Yes, that's true. I just don't see the same thing Jerm apparently sees when he watches the video replay. Unless I'm completely wrong about the location of the basket (I'm only guessing but I'd have to be off by a few dozen feet at least), I don't think he's even close to having a toe on the edge of the "box".
-
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)
2018 Waco Annual Charity Open DGPT
- Thread starter kyle_vapes24
- Start date
Yes, that's true. I just don't see the same thing Jerm apparently sees when he watches the video replay. Unless I'm completely wrong about the location of the basket (I'm only guessing but I'd have to be off by a few dozen feet at least), I don't think he's even close to having a toe on the edge of the "box".
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
The thing that kind of bothers me is, he never once lined up to see if he could throw a BH. He is a top pro and automatically tried to force an uncomfortable FH shot, rather than a "patent pending" style BH with a mid. Which, imo, fit the shape of the hole better, anyway. If he hadn't gone straight for his crutch, this might not have ever happened...
Last edited:
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
I think the basket is a little farther right than you have it in that still frame. It kind of deceiving though because the basket isn't right at that corner. Its tucked back to the right alittle and about 40-50 past the initial part of the corner.
It may be. So hard to tell from video. I just think that for his foot to be on the "box" even a little bit, the basket would have to be through the trees about halfway between the arrow and the M in the screen shot (right above his head). I'm fairly certain it isn't that far around the corner...he's not getting the eagle 3 from where he was with the shot he threw if it is. Important to keep in mind that that is his thrown disc on the ground as the marker. The "box" wouldn't be as wide as that disc.
But that's why I didn't say Jerm was wrong, just that I disagreed with him. I could be wrong.
In that case, eliminate trees, bushes, vehicles, wildlife (see chipmunk-gate), park equipment water, grass, wind, curbs, light poles, utility boxes, and anything else that has the potential to prevent a disc that enters an OB area from making it back in bounds. And, while you're at it, eliminate griplocks and accidentally overpowered throws as well.
A player who throws over OB accepts the risk of hitting something in the OB area that prevents the disc from making it back in bounds. A player who's not willing to accept the risk has no business throwing over OB.
I disagree. The spectators were on the far side of a two lane road, so unless the OB line was on the far side of the road, they were at least 30' into the OB area, so it's not like there was no room to work a disc.
If Nate was playing for the skip (and I'm far from convinced that he was) and thought there was a possibility of a spectator interfering with his throw he had an obligation under the Rules to move them:
The fact that he did not elect to move the spectators prior to throwing is ample evidence that he considered the spectators to have been positioned where they could neither be injured by nor interfere with his throw.
bnbanbury
Eagle Member
No, i don't agree. How far should they move to be able to see? 30' across the road isn't far enough? It is Nate's sole responsibility, if he wants to use that space he should move the gallery.
Pros want visibility and eyeballs on them, and that only means more spectators if they get what they want. There will probably be a few more lessons like this as touring guys learn that you can't hope for more bodies on the course watching you and also expect everyone to get out of the way on an errant shot over OB.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,418
crutch? he throws both efficiently. imo a sharp right at the end of a straight ahead shot calls for the forehand. maybe if he did have that tree in the way (proper lop) he would have thrown a bh.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I had the same thought. Not even close. If the arrow JC added is correct, the box is 20cm, about 8inches. It's less wide than the disc. He's to the side of the disc by four inches or so. That means he's five or more inches out of the box.
You only get him with no foot fault if the LOP is to the mando. Even there, I'd have to look at angles and distance from the disc to know if he is really still in the box. Until we have S & D (the disc golf gods are tossing lightning bolts at me) you're gonna have foot faults. You either accept it or you change the rule to some other thing that will be broken.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
The backhand is a worse throw for Jerm. At worst, he smacks the tree after release, possibly breaking his hand. He might throw an abbreviated follow through, but that is a risky toss. With the forehand you can at least aim to miss the tree and still get snap. Personally, I think he should have laid out four feet from the lie with a toss and taken the stroke. 
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
The hole does have a sharp right but it also turns back to the left. If you look at the shot he threw, he could not have thrown it any better but was still short and right. A BH turnover, that flattens out or fades slightly, get you closer.
For what it's worth, he made the putt from where his forehand landed, so it was an effective enough choice.
I think the reason he didn't consider the backhand is simply because the shift-the-lie-because-of-the-mando option occurred to him first. Were he to have known the proper use of the rule, or were someone in the group to have known it and corrected him, he might just have opted for the patent-pending backhand. The upside of the patent-pending is it probably gives him clearance to avoid smacking his hand on the tree. The downside of the patent-pending is you do sacrifice some power and distance. He probably wouldn't have gotten as close to the basket even if he hits more or less the perfect line.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Fair enough.
So, if the fans of team-Whamo were to purposefully stand where they were not told to move further away, they would be perfectly fine swatting down the discs of team-Lightning as they fly by? After all, if the player didnt want to risk having their disc swatted, they should have made the fans move back or thrown the disc elsewhere.
I love a good pun.
robdeforge
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,356
"Traditional, 2017 before rules, would have made it really difficult to get a sling in…"
"However that rule is only applied if the basket is on the wrong side of the mandatory. meaning that to see the basket you'd be looking at the wrong side of the mandatory. if that makes any sense - it's so complicated in the wording."
"well I was misinformed with that rule"
(quotes from the Smashboxx podcast, I started listening to Jerm at about 59:00)
Big Jerm can't seem to own up to his mistake. It's not a difficult rule to understand. He can't blame anybody for misinforming him about the rule, because he should have read the rulebook and understood it on his own, and asked for clarifications whenever necessary.
"However that rule is only applied if the basket is on the wrong side of the mandatory. meaning that to see the basket you'd be looking at the wrong side of the mandatory. if that makes any sense - it's so complicated in the wording."
"well I was misinformed with that rule"
(quotes from the Smashboxx podcast, I started listening to Jerm at about 59:00)
Big Jerm can't seem to own up to his mistake. It's not a difficult rule to understand. He can't blame anybody for misinforming him about the rule, because he should have read the rulebook and understood it on his own, and asked for clarifications whenever necessary.
Not to mention, as has been noted often, the rule isn't new. However "complicated" the wording might be in the current book, the way the rule works is the same as it's been for 28 years. As much as I dislike the "the wording is confusing/vague/poor" excuse for rules ignorance in general, I really hate it when defending ignorance or misunderstanding of a rule that has effectively been the same forever.
That said, it goes beyond whether he should have read the rule book himself to understand it. That this rule has operated in the same way since 1990 and he was "misinformed" about it presumably since he started playing is the larger problem. The misinformation didn't start with him. It started somewhere else. It's a symptom of the larger problem in our game that I don't think can be fixed just by writing the rules in a more simple and not so "complicated" manner. There are plenty of examples of simple and straightforward wording in the book that players get wrong too.
Agreed.
I get that it's a tough sentence to decipher. But as long-time touring pros, they should have been intimately familiar with the 2013 rules. When they read through the 2018 rules, they should have gotten to that rule and said, "huh? I don't get it. Is that a different rule than the 2013 version?" And then studied it for about 20 more seconds and said, "Oh I get it now. It's the same thing, just worded differently."
It really just means they haven't read the rules (or read them closely/recently enough).
It's the same thing as when I flipped out on Uli for screwing up his footfault explanation on Smashboxx a few weeks ago. Even if the wording has changed, the rule has been the same for about 30 years. There's no excuse for not knowing it by now.
I could understand if someone (even a touring pro) would fail to properly apply a new 2018 rule, being that the rulebook is still very new. But there's no excuse for failing to understand a rule that hasn't changed since 1990.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2009
- Messages
- 6,854
He seems to think that the rule changed this year. Perhaps the wording is complicated enough that he made that mistake. If he thought the rule was different this year, the 28 year history doesn't matter.
