Sometimes when I putt within 10m, I lean forward slightly and have a tendency to fall forward. Rather than fall forward though, I turn 90 degrees to the left (I putt left-handed), perpendicular to my lie and walk outwards insuring not to cross a point forward past the back of my marker. Some players have warned me this a violation of a stance rule, and that I have to show balance within 10 meters after my release. Would this be considered a violation and under what rule would it fall under?

No violation as long as no part of you touches the playing surface in front of your lie until you regain balance.

The rule book says you must demonstrate balance.

The disc must rest for 3 seconds before you cross that line. Count that out and you'll see it is a bit of time.

BEFORE moving forward of your lie. You can have a complete spaz attack and flail around completely falling on the ground behind your lie before regaining your balance and moving forward.

The disc must rest for 3 seconds before you cross that line. Count that out and you'll see it is a bit of time.
That is not a rule...

agreed in full with Chuck on this one.
803.04
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
marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

as long as during that seizure the person putting doesn't contact the playing surface in front of the mark, no problem of any kind. And, no 3 seconds (in DG just as apparently in the NBA).

agreed in full with Chuck on this one.
803.04


as long as during that seizure the person putting doesn't contact the playing surface in front of the mark, no problem of any kind. And, no 3 seconds (in DG just as apparently in the NBA).

so basically you could take a small step within 10 meters and as long as that step doesn't take you in front of your lie you are fine? (as long as one supporting point started out in a direct line behind your mark within the allowable distance behind it... which is how far again?)

30 centimeters or just over 11 inches or about a disc and a quarter.

so basically you could take a small step within 10 meters and as long as that step doesn't take you in front of your lie you are fine? (as long as one supporting point started out in a direct line behind your mark within the allowable distance behind it... which is how far again?)

Yeah I do this quite a bit. I start out with my foot ~20cm behind the mini, and when I putt I drag my foot along the ground, and end up right behind the mini (but not crossing) My foot never really leaves the ground.

I really only do that when I am about 30ft out. BTW

agreed in full with Chuck on this one.
803.04 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 marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.


as long as during that seizure the person putting doesn't contact the playing surface in front of the mark, no problem of any kind. And, no 3 seconds (in DG just as apparently in the NBA).

Ok, so it sounds like the question lies within "demonstrating full control of balance". How does one demonstrate full control of balance? If I prevent myself from falling forward by turning left and walking outward, at the beginning I would say I'm not balanced, hence why I am falling. But if I take a few steps outwards, when I do actually demonstrate full control of balance? Do I have to briefly stop like a statue before proceeding forward? Do I have to maintain a supporting point directly behind my lie until my disc comes to rest in the basket and then I can proceed to walk outward left?

The key in the wording is that balance isn't required while executing the putt. You just have to be balanced before touching the playing surface in front of your lie. There's no time limit specified or what gyrations you might go thru to establish balance, just that you have it before moving forward. The RC has not defined what balance really is on the assumption that the group will know it when they see it. BTW, the status of the disc being at rest or not is immaterial before moving forward.

The key in the wording is that balance isn't required while executing the putt. You just have to be balanced before touching the playing surface in front of your lie. There's no time limit specified or what gyrations you might go thru to establish balance, just that you have it before moving forward. The RC has not defined what balance really is on the assumption that the group will know it when they see it. BTW, the status of the disc being at rest or not is immaterial before moving forward.

I just want to make sure I am correctly interpreting the rule ...

Player is 25' from the basket.
Player throws the disc 1000' in the air.
After the player has released the disc and it is still in the air but not yet at rest in the basket the player demonstrates balance behind the lie.
Player then walks towards the basket in front of his lie.
Disc then lands in the basket.
This is all legal right?

I know you can't throw a disc 1000' straight in the air, but am just trying to exaggerate the point. Weather or not the disc is in the basket or not is immaterial. The key is that the player shows balance. This could be an issue on 9.5m putts. I've seen players that putt without moving their body, i.e. only their arms move. They are extremely balanced. They can throw a putt, establish balance, and move in front of their lie (all be it in fractions for a second) before the disc is at rest. I've seen it and it is legal per the rules.

You may move forward before he putt stops if you demonstrate balance such as the "statue" putt mentioned. The misinterpretation of the rule that some people think requires the disc to be at rest probably leads some of those people to think that they can attempt to balance on one leg so as soon as the disc IS at rest, they can fall or step forward. But there's no connection.

You may move forward before he putt stops if you demonstrate balance such as the "statue" putt mentioned. The misinterpretation of the rule that some people think requires the disc to be at rest probably leads some of those people to think that they can attempt to balance on one leg so as soon as the disc IS at rest, they can fall or step forward. But there's no connection.

To me the inclusion of the term "balance" in the rule is an issue that needs to be address. Balance is a subjective term. It should be replaced with a more objective term or the rule should be re-written with specific subjective measureables in mind to avoid confusion.

I think the perfect way to show "full control of balance" is for your body to basically come to rest. Not a statue type of rest, but rest that does not involve any movement of support points, with no other large movements that would suggest that there is a center of gravity issue with the player's position.

see next post.

The key in the wording is that balance isn't required while executing the putt. You just have to be balanced before touching the playing surface in front of your lie. There's no time limit specified or what gyrations you might go thru to establish balance, just that you have it before moving forward. The RC has not defined what balance really is on the assumption that the group will know it when they see it. BTW, the status of the disc being at rest or not is immaterial before moving forward.

So it seems this issue does come down to “Balance” before proceeding forward of the marker. So let us say that I am within 10 meters putting across the slope of a hill. As I go to putt and release, I fall and roll the down the hill, but I never cross my marker. Obviously I didn’t demonstrate balance while putting. But if I get off my duff and start walking up the hill, then I am “balanced” and didn’t violate a stance rule?

Yes. I've seen players putting from embankments fall into the water after releasing their putt with no stance violation.

Yes. I've seen players putting from embankments fall into the water after releasing their putt with no stance violation. Wow, then there seems to be a big misinterpretation of the stance rule explained to me at my own home course by more than several veteran players. I have demonstrated this "falling putt" to the side and everyone says I have to maintain balance.

The RC has not defined what balance really is on the assumption that the group will know it when they see it. BTW, the status of the disc being at rest or not is immaterial before moving forward.

The rule's wording relies way too much on confidence in the ability of the group to ascertain balance. It should be more clear cut. Seems like it should be tied to the disc touching the basket or the ground.

To me the inclusion of the term "balance" in the rule is an issue that needs to be address. Balance is a subjective term. It should be replaced with a more objective term or the rule should be re-written with specific subjective measureables in mind to avoid confusion.

Well said!

I think once the disc touches the basket or the ground, the player should be allowed to advance towards the basket. Those are criteria that are more clearly ascertainable by the group.

Well said!

I think once the disc touches the basket or the ground, the player should be allowed to advance towards the basket. Those are criteria that are more clearly ascertainable by the group.

This would bring us into the same issue that some note on determining whether it is a jump-putt or a putt-jump. If it is hard to watch someone's hand and foot at the same time to determine if there is a stance violation, how much more difficult to watch the disc land in the basket and the player landing after their jump putt from 20ft?

Balance is much easier to judge by simply watching the player.

Balance is much easier to judge by simply watching the player.

That is false.

You think it is easier to watch two events 20 feet apart than to watch a single event in one spot. Tell me how that is false? At least add something to the discussion rather than making statements without supporting points.

how about this one... someone is falling forward while putting within 10m and quickly grabs the mini before they continue falling/stepping. they claim they established balance by grabbing the mini. I've heard of this from other people as well. seems wrong to me.

Bruce claims he can do this. I should have had him demonstrate it last weekend. Grabbing the mini is not sufficient to demonstrate balance, but if one makes the habit of grabbing their mini, it will usually break them of the habit of unintentionally performing a falling putt. If someone is losing their balance and is able to grab their mini, usually their lack of balance becomes more obvious..

You think it is easier to watch two events 20 feet apart than to watch a single event in one spot. Tell me how that is false? At least add something to the discussion rather than making statements without supporting points.
I made my points above. Balance is objective. Objective measure have no place in rules.

I don't have a clear answer as to how the rule should be written, it just shouldn't include objective measures. If you are standing behind a player you can watch their feet and the disc hitting the basket. That isn't difficuly to do.

Objective measure have no place in rules.


:confused:

What's confusing about that?

I think you meant subjective. Rules need to be objective.

This would bring us into the same issue that some note on determining whether it is a jump-putt or a putt-jump. If it is hard to watch someone's hand and foot at the same time to determine if there is a stance violation, how much more difficult to watch the disc land in the basket and the player landing after their jump putt from 20ft?

Balance is much easier to judge by simply watching the player.

I disagree. Balance is subjective. The way the rule is written, there is no set amount of time that balance must be demonstrated. Accordingly, one could claim that they demonstrated balance for a microsecond, thus satisfying the requirement. Unless we place slow motion cameras at every hole to record each putt, this is something that cannot be verified or refuted precisely. A disc hitting the ground or basket can easily be seen or heard. Additionally, players waiting to throw should be far enough away from the throwing player to have a field of vision sufficient enough to see the thrower and the basket at the same time if the thrower is only 20 feet from the basket.

I think you meant subjective. Rules need to be objective.


Yes. Subjective would be determining good or bad for example. Objective would be determining if the disc is in the basket.

Yes. Subjective would be determining good or bad for example. Objective would be determining if the disc is in the basket.

Thanks! That is what I menat. Makes me sounds like an idiot now.

Balance = Subjective
Disc at rest, foot behind the lie = Objective.

RC hasn't defined what "at rest" means in terms of how long a disc is either not moving or is only moving relative to the chains still swining in the wind.

Bruce claims he can do this. I should have had him demonstrate it last weekend. What I claim I can do is finesse my lack of balance by bending over and grabbing my mini or disc. In other words, if you putt, teeter and then fall down, the lack of balance is obvious. If you putt, bend over, grab for the mini, kick the mini, grab for it again, and then fall down, the effect is so comical that no one calls the lack of balance.

:D

Thanks! That is what I menat. Makes me sounds like an idiot now.

Balance = Subjective
Disc at rest, foot behind the lie = Objective.

I didn't mean to try and put you in a bad light Jerry! Hopefully no offense taken.

The act of walking is defined as moving forward while repetitively losing then regaining your balance in the process. :D

I posted this on another thread:

How about changing the rules such that it is permissable from any distance to follow through after a throw, but, if the shot is not thrown from the tee box, if said shot goes in, one stroke is added to the score.

Putting for a two from 25m - no advancing closer to the hole until showing balance - shot goes in - you got a two.

Same thing as above but you jump putt, that is, your followthrough places you closer to the hole than your lie - putt goes in - you got a three.

It could be considered a fair tradeoff - if a player is using a putting style with dubious legality, the advantage gained by greater accuracy is balanced by the addition of a stroke if the throw is successful.

I know this is far fetched, but it would make jump putters think twice before using that style, which, it seems, is hard to immediately determine if it is a foot fault or not.

What I claim I can do is finesse my lack of balance by bending over and grabbing my mini or disc. In other words, if you putt, teeter and then fall down, the lack of balance is obvious. If you putt, bend over, grab for the mini, kick the mini, grab for it again, and then fall down, the effect is so comical that no one calls the lack of balance.

:D

That's why I wanted to see it.:D

I posted this on another thread:

How about changing the rules such that it is permissable from any distance to follow through after a throw, but, if the shot is not thrown from the tee box, if said shot goes in, one stroke is added to the score.

Putting for a two from 25m - no advancing closer to the hole until showing balance - shot goes in - you got a two.

Same thing as above but you jump putt, that is, your followthrough places you closer to the hole than your lie - putt goes in - you got a three.

It could be considered a fair tradeoff - if a player is using a putting style with dubious legality, the advantage gained by greater accuracy is balanced by the addition of a stroke if the throw is successful.

I know this is far fetched, but it would make jump putters think twice before using that style, which, it seems, is hard to immediately determine if it is a foot fault or not.


I know you aren't posing a completely serious scenario, but what about on holes that aren't par 3's? What if you throw in a deuce on a par four from a long way out, but stepped past your mark after making a "legal" throw? I'm talking 90M+. You take a penalty?

You see lots of people make big follow throughs after cranking a long shot. Look at Cale from the most rencent Majestic video. I will take one step past my mark on fairway shots all the time.

I know you aren't posing a completely serious scenario, but what about on holes that aren't par 3's? What if you throw in a deuce on a par four from a long way out, but stepped past your mark after making a "legal" throw? I'm talking 90M+. You take a penalty?

You see lots of people make big follow throughs after cranking a long shot. Look at Cale from the most rencent Majestic video. I will take one step past my mark on fairway shots all the time.

Outside of 10m following through past your lie isn't an issue as long as you release the disc prior to stepping past the lie.

803.04C.. 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 marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

By the definition above, it seems that one can move from the original stance after release of the disc so long as a supporting point is not in contact closer to the hole from the rear edge of the marker. I think some people interpret the rule that you must show balance in your stance when you putt which is not true. You only have to show balance before advancing to the hole.

So now the question is: how to show full control of balance before advancing to the hole. Do you have to pick up your marker, do you have to wait for the disc to come to rest, do you stand still for a brief moment in time (how long is a moment?)? All this is subjective and to be interpreted by the group.

I think the rule should be written to provide objective criteria. How about the rule is written as such: Any throw within ten meters or less, both the player’s movement and disc must stop and come to rest before advancing forward of the marker.

BY this language, you don't have to intrepret balance. Once both the disc has stopped and come to rest and the player has stopped and comes to rest, then the player can proceed forward. So this removes the one-legged balance act, or the quick-reach down and pick up my marker-before I fall forward.

To make it even a tougher putt, the rule could be added: the player must maintain his original stance directly behind the line of play. Then I wouldn't be able to fall to the left/right from my original stance, and it would eliminate further confusion as to full control of balance.

I think the RC has been well aware there are some subjective phrases in the rules. I suspect that several on the RC have tried to write more objective wording during previous revision cycles but came up short when the other members picked it apart. There are examples of "objective" wording in the rules that we've found can still be subject to interpretation once scrutinized deeply. So it's not easy to lock down some things objectively.

One initial thought on the proposal that both the player and the disc must come to rest. If my doinked putt starts rolling down a ravine into the schule, your proposal would prevent me from moving to keep an eye on where the disc disappears to. Not good at some courses (think DeLaVeaga).

Outside of 10m following through past your lie isn't an issue as long as you release the disc prior to stepping past the lie.

I know but he was talking about adding a stroke from 25M. One of those "what if we did this" scenarios.

One initial thought on the proposal that both the player and the disc must come to rest. If my doinked putt starts rolling down a ravine into the schule, your proposal would prevent me from moving to keep an eye on where the disc disappears to. Not good at some courses (think DeLaVeaga).

That's why I suggested making it so that once the disc hits the basket or the ground, the player may advance beyond the lie. Eliminate the balance baloney.

That's why I suggested making it so that once the disc hits the basket or the ground, the player may advance beyond the lie. Eliminate the balance baloney.

If your intention is to make putting easier, then your suggestion will work quite well. I think the general consensus is that, if anything, putting should be harder, not made easier.

If your intention is to make putting easier, then your suggestion will work quite well. I think the general consensus is that, if anything, putting should be harder, not made easier.

Not my intention, and you'll have to convince me this would make putting easier. You still have to throw the disc and get it in the basket. Waiting until the disc hits the ground or the basket before advancing towards the hole has absolutely no bearing on the difficulty of getting the disc in the basket.

The intention is to make calling a foot fault easier. Determining balance is subjective. Determining whether the disc has hit the ground or the basket is objective.

If a player is allowed to step past their mark as soon as the disc hits the basket, you've opened up jump putting from 15 feet and in. On those 50 mph days where a 7 foot put can still make you sweat, you would be able to just fall forward and slam dunk it.

Yes it might be more objective, but it would probably run into the same issues on jump putting. There the issue is which happened first, the putt leaving the hand or the foot leaving the ground. Even with the video footage available of jump putts, it is still hard to determine if the jump putt was legal (some definitely are, some definitely not, and others are gray) With your proposal, the same issue would now be introduced on the other end of the jump. Which happened first, the disc hitting the chain, or the player hitting the ground. Removing a fairly simple and easy to determine rule (even if some think it is subjective) and replacing it with a rule that will be difficult to call and opens up potential abuses is not a step forward (no pun intended).

I'm still not convinced. Besides, I thought we were elaborating on a scenario where the putting green is increased from 10m to 20m. Additionally, the fact that determining balance is subjective makes it NOT "a fairly simple and easy to determine rule" as you say. The fact that we have a different opinion on that is additional evidence that it is not universally simple and easy to determine.

I'm going to try some 7-foot and 15-foot falling putts this afternoon when I get home and see if my foot touches the ground in front of me before the disc hits the ground or basket. A little scientific experimentation seems in order.

When you try your experiments, make sure you include jump putts and this one. Put one foot behind the marker 7' out, put the other foot as far forward so that you can stretch out your arm real close to the basket. Hop off the forward foot and drop the disc in. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make it and the disc will hit before you come back down. I'm going to do the same tonight if I have time to make sure my theory mets reality.

One initial thought on the proposal that both the player and the disc must come to rest. If my doinked putt starts rolling down a ravine into the schule, your proposal would prevent me from moving to keep an eye on where the disc disappears to. Not good at some courses (think DeLaVeaga). Good point!
That's why I suggested making it so that once the disc hits the basket or the ground, the player may advance beyond the lie. Eliminate the balance baloney. Hey that’s a better idea.
If a player is allowed to step past their mark as soon as the disc hits the basket, you've opened up jump putting from 15 feet and in. Ok, so it makes sense that we remove the idea of proceeding forward when the disc has touched the basket then and we focus our attention back to defining balance.

Suggestion for a definition of “Full control of balance”:

Full control of balance – a player demonstrates full control of balance when their body movement has stopped and has come to a complete rest while maintaining a supporting point in the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker.

I wonder if it was considered for players to be able to move away from their original putt stance within 10 meters. If so, then the part of the definition above “maintaining a supporting point in the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker” should be eliminated. But I think if the rule was changed as such, it would greatly reduce the confusion of balance and players would have to keep their original stance.

When you try your experiments, make sure you include jump putts and this one. Put one foot behind the marker 7' out, put the other foot as far forward so that you can stretch out your arm real close to the basket. Hop off the forward foot and drop the disc in. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make it and the disc will hit before you come back down. I'm going to do the same tonight if I have time to make sure my theory mets reality.


I'll let you try the jump putts. As I have stated before, I think they look stupid and are problematic in calling foot faults. I think it is unwise for the sport to allow a technique where it is impossible to ascertain its legality without a slow motion camera. I have tried them and they do nothing for me. Also, my lack of skill in doing them would not be a good measure for the proposed experiment. We should either allow them completely without worrying if they are foot faults, or outlaw them completely so that any jump would be a foot fault.

Your second scenario violates my intent. I suppose what I meant, but did not state, is that once the disc has been released, the player should be able to advance towards the hole once the disc has hit the basket or ground.

I hate jump putts as well. I'm just exploring the ramifications of your proposal. With the current rules you can do what I described in my second scenario, but you need to push off hard enough that your body travels backwards so that you land with that front foot behind your mark (and then get your balance). With your proposal, the push backwards wouldn't be necessary. Just enough push would be needed to get the front foot in the air until the disc hits the chains.

I would also agree with you that we should not allow techniques where it is impossible to ascertain its legality without a slow motion camera. My fear is that your proposal would unintentionally add another one.

Good point!

Suggestion for a definition of �Full control of balance�:

Full control of balance � a player demonstrates full control of balance when their body movement has stopped and has come to a complete rest while maintaining a supporting point in the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker.

I wonder if it was considered for players to be able to move away from their original putt stance within 10 meters. If so, then the part of the definition above �maintaining a supporting point in the line of play behind the rear edge of the marker� should be eliminated. But I think if the rule was changed as such, it would greatly reduce the confusion of balance and players would have to keep their original stance.

Write into the rule that a player within the 10m line must take one step away from the basket after putting (not sideways...just a step backwards from the basket)...this will take away any forward momentum that could be gained by falling through a putt�an addendum could be written for the existing rule with this 'step back' requirement and the original language of the rule will not have to change� IE: the subjective balance determination��cause you will be maintaining balance by stepping back�so that the rest of the card only has to make sure the person putting steps away from the basket on the line of play after their putt�what do you think?

I think pros could develop a foot drag technique where they jump and their toe scrapes the ground behind their supporting foot like a wide receiver catching a throw inbounds.

Skinner,

Initially not a bad stab at it...but playng devil's advocate (really an easy job), one then might run into the scenario of "...hey, he didn't step back, he stepped to the side...". To be answered by "...no I didn't, my step backwards was a little off to 1 side, but it was back...", etc.

This situation is NOT an easy fix, but it's good that people are hashing it out.

Karl

I hate jump putts as well. I'm just exploring the ramifications of your proposal. With the current rules you can do what I described in my second scenario, but you need to push off hard enough that your body travels backwards so that you land with that front foot behind your mark (and then get your balance). With your proposal, the push backwards wouldn't be necessary. Just enough push would be needed to get the front foot in the air until the disc hits the chains.

I would also agree with you that we should not allow techniques where it is impossible to ascertain its legality without a slow motion camera. My fear is that your proposal would unintentionally add another one.


Perhaps I have been unclear again, but under my proposal, you would not be allowed to have a supporting point in front of the lie when the disc hits the basket or ground, or when it is released. If you did your second scenario, and did not push off backwards before releasing the disc, that would be a violation under my proposal. Perhaps wording is needed saying no part of a players body is allowed between the lie and the hole until the disc is released and has hit the ground or basket.

I'm glad you agree that we should not alllow a technique, the legality of which cannot be ascertained in the field without a slow motion camera.

Write into the rule that a player within the 10m line must take one step away from the basket after putting (not sideways...just a step backwards from the basket)...this will take away any forward momentum that could be gained by falling through a putt�an addendum could be written for the existing rule with this 'step back' requirement and the original language of the rule will not have to change� IE: the subjective balance determination��cause you will be maintaining balance by stepping back�so that the rest of the card only has to make sure the person putting steps away from the basket on the line of play after their putt�what do you think?

This sounds like requiring dancing after the putt has been thrown.

I think you are still not getting what I'm describing.
The following is legal under the current rules. Take a stance with one foot behind your mini, and one foot forward of the mini. This usually works best with your dominant side foot forward. Push off the front foot backwards. Once your front foot leaves the ground, release the disc. Make sure that your momentum is enough such that your front foot now lands behind your lie. This type of putt is useful for those very windy days and you are within a few feet of the basket.

The difference is that with your proposal the front foot would no longer need to land behind the lie if the disc hits the chains first. It would be push off, release the disc, it hits chains, you land right back where you were.

Originally Posted by skinner
Write into the rule that a player within the 10m line must take one step away from the basket after putting (not sideways...just a step backwards from the basket)...this will take away any forward momentum that could be gained by falling through a putt…an addendum could be written for the existing rule with this 'step back' requirement and the original language of the rule will not have to change… IE: the subjective balance determination…’cause you will be maintaining balance by stepping back…so that the rest of the card only has to make sure the person putting steps away from the basket on the line of play after their putt…what do you think?

This sounds like requiring dancing after the putt has been thrown.

Possibly…an abbreviated version of the two-step…the one-step.

I see falling putts all (...well, some of...) the time and call them in casual play so that the people/friends I play with are aware of this rule (without penalty of course...just to educate the friends I play with...it is kind of way to trash talk each other as well..."I am watching, so you better not step through." ...just good natured ribbing). Most of my friends that I play with have been shown the rulebook and are now coming around to respecting the falling putt rule...even in casual play. Myself, I think this rule is necessary and once I read the rulebook (a few weeks after receiving the rulebook, two years ago), I made sure that my putting technique within 10m did not allow any forward momentum.

In the mini's I play in around town, I see seasoned pro's, masters that have been playing DG for over 20 years, all the way down to Rec players falling through (some of) their putts. At sanctioned tournaments, I used to pay close attention...I quit doing that...too many falling putts were witnessed and nobody else was calling them, so I did the same. I am new to this sport (playing sanctioned tourneys now for going on two years and probably witnessed about 5-15 falling putts per round) and when I noticed that no one was being called for falling putts (and these were people that have been playing for years and years) I figured why rock the boat. It’s sad, but I don’t want to be the rule Nazi on the card. For me, the one who had the most fun still wins and calling falling putts on people would not be fun for me. Especially if the perpetrator says that they didn’t fall through.

I think that those that want to get rid of the rule that requires balance after putting within 10m are those that fall through their putts and don’t want their ‘crutch’ taken away from them. Those 20 foot putts on a windy day are so much easier (for some) when they have that forward momentum towards the basket. Just my opinion…please don’t hate.<O:p</O:p

I have ran at least over 100 events, and I can say that I do not see the falling putt as a problem. Inside the circle, you make the putt, you bend down demonstrate balance, and pick up your mini and make the trip to retrieve the disc.

I'd be hard pressed to watch a roud of golf realistically and see 10 putts that require it on a full field of 90, so if you have that issue in OK, I'll start watching them more closely.

If they advance before they have demonstrated balance within the 10 meter circle of a basket, then call it, your not being a nazi by calling the rules, you are (GAAASSSP....OOOOHHHH MYYYY) following the rules, and thusly enforcing them. We are a body of people playing with our own change, so if you don't call a person breaking the rules, you are giving them an unfair advantage, and shame on you for letting them cheat.

It's like having Randy Moss on the sidelines and then after the ball is snapped he comes on the field and makes a catch.....you gonna let that happen?

Some calls are missed, but I bet if you watch closely you really are not seeing that many falling putts, and if you are, I would venture out there and say that a majority of the players that you are playing with are not "seasoned players with 15-20 years of experience". If they do it, you owe it to them to notify them, or they'll do it an event and say I do it all the time, and yeah its wrong, so fix your putts.

I think you are still not getting what I'm describing.
The following is legal under the current rules. Take a stance with one foot behind your mini, and one foot forward of the mini. This usually works best with your dominant side foot forward. Push off the front foot backwards. Once your front foot leaves the ground, release the disc. Make sure that your momentum is enough such that your front foot now lands behind your lie. This type of putt is useful for those very windy days and you are within a few feet of the basket.

The difference is that with your proposal the front foot would no longer need to land behind the lie if the disc hits the chains first. It would be push off, release the disc, it hits chains, you land right back where you were.

Thanks. I understood that the first time.

I have ran at least over 100 events, and I can say that I do not see the falling putt as a problem. Inside the circle, you make the putt, you bend down demonstrate balance, and pick up your mini and make the trip to retrieve the disc.

I'd be hard pressed to watch a roud of golf realistically and see 10 putts that require it on a full field of 90, so if you have that issue in OK, I'll start watching them more closely.

If they advance before they have demonstrated balance within the 10 meter circle of a basket, then call it, your not being a nazi by calling the rules, you are (GAAASSSP....OOOOHHHH MYYYY) following the rules, and thusly enforcing them. We are a body of people playing with our own change, so if you don't call a person breaking the rules, you are giving them an unfair advantage, and shame on you for letting them cheat.

It's like having Randy Moss on the sidelines and then after the ball is snapped he comes on the field and makes a catch.....you gonna let that happen?

Some calls are missed, but I bet if you watch closely you really are not seeing that many falling putts, and if you are, I would venture out there and say that a majority of the players that you are playing with are not "seasoned players with 15-20 years of experience". If they do it, you owe it to them to notify them, or they'll do it an event and say I do it all the time, and yeah its wrong, so fix your putts.

While I agree there is no real issue with people doing falling putts, I still think the rule should be changed to remove subjective terms.

So, is it majority opinion(of the group)if there was balance and or if it's a falling putt(I know the call needs to be seconded)? The problem is the putter can think %100 they showed balance but to everyone else they showed no balance. Where is the line of who is right and and who is wrong? There shouldn't be rules where it comes down to individual opinion, because we all know everyone has them along with a couple other things :)

You all do know that there are plenty of other subjective terms in the Rules, right? And rules that give examples of a certain type of violation, but not an unabridged list, so you have to use your _judgment_ as to other situations that might fit the violation.

It's fine to want to get an objective standard for falling putts, but don't expect to eliminate human judgment from the Rule Book.

So, is it majority opinion(of the group)if there was balance and or if it's a falling putt(I know the call needs to be seconded)? The problem is the putter can think %100 they showed balance but to everyone else they showed no balance. Where is the line of who is right and and who is wrong? There shouldn't be rules where it comes down to individual opinion, because we all know everyone has them along with a couple other things :)

Like any other stance violation, it must be called within 3 seconds and then seconded.

I have taken 5 ft. putts and because I am at the age of Grandmaster, and because I am a klutz, I have fallen forwards, backwards and sideways. I have made a nice follow through and brought my putting hand up and the contralateral leg back and for about a 10th of a second looked like the PDGA logo and thereafter looked like something that participated in a demolition derby. This is not limited to disc golf. In a past life I used to play that other golf game and had been known to do a face plant after taking a good rip at a ball. Its not really a problem on the longer putts as I throw it differently and do not place my balance (and ego) in peril. So far I have not been called on this and fortunately, I haven't hurt anybody either. I am sure both will occur. When it happens I will not complain so long as the injuries to body and score are minor.

Perhaps wording is needed saying no part of a players body is allowed between the lie and the hole until the disc is released and has hit the ground or basket.



That would mean you'd have to change your putting style. With your foot 11 inches behind the mini, try and release a disc without your hand going more than 11 inches in front of your foot.

That would mean you'd have to change your putting style. With your foot 11 inches behind the mini, try and release a disc without your hand going more than 11 inches in front of your foot.

maybe you'd become a better putter!:D

That would mean you'd have to change your putting style. With your foot 11 inches behind the mini, try and release a disc without your hand going more than 11 inches in front of your foot.

Touche'! Guess you'd have to clarify that by adding "on the playing surface between lie and basket/target/pin".

I'd be hard pressed to watch a roud of golf realistically and see 10 putts that require it on a full field of 90, so if you have that issue in OK, I'll start watching them more closely.

Jack (and all the rest that have contributed to this thread),
Check out the link below for what I am considering a falling putt. Is it a falling putt or not? These are the type of falling putts I see most in tourney play. Please let me know if I am in the wrong.

Per PDGA Rule 803.04 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 marker disc constitutes a falling putt and is considered a stance violation . The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.

I guess the last sentence is where the "meat" is in this subjectively worded rule. What exactly is ...demonstrate(ing) full control of balance before advancing... constitute? Per the video link below, I guess you could say that this person followed through after their putt. Can balance be demonstrated on one foot? In my opinion, balance is demonstrated by having both feet on the ground. Again, please correct me if I am incorrect in my assuption.

Video link:
http://discgolfer.ning.com/video/20-ft-disc-golf-putt

100% violation of 803.04C.

100% violation of 803.04C.

So Ray, how would you demonstrate full control of balance before advancing?

One can demonstrate balance with one foot on the ground (think a scale in gymnastics), but in the link a couple posts up, that's a falling putt. Even though the player should have been able to show balance, he didn't. He kept slowly moving forward throughout.

100% falling putt. I actually had someone demonstrate this to me over the past weekend in a tournament and they were arguing that they showed balance on their one-legged stance, and then stepped forward with the leg that was maintained in the air.

This is why I say the rule should say a player must stop and come to a complete rest before proceeding forward of their marker. If you went up and tapped someone on the shoulder with their one-legged stance, I bet they wouldn't be able to show full control of balance.

Through this discussion, I have found two items that are beneficial of 803.04C. 1) if you find yourself falling forward, step 90 degrees left or right from your stance and walk away without passing the rear of your marker is legit. 2) On uphill putts, place your front foot forward of the marker, and then while putting, lift off the ground and then place your foot behind the marker after release to give you a little extra push.

Thanks all for the input, great discussion and on point.

So Ray, how would you demonstrate full control of balance before advancing?
"Full control of balance" is such a vague term as to have no prescriptive definition. IMHO, as the rule is written, each case must be evaluated as it arises & decided upon by a majority of the group.

It is much easier to say that a specific example does or does not display "full control of balance" than to attempt to prescriptively define the term.

I disagree that the above video example is a falling putt. To my eyes, forward momentum is stopped after his follow through, and then is re-initiated when he begins to lower his arm and swing his leg through. That is my subjective judgement based on what I see in the video. It would take frame by frame analysis, preferably from a better angle, to convince me otherwise. I have no quarrel with people who see something different.

In principle, however, the putt is legal.

As Krupicka points out, balance can be established on one foot. Balance is established when the body is at rest relative to the base (foot or feet as the case may be), and the center of gravity is within the base. This, in my opinion, is the point of the rule i.e. to not allow extension of reach beyond the point that the person's center of gravity is within his base. In no way does the rule either state or imply that balance must be maintained such that an external force, when applied, does not disrupt that balance. There is no relevance to either tapping him on the shoulder if he's on one foot, or body slamming him if he's on two.

Edit: In fact, balance does not require the body to be at rest, just that the center of gravity is within the base and that the body is under control. Witness the following video -- she is in balance throughout the press to handstand in her mount.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fXt8Iovno_s&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fXt8Iovno_s&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Now that would make for good TV. After every putt, one of your card mates gets to body check you to see if you fall over.

That's the problem with subjective rules. At no point in time did the player in the video stop his motion. He lifted his back foot, kept his motion, and dropped his foot in front of his marker. That to me is a falling putt and the rest of the field I play with will call it 100% of the time. If he had placed his back leg down behind the marker, then yes I would say it was a good putt.

Why do people lift their back leg? To counterbalance their forward momentum. To show balance, you must demonstrate an equilibrium, an equal distribution of weight. By placing all of your weight from two supporting units to one supporting unit, entails that a player is shifting his weight to balance himself. Question is, can someone demonstrate full control of balance on one supporting unit? If a player actually stops in motion on one leg, then I could see that possibly some players (a very few) in the game are given credit of demonstrating balance. I know that there are several PRO players that putt like this. However, I am not sure if they bring their back leg down behind the rear of the marker or proceed forward in front of the marker.

I just think that it is difficult to tell if a player can truly demonstrate FULL control of balance on one leg. As I attempt to stand on one leg, my body is constantly trying to maintain balance if even I don't show the slightest movement. Put me back on two legs, then I have full control of balance.

At no point in time did the player in the video stop his motion.

Stopping motion is not required by the rules.

Why do people lift their back leg? To counterbalance their forward momentum.

Nope. To counterbalance their forward leaning torso thereby maintaining their center of gravity within their base. Done successfully, this action results in NO forward momentum of the body's center of gravity.

As I attempt to stand on one leg, my body is constantly trying to maintain balance if even I don't show the slightest movement. Put me back on two legs, then I have full control of balance.

You are adjusting stabilizer muscles in your legs in either case. More so if you are standing on a hill. Balance does not require cessation of motor control, or balance would only be achieved if you were lying flat on the ground. Distinctions as to how much motor control is allowable are not to be found in the rules.

Stopping motion is not required by the rules.



Nope. To counterbalance their forward leaning torso thereby maintaining their center of gravity within their base. Done successfully, this action results in NO forward momentum of the body's center of gravity.



You are adjusting stabilizer muscles in your legs in either case. More so if you are standing on a hill. Balance does not require cessation of motor control, or balance would only be achieved if you were lying flat on the ground. Distinctions as to how much motor control is allowable are not to be found in the rules. Now your just playing silly word games. How about you break down each word, define it, break apart the definition, and then break down each word in the definition, and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

Well I didn't see any videos, so I can't comment on them. I don't see why someone can't demonstrate balance on one foot however. I guess the person could just make it easy and put their back foot down before advancing.

I will quite often freeze standing on one foot for a few seconds after a missed putt. Absolutely no question about demonstrating balance. Not so long on made putts.

Now your just playing silly word games. How about you break down each word, define it, break apart the definition, and then break down each word in the definition, and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Patrick. It may seem I'm being pedantic, but in rules discussions I think a certain specificity is required. In your discussion of stance using one versus two feet you are adding an additional quantity, that of stability, into the equation. Stability is not part of the rule.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Model_Balancing.jpg/422px-Model_Balancing.jpg

Well I didn't see any videos, so I can't comment on them. I don't see why someone can't demonstrate balance on one foot however. I guess the person could just make it easy and put their back foot down before advancing.

Yeah the link I was using to make my point must have been taken down over at DGRUS by the person who posted the video. He must have not liked the comments that were posted by those of us that post over at DGRUS. I know that Ray and myself both posted comments that said the putt was a falling putt. I don't think kkrasinski posted a comment on the video and he is the one defending the possibility of someone could demonstrate 'full control of balance' on one leg.

I agree with you, just drop the rear leg and then to me... ...balance has been acheived. But kkrasinski makes valid points about the rule language.

Back to the reason I don't call falling putts in tourneys... ...all the comments so far on this discussion are the reason I don't call falling putts. The rule is too subective and I don't want to be the rule nazi on the card. My 'subjective opinion' is that balance can not be acheived on one foot and kkrasinski's 'subjective opinion' is that balance can be acheived on one foot. And yes, I still see falling putts (my version) as frequently as a stated earlier in this discussion in tourneys. Just this past weekend I counted 5 falling putts in the first round (7 holes in) before I stopped counting.

I regard it as a controlled moment of no forward momentum after the throw and before an intentional move toward the basket. A step through putt has continual forward motion throughout the putt and approach. A properly executed putt may be on one leg as long as there is no forward momentum during a pause after the putt.

I will often stand on one leg for more than a second, bend down and pick up my mini, and put my other leg down only after I start moving toward the basket.

Warning: This doesn't address the issue of making the rule less subjective. It's just my subjective interpretation of what it means.

I consider the requirement essentially to constitute demonstrating to the rest of the group that if you so desired, you could have gone the rest of your life without ever moving a supporting point closer to the target than your mark was. If it is not clear to everyone observing you that you could have walked off and had a cup of tea before advancing beyond your mark, then it was a falling putt. If there is any doubt, then before you step forward, ask the group to agree that you are demonstrating balance. If you can't pause long enough for them to reach a consensus on the matter before you step through, then it was a falling putt.

I think through this discussion alone we can easily say there are varying degrees of interpretation of the rule. Suffice to say, one can demonstrate balance on one leg, however there are different techniques used. For example, there are the rare players that do demonstrate balance by holding their stance for a moment in time as gnduke mentioned. Some players are infamous for their one-legged putt and hold still for a good second. Then there are other players (I would say newer players), who reach forward and as they pull their back leg up and putt, they swing their back leg through and step in front of the marker. Then there is the rest of the field that is in the middle.

The rule states that it is up to the group to decide if the player demonstrates full control of balance. Is there any reason why we would not want to eliminate some of the confusion of judgment whether it's the putter who doesn't understand a falling putt, or the other players calling a falling putt on a perfectly balanced one legged putt?

Let me ask this. How many players start out their putt stance on one leg? Ok. Next question, how many players start their putt stance on two legs? (For you smarty folks out there, just easily translate the above to: one leg = one supporting point, two legs = two or more supporting points. I know, putting from the crouch, ground, etc...)

My point is, you won't have full control of balance starting out from one supporting unit, so why would you conclude you can finish full control of balance on one supporting unit? I know the last question is an implied logic statement, but logic does seem to follow objectivity. Therefore, I finish this by saying the rule should be written in a way that demonstrates an objective demonstration before proceeding forward of the marker. I leave you all to ponder what that is.

I normally have my feet more or less inline when putting. When on a steep slope, I will putt from one foot since having my rear foot on the ground would have my center of balance too low and too far back. If you can't have full control of balance from one foot, I would recommend working on it. Not so that you can putt that way, but so that your core will be that much stronger.

My point is, you won't have full control of balance starting out from one supporting unit, so why would you conclude you can finish full control of balance on one supporting unit? I know the last question is an implied logic statement, but logic does seem to follow objectivity. Therefore, I finish this by saying the rule should be written in a way that demonstrates an objective demonstration before proceeding forward of the marker. I leave you all to ponder what that is.

Actually I know more than a couple of people who putt flamingo-style. Balance is not an issue. I do it if that's the only way I can get a good stance, but I prefer not to, sir.

My point is, you won't have full control of balance starting out from one supporting unit, so why would you conclude you can finish full control of balance on one supporting unit? I know the last question is an implied logic statement, but logic does seem to follow objectivity.

The premise is false. While a one foot stance may be less stable than a two foot stance, it is not true that a person cannot have full control of balance in the less stable stance. Balance and stability are two different things and the rule requires one and not the other.

So, have we gotten anywhere in this thread, except to say that some would like to see some objective standards for demonstrating "full control of balance", and other saying, basically, which includes me, "I can't give you objective standards for 'full control of balance', but I know it (or the lack of it) when I see it"?

Ok, I�ll accept balance and stability are two different things, agreed. My concern is how to distinguish between a balanced putt and one that is a falling putt. In the video, some of us are saying it�s a good putt, while others are saying it�s a falling putt. This varying degree of judgment happens on the course, and so what measurement do we use to determine the distinction? For some of us here, �we know it, when we see it� seems to be the common thread. I think we could have 10 different videos made to show varying degrees of a one legged-putt holding still for a second to a person swinging their back leg forward of the marker, and that you would find not everyone on the same page with the call.

My motivation is to try to find some way to remove the subjective judgment of the call and replace it with a practical demonstration before advancing forward of the marker. I understand that there is a lot of judgment in the calling of rules and not everything can resort to an objective measure, and in the end judgment will have to be applied.

When I putt within 10 meters, after my putt, I place both feet down, pick up my marker, then precede forward, no questions there. What if it was added to the rule� when putting within 10 meters, you must show full control of balance and pick up the marker before advancing forward of the marker.

Probably not the best conclusion. I�m not so worried about other players calling me on falling putts (now I know I can step left or right as discussed before). I�m concerned about players that either get called on questionable falling putts, or players that simply refuse to call falling putts to alleviate a headache arguing over subjective rules. I don�t know if there is any other call made on the field that get�s this much attention (maybe the 2 meter rule or 10 meter line, but you can use an objective device = measuring tape).

When I putt within 10 meters, after my putt, I place both feet down, pick up my marker, then precede forward, no questions there. What if it was added to the rule� when putting within 10 meters, you must show full control of balance and pick up the marker before advancing forward of the marker.


I applaud the attempt at trying to come up with a rule that is easier to objectively define this, but unfortunately this proposal also has issues.

The scenarios where it falls down:
- "gimme" putts, where one drops their putter in, picks it up and then picks up the marker, but I guess you could still do this as you aren't advancing forward when retrieving the disc.
- Space restricted putts (e.g. when the lie is under a thick bush). There are times where one must do some contortions to get a supporting point behind the marker. In many of these, there is no way to pick up the marker without having moved forward of the lie.

Picking up the marker has previously been listed in this rule as an action the player could take to demonstrate balance, but I can attest to the fact that it is easy to learn how to pick up your marker as you are falling forward after a putt.

And I can also attest to the fact that while maintaining forward momentum you can both touch your off foot to the ground behind your mini, pick that mini up, and still move a leg forward to keep from falling on your face.

There is an objective measure to "full control of balance": When the body's center of gravity (CoG) is maintained within the cone of stability (legitimate biomechanical term) and (in the case of putting) forward momentum of the body's CoG has been arrested. Once this objective measure has been attained, for any duration, the body is free to re-initiate forward movement. The reason the video judgement was subjective was that the angle was wrong to ascertain if forward momentum of the CoG was, in fact, stopped.

Can this objective measure easily be accomplished on the golf course? No, not in every case.

But, really, does it need to be? I think this is a case where too critical application of the rule actually goes against the spririt of the rule and the spirit of the game. Was the intent of the rule to penalize Chainmeister on the rare occaison when his klutziness results in a face plant? Was the intent of the rule to penalize gnduke as he occasionally wobbles in his statue like pose? I think not.

IMO, the rule is intended to prevent someone within ten meters from extending his reach by moving his CoG forward beyond his cone of stability as he releases the disc. And when this happens it is obvious. Penalize him, not Chainmeister or gnduke or the guy in the video.

Perhaps most importantly, simplify application of the rule by educating your cardmates as to the actual rule, read from the rulebook, without artificial constructs such as a three second rule, grabbing the mini, having both feet on the ground, or resisting external force -- all of which have been mentioned in this thread.

you know a falling putt when you see it. Establishing balance? I do that every time I get up to putt all the way through the putt. does it mean not falling down after the putt? What if you have full balance through out your entire putt? could you follow through after release since you "never lost balance" to begin with? I really do not think balance is the issue. I used to skate alot and balance isnt always pretty and usually if you dont have it you fall down. I think control of forward momentum is more the issue with a falling putt. I have seen falling putts and they are obvious. The person either continues with forward momentum through the putt (step putting) or they fall forward out of the putt stance at finish. If a player falls off to the side and does not advance forward of the marker, thats their problem. Its kinda hard to get consistent at putting if you have all that movement in your putt thats not directed at the basket. Inside the 10m circle I barely lift my back leg if I lift it at all. The putt is so short that I dont need the power given by the forward momentum of a falling putt and if I do need that power its because it is a <65 ft jump putt which allosw for forward momentum to carry through the throw.

I may have missed a page or two of posts since my last but have read with intererst the last two pages. Perhaps injecting time will help. In my previous, somewhat tongue in cheek, post I mentioned face planting. It really has happened. Don't ask. However, if balance is maintained until the disc comes to rest in the basket we may obviate some of our problems here. If a person is teetering and is behind his/her mini until the disc comes to rest in the basket we may have a workable solution. This is not the way the rules currently read. However, this would allow for a wide variety of tragic and comic faults without giving any advantage to a de facto jump putt within 10 meters. Once your disc is in you can fall forward and break you nose on the basket for all I care. In such as case you were clearly behind your mark on release and upon scoring. I would suggest a rules change along these lines.

So in summary you have no problem with a falling putt as long as they delay their fall? That's a step backward IMO!

So in summary you have no problem with a falling putt as long as they delay their fall? That's a step backward IMO!

Of course, if they stepped backwards we wouldn't have a problem. :-)

In any case, I do not see a large advantage gained from a situation where one is behind the mini at release and at disc's rest but has momentum propelling him/her towards the basket thereafter. This might be due to my stature. At 5'6" I can't get much closer doing this than by releasing with no forward momentum at all. I guess somebody with a greater wingspan could take advantage of the situation. It seems that my proposal would be 100%easier to observe, judge and call but may make the game .001% easier to play. I'd take the trade.

[QUOTE=chainmeister;1387438]Of course, if they stepped backwards we wouldn't have a problem. :-)

I know that many players look to the rules of ball golf in guidance with discussions about the rules of disc golf. Sometimes I like to look at the rules of track and field. I competed in shot put and discus in college. Putting inside the circle is a lot like shot putting inside a circle. The rule I wanted to point out, that laymen might not know in shot put, is that you must exit through the back half of the circle, no matter how long you wait after your put. Obviously at some point in history a similar discussion occurred about how to define the time when the put or throw was finished and the athlete regained balance. They decided that the athlete must leave from the back half of the circle to prove that their momentum had stopped and they had regained balance. This rule applies to discus, shot put, 35 lb weight throw, and the hammer, at least it did ten years ago. Maybe the answer for disc golf is that a rule should be out in place that requires the players take a step back after their put. It is a very definitive way to determine if a person’s momentum is no longer moving toward the target.

On another note I don’t understand how a triple jumper can hit a mark within two inches with a 50 feet run up at a full sprint and a person can’t hit a 300 mm spot with a two step approach.

Becuase in Track & Field events there are judges watching and a foul call will wipe out that attempt - no questions asked.

In disc golf not many actually practice hitting their mark, some only practice the aguments for when they get called. They know it's hard to prove and if they get belligerent enough, most others will either fold or not call it in the first place.

...In disc golf not many actually practice hitting their mark, some only practice the aguments for when they get called. They know it's hard to prove and if they get belligerent enough, most others will either fold or not call it in the first place. True that. The first time I called a falling putt in a PDGA event the player said "You're just a sore loser". In a recent event I watched a player moan to the TD about several falling putts called on him. And then you have to get someone else to go along and second with you.

I do like Willie's explanation about the track and field rules about not completing your movement in front of your mark.

If you make the putt, pick up your marker before proceeding forward, simple. Show balance my coming to full and complete rest, pick up your marker, then walk forward, tada! Eliminate this, I can show balance on one leg act, or oh look at me balance and then swing my back leg forward like a pendulum in front of the marker like I'm taking a casual step forward now. Jeez, if you miss your putt and it roles down the hill, for sure, you can go forward of your marker and chase it. But if it's cha-ching in, step back for a sec (moment in time), pick up your marker, then get yo disc. Why are we dancing around this when it's clear what should be done? Even if the rules don't change, players should clearly demonstrate and execute "full control of balance" that leave no ambiguity to any player. You might be holding your one leg, but that gust of 2mph wind comes in right at the nick of time when you attempt your balance beam routine, and you move a hair and then step forward, your not IN FULL CONTROL OF BALANCE.

Just like common courtesy and etiquette are paramount in this sport, a subjective rule of the field should played in such a way that leaves no question in any player's mind that calls for an infraction. If you like to one leg balance putt, great, but guess what, I balance on one leg too (for a fraction in time), and you know what, I always place that back leg down before the marker. If I swing my leg in front of the marker, then I feel I have lost balance of my momentum and I just did a falling putt. If you can balance on one leg, how hard is it to place the other leg down behind the marker before proceeding forward??? Gotcha.

How about a measurable, objective definition?

Establishing Balance: Supporting point(s) are stationary for no less than 2 seconds before advanceing past the marker toward the target.

I think instead of balance, motion would be easier to measure.

a time distinction isn't exactly accurate either, in my experience. Think about 3 seconds in bball, even with a neutral official supposedly keeping watch on it. Or the 3 count in pro wrestling. Or the 10 count in boxing.

...or the three seconds provided for calling a foot fault.

Perhaps the rule should be that before proceeding forward one should drop to all fours behind the marker, because you might be holding your balance on two legs until that gust of wind comes along and you move a hair and then step forward you are not IN FULL CONTROL OF BALANCE.

If you can balance on two legs, how hard is it to place your hands down behind the marker before proceeding forward??? Gotcha.

Perhaps the rule should be that before proceeding forward one should drop to all fours behind the marker, because you might be holding your balance on two legs until that gust of wind comes along and you move a hair and then step forward you are not IN FULL CONTROL OF BALANCE.

If you can balance on two legs, how hard is it to place your hands down behind the marker before proceeding forward??? Gotcha. How about having the choice of either doing the moonwalk or a backspin behind your marker, at least that is more 'creative'. Now back to the reality world, I think you understand the point as I explained previously, maintaining balance on one supporting unit and then swinging your balancing leg in the air forward of the marker is going to be highly up for debate. Eliminate this idea of 'I can do the one-legged pelican balance beam routine', and I think the majority of us will be on cue with the right call.