2013 USDGC

[mashnut]

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.

It's a picture of a stand and deliver shot. Players would have had plenty of time to check out the stance from less awkward angles and say something in person. Claiming that a blurry picture that's inconclusive proves anything is a bit silly.

If that's not your solution, what is? What alternative takes away the subjectivity of foot faults and the issues with groups calling violations on one another that's actually feasible for implementation at the hundreds of sanctioned tournaments every year?

 

[mashnut]

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.

Fair point, though to me there's a difference between equipment rules and rules about the actual play of the game. IMO the intent of the rules on disc modification were to keep people from modifying discs outside of allowed specs, returning a disc to a state that's well within the manufacturing tolerances of that mold doesn't seem like it violates the spirit of that rule. It's not any different than sanding off flashing or bending a tacoed disc back into shape. I have yet to see a single claim that someone was able to modify a disc with hot water in a way that gave any kind of advantage over someone just buying a flat version of that disc or having one that flattened itself over time, but I think there's plenty of evidence to conclude that ignoring your footing on a fairway runup does give you an advantage.

 

[ToddL]

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):

His right foot is fine.
His left foot is the illegal stance. It's closer to the mando/target than his lie.

 

[Dave242]

His right foot is fine.
His left foot is the illegal stance. It's closer to the mando/target than his lie.

Ahhhhhh.......you are right! I missed that....and it looks like others did too. :doh:

I guess I never even thought about that aspect of foot positioning WRT mandos since almost all mandos I have encountered have been on a part of the hole that required a throw rather than a putting stance.

 

[turbine712]

His right foot is fine.
His left foot is the illegal stance. It's closer to the mando/target than his lie.

I saw that as well. The problem with looking at the photo is that it is 2 dimentional.(sp)
It does look like it is forward.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

if is left foot is back further than his right not being square with the target then how is it a foot fault?

The area around the pin is a circle and it would appear his right foot is closer to the mando than left even though the left foot looks to be more in-line with the basket, isn't it actually further away and off the LOP?

 

[ToddL]

I saw that as well. The problem with looking at the photo is that it is 2 dimentional.(sp)
It does look like it is forward.

Sure, it can be difficult to determine legality from a single photo. I just chose that particular video since it was on my mind. But from watching live video through the week and watching in-person on Saturday, I can say that it happened a lot. Schultz's horseshoe putt from the corner on Day 1 is a more obvious example. Incredibly good putt, but clearly a stance violation.

And that brings up what a lot of you guys were talking about for the last few pages. If I were playing USDGC (ha!) I would have to make the decision whether to call my group on it or not. Obviously most groups were not calling it, so Barry got an "unfair" advantage on Day 1 when he hit that putt, just like Rico did on Day 4.
If everyone calls it, then we have a level playing field. If nobody calls it, we also have a level playing field. But if most people don't call it, then am I a total jerk or a rules nazi if I call it on my group?

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Todd gets it.

 

[tbird888]

His right foot is fine.
His left foot is the illegal stance. It's closer to the mando/target than his lie.

The problem I see with the pic is that the basket isn't visible so the Line of Play isn't necessarily accurate. The way he's lined up, it looks like he's putting much further right than the line is showing.

 

[bradharris]

The problem I see with the pic is that the basket isn't visible so the Line of Play isn't necessarily accurate. The way he's lined up, it looks like he's putting much further right than the line is showing.

He hasn't made the mando yet. So the line of play is to the mando, not the basket.

 

[grodney]

Judging from the photo, which is at a bad angle for judging things, I'd say either his left foot is is too far forward, or his right toes aren't on the line to the mando. One or the other or both. It depends on the actual angle to the mando.

Either way, I'm sure I could have easily made a decision in person.

 

[ToddL]

Hopefully this lousy diagram fully explains what I'm talking about.

On the left, the stance would be legal if there were no mando. The shaded region is probably what the player is thinking is the "foot fault zone." However, his right foot is closer to the mando than his left foot.

On the right, the shaded region is the true "foot fault zone." A player must avoid that for a legal stance. This is a bummer for him, because it prevents him from reaching around the mando for a putt.

 

[stun]

From PDGA rules:

"B.When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,

2. Have no supporting point in contact with the marker disc or any object (including the playing surface) closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,"

From reading the rules, the "target" is the basket, so that makes Barry's putt legal. You don't make your stance in reference to the mando, you make it in reference to the basket...

 

[turbine712]

I was unaware that the line for your foot placement was to be outside a circle. I was under the thought that the foot placement was on a 90 degree or perpendicular line from the basket to the disc.
Interesting

 

[ToddL]

I was unaware that the line for your foot placement was to be outside a circle. I was under the thought that the foot placement was on a 90 degree or perpendicular line from the basket to the disc.
Interesting

Most of the time the two are close enough to be indistinguishable. At 30 feet from the basket with a 3 foot wide stance, the difference between the perpendicular and the circle is 1.8 inches. Making your stance perpendicular to the LOP is always erring on the safe side.

If your lie is 1 foot away from the pin, you have to have 1 foot on the LOP and the other foot no closer to the target than 1 foot. Technically you could put your other foot on the other side of the basket as long as it's at least 1 foot away from the center of the pole.

 

[grodney]

From PDGA rules:

"B.When the disc is released, a player must:
1. Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,

2. Have no supporting point in contact with the marker disc or any object (including the playing surface) closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,"

From reading the rules, the "target" is the basket, so that makes Barry's putt legal. You don't make your stance in reference to the mando, you make it in reference to the basket...

804.02:
F. The nearest mandatory which has not yet
been passed is considered to be the target
for all rules related to marking the lie, stance,
obstacles, and relief, if the line of play does not
pass to the correct side of that mandatory.

 

[ScottyLove]

My attempt to clarify...

I whipped this up in about 5 minutes... and I would agreed that most everyone I saw where their disc was against or near the opening in the fence committed a stance violation. Any part of their foot past the read dotted line would be a violation. Most stretched out around the opening to make a birdie attempt.

 

[Sadjo]

I walked with the final group from #4 through #18. I didn't notice very many foot faults. I did notice twice where when on OB rethrows two players stepped of the front of the box before releasing. Overall all played well and I can't think of one situation where a rule was intentionally broken.

 

[Josh.arment]

The problem I see with the pic is that the basket isn't visible so the Line of Play isn't necessarily accurate. The way he's lined up, it looks like he's putting much further right than the line is showing.

What are you talking about. The mando is the line of play at thy point. His foot is clearly in front of his lie in regards to the mando.

 

[turbine712]

I whipped this up in about 5 minutes... and I would agreed that most everyone I saw where their disc was against or near the opening in the fence committed a stance violation. Any part of their foot past the read dotted line would be a violation. Most stretched out around the opening to make a birdie attempt.

OK Scotty then, if the point of the opening of the mando is now a circle rather than a perpendicular line(red dotted) then would the player be within the rules to have his foot infront of the disc?
I know this is being nit picky but just for the sake of discussion.