Is this a Foot Fault?

[Dave242]

This is not true IMO as most people do not release the disc with their plant foot flat on the ground. They are either rotating about their heel or ball of their foot which I would say is more like 3"x3", giving someone only a 6" wide line to play from.

The move that I see tons of people doing and I call on them often, is when they step to the side of the lie. They will often plant their heel on the line directly behind their lie and then rock up on the ball of their feet which is nowhere close to the line which effectively gives them another ~6" to get around the obstacle in front of them. :thmbdown:

What you say here is actually a much bigger and wider-spread problem to the "purity" of the stance rules than jump-putting or walk-putting. It is usually so hard to simultaneously notice the release of the disc and elevation of the heel (or toe) in relation to the 30cm line (in real time - without video or photographic analysis).

That is why I was careful to use "footprint" when defining the 2'x2' box than "support point" or something like that.

 

[Dave242]

People at tournaments need to stop stepping on their damn minis. That is all.

Or.....maybe the answer to this whole thing is that people have to step on their mini.

Heck, this is maybe where the sensor should go for the fans of high tech officiating

 

[General Scales]

How about everyone stops worrying about the people that are jump putting, learn how to putt from 45-50 feet without walking through or coming off your feet, problem solved. Seems pretty simple since you shouldn't have to change your putting motion to throw 45 feet.

Or even better, let's do this one. Foot faults result in a Nancy Kerrigan like smash to the knee that violated the rule. I would not only sign up to be one of the officials following a card but would gladly volunteer to be a clubber as well. After a few people got kneecapped, there would be people standing and delivering at every lie.

 

[Dave242]

I thought the basis for this discussion was increasing credibility for the sport. General Scales going all Gillooly and ending up in jail I suppose is one way to accomplish that.

 

[General Scales]

Well, it may bring some much needed publicity, good or bad . The problem I have with the foot fault discussions is there are no answers to it that will not upset half the disc golf population.

 

[Steve West]

Interesting and relevant thoughts, IMO. It makes more sense in many ways and would take care of some of the issues in refereeing mentioned in this thread.

The downside is that now obstacles become much more punishing if you are directly behind them (along the line of play). This would be great if courses were designed with your approach to "play it where it lies", but with the way things are wouldn't it be so random as to be patently unfair?

What I mean is that for instance if your disc comes to rest right behind a 2' diameter tree, your only option is basically a pitch out perpendicular-ish to the line of play where as if your disc would have skipped/rolled just 1-2" further left or right you would have a line to the basket. Your lie in this case has zero correlation to skill.

Thanks. Validation is all we live for on here, right?

All you said is true, and to me, that is more in the spirit of "play it as it lies". Being able to reach out and throw around that 2' diameter tree strikes me as legalized cheating. Which we all like, of course.

All courses are designed to provide for a series of throws where you could make par (or birdie) with this rule. True, landing in a place where you didn't want to be could be more punishing, but that's OK, isn't it? It cranks up the risk/reward ratio.

I'm more tolerant of so-called randomness than most, I think. You get a bad lie because you threw your disc in a way that it had a chance to get that bad lie. If you can't avoid that area because of lack of mental or physical control, you should get a high score.

The main difference would be "on the green" where some designers think it's OK to have obstacles as long as you can reach around and get a throw toward the target.

Perhaps with this definition of "as it lies", it would be less desirable to have any obstacles closely protecting the target. On the other hand, perhaps the current courses become more interesting as you try to play for the open areas near the target, rather than going for anywhere near the target.

(The green would not need to be 10m diameter, because there would be no need for a 10m rule.)

 

[grodney]

Benefits of Stand and Deliver:
- Much easier detection and enforcement of fairway stance violations.
- Adds another element of skill to the game.
- Presumably would allow for less land to be used for design, since 2-shot and 3-shot holes would presumably be shorter due to the presumed less distance thrown from stand-and-deliver shots.

Negatives of Stand and Deliver:
- Wording and enforcement/detection of "stand" portion is unclear at this time.
- (Doesn't address the perceived jump-putt "problem")

 

[Dave242]

So, I'd say the closest we could get to "play it as it lies" would be that the disc must be released during a motion that goes over the marker. No restriction on where your feet are.

This could be verified with two people watching the throw from different angles. (There are always two other players to watch during sanctioned play). If it looked like it passed over the marker on the final motion to both watchers, then it was OK.

Thanks. Validation is all we live for on here, right?

Validation is nice, but often that is not what you get. For a little of the latter, your rule would need to be worded very carefully to make it work. Even then, there would still be gray areas into which players would be encroaching unintentionally and intentionally.

What is "final motion"? I can see some straight-line motion over the lie turning into a turning/curving motion turning into turning while stepping motion turning into turning and running. Somewhere along this ridiculous progression a line needs to be drawn between acceptable "final motion" and unacceptable. That could prove to be problematic.

 

[sidewinder22]

Or.....maybe the answer to this whole thing is that people have to step on their mini.

Heck, this is maybe where the sensor should go for the fans of high tech officiating

This is actually the best idea in this thread, if somehow the mini doesn't affect stance like by slippage. So the marker would know a foot is on the marker and the disc is still in hand by voltage through the body or synchronized pressure sensors. This seems a bit too expensive to be feasible though. Heck you could even make it so the thrower receives an electric shock when faulting.

 

[garublador]

People act as if this is the only rule in all of sports that requires a high speed camera to judge. They're used all the time in sports like tennis and volleyball to detect whether a shot was in or out and in football to judge several different rules. Has anyone ever heard of a "photo finish?" That's where a camera is needed to see who won a race. It seems like nearly every call in basketball and soccer is a judgement call by the referee. The outcomes of major games have a been decided by bad calls in several super popular sports. Many boxing and MMA fights require several judges because one judge is not reliable enough to get accurate scoring.

If having rules that were difficult to enforce made a sport unpopular we wouldn't have any popular sports.

 

[Dave242]

Tru dat garub! It might seem we are getting carried away with the discussion.....but it is the topic of the thread.

A very big difference however is that DG is by in large a self-officiated sport. It takes a lot of training and practice for professional zebras to be able to get things right the majority of the time.....and they do get it right much more often than they get it wrong everywhere in every sport.

 

[Dave242]

This is actually the best idea in this thread, if somehow the mini doesn't affect stance like by slippage. So the marker would know a foot is on the marker and the disc is still in hand by voltage through the body or synchronized pressure sensors. This seems a bit too expensive to be feasible though. Heck you could even make it so the thrower receives an electric shock when faulting.

It would be pretty easy and inexpensive to make a marker that sensed contact (or proximity or motion.....or a combination) and had some alert (sound, light, with delay if needed). I sell these sorts of semiconductor components that would be used to implement this.

What a simple solution like this would still fail to do however is detect if there is contact with the lie at the exact moment the disc is released....the "voltage through the body" idea would not be easy to implement - basically impossible with all the variables involved.

Instead of the "voltage through the body", it would be possible to use some sort of RFID chip on the disc going to a sensor on the player's arm (it would have to be close range sensing) that would have an RF link to the mini. This is an impractical and expensive solution that could only be used in the biggest tournaments.

 

[Tiny]

At that level of play it's gotta be called.

At my level of play, I'd be the douche calling everyone's 2nd shot a foot fault lol. Also, if I'm the only one who knows the rules, no one else will agree with me making the endeavor counter productive and will just piss people off. I plan to move up soon so there won't be an issue of being a rule nazi. As for right now, I just let them know that what they are doing is a penalty and how they can fix the issue.

 

[Agricolae]

Or.....maybe the answer to this whole thing is that people have to step on their mini...

This is actually the best idea in this thread, if somehow the mini doesn't affect stance like by slippage...

I'm not saying I'm on board with this, but you've got me thinking. Apart from the sensor thing, it couldn't be much easier to judge a fairway run-up foot fault than to watch to see if the thrower steps on his marker. No side stepping the line on stand-and-deliver, either. No more 30cm along the line of play. No confusion as to the direction of the line of play. You would just have to have a supporting point *on* the marker and none in front.

That's some pretty good out-of-the-box thinking there, Dave. Cheers!

 

[Dave242]

This idea has got to have been thought of before, but my response started out as a smart-aleky reaction to a seemingly frustrated post. And, then the idea started growing on me.

Why not use a rubber flat mini (or whatever material is safest for the shot at hand) that you have to step on with your plant/supporting foot any time during the planting of that foot? With the toe or the heel, with the foot extending in any direction, and not even necessarily in contact with it at the moment of release (as in when the heel raises up as the weight shifts forward right before release). Like you say, it would simplify so many things (not everything, but a lot) and would make things much easier for the untrained eye to consistently and accurately officiate.

The two things I would do differently in order to keep the "play it where it lies" precept intact is to 1) require marking the disc with this mini (no more option to play behind the thrown disc) and 2) marking the lie behind the disc on the line of play (rather than in front as it is done now). Maybe it might be even better to place it in the center of where the landed disc is?

Any other thoughts/adjustments/criticisms/show-stoppers before the rules committee gets their fluffies on it?

 

[sidewinder22]

Other than it's a serious safety concern?

 

[JoakimBL]

The problem with fairway shots is not that it is too dificult to judge foot faults, it is that people don't do it. Either because they are not paying attention, doesn't know the rules, or just doesn't want to be "that guy". It doesn't change anything in regards to "jump putting". So what is acomplished by changing the rule to stepping on a mini or towel or whatever? Absolutely nothing.
I guess prerube doesn't read this section of the forum because we have had this discussion before.

I'm a firm beleiver in that the rules (on this subject!) are fine as they are. The "problem" is rules knowledge amorn players and the culture of not calling out violators. "Fixing" the problem is not about fixing the rules, but much harder and something that will take a lot of time.

 

[grodney]

Other than it's a serious safety concern?

There's no safety concern with a flat rubber mini.

Anyway, similarly, someone, on r.s.d or the pdga board, years ago proposed a new piece of equipment -- a thin rubber mat approximately the size of a disc. I think they called it a LIE. Anyway, the idea was to place it behind your thrown disc, then your next shot must be released with some part of you contacting the LIE.

That's probably the next best thing to Stand And Deliver.

 

[Cgkdisc]

I had proposed having a white towel about 1' x 1' attached to the mini that would be on the ground behind it and your plant foot would have to touch it during release. The back of the towel would have a grippy surface to reduce chance of slippage. However, it still doesn't deal with the jumping issue like my idea for releasing and ending up behind the mini.

 

[Dave242]

The problem with fairway shots is not that it is too dificult to judge foot faults, it is that people don't do it. Either because they are not paying attention, doesn't know the rules, or just doesn't want to be "that guy". It doesn't change anything in regards to "jump putting". So what is acomplished by changing the rule to stepping on a mini or towel or whatever? Absolutely nothing.

This is a really good point. However, I think a big part of the problem is that the rules now are overly complicated and visually difficult to enforce.....and that is a big cause for them not being called (but not the only one).

If the rule was simply:
1) Place marker at the center of the disc (and remove disc)
2) your plant foot must be on the marker at some point during the throw,
3) in contact with the ground at release,
4) no supporting point closer to the basket than your plant foot
.....people would get it. It is so much more intuitive.

No line of play concept (which is confusingly different if there is a mando), no 30cm line (how long is 30cm anyhow? most people probably wonder), no confusion on where around the perimeter the marker should be placed, no silly "establish/demonstrate balance" in the 10m circle.

On top of that, it is much much much easier to spot stance violations accurately and with consistency.

So yeah, this idea does accomplish absolutely something.