End of Jump Putting as we know it

[Cgkdisc]

I think liability concern (injury from tripping or face planting on deadfall putts into the ground or basket) is a hidden factor in disallowing jump or falling putts near the basket.

 

[garublador]

The thing I hate the most...why do we not count wedgies and shots that land on top of the basket? They are suspended off the ground right? I know it's rare to have happen, but it does happen.

I also find it funny that people have some sort of expectation that a group that makes rules like that will somehow come up with logical rules in other situations. The PDGA doesn't always make the best rules for the game, sometimes they prefer history over logic and what's clearly right. That is not a good way to grow a sport.

I've heard lots of people claim that "most" jump putts people perform are illegal, but I have seen almost zero proof of this. "I heard it from a guy" is not the same as proof. A picture of someone with their feet off the ground and the disc in the air is not proof. You need to have still shots of people with their plant foot off the ground and the disc in their hand to have actual proof.

Because of that, the best argument against jump putts is that it's nearly impossible to enforce. Rather than moving the circle out a ways (which probably isn't the best idea) or making all "falling throws" illegal (which is a down right terrible idea), why not word the stance rules in a way that makes falling putts and drives legal, but jump putts illegal. Have the requirement that you have a supporting point behind the lie long enough to detect it with the naked eye after release, but allow "falling" outside 30'? That would make following through OK and falling putts OK (which would barely change the jump putt technique) but make it much easier to enforce.

 

[Jay Dub]

If disc golf ever gets to the point where tournaments have non disc golfer spectators and they see people jump putting, I'll give 10-1 odds they look at someone doing that and ask, "Why is that legal"?

 

[DavidSauls]

If disc golf ever gets to the point where tournaments have non disc golfer spectators and they see people jump putting, I'll give 10-1 odds they look at someone doing that and ask, "Why is that legal"?

Maybe you're right, but I think the one-legged ballet pose after putts inside the circle will strike outsiders as stranger than the flailing follow-through that is a jump-putt.

 

[Chainchaser]

This sounds like a show to me!! Jump putting: legal or really funky looking?!!!opcorn:

 

[Martin Dewgarita]

If disc golf ever gets to the point where tournaments have non disc golfer spectators and they see people jump putting, I'll give 10-1 odds they look at someone doing that and ask, "Why is that legal"?

I can think of a dozen rules that might garner that response, if they are going to continue being spectators, they'll have to learn the rules. Just like any sport - I hate watching baseball, but I hardly understand what's going on most of the time, I'd probably enjoy it more if I understood the rules.

 

[Jay Dub]

Maybe you're right, but I think the one-legged ballet pose after putts inside the circle will strike outsiders as stranger than the flailing follow-through that is a jump-putt.

I can think of a dozen rules that might garner that response, if they are going to continue being spectators, they'll have to learn the rules. Just like any sport - I hate watching baseball, but I hardly understand what's going on most of the time, I'd probably enjoy it more if I understood the rules.

I understand there are other rules that might get the same reaction but this thread is about jump putting. That's why I used that as the example.

 

[New013]

Jump putt this that blah blah blah.... beyond all of that. How in the hell will they be players be able to tell where this 30m line is?

 

[DonCasper]

I think liability concern (injury from tripping or face planting on deadfall putts into the ground or basket) is a hidden factor in disallowing jump or falling putts near the basket.

That's what I was kind of getting at with my comment here.

If they ever truly allow jump then putting I will be ecstatic. Finally all of that time I wasted long jumping in college put to use. And some truly hilarious blooper reels as people smoke themselves on the basket.

I've played enough sports to know that if you allow someone to jump towards a stationary target, eventually they will run into it. Especially if they occur on a place with terrible footing, like gravel, grass, woodchips or mud. Any immobile metal object within about 10 feet of any playing surface of any sport that involves jumping/running is covered in foam for a reason.

And as for the argument against changing a rule because it is impossible to call, there is a long history in sports of that happening. Hell, one of the reasons why the refs were striking for football is because they were was a chance the rules were going to change and that they might be asked to call things which were too difficult to call consistently.

I think that you should be allowed at most a 20 foot runup when you tee off, and at minimum allow an x-step at any lie. I hate watching highlight reels and thinking, "I know why they are doing that, but they look like a bunch of tools". Watch a nikko locastro video, his tee-off looks like a combination of a javelin throw and a discus throw. I'm sure there are people who would argue the benefits of having a 30 foot run-up in discus, but limiting the throw to the circle doesn't limit the sport any. I don't think people throwing 550' when the average person throws 150' helps the sport any. It means a championship course ends up with a 300' tee that is a par 4 for low level players, and a 700' tee that can be birdied half the time by the pros.

Jump putts are absurdly difficult to judge with the naked eye, and I think admitting that opens you up to intentionally allowing mini-jumps. As for falling putts, I think they should have a rule like in bolf, where only your feet and hands are allowed to touch the green. Personally I like that rule because it gives some decorum to the sport.

I don't mind if people do these things when they are playing with their friends, but I also thing that taking steps to limit how absurdly far players can throw, or what moves you can make will putting will help the sport and not hurt it.

As for bolf rules not changing, the rules for the technology have changed many many times over the years. Most recently square grooves were disallowed on wedges because pros could use them to give the ball too much backspin when hitting out of a bunker. This is completely analogous to disallowing the jump-putt outside of 10m, same situation and everything. As for drives, massive driver heads were disallowed on the tour years ago to limit the distances pros were driving, and it was almost universally regarded as a positive change by analysts, even if the pros pissed and moaned a bit.

 

[jongoff09]

massive driver heads were disallowed on the tour years ago to limit the distances pros were driving, and it was almost universally regarded as a positive change by analysts, even if the pros pissed and moaned a bit.

The size of the head doesn't do much at all to help someone hit further, it just makes the head more forgiving to off-center hits. A lot of Tour pros don't even use a head as large as is allowed. I am no Tour pro and my driver isn't even the max of 460cc. The smaller profile at times can actually be hit further because it cuts through the air quicker. Limiting the head size hurts the average golfer much more than the Tour pro.

Also, square grooves help out of the rough, not the bunkers. The type and density of the sand has more to do with the spin out of a bunker than the grooves. Your point about it is still valid, because that only applies to the pros and club manufacturers (for now).

 

[mudslinger]

I also find it funny that people have some sort of expectation that a group that makes rules like that will somehow come up with logical rules in other situations. The PDGA doesn't always make the best rules for the game, sometimes they prefer history over logic and what's clearly right. That is not a good way to grow a sport.

I've heard lots of people claim that "most" jump putts people perform are illegal, but I have seen almost zero proof of this. "I heard it from a guy" is not the same as proof. A picture of someone with their feet off the ground and the disc in the air is not proof. You need to have still shots of people with their plant foot off the ground and the disc in their hand to have actual proof.

Because of that, the best argument against jump putts is that it's nearly impossible to enforce. Rather than moving the circle out a ways (which probably isn't the best idea) or making all "falling throws" illegal (which is a down right terrible idea), why not word the stance rules in a way that makes falling putts and drives legal, but jump putts illegal. Have the requirement that you have a supporting point behind the lie long enough to detect it with the naked eye after release, but allow "falling" outside 30'? That would make following through OK and falling putts OK (which would barely change the jump putt technique) but make it much easier to enforce.

^THIS IS A GREAT POST.

but i don't see how you'll be able to distinguish between a jump putt and a falling putt...since the rules are really specific around a static supporting point, not necessarily the action of jumping or lunging forward.

My point still is regardless of this being a discussion or formal rules submission, is whatt is the core issue the pDGA is trying to solve? Seems they just want to get rid of jump putting for the sake of getting rid of it. I get the smoking rules change...to attracted younger athletes (though they still have beer sponsors, that's another thread). I don't get how this is helping anyone but some pros that are tiered of getting beat by jump putters.

 

[JC17393]

^THIS IS A GREAT POST.

but i don't see how you'll be able to distinguish between a jump putt and a falling putt...since the rules are really specific around a static supporting point, not necessarily the action of jumping or lunging forward.

My point still is regardless of this being a discussion or formal rules submission, is whatt is the core issue the pDGA is trying to solve? Seems they just want to get rid of jump putting for the sake of getting rid of it. I get the smoking rules change...to attracted younger athletes (though they still have beer sponsors, that's another thread). I don't get how this is helping anyone but some pros that are tiered of getting beat by jump putters.

I don't think there's a core issue that the PDGA is trying to solve at all. You're taking a topic brought up by an individual, and trying to make it a PDGA-wide issue. The result of this individual's attempt to bring it to the rules committee was a flat dismissal of the idea.

THE PDGA ISN'T TRYING TO CHANGE ANYTHING AT ALL REGARDING JUMP PUTTS

 

[dashiellx]

I don't get how this is helping anyone but some pros that are tiered of getting beat by jump putters.

Do we really have any conclusive proof the "jump putt" really confers an advantage? If so, how is that advantage unfair? Is the advantage conferred because the thrower has developed the skill so they are better at it than someone else? If so, how is this different from someone who has taken the time to gain an advantage on their drives or approach shots?

I don't think there's a core issue that the PDGA is trying to solve at all. You're taking a topic brought up by an individual, and trying to make it a PDGA-wide issue.

We know this was brought up by an individual, and not PDGA wide, but again, this is a discussion board and we can discuss things like this.

The result of this individual's attempt to bring it to the rules committee was a flat dismissal of the idea.

I'll take your word for it and hope you are correct. Some of the ideas in that thread were just too far, IMHO.

 

[mudslinger]

Do we really have any conclusive proof the "jump putt" really confers an advantage? If so, how is that advantage unfair? Is the advantage conferred because the thrower has developed the skill so they are better at it than someone else? If so, how is this different from someone who has taken the time to gain an advantage on their drives or approach shots?


We know this was brought up by an individual, and not PDGA wide, but again, this is a discussion board and we can discuss things like this.


I'll take your word for it and hope you are correct. Some of the ideas in that thread were just too far, IMHO.

Thank you for supporting an open discussion.


To answer your question of "fairness", some players feel that those skilled in jump putts have an unfair advantage. I disagree with those players as I feel it's an advantage, but completely fair. For me personally, It's no different that the player than throws a 400+ft tomahawk, which i can't throw...so should i start petitioning the pDGA to change the rules to allow only backhand throws?

 

[JC17393]

We know this was brought up by an individual, and not PDGA wide, but again, this is a discussion board and we can discuss things like this.

I have no problem with the discussion of things like this, as long as the context is clear that it's simply a hypothetical scenario. My issue was with the portion of mudslinger's post that I bolded in my reply. He is trying to portray this as some conspiracy that the PDGA as an organization has some kind of agenda they are trying to sneak by the rest of us. There is no conspiracy to eliminate the jump putt or really to make any significant modifications to the stance rules as we now know them.

I'll take your word for it and hope you are correct. Some of the ideas in that thread were just too far, IMHO.

From the original poster at the PDGA discussion, which is what stirred this whole thing up..."None of these have reached a proposal stage yet". It's just one guy spitballing ideas, nothing more.

When a similar proposal of eliminating the 10-meter circle was actually brought before the rules committee and discussed as part of the 2011 rule book update process, this was the official result: "9/5: No interest has been expressed. Issue closed." And since there's no evidence of such changes in the 2013 rule book update (found here), it's safe to say that the issue continues to be closed as far as the PDGA Rules Committee is concerned. No agendas. No conspiracies.

 

[DirtyMittenDG]

Should be able to jump putt from anywhere or not be able to jump putt at all!

 

[denny ritner]

That's my feeling, too. One argument is that jump-putts are foot faults that are too close to call. I'm inclined to think if they're too close to call, they're too close to worry about.

^^^this

 

[General Scales]

I think we should make getting birdies illegal since I have a hard time obtaining them.

 

[mx23ang]

LUDACRIS!

Yeah this is major BS! Some players like myself who cant throw it far really depend on banging jump putts to score. If this rule were to go into effect I might as well quit trying to play disc golf seriously because my game really depends on my jump putt (which I usually make between 2-5 per round)

 

[dashiellx]

There is no conspiracy to eliminate the jump putt or really to make any significant modifications to the stance rules as we now know them.

Well, no conspiracy to eliminate the jump putt or modify the stance rules....but they're up to something dagnabit