That's actually not a bad idea. Bring a 30 cm piece of string, lay it on your lie and throw.
If anyone calls you, just point to the string. It should be pretty obvious if you stepped on it or not.
-
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)
Foot Faults at World by Stokely
- Thread starter btothej89
- Start date
That's actually not a bad idea. Bring a 30 cm piece of string, lay it on your lie and throw.
If anyone calls you, just point to the string. It should be pretty obvious if you stepped on it or not.
bballr4567
Eagle Member
Rant? Sure.
You made the point about having no referees out there on the course and the next closest sport that doesn't have one is, well, you guessed it, ball golf.
Protect himself? He's already been called two times in one round of golf for foot faults. Is that overzealous players or are they just calling what they see?? Who the hell knows but why doesn't Scott make the change and take that out of their hands??? It is wholly on Scott to NOT foot fault.
And no, Scott took to Facebook almost immediately after the rounds to complain about it and even claimed that they had a second video that showed an even better view of the "no fault foot faults" that would clear him of foot faulting. Second video was posted and Scott has since taken down his first two posts about the subject and issued an apology. I wonder why?
For those that don't know, a regular sheet of paper is 7.5" X 11". 11" is 27.9 cm. Not really that far.
You made the point about having no referees out there on the course and the next closest sport that doesn't have one is, well, you guessed it, ball golf.
Protect himself? He's already been called two times in one round of golf for foot faults. Is that overzealous players or are they just calling what they see?? Who the hell knows but why doesn't Scott make the change and take that out of their hands??? It is wholly on Scott to NOT foot fault.
And no, Scott took to Facebook almost immediately after the rounds to complain about it and even claimed that they had a second video that showed an even better view of the "no fault foot faults" that would clear him of foot faulting. Second video was posted and Scott has since taken down his first two posts about the subject and issued an apology. I wonder why?
For those that don't know, a regular sheet of paper is 7.5" X 11". 11" is 27.9 cm. Not really that far.
I don't have the kind of time it takes to read this entire thread, so parts or all of what I have to say may be repeats. That's okay. This is an important discussion. Don't forget that we're still in the early stages of the existence of this sport and it takes a number of decades to work out the bugs, especially as equipment and players evolve.
There is a mess here that needs to be cleaned up if the sport is going to go forward with integrity. There are two major problems. (1) There is an ambiguous, subjective standard. The 30 c.m. area behind the marker is not measured and cannot be substantiated by either party. That has to change. (2) Competitors also have to referee each other in this sport for a great majority of the action on the course due to the limits of funding. I'm not sure that can change for many years yet, so we have to do the best job we can refereeing each other.
Let's address point #1 because that's the easiest. First off, I agree that the rule is necessary, even if it was written before there were many holes long enough for good players to have to wind up with a full subsequent drive after teeing off. I think that pros especially should be held to a standard where they conform with planting their foot in a specific space in the act of doing what they're paid to do better than almost everyone else on the planet. Maybe the 30 c.m. distance itself is debatable, but once one is determined, every throw should conform with it for the sake of objectivity.
Secondly, now that the importance of that objective measure is understood, it must be objectively measured. Period. There has to be some sort of way to mark off the parameters that the player must perform. I've had a couple of days to think about it, and so far the best I can do is an idea with strings attached: a mini with a built-in 30 c.m. string...or better yet, a triangle made of three outer strings and the inner string (perpendicular to the base of the triangle) that shows the line with the basket. A player's supporting foot either makes contact with the single string (or triangular area) or doesn't. It becomes objective.
The messier factor in play here, however, is the fact that competitors with obvious conflicts of interest have to also referee each other in a great majority of the action in the field. Maybe this isn't an issue 100 years from now, but for the time being, there might be enough resources in our game to place a small handful of highly skilled 3rd party referees on a card just at very important events. That's not exactly a perfect fix, though, because of the dynamics created in cards close to the top who don't have referees. In the meantime, the "spirit of sportsmanship" is all we have. It probably is good enough 99% of the time or more, but when you have competitors refereeing each other, the potential is there for abuse (intentional or not...I can certainly understand the difficulty of this situation from both parties when you're talking about competitive human beings). It happened in a high-profile circumstance, and to be honest, I'm glad we're having the discussion now. It's a needed discussion in the evolution of our sport.
Without sufficient resources to position highly skilled 3rd party officials everywhere they are needed, this "spirit of sportsmanship" idea has to be trumpeted and understood by all. And that's certainly not easy to accomplish 100%
We're 40 years into our sport. That's it. It's like baseball in the 1890s. It's okay to have these discussions and modify the rules of the game where needed.
There is a mess here that needs to be cleaned up if the sport is going to go forward with integrity. There are two major problems. (1) There is an ambiguous, subjective standard. The 30 c.m. area behind the marker is not measured and cannot be substantiated by either party. That has to change. (2) Competitors also have to referee each other in this sport for a great majority of the action on the course due to the limits of funding. I'm not sure that can change for many years yet, so we have to do the best job we can refereeing each other.
Let's address point #1 because that's the easiest. First off, I agree that the rule is necessary, even if it was written before there were many holes long enough for good players to have to wind up with a full subsequent drive after teeing off. I think that pros especially should be held to a standard where they conform with planting their foot in a specific space in the act of doing what they're paid to do better than almost everyone else on the planet. Maybe the 30 c.m. distance itself is debatable, but once one is determined, every throw should conform with it for the sake of objectivity.
Secondly, now that the importance of that objective measure is understood, it must be objectively measured. Period. There has to be some sort of way to mark off the parameters that the player must perform. I've had a couple of days to think about it, and so far the best I can do is an idea with strings attached: a mini with a built-in 30 c.m. string...or better yet, a triangle made of three outer strings and the inner string (perpendicular to the base of the triangle) that shows the line with the basket. A player's supporting foot either makes contact with the single string (or triangular area) or doesn't. It becomes objective.
The messier factor in play here, however, is the fact that competitors with obvious conflicts of interest have to also referee each other in a great majority of the action in the field. Maybe this isn't an issue 100 years from now, but for the time being, there might be enough resources in our game to place a small handful of highly skilled 3rd party referees on a card just at very important events. That's not exactly a perfect fix, though, because of the dynamics created in cards close to the top who don't have referees. In the meantime, the "spirit of sportsmanship" is all we have. It probably is good enough 99% of the time or more, but when you have competitors refereeing each other, the potential is there for abuse (intentional or not...I can certainly understand the difficulty of this situation from both parties when you're talking about competitive human beings). It happened in a high-profile circumstance, and to be honest, I'm glad we're having the discussion now. It's a needed discussion in the evolution of our sport.
Without sufficient resources to position highly skilled 3rd party officials everywhere they are needed, this "spirit of sportsmanship" idea has to be trumpeted and understood by all. And that's certainly not easy to accomplish 100%
We're 40 years into our sport. That's it. It's like baseball in the 1890s. It's okay to have these discussions and modify the rules of the game where needed.
pmatt1969
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 522
Watched the video from post 1 again. Look at the number of steps Stokley takes to get to his marker from his bag. I figure 15 steps at 3 foot per step for a person his size. That is 45 feet at least. The people that called the fault are behind his caddy. Way too far to make that call from. The one player and his caddy on the left of the video (who are closer to the throw) don't call the fault and only second it after the others farther away call it. You can see the delay. There should be 2 or more calling the fault immediately.
You cannot measure a horizontal distance from that angle. You have to be close enough to be able to be above it to get a accurate measurement.
Anyone who ball golfs knows you think you hit the ball to 4 foot from 150 yards and get to the green and you have a 10 footer for birdie.
You cannot measure a horizontal distance from that angle. You have to be close enough to be able to be above it to get a accurate measurement.
Anyone who ball golfs knows you think you hit the ball to 4 foot from 150 yards and get to the green and you have a 10 footer for birdie.
Mulligan
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,232
Okay, so where is the proof you have that he faulted that is anything other than subjective?
If you are not a trained official standing in close proximity and focused completely on the plant, I'm gonna say that anything that is on the edge of in/out is, and will always be, pure speculation and should not be left up to fellow competitors on the lead card(s) of a world tourney.
I don't like comparisons with other sports in these arguments but (to play along) how many bad calls have you seen in the major pro sports, with multiple officials with eyes on the ball... hell, even WITH video replay?
The controversy (to me) is more about the gamesmanship at play here, the way the rules can be selectively used by one player against the next.
I find it the opposite...so... I throw an upshot and Im freaking out totally mad how far away I landed. From 200' out it looks 25'. When I get to the actual putt its like 8' away, almost always its closer than I think it is from far away. Never hit anything 4' away in ball golf to have a reference, lol.
Mulligan
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,232
Excellent post and final point.
bballr4567
Eagle Member
I didn't say it wasn't subjective but merely on Scott to make it where his competitors don't call him for a fault. After he has already been called TWICE on the same card on the same day. They are already watching him closely.
Call it speculation, sure, but after foot faulting five times (six if you count the warning) don't you think that speculation might be a little closer to quite possibly.
Yup, it happens.
Yet, again, the gamesmanship is on both Scott AND his card. Had Scott taken their warning and planted closer on his fairway throws then there wouldn't be a need for this to have blown up. Scott took to facebook to complain about the instance and saying he was going to prove them wrong only to take it all down and apologize. Where is the gamesmanship in that?
Mulligan
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,232
Notice you still won't comment on the second call.
But yeah, the guy trying to make a comeback out of left field without major sponsorship that makes a run at a championship should just shut up and make it less easy for a former champ and current contender to make BS calls on him in order to get in his head.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
And I get why he is being quiet now... he got bullied on the card, he'a an underdog, and he can't give the impression that he's difficult to work with... in both cases he is/was damned if he did, damned if he don't.
But yeah, the guy trying to make a comeback out of left field without major sponsorship that makes a run at a championship should just shut up and make it less easy for a former champ and current contender to make BS calls on him in order to get in his head.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
And I get why he is being quiet now... he got bullied on the card, he'a an underdog, and he can't give the impression that he's difficult to work with... in both cases he is/was damned if he did, damned if he don't.
bballr4567
Eagle Member
I've already said that the second call on the video was also close. Three times now. :doh:
What does his sponsorship or former status have to do with anything? He still has to follow the rules.
I notice you dodging the notion that this should be on Scott as well. After being warned once, he continue to break the rules another five times. Why cant we blame Scott for breaking the rules? Why is that so hard?
gcr_russell
* Ace Member *
I just took a screenshot from the second video, circled the exact outline of the mini and looked to see how many of those circles could fit between scott's lie and his lead foot. The typical mini has a 4" diameter. You are allowed 11.8" behind your lie.
It was almost exactly 3 mini outlines I fit between his lie and foot. That makes it seem most likely to be right at about a foot away. (It looks like a long way because people are rarely near the end of where theyre allowed to be from their lie) This makes it likely that he was at a foot fault, but also that he was definitely not "over 2' away" and it would be incredibly difficult to accurately call that fault from as far away as the other competitors were.
It was almost exactly 3 mini outlines I fit between his lie and foot. That makes it seem most likely to be right at about a foot away. (It looks like a long way because people are rarely near the end of where theyre allowed to be from their lie) This makes it likely that he was at a foot fault, but also that he was definitely not "over 2' away" and it would be incredibly difficult to accurately call that fault from as far away as the other competitors were.
Playing tournaments is already too sloooooowwwww. Without the 30 second rule, they would be too unbearable.
Another rule that is applied and enforced seemingly at whim depending on the mood of a card.
Unreal that these 'final card' situations don't have a dedicated referee walking with the group calling violations. I know it isn't how its been done in the past but there have been quite a few situations in major tournaments in the past few years where having an unbiased and objective person enforcing the rules would make things seem much more professional and 'above the board.'
Toro71
* Ace Member *
I've heard of other players, in lower-stakes situations, suddenly start calling multiple foot faults on players outplaying them.
I don't hate the rule itself. And I guess it's within the rules to call it selectively for gamesmanship purposes (though I personally think that's kinda weak.)
In the big picture it seems unsatisfying because I bet it's relatively rare that this gets called in a situation where a player got a sincerely unfair advantage on a throw, whereas I'd bet it's used for gamesmanship much more often.
I get that it's the reality of limited manpower that DG has to be self-officiated. But man, having competitors, trying to beat each other, call rules violations against each other...that's kind of maddening.
I don't hate the rule itself. And I guess it's within the rules to call it selectively for gamesmanship purposes (though I personally think that's kinda weak.)
In the big picture it seems unsatisfying because I bet it's relatively rare that this gets called in a situation where a player got a sincerely unfair advantage on a throw, whereas I'd bet it's used for gamesmanship much more often.
I get that it's the reality of limited manpower that DG has to be self-officiated. But man, having competitors, trying to beat each other, call rules violations against each other...that's kind of maddening.
j_mardis
Newbie
To many people, myself included, there is absolutely no way to see a foot fault on the video posted. The angle is wrong and the video is from 40+ feet away. The players are at least 30 feet away and it is a difficult call from that distance.
Nothing can be done at this time regarding stokely's situation, but is there anything that can be instituted for next time?
Nothing can be done at this time regarding stokely's situation, but is there anything that can be instituted for next time?
So, to somewhat change the subject; does anyone else feel that this case is a perfect example of why the PDGA should NOT allow video or photographs to be used in official appeals?
In the first video scott posted it looked pretty clear that he was getting jobbed. I thought he was right on top of his mini everytime. In the second video I thought the first two throws were clearly violations. Same situation, two different angles, making two different cases.
Some people have mentioned that it's time to take another look at this policy, as everyone has smartphones now so pictures are very easy to come by. This situation demonstrates to me perfectly why that's a bad idea; with the right perspective anyone can make a picture appear however they want it to.
In the first video scott posted it looked pretty clear that he was getting jobbed. I thought he was right on top of his mini everytime. In the second video I thought the first two throws were clearly violations. Same situation, two different angles, making two different cases.
Some people have mentioned that it's time to take another look at this policy, as everyone has smartphones now so pictures are very easy to come by. This situation demonstrates to me perfectly why that's a bad idea; with the right perspective anyone can make a picture appear however they want it to.
Vorpaljesus
Eagle Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2013
- Messages
- 527
I really would have no problem with this. And for everyone who thinks putting is too easy, a lot of birdie putts would be 30 or more feet longer
