fact remains that the rules are more intuitive and easy to understand and explain without the 10 meter junk in it. Even if it was a good rule, which I think it is not, this would still be true.

taken to the logical end of that thinking, the rule book would become:

1.0 Throw the disc into the basket.



I was out playing today and I broke "the" rule. I don't know what I was thinking but I threw away from the basket. My question is, how many strokes is the penalty for breaking "the" rule.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

no jumpers unless your at least 50ft out is my vote.

OK it's been a few days -- here's the almost-complete results:

change 10-meter rule, yes or no?
here are the quick general answers.

Baldguy � NO. Thinks tall guy can lean enough on a
20� putt to make it like a 10� putt. Against any rule
that would allow �putt-jump� (releasing while in the
air). [I personally don�t care one way or the other,
haven�t read the jump-putt thread though]

Hanksplace � YES. but supporting point still behind
mini at release.

Ryangwillim � NO. Invites replaces falling putt
controversy with jump putt controversy, and �uglifies�
game.

Nick Kight � YES. Dovetails with his �consistent
stance� rule proposal (which is pretty much fine with
me, at first glance)

Gangloff � NO. makes putts easier, uglifies putting
game

Moriarti � YES (I think) � kinda opposite of Gangloff
above, but also other points to make later on.

Slo � YES � eliminate special balance rule, make
stance rule consistent, BUT thinks he can do better with a jump/lean putt from >15� out

Gnduke NO � sort of, as he has not been convinced
otherwise?

Chuck Kennedy � YES [sorta tongue in cheek] � mando
jump shots, more athleticism

Rhett - ?? � Thinks e.g. lean/jump putt from 12 feet could be an improvement in the wind.

Windy � NO � keep the rules and learn balance

Sandalman � NO, but would like jump shots allowed as long as you stay behind the lie.

Bruce_brakel � NO � in fact, would like 10m to go back to 30-40m

-----------------------
So keeping the rule is over 50%, maybe 60-70%.

Maybe I'll bring this up again a few years; no biggie.

Thanks for your comments.
-------------------------

Just a couple of extra comments

(1) I was suprised to find 3+ people nixing the rule change because of "ugliness". Apparently tugging a disc out of your crotch and into the basket looks pretty -- unless your foot follows thru past the mini, or if you lean/jump. Perhaps we should all throw-putt like Gangloff because it's the prettiest-looking putt (I guess it's in the eye of the beholder). In fact, Craig, I think I'm going to start working on a throw-putt because I figured out a way to do it without hurting my elbow.

(2) I also agree that putting is a lot less photogenic in DG than in BG. I have no problem with that. If DG really had a problem with that, I've got a possible fix for that. What you do is you make a 10-meter wide circle of ASPHALT (or similar) and call that the green, then you replace the chain basket with a perhaps 1-foot wide hole in the ground. The trick is that only rollers can go in the hole. That will make a roll-putt take even longer to go into the hole than a BG putt. Maybe we need a sewer grate over the hole to protect against air shots! From now on, only roller aces! :)

Gotta go, thanks again.

To misquote Einstein �DG rules should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.�

Kurt, either you are kidding and I just don't get it, or by "I also agree that putting is a lot less photogenic in DG than in BG", you mean "less photogenic for a person only concerned with getting an image captured mechanically," because there's really no chance of missing the action in ball/stick golf [!]...unlike disc golf, where each shot is action!

[larger image]David Feldberg-Jumputt (http://www.centxdglove.com/uploads/David_Feldberg_Jumputt.jpg)

...for those amongst you reticent to change rules due to 'tradition', consider these recent, game-enhancing, popularity-building changes to the top-3 pro sports, all within a couple-few generations:

American Football: Forward passes now OK.
Baseball: Batter no longer dictates to pitcher where the strike zone resides.
Basketball: No center tap after every basket.

...and another popular sport which survived 'radical' change:
Boston Marathon: Women are not thrown off the course!

Now that is a beautiful jump putt but the question is, did his foot leave the ground before he released? :D

Isn't that a pic of Avery? I think Dave uses a black aviar. Plus, that guy is wat to muscle-y to be Feldberg. :D

nice picture of avery not dave :osteve,where was it taken

Erik, that makes sense about Avery; I seem to recall he was in the group with Pat Sweeney the day these were from.

Jack, that's Lama; what you're seeing is that basket way out by Foster...23/27.

More shots, same meet, 3rd photosite [through below link].

I cannot believe that people today would seriously entertain an 8-foot jump putt or leanover putt,



They don't want to give me that option...I'll be World Champ in a year.

I cannot believe that people today would seriously entertain an 8-foot jump putt or leanover putt,



They don't want to give me that option...I'll be World Champ in a year.



I can vouch for that

I agree TTrim would rule!!

Keep the 10 meter rule. KILL the 2 Meter rule

Keep the 10 meter rule. KILL the 2 Meter rule



Kill the 2 meter rule and change the 10 meter rule to 2 meters.

Keep the 10 meter rule. KILL the 2 Meter rule



I like the 2 meter rule - its equivalent to an unplayable lie in golf

Kill the 2 meter rule only if you have to play from where the disc actually lies. If you are 10 ft up in a tree you get to shoot from 10 ft up in a tree. Now that would make the game more interesting :D.

Pretty clever, never heard that one before.

Do you play your lie in the tree when it is 1.99 meters up?

How about when it is 1 meter up in a bush?

How about when it is 2 feet below the playing surface?

The reasons for dropping the 2 and 10 meter rules are many and substantial, the ones for keeping them are mostly based on the rules existence in the first place.