jump putt question

[prerube]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

They're not supposed to. But C-3 is legit. The video will be updated to show which ones are legal and which ones are not once the Rules Committee completes their review.

Is C3 the only legal one?

[MNcyclone]

I firmly believe that the rule should just be that you can't place a foot on the ground beyond the marker until the disc is settled and not moving of its own force. Under that interpretation those "iffy" putts are just fine, and that is how it should be.

[Cgkdisc]

In one of feldberg's videos he is adamant that before you can go past your lie on a putt you must get that second foot down and show balance. I will try to find the video clip and post it later.

That's Feldberg's definition of "showing balance" but not THE definition.

[Cgkdisc]

Is C3 the only legal one?

See post 19.

I firmly believe that the rule should just be that you can't place a foot on the ground beyond the marker until the disc is settled and not moving of its own force.

Illogical in Spockese. Whether a player faults or not has to do with what motions a player makes and not on what happens with the projectile.

[Jimb]

I hope that you enjoyed making that. It was a lot of fun to watch. Some of your "animation" was quite amusing.

I look forward to seeing the final product. Although, with my boring ol' stance and motion I typically don't have to be concerned about breaking the rules... or do I????

[MNcyclone]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Illogical in Spockese. Whether a player faults or not has to do with what motions a player makes and not on what happens with the projectile.

So if someone balances on one foot for an hour without putting down their other, and then goes towards the basket, that is a foot fault? Not crossing the mark until the disc has settled is an easy way to determine balance. It is a set amount of time to establish balance and takes away the guesswork. What other logical marker for the correct amount of balance time is there?

[Ricta]

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc

Only B-3, B-4, C-1, F-3 and F-4 will likely turn out to be faults once the RC gets thru with their deliberations. In A-3, B-2 and D-2, the player did some action that demonstrated balance after the putt and before moving forward whether it was pausing or pivoting.

B-2 showed balance, but looks as if the disc was released too far behind the marker. Freeze it and look where the disc is leaving his(your) hand and the position of the feet. My 2c.

[mashnut]

Originally Posted by MNcyclone

I firmly believe that the rule should just be that you can't place a foot on the ground beyond the marker until the disc is settled and not moving of its own force. Under that interpretation those "iffy" putts are just fine, and that is how it should be.

So if you're close, you can jump putt as long as you're in the air until the disc is in the basket, but if you're a little further away that won't work...

Balance is balance, regardless of what the disc is doing. I agree that "showing balance" should be clarified, and that's a large part of what Chuck has been trying to do with his video examples, but changing the rule to include remaining behind the lie until the disc is at rest just brings a whole new problem into play. It's pretty difficult to watch the player and the disc, making it impossible to consistently tell if the player came forward before the disc was exactly at rest.

[mashnut]

Originally Posted by MNcyclone

So if someone balances on one foot for an hour without putting down their other, and then goes towards the basket, that is a foot fault? Not crossing the mark until the disc has settled is an easy way to determine balance. It is a set amount of time to establish balance and takes away the guesswork. What other logical marker for the correct amount of balance time is there?

There is no "balance time", standing on one foot for an hour would pretty clearly demonstrate balance and wouldn't be a foot fault, but you'd end up dq'd for missing the next several holes. I've seen lots of people that use the method you're proposing to determine falling putts, and it means you have people windmilling and keeping themselves from falling forward just long enough to let the disc get into the basket and then falling, never actually demonstrating balance.

[jenb]

I remember Ken Climo saying there is no better way to demonstrate balance than picking up your mini before stepping forward. That's what I do. Granted, you don't have to put your off foot down behind the mini in order to pick it up. If someone picked up their mini before setting the off foot down before the lie, I'd have a hard time finding fault with it. Keep in mind, it's the player's affirmative duty to demonstrate the balance. I want to see the foot come down behind the mini, or the mini picked up, or the crane stance held for 5 seconds, or something. Gimme a demo. It's in the rules.