No 10 Meter Circle

[jenb]

When I started this thread in 2014, my main goal was to simplify the rulebook and eliminate some tough calls.

As my kids have grown a bit, I've realized that maybe the best reason to eliminate the "10m-show-balance" rule is for our growing demographic that is younger, weaker, or may have disabilities.

If full grown males need to follow through for a clean shot at 10.1m, consider being a 5-year old.

Agreed. And I think the Women's field might increase in size over time if the circle were at least smaller for the ladies.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I was searching for info on the 10m rule and dug up several related threads, so I decided to:
1) Necrobump this thread (which is the longest of the threads I found).

2) Prerube the related threads:
The 10m circle....
10M Circle: History Lesson?
ruling on a marked 10m circle
Jump putting on the edge of the 10m circle.
finishing inside of the 10m circle

3) Cite the relevant section of PDGA rulebook:

806 Regulated Areas

806.01 Putting Area

A. Any throw made from within 10 meters of the target, as measured from the rear
of the marker disc to the base of the target, is a putt.

B. After having released a putt, the player must demonstrate full control of balance
behind the marker disc before advancing toward the target. A player who fails to
do so has committed a stance violation and receives one penalty throw.

Then ask, Why doesn't the PDGA just eliminate this rule?
You want to follow through, step, or jump putt however close to the basket? Who cares?
Anyone who thinks it's an advantage would be free to do so.

As long as:
1) The disc is released before it contacts any part of the target (relevant rule cited below*).

2a) Player has a supporting point on/behind the lie when the disc is released (can't release in the air).
2b) Player doesn't have a supporting point in front of their lie (can't stagger your stance so one foot is close than your lie).

Admittedly, jump putts make it tough to determine if the players foot was still in contact with the ground when they release, regardless of where they decide to do it from. I just think it's stoopidly arbitrary to allow jump putts from 10.001 meters, but not from 10.000 meters, especially when the 10m circles aren't so precisely established (even at Majors and DGPT event ... whiskers and circles aren't always accurate).

807 Completing the Hole

A. A target is a device whose purpose is to clearly determine completion of a
hole. A basket target is designed to catch discs and generally consists of a tray,
chains, and a chain support mounted on a pole. An object target generally has a
marked target area.

B. In order to complete a hole with a basket target, the thrower must release the
disc and it must enter the target above the top of the tray and below the bottom
of the chain support, and come to rest supported by the target.

C. In order to complete a hole with an object target, the thrower must release the
disc and it must strike the marked target area of the object.

 

[dmoore1998]

1. I agree it could just be removed.

2. I'm probably someone who would benefit greatly from the rule change given that I'm 6'6" and am currently a terrible putter! Eliminating the rule probably gets me several feet closer when I putt.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've been saying, for a decade or two, that when appointed Rules Czar, I'll eliminate the circle.

Notably, the job hasn't been offered yet.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Dear PDGA,

I hereby nominate David Sauls as Rules Czar.
Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,
BogeyNoMore

P.S. As an added incentive, I publicly announce that I will renew my PGDA membership (with a lifetime membership) if/when he becomes Rules Czar.

 

[BillFleming]

The issue with getting rid of the 'proof of balance' for C1 is that it is extremely difficult to tell if someone has both feet off the ground before releasing their putt and, also, if a foot touched the ground before the disc was released. It really requires you and the rest of the card to be able to see two different points at the same time. It also eliminates an advantage that taller people have. Yes, we can still stretch our arms a bit closer than shorter armed players....but give me (6'1") the ability to step/jump putt inside C1 and I'll make way more putts, as my height, arm length, and leg stretch give me an advantage of getting closer to the basket.

 

[Hampstead]

 

[DavidSauls]

The issue with getting rid of the 'proof of balance' for C1 is that it is extremely difficult to tell if someone has both feet off the ground before releasing their putt and, also, if a foot touched the ground before the disc was released. It really requires you and the rest of the card to be able to see two different points at the same time. It also eliminates an advantage that taller people have. Yes, we can still stretch our arms a bit closer than shorter armed players....but give me (6'1") the ability to step/jump putt inside C1 and I'll make way more putts, as my height, arm length, and leg stretch give me an advantage of getting closer to the basket.

And the problem with "demonstrate full control of balance" is that it's an ambiguous and subjective term, such that endless words have been expounded on what is, isn't, or might be sufficient. I'd rather deal with facts at two different points, than something as vague as the current rule.

I'll accept the additional made C1 putts as a price for cleaning up the rule. I'm not convinced it'll make a huge difference in scoring. But if it does, it will also be revealing another flaw in the current rule: that it's much better to be 33' out, than 32' out.

 

[DavidSauls]

Dear PDGA,

I hereby nominate David Sauls as Rules Czar.
Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,
BogeyNoMore

P.S. As an added incentive, I publicly announce that I will renew my PGDA membership (with a lifetime membership) if/when he becomes Rules Czar.

Wow. He hasn't even seen the rest of my campaign platform yet.