No 10 Meter Circle

[JC17393]

I believe that a similar limit (nose sharpness) came in the very early 90's, due to the Eclipse. If that's the truth, I seriously doubt they anticipated speed 10/11/12 discs themselves (seeing as the eclipse was a speed 7).

There are speed 15 discs out there. Not to parallel too much here, but even softball bans certain bats due to ball speed ratings. I miss my Miken...

First of all, I think it's difficult to frame this discussion with speed numbers because each company has its own system. A speed 15 disc by one company is not necessarily any faster than a speed 12 or 13 on another company's rating.

Second, the tech standards were revisited only a few years ago...after many of the highest speed discs we have were on the market (or certainly ones faster than the "speed 9" types that jjpitt refers to). So if the tech standards from 20+ years ago didn't see those fast discs coming, the more recent update certainly did. Also, there have been discs rejected for exceeding the tech standards primarily on the premise of being too fast, so it's not as though speed hasn't been on the radar. It's obviously been determined that the line where it is is good enough. It's going to take a really really compelling argument to reduce wing size maximums and essentially outlaw the highest speed discs.

 

[asc349]

I don't have any issues with the 10m rule as it is, but it does seem to make sense to have it set up like basketball. As long as your behind the 'line' (disc) before you touch down, it should be ok without messing with the integrity of the game. If it is going to stay as it is it would be nice to have a standard at all courses to have the circle marked so there is no dispute where 10m is. It's always an issue of is that 30ft or 32ft. If you look at it like a free throw then its gotta stay as it is, same premise I guess. Didn't read the whole thread yet so if this has been said already then I apologize.

 

[JoakimBL]

SO what is the best reason for keeping the 10M circle?

Why do we NEED it?

Why don't you ask someone who's against removing the circle? I don't think we need it.

 

[natedg1976]

They are seen differently because you can keep the momentum going forward more with a follow through putt, which is more accurate, so it's seen as cheating. I think the circle should be 50' so there is a definite gap between jump putt and standing putt. At least if they are jumping they are at a more challenging distance. Are you allowed to do a run up in Golf? Why are we allowed to then?

Because disc golf is not nor will it ever be ball golf. Nor should it be compared to nor made to be like ball golf. I play disc golf because it is fun, relaxing, easy to learn, and cheap. All the things ball golf is not.

Instead of always comparing disc golf to ball golf or trying to make disc golf like ball golf, why dont you just let disc golf be disc golf. If you want to make it ball golf just go play ball golf for christs sake.

 

[JoakimBL]

IMO the best argument for the circle is to designate a putt. Therefore changing the rules and the skills needed to execute it. Off the tee we can run up, follow through, etc just like we can in the fairway BUT we have to do so on the tee (designated area). When we get close the the basket then we have the circle where we have to be more controlled and skilled to execute the shot. Having the same rules from fairway to "green" doesn't make sense to me. As you get closer there should be some rules that make it more skill based.

First off. designating a putt by distance is what makes no sense to me. To me, any shot where I try to get the disc in the basket is a putt. Be it from 5' og 50'. And I donut buy the "skill argument". Jump og step putting requires a lot of skill. But even if it didn't, i still donut buy the argument. I see no reason for shorter shots to require the use of more skill than others. To illustrate why, lets make it a little ridiculous. To make putting harder, it is required to putt blindfolded inside 10m. now, where would you rather putt from? 3 m. or 10.1?

And lastly, I am really not worried about what the few outside spectators think about how stuff looks at this point in time. Lets worry about that when we have some spectators

 

[araytx]

I have to disagree with you on the "CLEARLY".

Many of the best jump putters (i.e. nikko) use a loft putt as is, so I don't see that changing. There are positives and negatives to all putting styles: spin putting, loft putting, turbo putting, step through putting, etc. Doing away with the circle will just allow players to choose whichever they would like. Freedom of choice, simplification of rules.

I think those that might see the most benefit are straddle putters. It seems to me to be the hardest popular style to get to the basket without falling forward in that 25'-35' range.

Any straddle putters out there that would like to see the 10m rule gone?

Rock, I simply disagree. I am primarily a straddle push putter (ala Brinster, Schultz, Nikko), though I will stagger stance when necessary. I don't want the 10m circle gone as I disagree with your assessment of advantage/disadvantage. True, there are advantages/disadvantages to each style as the rules are written now. I am not saying that there are not "good" push putter-jump putters (like Nikko) at all. What I said was it was extremely advantageous to the spin putter.

Think about it -- by the different physics of the shot -- it makes sense. By being able to step through forward every time, the spin putter (whose putt is typically along a straight line or "string line" to the basket) has lessened the left/right inaccuracy of the spin putt MORE THAN a loft putter (stepping through every time) has lessened the up/down inaccuracy of the push putt. That's the definition of an advantage.

And again, the argument about simplifying the rule is a "your preference" for simplifying -- and likely advantageous to you & those you locally play with. S&D outside of the tee box is just as simple.

 

[geoblime]

I'm all for removing the circle just so I don't have to hear "am I outside 30" ten plus times a round...j/k!

I think if you remove the circle there'd be other issues created..."was your foot on the ground when you released the disc while jump putting at 6 feet? :wall:

I think it's an annoyance as is but I'm ok with keeping it.

 

[Sir Puttsalot]

I'm all for removing the circle just so I don't have to hear "am I outside 30. ten plus times a round...j/k!

I think if you remove the circle there'd be other issues created..."was your foot on the ground when you released the disc while jump putting at 6 feet? :wall:

I think it's an annoyance as is but I'm ok with keeping it.

The 10m rule is an attempt to temper what is otherwise an unobservable/unenforceable throwing motion. As it is now, its virtually an unwritten rule by default that no one calls a violation on any putt jump, and so the benefit of these doubts always goes to thrower.

But at 10m, the onus is now on the player to clearly demonstrate all point of contacts are behind the lie 'after' disc is released. That distance may seem arbitrary, but no more than 30cm, 1m, 2m, or 5m.

 

[JoakimBL]

The 10m rule is an attempt to temper what is otherwise an unobservable/unenforceable throwing motion. As it is now, its virtually an unwritten rule by default that no one calls a violation on any putt jump, and so the benefit of these doubts always goes to thrower.

But at 10m, the onus is now on the player to clearly demonstrate all point of contacts are behind the lie 'after' disc is released. That distance may seem arbitrary, but no more than 30cm, 1m, 2m, or 5m.

That is the single best argument I have read so far. I'm not sure that is the original intent of the rule, but I buy the argument none the less. However, the "showing balance", might be more enforceable, but is still a grey area that makes it hard to enforce by the same standards. And most of the time probably won't be called unless the thrower falls flat on his face. So while I agree that it's a valid argument for keeping the circle, the aplication is almost as bad as not having it in the first place.

In actuality I don't really have a problem personally with the "showing balance" definition, but apparently to many people have a problem with grasping what that means, so it becomes a grey area, that is not uniformly applied, and I think that is a problem. It also makes many reluctant to call the violations because they are unsure about the rule, which might be the biggest problem in my opinion

 

[bradharris]

In actuality I don't really have a problem personally with the "showing balance" definition, but apparently to many people have a problem with grasping what that means, so it becomes a grey area.

This is why I say it's a "you know it when you see it" rule. Most of the question seems to come from people just trying to lawyer the rule book, claiming it's bad because it's not well defined without actually applying real-world application of the rules.

In the 10+ years I've been playing this game, I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I was unsure about whether or not someone's activity after the shot constituted a falling putt.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

This is why I say it's a "you know it when you see it" rule. Most of the question seems to come from people just trying to lawyer the rule book, claiming it's bad because it's not well defined without actually applying real-world application of the rules.

In the 10+ years I've been playing this game, I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I was unsure about whether or not someone's activity after the shot constituted a falling putt.

Yet we had a whole thread on here reading WillS which when you watch what he does and try to attempt it yourself-- he's very balanced but people (Chuck included) say this is questionable? I think that's what he's getting at. Is how you see it the same as how I see it?!

I do agree people are trying to go lawyer on the rule book and we know lawyers can get around even sound laws in todays world :|

 

[Rockwell]

Rock, I simply disagree. I am primarily a straddle push putter (ala Brinster, Schultz, Nikko), though I will stagger stance when necessary. I don't want the 10m circle gone as I disagree with your assessment of advantage/disadvantage. True, there are advantages/disadvantages to each style as the rules are written now. I am not saying that there are not "good" push putter-jump putters (like Nikko) at all. What I said was it was extremely advantageous to the spin putter.

Think about it -- by the different physics of the shot -- it makes sense. By being able to step through forward every time, the spin putter (whose putt is typically along a straight line or "string line" to the basket) has lessened the left/right inaccuracy of the spin putt MORE THAN a loft putter (stepping through every time) has lessened the up/down inaccuracy of the push putt. That's the definition of an advantage.

And again, the argument about simplifying the rule is a "your preference" for simplifying -- and likely advantageous to you & those you locally play with. S&D outside of the tee box is just as simple.

This is a fun side discussion, and so I will continue it:

I brought this topic up, not because it benefits me, but because it's a rule I don't see as necessary. In fact, it benefits me to keep the rule, because I'm better at standstill putting than most of the guys I hang with.

Straddle Putts (with loft style)
Pros include: Being able to stretch out and putt around objects on the course (trees, bushes, etc.), less left to right movement, shorter come-back putts, fewer moving parts
Cons include: harder to get to the basket while maintaining balance from a distance

Spin Putts (from traditional stance)
Pros Include: easier to keep chain height for longer distances, wind affects it less
Cons Include: clean stance not always provided, longer come-back putts if missed.

So: Wouldn't jump putting with a spin-style inside the circle just add even more velocity and even longer come-back putts if you miss? That doesn't seem like a plus to me.

 

[Rockwell]

Doss, Emac and Anthon (spin putters) don't have to step through their putts to keep them on-line and straight at the chains from 30'. It's Shultz, Brinster and Wysocki (straddle putters) who have to go up on their toes and try to maintain balance from 30'.

 

[JoakimBL]

Yet we had a whole thread on here reading WillS which when you watch what he does and try to attempt it yourself-- he's very balanced but people (Chuck included) say this is questionable? I think that's what he's getting at. Is how you see it the same as how I see it?!

I do agree people are trying to go lawyer on the rule book and we know lawyers can get around even sound laws in todays world :|

That is part of it at least. And then there is all of the "fake rules" like two feet, 2 seconds, disc in the basket and so on. People just don't get/understand it, and so it becomes even worse.
And also that, when not talking about top players, many are unsure about the rule, and might not call it, because of that.

 

[JC17393]

Yet we had a whole thread on here reading WillS which when you watch what he does and try to attempt it yourself-- he's very balanced but people (Chuck included) say this is questionable? I think that's what he's getting at. Is how you see it the same as how I see it?!

I do agree people are trying to go lawyer on the rule book and we know lawyers can get around even sound laws in todays world :|

I'd guess that half the people posting in that WillS thread didn't actually watch the video, and by page 3 or so, didn't even realize that a video was the impetus of the thread. Just as it seems like half the people posting in most longer threads like these aren't reading half the posts (some even admit with their "I didn't read the whole thing, so if I'm repeating something I apologize" caveats). I mainly point that out to say that there is a bit of folly in taking anything in a discussion thread and extrapolating it into some sort of trend or prevailing attitude.

Also, to me, using "questionable" w/r/t Will's putt was more that he was teetering on the edge of legality, not that it was difficult to ascertain whether he was legal or not. He clearly flirts with the line and some thought unnecessarily so. His one footed balance and retrieve the marker thing is 100% a stylistic move rather than one of necessity in his putting. He could eliminate it and it wouldn't affect his putting one iota while also eliminating any rules lawyering doubters that run to the internet to start threads about it.

 

[JC17393]

That is part of it at least. And then there is all of the "fake rules" like two feet, 2 seconds, disc in the basket and so on. People just don't get/understand it, and so it becomes even worse.
And also that, when not talking about top players, many are unsure about the rule, and might not call it, because of that.

I'm not sure so much that these "fake rules" come up because people don't understand the rule as it's actually written so much as a lot of players don't ever read the rule. They're taking what someone else told them and running with it...or misunderstanding what they were told and running with that.

I've always held the belief that most misunderstandings of the rule book are the result of a giant game of rules telephone rather than that the rules are difficult to understand or unclearly written. Yes, there are rules that are awkwardly worded and could be cleaned up, but not enough to account to the myriad misuses and misinterpretations that exist.

Better rules education would go a long way to fixing it. Reading the rule book would go a long way to fixing it. Sadly, with the prevailing attitude toward the book being "**** the rules", I don't see things getting better anytime soon.

 

[JoakimBL]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Only pointing out that getting rid of the circle would eliminate all these issues. At least when people find out the rules have changed. That will probably take quite a while, and create all kinds of issues as well.

 

[Kodachrome]

i straddle putt from much farther than 30'. once i'm too far, i take a regular in-line stance but i still pull from between my legs.

if you *have* to jump putt or step putt from 30' to make it easier, then you're not generating power efficiently. that is going to hold true at 20' and 10'. i'll gladly get rid of the 10m rule to allow step putting inside the circle. someone who is bad at putting will not gain anything from it anyway - it would probably do more harm than good. the people who are better at putting will still be better at putting so i have no qualms. it would make things more simple, that's for sure. i also get tired of people asking every single time "am i out" or "30 feet?" when it's 10 meters anyway.

i don't think you'd see many people switching their style to get "closer" to the basket on release.

 

[araytx]

This is a fun side discussion, and so I will continue it:

I brought this topic up, not because it benefits me, but because it's a rule I don't see as necessary. In fact, it benefits me to keep the rule, because I'm better at standstill putting than most of the guys I hang with.

Straddle Putts (with loft style)
Pros include: Being able to stretch out and putt around objects on the course (trees, bushes, etc.), less left to right movement, shorter come-back putts, fewer moving parts
Cons include: harder to get to the basket while maintaining balance from a distance

Spin Putts (from traditional stance)
Pros Include: easier to keep chain height for longer distances, wind affects it less
Cons Include: clean stance not always provided, longer come-back putts if missed.

So: Wouldn't jump putting with a spin-style inside the circle just add even more velocity and even longer come-back putts if you miss? That doesn't seem like a plus to me.

Of course, but you're missing that point. Particuarly at shorter distances they'd step through (not a pure "jump"-putt or putt-jump). Even just that little step through shortens the line and distance their putt has to travel. And since, as you & I agree, one of the pluses of the spin-putt style is that it's easier to keep chain height, they'd turn every 30-footer into basically a 25-footer -- not solely by distance, but by the fact that when they release a 30-footer with a step through it is virtually the same as a 25-footer without. That's because a spin putter swings backward (usually to the side and still along the line of the putt) on the backwswing before he putts. The same is not true for a loft putter. Because we swing primarily downward on the backswing to create the loft moving forward is likely detrimental so the only real difference without a circle is not having to worry about following through past the lie (aka the falling putt). But that 30-footer has not improved the distance at all, or only improved a foot or so.

Doss, Emac and Anthon (spin putters) don't have to step through their putts to keep them on-line and straight at the chains from 30'. It's Shultz, Brinster and Wysocki (straddle putters) who have to go up on their toes and try to maintain balance from 30'.

And that's my point. They (the Dosses, EMacs, and Anthons) are going to be even more accurate because every 30 footer under your rule change is going to have the accuracy of a 25-footer under current rules. They don't have to step through to keep it on line from 30 feet, but they WOULD -- because it would be advantageous without changing their putt. The can simply keep it on the same line and take a little speed off releasing closer to the basket. The REASON we (the Schultzes, Brinsters, and Wysockis) are going up on the toes is to add more "umph" to the putt, to get power. However, our loft putt is still a loft putt. being able to step through to shorten the putt or even to avoid having to balance like we do is not changing the accuracy. We're likely still releasing that putt from 29-30 feet.

 

[araytx]

i straddle putt from much farther than 30'. once i'm too far, i take a regular in-line stance but i still pull from between my legs.

if you *have* to jump putt or step putt from 30' to make it easier, then you're not generating power efficiently. that is going to hold true at 20' and 10'. i'll gladly get rid of the 10m rule to allow step putting inside the circle. someone who is bad at putting will not gain anything from it anyway - it would probably do more harm than good. the people who are better at putting will still be better at putting so i have no qualms. it would make things more simple, that's for sure. i also get tired of people asking every single time "am i out" or "30 feet?" when it's 10 meters anyway.

i don't think you'd see many people switching their style to get "closer" to the basket on release.

I get what you're saying but you're talking about bad putters. I'm talking about good ones. If someone is 90% from 25 feet and allowing him to step through makes him 95% (because he's a spin putter) that's gaining an advantage, when, in effect another guy with the other style allowing him to step through isn't improving his percentage increase at all (Still at 90%) because allowing a step through to a straddle putt/loft-putter doesn't change the distance and consequently not the accuracy.

And before anyone criticizes the distances I chose for the example, you pick the ones that are true for you and apply the same principles. I still think allowing the step-through is clearly an advantage to good spin putters compared to good push putters particularly those that straddle.