Well I don't get that logic at all. I don't care one bit what your run-up looks like. It could be sideways, forwards, backwards, I don't care, just as long as your plant foot hits the correct spot at the time you release the disc.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
2013 USDGC
- Thread starter bneely
- Start date
Well I don't get that logic at all. I don't care one bit what your run-up looks like. It could be sideways, forwards, backwards, I don't care, just as long as your plant foot hits the correct spot at the time you release the disc.
only issue is every shot is not the same nor is the footing etc. I can see if we had defined lines and boundaries but the foot fault truly is an imaginary line. Ask 10 people to give you a 30 cm length estimate and you will get 10 different answers.
How could it possibly be more cut and dry? You must have a supporting point on the line of play within 30cm of the back of your lie. No gray areas, no wiggle room. You still didn't address the point you made earlier about the group policing stance violations and how that's different from the group policing any other rule.
Josh.arment
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 275
Question: do the rules state that the center of the foot must be in line with the center of the lie; which is in line with the basket?
Main point, the center of the foot. I, for some reason, always assumed it was if any part of your foot was at the center of your lie. That gives your from toe to heel either direction in "slack" to miss your mark.
I hope that made sense.
Main point, the center of the foot. I, for some reason, always assumed it was if any part of your foot was at the center of your lie. That gives your from toe to heel either direction in "slack" to miss your mark.
I hope that made sense.
The rules simply say that you must have a supporting point on the line of play within 30 cm. Any part of your foot counts as a supporting point, so as long as you are in contact with the line with any part of your foot, it's a legal stance.
Well generally the "GROUP" is not calling foot faults its one person vs another. I am not questioning the definition of WHAT a foot fault is which you have provided many times I am questioning the real world use and its impact on the sport. Other rules like OB etc people can take time to check out, go over or addresss later on.
We have no replays or technology to confirm what a foot fault actually is so a rule that only is called say 50% of the time with no real bearing of accuracy makes nearly impossible to TRULY police seems a bit counterintuitive in the world of rules. What if everyone on the group is hommies and we all just want to foot fault all day?!
We have no replays or technology to confirm what a foot fault actually is so a rule that only is called say 50% of the time with no real bearing of accuracy makes nearly impossible to TRULY police seems a bit counterintuitive in the world of rules. What if everyone on the group is hommies and we all just want to foot fault all day?!
I remember in a similar discussion once that it was said the supporting point can be ANY point not just foot and if you want to throw from a headstand so be it but your head must be within the LOP.. true?
Here in lies the biggest issue with this debate. The person who wants to play by the rules and wants everyone else to play by the rules is the one vilified and made to feel like he is in the wrong.
The cry for marshalls or officials is a red herring. That's never going to be a reality for 99% of tournaments. We barely have enough volunteers to run efficient tournaments, we're not even close to a point where the idea of marshalls on every hole and/or with every group is possible.
Mash and Dana are dead on with regard to the rule. It is not a difficult rule to follow and it is one of the basic tenants of the game. I can't buy the idea of cutting players slack because hitting the mark is hard to do. You know what else is hard? Hitting a 20 foot putt or throwing 300 feet accurately. But what's the solution to hitting a 20 foot putt or throwing 300 feet accurately? Practice. Same thing applies with running up in the fairway and hitting your mark legally when you throw. Practice it and it gets easier, almost natural. And if practice doesn't make you better, then maybe you need to adopt a stand and deliver approach rather than make excuses for breaking a rule.
No one is entitled to their perfect stance/approach on every shot. If you land in a position that doesn't afford you an easy time of running up and hitting your mark (someone earlier mentioned a heavily rooted fairway), then suck it up and stand still or accept that your run-up may cost you if you don't hit your mark.
Josh.arment
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 275
Ok then, I don't see how people "miss" their marks then. You have your entire foot in either direction to contact the center line.
Be an athlete; if the top pros don't have that sort of body awareness and control something is very wrong.
The only time I have a problem hitting my mark is stepping slightly on my marker. Never side to side.
It frustrates me when people don't care. I know for a fact i have missed some shots in tourney play purely because it was a tough run-up and i focused very hard on making sure i hit my lie legally. It took my thought from my throw, thus causing an errant shot. Why should I have to deal with that while someone else does whatever they want.
I think the toughest part of calling a foot fault on a run-up shot is the person doesn't stand in that spot after their throw, so there is no way to prove it. A putt is easy, most people don't move their feet, so you could call it and then check it pretty easily.
But on a run-up, most players fall past their mark as soon as they release, thus making it nearly impossible to prove and get 2nd....that's my issue with it....i wish there were a better way, but i don't think stand and deliver is it.
I enjoy playing with good players, who know and follow the rules. I ask them questions to the point they are almost annoyed (try to stop before annoyed) so i can learn. It gives me confidence in a tourney that I am doing the legal moves and correct rules decisions, takes some stress off me, allowing me to perform better.
edit: Also, 30cm is just under 1 ft. That's a pretty big line to hit. If you can't hit it, then you don't get to do a run-up. Pretty simple I think.
I think the toughest part of calling a foot fault on a run-up shot is the person doesn't stand in that spot after their throw, so there is no way to prove it. A putt is easy, most people don't move their feet, so you could call it and then check it pretty easily.
But on a run-up, most players fall past their mark as soon as they release, thus making it nearly impossible to prove and get 2nd....that's my issue with it....i wish there were a better way, but i don't think stand and deliver is it.
I enjoy playing with good players, who know and follow the rules. I ask them questions to the point they are almost annoyed (try to stop before annoyed) so i can learn. It gives me confidence in a tourney that I am doing the legal moves and correct rules decisions, takes some stress off me, allowing me to perform better.
edit: Also, 30cm is just under 1 ft. That's a pretty big line to hit. If you can't hit it, then you don't get to do a run-up. Pretty simple I think.
Not really though.
If you heel pivot and your toes are on the mark (with your foot perpendicular to the LOP), you will be lifting the toes and pivoting on your heel during the throw, thereby foot faulting as you did not have a supporting point on the LOP within 30cm of your mark.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
As has been said.....it does not need to be the center of your foot, rather any supporting point. Assuming an average foot is 12", that makes the line effectively 24" wide (not 4" like 1978 is ridiculously trying to claim).
You can see clearly here (well, you need to extrapolate a little) that Steve Rico is NOT foot-faulting since his toes clearly overlap the LOP (to the mando):
Attachments
grodney
* Ace Member *
Dave, I don't think we can tell from that shot. The angle from disc to mando could be much steeper than what it seems like from here. Plus, we can't even see his toes to see how far to the right side of the disc they extend. Inconclusive.
^THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH FOOT FAULTS RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT THERE.
we all can define a foot fault but ACTUALLY calling a legit one seems tricky and for Grod to say we cant tell from the picture, YET FOOT FAULTS ARE CALLED REAL TIME and you can determine if they are valid then?!
come on guys......... its really not as easy as you want it to be just b/c its a rule.
Last time I checked no other player stands right behind them starting at their feet.
we all can define a foot fault but ACTUALLY calling a legit one seems tricky and for Grod to say we cant tell from the picture, YET FOOT FAULTS ARE CALLED REAL TIME and you can determine if they are valid then?!
come on guys......... its really not as easy as you want it to be just b/c its a rule.
Last time I checked no other player stands right behind them starting at their feet.
Last edited:
Your solution seems to be that we should just ignore foot faults. Where's the line. If you let your buddy be 6" off, why can't I step out by a foot when I have a bad lie on the side of the fairway? The line has to be somewhere, and there's a whole lot more gray area when you just make judgement calls based on your idea of fairness than when you make a good faith effort to enforce the rules as written.
grodney
* Ace Member *
The competitors aren't watching on a freeze frame of a video. In person, it's not hard to tell at all.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 4,783
Here's my .02 and let the chips fall where they may.
Don't think I'll change anyone's mind, but I'll somke supporting points anyway.
First, EVERY professional sport (that I can think of) allows for some rule "slop" to improve speed of play or quality of viewing. The aforementioned examples from the NBA and NFL are appropriate.
Second, often when foot faults are called in normal play, it is often used to "game" or "psych-out" the opponent. It's BS and everyone knows it. In the USDGC Final Group, these players all obviously had great respect and fellowship. I watched that round and there were a lot of high fives and "good shot" and encouragement. These guys were playing the course, not each other.
Third, we need the rule, as it stands, for situations where players can gain an advantage (ie, a difficult lie behind an obstacle) to ensure they take a stance in the line to the basket.
Last, I understand the need for some people to obsess about adhering to the rules and the need for some people to break them. Neither of those is applicable to this group. They were responsible for calling each other on violations and several officials were following the group. By the strict interpretation of the rules, if they did not call the violations, the violations did not happen.
Don't think I'll change anyone's mind, but I'll somke supporting points anyway.
First, EVERY professional sport (that I can think of) allows for some rule "slop" to improve speed of play or quality of viewing. The aforementioned examples from the NBA and NFL are appropriate.
Second, often when foot faults are called in normal play, it is often used to "game" or "psych-out" the opponent. It's BS and everyone knows it. In the USDGC Final Group, these players all obviously had great respect and fellowship. I watched that round and there were a lot of high fives and "good shot" and encouragement. These guys were playing the course, not each other.
Third, we need the rule, as it stands, for situations where players can gain an advantage (ie, a difficult lie behind an obstacle) to ensure they take a stance in the line to the basket.
Last, I understand the need for some people to obsess about adhering to the rules and the need for some people to break them. Neither of those is applicable to this group. They were responsible for calling each other on violations and several officials were following the group. By the strict interpretation of the rules, if they did not call the violations, the violations did not happen.
If it's obvious, call it. If it's unclear, give the player the benefit of the doubt. It really doesn't need to be complicated.
You made that solution up and have no idea what you are trying to say.
Dave posted a damn picture and explanation yet we have 2 different opinions so HOW DO YOU NOT SEE IT MASH?! NOT CUT AND DRY LIKE YOU WANT OR WE WOULDNT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
Maybe in a disc golf utopian world it works but there are reasons why most (all) other sports are not officiated by the participating players. no 2 foot faults are the same either which is a whole nother issue trying to define something simply which cannot simply be defined.
Dave posted a damn picture and explanation yet we have 2 different opinions so HOW DO YOU NOT SEE IT MASH?! NOT CUT AND DRY LIKE YOU WANT OR WE WOULDNT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
Maybe in a disc golf utopian world it works but there are reasons why most (all) other sports are not officiated by the participating players. no 2 foot faults are the same either which is a whole nother issue trying to define something simply which cannot simply be defined.
tbird888
Salient Disc Test Team
Not really wanting to get involved, but aren't you in the camp of allowing the use of discs that have been modified outside of the scope of the defined rules (hot water and weights)? I realize it's not as easy to determine as a foot fault, but it's still a rules violation.
Similar threads
