#301  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:36 AM
jongoff09's Avatar
jongoff09 jongoff09 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Central Arkansas
Years Playing: 5.5
Courses Played: 32
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Not "simply". It looks to me like it brings up more things that are harder to monitor than the simple thing which is being "fixed". Just because the option's viable doesn't mean it's an improvement.

I've yet to see a proposal for fixing the problem of jump-putts that isn't worse than the problem. Come to think of it, I haven't seen the problem of jump-putts described in a way that compels fixing.
I may not have many years under my belt in this sport, but I completely agree with this ^^
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 10-05-2012, 08:56 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.4
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Here are parts of posts from a PDGA thread on this topic that gels some of the ideas posted here. Neil Webber summarized in rules lingo my proposal to allow throws including a one step follow thru from behind the lie:

B. When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Make contact with a stance zone defined by a 30x30cm square (or variant, or existing lie) directly behind the marker disc with;
a) at least one supporting point that is in contact with the playing surface or,
b) the next subsequent supporting point contact with the playing surface; and,
2. Have no supporting point contact with the marker disc or any object (including the playing surface) closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
3. Have all supporting points in-bounds.
C. Supporting point contact closer to the hole than the rear edge of the marker disc after the disc has been released is not permitted and is considered a stance violation. The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the hole.
A suggestion. As this concept is refined and reworded, you might want to take a hard look at the subsequent supporting point and revise the phrasing.

It looks to me that if I have a putt with a lie that is particularly impeded by trees, I could take a stance 4 or 5 feet to one side. Then, if I putted without lifting either foot, I could subsequently leap to my mark and that would constitute my "next subsequent supporting point".
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 10-05-2012, 09:41 AM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.7
Courses Played: 591
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,929
Yes, I realize that would be possible and even suggested it would be. No problem. The bias in this rule is for players to be able to attempt the execution of more types of throws but they really would have to execute them and finish properly. It's a slight philosophical shift in this rule toward execution versus punishment. Landing near trees would still require executing a more skillful shot with physically safer options. Lies real close to trees is already where players are likely to take liberties with their release stance. This rule proposal allows and challenges them to actually execute a recovery shot legally.

Last edited by Cgkdisc; 10-05-2012 at 09:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:01 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.4
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,807
One consequence would be that people who object to jump-putts because they make the sport look bad, will have to reconcile themselves to the throw-then-leap-to-the-mark motion.

I assume there's a reluctance to allow time-based rules ("two seconds before advancing past the lie", etc.), but I think a 1-second limit for the subsequent supporting point might be a thought. Otherwise I putt, take a few seconds, then leap over to the mark, like a Twister player with slow reflexes.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:09 AM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.7
Courses Played: 591
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,929
There's no time delay allowed in the follow thru. The way those sideways throws could be made is a more energetic version of my sideways putt example A-1 at 1:38 in the Demonstrate Balance video: http://www.pdga.com/demonstrating-balance-putting but the throw would be released one step before reaching the mark rather than at the mark as shown.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:16 AM
prerube's Avatar
prerube prerube is offline
The Man, the Myth, the Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Clinton, MD
Years Playing: 7.5
Courses Played: 213
Posts: 11,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohtobediscing View Post
WAAAHHH!!! Why can't I play the game the way I want?!
Seriously, 30 pages on this?

Christ on a crutch, its a game---STFU already.
^Sitting on the internet bitching about people who are bitching about a game.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:19 AM
Jay Dub's Avatar
Jay Dub Jay Dub is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SW Ohio
Years Playing: 34.7
Courses Played: 81
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,359
Send a message via Yahoo to Jay Dub
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
One consequence would be that people who object to jump-putts because they make the sport look bad, will have to reconcile themselves to the throw-then-leap-to-the-mark motion.

I assume there's a reluctance to allow time-based rules ("two seconds before advancing past the lie", etc.), but I think a 1-second limit for the subsequent supporting point might be a thought. Otherwise I putt, take a few seconds, then leap over to the mark, like a Twister player with slow reflexes.
One, if not the only, reason I don't like jump putts is because it takes the thrower beyond their lie. That's not how the game is meant to be played.
If they want to jump putt and land behind their lie after release, they can look as stupid as they want. I would have no problem with that. my 2 cents.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:15 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.4
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
There's no time delay allowed in the follow thru. The way those sideways throws could be made is a more energetic version of my sideways putt example A-1 at 1:38 in the Demonstrate Balance video: http://www.pdga.com/demonstrating-balance-putting but the throw would be released one step before reaching the mark rather than at the mark as shown.
Some version of "no time delay" should be added to that hypothetical rule, then, because I don't read it there. I realize that's just a concept, not a fully-refined proposed rule, so I offer this as a friendly suggestion. Especially if one of the goals is a clearer, easier-to-call rule.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 10-05-2012, 12:26 PM
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 25.7
Courses Played: 591
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,929
FWIW, I'm not sure how easy it would be for skilled players to execute a powerful throw in the right direction and end up on the stance area with their one step follow thru. I'm going to try it with some players and see. That may kill or encourage my interest in the proposal right there.
Reply With Quote
 

  #310  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:19 PM
Norcal's Avatar
Norcal Norcal is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: northern California
Years Playing: 18.2
Courses Played: 56
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
One consequence would be that people who object to jump-putts because they make the sport look bad, will have to reconcile themselves to the throw-then-leap-to-the-mark motion.

I assume there's a reluctance to allow time-based rules ("two seconds before advancing past the lie", etc.), but I think a 1-second limit for the subsequent supporting point might be a thought. Otherwise I putt, take a few seconds, then leap over to the mark, like a Twister player with slow reflexes.
I appreciate the effort to create a set of rules that is enforceable, but this would be an absurd result of CK's proposal. It emphasizes one's leaping abilities rather than disc throwing abilities. Plus it would look goofy as hell.
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 08:36 AM.


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