I'd like to hear a good defense for this rule as I think it's silly. What's the point? To define a "green"? Course design should do that. Where did this rule come from? Are we trying to hard to be like "Big Brother"? I say, let 'em jump, follow-through, fall down, whatever. I'm curious to hear what others think.

I am all for the extermination of the 10 M Rule

yeah, let me jump from 25' .... please

This is the best idea I have heard, its from a thread on this subject a few pages into the Rules thread.

[QUOTE]
involuntary pruner
Hyzer Tosser


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 415
Loc: Massachusetts Re: Should we keep 10 meter putt rules? [Re: slo]
#208187 - 07/09/04 01:23 AM Edit Reply Quote



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.
[QUOTE]

I want to jump from 10 feet.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you would have to allow jump/falling putts from everywhere. It's just a preference, but I'd hate to see the sport go there.

At any rate, there is some distance where falling forward seems acceptable, to me at least. I'd put it around 50 feet, but 10 meters seems OK.

I'm wondering if the 10 meter rule is to discourage those that might jump and then release rather than releasing the disc prior to the jump. Outside 10 meters it is less critical, and with the lack of calls that occur for foot faults and the like, it might get abused. Some with great leaping ability might get a running jump from 30 feet and slam dunk the thing :D :D :D

I believe the historical basis is rooted in the original ground baskets and Stork's slam dunk technique in the 70s. Taking a running leap to 'putt' into a basket on the ground was too much for some people. So, when Ed developed the basket, the 10m line for falling putts emerged. That's what I've heard because I wasn't in the sport then.

Id like it to be 50ft before a jump putt is allowed.

I believe the historical basis is rooted in the original ground baskets and Stork's slam dunk technique in the 70s. Taking a running leap to 'putt' into a basket on the ground was too much for some people. So, when Ed developed the basket, the 10m line for falling putts emerged. That's what I've heard because I wasn't in the sport then.



Kind of correct. Stork did slam dunk, but he didn't run and jump, if that were the case anyone could do it; he just leaned forward, with his foot on his lie and slammed it home before stepping forward (this like any other stance rule outside the (then) new 10 meter rule.

Releasing the disc still had to happen before contact closer to the hole was made.

If slam dunking the disc is the main basis for the 10 meter rules existance then 4 meters seems more appropriate, because there are no disc golfers with a 12 foot span from toe to outstreched fingers that I am aware of. You?

I don't have trouble with "Green Rules" but I'd like to see greens become something actual than just conceptual in Disc Golf. If your course doesn't have them, then strangly enough they don't have them, that or the entire course is them.

That would be an interesting and beneficial topic: Creating greens in disc golf.

Though perhaps we should first figure out "Par"...

The current stance rules prevent the Stork-dunk as you describe it, without need of the falling putt rule.

I started a post just like this a few months ago.

It turned out that a majority of the posters wanted to keep the concept of "demonstrating balance," so I dropped the subject.

Reasons they used that come to mind:
(1) aesthetics
(2) leads to more jump putts, which are sometimes illegal and almost impossible to call
(3) tradition, etc.
(4) probably something else; you have to go back to the thread

In fact a poster or two liked the idea of staying behind the mini for FARTHER than 10m; say 30m, or for ANY shot, for that matter.

Personally, any of the above is OK with me, I just thought that if we eliminated "balance" calls, it would be one less thing to fight about (had a hissy fit recently, which is what brought up the thread) and a paragraph or two less in the rulebook.

As for whether there should be a "green" in DG: firstly, I'm not convinced that there is any need for a "green" concept in DG (certainly willing to hear arguments for this, maybe on another thread?); secondly, it seems that it's a low priority on most courses that have poopy tees, no garbage cans, and other more important maintenance issues, although I suppose it's something for course designers to think about when designing a course, rather than retrofitting later on.

Let me get this straight. I have about a 12-15' running leap. If I was 20' out and ran and jumped behind the marker and threw the disc when I was 5-8' from the basket and banged the putt without touching the ground before release, that would be legal? That is what I get out of this quote.

"Releasing the disc still had to happen before contact closer to the hole was made"

Not quite, If you re-read it the sentence before the one you quoted was "he just leaned forward, with his foot on his lie and slammed it home before stepping forward (this like any other stance rule outside the (then) new 10 meter rule."

So no running leap. He remained in contact with the ground behind his mini, and released before contacting the ground in fron of his mini. By todays rules, it would be a falling putt.

What you're describing is illegal; you have to have contact 20' out on a 20' lie.

However, if you're asking if you MAY jump over the basket, yes, as long as you make a legal release, and land outside the circle demarked by the REAR edge of the mini, with the target being the center. I doubt even Carl Lewis/Dwight Stones could do that...

However, if you're asking if you MAY jump over the basket, yes, as long as you make a legal release, and land outside the circle demarked by the REAR edge of the mini, with the target being the center. I doubt even Carl Lewis/Dwight Stones could do that...


I think you are wrong. I'm not going to bother looking up the actual rule, but I'm pretty sure it says you must demonstrate balance "before advancing towards the hole". Therefore releasing the disc while in contact with the playing surface on the LOP and within 30cm of the mark if you are within 10 m of the basket and then leaping over the basket without touching anything would be illegal. :)

Is my putting style legal? I stand 3-4 feet behind my mini,lean back on my left foot then quickly and with a step shift my weight to the right foot while making the putt (hopefully). never stepping or falling past the mini. Controlled but not exactly balanced

The rule is:

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, except when putting within 10 meters.

C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

I'm not going to argue any of these points but I will look up the rule! :D
C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

Here is a question for English majors and lawyers now that I've quoted the rule for you, when putting on a temporary basket, is the ten meter putting circle wider?

Our local DGRZ posits: "...you must demonstrate balance "before advancing towards the hole". Therefore releasing the disc while in contact with the playing surface on the LOP and within 30cm of the mark if you are within 10 m of the basket and then leaping over the basket without touching anything would be illegal."

I think this boils down to, "what constitutes advancing", eh?

You have a pretty good track record of proving me incorrect, Rhett, but is flying completly over the basket, then landing EVEN FURTHER AWAY considered "advancing"? I guess you could say it was advancing, then retreating...but...er, I mean BUT, no CONTACT nearer the basket has been made. In my view, the contact is the important thing when determining "advancement". If I wan't clear, I'm talking about a [ridiculous] leap over the ENTIRE circle, landing OUTSIDE the circle, showing balance, THEN advancing for my disc.

I think we would both agree it's fine to legally release, then go SIDEWAYS. What if part of my body 'encroached' on the airspace over the "no closer" circle during said leap, wouldn't that be considered 'advancing' in your view? If not, would 90% of my body entering this zone be OK, if I land no closer? 99.9%? Is it only 100% 'encroaching' on this circle which would be a problem?

Here is a question for English majors and lawyers now that I've quoted the rule for you, when putting on a temporary basket, is the ten meter putting circle wider?



Alex, "What is the definition of 'base of the hole'?"

I am all for the extermination of the 10 M Rule

+

you should be able to jump put when you feel like it :(

...but is flying completly over the basket, then landing EVEN FURTHER AWAY considered "advancing"? I guess you could say it was advancing, then retreating...but...er, I mean BUT, no CONTACT nearer the basket has been made. In my view, the contact is the important thing when determining "advancement".


Yes, that is the crux of the argument. But really, how can one try to claim that flying completely over the basket and landing on the other side is not advancing towards the hole? You have to move towards the basket in order to jump over it.

As for for flailing around with your non-plant leg, both arms, and your torso in the airspace closer to the pin, only to fall backwards without ever touching ground closer than the rear edge of the mini....you didn't really "advance" since you ended up on the opposite side of your lie from the hole, whereas in the jumping over example you end up on the opposite side of yoru marker.

Yes, this is clearly an example of how difficult it is to write a simple rule that passes the test of "ridiculous extremes." (Which is my personal favorite test of rules. :) )

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Allow them from everywhere. Why not? I'm trying to figure out what is so evil about it that it puts people off.
I use a jump putt. But not all the time. Most of the time my jumping starts at 40 feet. But sometimes on a very uphill putt, I would like to jump at 20. So I wouldn't use it all the time. I just think it's silly to define a green with a "covers-all" distance. I was trying to explain this rule to some newer players and I just couldn't get past the question of "why"? So far that question hasdn't been answered.

I would hate to see this rule abolished, ESPECIALLY if we didn't get to vote on it. Like the 2m rule. That is a HUGE rule change and we didn't get to vote on it? That was very disappointing to me.

I hope the BOD or whoever deals with rules doesn't even consider changing this rule without researching what the opinion of the masses is.

The 10m rule is very appropriate. It requires a golfer to demonstrate balance, skill and control over their body. It is also a very easy rule to call and implement. I think the reason people keep bringing this rule up is because they haven't figured out how to putt well enough and they would score better without this rule, which is not a good enough reason to elminate a rule that has been an integral part of the game for over 20 years.

I don't like the size of the basket, I think it should be bigger so it is easier to stick a putt, so I propose we increase diameter of the basket by six inches so I can score better because I don't want to put the effort into becoming a more consistent and accurate putter. I mean, come on, why is the basket the size it is anyhow? Tradition? How stupid is that?!

If we abolish the 10m rule I think this sport takes a huge credibility hit. Personally I dislike the jump putt. I believe a significant % of jump putts are foot faults but it is so hard to make the call. It is difficult to focus on someone's foot and hand simultaleously. The release and the jump happen within a few hundreths of a second. Anytime you make a foot fault call on someone, you're likely to feel a bad vibe from the offending player and maybe the whole group for at least the rest of the round if not longer. I typically won't call a foot fault unless it's flagrant. As I said with it happening so fast it's a tough call to make. From a spectator's point of view I see the jump putt as awkward and unprofessional looking. While many will tell you it improves their accuracy or range, I find it unneccessary. I wouldn't have a problem if they made the rule about not advancing ahead of your lie applicable from the tee pad all the way til you holed out.

With me, it is both:

1) aesthethics. When I play with new players and/or lower divisions, I often see falling putts and it just looks sloppy. I understand that this is not considered a legitimate reason to many, but it works for me. :D

2) With jumpputts, it is impossible to determine if people are putting legally. Outside of 10m, I don't really care that much (and I wouldn't care at all around 50 feet) if they are completely legal because I don't think they are gaining much of an advantage. However, on a 10 footer, it does seem like an advantage.

I suppose that in all honesty, I probably consider the jumpputt as a crutch and crutches are acceptable for those with real injuries, but not for healthy people.

So, in summary, my reasons boil down to aesthetics and prejudice ;) but I'm sticking to it.

On the flip side, why do you think jump/falling putts should be legal from anywhere?

On the flip side, why do you think jump/falling putts should be legal from anywhere?



Amen, brother! I think you and I are speaking the same language.

I think jump putts are allowed since stepping forward after release on throw follow throughs is allowed outside 10m. I'd be perfectly fine if both follow throughs and jump putts were not allowed and everyone had to 'stand and deliver' on all throws.

I would argue that the "advancing toward the basket" part follows the "demonstrate balance" balance part. Which follows the falling putt description. If you pass the falling putt test, then you must demonstrate balance and advance to the basket.

As long as there was a point of contact on the LOP within 30 cm at release and the follow thru did not cause the player to touch anything closer to the target than the rear of their mini, they have not commited a falling putt and after demonstrating balance may advance on the basket and remove their putt. :D

I believe it's very possible to take a step or two, even a modest run up and still stay behind your mark until the end of your disc's flight. Even on very long courses, I rarely advance past my mark on the follow through and I generally take steps on most approaches outside 200'.

I think jump putts are allowed since stepping forward after release on throw follow throughs is allowed outside 10m. I'd be perfectly fine if both follow throughs and jump putts were not allowed and everyone had to 'stand and deliver' on all throws.



Me too.

I think people that don't like jump putts are just bad at them and are afraid that that they are loosing strokes to those who are good at it. :p

I have heard no serious talk of doing away with the 10 meter rule.

Oh, and Kurt. the 10 meter rule is our green, rules wise at least...

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Allow them from everywhere. Why not? I'm trying to figure out what is so evil about it that it puts people off.
I use a jump putt. But not all the time. Most of the time my jumping starts at 40 feet. But sometimes on a very uphill putt, I would like to jump at 20. So I wouldn't use it all the time.


Rule #1 is play it where it lies. Rule #2 is count all your throws. Jump putts violate Rule #1. It looks to me like about half the jump putters are playing it from somewhere in the air a little ways past where it was, moreso on the longer throws in the 50-100 foot range. When you slow down good footage of certain touring jump putters, it still looks like they are throwing from the air. It is not like they are getting significantly closer before throwing by their CHEATING, but if it was not to their competitive advantage, why would they CHEAT? I've learned to straddle putt and for awhile I could turbo putt so I'm sure I could learn how to jump putt.

So far I've found it easier just to carry an eraser and lie about my score a little. :D

I can almost buy that interpretation, Gary. :)

Why not scrap the 10m rule?

1. It's part of the game. What do you say to someone who asks why a first down is 10 yards in football? Because that's the way it is.

2. Changing the rule wouldn't enhance the overall playing experience. In fact, it would probably cause more disputes over foot faults, thereby slowing down the game and making it less fun.

3. Nobody needs a running start or a follow through to propel a disc 30 feet.

Why not move the line back to more like 50 feet?

1. 10m is pretty easy to estimate. The further you move back, the harder that would be, especially on a wooded or sloped green.

Why not make the 10m rule apply to throws from any distance?

1. Again, tradition. It's not like this rule is confusing or hard to remember.

2. Forcing people to "stand and deliver" would negatively impact the overall playing experience. Many of us follow through past our mark when we throw for distance. For me, it's just natural body mechanics. Eliminating the follow through would force people to stop short upon release, which could potentially cause injury.

.

Why not make the 10m rule apply to throws from any distance?

Eliminating the follow through would force people to stop short upon release, which could potentially cause injury.




Good points Boru. I agree whoheartedly except for this last point

If you are falling forward after your release, this is wasted momentum not transferred into the flight of your disc. This is a common occurence among ams. I believe most seasoned pros have very minimal if any falling forward past their lie even on harder throws. The need to fall forward is a sign of wasted energy. If you are violently falling forward I'd consider taking a shorter run up or a slower run up until you can coordinate the momentum into your throw more efficiently.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Allow them from everywhere. Why not? I'm trying to figure out what is so evil about it that it puts people off.
I use a jump putt. But not all the time. Most of the time my jumping starts at 40 feet. But sometimes on a very uphill putt, I would like to jump at 20. So I wouldn't use it all the time.



Rule #1 is play it where it lies.


By that you mean according to our PDGA Rules of Play, right?

Rule #2 is count all your throws.



Jump putts violate Rule #1.


Sounds cute, but prove it. You can�t. Because so long as the putt leaves your hand prior to your supporting point leaving the lie, it is not a violation of Rule#1 and you should know this.

It looks to me like about half the jump putters are playing it from somewhere in the air a little ways past where it was, moreso on the longer throws in the 50-100 foot range.


�Looking like it� to Bruce Almighty does not make it in violation with Rule #1.

When you slow down good footage of certain touring jump putters, it still looks like they are throwing from the air. It is not like they are getting significantly closer before throwing by their CHEATING, but if it was not to their competitive advantage, why would they CHEAT?


�Looking like it� to Bruce Almighty does not make it CHEATING either.

I've learned to straddle putt and for awhile I could turbo putt so I'm sure I could learn how to jump putt.


Then learn it and leave the rules to folks that can understand the basics at least.

So far I've found it easier just to carry an eraser and lie about my score a little. :D

Whateva�

As for for flailing around with your non-plant leg, both arms, and your torso in the airspace closer to the pin, only to fall backwards without ever touching ground closer than the rear edge of the mini....you didn't really "advance" since you ended up on the opposite side of your lie from the hole, whereas in the jumping over example you end up on the opposite side of your marker.

Sure, straight backwards; how far sideways is permitted?

If I were REALLLLLY tall I could straddle the basket, and fall sideways. As long as I don't contact the circle formed by the nearer of the two before I show balance that's GOT to be OK, unless ANY instance of that stance in itself was illegal. <font color="red"> But I don't gather where said points have to be established before the disc is released, just before showing balance. </font>
I might stumble QUITE a bit. Hop back and forth, fall "in". Then show balance, advance. Isn't that OK?

Is my hopping over the circle OK, or is it something to do with the STANCE [not 10 meter ruling] which might be fishy?

In other words, is there any significance to a perpendicular line line to the contact point? Then the Venn diagram has 3 sections, not just the two straddleman's supposing.

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum, er, the pole holding the supporting [legal] hardware, not the base holding the pole, in the English quiz? :p

If I were REALLLLLY tall I could straddle the basket....


You don't have to REALLLLLY tall for that scenario, your lie just has to be REALLLLLY close to the pin. :)

Thanks boru and Steve for the excellent opposing viewpoints, I just disagree.

1. It's part of the game. <font color="blue"> My spin is many PDGA-illegal putts are fine in the GAME of Disc Golf <font size=-3>[played first with any disc, circa 1930's at the latest, then later a Frisbie]</font>; the SPORT of Disc golf has set-in-paper rules which might be erased. </font> What do you say to someone who asks why a first down is 10 yards in football? Because that's the way it is. <font color="blue"> See: Forward pass see: no tap after each basket in Basketball. Great aesthetic improvements!! </font>

2. Changing the rule wouldn't enhance the overall playing experience. <font color="blue"> A legal jump putt by a conditioned athlete is a sight to see! </font> In fact, it would probably cause more disputes over foot faults, thereby slowing down the game and making it less fun. <font color="blue"> Got me here, however, call me a dreamer, but someday a Marshall will accompany each group. </font>

3. Nobody needs a running start or a follow through to propel a disc 30 feet. <font color="blue"> No, but it limits my options...isn't my best game good enough?!? </font> :D

<font size=-3>....anybody else here have a mild case of deja vu?</font>

personally i think the 10 meter rule should stand. i mean, you dont need to put all of your body weight into a 6 meter putt just to make it to the basket. also, the discussion that has sprung up from the debate of this rule about being able to move in front of the lie after the disc is released from the tee up to 10 meters seems a little much to me. following through is good form! there is no way it should be made illegal!
just my 2 cents
yours in disc golf,
Chris

Yes, following through is good form.

Losing your balance to a degree that you must advance past your lie to prevent a faceplant is not.

Do ball golfers not follow completely through as they launch the ball 300+ yards. Yet you never see Tiger fall forward past his front foot. Any need to step forward past your lie is a result of momentum not transfered into your shot.

No one is suggesting stopping a follow through short. If you are throwing hard, by all means do a full weight transfer and follow through as far as your flexibility will allow. Losing your balance in extra forward momentum is just wasted energy that is most likely detracting from your control and certainly not adding any more distance.

My follow through is not forward momentum, it's circular momentum. My plant foot is just behind my marker, and the trailing foot has to have somewhere to land after my body spins on the plant foot.

I could possibly carry enough spin to complete a 360 degree turn after the disc is released, but 180 is usually all I get.

Yes, following through is good form.

Losing your balance to a degree that you must advance past your lie to prevent a faceplant is not



I have to disagree, and I can even use evidence in support of my case (I know this is against board rules, but bear with it ;))
Avery Jenkins (http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/analysis/averyjenkins.shtml)
Study the last two frames from any angle.
The message board's own Chris Heeren (http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/analysis/chrisheeren.shtml)
Again, last two frames.
The esteemed Barry Schultz (http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/analysis/barryschultz2.shtml)
Cam Todd (http://www.discgolfreview.com/resources/analysis/camerontodd2.shtml)

I could go on, but I fear I already have...

Shine your shoes, guv'nah? No, use of evidence strictly forbidden here...we deal more with impressions, opinions, innuendo and such. :o

Just because I can: http://www.centxdglove.com/uploads/David_mini_117hx153_CIMG075.jpg...nothing to see there, but a superb athlete making his best effort.
Quite "Golf Clap" worthy. Dang, I wish I could find the larger-sized image, now that I know how to link thumbnails to offsite images [see: favorite photos thread for that]. But that's Avery again, this time @ La Mirada.

No thanks I'm wearing 'sneakers', it'd ruin them...

All the people whinging that they can't jump putt from 20' really ought to work on their putting game. What are you gonna do when you're stuck under low branches and have to putt from kneeling, or behind a tree and have to straddle?

The rule is there to stop people from doing "falling putts", and coincidentally stops jump putts. So what? One of the things DG lacks is the element of reading the green that BGers have. Anything that means you have to utilise difference techniques around the basket is a good thing IMO

Bruce - I would say if you have a temporary/portable hole such as a Mach V portable, the 10-meter circle would be a bit larger since the base of such a hole is larger in diameter than the base of a permanently fixed hole, which is of course a smaller diameter pole. On the other hand, someone might challenge that and say that the central pole is always considered the base.

Nonetheless, I like the 10-meter rule prohibiting falling putts. what I would like to see changed is the "balance" language in the rules. I think that what is or is not balance is too subjective for this sport. I think the rules should state that advancement towards the basket is permitted once the disc has come to rest.

As for jump putts, I think we as an association should decide whether or not to allow them. If we allow them, then perhaps we should consider eliminating the requirement of having a supporting point in contact with the playing surface, for throws subsequent to teeing off and greater than 10 meters from the base of the hole. If what you say is accurate, that there is video evidence of illegal jump putts that are not being called, then these occurences will only increase. Alternatively, we could eliminate the jump putt and keep the supporting point contact rule.

So you think that if the disc is at rest then you should be able to do a face plant? Ludicrous at best!

use of evidence strictly forbidden here...we deal more with impressions, opinions, innuendo and such. :o



sounds right :D

Any need to step forward past your lie is a result of momentum not transfered into your shot.



are you including tee shots for long holes in this formula? as a former Ultimate player, at first I never stepped past the end of the tee when throwing. (I was used to maintaining a pivot foot for all throws). Now after adjusting to disc golf, when I drive on long holes, I often do follow through and *after* releasing the disc my forward momentum carries me past the tee pad. that seems to me not to waste energy but simply to help me get all of myself into the throw. Do the distance record holders not follow through past the point of release?

I have seen Tiger follow through many times. In fact that move has been coined the "Gary Player" follow-through. When he is in deep rough and his stance maybe isn't balanced, he'll smash it and then step through. I fully agree with with not being able to follow-through outside 10M causing injury. Not everybody in this game has perfect ankle and knee joints and some of us are even Masters age! To force all your momentum to stop and get sucked up by one leg would be ludicrous.
I feel jump putts should be allowed from anywhere. I am thinking of certain holes where I may be only 20 or 25 feet out, but the vertical is also near 20 feet. I'd like to jump at this since (as was alluded to earlier) this is my best game. Yes, I can throw this shot without foot-faulting, and I have and I have put it in. But I'd feel better jumping.
I can play (and win) within the rules as they currently are.
But I'd like to have the freedom to play my best shot.

You'd like to have the freedom to use your best shot, but the design of the hole, ie the slope on the green, forces you to use something different. Sounds like good hole design to me, do you want to take this design option away?

That is a good point. I'd just like to see the designer design the green and not a catch-all rule. Maybe make it like the current 2M rule and allow TD's to designate greens. Imagine the possibilities at the Championship :eek:!

That's pretty much what I'm saying. Allow them from everywhere. Why not? I'm trying to figure out what is so evil about it that it puts people off.
I use a jump putt. But not all the time. Most of the time my jumping starts at 40 feet. But sometimes on a very uphill putt, I would like to jump at 20. So I wouldn't use it all the time.



Rule #1 is play it where it lies.


By that you mean according to our PDGA Rules of Play, right?

Rule #2 is count all your throws.



Jump putts violate Rule #1.


Sounds cute, but prove it. You can�t. Because so long as the putt leaves your hand prior to your supporting point leaving the lie, it is not a violation of Rule#1 and you should know this.

It looks to me like about half the jump putters are playing it from somewhere in the air a little ways past where it was, moreso on the longer throws in the 50-100 foot range.


�Looking like it� to Bruce Almighty does not make it in violation with Rule #1.

When you slow down good footage of certain touring jump putters, it still looks like they are throwing from the air. It is not like they are getting significantly closer before throwing by their CHEATING, but if it was not to their competitive advantage, why would they CHEAT?


�Looking like it� to Bruce Almighty does not make it CHEATING either.

I've learned to straddle putt and for awhile I could turbo putt so I'm sure I could learn how to jump putt.


Then learn it and leave the rules to folks that can understand the basics at least.

So far I've found it easier just to carry an eraser and lie about my score a little. :D

Whateva�



No one has to take Bruce at his word. All you have to do is look at video tape or DVD of pros playing. When I was taping all of the DiscTV episodes when they were on the air, I showed Bruce a bunch of illegal jump putts. They were illegal because the thrower's feet were off the ground before the disc was released. It really has nothing to do with the 10M rule because that throw is illegal anywhere on the course. I'd like to see some new footage since the DiscTV stuff is now a couple of years old. Perhaps as the throw is evolving, people are getting better at making them legal or maybe not. Either way it is a tough spot to put the players in by having a rule that can't be called very well without slow-mo instant replay.

I also agree with Bruce on this, not because I think players are cheating or it looks like they are leaping over their marker before disc release, but because in the pictures and video I've studied they are. Even if they weren't, the fact is that "prove they aren't" isn't any better than "prove they are." You have a rules situation where often enough you don't know if the person released before or after their foot left the ground. I like my rules to result in a clear choice, not an "I say I didn't, you say I did situation."

It isn't good enough that the violation never gets called. As Rhett would say, know the rules, call the rules. If the rule can't be clearly called, how can we expect players to call the rule? The jump putt should be eliminated not expanded.

I don't have any defense for the ten-meter rule. It has no analogy in golf. It does not flow from the proto-rules. To me outlawing Stork's falling putt is no more necessary than out lawing a turbo putt or upside down putt. If he is throwing from where it landed, his unique way of doing it is no more offensive to me than any other ludicrous style. If there were a ground swell of opinion for allowing stepping through after releasing a putt, I'd ride the wave.

The ten meter rule is a separate issue from the jumping putt issue. It is too hard to call jumping putts without video replay referees. Now that the game has changed with the widespread use of jumping putts, if we are going to play by the rules, we need rules that players can apply in the field. I'd be happy with a rule that prohibited leaving the ground at any time during follow through except on a tee shot. Otherwise, we should just eliminate the requirement of a point of contact through out the throw, and redraft our rule to be more of a "no travelling" rule.

Currently and in reality we only have two kinds of shots in disc golf: drives and putts. Our written rules of play try to establish three (the tee shot, the shot subsequent to teeing off, and the putt), but in the real world there is virtually no difference between the tee and the non-putting shot subsequent to teeing off. (The rules difference is that you must land on the LOP and within 30cm of the mark outside of the tee-box, but trying making that call outside of 200 feet or in the middle of fairway and you will see it is really not enforced.)

By making the "falling putt" rule the "non-tee shot rule" we would have the three shots back. Tee shot, approach/not-tee/"iron" shot, and the putt. The putt wouldn't really need it's own stance rule as people putt differently than they throw.

This change would have a number of benefits. It would increase the skill-level required to excel at the game by requiring excellence in three areas instead of just two. It would slow down the "obsoleting" of existing courses from disc improvements. It would make actual par-5 holes that are less than a quarter mile long possible. It just seems to be more golf like. :)

The drawbacks aren't as severe as people would have you believe. The main one is this: I can't throw as far without a full runup and tee-shot like follow-through. Okay. I don't see a problem with that. The tee-shot should be the farthest flying shot in golf. Attempting to get the distance of a tee-shot on a shot subsequent to teeing off should be an extremely risky proposition that really isn't worth trying. Hit the first tree off the tee? If it is really is golf we are playing, you should be scrambling to save bogey after a blunder like that. Not having to settle for par.

I really can't think of another drawback. The injury thing is a non-issue as not advancing up the fairway does not force you to stop short in your throw. Otherwise all us old guys would be permanently disabled from our days of playing catch.

The attempt to discredit this line of thinking always includes the lame "you must not be able to jump putt" or "you suck and this will make everybody else suck so you seem better" argument. I personally am not a great golfer and never will be. There is no possible change to the rules will move me up in rankings. :) So there.

Oh yeah. Those jump putts that might be legal but frequently aren't? Under my proposal they are all illegal so you don't have to worry about slow-mo replay. :)

Rhett is your proposal to apply the falling putt rule to shots of all length except those off the tee? In other words "no follow through past the marker until balance is demonstrated"?

If so I'm all for it. It accomplishes the same thing as the long proposed no fairway runup rule and would probably be easier to pass.

You're right, arguments against this are lame, and tend to go toward personal attacks. I say the arguers are just as lame as their arguments. Whaaaaahhhhh!!!

So if you throw your drive in the lake at the USDGC on #17 and you are "re-teeing", do you get to follow through? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

(The rules difference is that you must land on the LOP and within 30cm of the mark outside of the tee-box, but trying making that call outside of 200 feet or in the middle of fairway and you will see it is really not enforced.)




I can't speak for others, but I do watch others' foot placements. If they don't hit the mark I will (and have) make the call. It is far easier to discern a footfault at the tee box or in the fairway than it is at the edge of the green when one of these "flying monkeys" tries to combine golf with gymnastics.





By making the "falling putt" rule the "non-tee shot rule" we would have the three shots back. Tee shot, approach/not-tee/"iron" shot, and the putt. The putt wouldn't really need it's own stance rule as people putt differently than they throw.

This change would have a number of benefits. It would increase the skill-level required to excel at the game by requiring excellence in three areas instead of just two. It would slow down the "obsoleting" of existing courses from disc improvements. It would make actual par-5 holes that are less than a quarter mile long possible. It just seems to be more golf like. :)

The drawbacks aren't as severe as people would have you believe. The main one is this: I can't throw as far without a full runup and tee-shot like follow-through. Okay. I don't see a problem with that. The tee-shot should be the farthest flying shot in golf. Attempting to get the distance of a tee-shot on a shot subsequent to teeing off should be an extremely risky proposition that really isn't worth trying. Hit the first tree off the tee? If it is really is golf we are playing, you should be scrambling to save bogey after a blunder like that. Not having to settle for par.




I'm fine wid all dat



I really can't think of another drawback. The injury thing is a non-issue as not advancing up the fairway does not force you to stop short in your throw. Otherwise all us old guys would be permanently disabled from our days of playing catch.



Agreed



The attempt to discredit this line of thinking always includes the lame "you must not be able to jump putt" or "you suck and this will make everybody else suck so you seem better" argument. I personally am not a great golfer and never will be. There is no possible change to the rules will move me up in rankings. :) So there.



Yes, it is obvious to see the weakness in their arguements, especially when you consider some of their tactics when they know they are outmatched and outwitted, let alone when they realize they're on the wrong side of the debate.

I can play (and win) within the rules as they currently are.
But I'd like to have the freedom to play my best shot.




LOL,
What you're saying is you'd be so much better if you didn't have all these dam!#$%?~# rules to worry about. Wouldn't it be great if you got a rules exemption and could play any old way you see fit and the rest of us would still be bound with all these confining rules? You'd love that, wouldn't ya?

Any need to step forward past your lie is a result of momentum not transfered into your shot.



are you including tee shots for long holes in this formula? as a former Ultimate player, at first I never stepped past the end of the tee when throwing. (I was used to maintaining a pivot foot for all throws). Now after adjusting to disc golf, when I drive on long holes, I often do follow through and *after* releasing the disc my forward momentum carries me past the tee pad. that seems to me not to waste energy but simply to help me get all of myself into the throw. Do the distance record holders not follow through past the point of release?



I could care less whether you or others step forward after your release from the tee pad. I just have learned through my own experience that I have had much better control (and not lost any distance) when I completed my throws with good balance. I think it's very rare that I personally ever step forward after release (although many years ago I used to) but I'm not going to mandate a no falling forward policy from the tee box. I am more opposed to the whole jump putt concept for reasons I stated earlier. I just was pointing out to those of you who habitually fall forward after every tee and a long approach shot, that it would appear to me you have nothing to lose and all to gain by working on your balance. Many top pros throw well over 500' without stepping forward as does Tiger (off the tee) drive the ball over 300 yards while maintaining his balance, therefore I don't know why anyone would think it advantageous to their game to "lose their balance" on every throw outside 200' (from a good to ave. lie).

Throwing 360 turn arounds in a distance competition is a different animal as accuracy is rather inconsequential.

Yes, following through is good form.

Losing your balance to a degree that you must advance past your lie to prevent a faceplant is not.

Do ball golfers not follow completely through as they launch the ball 300+ yards. Yet you never see Tiger fall forward past his front foot. Any need to step forward past your lie is a result of momentum not transfered into your shot.

No one is suggesting stopping a follow through short. If you are throwing hard, by all means do a full weight transfer and follow through as far as your flexibility will allow. Losing your balance in extra forward momentum is just wasted energy that is most likely detracting from your control and certainly not adding any more distance.



Now that's just a really bad analogy. Golfers stay put because they need to hit a small, stationary target to get any sort of accuracy at all. If the game was different and the ball was attached to the end of the club and launched that way, I gurantee you'd see pros following through and stepping to stop themselves from falling over. Look at a baseball pitch or a tennis serve. The player's momentum almost always forces them to step forward to prevent themselves from falling down. When was the last time you saw a pitcher throw a fastball and put his non-planted foot behind his planted foot?

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that any momentum that forces you to step past your planted foot "isn't transferred" to the disc. Momentum is velocity times mass. It's not something that you can transfer in a throw (a collison is a different story). You can "give" the disc momentum by increasing it's velocity, though. The faster you're moving forward (i.e. the more forward momentum you have) at the point you release the disc, the faster the disc will fly, assuming the same arm motion. If you compare one throw where you aren't moving fast enough to force yourself to take a step after the throw to a throw where you are moving fast enough to force yourself to take the extra step (assuming the same arm motion) the second disc will be flying faster right after you release it.

The only argument I see against the jump put is that it's very difficult to accurately call. That's a very valid argument, though.

The two alternatives given both sound good. Either way the tee shot doesn't change. One way you simply aren't allowed to leave the ground during any other shot and the other way you aren't allowed to advance past your lie until you "demonstrate balence." It's easy to tell if someone leaves the ground or not and also pretty easy to call falling putts.

Yes, following through is good form.

Losing your balance to a degree that you must advance past your lie to prevent a faceplant is not.

Do ball golfers not follow completely through as they launch the ball 300+ yards. Yet you never see Tiger fall forward past his front foot. Any need to step forward past your lie is a result of momentum not transfered into your shot.

No one is suggesting stopping a follow through short. If you are throwing hard, by all means do a full weight transfer and follow through as far as your flexibility will allow. Losing your balance in extra forward momentum is just wasted energy that is most likely detracting from your control and certainly not adding any more distance.



Now that's just a really bad analogy.

<font color="purple"> Oh really, I kinda thought it was fitting </font>


Golfers stay put because they need to hit a small, stationary target to get any sort of accuracy at all.

<font color="purple">
So I guess you're telling me that when Tiger is driving a long open par 5 he's holding back to preserve his accuracy and if he didn't hold back so much he'd probably drive 350 yards and fall forward instead of 300 yards and retain his balance?</font>


If the game was different and the ball was attached to the end of the club and launched that way, I gurantee you'd see pros following through and stepping to stop themselves from falling over
.
<font color="purple"> LOL HA HA...I'd love to see that </font>

Look at a baseball pitch or a tennis serve. The player's momentum almost always forces them to step forward to prevent themselves from falling down. When was the last time you saw a pitcher throw a fastball and put his non-planted foot behind his planted foot?

<font color="purple">Now those are bad analogies. Both throwing a baseball and serving in tennis require an overhead arm motion. Coincidently the follow through motion is forward and then down. This forward and down motion unlike golf or disc golf encourages forward body momentum even when done with good form.

Now then, both golf and ball golf derive power from an around rotational movement. Ball golf: after the ball is struck the club goes through and up and over the opposite shoulder. The club from the start of the down swing to the completion of the follow through is swinging in a circle (not a forward one direction type momentum as in overhand throwing. Disc golf with a conventional backhand throwing motion is very similiar. You rotate your hips and shoulders away from the target and then rotate them back towards the target. After release your throwing hand (and off hand if you're using good form) completes it's circuliar follow through . If you were successful in coordinating your snap with your weight transfer you should have little difficulty maintaining your balance. If your run up provided more momentum than your body mechanics were capable of using than you awkwardly fall forward and must take an extra step or two to avoid injury or embarrassment. </font>

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that any momentum that forces you to step past your planted foot "isn't transferred" to the disc. Momentum is velocity times mass. It's not something that you can transfer in a throw (a collison is a different story). You can "give" the disc momentum by increasing it's velocity, though. The faster you're moving forward (i.e. the more forward momentum you have) at the point you release the disc, the faster the disc will fly, assuming the same arm motion. If you compare one throw where you aren't moving fast enough to force yourself to take a step after the throw to a throw where you are moving fast enough to force yourself to take the extra step (assuming the same arm motion) the second disc will be flying faster right after you release it.

<font color="purple"> I've practiced distance out in a field many times. The distance difference between my fall forward throws and my strike a pose throws was very minimal. What I did notice was that my strike a posethrows were far more consistent in both distance and accuracy
But hey if you want to continue to flail around if you think it's better for your game by all means be my guest </font>

The only argument I see against the jump put is that it's very difficult to accurately call. That's a very valid argument, though.

The two alternatives given both sound good. Either way the tee shot doesn't change. One way you simply aren't allowed to leave the ground during any other shot and the other way you aren't allowed to advance past your lie until you "demonstrate balence." It's easy to tell if someone leaves the ground or not and also pretty easy to call falling putts.

Keep the 2m rule...Get rid of the 10m rule...Keep Jump Putts legal too

Both throwing a baseball and serving in tennis require an overhead arm motion. Coincidently the follow through motion is forward and then down. This forward and down motion unlike golf or disc golf encourages forward body momentum even when done with good form.



As do tomahawks/thumbers and sidearms, all perfectly legitimate disc golf shots.

I don't agree with the ban on jump putts - or jump shots of any kind, really. I do, however, think the current rules on stepping past your lie inside/outside 10 meters make sense. Short range putting is the only part of the game where a couple inches routinely makes a big difference. Our current rule, while restrictive, at least makes infractions fairly easy to call.

And if you disagree ... YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!

And if you disagree ... YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!

Thank you. I suspected that was the case but I was not sure yet.

It's always nice to know clearly where you stand. :cool:

Hey, I got pulled up for the use of evidence earlier (which I notice Steve has completely ignored in favour of ranting), so you can cut out this reasoned argument thing!

I can see the attractions of the no-advancement rule, post-tee shot. Can't see it happening though, as all those jump-putters will object.

I never saw the advantage of jump putts from like 50 feet or whatever. I see people do it all the time and they never make the putt anyway so why bother? Why do you need to jump to throw 50 feet? You are just as likely to make it if you don't jump.

Rhett, I agree that something should be done, as most jump putts are illegal in my opinion. Either ban jump putts or make them legal. I kinda like the fairway shot proposal you come up with too. What about having an allowance to step through for weight balance on all shots outside of 10M, but not jump. In other words, the non plant foot has to come down before, I repeat, BEFORE the plant foot can be lifted up. Additionally, we might want to consider no run up for putts or fairway shots, but that is quite a bit more radical. And, although I agree with most of your reasoning concerning course design, safety, foot faults, no need to clear a "runway" and change the course, and it would certainly differentiate tees from subsequent shots, I don't think anyone is going to go for that. It would require new talents and new learning for most, and would threaten their individual games. You might get hung. :(.

Funny, I started a thread a couple of years ago about ending fairway run ups and you would have thought I bad mouthed everybody's mother the way they all reacted!

Rhett, I agree that something should be done, as most jump putts are illegal in my opinion. Either ban jump putts or make them legal. I kinda like the fairway shot proposal you come up with too. What about having an allowance to step through for weight balance on all shots outside of 10M, but not jump. In other words, the non plant foot has to come down before, I repeat, BEFORE the plant foot can be lifted up. Additionally, we might want to consider no run up for putts or fairway shots, but that is quite a bit more radical. And, although I agree with most of your reasoning concerning course design, safety, foot faults, no need to clear a "runway" and change the course, and it would certainly differentiate tees from subsequent shots, I don't think anyone is going to go for that. It would require new talents and new learning for most, and would threaten their individual games. You might get hung. :(.



Dave, you speak wisdom.

But I think it would be tough to codify the "no jumping" aspect you suggest.

Disallowing fairway runups is a great solution, but there will still be some judgment, and writing the rule is tricky.

Disallowing followthrough EVERYWHERE (except tee shots) is easy to write, and gets rid of A LOT of the judgment, or at least makes what you are judging a lot easier.

My frowny face for the day is the reluctance and defeatism surrounding socalled RADICAL rule changes that might just make the game better. :( The whining upheaval of the masses should not dictate what is best for the game. :o

Funny, I started a thread a couple of years ago about ending fairway run ups and you would have thought I bad mouthed everybody's mother the way they all reacted!



Not funny, Dan. The same people who liked it then probably still like it, and there were a few that actually voiced it. :)

And it was almost three years ago http://pdga.com/discus/messages/42/4967.html?1017896195

It also came up again in August of 03 in the thread called Hole Length. Somebody posting under the alias Justin Case with the underlying username jtwash took A BEATING on it. He tried but failed and apparently gave up. :confused: :mad::p

Well I agree with you for most people, me unfortunately included, at this time, the misses tend to stay closer so theoretically one can go for it with less fear of the come back putt. On the other hand when you putt it is a good idea to keep most of the body still and how are you gonna do that jumping like a fool?

I personally don't think banning fairway run-ups is a good solution, possibly for the same "judgements" reason you mention. Is a step a run up? I often stand 2' behind and to the right of my marker, and step into my throw. But often I don't, I just stand there.

I also don't think allowing a step-through, but no jump is very practical. On my drive, I don't jump, I step through, but my plant foot lifts before the other foot lands. You'll just get people really pushing the boundary of how hard they can throw before that foot lifts, leading to the same problems currently seen with jump-putts, ie was the foot up or down?

Rhett's idea of banning any advancement towards the hole (post-tee) allows a controlled run-up, but stops the '2nd drive' scenario we have now. It also has the advantage of being easy to call/adjudicate, like the falling-putt rule is now.

I agree with Hank, the idea of making sure you have one foot on the ground at all times suffers from the same problem that the jump putt does, you would need a slow motion camera to enforce it. There is another solution that has been offered by Rhett and Nick in the past and that is to eliminate the run up on fairway shots but allow the follow through. You have to place your foot directly behind your marker and then wind up and throw. This essentially accomplishes everything Rhett proposed, and is very easy to monitor and penalize. The problem is that it doesn't solve the jump putt issue in terms of the slam dunk if you eliminate the 10 meter rule. On the other hand, it makes the fairway shot and the jump putt the same shot with a different arm movement. Both would start with the player placing their foot directly behind the marker. And although I don't like it, If I had to I could live with the slam dunk, if it were universal, although it does give the taller player an advantage.

The real benefit of this approach is that it also eliminates the foot fault problem thus helping to ensure the "play it where it lies" philosophy. Finally, it is consistent with Nick's notion of non-modification of the playing field in that players would have less need to remove sticks, rocks and other debris from their run up.


BTW - all of these obserations have been made by Nick and or Rhett (and maybe others) in the past.

This topic goes to the heart of one of one of my biggest pet peeve rules, our multiple stance rules. Rhett describes 2, I believe that there are many more than that and certainly at least 3!

I always approach rules questions from the starting point of: If this was not a rule already, what rule would I create to accomplish the same goal from scratch?

At the most basic �golf� rule level the goal of all stance rules is to promote the concept of �Playing It Where It Lies�. Simple, concise, clearly fair and powerful in guiding us to create rules that promote fair play.

The difficulty is that in disc golf we do not propel a projectile from at rest (we don�t use a club to propel our discs). So we have to pick them up in order to throw them. The result is that our �Lie� no longer is where the disc came to rest (and from which we propel it from a stationary position with a club), it is to entirety of our bodies and all of the possible release points it can manage in propelling the disc with the restriction of having one supporting point on the playing surface below where the disc came to rest.

That is the basic gist of what is a Lie in disc golf, and the underlying premise of our stance rules. In my opinion, all other rules governing Stance are amendments to this basic concept.

Here are the additional stipulations in order of appearance in our Rules of Play (Highlighted in <font color="red"> RED </font>:


803.01 TEEING OFF
A. Play shall begin on each hole with the player throwing from within the teeing area. <font color="red"> When the disc is released, at least one of the player's supporting points must be in contact with the surface of the teeing area, and all the player's supporting points must be within the teeing area. If a tee pad is provided, all supporting points must be on the pad at the time of release, unless the director has specified a modified teeing area for safety reasons. If no tee pad is provided, all supporting points at the time of release must be within an area encompassed by the front line of the teeing area and two lines perpendicular to and extending back three meters from each end of the front line. Running up from behind the teeing area before the disc is released is permitted. Following through in front of the teeing area is permitted provided there is no supporting point contact outside the teeing area when the disc is released.

B. Any supporting point contact outside the teeing area at the time of release constitutes a stance violation and shall be handled in accordance with sections 803.03 F, G and H. </font>


803.03 STANCE, <font color="red"> Subsequent to Teeing Off </font>
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 <font color="red"> (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, except when putting within 10 meters.

C. Any throw from within 10 meters or less, as measured from the rear of the marker disc to the base of the hole, is considered a putt. A follow-through after a putt that causes the thrower to make any supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the mini marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is not allowed. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

D. A player must choose the stance that will result in the least movement of any part of any obstacle that is a permanent or integral part of the course.

E. 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. </font>

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. 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.

G. 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.

H. The player may not retrieve the originally thrown disc prior to the re-throw<font color="red"> , except in the case of a putt from within 10 meters</font>. Where a disc is retrieved in violation of this rule, a one throw penalty shall be imposed without a warning.



Everything in red is an attempt to deal with other circumstances and issues; �teeing off�, �putting�, �negation of reach advantage�, �speed of play� or �out of bounds�. Separately they are reasonable amendments to the primary rule, taken together they represent 4 or more interpretations of properly playing a lie.

If you start from the basics, everything not in red, and cleared your mind of what was in red, and played a round only on that, what would be your observations as concerns the rules and play be? Try to be serious please, I know there are some strange possibilities (in the context of what are our learned expectations), but try to be imaginative but realistic in considering what play would be like.

Basketball draws lines on their courts. Free throw line and a 3 point line. Shoot behind the 3pt. line and you earn 3 pts.
College and Prof. lines are different. Draw a 10M circle around the hole. If your mark is behind the line you can use the jump putt option.

Ever try to make a 3pt shot, it requires a bit of a jump. The techniques are similar. It's easier to get a flat disc into a big basket, compared to a large ball going into a small circular rim.

That sort of hostility has no place on this board. I'm trying to have a civil discussion. Please excuse us.

Well I agree with you for most people, me unfortunately included, at this time, <font color="red">the misses tend to stay closer</font> so theoretically one can go for it with less fear of the come back putt. On the other hand when you putt it is a good idea to keep most of the body still and how are you gonna do that jumping like a fool?

I found the larger size, the thumbnail is now a link. One can see the height Avery gets on his disc. :eek:

http://www.centxdglove.com/uploads/David_mini_117hx153_CIMG075.jpg (http://www.centxdglove.com/uploads/Avery_Jumputt_web.jpg) Great for the spectators, too! :)



...to no one in particular: Maybe you can't execute like Mr. Avery, but that doesn't mean the jumputt is without merit!

The problem with jump putts is that, per photograhic and video evidence, many of them are illegal as the player has left the ground before letting go of the disc.

The problem with jump putts is that, per photograhic and video evidence, many of them are illegal as the player has left the ground before letting go of the disc.



Show me one.

What's the difference in the quality of results from jump putts made when a player releases when just about to leave the ground versus just barely off the ground? If it's just a timing issue and the results are essentially the same, it makes little sense to have one legal and the other illegal. I would rather see the athletic performance of players capable of making these jump throws as long as they release before another part of their body touches the ground after their properly placed supporting point leaves the ground. If they are inside 10m, they would have to demonstrate balance and still not touch the ground in front of their marker as with current rules. Outside 10m, they could leap toward the basket and land past their marker. I believe the sport needs to retain and even enhance this option to throw a more dynamic shot both for spectator interest and resulting videos.

One addition, it would be much easier for the group to make the call whether a player released before touching the ground again compared with the split second timing of the current rule.

If you want to change our current stance rules for spectator effect, well, good for you. But as it currently stands, you have to have a supporting point in contact with playing surface when you release.

Eliminating advancing past your mark would make the enforcement of this rule practical.

I could go with Chuck or Rhett, just not the current. Stop it completely or make it legal.

And now, video hilights of fade away jumpers over and around shubbery..

The problem with jump putts is that, per photograhic and video evidence, many of them are illegal as the player has left the ground before letting go of the disc.


Show me one.

Get your own copies of Disc TV.

Chuck, personally I agree. And I think the 2-meter rule is in a similar category. Imagine 12 million people waiting to see if Tiger's (Ken's) disc comes down out of that Red Cedar!

I would rather see the athletic performance of players capable of making these jump throws as long as they release before another part of their body touches the ground after their properly placed supporting point leaves the ground. If they are inside 10m, they would have to demonstrate balance and still not touch the ground in front of their marker as with current rules.

So effectively, inside 10m, one could jump forward a maximum of 30 cm. since a properly placed supporting point can be no more than 30 cm behind the rear edge of the marker disc, and one would have to demonstrate balance before touching the ground in front of the marker?

And if you disagree ... YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!

Thank you. I suspected that was the case but I was not sure yet.



Glad I could help you make up your mind.

Actually, that line was just an attempt to insert a little humor into this discussion. I hoped it would be absurd enough that people would take it as a joke. Not sure if it came off that way � but no offense intended to anyone.

Forward directed jump putts inside of 10m would only be slightly less restricted than they are now. Where I see them used inside 10m would be where a player could leap sideways left or right to get a better angle at the basket from behind a fir tree or bush and maybe even use an upside down toss or forehand release. I think a well executed shot like that whether inside or outside 10m would look very exciting for players and fans. I would even design pin placements to provide that opportunity.

The problem with jump putts is that, per photograhic and video evidence, many of them are illegal as the player has left the ground before letting go of the disc.


Show me one.

Get your own copies of Disc TV.


Still waiting...

Illegal jump putts are illegal, legal ones are not, simple.

I tend to agree with Chuck in making disc throwing more dynamic rather than more boring and restricted.

Personally I have never seen a player in competition "clearly" leap off the ground and then throw the disc. And being the zealot I am about rules I'm even watching for such things and will more than likely call an illegal one (if I ever get to see one).

And let's say we made it legal to do such a thing, who is it going to hurt. Do you suppose there was an uproar about the first time a player took a jumpshot in basketball, or a forward pass in football, I'm quite sure someone probably said,

"OH NO! This will mean the end of our sport!!! It can't be allowed!"

The problem with jump putts is that, per photograhic and video evidence, many of them are illegal as the player has left the ground before letting go of the disc.


Show me one.

Get your own copies of Disc TV.



Oh yeah, and I have about 3 of them, and 16 years of video tape and DVDs. Still waiting to see a jump then putt shot in competition. If you have a clear case of one let's see it.

I would rather see the athletic performance of players capable of making these jump throws as long as they release before another part of their body touches the ground after their properly placed supporting point leaves the ground. If they are inside 10m, they would have to demonstrate balance and still not touch the ground in front of their marker as with current rules.

So effectively, inside 10m, one could jump forward a maximum of 30 cm. since a properly placed supporting point can be no more than 30 cm behind the rear edge of the marker disc, and one would have to demonstrate balance before touching the ground in front of the marker?

Chuck your post #296478 didn't actually address/contradict this.

fore, please define "forward"...I think it would be OK to jump more than 30 CM forward [north/south,LOP] if there was enough East/West involved. Forward and to the side, yet still no closer than from rear edge marker to target.

...but I'm not quite clear on what constitudes 'advancing'. I'm think advancing = <font color="red">making contact</font> in the circle defined by the rear marker, etc. Just crossing over it is OK. Balance, etc.

I think Chuck and Dave are on the right track. Now how do we get it done?

fore, please define "forward"

Stand facing the basket. Forward is the direction you are facing.

I think it would be OK to jump more than 30 CM forward [north/south,LOP] if there was enough East/West involved. Forward and to the side, yet still no closer than from rear edge marker to target.

As I have stated before, my tendency is to interpret the rules strictly. Given that 803.03.C forbids contact "closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc" (italics mine) rather than "closer to the hole than the circumference of of a circle whose radius is defined by the base of the hole and the rear edge of the marker disc," I interpret the language of 803.03 to mean that contact is not permitted closer to the hole than the line tangent to the rear edge of the marker disc, perpendicular to the LOP.

(Even if one were to grant a less strict interpretation, however, my guess is that there violations than non-violations since most players have no realistic idea of how far one would have to stretch/step/jump E/W to reduce the N-S distance from the basket by 1" (as measured at the LOP) while maintaining the radius defined by the base of the hole and the rear edge of the marker disc, in order to be able to execute a legal "forward and sideways" jump putt or judge whether or not a "forward and sideways" jump putt was legal. (In other words, given a circle of radius = 32'-10", what are the cosines for sin = 32'-9", 32'-8", 32'-7", 32'-6", etc., respectively?)

To reduce the N-S distance from 32'-10" (10m) to 32'-9" while still staying outside the 32'10" radius, the E-W component of the jump/step would have to be at least 2'-4"; to reduce the N-S distance by 2" (to 32-8"), the E/W component would be at least 3'-4 1/2"; to reduce the N-S distance by 6" (to 32'-4"), the E-W component would be at least 5'-8 1/2".)

That 30.01 forward CM leap might be more of a feat near the edge of the circle...[?].

...as the distance to the pin aproaches 30.00 CM after the mark [rear of mini], it would only be something like �1/2 pi X distance-to-pin, +width of the mini, ballparkly? Small amounts, smaller than a meager standing long jump. Half a straddle stance. That's a one-foot hokey pokey, feasible even for Mr. no-quick-twitch fiber muscles here. Or...is the 30.00 a math truism in the strictest interpretation, no exceptions? :confused:

As I have stated before, my tendency is to interpret the rules strictly. Given that 803.03.C forbids contact "closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc" (italics mine) rather than "closer to the hole than the circumference of of a circle whose radius is defined by the base of the hole and the rear edge of the marker disc,"

This could also be interpreted as the "straddle foot" has to be closer to the marker than the target. That could 'outlaw' some stances which could be assumed in very close proximity to the target.

...I'm seeing the "non-contact zone" as a circle, yes. A circle with a radius defined by the 'no closer' bit being a measure of distance; that is, not a fixed point.

...I'm going to try and take a snapshot today to illustrate the point.
I'm arguing that the 'straddle foot' can go anywhere except a circle; I think fore's saying, roughly, half the playing surface, with a hemisphere removed. That would eliminate the "longlegs, straddle the basket=OK" argument.

The wording is "no closer". That defines a circle.

Thanks; I'll try and pay attention to the vernacular; I try and avoid 'stroke', for instance. ;)

If I have long legs, and straddle the target, my contact point which is NOT behind the marker is closer to the target than it is to the point behind marker, on the LOP. That's what I THINK fore's talking about.

If I interpret this correctly, Chuck, you and Nick think that it will be somehow more exciting if people are allowed to take leaps into the air during their jump putts sort of like in the NBA. An interesting concept, do you know that it wasn't that long ago that there was no spring board on the pommel horse in gymnastics. Yep, you had leap onto the horse using your own two legs or arms. In light of this I think that players should be allowed to carry a spring-board and utilize it when putting; after all, it wasn't that long ago that there was no forward pass. This way, anything within 60 feet becomes a beautifully executed slam-dunk. The aerial shots will be magnificent; and it'll look great on T.V., when played back in slow-mo. The fans will love it.


Whatever happened to the idea that a beautifully executed putt shot or up shot that either almost falls in or does fall in is a thing of beauty? Why is it that the only measure of beauty is sheer athleticism that may or may not have anything to do with skill and practice at the game of disc golf? I'll take Markus' 35foot uphill putt on 7 (I think) in the finals of the 2003 Worlds over a flying leap. I'll take the putting display put on by Climo and Shultz at the 2003 USDGC during the sudden death playoffs over an extra leap or two. Those displays of skill and talent define beauty in this sport for me.

Also, if you are going to argue to make the jump putt - as un-callable as it is in terms of legality - universal, please don't use beauty as your primary argument. I've seen a number of them and most looked awkward and ungainly.

One other thing, the fact that you can't tell if someone released before or after his or her feet left the ground seems a poor argument that the jump putt should stay. The fact that it can't be called suggests it should be eliminated, i.e. make it legal to have both feet off the ground or make the shot illegal.

Personally, I like the idea of allowing the player to jump as high as they want� they just have to come down behind their marker. They do that in the NBA too. :D

What makes you think that a jump putt doesn't require skill? It's still a putt. I still have to fly the disc into the basket the same as everyone else. Nothing changes.

Whatever happened to the idea that a beautifully executed putt shot or up shot that either almost falls in or does fall in is a thing of beauty?
<font color="red">I don't think anyone said or imlied that a good attempt or a made putt was not a thing of beauty </font>
Why is it that the only measure of beauty is sheer athleticism that may or may not have anything to do with skill and practice at the game of disc golf? <font color="red">It is not the only measure of beauty...It's obvious that you can't jump putt </font>

Also, if you are going to argue to make the jump putt - as un-callable as it is in terms of legality - universal, please don't use beauty as your primary argument. I've seen a number of them and most looked awkward and ungainly. <font color="red">The awkward and ungainly attempts should not be your primary argument. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>

The wording is "no closer". That defines a circle.

No, it can define a circle, but it doesn't necessarily do so. The wording is "No closer than THE REAR EDGE OF THE MARKER DISC." The point at which the rear edge of the marker disc intersects the LOP can denote either a radius [/i]or[/i] the intersection of a line perpendicular to the LOP. The question is which is the preferred understanding. The Rulebook provides no specific guidance on that question. Unless and until the RC rules otherwise, I will continue to hold the stricter interpretation.

What ever happened to keeping the game the way it was intended to be played? I highly doubt that the creators/legends of the game intended someone to be able to jump 4-5 feet either way to get around an obstacle that was probabley incorporated into the hole to make it a little more difficult--you play it where it lies. We need to keep this sport from becoming so complicated that every person has to have a rule book due to the sheer volume of rules--it's nice knowing everything's a par three--it's nice knowing your foot has to be ON THE GROUND behind your marker when the disc is released--and it's nice explaining these simplicities to newbies without confusing them--disc selection and throwing style can be confusing to new players as it is. It might be time to seperate the recreational golfer from the tournament golfer w/ different rule books--when your playing for fun w/ friends or when you're in a tourney--the lines seem to be getting blurred. The rec. rule book could be simple and the tourney rule book can get as complicated as everyone wants--because it's only used during a tourney. As it stands we have one rule book for everyone w/ additions every year--and it seems to be going towards tourney rules every year.
And the jump putt rule needs to be changed--there should be no foward movement or follow thru past your marker period--at any point on the course. Everybody keeps using ball golf as an analogy--a player can "follow thru" or past their mark in that sport--but everybody keeps forgetting that our "ball" is in our hands and is not a fixed point like a ball in golf and thus our supporting points are the only things that can be accountable as to reference of our release point. I suggest that the area behind the marker where a person's supporting point can end up be increased to 2 meters which would allow a "jump putt" and still end up behind their marker accounting for follow thru and also allow for relief from objects or oak and such. I think this is the most viable change that would accommodate most people and keep individual styles intact.
Disc On!!! :D

Considering the roots of our sport is throwing and catching the disc, which involves running and jumping, it seems like we should find ways to embrace more athleticism within the framework of the rules. Ultimate and overall players just laugh when they think about most disc golfers trying to do the self caught flight or, heaven forbid, discathon events.

But Chuck, that's the roots of THOSE sports, even though we use the same items for all intensive purposes. I know DG came from those days but Disc golf has never been about catching a thrown disc, DG has always been about stroke play to an object from where the disc comes to rest. So what cha think about the 2 meter rule behind the marker--would solve a lot, no? Keep up the good work--to all at the PDGA

I agree Chuck...I came from a skateboard and baseball background. I never even picked up a frisbee (Even though I was born and raised in San Diego, blocks from the beach) until a little over two years ago when my friend strong armed me to the course. I thought "Frisbee golf" was *** until I saw someone throw a "Frisbee" over 400'. Two years later I am addicted as one can be. Mainly due to the fact that it is as highly athletic as it is mentally challenging. I think that the "creators/legends" intended the sport to evolve like all other sports. Football's forward pass...Baseball's breaking ball...Skateboarding's ollie...Disc Golf's roller, thumber, jump putt (ahem) If someone is able to jump 4-5 feet either way to get around an obstacle that was probably incorporated into the hole to make it a little more difficult, then GREAT!!! I want to see an awesome display of mental forsight blended with dexterity. I love it when I sink a 50' jump putt...LEGALLY.

Let the sport of DISC GOLF grow...or go play catch with a "Frisbee" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The wording is "no closer". That defines a circle.

No, it can define a circle, but it doesn't necessarily do so. The wording is "No closer than THE REAR EDGE OF THE MARKER DISC." The point at which the rear edge of the marker disc intersects the LOP can denote either a radius [/i]or[/i] the intersection of a line perpendicular to the LOP. The question is which is the preferred understanding. The Rulebook provides no specific guidance on that question. Unless and until the RC rules otherwise, I will continue to hold the stricter interpretation.


http://www.centxdglove.com/uploads/Lie_fore_minis_thumb.JPGMany ways to carve that Venn stance pie...I think everyone can presume the playing surface qualifies as "an object".

"Closer to the hole" and 'forward' are not the same word[s].

I can definitively see your guys points but what about playing from where the disc comes to rest--you're talking about playing it 4-5 feet from where it came to rest--can I just then walk 4 feet left and throw my shot--no--so why should U be able to jump 4 feet left and shoot. What ever happened to making a smart and athletic shot around or over the bush--or is that to hard??? I think U guys have good points though.
How'd U like like that crushing of Socal at Sant Maria by the hands of Norcal--a sight to behold---Norcal rules!!!--but it's all California golf in the end :cool:

I can definitively see your guys points but what about playing from where the disc comes to rest--you're talking about playing it 4-5 feet from where it came to rest--can I just then walk 4 feet left and throw my shot--no--so why should U be able to jump 4 feet left and shoot. What ever happened to making a smart and athletic shot around or over the bush--or is that to hard??? I think U guys have good points though.
How'd U like like that crushing of Socal at Sant Maria by the hands of Norcal--a sight to behold---Norcal rules!!!--but it's all California golf in the end :cool:



That's exactly what I am talking about...Playing it where it lies. As long as the disc left my hand before I left my mark, and as long as I am more than 33'+ out, I can/will use my athletic ability to drop it like it's hot.

And as far as the "crushing of Socal at Santa Maria by the hands of Norcal" It was because I was not there to represent the 619...But you're right-it's all California golf in the end :cool:

Whatever happened to the idea that a beautifully executed putt shot or up shot that either almost falls in or does fall in is a thing of beauty?
<font color="red">I don't think anyone said or implied that a good attempt or a made putt was not a thing of beauty </font>

To me, it seemed the idea was implicit in the observation that the shot will be more athletic if you incorporate a leap into it. That is, the shot is better with the jump, more entertaining, and enhanced. However, I can see how that was unclear so let me restate: why is it that the shot is somehow better if it has a jump incorporated into it?


Why is it that the only measure of beauty is sheer athleticism that may or may not have anything to do with skill and practice at the game of disc golf? <font color="red">It is not the only measure of beauty...It's obvious that you can't jump putt </font>


Why is it that those who support this rule assume that those who oppose it can't do it? It's just another skill that many of us have mastered. Our opposition to it isn't because we're afraid that those who can are suddenly going to start winning all the tournaments. Rather our opposition is in the fact that making a clear call as to the legality of the shot is difficult, if not impossible. That is why many others and I have written that we need to eliminate the rule or make it legal to have both feet off the ground.


Also, if you are going to argue to make the jump putt - as un-callable as it is in terms of legality - universal, please don't use beauty as your primary argument. I've seen a number of them and most looked awkward and ungainly. <font color="red">The awkward and ungainly attempts should not be your primary argument. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>


Indeed that is not my primary argument (please see above and previous posts), rather my comment was in response to those who have posted on more than one occasion that the jump putt is this exciting event that is "marketable" to a viewing audience. I simply think that might be an overstatement given my observation that it often isn't an exciting beautifully expedited event.








Finally, the idea that disc golf needs to be more athletic is, amusing to me. The nature of the sport is such that it really is not hugely athletic in the way it plays. Should I feel bad that other Frisbee players look down on me because I don't leap and catch a disc between my legs while playing? Should I feel bad because I don't score points in the same way that an ultimate player does? Disc golf is what it is; trying to make it into ultimate or some other disc sport seems unnecessary; after all, those sports already exist. The idea of making the sport more athletic simply for the sake of making it more athletic to... I don't know, prove something, seems like a waste of time?

BTW - if you need more athleticism in your disc golf, try speed golf. I run a 6mile loop over which I have laid out 24 holes. It is highly athletic with a 1.5mile warm up, 3 miles of holes, and a 1.5mile cool down. I fully agree that being physically fit makes one a better disc golfer but I don't really think it is a necessary element of the game any more than it is a necessary element of ball golf or darts for that matter. <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font>

If you truly want to keep true to the roots of our sport and never let anything change, then put away all your modern discs (Aviar and anything after) and play with Wham-O's and maybe a Super Puppy. Have fun.

Allowing jump putts would be similar to dunking in basketball. Not everyone can or prefers to do it but the rules provide for this athletic option. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a sport to provide for optional athletic moves if it can be done appropriately and fairly. Just because the option is available doesn't mean everyone will use it, just like many don't throw forehands or rollers.

Don't you think that this would put off a huge amount of potential DGers? I mean how intimidating would it be for an unathletic beginner to show up at a DG course to see people slam dunking discs after 4m leaps etc? They'd just walk away, thinking "This sport's not for me".

One of the key points we use on our promo fliers (BDGA) is that it is a good form of low impact exercise. I appreciate that it isn't compulsary, but how can you get that over to a newbie?

Do you think that watching a 7-footer slam dunk a basketball puts off people from playing basketball because they'll never get that tall? If it does, then maybe they'll consider disc golf where the basket is lower :D

That's a tossy answer, and the smiley shows you know it. How many 20 stone 5'10" men do you see playing basketball? None, cos it's too athletic for them.
We have a game that virtually anyone can play, which is one of its greatest merits. Why take that away?

Eliminating this rule will lead to chaos with rule calling. Also, IMO, having people slam discs into the basket is retarded. Putting is a skill unique to our sport. Why on earth would anyone want to replace putting with slam dunks is beyond me.

However, I understand people appreciating long jump putts as I agree it takes alot of skill and the skill still resembles putting. But allowing it from a short distance?

Perhaps you don't have it in the UK but we have active wheelchair basketball leagues here. Recreational and intramural basketball leagues are popular with I suspect many more players under 5'10" than over 6'5".

Changing the rule so players have to release before part of their body touches the ground again will barely be a ripple in our game. Here and there you might see a shot that wasn't legal before. But to dramatize this simple tweak as turning disc golf into some high energy activity just isn't the case.

But allowing it from a short distance?



Maybe there's some cross talk on here with other proposals but I'm still saying players would have to land no closer to the basket when leaping from within the 10m line.

Changing the rule so players have to release before part of their body touches the ground again will barely be a ripple in our game.



It would be a helluva lot more than a ripple. You act like allowing someone to slam dunk a disc is some kind of athletic achievement, when it is really a crutch for someone who can't hit a ten footer. My god, are people so weak with their short putting that they now want to slam dunk those ten footers?

I am trying to picture how a player is going to "Slam Dunk" a disc into a 32" basket without first touching the ground forward of their marker. I do not see a graceful landing happening.

I doubt you would see many people jumping vertically within 10m to putt unless it was from behind a bush. The slam dunk leaping forward within 10m would not be allowed. Within 50 feet of the basket, I see it being used to jump sideways or straight up when behind a fir tree, bush, fence or other obstacle. And, it would make all current style jump putts, that are usually from beyond 10m, legal.

I apologize for my laziness in thread reading and comprehension. I heard Chuck mention slam dunking and I went crazy. :p

We do. How many of them play in the NBA? None. And I said 20 stone, 5' 10". It was an attempt to characterise a type of person who wouldn't play, without resorting to the term "lard-@rse", but maybe it's easier if I do :D

That said, have you ever tried pulling off one of these manouvers? I'm an athletic person, played loads of ultimate etc. I tried a sideways falling putt the other day whilst practicing, as I realised it's a completely legal way to get around an obstacle. After 5 minutes trying from about 10', I gave up cos I'd made none. You simply need to be balanced to throw accurately.

My appologies, I have been out of the loop since the holidays.

So the 2 meter rule drop I take it has been postponed? The rule that was to change Jan 1? Is that becauce new rule books need to be made and sent?

Oops wrong topic ...sorry

Just because we don't have the skills doesn't mean we should legislate against those who might have them. I guarantee there are places where jumping straight up to throw over something and get out of trouble occurs often enough that it will occasionally be useful even for those less athletic players with a 3" vertical leap. But even excluding the possible new shots some might try with a modified rule, the main purpose for modifying it is to get away from making tricky timing calls for the conventional jump putts that got this thread started.

I want to jump from 10 feet.

You do jump from 10 feet ! :D
At least it looks that way ....

If you jump from 10 feet, and land behind your mark and dispaly balance? Is that OK?

If you jump from 10 feet, and land behind your mark and dispaly balance? Is that OK?



Yes, but under current rules you would have to release before your support foot left the ground.

Cool.

Thanks.

I think I've done that.

Especially when TDs do really cool stuff like put baskets on top of tree stumps :o ????

Let's all keep this clear, any shot, even one where you were "newly" permitted to jump towards the target within 10 meters you would still have to have a point of support on your lie at the point of release. Under our current rules, there is absolutely no permissable way to jump up in the air and then throw.

In disc golf we are not limited by our lie in the way ball golf is. We do not have to worry about the texture and make up of materials immediately surrounding the place where the ball came to rest. The main and primary restriction in disc golf is that we must have a point of support on that lie upon release. "That" is our equivalent to their "playing it where it lies".

Agreed, but I also don't think we should throw in extra rules to allow things that no one is trying to do.
Personally, I think there are much better ways to achieve getting away from the tricky timing issue. With your proposal, you'll only have the same issue with whether or not they had landed, rather than whether they'd taken off.

Just because we don't have the skills doesn't mean we should legislate against those who might have them. I guarantee there are places where jumping straight up to throw over something and get out of trouble occurs often enough that it will occasionally be useful even for those less athletic players with a 3" vertical leap. But even excluding the possible new shots some might try with a modified rule, the main purpose for modifying it is to get away from making tricky timing calls for the conventional jump putts that got this thread started.



I hate this logic. Do we have to assess all the athletic skills present to the human race and incorporate them into disc golf? Just because someone has a skill doesn't mean we have to allow it in the sport.

Once again, this is not about the skills required (I know that�s only part of what you�re saying). It's about making a clear call on a questionable practice. The day all jump putts are clear and obviously legal to an informed viewer is the day that that I will sit back and say, "Wow! Nice jump putt." Until then all the athleticism in the world is irrelevant. Now, it seems, and I want to make sure, that you're saying to make it legal to have both feet off the ground at release so as to eliminate the problem. If so then you have to accept slam-dunks and guys taking huge leaps towards the basket. Are you supporting that? Alternatively, are you supporting that both feet can leave the ground but that the player can't advance towards the basket beyond their mark? I can accept the second choice.

Totally. I mean, just because a good pool or snooker player could lie down on a ball golf green and pot his ball instead of putt it, doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow it under the rules.
You don't need to jump forwards to throw a disc 30', 40', or 200', there are plenty of other ways to do it, mostly through some variation of waving your arm around, as was intended when discs were invented...

You currently cannot advance toward the basket inside 10m but can outside 10m after release. I'm suggesting the same difference remain between inside/outside 10m. However, the point of reference would change to where a supporting point lands after release versus before release as it is now. Specifically, if you're inside 10m you would not be allowed to land closer to the basket after release. If you're outside 10m then you would be allowed to land closer to the basket after release.

Well, presumably, you'd never be able to land within 10m.
ie if you're 10.1m away, you can't take a running jump inwards, but if you're 13m away, you can jump up to 3m closer.
Can anyone else see this getting even more awkward to call than the current rules?
"You landed before you released"
or
"You landed 9.9m away"
"No I didn't, I landed 10.1m away, but my momentum made me step forward a bit"

Or within 10m
"You jumped 0.02m closer to the basket"
or
"You jumped sideways then fell towards the basket, is that a falling putt?"

Frankly, it's a ridiculous suggestion if your proposing it to make the rules easier to call...

I hate this logic. Do we have to assess all the athletic skills present to the human race and incorporate them into disc golf? Just because someone has a skill doesn't mean we have to allow it in the sport.




Ya, talented athletic people suck! It's not fair! They're all tall and stuff.

Who wants to see people do amazing things with their bodies? All they do is make the rest of use feel inadequete, (or inspired depending on how you look at it)

Disc Golf should be more like montesory school, beacuse after all, montesory school is so much like life.

Hmmm,

Have to think about it, but... (there's always a but) is it fair that a guy at 10 meters 1 cm gets to leap into 6 meters but a guy at 9 meters 99 cm doesn't? Before you answer, I've always thought the 1..99 meter vs 2 meter argument was a bad one. Some measurements are just what they are, and I suspect a 12 foot leap combined with an 18 foot putt will result in a missed shot, but I wanted to hear what you thought.

We already do amazing things. Even the very best Ultimate players are completely wowed watching a golfer rip out a 450'+ drive, and they already know what athletic disc sports are about.

I'm wowed watching the very best Ulty players rip a 350' drive with an Utra Star.

I'm not, it's clear out the back of the endzone and a turnover ;)

:D

I was kidding....

Fair ???

"Life isn't fair" -John F. Kennedy (no relation to Chuck)

There are many thing sin life we can not control, many things that are not "fair"

It is those inequties or situation that make for great moments in the human experiance, where the "disadvanteged" find ways to over come.

When the under 6 foot guy wins the Dunk contest. Way cooler than when the 8 foot guy wins it don't you think?

We should embrace those moments and try to make more of them, and ourselves, not less.

Growth comes from avderstiy, not complacency

I hate this logic. Do we have to assess all the athletic skills present to the human race and incorporate them into disc golf? Just because someone has a skill doesn't mean we have to allow it in the sport.





Ya, talented athletic people suck! It's not fair! They're all tall and stuff.

Who wants to see people do amazing things with their bodies? All they do is make the rest of use feel inadequete, (or inspired depending on how you look at it)

Disc Golf should be more like montesory school, beacuse after all, montesory school is so much like life.



I'm all for athleticism, I just don't feel compelled to add every type of athletic move into this sport. If I want a workout I run or lift (and lifting has added over 30 feet to my average distance). If I want a ball sport I play soccer. I still fail to see why it is necessary to change the sport to add athletic moves or how my postion on that somehow implies that I don't like athleticisim. I also fail to see how the incorporation of "athletic" moves will make disc golf better.

However, I will say that you guys would have made good Spartans!

On the other hand, this still misses the point. You can't easily tell if the jump putt is legal in many (most?) cases. That has nothing to do with athleticism (well perhaps if you have superior eye reflexes you might be able to make a better call) and is the basis of this discussion.

I'm amazed by anybody who can sprint for 60 minutes :D

...because I was not there to represent the 619...


Dude, you live in 760. You have to cross the 858 in order to even get to the 619.

If you want to be cool, you should call it "the 714". Because we all used to be that way back when. :)

Rhett why are you on this thread Ive seen you play .Youve never made any fifty foot putts jump or not. :D:D:D

But I get a lot of a drop-ins after those 50 foot attempts!

hahahahahahahahahaha

I'm all for athleticism, I just don't feel compelled to add every type of athletic move into this sport



Well that's just it to me.

Humans compete or participate in sports kind for the same reasons we do Art. It doesn't have to be done, but it expands the posibilites of how see ourselves on this planet, and what we can achieve.

So some where way back when, someone wrote sci-fi about humans being able to fly around the world in juts a shor time, and some years latter, some one invented a airplane, and now we actually do it. Then someone wrote about putting a man on the moon, and we did that too. But you have to be able to look beyond yourself.

Similar, to me any way, sports are an opportuniy to strecth the human potential. No one ever though a huma could run a 4 minute mile when I was a kid, now that mark ahs been shattered. No one ever thought a woman would break par at Delaveaga, and at the 1999 Faultline Julianna did it. It was a great moment, that I persoanlly will never forget.

So when you say

I'm all for athleticism, I just don't feel compelled to add every type of athletic move into this sport



That's either a contradiction of terms, or sport I wopuld rather not play or watch.

It would be like banning MJ from pro basketball because he could do so many things that others could not.

Whereas, without him, there would not be a whole new generation of kids who aspire to do really incredible things on the court that have not been done before. They are taking the entire sport to a new level, and in some ways, they take all of us with them.

Example, before the 70's I don;t think any one could dunk the ball? Now you ccan hardly make it in the Pros if you cant make it to the rim. Granted, we are on average slightly taller, but it has more to do with training, expaneded leap, and most importantly the belief that we can do it. Just like when you need to make a big putt, it helps a whole lot to believe you can do it first.


No?

Your examples are essentially people that excelled in their sport. I don't imagine Lyle is opposed to seing someone demonstrate more talent than Climo or Schultz, just that it is more impressive when they are playing by the same rules (ie. playing the same sport).

Anyways, I don't know what the hell this thread is about anyway. I personally can't imagine any move that can be accomplished within the present contact rules that wouldn't result in numerous foot fault calls. What kind of things are y'all talking about anyway. My imigination is lacking. If you are simply talking about allowing jump putts within 10m, please don't couch it as some demonstration of superior athleticism.

That's either a contradiction of terms, or a sport I would rather not play or watch.



Why? Disc golf in and of itself is very challenging. It requires great athleticism and the better the athlete the better his or her game. There is a reason a lot of the better players in our sport have experience in tennis and baseball.

The notion that we have to add to the athleticism seems misplaced to me. It's like saying it's not good enough that Sandstrom (sp?) can tourque his body so hard that he can throw a disc 250 meters. It's like saying that Barry's ability to throw a bomb 400 ft and lay it within 30 feet of the basket is not skillful or athletic. I will compare what the best in our sport can do with what Michael can do any day. Given the extreme athleticism that is required to excell in our sport as it is, I don't see why we need to change it to allow jumping or some other athletic ability that is unnecessary.

BTW - years of watching Mike and other NBA stars taught me one thing; if you are a superstar you get an extra step, an extra flop, an extra foul beyond what other players get. Not to take anything away from Jordan and others but a large number of their "exteme" moves were/are illegal but tolerated in their sport. Nonetheless, what those superstars can is phenomenal. As I just wrote, so is what Barry and Ken can do. However, if it were easy we would all be doing it. To say that we somehow have to make it more athletic because it isn't enough is to denigrate what the superstars in our sport can do. It also seems to show a basic bias towards sport that says unless you go out and jump, run or hit someone, it's not really sports. I disagree with that philosophy. I think athletic skill comes in many forms including a keen eye, a fast release and one heck of a rip. Most certainly I don't exclude a firm grip, a quick flip and chains rattling from 30 feet.

Your examples are essentially people that excelled in their sport. I don't imagine Lyle is opposed to seing someone demonstrate more talent than Climo or Schultz, just that it is more impressive when they are playing by the same rules (ie. playing the same sport).

Anyways, I don't know what the hell this thread is about anyway. I personally can't imagine any move that can be accomplished within the present contact rules that wouldn't result in numerous foot fault calls. What kind of things are y'all talking about anyway. My imigination is lacking. If you are simply talking about allowing jump putts within 10m, please don't couch it as some demonstration of superior athleticism.



Hear hear! Now why couldn't I have said that. :D

If I want a workout I run or lift (and lifting has added over 30 feet to my average distance).

ummm... skip the weights and work on your upshots :) :D:D

If I want a workout I run or lift (and lifting has added over 30 feet to my average distance).

ummm... skip the weights and work on your upshots :) :D:D



Sagan knows I could use a good upshot... Not to mention a putt. :D

Wow.

Now you're argueing my side of the fence?

Which leads me to believe a discussion with you is pointless as you use the same terms to mean different things.

never mind

"Closer to the hole" and 'forward' are not the same word[s].

You're right: "Closer to the hole" is not the same words as "forward"; it's an inference based on the sentence in 803.03.C that immediately follows the one in which the concept of "no closer to the hole" occurs:
The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole."

Given that the principal definition of "advance" is "v - to bring forward, to move forward," it seemed to me a perfectly reasonable inference to make, but since you clearly failed to grasp the connection, I suppose it was reckless of me to think so. :D

Well, presumably, you'd never be able to land within 10m.

Why not? Under the current rule, a player is allowed to step past the marker disc after the thrown disc is released if his/her lie is outside 10m, so why would it be different if jump putts were permitted?

I do agree that it complicates, rather than simplifies, rules enforcement.

...because I was not there to represent the 619...


Dude, you live in 760. You have to cross the 858 in order to even get to the 619.

If you want to be cool, you should call it "the 714". Because we all used to be that way back when. :)



Rhett, I'm well aware of the area code that I just moved to...My location-619-is a state of mind...I was born and raised in San Diego...You can keep 858, 714, and 760...And if you want to be cool, don't try to correct me. :D

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

Given that the principal definition of "advance" is "v - to bring forward, to move forward," it seemed to me a perfectly reasonable inference to make, but since you clearly failed to grasp the connection, I suppose it was reckless of me to think so. :D

[/QUOTE]
I'm glad for that 'smiley', because if it all were so simple, how to explain differences in interpretations? Some of you in disagreement are zealots, so it couldn't be just [lack of] experience, or passion, or knowledge.

...actually, I believe it's 803.03A[2] where the wording first is found: (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...".

Then, section B mentions "stepping past the marker", no mention of 'closer to hole'. It isn't until section C where falling putts [10m calls] is addressed. Then it's roughly the same exact wording as 803.03 A[2]. This is where 'advancing' [illegal falling] is [at present] a strict no-no. That's the idea, anyways. What is/isn't advancing isn't as yet in universal agreement. I understand I can fall some places, but not others. Where, specifically? Some say not past a perpendicular line to LOP. I see more a 'circle of fire' to avoid. I think that's what the rule about stance says, too.

OK, something for all whom care to think about: <font color="red">no mention of LOP requirements</font> for additional support points [ASIDE from the one required to be legal]. So, "have no supporting point contact...closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc" isn't tied to an orientation with the LOP, so...it sure seems to me to be a measure of DISTANCE, not the location of a LINE SEGMENT.

And just for fore: If strict interpretation is so keen, how do you explain those 'colourful' interpretations for marking a disc? You know, INSERTING=placing, directly in line with the hole DOES NOT=LOP, for instance...from the "tombstone" thread...those interpretations seemed to be "taking liberties" in wordings/ommitted wording. "In line with the hole" was so persuasive, I started using it myself! :D

I'm glad for that 'smiley', because if it all were so simple, how to explain differences in interpretations?

Easy: some of us are right; the rest of you just don't realize (or won't admit) it yet. :p :p :p


OK, something for all whom care to think about: <font color="red">no mention of LOP requirements</font> for additional support points [ASIDE from the one required to be legal].

Actually, it does: 803.03.A(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"

(Check the definition of "supporting point.")


So, "have no supporting point contact...closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc" isn't tied to an orientation with the LOP, so...it sure seems to me to be a measure of DISTANCE, not the location of a LINE SEGMENT.

Again, the issue what is meant by "closer to the hole": if the rear edge of the marker disc is 20'-0" due South of the center of the target, may a secondary supporting point be placed at 19'-0" South and 6'-3" East or West of the LOP (the dimensions are correct to 1/16") without violating 803.03.C? Common sense leads to the conclusion that it is not permitted, since 19'-0" is closer to the hole than 20'-0", despite the fact that the direct line distance from the center of the target is 20'-0 1/16".


And just for fore: If strict interpretation is so keen, how do you explain those 'colourful' interpretations for marking a disc?[QUOTE]
You know, INSERTING=placing, directly in line with the hole DOES NOT=LOP, for instance...from the "tombstone" thread...those interpretations seemed to be "taking liberties" in wordings/ommitted wording. "In line with the hole" was so persuasive, I started using it myself! :D


Apparently, you are equating "strict interpretation" with "narrow reading." Strict interpretation has to do with one's interpretive philosophy and the method(s) one uses, [/i]i.e.,[/i] how one goes about deciding what a text (in this case, a rule) means. A "reading" has to do with that a text "means": in this case, how a rule is to be applied, what it permits and/or prohibits.

It is often the case that a strict interpretive philosophy yields an expansive reading, just as an expansive interpretive philosophy may yield a strict reading. Again, it's a matter of method vs. outcome.

So, e.g., in the case of whether or not "directly in line with the hole" = LOP, I would direct your attention to the definition of LOP, bearing in mind that in disc golf, "hole" is a commonly used synonym�including within the rulebook itself (see, e.g., 803.04.B, 803.12, etc.�for "target." You will also note that the definition specifies that that the LOP extends from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond. Consequently, as I have argued elsewhere, the LOP does not exist until the marker disc is placed. (That is true even in the case that the thrown disc is used as the marker disc, because the thrown disc does not [/i]become[/i] the marker disc until the player elects to use it as such.) Therefore, it follows that "directly in line with the hole" cannot equal "LOP" because, by definition, the LOP does not exist prior to the placement of the marker disc. Consequently, the sole requirements for placing the marker disc are that it be placed:

� on the playing surface;
� between the hole and the [thrown] disc;
� directly in line with the hole;
� touching the thrown disc.

That's it. Period. Nothing about the position of the marker disc with respect to the center of the thrown disc or the point of the thrown disc closest to the hole. There are no other requirements. Any placement that satisfies all four of these criteria is permissible. A marker disc placed at 2:00 or 11:00 satisfies the requirements every bit as much as one placed at 12:00.

A strict interpretation, then, disallows the assumption that "directly in line with the hole" = "centered on the line between the center of the target and the center of the thrown disc" or " centered on the line touching the point of the thrown disc closest to the hole." So while the application ("reading") is quite expansive, the interpretive philosophy is strict, in that it disallows (possibly) unwarranted (and therefore, illegitimate) assumptions to foreclose what is plausibly a permissible marker placement.

I suggest that you go back and read my post on 08/14/04, paying particular attention to my statement:
Incidentally, I should note that I am NOT arguing that this is or should be common interpretation, only that the rules, as currently written, permit such an interpretation. (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Rules%20&%20Standards&Number=223657&Searchpage=0&Main=223443&Search=true&#Post223657)



IMO, responsible interpreters, whatever their interpretive philosophy, have a moral (in the Socratic sense) obligation to grapple with the best argument that can be made for the various alternative interpretations, some of which may be more plausible than others, and to adopt the one the interpreter judges to be most plausible: if a stronger case can be made for a more expansive interpretation than a restrictive one, so be it. Given that, I am quite willing, in the context of rules discussions, to advocate and defend plausible interpretations that I would not be prepared to adopt in a tournament setting.

Felix, that was excellent. Only 50% of me feels this is a good move, but I simply must ask: what is your position on the 2 meter rule and its future elimination as a default rule?

fore, you rock like a superstar; that's a keeper. I much appreciate your forensics. And yes, I got your allegory of 'place' in the marker reasoning, some time ago. That's how I do it now, I guess I'm 'smart enough' :oon that one, but I still have to disagree with your 803.03A2 'interpretive philosophy and the method(s)'. It seems cicular, you're pasting in your definition of 'closer' to validate your definition of the ruling's wording.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, something for all whom care to think about: no mention of LOP requirements for additional support points [ASIDE from the one required to be legal].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it does: 803.03.A(2):
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...fore, that's using your definition of 'closer' to mean "beyond the REOM, along the line of play" It doesn't say that.

There's a reason it's a 10M circle and not a 10 meter barrier, the reason being, it measures distance from the target. The fact a triangle has two shorter legs doesn't change the length of the hypotenuse, if it's length which is the important measure.

...that's my honest fly on the best way to interpret the "encroachment" factor, because if 'they' had meant using a perpendicular line, they could have said so, in a lot fewer words.

It sure seems like we went through this about 4 years ago...I wish I could have accessed the old board, and gone straight to your conclusion. To read. :cool:I think I'm finished on the topic, for now...

...I appologize to all you 'falling putt' haters out there, but do away with the circle, and you rid the game of the above-type arguments. And, some tough calls. Elevated play is a mere bonus. :D

Jeez, let it go, the pair of you! Have you done the maths to workout what you're arguing over?!?

At 30', with a 4' straddle (and that's a BIG straddle), perpendicular has your non-mark foot 3" further away than a circle. That's 0.8% of the distance to the basket!

Honestly, some people need to find something to do with their time. ;)
I suggest disc golf...

Yes we did go through all of this a couple of years ago. It is not perpindicular to LOP. Yes it would have been very easy to write it that way if that was the intended meaning.

I have to agree with both duke and Bruce. :oI'm done ranting; should I ever venture to the "research triangle" for a tourney, I'll expect the rules to be a bit...er, stricter! ;)

[oh yeah, I meant "circular" in previous rant]

Here is a question for English majors and lawyers now that I've quoted the rule for you, when putting on a temporary basket, is the ten meter putting circle wider?

I would like some input from the connoscenti on this, however, I already GUESSED "no", way back.
Comments?

The problem is in the language used in the actual rule: from the base of the target. Since portable baskets have big round bases, going by a strict reading of the words in the rulebook you would have to measure the 10 meters starting at the outside edge of the base instead of at the edge of the pole.

and some practice baskets have square wooden bases, so it wouldnt even be a circle, but rather a rounded corner square

Thanks; yes, that's quite proper; [yet] I'm wondering if the part which is on the ground could be considered a 'support' and the part which holds the target areas [the pole] is the base.

What if somebody covered the 'support' with sod, wouldn't that change everything? a thin layer of dirt?

my practice basket at home has three legs, like a lunar lander. so my 10M circle is actually a clover shape.

my practice basket at home has three legs, like a lunar lander. so my 10M circle is actually a clover shape.

That seems to er, SUPPORT my base/support paradigm.

...if said basket were PDGA-approved, with legs attached directly to the catching areas [no pole], THAT would make for some whacky calls!

hey, whacky is what we're all about :)

...fore, that's using your definition of 'closer' to mean "beyond the REOM, along the line of play" It doesn't say that.

I think you misunderstood my point. By definition the LOP extends from the center of the target through the center of the marker disc and beyond. Self-evidently, then, a portion of the LOP is closer to the hole (however one understands "closer") than the rear edge of the marker disc.

Since 803.03.A(2) requires that EVERY supporting point be at least as far from the target as the distance from the center of the target to the rear edge of the marker disc (which is semantically equivalent to "no supporting point closer ..."), it follows that 803.03.A does reference the LOP (albeit indirectly) regarding the placement of additional supporting points, quite apart from the question of what "closer to the hole" means.

So, again, the question boiles down to, to what does "closer" refer: the target or the rear edge of the marker? If "closer" is understood with respect to the center of the target, then a "forward and sideways but not closer" interpretation can be defended. (Note: I do not deny that the "radius" interpretation is a plausible interpretation; I simply believe that, if one looks at the Rules synoptically rather than individually, with an eye toward developing a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive principles for rules interpretation, a more plausible case can be made for a non-radial interpretation.)

If, however, one understands "closer" with respect to the rear edge of the marker disc, one must entertain a set of considerations similar to those raised in the "between the hole and the disc, directly in line with the hole," such as, does "rear edge" refer to any point behind the centerline perpendicular to the LOP of the marker disc, i.e.http://www.pixpond.com/x/LOP.jpg
(denoted by the heavy, blue line), or just to the point at which the rear edge of the marker disc intersects the LOP?

If it refers to anywhere behind the centerline, then, arguably,
http://www.pixpond.com/x/forward1.jpg
is permissible (provided, of course, that part of the supporting point intersects the LOP and no part of the supporting point encroaches into the "no-contact zone"; assume thrown disc is used as marker disc).

There are, IMO however, cogent�and perhaps even compelling�reasons, which in the interest of brevity I will not detail here, for preferring a restrictive understanding of "rear edge." Suffice it to say that, the "anywhere along the trailing edge" understanding, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to a reductio ad absurdum.


There's a reason it's a 10M circle and not a 10 meter barrier, the reason being, it measures distance from the target.

Actually, it's a 20m circle (10m being the radius, not the diameter), but I'll let it pass. :D

Ten m. is indeed a distance from the target, inside of which one may not follow through in a manner that causes any supporting point to contact the playing surface closer than the rear edge of the marker disc prior to demonstrating full control of balance. The fact that the "green" is circular is due to the rule stipulation that any throw made from within 10m of the base of the hole must conform to 803.03.C. The fact that the specified radius defines a circular area is not sufficient logical ground for inferring that the "no contact zone" is likewise circular, nor is it sufficient grounds for privileging that understanding over alternative understandings.

Sure it is.

should I ever venture to the "research triangle" for a tourney, I'll expect the rules to be a bit...er, stricter! ;)

Actually, they won't, because, if a ruling were called for, I'd give you the benefit of doubt (but only because the Rules require it. :D)

Wow, thanks for blowing my mind with: http://www.pixpond.com/x/LOP.jpg, and that's a sincere compliment. :cool:I've always fixed on that POINT where the REOM meets the LOP. Of course, now I'm going to have nightmares thinking about that blue 'curvilinear' segment; I'll probably be too self-conscious the first several times I'm in the circle.

Right now, my head hurts... It's not YET from slamming my noggin in aggravation trying to convince a professional sematicist he's misinterpreting the language, it's information overload. Yeah, THAT'S it; I'm tired, too! I wish to appplaud the presentation, but gimme some time here for a rebuttal. I'm sure it's in your best intrest. :eek:

Also, thanks for your effort of pointing out the "10M circle" is not a circle of 10M. Consider me one down; 24,999, or so, to go. :DNow I'm obligated to note it's actually 20M PLUS the width of the base, but we're cool...I know you were probably rushing your reply. http://images.dmusic.com/v7/emoticons/wow2.gif

Do you really, in all seriousness, believe the rule identifies the entire half of the mini and not just the farthest part of the mini from the target?

Let's forget for a minute about using the thrown disc as a marker, as that is a very very recent rule change.

So we are now back in the time of having to mark your disc with a mini. The rules are very clear. Put the mini in contact with the thrown disc at the point closest to the target.

Now we can argue all we want about why the mini is placed that way, because the history of the rules is not included with the rules, nor is a "theory of operation" of what the intent was. But I will put out there what my belief on the theory of the marking rule is:

It is to place your foot where your thrown disc landed. The rules as written accomplish this, and I believe that was the intent. Picture your thrown disc on the playing surface. The "right way to play" is to put your foot where the disc landed. By placing your mini touching the part of the thrown disc that is closest to the target, you can now remove your thrown disc so you don't step on it and still know for certain where your foot should go.

Further evidence of this intent lies in the 30cm measure, which is roughly the size of a 165g catch disc.

Now, if we mark our throw with a mini and keep this in mind, it is intuitively obvious that the pont on the mini that intersects the LOP and is the farthest from the target is in fact the limit for how close your foot can get to the target. Using fore's "back half of the mini" clearly puts your foot closer than the thrown disc.

Our rules of play were specifically written to not be a 1200 page tome of arcane instances, so the stance language does not specifically detail exactly what precise point of the mini is the intended "back edge". Yes we can analyze it to death and look for loopholes. But we have to ask ourselves: are we trying to "get over" or are we trying to play fair?

I was right about the nightmares... :(

What is the point of the current discussion ?

It is only within 15' that a stance can gain any advantage (a few inches) from the circular interpretation, and within 6' that it becomes dramatic.

Here I assume a straddle stance since that is the only stance that is impacted by the interpretation difference between circular of perpindicular. The toes of both feet are at the closest points allowed by the interpretation.

Now imagine that your shoulders are square to your feet. With a perpendicular line, as you near the target, you are aiming more to the side of the target, and not straight at it. With a circular boundary, your feet are equidistant from the basket, and you are always facing your target directly.

I think that is the strongest argument for the radial distance argument.

I think the point is there's not total agreement.
The differences are small, however probably most of us have been in a situation where a difference of inches could change everything.
Also, it's not just the stance aspect, but where one treds before showing balance. I'm clumsy; my post-putt stumbles could be a violation...or not.
It would be REAL nice to have an illustrated rulebook! :) I think it could be kept WELL under 1,200 pages. ;)
Where's Nick?!? :confused:

I'd love to see the picture of the Rule of Verticality.

Do you really, in all seriousness, believe the rule identifies the entire half of the mini and not just the farthest part of the mini from the target?

I do not accept that understanding.You would have seen that had you bothered to finish reading what I wrote, rather than simply looking at the picture and blow your top. :DBut it is at least a defensible interpretation. Whether or not it is a probable, or should be a normative, interpretation is separate question.

My question for you is, On what grounds do you reject such an interpretation? If one uses the thrown disc as the marker�and I do not admit the legitimacy of disallowing consideration of using the thrown disc as the marker: it is permissible under the current rule, therefore, it must be included in the discussion�there is a narrow range within which the diameter of the disc is such that a supporting point may be placed as illustrated but still be no closer to the hole than the distance between the hole and the rear edge of the marker disc. If one accepts the interpretation that "no closer" defines a distance, then it necessarily follows that the illustrated placement can be legal in certain, delimited circumstances. The question then becomes, short of measuring the distance between the rear edge of the marker disc and the hole, how does one determine whether or not the illustrated placement encroaches into the "no contact zone"?


But we have to ask ourselves: are we trying to "get over" or are we trying to play fair?

Precisely. Which is why I prefer a strict interpretive philosophy, and why, given a choice between equally plausible interpretations, I prefer a narrow one.

Only 50% of me feels this is a good move, but I simply must ask: what is your position on the 2 meter rule and its future elimination as a default rule?

Robj, I am not in favor of the elimination of the 2m rule, but that's a personal preference. Equally cogent arguments can be made for both the elimination and the retention of the rule (though, IMO, the "luck" argument in favor of its elimination is not one of them). Given that, I have no reason either to support or oppose the change.

Gary,

The point that fore brought up is not about perpendicular tangent versus circle. It is about using the entire back half of the mini as the distance you can be "no closer than" versus the point on the mini that intersects the LOP on the side of the mini farthest from the target.

My question for you is, On what grounds do you reject such an interpretation?


Because it juts ain't right. :)

My question for you is, On what grounds do you reject such an interpretation?


Because it juts ain't right. :)

Kinda like your spelling. :p

That ain't the grounds, that's the conclusion. so 'zactly how, pray tell, did you arrive at that conclusion?

...sounds more like the premise in an argument to me:

It just ain't right;
'Not right' things preclude a sound argument;
>>> That couldn't be a sound argument.

But ostensibly quite valid! ;)


<font size=-4>...I still feel like Mr. s lo Gumby: "There's a piece of [i]brain lost in my head!"</font>

...sounds more like the premise in an argument to me:

It just ain't right;

The antecedent of "it" is the supporting point placement in the illustration. Given that, there must be something about that placement that led Rhett to assert that "it" (the placement) "just ain't right." Therefore, the unstated apodosis of "It just ain't right" is "because ...." That makes the statement, "It just ain't right," a conclusion rather than a premise. :D

Robj, I am not in favor of the elimination of the 2m rule, but that's a personal preference. Equally cogent arguments can be made for both the elimination and the retention of the rule (though, IMO, the "luck" argument in favor of its elimination is not one of them). Given that, I have no reason either to support or oppose the change.



Felix, how do you conclude the luck factor is not a potentially cogent basis for favoring elimination of the 2 meter rule when far less than 1 out of 2 shots hitting a particular tree will generally stick? Also, doesn't hitting a tree more often than not result in an infavorable lie when compared to executing a throw that navigates around a tree? And, if you like the arbitrary height of 2 meters, why? -- why not make it 30cm? What I am especially interested in hearing you go into is whether you truly think the elimination of the 2 meter rule will hurt the game and if so how?

if you feel this thread drift is out of bounds, feel free to PM me your answers :D

Maybe it's because the intersecting line to the LOP through the center of the mini in your diagram does not exist in our rules.

The Lop runs through the center of the mini. No other line does.

I think you're holding us to an unexpectable standard there, sir! Rhett sprackt lingo, not Greek!

This fore/aft center-bisecting imaginary [nudge] line [not the LOP line] is better and easier to conceive than imaginary, easy-to-conceive, "fair and defensible-logic supporting" concentric circles? Er.... :confused:

Maybe it's because the intersecting line to the LOP through the center of the mini in your diagram does not exist in our rules.

Now that's where you're wrong. The line does indeed exist in our rules, even though it is not explicitly cited.

803.03.A(2) specifies that no supporting point contact the marker disc or any object
closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc."


That begs the question, What is the "rear edge of the marker disc"? Is it only the fartherst point from the hole at which the marker disc intersects the LOP, or is it the entire edge of the marker disc behind the centerline of the marker disc (or any other given point on the disc, for that matter) bisecting the marker disc perpendicular to the LOP. Absent more detailed guidance, whether in the form of a Rule revision, definition, rules addendum, Rules Committee decision (ruling), either interpretation is plausible. The perpendicular line in the illustration is an aid to visualizing the latter possibility.

One philosophy of interpretation takes as its starting point the legal dictum, Tout ce que la loi ne defend pas est permis (Everything that the law does not forbid is permitted). Giiven that starting point, 803.03.A. only mandates that a player have at least one supporting point on the playing surface on the LOP w/in 30 cm directly behind the marker disc, that no supporting point contact the marker disc or any object closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc, and that all supporting points be in-bounds; it does not mandate that the supporting point be no closer to the hole than the point at which the rear edge of the marker disc intersects the LOP, nor does it restrict the definition of the "rear edge" to only that point. Therefore, providing that all supporting points are placed in-bounds, there is nothing in the wording of 803.03 that, in principle, invalidates any supporting point placement that is intersects the LOP and is "no closer" to the hole than at least one point on the "rear edge" of the marker disc.

Again, I'm not arguing that 803.03.A should be interpreted in this manner, only that the interpretation can be plausibly defended.

Use of concentric circles exists in the rules, that's how one most-correctly determines who's out...largest radius; outside everyone else's circle is first, etc. At least that's how I imagine it, temp ignoring SOP.

I'd love to see the picture of the Rule of Verticality.

Which one, 803.02D, or 803.08C?

Is there a difference?

Okay, fine. Use the whole circumferance of the marker disc.

I think there are at least three plausible interpretations of 'rear edge' but the "crosshatch" method seems intuit to me...that's leaning more towards: 'rear' equals a place, a 'point', rather than an area, view. I think that's easier to 'identify', and I don't mean the path of logic but plain eyesight on the playing field. That would seem to foster consistency, too. This way of thinking seem 'defensible', and also 'best', in my subjective view.

I think that they should move back the circle to 15 meters. Also there should be a defined circle painted around the radius of the pin at every A tier, NT, and major event to eliminate any descrepencies. Possibly consider it for every sanctioned event. I know it sounds like a lot, but it actually doesn't take that much time to do.(painting the circles) :D

I think 10 Meters is enough but i really like the cirlce idea. They did it at the memorial last year and at USADGC this year and it helps alot. Also helps you figure out how far your putt really is if your outside the circle :D

thats a really good idea!

I hate any contrived circle rule.

It starts with someone being jealous of Stork and ends with people having to not do all sorts of stuff 15 meters from the pin!?! This is a bad idea and here is why:

It is unnatural to throwing a disc.
It is unnatural to the game of golf.
It complicates our rules needlessly.

The only way I would support all of our 10 meter rules is if "10 meters" was replaced with "Defined Green", and there was no restriction placed on the shape or size of their greens. If no green is defined then play on that hole is defined by only 2 of our 3 stance rules (tee and approach, not putting); if it is defined, then all three are in effect.

The only way I would support all of our 10 meter rules is if "10 meters" was replaced with "Defined Green", and there was no restriction placed on the shape or size of their greens. If no green is defined then play on that hole is defined by only 2 of our 3 stance rules (tee and approach, not putting); if it is defined, then all three are in effect.


I like this except I think the 10 meter rule should stay in place if there is no "Defined Green".
We have Yellow Rope to define OB, why not Green Rope for greens?

The only way I would support all of our 10 meter rules is if "10 meters" was replaced with "Defined Green", and there was no restriction placed on the shape or size of their greens. If no green is defined then play on that hole is defined by only 2 of our 3 stance rules (tee and approach, not putting); if it is defined, then all three are in effect.


I like this except I think the 10 meter rule should stay in place if there is no "Defined Green".
We have Yellow Rope to define OB, why not Green Rope for greens?



I think there are more options than rope. Look at BG...

The idea of a 'defined green' is intriguing. Regardless of related rulings. Leave it up to the course designers; better hole design seems an idea-of-the-future here to stay, at least for the present, if the past is any good indication.

10m observation could always be grandfathered, buried even, into existing courses [be the default rule, for those declining the option of 'defining'].

The weakness with having any kind of 'defined green' in our sport, even the current 10m circle, is that there's currently minimal difference in the type of throw that can be made inside vs outside 10m. Our jump putt differential is pretty artificial compared with the stark difference in shot types/clubs used in ball golf both on and off the green. Yes, putters can be used off their greens but putters are used on their greens almost exclusively. If we cooked up more reasons (2m up/10m drop) and/or differences (at least one knee on ground) between what could be done on vs off our greens, then the idea of defining the boundary makes sense, whether circular or as the designer defines.

I've been thinking about how putts are shots where: the follow-through is toward/away from the target, instead of a horizontal arc, but on second thought, that seems pretty contrived...nevermind.

Obviously there are more options and as a course designer who owns my own courses I will in the future use many of them. Green Rope would be an option when a permanent defined green wouldn't be allowed or if a designer wanted to test a Defined Green before installing one. I see many uses for defining a green and plan on installing them on a course I will begin working on this fall.

Well, whatever difference, no matter how minimal, would be in effect. Imagine a 200 foot long green where no follow through was allowed, or one where the edge is only 5 meters away but 10 feet down allowing a putt with a follow through.

Again, as with the elimination of the 2MR, it is a question of designer freedom.

Leave the 10 meter circle for courses that don't have a committed designer or course pro, but for those that do, let them see what they can do. I bet it will beat the snot out of a default 10 meter circle...

Here's something that could probably be done right now based on a precedent set by Carlton Howard in an event that must have been in the 1980s before my time. He specified an area on the course where the player was required to make a forehand throw if they landed in there. If the player declined, then the area was just treated as OB. The player would get a penalty, mark their lie outside the area and make whatever type of throw they wished. Needless to say, players chose the forehand throw and didn't take the penalty.

This was a case of Carlton applying the "if it isn't forbidden by the rules then it's OK" principle. It was controversial and apparently the practice wasn't continued but never determined to not be legal.

Our course designers have discussed this scenario and consider it an appropriate option for 'feature poor' sites. This is a way to add some challenge and variety to a place where vertical hazards are sparse and most of us would not consider placing a course.

Here's how it might relate to the defined green concept. I could see marking a circular or otherwise defined area around the basket where a player was required to throw from their knee let's say. Or, they could elect to take an OB penalty and throw how they wanted from outside the putting area. I believe this would be within our current rules per the Carlton precedent without approval by the Competition Director.

Possible but not necessary. Not being able to jump putt from varying distances according to designer specifications is not insignificant on its own

Not being able to jump putt from varying distances according to designer specifications is not insignificant on its own



Sounds pretty weak to me. It affects such a small percentage of players as to be primarily discriminatory and not relevant to requiring a skill every player typically uses. It would be like requiring left handed ball golfers to putt right handed. However, requiring a straddle putt or shooting from the knee on a green would both be throws that virtually every player will use whether required or not.

I could see marking a circular or otherwise defined area around the basket where a player was required to throw from their knee let's say. Or, they could elect to take an OB penalty and throw how they wanted from outside the putting area. I believe this would be within our current rules per the Carlton precedent without approval by the Competition Director.


I'd like to say how really dumb I think that Idea is but I'll leave it alone.
Why change the basic rule or add stupid requirements when allowing the course designer the ability to change the shape of the Green would be enough. I don't agree with a green that extends for 200' either. I think greens should follow a minimum-maximum area, a green should be dictated by square footage and not by shape. With the right combination of creativity and natural settings a Defined Green can be challenging and fun. I have some Ideas I think I will test at a few of my events this year, using Green Rope to define the green, I will use the basic footage of our round greens and tweak the shape.

I will use the basic footage of our round greens and tweak the shape.




I've been having the same thoughts, recently. The square footage of the 10m radius green is approx. 3382 square feet. Allowing for a freeform shape with no obstacle within 1 meter of the basket, nor further than 20 meters, and a clear line of play/sight within the shape, some very interesting greens could be defined. I'd say that the closely estimated area of such a green should be +/- 10% of the 3382 square feet.

Elevation differences could be treated much the same as calculating effective length of holes, with a 3:1 ratio. That is, if you are 1 foot either above or below the basket, you are three feet further away (assuming that putting up to or down at a basket is similar in added difficulty).

And since Bob and I each thought of this independently, the possible shapes of these putting areas, and given the agricultural production of our representative states, we shall call these SPUD greens! :D

I guess I've already said how uselss (dumb) our current defined green and any alternatively shaped defined green would be. It's a waste of effort strictly for determining where a few players can jump putt or not. This has nothing to do with designing interesting and challenging green areas with obstacles which is excellent and another topic. All we're talking about in this thread is essentially the jump putt boundary so 'designing' and marking it would be a waste of creativity and green rope, white paint or burnt ground.

Yes, Chuck, but there may be other implications to designing defined "putting surfaces" other than the jump putt. I'm not sure what those would be, but giving designers more flexibility than a rigid circle is good. If nothing more than a guideline to prevent wholesale clearcutting of everything within 10 meters, just because the "non-rule" says so. I can't believe anything would be more boring than open, flat putting areas. From the first course that I designed, before I knew there was a PDGA, a DGCD Group, or guidelines and statistics to guide design, I have thought that a tree or bush in the vicinity of the basket is much akin to the swales and slopes on a ball golf putting green, something to add interest and challenge to what is basically the easiest shot on a hole.

This should probably be a discussion for a design forum, but like everything else on here, the thread has drifted to something else. At least this is useful discussion and somewhat related.

I agree 100% that greens need to be challenging and not bare. But this thread has to do with the jump putt boundary which is essentially unrelated to designing challenging greens or what shape they are. Let's come up with more differences between being on the green or not on the green for the sport and this boundary discussion would be much more useful.

Excuse me I thought this thread had moved on to a better topic, one that was useful.
Personally I don't figure jump putts or whether a tree will catch a disc or not into course design. Now working in Defined Greens and making them work under our current greens rules that's a challenge deserving the expenditure of my time, energy and Green Rope

You can make 'greens' as challenging as you want. But currently there's no need to mark their boundaries other than the default 10m because all it defines is where the jump putt is legal.

You can make 'greens' as challenging as you want. But currently there's no need to mark their boundaries other than the default 10m because all it defines is where the jump putt is legal.



Exactly the reason it would be cool to make that 10 meters an infinite variety of shapes, sizes and elevations... A designer might be able to even negate any tree crashing advantage.

Not being able to jump putt from varying distances according to designer specifications is not insignificant on its own



Sounds pretty weak to me. It affects such a small percentage of players as to be primarily discriminatory and not relevant to requiring a skill every player typically uses. It would be like requiring left handed ball golfers to putt right handed. However, requiring a straddle putt or shooting from the knee on a green would both be throws that virtually every player will use whether required or not.

So if a TD requires players to throw only turbo rollers from the teepad to within 15m of the hole and to scooby-putt in order to hole out, that'd be ok with you? After all, the requirements are non-discriminatory since turbos, rollers, and scoobys are throws that virtually every player will use at some time in his/her life, whether required or not. :D

You can make 'greens' as challenging as you want. But currently there's no need to mark their boundaries other than the default 10m because all it defines is where the jump putt is legal.

It does no such thing. The 10m defines the area within which one may not step past the marker disc or otherwise contact the playing surface after the disc is released prior to demonstrating full control of balance. It does NOT prohibit jump putts inside the 10m radius that take one no closer to or farther away from the base of the hole than the rear of the marker disc. A player whose lie is inside 10m may place a supporting point 30 cm directly behind the marker disc and jump forward 29.5 cm after releasing her/his disc without violating 803.03.

So if a TD requires players to throw only turbo rollers from the teepad to within 15m of the hole and to scooby-putt in order to hole out, that'd be ok with you?



Absolutely. We play a tournament (non-sanctioned of course) where different types of throws are mandatory off the tee and approaching. It's especially fair when everyone has the same task.

I think a weakness in our sport is that players can ascend to a 1000 rating without the ability to make throws other than backhand. Even though top rated ball golfers may not be the best at certain shots, they have to be skilled enough in several more types of shots than DG. And most are skilled enough to show others how to do them, like sand shots. However, I suspect fewer than a third of our top players can throw forehands well and fewer than a third can throw rollers (not necessarily the same third).

Part of the reason is weakness in course design, not because the designers don't know what they are doing, but because they don't have the resources to move dirt around and plant trees so players are challenged to learn those shots. One of the reasons I developed the Skill Shot Challenge was to provide an incentive for players to improve their throwing skills similar to the skills challenge they have in ball golf every December. That's why I'd be 100% behind having areas, particularly on open courses, where players had to throw a certain type of throw if they landed there. And the putting area would be one of those areas.

Yep, not jump putts but 'follow thru past the marker' (FTPTM) shots. So the 10m circle would be the FTPTM line. Now people will understand the discussion much better.

here is a question: concerning jump putts and falling putts, what is the exact rule? what defines a falling putt?
also , the 10 m rule so thats 33 ft and change ? I think that is often mis-interpreted , i always hear people asking if they are outside 30 ft.Is the 10 m rule basisally a judgement call amongst the card? how specific must you be?I have never seen anything defining that area!

10 meters is like 32 feet 9 inches.

how about my other questions!! judgement?? or absolutely defined??

Section 805 in the rules specifies what the officially recognized English conversions are for metric references in the rules. 10m is officially 32 feet 10 inches.

So if a TD requires players to throw only turbo rollers from the teepad to within 15m of the hole and to scooby-putt in order to hole out, that'd be ok with you?



Absolutely. We play a tournament (non-sanctioned of course) where different types of throws are mandatory off the tee and approaching. It's especially fair when everyone has the same task.

Why only at non-sanctioned tournaments? If this is permissible under the Rules, why haven't you mandated it at a sanctioned tournament?

If this is permissible under the Rules, why haven't you mandated it at a sanctioned tournament?



I'm running few tournaments these days but I expect we will introduce some of these elements at Highbridge this summer in tournament conditions and encourage those rules for daily play. This would be the 2m up/10m drop and the required shot (or OB) areas discussed on this thread. I had already stated we would move in this direction when we were starting to build the complex last year. Highbridge has a learning center with a Skillshot course so it fits right in.

If this is permissible under the Rules, why haven't you mandated it at a sanctioned tournament?



I'm running few tournaments these days but I expect we will introduce some of these elements at Highbridge this summer in tournament conditions and encourage those rules for daily play. This would be the 2m up/10m drop and the required shot (or OB) areas discussed on this thread. I had already stated we would move in this direction when we were starting to build the complex last year. Highbridge has a learning center with a Skillshot course so it fits right in.



Hold up! I have already requested my vacation days for this event, now you are telling me if I have the misfortune of sticking 2.01 meters up in a bush in the shule that I might have to throw a left handed scoobie between my legs on one foot blind folded!?!

Are you sure you are competing with the USDGC or is it really with Chucky Cheese's Putt Putt Course.

(FYI: Chuck Cheese's is a string of kids oriented game/pizza centers for kids under 12 in the NE. Also, I am just kidding. Chuck I am sure will not make anyone where a blind fold... :o)

Unless you really boot your rating before July, you may not be playing the courses with the test elements. I don't expect the 2m rule to be in force as a blanket rule on any course. We might try the 2m up/10m drop on a hole where there's a single giant hemlock spreading over the top of one basket. I'm thinking we might try requiring a straddle putt if you're inside the 10m ring on one of the wide open holes on the learning course (which won't be played by the Blue division) just so there's some challenge on the hole. Another hole might have a marked area (you should avoid anyway) where you have to throw forehand or can take a penalty. There aren't any mandos at Highbridge out of 90 holes so far, and these elements seem less stressful than the triple mando at Winthrop.

So the blindfold is out?

So the blindfold is out?



Unless you wish to demonstrate your prowess. Or, is that your strategy to keep your rating under 975 by mid-May? :D

So the blindfold is out?



Unless you wish to demonstrate your prowess. Or, is that your strategy to keep your rating under 975 by mid-May? :D


Unfortunately I am quite capable of doing that with no blind fold.

Lifetime I am a 967 golfer including all rounds played, even non-sanctioned. The 970+ ratings in 2004 were due to a couple super rounds. My goal is to lose my invitation to your event.

I think these are good ideas. Ball golf has different rules that govern the shot after landing in a sand bunker - don't know why we couldn't do similar things in disc golf. I have envisioned using 'Fairway Bunkers' and 'Approach Traps' on courses.

Fairway Bunker - defined area where run-up before throw is prohibited. Primarily used to add strategy to open tee shot landing areas on Par 4's and Par 5's.

Approach Trap - defined area where the same stance rules apply as do within 10M of the basket. Primarily used to add strategy to open approach shot landing areas on Par 4's and Par 5's or tee shot landing areas on Par 3's.

I think these are good ideas. Ball golf has different rules that govern the shot after landing in a sand bunker - don't know why we couldn't do similar things in disc golf. I have envisioned using 'Fairway Bunkers' and 'Approach Traps' on courses.

Fairway Bunker - defined area where run-up before throw is prohibited. Primarily used to add strategy to open tee shot landing areas on Par 4's and Par 5's.

Approach Trap - defined area where the same stance rules apply as do within 10M of the basket. Primarily used to add strategy to open approach shot landing areas on Par 4's and Par 5's or tee shot landing areas on Par 3's.



Interesting.

Unless you really boot your rating before July, you may not be playing the courses with the test elements. I don't expect the 2m rule to be in force as a blanket rule on any course. We might try the 2m up/10m drop on a hole where there's a single giant hemlock spreading over the top of one basket. I'm thinking we might try requiring a straddle putt if you're inside the 10m ring on one of the wide open holes on the learning course (which won't be played by the Blue division) just so there's some challenge on the hole. Another hole might have a marked area (you should avoid anyway) where you have to throw forehand or can take a penalty. There aren't any mandos at Highbridge out of 90 holes so far, and these elements seem less stressful than the triple mando at Winthrop.


Please give my invite to someone else

Please give my invite to someone else




I'll frame the previous post for the future when some of these options become common in good course design, where appropriate. Name a sport where the rules are still the same as when invented? Rules evolve for a variety of reasons. Lots of detractors in the beginning for instant replay now can't imagine being without it. I believe someone mentioned the forward pass was not a welcome innovation when introduced. Not every innovation is successful but you don't find out until it's tested and that's what you do at a learning center.

Schwebing Trap - an illegal use of the discussion board to benifit you post count.

Chuck
I strongly disagree with you and if your ideas are the future of our sport it will be a sad thing. When I found this sport 10 years ago I fell in love with the Individual nature of the sport. I liked that I could define my own game my way, develop the skills and shots that worked for me. Physically some of your ideas are just unfair and I fail to see where they improve course design. Course design should force players to use different skills but should not decide what they are. Take out the sports personal individuality and you lose the sport.
I think DannyS�s ideas are good because they still leave room for player options and don�t include a penalty stroke; OB takes care of penalty traps.
As to your examples of sports innovations I don�t see where they relate to your ideas other than they were ideas. Where does it say that a forward pass has to be used or how does an instant replay change play, it would be useful for foot faults.
The real reason I�m not going to your event is I couldn�t fit it into my schedule but I do have to say those ideas of yours would keep me away.
Good Luck

Chuck
I strongly disagree with you and if your ideas are the future of our sport it will be a sad thing. When I found this sport 10 years ago I fell in love with the Individual nature of the sport. I liked that I could define my own game my way, develop the skills and shots that worked for me. Physically some of your ideas are just unfair and I fail to see where they improve course design. Course design should force players to use different skills but should not decide what they are. Take out the sports personal individuality and you lose the sport.
I think DannyS�s ideas are good because they still leave room for player options and don�t include a penalty stroke; OB takes care of penalty traps.
As to your examples of sports innovations I don�t see where they relate to your ideas other than they were ideas. Where does it say that a forward pass has to be used or how does an instant replay change play, it would be useful for foot faults.
The real reason I�m not going to your event is I couldn�t fit it into my schedule but I do have to say those ideas of yours would keep me away.
Good Luck



In my humble opinion, there should be a high amount of risk reward on a well designed hole. Say a hole within 450ft. There should be a "possible" birdie route. Perhaps it would be really tight or rare for someone to "park it", but I think the chance should be there. There SHOULD also be a safer alternative route. Say the birdie route is an overhand or sidearm, there should also be a safer, backhand route that some players can choose to take.

The good players, the ones with all around skill should see the intended route, but a hole should not force a player to HAVE to throw a sidearm. Now, if there is an intended trap, say a large bush placed before the green in the way of shots that faded too much to the left, and the only way to the pin is an overhand shot above the bush that is fine.

But forcing players to throw a particular shot on a hole takes away the individuality of golf. Make the designed shot the best one for the lowest score, but let the players choose their shot.

Course design is all about restricting player choices or encouraging others. All we're discussing is how much restriction is fair? In the case of an area the designer wishes to mark as OB, do you suppose players would be more happy if the area was only OB and they had to take a penalty, or would they prefer to have the option to throw a forehand with no penalty or take a penalty and play any type of throw? In the second case, the designer is providing an option to players that can save a throw, not restricting choices by requiring a penalty. As long as the OB area makes sense to have in the overall design of the hole on its own merits, then providing the 'hero' shot option to throw a forehand is really no different from other scenarios exactly like it.

For example, a player is trapped in the woods/brush. The only escape is a narrow window the player might be able to throw an overhand shot thru to reach the putting area. Or he can take an unplayable penalty to get out on the fairway and make a relatively easy upshot. This is an identical scenario to the supposedly contrived forced sidearm throw area.

In ball golf, the same scenario occurs. A player lands in a water hazard with the ball a few inches under water. The player can choose to take a high loft club and play it without penalty or take a penalty drop. Same equivalent choices.

In all of these examples, these are choices players are provided in places where they are not supposed to be shooting to in the first place.

Chuck

With your Ideas you require a player to either shoot from one knee or take a penalty shot: Where is the choice for the player with bad knees or the one legged golfer. Where is the Choice in requiring a player to straddle putt. In ball golf when you land in that shallow water the rules don't choose what club you use. Restricting by design is great, good course designs says this is the shot that should be used but go ahead get creative if you dare.

You must be old you talk in circles and forget what you say




I simply don't understand this need to slam anyone we don't agree with. Isn't it enough to say I disagree with you? Even if in jest, these kinds of comments kill the exchange of important ideas. This venue is a great resource that provides a lot of input for the BOD and executive staff. The harsher the commentary, the less influence it will have on their decision making process.

I removed the unintended slam