Is this a Foot Fault?

[Dave242]

...have not seen clear video evidence yet.

My favorite example, you are taught to be in the air while jump putting. Watch the slow motion at 3:16, Paul is well into the air when he releases the disc.

I still have not seen clear video evidence. I know it is blurry, but the disc has left his hand and and his foot is still in contact with the ground. Even if I am wrong about this, this is not convincingly clear to me.

 

[Teebird Elvis]

I still have not seen clear video evidence. I know it is blurry, but the disc has left his hand and and his foot is still in contact with the ground. Even if I am wrong about this, this is not convincingly clear to me.

Your definition of touching the ground, and mine, are obviously different.

That said, if that doesn't convince you, then you are a closed book.

 

[kcplease]

My 2 cents- Is it a foot fault? Most likely. Did it affect the outcome? Not really. If someone steps over their lie by half an inch like he did I don't see anyone calling it. I know I wouldn't. And Barry has called himself for foot faults before, so you know it wasn't intentional.

 

[Grungedude42]

Your definition of touching the ground, and mine, are obviously different.

That said, if that doesn't convince you, then you are a closed book.

His heel is off the ground, but his toes may be touching. The disc is clearly further from his hand than the toes may possibly be off the ground, in any case.

If anything, this is further justification for the "no video review" rule.

 

[Dave242]

Your definition of touching the ground, and mine, are obviously different.

That said, if that doesn't convince you, then you are a closed book.

My definition is to "Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie".

I may well be a closed book, but might the rule book also be closed in this instance you brought up?

 

[Dave242]

And Barry has called himself for foot faults before, so you know it wasn't intentional.

Did you know that "Stance violations may not be called or seconded by the thrower"? :doh:

 

[garublador]

I still have not seen clear video evidence. I know it is blurry, but the disc has left his hand and and his foot is still in contact with the ground. Even if I am wrong about this, this is not convincingly clear to me.

I managed to pause in the frame before that and the disc is out of his hand and his foot is clearly on the ground. That's obviously a legal putt.

I have seen individual instances where people have performed bad jump putts, but it's isolated incidents, usually in causal play. I haven't seen any evidence that it's at all common in tournaments.

 

[Teebird Elvis]

My definition is to "Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie".

I may well be a closed book, but might the rule book also be closed in this instance you brought up?

Contact with the air, which I guess air contacts the ground...

Another example, aka the step through putt of Feldberg.

Dave at 3:45

 

[Teebird Elvis]

Stuff like this makes the sport cheap. It is a detriment.

 

[Teebird Elvis]

Having trouble uploading the photo. ugh

 

[garublador]

Contact with the air, which I guess air contacts the ground...

Another example, aka the step through putt of Feldberg.

Dave at 3:45

I'm able to get a still of him with his back foot on the ground, his front foot off the ground and the disc out of his hand in that one. It's a little misleading becasue it looks like he steps down with his non supporting foot earlier than he does in the still shots. What's also misleading in these shots is that their hands follow the disc for a little bit even after they've released. It's not like a drive where your hand is following through in a circle but the disc is going straight. So it looks like they've released later than they actually have.

How about you provide a clear still of someone jump putting with no supporting point and the disc in their hand? That's something no one ever seems to be able to produce.

 

[garublador]

Having trouble uploading the photo. ugh

He's holding the disc and has one foot supported behind his lie and the other is in the air. That's not illegal.

 

[Dave242]

Contact with the air, which I guess air contacts the ground...

Another example, aka the step through putt of Feldberg.

Dave at 3:45

Air does provide buoyancy so that is support in the strictest sense, so I wonder if that is legal to use that argument.

I fear that again, this is pushing the hairy edge of legality and I do not see it clearly as illegal:

It is so hard to tell when his heel touches the ground and when the disc departs his fingertips.

 

[ejvogie]

The credibility of the sport suffers because the rules aren't enforced at the highest level. The integrity of the sport suffers because some people play by the rules while others don't. The problem is the rule is very difficult to enforce and many players, like yourself, don't believe that missing your mark by an inch or two confers an advantage.

Tell me how much credibility the NBA has lost when players don't get called for traveling as they take 3 steps toward the basket on a dunk.

 

[Dave242]

Those pants he is wearing should be illegal!

 

[Grungedude42]

We should install sensors in everyones feet with buzzers, and gloves that sense the disc. That'll make the sport legit, man. Or, we can go throw plastic, and relax a little.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Air does provide buoyancy so that is support in the strictest sense, so I wonder if that is legal to use that argument.

I fear that again, this is pushing the hairy edge of legality and I do not see it clearly as illegal:

It is so hard to tell when his heel touches the ground and when the disc departs his fingertips.

I agree with Dave242 on this call, I think it goes against the spirit of the rule but still appears to be legal based on the wording of the rule. Not a fan of people exploiting loopholes in the rule or pushing it to its most extreme legal definition.

 

[DrewM]

It is a fault. How many times do you see a disc right on the OB line and have to make a call to whether that single blade of grass keeps it in bounds or not.

The inch matters even 400 from the bucket.

 

[Dave242]

How many times do you see a disc right on the OB line and have to make a call to whether that single blade of grass keeps it in bounds or not.

I think it goes against the spirit of the rule but still appears to be legal based on the wording of the rule. Not a fan of people exploiting loopholes in the rule or pushing it to its most extreme legal definition.

When it comes to rules like distractions, or courtesy I agree that it becomes unsportsmanlike to try to push things to the limit.

But.....as DrewM points out, other areas (like OB lines) have clearly defined lines of demarcation on what is fair/legal and what it foul/illegal - they are black and white. I think stance is a black/white sort of rule and pushing right to that line is not unsportsmanlike. Ideally, all rules should clearly defined lines of demarcation....but that is not possible.

Now, calling even the black/white rules consistently is another story. Heck, how do you consistently tell if someone's foot is 30.1cm or more off of the back of the marker upon release on a running throw?

 

[Grungedude42]

. Heck, how do you consistently tell if someone's foot is 30.1cm or more off of the back of the marker upon release on a running throw?

Sensors. In your shoes, gloves and discs. That report directly to the TD.