Just wondering why there is a rule against falling putts? I don't see much advantage gained for a player stepping forward after releasing the disc, nor for penalizing the occasional player who literally falls down, such as when the basket is on a steep slope. I guess being conscious of having to keep balance make may putts a little harder, but only marginally.

On the other hand, the rules would be cleaned up a bit if the same rule applied to all throws. Doing away with the falling putt would avoid discussions on what constitutes a demonstration of balance, or if the call was made in the required 2 or 3 seconds, or the other subjective aspects of this rule. The same stance violation rules could apply, inside or outside of 10-meters.

As a side benefit, if we did away with the falling putt rule, we'd be done with the 10-meter limit and the debate on what constitutes "par" could get beyond this definition of putting.

That said, I feel like I've missed something very obvious---whatever it was that caused the rule in the first place, and kept it in effect thereafter.

david, i had the same questions about the 10m falling putt rule. i asked a dozen or so "top pros" about it over the few events i was at. the consensus was that the 10m line keeps taller players from having a real advantage from close range. when i asked about that in more detail, the explanation was that especially in windy conditions, taller players would have advantage over shorter players, say on a 15 footer into a 30 mph headwind .

personally, i'm predisposed against the falling putt rule as it currently exists, but i sure dont have anything to counter the argument by these players that it should be kept if no other reason than to keep things fair. (it was mostly the tall guys who voiced this concern, too)

Taking it to the logical extreme:

I'm 6.5 feet tall and played soccer goalie in college. On a 20 - 25 ft putt, I could get a little running start, and dive with the disc in my hand much like I dove trying to stop soccer balls. I would be able to just about clear that distance fully stretched out making that putt basically a slam dunk.

As long as no part of my body had hit the ground, this would be a legal shot. Except for the falling putt rule.

Since that rule exists, I must suffer watching those 25 fters clank the basket or ring the chains. Either way, probably not going in.

Taking it to the logical extreme:

I'm 6.5 feet tall and played soccer goalie in college. On a 20 - 25 ft putt, I could get a little running start, and dive with the disc in my hand much like I dove trying to stop soccer balls. I would be able to just about clear that distance fully stretched out making that putt basically a slam dunk.

As long as no part of my body had hit the ground, this would be a legal shot. Except for the falling putt rule.




No it wouldn't. You still have to have a supporting point on the lie when you release the disc.

Maybe the rule is to focus the debate on 'demonstrating balance" instead of "when did he release it relative to his foot."

Personally, I think eliminating the 10 meter rule is a step backwards for the sport, simply for the reason that putting from a balanced stance looks (and is) more challenging than falling/walking putts, which look really cheezy from close range.

I believe the origin of this rule was to keep players from "slam-dunking" putts. This rule pre-dates the "supporting points" clarifications. Early on in the game falling putts or jumping putts were an issue that had to be addressed.

It doesn't seem to obvious if you've been playing a while, but take a look at some first-time players or better yet, kids. You will very often see kids step or hop forward from their lie as they putt - it seems logical to them.

Obviously none of you guys against this rule have much proficiency with jump putts. Dear lord, if you want to let people jump putt from inside the circle (legit jump putts: jump after release) then you're going to see the proficiency level SKYROCKET. I would never miss a 25 footer again, my worst range is 27-32 feet, you get me outside of 33 until about 40 feet and my % jumps back up because Jump Putting gives you so much added momentum.

Abolishing these rules would be a HUGE mistake.

Mixing 2 rules here.

I'm questioning the rationale falling putt rule---not necessarily advocating its removal. If this were not a rule, and the other stance rules unchanged, you could not run and leap and slam dunk, or anything of the sort. You would still have to have a "supporting point" behind the lie, and no other contact in front of the lie, when you released the disc. There would still be an argument about jump-putts (was disc released before foot left the ground?).

The "taller player advantage" may be the rationale behind the rule, but I'd think it a very marginal advantage at best. How much further can a tall player reach by leaning forward so that he falls forward after releasing it?

The theory that it preceded the "supporting points" wording in the rules makes some sense, too.

Anyway, it's not one of the 100 most important issues in disc golf---I'm just curious.

As for the increased accuracy due to legal jump-putting, I simply don't know. I don't jump-putt. Advocates of the jump-putt say that the momentum reduces the force required of their arm, so they can be more accurate. If so, it would seem to me that at 25 feet, not much force is involved, so not much to be gained.

However, if you are correct---that legal jump-putting inside 30 feet would increase accuracy significantly---then I agree that it's a good rule.

Though I think the rule precedes the jump-putting craze, so perhaps I should change my question from the "rationale" to the "original rationale" for the rule.

Mixing 2 rules here.

I'm questioning the rationale falling putt rule---not necessarily advocating its removal. If this were not a rule, and the other stance rules unchanged, you could not run and leap and slam dunk, or anything of the sort. You would still have to have a "supporting point" behind the lie, and no other contact in front of the lie, when you released the disc. There would still be an argument about jump-putts (was disc released before foot left the ground?).

The "taller player advantage" may be the rationale behind the rule, but I'd think it a very marginal advantage at best. How much further can a tall player reach by leaning forward so that he falls forward after releasing it?

The theory that it preceded the "supporting points" wording in the rules makes some sense, too.

Anyway, it's not one of the 100 most important issues in disc golf---I'm just curious.



Its not how far they can reach its the fact that they already have a HUGE advantage inside AND outside the circle and trust me an extra 2-6 inches increases your consistant putting range by 10-20 ft since your essentially putting DOWN at the basket.....My comfort putting range gets out to about 28 ft and im about 6ft tall..........I have done a test and if I stand on something that makes me 3 inches talled my comfort range gets out to 35 ft and if I stand on something that makes me 6 inches taller im comfortable and confident out to about 45 ft!!! So add the advantage of being tall to the advantage of being able to fall forward which has nothing really to do with reach and everything to do with momentum the taller guys that are decent putters will NEVER MISS inside the circle!!! Its alot easier to putt when you dont have to worry about your balance after you release...........Just like its alot easier to throw fairway shots if you dont have to think about your plant foot.........IE footfaults on fairway drives.

Just my 2 cents :D

I appreciate both cents.

I'd never thought about advantages for taller putters, but it I can see how that would be true (judging from slight uphill vs. slight downhill putts). A very interesting point, at least to me.

I'm still unclear that falling forward, in itself, makes much difference, and less so that it would help tall players significantly more than short players.

I did speculate that being conscious of maintaining balance might make putting more difficult....but only slightly.

Regardless of all of this, it does seem to be a popular rule, at least among posters here.

The legal jump putting inside of 25 feet is very significant. I spent all winter learning to jump putt by doing it from 20-25 feet indoors, so I'd be comfortable transitioning outside the circle when the summer season came.

25 foot putt % standing: 83 to 85% on average
25 foot putt % jumping: 92 to 94% on average

Umm.... Chuck you wanta chime in here?

Let him finish driving back from St. Louis first.

Stork told me that the rule was pretty much put in place because at 6'6" he was able to "dead fall" putts. Essentially, he would plant his foot at the lie and fall forward reaching toward the basket, foot not leaving the ground and getting an advantage over shorter players even though he might get a grass facial.

I still submit that this technique would require some skill and really look cool in videos... :D

The legal jump putting inside of 25 feet is very significant. I spent all winter learning to jump putt by doing it from 20-25 feet indoors, so I'd be comfortable transitioning outside the circle when the summer season came.

25 foot putt % standing: 83 to 85% on average
25 foot putt % jumping: 92 to 94% on average



Evidence, not just conjecture. Much appreciated.

If the "falling putt rule" adds measurable challenge to putting, it certainly has some value.

Thanks for all the info from everyone. That's one less thing I don't know. Just a couple of billion to go.

for what it's worth, I (like the aforementioned Stork) am 6'6". I don't believe that there is any merit to the "putting down at the basket" logic, I think that's a matter of personal preference. I'm personally much more confident putting up at a basket and will often straddle-putt just to get a stance more level with the basket. Also, people release their putts at *very* different heights. It may benefit a particular player to grow a few inches taller, but it's not fair to say that taller players have an advantage (assuming that the falling putt rule is in place). There's a *very* slight reach advantage, but it's hardly measurable in terms of accuracy gained. No matter what your height, as long as you're full-grown, your putting style is naturally adjusted to your height.

Anyway, I do believe that there is some merit to the falling putt rule. As a taller player, I already enjoy a slightly longer reach than most, even though it's not really that big of a difference when you do the math. However, I could accentuate that otherwise small advantage by falling forward. I'm about 9 inches taller than the average man (assuming that 5'9" is still average). My reach in a balanced putting stance is about 3 inches further forward, but my overall reach is closer to 12 inches greater than average. This means that if I were to fall forward, I could gain as much as a foot (using the dead-fall example above). Is this a huge advantage? not really... but it's something to think about.

I think the falling putt rule is even more justified when you think about it from a rules-and-regulations perspective. Demonstrating balance is an important part of the equation. It puts a standard on putting motion that wouldn't otherwise be there. Most projectile-based sports have rules about how the projectile must be released to be considered legal. Given our flexibility in other areas, I think putting needs this rule to keep things somewhat sane. After all, it's putting that wins tournaments :).

I have seen top pros lose tournies, playoffs, the cash, etc. by missing 10-20 footers...if you didn't have the falling putt rule these little difficult annoying putts that can make or break you, become increasingly easier when you can follow through and or jump. And it adds a professionalism aspect to close putts around the basket...meaning it just looks much more professional

Try putting from your knees underneath bushes or trees so that the disc has to begin its flight path from very low to not hit any foliage. Your body will have a tendency to fall to the ground after throwing; but will also make it much easier because the end of your arm will be in a much more advantageous position to actually make the putt.

Believe me; I throw in the schule all the time.

... there's no such thing as a "legal jump-putt" anyway ! ... according to our Rules , it must be a "putt-jump" ... :cool:

... there's no such thing as a "legal jump-putt" anyway ! ... according to our Rules , it must be a "putt-jump" ... :cool:



We already discussed this and once again your wrong!!!

You dont call in drunk falling down do you??? No you calling it falling down drunk!!!