An interesting discussion came up at a recent tournament regarding falling putts. Here was the (actual) situation:

- Player A is 8m out and throws a putt. As it is missing, he calls a falling putt on himself. Player B immediately seconds it. Player A putts again and makes it.

Now, in my mind there is a big gray area between playing by the rules and blatantly cheating in this situation! In this case we were convinced that no cheating was going on but it raised some heated discussion.

Example of obvious cheating:
- putt misses, player steps through and calls himself on it. 2nd player seconds the shot (even though it was obvious the 1st step-through'd intentionally). In this example, it would be an immediate DQ / forward to the discipline committee situation.

Example of not cheating:
- player releases the disc with a step-through and calls himself (before the disc hits chains). Other player seconds the call.

Now, there doesn't seem to be a definite line between the two examples (except an arbitrary amount of time between the putt / stepthrough / call). Even the 2nd example could be questionable... we as players often know immediately whether the putt has a good chance of going in (or not).

The way the rules are written today there is no real way to separate these 2 situations. At what point does the step through become obvious / cheating? At what point is the 2nd player helping a buddy vs. following the rules (after all, player 1 _did_ step through)? There is too much of a gray area and the rule needs to be changed / clarified.

I'd suggest:
- If the player makes the falling putt, it is a re-do + warning (after it's seconded). In other words, no change.
- If the player misses the falling putt, he/she plays it where it lies. Yes, this seems wierd, but are you going to give the player a free pass each round for a re-do?

Of course the best solution would be to eliminate the follow through rules all together but we've already beaten that horse to death. Please keep this thread on the topic of when a falling putt becomes intentional cheating (vs. a rules violation / warning) and how we can avoid the situation / make rulings...

I disagree. The rule is fine as written.

In all cases of a called and seconded falling putt, the player should be required to rethrow from the same spot. This applies to all cases where balance was not demonstrated after the putt and before advancing past the mark. On the severly delayed (intentional?) step through, it is likely that balance was demonstrated prior to the step through, so there was no violation to be seconded.

Whether the disc is still in the air or not has no bearing on the status of the player's balance or when he is allowed to proceed beyond the mini toward the target.

If the player was in control of his balance enough to make an obviously intentional step toward the basket, there was no falling putt. If the player was unbalnaced and had to step forward to miantain his balance then it was a falling putt. If it happens several times, bring it to the TD's attention for possible DQ.

There is not immediate DQ unless a player happens to do something in front of the TD. Generally, only the TD can DQ a competitor.

I have played that if you miss a falling putt, you get a warning but can not putt again. Do I get to re-putt even if I don't make my falling putt?

So using your thought process, I could shank a 29ft. putt (which I knew would not hit chains) and purposely step through while the disc is in the air and call myself on a falling putt? How would you know if I meant to step through or not?

Is it cheating if someone doesn't second the falling putt call (i.e. thus forcing them to take their current lie)?

I would ONLY second the call if the putt was made. :cool:

I have played tournaments with friends and there is no way I would let them try and "stretch" the rules and get away with it. What advantage would you get by helping someone you are playing against to cheat??

So using your thought process, I could shank a 29ft. putt (which I knew would not hit chains) and purposely step through while the disc is in the air and call myself on a falling putt? How would you know if I meant to step through or not?

Is it cheating if someone doesn't second the falling putt call (i.e. thus forcing them to take their current lie)?



It is not my thinking, it is enforcing the rules as written. Choosing which rules to enforce is not something I feel I have the right to decide. Not making a valid call just because it would benefit the thrower is also cheating.

As I said before, whether the disc is still in the air has no bearing on the call. All the rule requires is that you demonstate balance prior to stepping forward. Whether or not you were cheating by purposely attempting to circumvent the rules is a matter to be discussed with the TD later.

As you say, "How would you know if I meant to step through or not?". Simply, I would not know your intentions, and would try to not let the outcome of the putt effect my decision to make the call or not. If I was not paying attention, I would not be able to second the call merely based on the fact that you stepped through after some delay. I would not know whether you were balanced after the throw and then stepped forward afterwards. I have also seen quite a few long putts that I thought were missed make it into the basket, and many more that I thought were good manage to not stay in.

I have played that if you miss a falling putt, you get a warning but can not putt again. Do I get to re-putt even if I don't make my falling putt?



hi lisle,
see 803.04C and 803.04G

:D

Whether or not you were cheating by purposely attempting to circumvent the rules is a matter to be discussed with the TD later.

That's what happened in my original example. You have not told me how you would differentiate between cheating and not cheating. Let's say a step through occurs and is seconded. The 3rd player on the card calls 'cheating' (intentional step through) and the 4th agrees. The 1st and 2nd player have never met before this tourney. What do you as the TD do?


What advantage would you get by helping someone you are playing against to cheat??

You are shooting horribly but your buddy is doing well until he misses the putt. You second it to help him out...

I have seen this happen where a guy called a falling putt on himself after a miss. I didn't 2nd anything. It was obvious to me that he belatedly fell forward. I'll agree with you that the rule needs a re-write.

I have seen this happen where a guy called a falling putt on himself after a miss. I didn't 2nd anything. It was obvious to me that he belatedly fell forward. I'll agree with you that the rule needs a re-write.


You were correct to not second the call if it was an obvious step forward not needed to maintain balance.

If balance was demonstrated after putting there was no falling putt.

I have seen this happen where a guy called a falling putt on himself after a miss. I didn't 2nd anything. It was obvious to me that he belatedly fell forward. I'll agree with you that the rule needs a re-write.


You were correct to not second the call if it was an obvious step forward not needed to maintain balance.

If balance was demonstrated after putting there was no falling putt.



I think it's OK , outside 30 , but I have seen guys , throw their putt and start walking to the basket , before the putt has settled. :eek:

as long as they demonstrate balance behind their lie before they start walking thats ok.

If anything needs fixing it's the "demonstration of balance" language, which I feel is inherently flawed. It's too subjective. If it said "when the disc comes to rest in the target or touches the ground" the subjectiveness is taken out. No more opinions on whether balance was demonstrated or not.

Does anyone know why demonstration of balance was chosen as the deciding factor in determining whether or not a putt is a falling putt?

i dunno.

how about just fixing it so you cant call an infraction on yourself if it is to your advantage?

If it said "when the disc comes to rest in the target or touches the ground" the subjectiveness is taken out.


But that would still allow a "falling putt". It doesn't take too long for a putt inside the "green" to come to rest. I have played against numerous newcomers who think that that is the rule. They "fall" all the way, just slowing down before the disc comes to rest. If you put a time on how long after the disc comes to rest, you're making rounds longer. Maybe, "balance needs to be demonstrated with BOTH FEET on the ground for 2-3 seconds after the putt has been thrown"? I do agree that "demonstrating balance" is too subjective.

If it said "when the disc comes to rest in the target or touches the ground" the subjectiveness is taken out.


But that would still allow a "falling putt". It doesn't take too long for a putt inside the "green" to come to rest. I have played against numerous newcomers who think that that is the rule. They "fall" all the way, just slowing down before the disc comes to rest. If you put a time on how long after the disc comes to rest, you're making rounds longer. Maybe, "balance needs to be demonstrated with BOTH FEET on the ground for 2-3 seconds after the putt has been thrown"? I do agree that "demonstrating balance" is too subjective.



Saying 2-3 seconds is also burdensome because then you would be required to measure that prior to making the call. My thought behind "when it touches the ground" was that at that time you would know it wasn't going in the basket, and if it started rolling downhill, you wouldn't have to wait until it stopped before taking a step forward.

My point was trying to eliminate the ambiguity of demonstrating balance, not eliminate falling putts. Perhaps eliminating the "first time - warning only - no penalty" when inside the green is the way to eliminate intentional falling putts. When outside the putting green/circle, first time foot fault could still be a warning and free re-throw.

I agree rules shoud be changed, in this case the advantage should not be to the thrower! If they foot fault they should not get a second chance at the putt just because they are wise enough to know the disc will not hit its mark.

I don't know what or who you guys are playing with but I have seen several advanced players in my area get up on one foot to putt and then plant both feet on the ground after the putt is released somewhat awkward. They are able to regain balance with the second foot on the ground but what is stopping them from planting that foot in front of their marker if they think the putt is going to miss.

If its the last hole of the round and they want that birdy, the temptation may be high to intentionally foot fault, but be impossible to call cheating. If someone honestly seconds it, the thrower gets a second chance, and forget about the warning its the end of the round.

Make foot faults inside 10 meters a penalty!

You know they only get to do that once per round, after that it is a penalty. However, since we have a rule about falling putts that limits it to 10 meters out, an automatic penality for foot fault, if within 10 meters would not be a bad idea. Most competitve players should not commit a foot fault if under 10 meters and by modifying the rule you simply add complexity to the putt.

I am not sure this would be sufficient. At least for me, if I miss a 40 ft putt I can hit the second one 90% of the time in good conditions. That first one helps to narrow in on the basket. I am willing to bet that for most 900+ rated players, this is also true. So 30 ft may not be enough.


I agree rules shoud be changed, in this case the advantage should not be to the thrower! If they foot fault they should not get a second chance at the putt just because they are wise enough to know the disc will not hit its mark.

I don't know what or who you guys are playing with but I have seen several advanced players in my area get up on one foot to putt and then plant both feet on the ground after the putt is released somewhat awkward. They are able to regain balance with the second foot on the ground but what is stopping them from planting that foot in front of their marker if they think the putt is going to miss.

If its the last hole of the round and they want that birdy, the temptation may be high to intentionally foot fault, but be impossible to call cheating. If someone honestly seconds it, the thrower gets a second chance, and forget about the warning its the end of the round.

Make foot faults inside 10 meters a penalty!

30' != 10m

And 40' is 10 meters PLUS 10'. Meaning, if a player can hit 90% of their second shots from 40', they certainly can from 30' and 40' is clearly outside the 10 m circle.


30' != 10m

I think that 10m!=30ft refers to the fact that 10m is not equal to 30 ft.

10m is approx = 32.75ft


And 40' is 10 meters PLUS 10'. Meaning, if a player can hit 90% of their second shots from 40', they certainly can from 30' and 40' is clearly outside the 10 m circle.


30' != 10m

30' != 10m



I agree

PDGA rule book, rule 805 states that 10 meters is 32 feet 10 inches. Which means you must have balance within ten meters of the Target you are holing out on. This is commonly refered to as 33, "Am I outside 33"

as long as they demonstrate balance behind their lie before they start walking thats ok.



Four beers and several tokes say , I seriously doubt it !!! :eek: :p

if I miss a 40 ft putt I can hit the second one 90% of the time in good conditions

sorry jerry, but i have to call ya on this one. i'd bet a hundred bucks that you cant make 90% of the second ones. 100 misses, 100 second putts from same spot. if you make 89 or less you give me $100. if you make 90 or more i give you $100. how much do you believe what you wrote? :cool:

It is my guess that the demonstrate balance after the putt wording is so you can decide if it's a foot fault by only watching the thrower. No need to know if the disc is moving, in the chains, 2.1 meters up in a tree, rolling into a lake, or whatever the case may be. All you have to do is watch the putter. If they fail to demonstrate balance, you call a foot fault on them. If noone else was paying attention and the person made it, you've alerted the other playersto pay attention. If somone was paying attention, and seconds, and the putt misses, the player gets a freebie.

I think falling putts should be legal. They should be the norm. Putting while falling is cool. I can sell lots of knee pads if they would only change this rule.

Jump putting could be combined with falling putts, you jump up real high and far and land on your face.

Cool.

sorry jerry, but i have to call ya on this one. i'd bet a hundred bucks that you cant make 90% of the second ones. 100 misses, 100 second putts from same spot. if you make 89 or less you give me $100. if you make 90 or more i give you $100. how much do you believe what you wrote? :cool:



I am tempted, but the statement was, if I missed the first one, I could hit 90% of the second. I will do a test tomorrow and let you know if I only slightly lied or majorly lied. :p

exactly. if you miss the first, you make the second 90% of the time. to test it, you need misses. making 90 in a row doesnt mean anything in the context of what you said. only the putt after the miss counts as a make. let me know the results! (if nothing else you'll get a good putting practice in)

If anything needs fixing it's the "demonstration of balance" language, which I feel is inherently flawed. It's too subjective. If it said "when the disc comes to rest in the target or touches the ground" the subjectiveness is taken out. No more opinions on whether balance was demonstrated or not.

Does anyone know why demonstration of balance was chosen as the deciding factor in determining whether or not a putt is a falling putt?



Demonstration of balance is the determination because the purpose of the rule is to keep people from lunging to make those putts so much that they can't check their own forward progress. As I understand it the idea for the rule originally arose from trying to prevent people from doing slam dunks, so that taller players wouldn't have an unfair advantage on short putts. Why ten meters was chosen instead of...say...three, thereby ruling out not just slam dunks but overeager lunges in general within that circle, I don't know.

This thread isn't about abolishing 10m or falling putts. It's about how to treat the situation as outlined in my first post. I maintain that:

- No one can tell the difference between a falling putt and an intentional step through (when done with the purpose of cheating)
- The seconding player could be helping their buddy (cheating) or playing by the rules... there is no way to tell the difference.
- Both players could be following the rules exactly but still be gaining an intentional advantage (yes, I know that it's cheating)

Let's say I'm playing with someone who I know tends to foot fault. Hole #1 comes up and he steps through on a missed putt. I call him on it (anticipating further steps / penalty strokes). How is this different then calling the 1st violation on that person's last putt of the tournament (thus giving that player an advantage)? Are we _required_ to call the rules even if it would give the other player an advantage? I have seen a lot of players NOT call fall-throughs on a missed putt.

My main point of contention is that we should ALWAYS call the rules but in this case it would give the player who performed an illegal action an advantage. What to do?

I still think the rule should read that "made putts are redone with a warning / penalty and missed putts are played where they lie with a warning / penalty". This would eliminate any advantage to the player who does a falling putt.

Greg,

I hear what your saying and yes according to the game and rules you must call the rules everytime regardless of the advantage it gives to the thrower.

But I also believe the rules should be changed. Why should the rules committee ever put a player or players in a position to have to call cheating if it can be avoided! Change the rule to read a falling putt within 10 meters is a penalty regardless of made or missed with re-putt.

Similar to double striking your ball in Ball Golf, Penalty for violating the rules and lack of proper execution

Ok, so what I'm seeing proposed here is two ideas for how to make sure that a falling putt call never works in favor of the player. One person is suggesting that when inside ten meters, the way the next shot is played should depend on whether the disc goes in. The other is suggesting that inside ten meters there should be no warning. Right?

I don't really care for either option, but I have a problem with the second one in particular. Are you proposing that a falling putt be made a separate and distinct kind of violation? I don't particularly like that idea because it really clearly is a stance violation in my opinion and should be treated as such. Alternatively, you could accomplish essentially the same thing by saying that any stance violation inside 10 meters can't get a warning. Then you have to decide whether someone who has a falling putt and then has a stance violation from 150 feet out a few holes later gets a warning for that second offense or not, which (while it really shouldn't be hard to keep track of regardless of which you decide to do) is more convoluted a rule than I think we should want to add to the rule book.

Now, the first suggestion could be added somewhat more simply. Just add to the section that says you can retrieve the disc if you're inside 10m to say that if the shot missed you take it from where it landed. I don't really like that either, partly because I personally don't really see it as enough of a problem to warrant adding an inconsistency to the rule, but at least it's less complicated to explain. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that handling it this way is making it that much tougher a penalty whether the thrower has had a stance warning already or not.

Personally, I see this as a good reason why you shouldn't shrug off stance violations in general. If someone is actually so exacting that he (or she) doesn't have a single stance violation the entire round except for one deliberate falling putt...and you're not sure enough that it was deliberate to report it...then yes, they might get themselves a stroke better score for the round. Maybe even two if they got a horrible roll or if they putt atrociously hard.

But...all things considered, I personally would probably prefer that to the complications inherent in either of the proposed rule changes.

That is, however, merely my personal opinion. I tried to keep my analysis of the two proposed solutions and what problems would arise from them objective; my opinion that keeping the existing problem is preferable to introducing one of the others is completely subjective.

Kinda like this one ?

http://home.carolina.rr.com/rodneyg/feldfault.gif

That video isn't a foot fault. Talk a look at the mini (marker) at his right foot. The disc on the left is simply placed out of the way.

how bout this one:

last hole of an event at La Mirada, a dude in my group misses his 20 foot putt, immediately from behind a tree, a voice ( belonging to a rules committee member/certified official/participant> don't ask, he knows who he is, I don't need to call him out) yells out "falling putt" and the PLAYER seconds the call! Much to the amazement of our group, he reputts, makes it, and cards the birdie. >with approval from PDGA RC board member. what could we do??

why should you be able to re-putt AFTER you MISS???

IMO, you should only re-putt if you MAKE it, but in either case
it should still be a warning.

am i missing something? was this really a friend helping out a friend with an easily circumventable rule??

I think you're allowed to stand in front of the basket to watch and make sure he doesn't foot fault on the rethrow... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

(I agree this is a loophole that should be closed such that the player isn't "allowed" to hole out on a foot fault rethrow anywhere on the course).

Well, it actually was a warning. The issue falls under 803.04. The first violation of stance has to be called within 3 seconds, then seconded. Being a warning, he could re-throw without penalty.

Right or wrong, he played within the rules. It is a known 'loop hole' that I have had to fight once in a tournament. A guy slipped on a tee pad and threw BEFORE he steped past, called himself on a foot fault, claimed he was past the tee pad when he threw. I would not second it...but, no one else in the group knew the rules well enough, and just blindly agreed with him.

So, in answer to your question....theres really not much you could do. Even if you and the other guy in the group clearly saw that he did NOT commit a stance violation and tried to appeal it to the TD, the benefit of the doubt would go to the thrower (even though to me, its always a little fishy when players either call the stance violation or seconds it ON THEMSELVES).

I dont know if it was a 'friend helping out a friend' kind of thing, but whether you agree with it or not.....the rules were followed.

Here's an example of a rule where the RC wanted it to be like the ball golf honor system where players (in theory) call rules violations on themselves. However, I'm not sure there's an equivalent where a player could get a better situation in BG by calling a fault on themselves that pertains to addressing the ball. Anyone have an example?

If you wiff your shot, it counts as a shot. If you inadvertently ground your club in a hazard, it's a penalty. I don't think you get a do-over in the event you are distracted by something and shank your shot.

The player should not have seconded the call. It was not necessary and throws doubt on the call. By rule there are only two groups of people that can make that call. A member of the group, or an official.

The point being, if it was an official, there is no need for a second. If it wasn't an official, the call can't be made. If the official is competing, they can not act as an official within the same division.

that was my question at the time.
The guy behind the tree is a certified official but was competing in the event as an open player. the player in question was also an open player, so it sounds like it DID need to be seconded. right?

main point being, they were sneaky and abused the reading of the rule. Even the guy putting was surprised when he was allowed to putt AGAIN... you could see the look on his face.

that was my question at the time.
The guy behind the tree is a certified official but was competing in the event as an open player. the player in question was also an open player, so it sounds like it DID need to be seconded. right?

main point being, they were sneaky and abused the reading of the rule. Even the guy putting was surprised when he was allowed to putt AGAIN... you could see the look on his face.



Again, if you read the rule closely, there are only 2 groups of people that can make a stance violation call.


803.04 - Stance, Subsequent to Teeing Off
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.



If the person making the call is not in the group, they must be an official. Furthermore, the official making the call can not be competing at the same event in the same division.

804.09.D gives all certified officials the ability to jump in and make rulings on any violations they see with one major exception.


804.09 - Officials
D. Non-playing certified officials may actively make rulings during any tournament play that they witness. If an official competes in a tournament, he or she may not officiate for any ruling within his or her own division.



The scenario you describe shouldn't have happened because the person that made the original call was not part of the group nor allowed to act as an official within thier own division.

ILLUMINATION

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/medievalbook/pics/navHome/illumination.jpg

thanks Duke

It cracks me up when a guy on another card tries to butt in and make a call for a group other than his own. :o Especially when they break out the "Guys I'm a certified official, what's going on?" Yeah right, go back to your own card and mind your own business.

I just now understood the guy making the call was not even in the group!! Wow....Gary's right......what the h___ is he doing?

Mike,

If it is a different division an official can make a ruling, it is only if they are in the same division that they shouldn't. I was in a tournament once where two groups of rec players were arguing about the group size. I seems two players arrived after the round started. The group they had been assigned to had only had two players at round start so they joined other groups. Anyway, they were fighting about how to re-devide the groups to fit them back in. As an official, it felt it my responsibility to keep them from poking each other's eyes out.



It cracks me up when a guy on another card tries to butt in and make a call for a group other than his own. :o Especially when they break out the "Guys I'm a certified official, what's going on?" Yeah right, go back to your own card and mind your own business.

I would like to address this also.

Most certified officials asking that question are really offering to make a call that will stop an ongoing delay. Most will not make a call unless asked to do so, but they are not required to stand aside and remain silent. Once an official makes a call (requested or not) the group's opinion is no longer needed. The only question remaining is whether the efected player wishes to appeal to the TD.

So, if here is a problem that is causing a backup, don't be suprised if an official from another division stops by to clear up the dispute. :cool:

I'll have to remember that caveat that only members of the group can make those calls next time i'm playing with [won't say; he knows who he is]! :eek:

One aspect of the rules that I believe needs shoring up (or it could possibly be handled in the tour rules) is how spotters fit into making calls and whether their status as a certified official or not affects their weight in making calls.

I was a little confused by that part of the rule as well.


804.09 - Officials
D. .... The director may empower non-certified officials to act as spotters for a specific purpose. The ruling of such a spotter supersedes the ruling of the group.



It gives very little guidance on what the specific purposes may be, but seems to limit it by using the title "spotters". We generally think of spotters as people the locate thrown discs, but maybe they could be there to "spot" foot faults or bad behavior.

The guy behind the tree is a certified official but was competing in the event as an open player. the player in question was also an open player, so it sounds like it DID need to be seconded. right?

To me it seems like that rules committee member was never allowed to make the call in the first place since he was playing in the same division.

If a rules committee member can't follow the rules then where does that leave the PDGA as an organization?

I'm having a hard time with all this "no one outside the group is allowed to say squat" business. If I am competing in the same division but on another card, if affects me greatly if the players on your card are unwilling to call an obvious and flagrant rule violation. I'm not playing in a "one card" tournament.

Here's a for instance:

I'm at Worlds in Iowa and there is a long lhole with a long teepad. The group ahead of my group is also in my division, and when we poke our heads out of the trail we see that this group is ready to tee off. The fairway is tricky and dense, particulary right where we are, so we fan out and spot for them. Hey, it's a nice enough thing to do.

They all drive, and one of them land right next to and on the schuule side of a long moderately large diameter drainage hose that is a part of the course and on the edge of the fairway. This is right in front of where we are so we can clearly see it. I joke to my cardmates, "Hey, he's out of bounds" because it looks he is across a line. We all chuckle.

After pointing out their discs we move to the tee to get out of the way. While waiting, we now see the whole group, who are all in our division, gathering aorund the disc by the large diameter hose. Then the thrower picks up the end of the hose, that is about 10 feet in front of his lie and absolutely between the lie and the hole, and starts dragging it out of the way while his whole group watches.

I'm not in that group. I am in that division. As a player in the same division, am I empoered to make that call?

I'm having a hard time with all this "no one outside the group is allowed to say squat" business.

That is the rule for some rules, expressly not the rule for other rules, and ambiguous or unspecified as to other rules. I cannot find a default rule that would apply where the rules are silent.

For obstacles and relief, the rule twice limits the call to the majority of the group or an official.

I'm at Worlds in Iowa and there is a long lhole with a long teepad.


Technically, at the last world's in IA, it wouldn't have been an option, would it? The obstacle rule wasn't in force at that time, was it?

I'm at Worlds in Iowa and there is a long lhole with a long teepad.


Technically, at the last world's in IA, it wouldn't have been an option, would it? The obstacle rule wasn't in force at that time, was it?


You've never been allowed to move anything between the lie and the hole. That hasn't changed.

I'm having a hard time with all this "no one outside the group is allowed to say squat" business.

That is the rule for some rules, expressly not the rule for other rules, and ambiguous or unspecified as to other rules. I cannot find a default rule that would apply where the rules are silent.

For obstacles and relief, the rule twice limits the call to the majority of the group or an official.


Any opinions on my point about another groups actions affecting my division?

ok while playing yesterday a guy in our group is getting ready to putt in front of this branch so to maintain his balance he holds onto the limb with his left hand while putting. is this legal????

If:
1) He doesn't damage the plant, &
2) The enire branch & point-of-contact (in this case, his hand grabbing the branch) is not closer to the basket than his marker, &
3) He has one point-of-contact (probably his foot) directly on the LOP within 30cm of his mini,
Its OK.

no......balance can not be assisted

Where's that rule? 803.04 seems to allow it.

where are the rules zealots when you need them?????

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.


so hanging onto the branch could be considered a violation to 803.4 D right

Only if it moves it out of his line I would say.

it says must chose a stance the prevents the least movement and that stance would have been no hand on the tree.. right??

You can certainly grab a branch w/o moving it at all, if it is sufficiently burly. I still say its OK.

I guess you had to be there. I'd say if you grabbed a branch to keep from say sliding down into a creek you would be in violation (if it moved the branchor was infront of your lie).

"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."

There is no restriction to points of contact, so using both hands and feet to maintain balance is permissible.

Having a point of contact closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc is not allowed, so you can't lean on or touch anything forward of your lie.

Intentionally moving, or holding back any part of an obstacle is not allowed. Incidental contact during the act of throwing is allowed.

So, using a branch to assist with balance is allowed as long as the contact point is behind the lie, and the contact does not cause the branch to move.

W3rd!

thanks sounds like I won $5 :D because the branch he held onto moved for sure during his putt

Are you talking about Josh?

yep :D

Seen guys lean on trees behind their lie , seen guys stand inside a tree stump base. Also seen guys Fully leaning on a tree branch to throw a certain angle shot.

The way I understand it:

Groups have authority to make calls within their group --unless superceded by--->
a non-playing certified official/marshall--unless superceded by--->
the TD.

Certified officials playing in the tournament can not officially rule calls within their own division (for other divisions is OK).

In situations like the one you witnessed, you have no official power to rule, but you can certainly point out the correct interpretation of the rules to them. If they countinue in a way that you disagree with, you could bring it to the TD's attention after the round. If more than one person pointed this out to the TD, he might have grounds to give a 1 stroke penalty under 803.05E.

Not sure if theres much else you could do, being in the same division.

I was asking my question from the perspective of an affected player playing in the same division, but on another card.

Players in the same division on other cards who are gaining advantage by not following the rules of play are affecting my tourney standing, yet according to the rules I am not allowed to make a call on that other card? That doesn't seem right.

Did I respond from a different perspective?

In this situation it would help to be able to call rules within your division, but I dont think its takes too much thought to see several ways to abuse this kind of power to gain an advantage. Maybe if you could rule within your division, it would encourage more people to understand the rules better, or become certified officials themselves.

You keep talking about me being a certified official, which I am. But of course I can't act as an official within my own division, but I can act as a player within my own division.

So as a player within my own division, I am not allowed to call infractions on other cards in my division even though it most definitely affects me. That, I believe, is a problem with the current rules.

Most rules include the text "if observed by two or more players of the group or an official."

This is an example:
801.03 - Excesive Time
B. A player shall receive a warning for the first excessive time violation if observed by two or more players of the group or an official. The player shall be assessed one penalty throw for each subsequent excessive time violation in the same round if observed by two or more players of the group or an official.
<font color="blue"> Interesting that the group behind can't make the call directly.</font>


Rules that specifically list who may make the call other than members of the group are listed below.

801.01 - Courtesy
G. A player violating a courtesy rule may be warned by any affected player, even if from another group, or by an official, with all players of the group advised of the warning.

802.01 - Discs Used in Play
(concerning questionably legal discs)
D. Discs must be specifically approved by the director if questioned by another player or an official, but in no case shall the disc be approved if it violates any of the above specifications.

802.04 - Artificial Devices
B. A player shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if, during any portion of a round, he or she is observed by two players or an official to be using or carrying an artificial device that is determined by the director to violate section 802.04 A.

803.07 - Interference
C. Any player who consciously alters the course of a thrown disc, or consciously moves or obscures another player�s thrown disc at rest or a marker disc, other than by the action of a competitively thrown disc or in the process of identification, shall receive two penalty throws, without a warning, if observed by any two players or an official.

Kind of useful to know.

Sorry.....I didnt make it clear. I did understand what perspective you were coming from and I understand and agree with your argument.