Allow some/all of stance in OB?

[ToddL]

The most important reason these days, to allow players to have contact with OB during the throw, is simply to eliminate one more rule violation for the catty chatters to complain about.

That's a glib way of stating it, but I think it's pretty important.

If you can't tell whether a rule is being broken or not, then it's probably not a great rule. Are we supposed to be able to tell if a player lifts their back foot a millisecond before or after releasing the disc?

I've see plenty of players say "don't worry, I pick up my back foot before I release" but then when watching it on replay, they clearly don't. Players are already breaking this rule on a regular basis, but no one can call a violation because it happens too fast. If you just got rid of the rule, would it actually hurt anything?

I don't buy the dangerous stance argument. Your marker will still have to be in bounds. Your front supporting point will still have to be in bounds. If it's unsafe to put your back supporting point OB, then don't put it there; put it in bounds like normal.

(and yes, you can apply the same logic to the jump putt rules)

 

[txmxer]

That's a glib way of stating it, but I think it's pretty important.

If you can't tell whether a rule is being broken or not, then it's probably not a great rule. Are we supposed to be able to tell if a player lifts their back foot a millisecond before or after releasing the disc?

I've see plenty of players say "don't worry, I pick up my back foot before I release" but then when watching it on replay, they clearly don't. Players are already breaking this rule on a regular basis, but no one can call a violation because it happens too fast. If you just got rid of the rule, would it actually hurt anything?

I don't buy the dangerous stance argument. Your marker will still have to be in bounds. Your front supporting point will still have to be in bounds. If it's unsafe to put your back supporting point OB, then don't put it there; put it in bounds like normal.

(and yes, you can apply the same logic to the jump putt rules)

I'll repeat my earlier statement. Road is OB. Maybe there is a tree/bush line along the road. If I can place a supporting point in the OB, I can lean out far enough to play a line that would otherwise not be available and is not intended.

This is just one basic example of an unintended consequence. We know that we as DGers will always look for new lines and take advantage of every opportunity to play a new line. Allowing a foot in OB is a can-o-worms.

There are a lot of rules that are difficult to call. How about the lie rule? Was the foot really within the boundaries of the lie? What's the margin that we say it's "okay"? Maybe we should eliminate that rule since nobody calls marginal foot faults outside the lie?

 

[Cgkdisc]

There are a lot of rules that are difficult to call. How about the lie rule? Was the foot really within the boundaries of the lie? What's the margin that we say it's "okay"? Maybe we should eliminate that rule since nobody calls marginal foot faults outside the lie?

If the rule is changed to allow contact with OB, it makes sense to also "improve" the rule to allow supporting point contact with the marker during the throw (but not as the throw is initiated). There's no advantage with incidental contact and in fact it is likely a disadvantage contacting or stepping on a sometimes-slippery marker. Making both rules changes reduces the need for making timing calls that can only be resolved with video, which is impractical.

 

[Rastnav]

I don't think you are going to get out of any penalty area being referred to as O.B. You can't even get post-produced content to correctly identify hazard, rather than referring to it it as OB, at least not consistently.

Areas on current, permanent courses that are OB will continue to be referred to as OB, signage is not going to change. There are just too many signs that refer to OB, too many players that only know of OB, etc. The big issue with property lines and stance, I would think would be public amenities next to roadways, which may generate liability if the rules allow using the roadway during the course of play. Adjoining private property, especially homeowners, might also generate some sort of issues on that front. If the rules of the course allow people to be on the private property, however incidentally, I could see that being abig headache.

However, adding other penalty areas, with different rules (like the hazard) makes some sense. Don't be surprised when everyone still refers to these areas as OB, and don't be surprised when even the pros have trouble properly playing under the new rules.

 

[ToddL]

I'll repeat my earlier statement. Road is OB. Maybe there is a tree/bush line along the road. If I can place a supporting point in the OB, I can lean out far enough to play a line that would otherwise not be available and is not intended.

They can already do this. They just have to lift their OB foot at the point of release, a la crane-maneuver.

 

[txmxer]

They can already do this. They just have to lift their OB foot at the point of release, a la crane-maneuver.

not the same. If I can place supporting elements in OB, I can gain several feet of reach and a significantly better potential throw.

 

[txmxer]

If the rule is changed to allow contact with OB, it makes sense to also "improve" the rule to allow supporting point contact with the marker during the throw (but not as the throw is initiated). There's no advantage with incidental contact and in fact it is likely a disadvantage contacting or stepping on a sometimes-slippery marker. Making both rules changes reduces the need for making timing calls that can only be resolved with video, which is impractical.

I've not heard anything that convinces me that eliminating or modifying these rules is an "improvement".

I agree they aren't called precisely as written, but the potential is always there and generally keeps play close to the intention of the rules. Eliminating the rules would have unintended consequences that would be a disservice to the game (IMO).

What sport has eliminated judgement calls?

 

[ToddL]

They can already do this. They just have to lift their OB foot at the point of release, a la crane-maneuver.

Example, for better or worse: at USDGC last year, drive on hole 11 flipped up the sailed over the hedge and landed in the parking lot. Those hedges push the edges of the parking lot and leave zero room for a legal stance. Player stuck his left leg into the hedge and did a crane maneuver with his right leg, picking it up just a couple of inches for release. Flicked it back over the hedge into the fairway (really impressive throw).

 

[txmxer]

Example, for better or worse: at USDGC last year, drive on hole 11 flipped up the sailed over the hedge and landed in the parking lot. Those hedges push the edges of the parking lot and leave zero room for a legal stance. Player stuck his left leg into the hedge and did a crane maneuver with his right leg, picking it up just a couple of inches for release. Flicked it back over the hedge into the fairway (really impressive throw).

alternatively, player places foot on lie, lays down in the prone position so the throw is actually taken 6' in OB. Does that sound like something you want to see going forward? Something that would make sense to the general public?

 

[robdeforge]

If the rule is changed to allow contact with OB, it makes sense to also "improve" the rule to allow supporting point contact with the marker during the throw (but not as the throw is initiated). There's no advantage with incidental contact and in fact it is likely a disadvantage contacting or stepping on a sometimes-slippery marker. Making both rules changes reduces the need for making timing calls that can only be resolved with video, which is impractical.

the advantage lies in not focusing as much on your footwork as a player that does not step on their marker disc

 

[Cgkdisc]

the advantage lies in not focusing as much on your footwork as a player that does not step on their marker disc

The thing is, the rule change would apply to everyone. If anything, the current rule produces more foot faults where the player releases with their plant foot more than 30 cm behind their mark, especially on long fairway throws. I know I'm more likely to plant closer to the back of the lie than the front on these types of throws and am probably too far back at times. A case could be made that allowing contact with the marker would reduce both forward and behind the lie foot faults.

 

[Steve West]

Contact with the marker is not illegal now. What is illegal is contact with anything forward of the front of the lie.

Usually, the marker is in front of the lie, so contact with the marker is evidence of the foot being forward of the lie.

Are you proposing that contact forward of the lie become legal? How much?

Is the marker a safe space exempt from being called "contact"? Can part of the foot touch the spandrel between the lie and the marker? If only the heel is on the marker and the toes are on the ground in front of the marker, would that be legal?

 

[txmxer]

Contact with the marker is not illegal now. What is illegal is contact with anything forward of the front of the lie.

Usually, the marker is in front of the lie, so contact with the marker is evidence of the foot being forward of the lie.

Are you proposing that contact forward of the lie become legal? How much?

Is the marker a safe space exempt from being called "contact"? Can part of the foot touch the spandrel between the lie and the marker? If only the heel is on the marker and the toes are on the ground in front of the marker, would that be legal?

Spandrel? Had to look that up.

Regardless, good commentary.

When developing rules, make it as simple as possible but no simpler. I think Steve's commentary illustrates this point quite well.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Simply make contact with the marker during the throw legal. We don't need no stinkin' spandrel rule.

 

[Steve West]

Simply make contact with the marker during the throw legal. We don't need no stinkin' spandrel rule.

OK, done. It's always been that way.

Contact with anything in front of the lie is still illegal, though. Markers are not special.

 

[robdeforge]

Simply make contact with the marker during the throw legal. We don't need no stinkin' spandrel rule.

would it still be illegal to have a supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc, and the only exception is when touching a marker disc? or are you proposing changing this part of 802.07 as well?

 

[Cgkdisc]

would it still be illegal to have a supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc, and the only exception is when touching a marker disc? or are you proposing changing this part of 802.07 as well?

Simply allow contact with the marker during the throw, not prior to the throw starting, i.e., you can't initiate your throw while standing on or touching your marker. There's no need to change the general rule about contact beyond the lie which usually can't be seen in real time and likely is never called as a foot fault. However, I have no problem with that future change as long as the marker is changed to a 20 cm rod to better indicate the width of your lie. But that's another thread.

 

[Steve West]

Simply allow contact with the marker during the throw, not prior to the throw starting, i.e., . There's no need to change the general rule about contact beyond the lie which usually can't be seen in real time and likely is never called as a foot fault. However, I have no problem with that future change as long as the marker is changed to a 20 cm rod to better indicate the width of your lie. But that's another thread.

Again, that's already the rule. "[Y]ou can't initiate your throw while standing on or touching your marker" because a throw happens when the disc is released.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Again, that's already the rule. "[Y]ou can't initiate your throw while standing on or touching your marker" because a throw happens when the disc is released.

But can you make contact with the marker beyond the lie during the throw?

 

[robdeforge]

Simply allow contact with the marker during the throw, not prior to the throw starting, i.e., you can't initiate your throw while standing on or touching your marker. There's no need to change the general rule about contact beyond the lie which usually can't be seen in real time and likely is never called as a foot fault. However, I have no problem with that future change as long as the marker is changed to a 20 cm rod to better indicate the width of your lie. But that's another thread.

Just to be clear, the current rule is:

If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds.

You are proposing changing it to something like the following?

If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the throw is initiated, the player must:
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the front edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds.

I've bolded the changes. am I misunderstanding your proposed change?