and I was told foot faults are cut/dry clear as day/night easy as yes or no...
hmmm what's going on here!?
hmmm what's going on here!?
-
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
stun
Par Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 150
Thanks for the clarity, grodney! I didn't realize that was a new rule for 2013.
larrod25
Par Member
The diagram showing the circle foot fault areas was a little misleading. Not wrong, but confusing for this argument. The one above is correct, and demonstrates clearly how the thrower should consider his lie. All supporting points must be behind the red dotted line and at least one must be on the LOP
Last edited:
grodney
* Ace Member *
It's not new -- they just changed around the wording and where it's located in the rules.
larrod25
Par Member
Technically the red dotted line is a curve, and the degree of that curve is determined by the total distance between the lie and the target. Practically speaking if the thrower has his supporting points behind a line that is parallel to the back of his marker and perpendicular to the LOP, he should be safe
grodney
* Ace Member *
Except that the red dotted line should be an arc. Edit: You issued that clarification before I hit Post.
ScottyLove
Double Eagle Member
I'd agree to that... the dotted line should curve... My bad.
But most were putting their foot left of the corner of the mando opening... that would never be correct.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,247
I'm just checking in to agree with Dana and Mashnut. A real advantage is gained by not worrying about where exactly your plant foot is hitting.
I would be ok with a larger area to plant your supporting point (box, semicircle, or whatever). That is not the current rule though. It seems like a lot of players are already using a relaxed interpretation of the rules, while a minority attempts to follow them to the letter. This puts the player who is attempting to throw from a legal stance at a disadvantage to the majority of the field.
I would be ok with a larger area to plant your supporting point (box, semicircle, or whatever). That is not the current rule though. It seems like a lot of players are already using a relaxed interpretation of the rules, while a minority attempts to follow them to the letter. This puts the player who is attempting to throw from a legal stance at a disadvantage to the majority of the field.
I might have to start trying something new in tournaments. Before the round starts, simply warn the group, "I will be watching your feet, especially on run-ups. If you foot fault, I will call it, feel free to do the same for me."
You don't even have to ever make a call, your competitor's game likely will be effected by the mere threat of it.
You don't even have to ever make a call, your competitor's game likely will be effected by the mere threat of it.
I question how the rico (and i guess barry did it too?) foot fault wasn't called. Those are OBVIOUS. Didn't someone call GG for one at like Alabama/Georgia NT stop? Hall of fame stop? he was like 1 ft right of his disc on an approach that REALLY helped the line.
I will likely never call someone for a foot fault on a fairway drive in an open field. Normally i wouldn't be in a position to make that call. I mean you have to be right on them for a foot fault call. Or maybe I just don't care enough to watch that closely, and trust they are doing their best to be within the rules like I am.
I have zero problem calling them on obvious violations when stand-and-deliver is in use, since it is much easier. Or I normally will bring it up before throw. "Hey, might want to make sure your foot is behind the other one" I also, when taking an awkward stance, will ask "Hey, is this a legal stance here?" before i shoot. At worlds, multiple players in my groups would ask that before a throw while getting in position to be sure they were legal stance. Not that tough to ensure legal stance. (This can be in regards to in/out circle, foot fault, moving items, standing on a log, etc)
Now something I have done before is while watching, from maybe not the best angle, but seeing what appeared to be a foot fault(but from my angle could have just been my view). I have brought it up after the fact. "Hey man, just want to let you know. Looked a bit close on your stance on that last one. Might want to make sure you're good on those."
Then I will watch a little closer. Every time I've done that, they never even get close to a violation again. Just seems like a little courtesy can go a long way. And since i wasn't sure, i will not make a false call
haha, love it. Mind games are AWESOME. (and wouldn't affect me at all, since I already focus strongly on my foot placement.
I will likely never call someone for a foot fault on a fairway drive in an open field. Normally i wouldn't be in a position to make that call. I mean you have to be right on them for a foot fault call. Or maybe I just don't care enough to watch that closely, and trust they are doing their best to be within the rules like I am.
I have zero problem calling them on obvious violations when stand-and-deliver is in use, since it is much easier. Or I normally will bring it up before throw. "Hey, might want to make sure your foot is behind the other one" I also, when taking an awkward stance, will ask "Hey, is this a legal stance here?" before i shoot. At worlds, multiple players in my groups would ask that before a throw while getting in position to be sure they were legal stance. Not that tough to ensure legal stance. (This can be in regards to in/out circle, foot fault, moving items, standing on a log, etc)
Now something I have done before is while watching, from maybe not the best angle, but seeing what appeared to be a foot fault(but from my angle could have just been my view). I have brought it up after the fact. "Hey man, just want to let you know. Looked a bit close on your stance on that last one. Might want to make sure you're good on those."
Then I will watch a little closer. Every time I've done that, they never even get close to a violation again. Just seems like a little courtesy can go a long way. And since i wasn't sure, i will not make a false call
haha, love it. Mind games are AWESOME. (and wouldn't affect me at all, since I already focus strongly on my foot placement.
Last edited:
grodney
* Ace Member *
Okay, Right Foot is legal. On the LOP and no closer to the target (in this case, the mando) than the back of the mini.
So with that Right Foot in place, is Left Foot 1 legal? It is no closer to the target than the back of the mini.
How about Left Foot 2? It is no closer to the target, *and* it is past the mandatory.
Left Foot 1 certainly could have been the case for some players at USDGC. Left Foot 2 is less likely though still possible.
Edit: I guess part of the point being: If Rico's left foot is farther from the fence than the mini (or previously thrown disc), it's all good.
So with that Right Foot in place, is Left Foot 1 legal? It is no closer to the target than the back of the mini.
How about Left Foot 2? It is no closer to the target, *and* it is past the mandatory.
Left Foot 1 certainly could have been the case for some players at USDGC. Left Foot 2 is less likely though still possible.
Edit: I guess part of the point being: If Rico's left foot is farther from the fence than the mini (or previously thrown disc), it's all good.
^^ Yes, the rules only say "no closer." So I would say both left foot placements are legal.
turbine712
Birdie Member
^^
Very interesting. This is a real good discussion. Not about the thread but still very interesting.
Good graphics.
Very interesting. This is a real good discussion. Not about the thread but still very interesting.
Good graphics.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,525
Okay, Right Foot is legal. On the LOP and no closer to the target (in this case, the mando) than the back of the mini.
So with that Right Foot in place, is Left Foot 1 legal? It is no closer to the target than the back of the mini.
How about Left Foot 2? It is no closer to the target, *and* it is past the mandatory.
Left Foot 1 certainly could have been the case for some players at USDGC. Left Foot 2 is less likely though still possible.
Edit: I guess part of the point being: If Rico's left foot is farther from the fence than the mini (or previously thrown disc), it's all good.
You also probably (technically) need to consider the Mando on the left of the opening (Winthrop 7). Both positions (LF1 & LF2) are closer to that Mando....so that makes those positions illegal. Left foot would need to go somewhere behind the line/arc from the mark to the "F" in "Right Foot".
I am not sure how to factor in the horizontal Mando at the top of the door frame.....I do not think it would ever come into play, but by brain is not working in 3D today.
BgWvDave
Double Eagle Member
If the proper way to play the drop zone on hole 7 Winthrope Gold can go 25 pages how can we expect any players to figure it out in 30 seconds. 
My thought is that the drop zone no matter what stance you took was punitive enough that it didn't matter what advantage you got form a suspect stance. It was likely a 5 no matter what you did.
My thought is that the drop zone no matter what stance you took was punitive enough that it didn't matter what advantage you got form a suspect stance. It was likely a 5 no matter what you did.I'd suspect that any rule that can have 15 pages of discussion in just a few hours is either poorly written, too generic, or unnecessary in it's current form.
Similar threads
