Rear leg OB and stance.

[fastdds]

802.07 Stance
Last updated: Saturday, March 3, 2018 - 08:33
If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds.

For example, say the drive goes OB onto a street. Disc is brought back to in bounds (with penalty of course) + 3 feet. My question is, regarding the supporting points and putting. Player sets up put with front foot on lie and rear foot still on the street (OB). If the rear leg is off the ground just prior to and upon disc release, is it still considered a supporting point? Would this situation necessitate a straddle putt to get the rear leg in bounds for set up of the throw?
thanks!

 

[robdeforge]

802.07 Stance
Last updated: Saturday, March 3, 2018 - 08:33
If the lie has been marked by a marker disc, then when the disc is released, the player must:
Have at least one supporting point that is in contact with the lie; and,
Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc; and,
Have all supporting points in-bounds.

For example, say the drive goes OB onto a street. Disc is brought back to in bounds (with penalty of course) + 3 feet. My question is, regarding the supporting points and putting. Player sets up put with front foot on lie and rear foot still on the street (OB). If the rear leg is off the ground just prior to and upon disc release, is it still considered a supporting point? Would this situation necessitate a straddle putt to get the rear leg in bounds for set up of the throw?
thanks!

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/80204

A supporting point is any part of the player's body that is, at the time of release, in contact with the playing surface or any other object that provides support.

It's not a supporting point if it's not on the playing surface. Hope this helps

 

[Putt for D'oh]

Has this changed in one of the last couple rules updates?

I think the rule is very clear but a while ago I was told pretty aggressively during a weekly that you cannot have a supporting point OB during your STANCE. They said this was the whole point of the meter relief so you could take the whole stance in bounds. Watching some footage this year and seeing pros have a foot OB got me to look up the rule and wonder where the stance vs prior to disc release difference came from. Was it just bad tribal knowledge or was it in previous rules?

On that same point if a fence line marks OB, what about hitting the fence itself with the back-foot during a putt? I have also been told that is a fault but this one is less clear to me.

 

[JC17393]

Has this changed in one of the last couple rules updates?

I think the rule is very clear but a while ago I was told pretty aggressively during a weekly that you cannot have a supporting point OB during your STANCE. They said this was the whole point of the meter relief so you could take the whole stance in bounds. Watching some footage this year and seeing pros have a foot OB got me to look up the rule and wonder where the stance vs prior to disc release difference came from. Was it just bad tribal knowledge or was it in previous rules?

On that same point if a fence line marks OB, what about hitting the fence itself with the back-foot during a putt? I have also been told that is a fault but this one is less clear to me.

The rules as long as I have been playing have always been oriented around the moment of release. You have always been able to stand with a supporting point out of bounds as long as you got it in their air/off the playing surface before the moment of release. Is a run up considered part of one's stance? Because you're able to run up from OB as long as you have no supporting points OB at the moment of release. Same principle applies.

To your second point, if your foot is simply making contact with the fence as you throw, that's not really considered a supporting point so I'd say it would be legal. It's incidental contact, no different than if you're throwing near a tree or bush and in the process of your throw you make contact with a branch and cause it to move (803.01.A).

 

[Putt for D'oh]

The rules as long as I have been playing have always been oriented around the moment of release.

As i thought rudiments of bad passed along knowledge. Thanks.

 

[fastdds]

today from PDGA.com questions about rules - stance

"QA-STA-4: I have an uphill lie for a short putt. Can I place my back foot on the lie and my front foot on the ground ahead of the lie, then lift my front foot just before releasing? After throwing the disc my momentum takes me behind the lie. I call this a "fade-away" putt.

Yes, that is allowed. Your stance was legal when you released the disc, and you did not go past your lie (closer to the hole) after releasing."

https://www.pdga.com/rules/official-rules-disc-golf/questions-and-answers#t5566n237776

The above query does not specifically address OB, but one could infer point of contact and stance from above.

 

[araytx]

Has this changed in one of the last couple rules updates?

I think the rule is very clear but a while ago I was told pretty aggressively during a weekly that you cannot have a supporting point OB during your STANCE. They said this was the whole point of the meter relief so you could take the whole stance in bounds. Watching some footage this year and seeing pros have a foot OB got me to look up the rule and wonder where the stance vs prior to disc release difference came from. Was it just bad tribal knowledge or was it in previous rules?

On that same point if a fence line marks OB, what about hitting the fence itself with the back-foot during a putt? I have also been told that is a fault but this one is less clear to me.

PFD:

You're confusing the "common" definition of stance, with our rule book definition of stance. For all the years I refereed many sports we were always taught that the definitions were the single most important part of the rules.

In common usage a stance is something you do while standing. In disc golf, a stance has nothing to do with standing, at least not in all cases. The stance can be standing, or kneeling, or lying on the ground, or tiptoeing, or putting one hand on the lie and other supporting points elsewhere -- heck I've even seen one player I play against reasonably regularly make what could only be termed as a "butt-putt" (he was obstructed) several times. Our stance is where you are when the disc is released.

So the people who passed that knowledge to you were correct; though not in the way you wrote it. You cannot have a supporting point OB during your (disc golf) stance and the purpose of the meter relief IS to be able to take your whole stance inbounds. And if your putting style is a typical staggered stance putt with a release while the back foot is off the ground, then such a stance with the front foot only in contact with the lie is totally legal as long as it meets all the other provisions of a legal stance.

 

[kenjiac]

Has this changed in one of the last couple rules updates?

I think the rule is very clear but a while ago I was told pretty aggressively during a weekly that you cannot have a supporting point OB during your STANCE. They said this was the whole point of the meter relief so you could take the whole stance in bounds. Watching some footage this year and seeing pros have a foot OB got me to look up the rule and wonder where the stance vs prior to disc release difference came from. Was it just bad tribal knowledge or was it in previous rules?

On that same point if a fence line marks OB, what about hitting the fence itself with the back-foot during a putt? I have also been told that is a fault but this one is less clear to me.

hand them a rule book and ask them to show you that rule.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

PFD:

You're confusing the "common" definition of stance, with our rule book definition of stance. For all the years I refereed many sports we were always taught that the definitions were the single most important part of the rules.

Wow, I see that. A bit confusing as well then based on some of the way the rules are written, it seems there needs to be a clarification at times between what I guess would be the set-up and the stance. There are many places the rules call out specifically for clarity "at the time the disc is released" but stance is used a bit vaguely at times. By this what I was told was literally correct, but the person saying it was also using the more colloquial definition which I guess would be more correctly termed the set-up?

Yes definitions of the terms becomes paramount. Much like the "what is the meaning of intentional" thread. Which has so many parallel conversations in so many other sports.

 

[araytx]

Wow, I see that. A bit confusing as well then based on some of the way the rules are written, it seems there needs to be a clarification at times between what I guess would be the set-up and the stance. There are many places the rules call out specifically for clarity "at the time the disc is released" but stance is used a bit vaguely at times. By this what I was told was literally correct, but the person saying it was also using the more colloquial definition which I guess would be more correctly termed the set-up?

Yes definitions of the terms becomes paramount. Much like the "what is the meaning of intentional" thread. Which has so many parallel conversations in so many other sports.

Exactly:

And if it's not in the rules there is no such thing -- e.g., the "set-up" (as you mentioned) doesn't exist in the rules, only in our colloquial world. In your OP when you were told you couldn't even take the "stance" that way, what's to stop you from saying, "...oh, this isn't my "stance;" it's just part of my pre-shot routine that I go through!" Nothing, right???

We had a separate definitions section in the rules prior to this latest update. The RC decided to simply define all the key terms at the first usage within the rules, so that makes it a little harder to find specific ones now. As I said, it's like when I refereed before -- DEFINITIONS. In football, a simple example is was it a "muff" or was it a "fumble"? Important because either team can pick up and run with/advance a fumble, but not true if it was a muff.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

We had a separate definitions section in the rules prior to this latest update. The RC decided to simply define all the key terms at the first usage within the rules, so that makes it a little harder to find specific ones now. As I said, it's like when I refereed before -- DEFINITIONS. In football, a simple example is was it a "muff" or was it a "fumble"? Important because either team can pick up and run with/advance a fumble, but not true if it was a muff.

I wonder if that was a choice to be a bit more inline with some other sports. I know soccer has had a definitions section come and go over the years, I think it has "streamlined" recently to a similar method of defining a term when it first appears. Also funny there as large gaps in my participation in the sport, coming back and seeing fairly major changes in the rules take place.

A lot of my other rules experience is in other fringe sports so very interesting to see the evolution of rules and where clarity can continue to be a problem.

I don't know if its an image thing but I don't see why at least with online versions of rules a glossary of terms with hyperlinks can't be a regular thing. It doesn't have to go into print but is useful. Stance is one that I think might be pretty misunderstood by a very large number of players.

 

[krupicka]

Before when the definitions were separate, there were a couple of rules that ended up being specified in the definitions rather than in a rules paragraph. I believe that was one of the reasons for keeping the definitions in the rules inline rather than on their own.

 

[JC17393]

I don't know if its an image thing but I don't see why at least with online versions of rules a glossary of terms with hyperlinks can't be a regular thing. It doesn't have to go into print but is useful. Stance is one that I think might be pretty misunderstood by a very large number of players.

This exists already. The written book contains the same index (Appendix E, page 21) listing the rule in which the definition can be found.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

This exists already. The written book contains the same index (Appendix E, page 21) listing the rule in which the definition can be found.

You ever look directly at something an not see it? Yeah I did that.