Is this guy a falling-putter?

[Apothecary]

Where did you get that impression? I'm pretty sure they did actually make a specific rule change for that event.

from Chuck Kennedy himself.

Victor, there's no rule change. Feldberg was just illustrating how the rule should be followed.

As Feldberg points out, "jump putts" have never been allowed but "putt jumps" have been, meaning that the player must release the disc before jumping or stepping forward for lies beyond 10m. Inside 10m you have to place your non-plant foot on the ground with proper balance before moving forward after releasing the putt if it wasn't already on the ground (like a straddle putt). Where and when your disc has landed during a putt has no bearing on making legal movements, unlike some who think you can't move forward until the disc stops moving.

 

[mashnut]

Chuck is talking about there not being a general rule change, a lot of people were suggesting that the rule that was used for that single event was going to be made an official PDGA rule which is not the case. They did get a rules waiver to try out that version of the falling putt at the USDGC though.

 

[Apothecary]

Chuck is talking about there not being a general rule change, a lot of people were suggesting that the rule that was used for that single event was going to be made an official PDGA rule which is not the case. They did get a rules waiver to try out that version of the falling putt at the USDGC though.

what was the rule changed to? chucks quote above seems perfectly clear that there was no "special event rule waiver/change" in this case. It was merely a step in tightening down the rampant rule-breaking that a lot of high-level players do.

 

[jasonc]

so basically this whole thread is you being upset about a rule being vague..

This whole thread is about the interpretation of a vague rule. Yes, In Mike C's recorded "NON-sanctioned" video, any interpretation of rules is meaningless because PDGA rules do not apply to a non-sanctioned round of disc golf.

Having said that, if the same putting style were used in a PDGA sanctioned event, this style of putting would certainly fall into the gray area, which is where Apoth likes to play. I would do the same if I felt it gave me an advantage.

Bottom line is that nobody wins an argument when one side is throwin tomatoes and the other side is tossin potatos. :wall:

 

[Apothecary]

idk im the proud owner of a pretty serious potato gun.:|

 

[BrotherDave]

it could be worded better.

whos upset? i have never called someone on a falling putt in serious play, mainly because golfers around here interpret the rules strictly and dont show crappy, illegal form like Mike C does.

C'mon, crappy and illegal form? If anything, he's a victim of exaggerated interpretations of a nebulous, vague rule. B/c of the poorly structured and ill-defined rule, it has allowed for mouthbreathers like you to make a mountain out of a molehill. The overwhelming opinions for Mike's case, including noteworthy PDGA reps, if anything has proved this to be the case (i.e. the falling putt rules are too vague) and since your interpretation, albeit defensible b/c of the crappy wording of the rule, clearly flies against the face of common sense/opinion, it (the rules) should be changed so that our "crappy, illegal" form shouldn't be scrutinized as such.

Sorry, broseph, but any stance other wise is firmly shifting it into troll gear.

 

[Apothecary]

If anything, he's a victim of exaggerated interpretations of a nebulous, vague rule.

as were the contestants of the 2009 USDGC? why did they have the officials and the players use that standard if thats not to be the expected, strict standard everywhere?:\

 

[BrotherDave]

as were the contestants of the 2009 USDGC? why did they have the officials and the players use that standard if thats not to be the expected, strict standard everywhere?:\

I don't know, why can TDs make amendments to the rules in the first place? What do you mean, what do you mean? And what is the deal with air plane food?

 

[Technohic]

Im guessing they did it because they had someone being a pest about this type of putting, to just eliminate said pests amunition to debate an obscure interpretation of a rule.

 

[Apothecary]

Im guessing they did it because they had someone being a pest about this type of putting, to just eliminate said pests amunition to debate an obscure interpretation of a rule.

if thats the case, that "pest" won the battle. he got the officials to properly enforce the rules as they were written.

 

[BrotherDave]

if thats the case, that "pest" won the battle. he got the officials to enforce the rules as they can be interpreted.

FTFY

 

[skurf]

If you look at the putt at 0:29 it seems to me that he demonstrates full balance because he raises to the ball of his foot when he putts, then he puts his heel back on the ground before stepping forward. If he didn't have full balance then his momentum would have carried him forward and he wouldn't have been able to plant his heel. I doubt anyone in your group would second your violation call if you tried to make one on this player.

 

[DiscChucker]

If you look at the putt at 0:29 it seems to me that he demonstrates full balance because he raises to the ball of his foot when he putts, then he puts his heel back on the ground before stepping forward. If he didn't have full balance then his momentum would have carried him forward and he wouldn't have been able to plant his heel. I doubt anyone in your group would second your violation call if you tried to make one on this player.

Exactly. That was my point in post #85.

 

[Apothecary]

you have no idea how convincing i can be.

and btw thats a silly way to define a legal putt. its easy to snap the heel down while still maintaining forward momentum of the body. the non-plant foot must come down and then the putter must demonstrate stop of forward momentum for a complete "demonstration of complete balance".

 

[garublador]

if i did, i would bust out my rulebook, show the card the relevant passage and make my case that he broke the rule. I would convince the other players on the card and the TD, based on quotes from the bible of dg and my persuasive speaking skills.

But totally ignore the interpretation given by the person that matters most who says that those putts aren't falling putts. If you honestly cared at all about the actual rules you'd be arguing that they aren't falling putts based on the email Mike cited. Because you obviously don't and would rather win by cheating and enforcing rules that don't exist, the actual rules clearly don't matter to you.

 

[jasonc]

idk im the proud owner of a pretty serious potato gun.:|

Although I am not a PDGA official, I am pretty sure potato guns are not allowed under the current PDGA rules. Maybe you should run for the BoD and make a change for the betterment of disc golfers across the globe!

You will get my vote! :thmbup:

 

[Apothecary]

But totally ignore the interpretation given by the person that matters most who says that those putts aren't falling putts.

who is that?:\

If you honestly cared at all about the actual rules you'd be arguing that they aren't falling putts based on the email Mike cited. Because you obviously don't and would rather win by cheating and enforcing rules that don't exist, the actual rules clearly don't matter to you.

i didnt interpret a hard "no way in hell that is a falling putt" in the email in question. there was an "i wouldnt call you on it" followed quickly with a "if you want to be safe, better plant that back foot".

from that exchange, it seems like colin (and chuck) are on shaky ground as the rules are currently written. chucks "thats one definition. not THE definition" followed by silence and no further definition given make me think that hes unsure about how he interpreted the rule as well.

all of the rule makers/enforcers ive been talking to about this topic today behind the scenes have been in agreement: the goal of the falling putt rule is to make the shooter show an absolutely CLEAR stop of forward momentum before proceeding past the lie.

 

[skurf]

you have no idea how convincing i can be.

and btw thats a silly way to define a legal putt. its easy to snap the heel down while still maintaining forward momentum of the body. the non-plant foot must come down and then the putter must demonstrate stop of forward momentum for a complete "demonstration of complete balance".

Actually, that's only your interpretation of "demonstration of complete balance." There's no PDGA rule that I've seen that says what you just said about coming down with your other foot. And if your momentum is going forward you can't snap your heel down without looking completely out of balance. Go ahead, try it. And it's not even a quick snap that he does. He smoothly rolls back to a flat footed stance before stepping his other foot forward. If that doesn't demonstrate full balance for you, then nothing short of putting both feet down will, but since that is not in the rules you can't force a player to putt like that.

 

[Apothecary]

i agree that it looks like he could have demonstrated complete balance if he so chose.

but he didnt.

by not doing it, he broke rule 803.04 c.

its a "dance, monkey, dance" rule. you have to CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE the group and officials that you dont have any residual forward momentum to show complete balance.

 

[waywu2001]

A Re-write

Too bad that this thread's almost dead (or should be dead).
Maybe we should re-write the rule. To steal from another part of the rulebook, maybe the rule should be "The putter must be at rest behind the marker before advancing beyond the lie."
We have an easier time determining when something is "at rest" rather than balanced/unbalanced.