Rules Changes for 2018

[zontar]

Am i wrong? Giving shorter players the ability to take a more favorable shot is all well and good. But the taller folks with more reach still seem to come off with the advantage of a clearer or less risky shot. It seems like an odd way to go.

tall people got no reason to live......

 

[biscoe]

The new relief option from OB where the player can mark back from a bush that's in the one meter perpendicular from OB is another example where shorter players with less reach also benefit a bit more than taller players to slightly level the playing field.

I cannot believe you managed to conflate a group of players who "benefit a bit more" and leveling the playing field. Hint- one group of players benefiting more is the direct opposite of a level playing field.

 

[Keller]

Oh well, I guess we need a new division;
5'8" and under
5'8-1/2 and over"
(Measured before each tournament with shoes on)

Then us tall people don't have to hear all you short people bitch

Or should we have a wing span division?

 

[biscoe]

Oh well, I guess we need a new division;
5'8" and under
5'8-1/2 and over"
(Measured before each tournament with shoes on)

Then us tall people don't have to hear all you short people bitch

Or should we have a wing span division?

I am tall but have had a bunch of back injuries and have zero flexibility so would like to request a reclassification.

 

[Keller]

I am tall but have had a bunch of back injuries and have zero flexibility so would like to request a reclassification.

Dang!
It just gets too complicated:doh:

 

[JC17393]

Am i wrong? Giving shorter players the ability to take a more favorable shot is all well and good. But the taller folks with more reach still seem to come off with the advantage of a clearer or less risky shot. It seems like an odd way to go.

Yeah, there's no real basis for the rule being in place to shrink the "advantage" of being a taller player in such obstructed lies. The tall player gets to take the same extra couple inches as the shorter player, meaning it doesn't actually change the equation at all...except maybe as a matter of safety.

 

[GoobyPls]

I refer to it as the PDGA's "big lie."

How can it be easier for players to imagine an ambiguous area centered on the imaginary line of play when it is claimed the lie was expanded because the line of play was too hard to discern?

 

[beereakfast]

tall people got no reason to live......

There is beer.....

 

[beereakfast]

Yeah, there's no real basis for the rule being in place to shrink the "advantage" of being a taller player in such obstructed lies. The tall player gets to take the same extra couple inches as the shorter player, meaning it doesn't actually change the equation at all...except maybe as a matter of safety.

I do not disagree with the rule change. However, after some thought, it seems like using the centerline of the marker was far less ambiguous. It would make more sense to allow the marker to be placed at any point around and still in contact with the previosly thrown disc, and still keep to the old centerline rule. Effectively granting slightly more leeway and hopefully safety, but not changing the ability to see and recognize a fault. Of course, i may be crazy!

 

[Audible Vibration]

The reason stepping on the marker as you release any throw is illegal is because at that point your foot is a supporting point. "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." Because part of your foot is on top of the mini, that part of your foot must be closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc. And the rule is you must "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc".

I think this statement answers my question, but I'm looking for clarification, and couldn't find answers in the rule book or on this forum.

A friend of mine mentioned he is buying one of those 20 x 30 mats to place behind his mini. Let's say during your run up, your plant foot lands on the mat (in contact with the lie), and when rotating your foot, the mat moves and causes the mini to move. Would this be a foot fault? Based on Steve's statement I would say no since the foot was behind the mini. But can anyone confirm, or refer me to the rule that clarifies?

 

[Steve West]

I think this statement answers my question, but I'm looking for clarification, and couldn't find answers in the rule book or on this forum.

A friend of mine mentioned he is buying one of those 20 x 30 mats to place behind his mini. Let's say during your run up, your plant foot lands on the mat (in contact with the lie), and when rotating your foot, the mat moves and causes the mini to move. Would this be a foot fault? Based on Steve's statement I would say no since the foot was behind the mini. But can anyone confirm, or refer me to the rule that clarifies?

That would not be a foot fault. There is no rule against moving the marker - even when you do it during a throw.

The rule is all about where the foot is at the time of release. Stepping on your marker is not in itself a violation, but it proves that part of your foot was in front of the front edge of the lie, and that's the violation.

 

[araytx]

I think this statement answers my question, but I'm looking for clarification, and couldn't find answers in the rule book or on this forum.

A friend of mine mentioned he is buying one of those 20 x 30 mats to place behind his mini. Let's say during your run up, your plant foot lands on the mat (in contact with the lie), and when rotating your foot, the mat moves and causes the mini to move. Would this be a foot fault? Based on Steve's statement I would say no since the foot was behind the mini. But can anyone confirm, or refer me to the rule that clarifies?

AAAAANNNNDDDD......

Remember that "foot fault" is not in the rule book (that's why you couldn't find it). It's called a Stance Violation. "Foot fault" is our shortcut for the type of stance violation that occurs because of moving the supporting foot beyond the marker or not hitting the lie during the throw ... because it is like the "foot fault" during a serve in tennis. (There are other types of stance violations -- falling putt, lining up wrong, holding/grabbing something in front of the lie, etc.)

So no it is NOT a stance violation if the mat moves the mini or marker disc -- just like it is not a stance violation if during the throw the dirt, mud, water, twigs, etc, that your foot hits moves the mini either. As long as your supporting points are in the right place, the throw is legal. (all of 802.07)

 

[JoakimBL]

Speaking of foot faults. As there are no longe any advantage to be had, you are again allowed to call one on your self, however, it seems a little strange that you still need a second to receive your penalty. I donate know why you wouldn't second it, but I encountered this situation this weekend. (Not in my group, but I was asked, as I am the go-to guy on rules questions apparently) A player called a foot fault on him self, no one else saw it, so they didn't second it, and the player him self was unsure if it was needed, so he didn't get the penalty that he wanted and called on himself for fair play.

 

[Steve West]

Speaking of foot faults. As there are no longe any advantage to be had, you are again allowed to call one on your self, however, it seems a little strange that you still need a second to receive your penalty. I donate know why you wouldn't second it, but I encountered this situation this weekend. (Not in my group, but I was asked, as I am the go-to guy on rules questions apparently) A player called a foot fault on him self, no one else saw it, so they didn't second it, and the player him self was unsure if it was needed, so he didn't get the penalty that he wanted and called on himself for fair play.

Requiring a second helps keep enforcement more accurate as well as more even across the field. For example, it prevents a player who maybe remembers an old rule from penalizing themselves for a non-violation. With a second being required, at least there will be some discussion before anybody gets penalized.

You can still give yourself a warning.

 

[araytx]

Speaking of foot faults. As there are no longe any advantage to be had, you are again allowed to call one on your self, however, it seems a little strange that you still need a second to receive your penalty. I donate know why you wouldn't second it, but I encountered this situation this weekend. (Not in my group, but I was asked, as I am the go-to guy on rules questions apparently) A player called a foot fault on him self, no one else saw it, so they didn't second it, and the player him self was unsure if it was needed, so he didn't get the penalty that he wanted and called on himself for fair play.

Requiring a second helps keep enforcement more accurate as well as more even across the field. For example, it prevents a player who maybe remembers an old rule from penalizing themselves for a non-violation. With a second being required, at least there will be some discussion before anybody gets penalized.

You can still give yourself a warning.

ALSO, it keeps the enforcement consistent across all rules. It's not just for stance violations -- any call that has penalty throw(s) must be seconded. 801.02 E.