Main Menu

Changes to PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf & Competition Manual for 2021

Revisions are periodically required to update PDGA rules and competition standards to keep up with the constantly evolving nature of disc golf equipment, courses, tournament management, technology, etc. These updates and edits can range from nearly unnoticeable verbiage alterations to complete rewrites of an entire section. Fortunately, the changes approved by the board of directors for the 2021 revision of the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf and the PDGA Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events contain mostly the former.   

These revisions come about via a process that appears fairly simple on paper but requires dozens of hours of work behind the scenes by the many volunteers involved. The process is as follows:

  1. The Rules Committee and Competition Committee receive and review feedback throughout the year.
  2. The committees deliberate internally and decide which items to recommend for board approval.
  3. The committees' initial recommendations are sent to the board of directors for review and feedback.
  4. The board reviews the recommendations and then sends their questions and comments back to the committees.
  5. The committees make their final revisions and submit them to the board for approval.
  6. The board votes to approve or deny each of the submissions. 

The items listed below were approved by the board of directors and will take effect on January 1, 2021. They will NOT appear in the online versions of the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf or the PDGA Competition Manual for Disc Golf Events until the day they take effect. 

Please note: Any text that is highlighted in green denotes an addition to the rules or competition manual, while strikethroughs indicate that language will be removed.

Official Rules of Disc Golf Changes

806.05 Hazard

B. A disc is in a hazard if its position is clearly and completely surrounded by the hazard or by a combination of the hazard and an out-of-bounds area.

811 Misplay

C. If a misplay is discovered after the scorecard has been turned in, the player receives two the penalty throws applicable to the misplay.

Competition Manual of Disc Golf Events Changes

1.03 J Temporary Amendment for PDGA events sanctioned as of 3/12/2020.

1.05.Practice Rounds, Beginning Play, Late Arrivals

G. The Tournament Director must provide two scorecards to each group, to be kept independently of one another.  These scorecards may be of the same medium or of different media.  The two scorecards must be reconciled by the group and submitted by whichever method the Tournament Director has designated as the official scoring method for the tournament.

1.08 Reduction of Field Size (Cuts)

C.  Making the cut line at or above the payout line is required so that all players who make payout positions making the cut get paid.If additional players below the payout line made the cut due to ties, only those players remaining at least tied for a payout position would get paid. The only exception may be due to the Severe Weather Policy being invoked to finish an event. (Refer to PDGA Mid-Event Weather Suspension & Cancellation Guidelines Policy)

1.13 Youth Safety

A. Parents/guardians must be responsible for their children during PDGA-sanctioned events. Neither the PDGA staff nor the event staff are responsible for the children of tournament players, spectators, etc. during events. Parents/guardians may not leave unaccompanied children at or near the scoring area, clubhouse, or any other tournament venue.  Any child younger than 13 years of age who is accompanying any player group and is not a caddie must be supervised by an adult who is not part of that player group and not a caddie.

B. Players in the MJ3, FJ3, MJ4, FJ4, MJ5, FJ5, MJ6, and FJ6 Junior ≤12, Junior ≤10, Junior ≤08, Junior ≤06 divisions must be accompanied by a parent or guardian during tournament rounds.

C. Any player younger than 13 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or guardian regardless of the division they play in. A single parent or guardian may be responsible for multiple junior players in the same group if agreed upon by all of the parents/guardians prior to the start of the round. Players in the MJ1, FJ1, MJ2, and FJ2 Junior ≤18 and Junior ≤15 divisions may be accompanied by a parent or guardian during tournament rounds.

D. During PDGA-sanctioned tournament rounds, parents/guardians accompanying junior division players:

  1. may assume the roles of a caddie; assist junior players with disc selection, throw selection, rule interpretations, or scorekeeping.
  2. may not make or second rulings such as foot faults, courtesy violations, etc.
  3. must encourage good sportsmanship by demonstrating positive support for all junior players in the group.
  4. must place the emotional and physical well-being of all junior players in the group above the personal desire to win.
  5. must refrain from the use of abusive or profane language.
  6. must refrain from using drugs, alcohol, or tobacco.

E. Failure to adhere to the parent/guardian responsibilities may result in the disqualification of the junior player or removal of the parent/guardian, and their accompanying junior player, from the event site by the tournament director.

F. The PDGA highly recommends that Tournament Directors create their tournament schedules to ensure that all players in the two youngest age groups Junior 08 and Junior 06 be scheduled to play no more than 18 holes in one day.  Additionally, TDs should use their discretion to possibly limit the amount of daily play concerning the Junior ≤10 divisions (age 10 and younger) depending on the length and strenuousness of their course.

3.03 Player Misconduct

G. The public display or use of tobacco products by event staff, players, and by extension their caddies, is prohibited at all times at PDGA events of any Tier that solely offer Junior divisions (i.e., divisions beginning with MJ and/or FJ prefixes), including the PDGA Junior World Championships.

  1. Such public display or use is also prohibited at all other PDGA Majors and Elite Series events, as well as those events held concurrently with those Major and Elite Series events, from the two-minute warning until their scorecard is turned in.
  2. This prohibition includes all smoking and chewing tobacco products, as well as electronic and vapor cigarettes, whether tobacco-based or not. This prohibition does not apply to smoking cessation products that do not produce vapor, such as nicotine gum, nicotine patches, or nicotine lozenges.
  3. For players and their caddies, any violation of these prohibitions will be treated as a courtesy violation, and violators will be asked to put away the product until after the round has concluded. Subsequent violations will be handled per PDGA Rule 812.C, with penalty throws assessed. Repeated violations may result in disqualification in accordance with Competition Manual Section 3.03 - Player Misconduct.
  4. At all non-junior events to which this policy applies, the Tournament Director may opt to provide designated smoking areas out of the public eye for players, caddies, and event staff to use during the round, and all rules concerning the pace of play still apply (Competition Manual 3.02).
  5. At PDGA events of any Tier that solely offer Junior divisions, including the PDGA Junior World Championships, no designated smoking areas will be provided.
  6. In cases where local laws and policies conflict with this policy, please contact the PDGA Tour Manager for guidance.

3.05 Carts, Caddies and Groups

F. For those players wishing to use a carrying device, approved carrying devices include disc golf bags, foldable chairs and push cart companions. No animals, motor driven or bicycle type devices shall be allowed as a carrying device at any PDGA events.

3.08 Tournament Director Rights and Responsibilities

G. Per Section 2.4 of the PDGA Bylaws, Tournament Directors may not refuse service to anyone based on their race, age, religion, sexual orientation, color, national origin, disability, gender, gender identity, or ancestry. creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and/or religion.

Rules Questions and Answers Changes


My drive ended up under a picnic table. Can I play from behind it? On top of it?

In general, no. Picnic tables, along with any other park or course equipment, are obstacles on the course. They are to be treated as any other obstacles, for example a bush or a tree. How you play your next throw depends on the picnic table. If there is room for you to take a stance under it, even by sticking your leg underneath, that’s what you do. If your disc is on top of the picnic table and there is room underneath, it is a lie above ground and you mark directly below it and play from there. If the disc is on top and there’s no room underneath (for example, a solid picnic table), you play from on top if that is reasonable. Otherwise, the table is treated as a solid obstacle and you mark behind it on the line of play.


After throwing and picking up my marker I realize that I want to abandon the throw. Can I still do that even though that lie is no longer marked?

Yes, just have your group agree on an approximate lie from which the abandoned throw was made and play from there.


My group made a ruling that turned out to be wrong. They called me safe when I was actually OB, so I played from an incorrect lie. Do I get penalized?

Maybe. It’s up to the TD. You may be penalized for the OB because that is the correct ruling for that throw. However, you should not be penalized for having played from an incorrect lie (misplay), as you played according to your group’s ruling. If there is doubt about whether a ruling is correct, you should consider playing a provisional. You are responsible for playing the course properly. If you disagree with the group and an official is not readily available, play a provisional and have the TD make a ruling later.


Everyone in my group watched my soft putter push through the side of the basket and come to rest completely inside of it, not wedged at all. They said the putt was no good. Are they right?

A: Yes. A throw that is observed by the group or an Official to enters the target by wedging through the tray or by dropping through the top of the chain support is not considered good, even if it comes to rest in the basket or chains, because it has not entered the target correctly (above the rim of the tray and below the top chain support). If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the group must make a decision.


As I release a putt, I push off from my back foot so that after release I am balanced on my front foot. I typically freeze there for a couple of seconds, then swing my back foot forward and continue toward the hole. Is that a foot fault?

It’s hard to say. Your group will have to make a judgment call. To demonstrate “full control of balance” the player must perform some action that breaks up the flow of movement toward the target after release, before proceeding toward the target. Some examples of actions that demonstrate balance might be: (1) a clear pause and display of balance, (2) placement of the back foot on the ground behind the mark, or (3) retrieval of the marker disc. The key to all of those is to show balance and control of your body behind the mark before moving forward. The best course of action is to leave no room for doubt, which is easy to do if you are indeed in control of your body after you’ve released the putt.


On a blind hole, I threw a fast, stable disc that skipped hard toward the basket. When we walked up, we found it wedged in the front of the tray. Was that an ace?

Probably not. It’s a group decision. There’s a very high probability that the disc wedged itself into the tray from the outside. A disc must enter the target correctly in order to complete the hole. The odds that it entered above the tray and then wedged in the tray on its way out are extremely low. However, if your group cannot reach a majority decision, the benefit of the doubt goes to the thrower and the ace counts.


A rival of mine likes to play head games, for example by telling me my score for the round, that he thinks I will make or miss a putt, etc. Can I call a courtesy violation on him?

Maybe. Though being a jerk isn’t explicitly listed as a courtesy violation, any action that is “distracting or unsportsmanlike” can be penalized. You and your group will need to decide if the player’s behavior is bad enough to call. Short of that, it is something you, your group, and/or other players will have to work out with them. If the behavior is bad enough, or there’s a pattern of it for that player, you can notify the TD and/or the PDGA Disciplinary Committee.


My disc was stuck in a tree far above two meters (with the two-meter rule in effect), when another player’s throw knocked it to the ground. Where is my lie, and am I subject to a two-meter penalty throw?

The interference rules state that a disc that has been moved is played relative to where it first came to rest. Since that was clearly above two meters, you are subject to a penalty throw just as if the disc had stayed in the tree. As for the player whose throw knocked your disc down, the interference rule does not apply when the interference is caused by a competitively thrown disc.

Rules Questions and Answers Removals

The following Q&As will be removed from use:


For the tobacco use, I think the words "out of the public eye" is too strong and impossible to enforce. I don't smoke. Restaurants and other facilities do not require smokers to "hide" when they smoke, they have designated smoking areas. This should be the terms instead. Should alcohol use at an event when not playing also be out of the public eye? Should someone, including spectators, at a Major or NT event that is wearing a tee shirt or barefoot also be out of public eye?

Submitted by jackinkc on

Jeff is spot on. This is too stringent. The age of legislation of marijuana as well is upon us, how do you enforce edibles? Let local laws rule the land, as many places are tobacco free, and in those instances, fine, but I mean the PGA doesn't even ban smoking, they ask to have players be discreet, we should do the same......

Tobacco is addictive, and therefore, you in all honesty could harm someone from not allowing them to use a product that they made a choice to. So now the pDGA thinks they are medical experts in this arena.....ugh

I quit smoking regularly almost 30 years ago, I don't allow it in my house, but you can step outside and smoke on my deck or porch, give an option of being discreet and away from affecting other players is the best plan on this.

“Tobacco is addictive, and therefore, you in all honesty could harm someone from not allowing them to use a product they made a choice to.”

This is an incredibly weak argument against the stringency of the rule. If someone suffers from substance addiction to the point where they may experience withdrawal symptoms, the choice is exclusively theirs whether or not they participate in activities that prohibit the substance they are addicted to.

The PDGA is not forcing tobacco addicts to play. The PDGA has no responsibility for withdrawal-related harm. The PDGA is not claiming to be a medical expert on the topic - they simply don’t want drugs on the course. The rule is reasonable.

Smoke blows around. It is NOT possible to be discreet. Edibles are not an issue and you are making a category error to bring them up in the same context.

This is SOLELY about not dosing other people with your drug (which cannot happen with edibles but ALWAYS happens with smoked products).

You do not have a right to force me to use your drug.

If an addict is jonesing, it is solely THEIR fault and they should either quit or learn to deal with the side effects of withdrawal, which are minimal with tobacco (often merely disrupting sleep patterns while someone is in the process of quitting).

Preventing someone from smoking during a round of disc golf will cause no more harm than it would to someone who has to wait 2 hours for their first break at 10 a.m. at work or even those folks who don't get breaks and have to wait a full 4 hours (until lunch, to fuel their addiction). Addiction is NOT a disability and is NOT covered under any ADA laws and this rule is not an infringement on the rights of any addict. Addiction IS a health issue, but it is up to the player who has such an issue--and that could be the flu or anemia--to decide if he/she can play with their illness.

As you yourself said, their addiction is THEIR choice and no one else should suffer any consequences for it or bear their burden.

They are on their own if they can't handle 2 hours without a puff, and this is the only good rule change this year that I wholly support (in fact, I brought it up with Jay Reading about a year ago and he agreed with me in private emails and said he would put it on the agenda for 2021).

Thanks Jay!

Submitted by ScottyLove on

Just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this part of the statement... "solely offer Junior divisions"

This is for JUNIOR ONLY tournaments. The point is that we don't want to condone tobacco use in front of junior players. That's all.

But #4 says it applies to all non-junior events too (so Majors and NTs)...right? I 100% agree with the policy at Junior Only events, but then alcohol use should also be away from public eye. But, if that is included and Junior Worlds is hosted at a facility with a licensed restaurant that serves alcohol, then TD is basically telling the restaurant at the clubhouse they can't serve alcohol or allow customers to smoke in the designated smoking area for their restaurant.

Submitted by jgeurin on

I don't understand the rationale for removing QA-MAN-3. Has this interpretation of the rule changed. If so, then a new clarifying example QA needs to be substituted. I have seen this happen numerous times in tournament play.

Submitted by TinaRHicks on

Regarding the smoking rule change...the rule indicates “solely for JR tournaments, if this applies only to tournaments are JR division - please go further to explain why G.3 and G.4.

G.4 seems to be in conflict.

Submitted by Zay Valdez on

Smoking update is a welcome addition although 3.03G4 does require more clarification for the designated smoking area, perhaps a minimum distance from tournament course area or tees? "Out of the public eye" by itself is quite vague.

Submitted by ERicJ on

So now a disc that cannot be found in casual water is played & penalized as a "lost disc", correct?

If so, this is a welcome change. It was always dumb that a puddle of water was treated differently from a pile of leaves or a bush.

Submitted by cgkdisc on

Too punitive. A player is already losing their disc even though they threw it into a fairway location that is normally safe inbounds. Why isn't that enough punishment? Let alone applying lost disc penalty slows up the game walking back for a rethrow versus the player marking back on the LOP or drop zone for the casual area.

Submitted by ERicJ on

Chuck, who's to say the casual water is even in the fairway? I don't see why lost-in-water should get an exception vs. lost in a pile of leaves, or lost in atypically tall unmowed grass, or a myriad of other otherwise good throws that simply cannot be found.

If the penalty for a lost disc is too harsh, then change the penalty for a lost disc. But making an exception because you can't find your disc in one place vs. another was silly.

Submitted by RoJo on

I believe it was merely redundant being that such decisions are up to the card. It’s up to the card to decide if the disc is “believed” to be in casual water or lost and wether to allow the player to take casual relief. Similarly, if players saw a tee shot splash in a creek, pond or lake and couldn’t find it. They would not automatically declare it a lost disc and re-tee but rather would declare it as OB and decide where the disc was last inbounds. It’s up to the card either way. I suppose that technically means that a card could decide that any discs lost in water is “lost” and force a re-tee but the majority of players would never agree to that.

Submitted by ERicJ on

The main body of the rules has a single exception for not taking a lost disc penalty when you can't find a disc: 806.02.C when you can't find a disc for which there is compelling evidence came to rest OB. This is reinforced in QA-LOS-1. [It's actually more than reinforced, it's made more stringent with the addition of "uncertainty" to the determination verbiage.]

QA-CAS-3 was always an oddball because directly contradicts the Lost Disc rule in the main body. There's nothing in the main body of the rules that even hints at the possibility of a disc that can't be found in-bounds being played without immediate stroke & distance penalty.

The removal of QA-CAS-3 means now all in-bounds areas are treated equally with respect to lost discs as per the main body of the rules. As I said in the original post: it was always dumb that a puddle of water was treated differently from a pile of leaves or a bush.

Submitted by RoJo on

That clarifies it. I suppose then if I am TD on a course with large areas of temporary, casual water in the fairways, I might make a DZ or call it OB water so that players aren’t penalized with stroke and distance due to poor drainage or course design.

Submitted by krupicka on

It is not up to the card. The only exception for a disc not found to not be considered lost is when there is evidence that the disc came to rest OB.

Submitted by cgkdisc on

Time to allow photo and video evidence. The primary reason it was not allowed in the past was not every group having access to a camera. With the onset of digital scoring, there will be at least one cell phone camera/video device in each group. At minimum, allow photo or video in events where digital scoring is required but why not extend to all sanctioned events?

Submitted by RoJo on

I’d be curious to see a short list of situations that would require video evidence. Situations that couldn’t be decided by the group or verbally discussed with a TD to resolution. I can’t think of a situation where a card ruling couldn’t either decide the matter or give the benefit of the doubt to the player. I definitely would not allow players to film one another without express permission in an attempt to try and catch foot faults etc. I’m just curious about your opinion.

Submitted by FredVocino on

Re: QA-APP-5
A deletion in the prior answer was needed. Perhaps the whole matter of wrongful group decisions could be re-approached.
The deleted language indicates that the PDGA now considers all misplays as warranting penalties, even those that occur as a result of errant group decisions. As the prior question remains as related to a errant OB call it would occur that the misplay penalty (2 strokes, per 811.C. or, F. last paragraph) would apply to the same circumstance as an OB penalty (1 stroke). It is understood that the more severe penalty supersedes.
As written, the prior question does not raise the issue of any one or more dissenter from the group decision. The answer might first treat that very question with a simple statement that individuals are responsible; no group decision relieves them from that responsibility. Following a pro-forma reference to the 2 stroke-vs-1 stroke rule, the PDGA might offer advice that any doubt on the part of the affected player that the group is correct should be handled with a provisional.
Otherwise the PDGA might revise this whole QA and take on the general issue of group decisions that result in misplays that are discovered well after they occur. Question: “During our round my group made a decision about my play that was later recognized as a misplay. May I avoid the misplay penalty based on the fact that my group made the call?” That is the heart of the matter in the existing question.

Consider this part of the proposed answer: “If no one sees the throw on a blind hole or when the target is too far away, the group must make a decision.” Who would move from a position of blindness toward the basket, and next find a disc completely within the confines of the target and see that as a matter of doubt to be resolved by some group decision? If there is no adequate view of the target, then what reason do the players have to doubt that the disc is in? The current and proposed answer unnecessarily ventures into a matter not identified in the question; and does so with no offer of anything but the element of blindness. Try adding, “ but otherwise has cause to doubt that the disc entered the target properly” to the above quote. Otherwise, don’t burden the legit part of the answer with the unwarranted venture.

Submitted by ERicJ on

Are there no plans to put into the rulebook the requirement of DZs being within 10M of the Mando object? Currently, burying that in the Tour Standards is inconsistent with how required Waivers are documented in the rulebook, e.g. OB lie options.

Submitted by weaves on

In regards to Maintaining Balance/Foot Faults. One of the criteria listed in maintaining balance is picking up a mini marker. Couldn’t an argument be made that a player could pick up their marker while falling forward? This would be especially possible on obstructed stances from the knee where the mini marker would be well within reach. Personally I don’t think picking up a mini marker should be listed as an example of maintaining balance for this reason. I feel like a player could use this as an unfair advantage in a situation where falling forward on an inside the circle putt would be deemed legal by the group because he picked up his/her mini before making contact with the ground in front of his/her lie. Thoughts?

It's a very dumb rule for numerous reasons, and you've brought up one of the main ones: I for one, inside 10 meters, ALWAYS allow my momentum to bring me downward and touch the mini--preventing myself from losing balance--and picking it up in one motion as I take that first step forward.

One of my main issues is that it's almost impossible to detect and that because it is so difficult to call that the rule should simply be eliminated. It was always dumb and I've been lobbying against it for 26 years now.

The other reasons are that maintaining balance makes sense ONLY if you are a gymnast and perfect form is required by your sport (and isn't that leg kick that most people employ more than a little silly and embarrassing?).

As a Physical Therapist, I'm appalled at the balance rule because it creates bad mechanics that could cause injury (and hey, aren't the new rules posted today virtue signaling that it's all about safety with the kids?). It prevents a proper follow through and good form.

It's also a bad rule because it's inconsistent with the rules governing the tee and fairway shots (the putt, like those shots, should be governed by the same rules, that allow us to pass our lie as soon as we release; explicitly, the rule SHOULD say that the foot may not contact the ground beyond the lie--or end of tee pad--until release).

It's a bad rule. It's nearly impossible to detect or enforce.

It needs to go away forever (along with the 2 meter rule).

1--The tobacco rule doesn't go nearly far enough. Juniors only? How does that protect the children? (which seems to be the virtue signaling of the new segment on Youth Safety). Tobacco use should be banned at ALL tournaments and sanctioned leagues, and at EVERY event that has even a single junior.

2--The Youth Safety rules are ludicrous. For an organization dedicated to 'growing' this will harm the sport. It means that a 12 year old cannot attend a tournament as a spectator. It means that if I am playing REC and my tee time is the same as my 12 year old child that I cannot play or that he cannot play. It means that my child cannot hang out at tournament central until I finish my round (and would be forced to go elsewhere, where more danger lurks).

QA-COU-1: Wake up. ANY player who speaks in such a manner is probably a mediocre player who is actively trying to mess with another player's mind. There is absolutely no question that this sort of behavior should be explicitly outlawed and the parameters of such rules expanded. There is no doubt that this is a violation of the spirit of good sportsmanship, and is mere gamesmanship. Atrocious.

QA-COM-5: Why should the 'flow of movement' be halted and a player be forced to demonstrate balance as if he/she were a gymnast? There is no aspect of disc that should require balance (I've seen 500' throws in which a pro fell off the tee!).

First, it's just a dumb and arbitrary requirement that is nearly impossible to call or enforce or penalize.

Second, it creates bad mechanics and the possibility for injury or chronic use issues in players by not allowing us to take our normal shot and FOLLOW THROUGH (the height of GOOD mechanics is a proper follow through, not some spasmodic attempt to maintain a balance that is meaningless).

Third, it is not consistent with the rules from the tee or fairway which allow us to cross our lie upon release (and maybe the rule for ALL 3 levels of throw should simply state that we cannot make contact with the ground beyond the lie until we release; this would also help on any sort of crouching putts, since virtually every pro player touches the ground upon release, even inside the circle).

Fourth, the leg kick or side step most employ to prevent a foot fault is ugly to see.

This is not gymnastics, where we need to demonstrate perfect balance and body control. We're allowed to use our bodies in any way we can to move the disc forward. It's not darts, where crossing the line IS a real violation. It's not like basketball or Ultimate where a pivot foot is required for obvious reasons (traveling, in both sports).

Disc golf is a fluid, dynamic, athletic sport and restricting movement is anathema to that. The balance/foot fault rule as it pertains to the green needs to simply be eliminated and/or made consistent with the rules for the tee and fairway. It's just dumb otherwise

It's as bad as artificial OB as an attempt to make the game harder, when OB should be outlawed and courses designed in more difficult terrain with REAL penalties (or not, if you can throw the brilliant escape shot, which is why golf is full of drama that disc golf doesn't have since disc players are penalized before they have a chance to throw the great recovery).

Likewise, if you want to make putting harder, don't restrict the players for being so good. Change the target. My first suggestion would be to double the size of the band; my second would be to eliminate the chains and pole above the height at the bottom inside of the basket so that drop putts that flutter in are the only good ones and players would have to show touch to leave it close enough for a 'gimme' putt (rather than being able to gun a putt from any distance). In ball golf, you can't hit every putt the same speed, but that's effectively what disc golfers can do, requiring them to show no skill or touch on the greens. The latter would also virtually eliminate aces, as is the case even in pro ball golf (they should be rare).

Another year of really bad changes to the rules that are based on making the game marketable, not playable.

Why not change the cage design so discs CANNOT go through?
So easy to do. Might even make them cheaper to make (because you could also in doing this design the basket to eliminate the nubs that eliminate so many good putts).

Submitted by FredVocino on

Re: Spike Hyzer (AKA?) view concerning 10 meter/show of balance rule. Your practice of swooping down to pick up your mini in the process of falling forward without first demonstrating balance is not a behavior that is hard to detect. You may fault the PDGA for recommending a mini pickup as a flawless way to demonstrate balance; but any flaw in the practice occurs due to the individual's neglect of the needed interruption of forward motion. You should not be able to cite the PDGA reference to mini pickup as a guarantee that you have complied with the rule. Anybody concerned about the wear and tear on the human body due to the restriction with 10 meters has much more to be concerned with regarding the pronounced torqueing of our bodies in the more strenuous actions we take to play.
Eliminating the show-of-balance rule will bring to Circle 1 the controversies we already have with step and jump putts. The enforcement/detectability concerns there are more valid than with the show of balance practice. People are clamoring for more rules to restrict abuses outside of 10 meters; they would not accept the introduction of those abuses within 10 meters. During your 26 years of lobbying for a change in the balance rule did any of this occur to you?

Submitted by krupicka on

Picking up the marker before moving forward helps remind a player that they need to demonstrate balance, but grabbing the marker while falling forward does not in and of itself demonstrate balance.

Submitted by weaves on

Yes I agree with what you are saying but number 3 states nothing about balance and only states picking up the mini marker. I think we all know and understand the balance requirements when putting inside of the circle but I wish they didn’t use this language that is subject to interpretation and possible argument. Rules and examples should be clear, concise, and irrefutable.

Submitted by krupicka on

While putting a second foot down might help demonstrate balance, putting it down ala a football receiver catch to stay in bounds has the same issue. it is not enough on it's own. That examples needs to be read in context with the rest of the QA. If you have better wording, please use the contact line for the Rules Committee and send it to us. Thank you.

Submitted by ScottyLove on

RE: Spike Hyzer... for every "good" putt that hit the nubs and was rejected, those same nubs probably saved you 10 times from skipping off the rim and sending your wide putt another 30 feet. And anything that hits the nubs is really not a good putt anyway. You missed your intended target no doubt. There are several nubless designs on the market, but I bet if you played a course with them often, you'd see what I'm talking about.

Submitted by FredVocino on

I will try to address the issues raised by RoJo recently.

“I’d be curious to see a short list of situations that would require video evidence. Situations that couldn’t be decided by the group or verbally discussed with a TD to resolution.”
Video evidence is not now given consideration for the purpose of real-time rules enforcement. Videos are now being made with no expressed purpose of being submitted for rules enforcement consideration; but, they are revealing in indirect ways information that supplies people with evidence useful to their arguments for a rule permitting official use of videos. The pressure for such a rules change is largely related to the step and jump putt practices of many players. Underlying the concern is a distinction between the support-point touches past the lie that are permitted outside circle one. People see the current rule as appropriately permitting a natural forward momentum caused with longer throws and, inappropriately permitting lunges and steps over the lie in order that the player achieve a reduced distance to the target. Demands for video usage may be the way people respond to the apparent lack of official recognition of the current rule’s inability to resolve the abuse of the “loophole” that has become common place.

"I can’t think of a situation where a card ruling couldn’t either decide the matter or give the benefit of the doubt to the player."
The card, each member, is responsible for making a ruling when no ruling-qualified official is available. The player/official exam is to validate a player’s eligibility to fulfil the responsibilities of making, supporting and voting on calls. Abstaining from a vote on a call is not a player prerogative, as they have an equal burden in the rules enforcement necessary to the sport. The whole card votes on the call, not on the gift of doubt to the benefit of the player. Only when there is a tie vote does the benefit to player occur.

" I definitely would not allow players to film one another without express permission in an attempt to try and catch foot faults etc. I’m just curious about your opinion."

Blanket prohibitions against the use of personal phones to record the activities on the course would be a confused and uneven matter of enforcement. Courtesy violations involving video recording would be a matter of the concurrent circumstances that are likely more persuasive than the mere use of a phone. For myself, anybody offering video evidence of some wrongdoing on my part is demonstrating their incompetence in otherwise persuading the other members on my card that something wrong has occurred. This gets us back to the responsibility to call infractions when they occur. If I am called on a stance violation and no other member will second the call, it raises the need for everybody watching my next putt.