How is the existing rule not strict and well defined? The only issue I see is that people don't call out others when they break the very black and white rule.
-
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)
End of Jump Putting as we know it
- Thread starter mudslinger
- Start date
How is the existing rule not strict and well defined? The only issue I see is that people don't call out others when they break the very black and white rule.
blur
Par Member
If that is the case, why would there be a discussion like this?
Yeah, now stop calling me for foot faults you bastard! :thmbdown:
Jack started it!
The rule is strict and well-defined. Some people have various objections to jump-putts, one of which is that although the rule is strict and well-defined, the jump-putt happens so quickly that it's hard to tell if the rule was broken, or not. Another is that people are reluctant to call rules tightly, regardless of how strict and well-defined they are written.
juju
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
Good post, another thing to note is that rules calls are not being made consistently since it is a self officiated game for the most part.
I'm all for this discussion, of the rules and hypothetical alternative rules.
I'm just "proofing" your suggestion by testing it against hypothetical issues it would encounter. When I float the idea of doing away with falling putts and the 10-meter circle altogether, I expect others will point out potential drawbacks to my idea. And they always do. Nothing personal. The test of an idea is putting it through the ringer and seeing how it comes out. The tendency is for a suggestion that solves one problem, but inadvertantly creates others.
So a designated area behind the lie from which you could throw, and have room to follow-through (staying behind the lie), begs the question of how big the designated area would be, how easy it would be to judge whether a player hit it, and how much players might try to abuse it.
blur
Par Member
Line of play may be a possibility in area designated.
dashiellx
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,766
Correct me if I'm wrong here, and I'm sure someone will...
Placing a mini to mark your lie, sets the point where your plant foot cannot go past and no other supporting point can be closer to the pin along the line of play until after the disc has left your hand.
Personally, I don't think anyone here is really attempting to change the rules. But it is fun and interesting to discuss the options.
Placing a mini to mark your lie, sets the point where your plant foot cannot go past and no other supporting point can be closer to the pin along the line of play until after the disc has left your hand.
Personally, I don't think anyone here is really attempting to change the rules. But it is fun and interesting to discuss the options.
Correct on all counts.
With the clarification that not only can your plant foot not go past it, but it must still be planted---touching ground---when you release. And that you're describing the stance outside the 10-meter circle.
My post involved this question: Say the designated area is on the line of play, up to 5' behind the mini, so that your follow-through can't go past the mini.
Currently it's fairly easy to tell if a foot is on the line of play right behind the mini. But if someone doing a run-up releases "about five feet" behind the mini, it will be much harder to discern if he was actually on the line of play or 1' off to the side; or whether he was really 5' or 6' behind the mini.
barneco
Birdie Member
I agree, and would argue further that increasing that distance just give MORE room for interpretation and ambiguity.
The major problem arises(when deriving our rules from the game of golf) with the fundamental difference that the object in play(the ball) doesn't move until it's struck during the subsequent stroke. Your lie is your lie. "Play it as it lies" is easy to adhere to...the ball simply doesn't move until you hit it again(with limited, specific exceptions).
Once the object in play(the disc) becomes mobile(i.e. you cannot throw a disc with it lying on the ground as you can hit a ball that's lying there), the analogy falls apart. You have to introduce all sorts of artificial constraints(foward-most plant foot, 30cm, LOP, falling putt...all of this wackiness) to try and keep it in line with the "spirit" of the golf rule upon which it's based.
Perhaps we need to just stop trying to apply the golf rule in this case and come up with something more appropriate to our sport.
The major problem arises(when deriving our rules from the game of golf) with the fundamental difference that the object in play(the ball) doesn't move until it's struck during the subsequent stroke. Your lie is your lie. "Play it as it lies" is easy to adhere to...the ball simply doesn't move until you hit it again(with limited, specific exceptions).
Once the object in play(the disc) becomes mobile(i.e. you cannot throw a disc with it lying on the ground as you can hit a ball that's lying there), the analogy falls apart. You have to introduce all sorts of artificial constraints(foward-most plant foot, 30cm, LOP, falling putt...all of this wackiness) to try and keep it in line with the "spirit" of the golf rule upon which it's based.
Perhaps we need to just stop trying to apply the golf rule in this case and come up with something more appropriate to our sport.
Good post :thmbup:
I have no idea what "something more appropriate to our sport" would be, but I agree with you completely.
garublador
* Ace Member *
The problem people have with jump putts is that they believe that people are not playing from their lie. They believe they are playing inches from their lie. If you change the rules so you can throw from feet away from your lie then you're making the problem orders of magnitude worse, not better.
simpletwist
* Ace Member *
Sorry for jumping late on this, but can someone get me up to speed? Why?
Without knowing why its been done I'm ok with it. Just like any other sport, the rules get redefined. And sometimes a bad new rule, gets overturned down the road.
Still, I'd like to know the reasoning behind the change.
Without knowing why its been done I'm ok with it. Just like any other sport, the rules get redefined. And sometimes a bad new rule, gets overturned down the road.
Still, I'd like to know the reasoning behind the change.
it's not a change, just an idea for a proposal to the PDGA
simpletwist
* Ace Member *
Same question applies. Why?
its all in this thread, go back and read it.
pablo.diablo
Eagle Member
Because it's difficult to distinguish whether people are technically faulting, and many jump-putters push the rule to the extreme by releasing at virtually the same time the plant foot leaves the ground. And it looks goofy.
Some people have issues with jump-putts and want the rules changed to get rid of them.
The main issue is that jump-putts are often done illegally (under the current rules---some players are leaving the ground before they release), but difficult or impossible to call because it happens so quickly. The reluctance to call rules is a problem in our sport, made moreso by a rule that's difficult-to-call anyway.
Some think the players who jump-putt gain an advantage by doing so, and thus by breaking the rule.
Others dislike jump-putts because they think they make the sport look bad. Others, probably for other reasons.
*
That's the reason for this thread. There was a proposal to change the rules which would effectively eliminate jump-putts. It was just a proposal someone made, not an actual rule change.
*
The rest of this thread is various ideas about changes in the stance rule different people would like to see, and the opinions of others who would not like to see those changes.
It reduces the chance that someone will be thought of as gaining an unfair advantage by throwing themselves closer to the pin while shooting. Though I see another unfair advantage occurring when people stand as far back as is allowed to shoot just to avoid an obstacle.
Similar threads
