#271  
Old 10-04-2012, 02:17 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by blur View Post
and I don't know how everyone is reading into 'feet' away from the marker, because DavidSauls stated 5', 10' and 20' is a little hyperbole...
Maybe the 20'....

The suggestion was made to have room for the follow-through to still end behind the mini. On long fairway shots (on long par-4s and par-5s), my follow-through will take me 5', possibly more, past my plant foot.

I'm just not clear what a proposed rule that gives room for a follow-through to finish behind the mini would actually look like.

If the rule simply said your follow-through could end up at the mini, with no other specifications, I'll be someone would create a 20' follow-through just to abuse the rule. After all, look at the fuss over miniscule jump-putt foot-faults.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 10-04-2012, 02:41 PM
barneco's Avatar
barneco barneco is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Years Playing: 4.2
Courses Played: 42
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by blur View Post
although, ball golf you have a non moving stance and with disc golf you technically make a run up to take your shot.

unless you have the 'stand and deliver' approach witch would correlate with the ball golf stance
this was kinda my point earlier. in golf, it's not the STANCE that's non-moving...it's the BALL. You can do whatever you'd like in your stance and swing. Run up, follow through, pirouette, happy gilmore...etc, as long as the ball doesn't move until the club hits it.

In our sport we propel our object(the disc) with our bodies, not with a club. This simple difference has profound impact on the minutiae of stance/lie/stroke definition, as evidenced by the continuous discussion of the subject. It's hard to define it in the context of golf, when it's so fundamentally different. If you threw a golf ball with your arm instead of hitting it with a club, the exact same difficulties we are having would apply.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 10-04-2012, 02:55 PM
Martin Dewgarita's Avatar
Martin Dewgarita Martin Dewgarita is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In the Woods, WI
Years Playing: 5
Courses Played: 1149
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,463
Can't putt between your legs. How about a ball golf jump putt?
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 10-04-2012, 03:21 PM
blur blur is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Years Playing: 20.8
Courses Played: 15
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
I'm just not clear what a proposed rule that gives room for a follow-through to finish behind the mini would actually look like.
I am not on the PDGA board and do not know all the intricacies of developing the rules so I can't say exactly what a proposed rule would be.

Although, I am voicing my opinion on what may or may not be something of value to this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:00 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by blur View Post
I am not on the PDGA board and do not know all the intricacies of developing the rules so I can't say exactly what a proposed rule would be.

Although, I am voicing my opinion on what may or may not be something of value to this discussion.
"Proposed rule" is poor wording on my part, since it's nothing the PDGA is considering.

Someone in this thread suggested, for the sake of this discussion, an alternative rule that would allow a player to finish his follow-through at his lie, rather than throw from it.

I am merely pointing out potential flows in such a hypothetical rule, for the sake of this discussion.

As I said somewhere, I think it's all of value to think through and discuss current rules, as well as other possible rules, and weigh their pros and cons.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:12 PM
mudslinger's Avatar
mudslinger mudslinger is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mpls, MN
Courses Played: 1
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
"Proposed rule" is poor wording on my part, since it's nothing the PDGA is considering.
You are correct in that it wasn't PROPOSED to the rules committee OFFICIALLY, but the rules committee has for years trying to determine how to best handle the jump putt/walking putt "problem". Not to say they'll chose to extend the circle, but the idea has been floating around. see CK's quote below (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums...&postcount=164)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
The PDGA Rules Committee (RC) is trying to find a better way to handle the problem of calling jump putts legal or not. They have no agenda to either keep or get rid of jump putts, just solving the problem. It IS a problem based on high frame rate video where members of the RC tried to do jump and (Feldberg) walk thru putts legally. 'Yes' there are experienced jump putting pros in the RC. About 50% of the attempts were not legal where the disc was not released until the player was clearly off the ground much to the chagrin of some members who thought they were doing it legally.

So this discussion is relevant from the standpoint that ideas that might resolve the issue or handle it better might emerge. But so far, the RC feels the best candidate to improve the situation balancing the tradeoffs may be to increase the putting circle distance. But they're not willing to pull the trigger on that idea yet in the hope some other brainstorm may be better.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:16 PM
Script's Avatar
Script Script is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Charlotte
Years Playing: 13.4
Courses Played: 25
Posts: 744
I think we should be able to get up to 5m relief left or right of where you throw. I mean, why not? Disc golf isn't supposed to take any kind of skill or be precise, so might as well make everyone really good!

That would be so cool!...

HARDLY ANYBODY ACTUALLY COMPLAINS ABOUT JUMP PUTTS. I hear way more complaints about falling putts and accidental faults than the depate of whether the person is in the air during release. The jump putt is a great tactic, it should be kept. Also, rules should be interpreted to the spirit of the rule. The spirit of the rule is not to punish jump putters.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 10-04-2012, 05:03 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudslinger View Post
You are correct in that it wasn't PROPOSED to the rules committee OFFICIALLY.....
Yeah, but my specific mis-use of the word "proposed" was a specific rule idea someone floated in this thread, one that I don't think is on the PDGA's horizon.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 10-04-2012, 06:55 PM
DonCasper DonCasper is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Years Playing: 7.5
Courses Played: 45
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 109
I thought of a better solution to the current rule that should (hopefully) prevent cheating, allows jump putting, and clears up rule confusion such as having to end up with your pivot on the line between the basket and the mark, even on huge doglegs, etc. It also seems a bit more intuitive, if that is a plus.

I think the rule should be that you can be within 20 or so feet of any side of the mark, but when you throw the disc it must fly over the mini (within reason). Additionally you may not follow through with your body over the mini-marker.

Thus people can jump put or whatever the heck they want. This is similar to the rule the NBA uses for 3 pointers (you must jump and land behind the line), so at least one professional sport uses similar rules.

The only problem I foresee is if you end up directly behind a tree. You can no longer use the wide leg stance to get around the obstacle. I think the benefit of this is that it punishes bad shots and rewards good shots more. So if you throw 300' and end up behind a tree 30 feet from the basket, you have to throw sideways to get out and at best can get a 3, while someone who threw 300' and ended up 30 feet from the basket gets a solid chance at a 2, which is how I think it should be.
Reply With Quote
 

  #280  
Old 10-04-2012, 07:12 PM
General Scales's Avatar
General Scales General Scales is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Spokane WA
Years Playing: 7.2
Courses Played: 12
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonCasper View Post
I think the rule should be that you can be within 20 or so feet of any side of the mark, but when you throw the disc it must fly over the mini (within reason). Additionally you may not follow through with your body over the mini-marker.

So if you throw 300' and end up behind a tree 30 feet from the basket, you have to throw sideways to get out and at best can get a 3, while someone who threw 300' and ended up 30 feet from the basket gets a solid chance at a 2, which is how I think it should be.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.