Tee pad stance violation call - Lake Marshall Open

[Rastnav]

On hole 17 of round 2 a stance violation was called on the tee throw of one of the players.

As we know, there is no stance violation unless you contact the playing surface past the lie/front of the tee before the disc is released. We also know that, absent something weird, the disc is released before the plant foot actually moves off the plant spot in a follow through. That means that, if you have a tee pad that is higher than the ground, you can't foot fault just by planting right on the edge of the pad slightly overhanging the end.

I'd assume the pros all know this, but, we all know that pros, even touring ones with lots of experience, aren't necessarily any more informed on the rules than your average experienced disc golfer.

So, in this case, we can clearly see that the tee pad has thickness to it. At full speed it's clear the player plants on the tee pad itself, even though the rotation of the foot ends up with the plant foot contacting the ground in front of the tee pad. So, it's a little odd to me that a foot fault is contemplated here. The person calling it even starts a sentence with "I mean your footprint ... " and then seems to be pointing out a footprint on the end of the pad.

So, the question I have is, do we think the pros on this card don't actually understand this rule?

There is a secondary question about whether casual impediments are part of the playing surface, but I don't think that is actually part of what the pro is thinking.

Video of at the hole in question
It's 29:53 in if the link doesn't take you right there.

You can see the height of the pad here:

The plant:

After release:

 

[seedlings]

Card didn't agree, so it kinda didn't happen. Then Hokum does the same thing. Curious if Ryan did something similar on other tees to get attention on front foot placement.

Edit: when I slip off the front of tee pads I shank the shot, so probably no real violation as you say. Plus I'm ticked and my knee hurts, so pls, no commentary Ms Hokum. Haha.

 

[Rastnav]

Card didn't agree, so it kinda didn't happen.

I just meant that a call was made. Although it wasn't seconded, Finley states on commentary this is because the other two players were more concentrated on the disc and didn't see the foot come down. But what if they were watching the foot? Would they have made the right call? It's not apparent to me.

 

[seedlings]

I just meant that a call was made. Although it wasn't seconded, Finley states on commentary this is because the other two players were more concentrated on the disc and didn't see the foot come down. But what if they were watching the foot? Would they have made the right call? It's not apparent to me.

If there were a disc placed at the edge of the teepad as the lie, the disc would have been shoved forward, which is a technical foot fault as I understand it. I say yes it's a foot fault. Commentators didn't touch it except to say Finley wasn't watching initially. Since they didn't say 'you can clearly see this isn't a fault' on replay … I think they knew it was.

 

[Rastnav]

If there were a disc placed at the edge of the teepad as the lie, the disc would have been shoved forward, which is a technical foot fault as I understand it. I say yes it's a foot fault. Commentators didn't touch it except to say Finley wasn't watching initially. Since they didn't say 'you can clearly see this isn't a fault' on replay … I think they knew it was.

Your understanding is not correct.

Some supporting point has to be in contact with the playing surface past the lie or end of the tee area before the disc is released for a violation to have occured. If the end of the pad is the end of the tee, you can hang as much of your foot off the end of the tee pad as you want as long as it's not on the surface past the pad. The part of your foot off the end of the pad is essentially no different than your hand. It's no different than your other foot in a step-putt.

If there is a line that defines the end of the tee area before the end of the pad, it would be different. But that isn't the case here.

 

[Steve West]

It looks like they might have thought the heel was touching the ground off the tee pad at the moment of release.

Spoiler

 

[seedlings]

Your understanding is not correct.

Some supporting point has to be in contact with the playing surface past the lie or end of the tee area before the disc is released for a violation to have occured. If the end of the pad is the end of the tee, you can hang as much of your foot off the end of the tee pad as you want as long as it's not on the surface past the pad. The part of your foot off the end of the pad is essentially no different than your hand. It's no different than your other foot in a step-putt.

If there is a line that defines the end of the tee area before the end of the pad, it would be different. But that isn't the case here.

Ok that makes sense off the tee. If playing lie behind a disc, is the foot allowed to push the disc?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Ok that makes sense off the tee. If playing lie behind a disc, is the foot allowed to push the disc?

Nope.

 

[seedlings]

Thank you - not sure why I thought this way.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Nope.

I should clarify.
Since the disc defines the lie, you can't push the disc forward prior to releasing your throw, because that would constitute a supporting point in front of the lie = foot fault.

If you release behind the lie, and you happen to move the disc or mini forward with your foot on your follow-through, that's OK.

All that matters is releasing the disc with no supporting poing forward of the lie. Whether you move the marker disc on the follow through is irrelevant.

But if a marker disc is pushed by a foot, it's pretty likely that foot was a supporting point forward of the lie.

 

[autocrosscrx]

I get not calling it, but I'm kind of surprised anyone can watch that and not think foot fault. It looks like she planted past the tee pad.

 

[foxdawg10]

Card didn't agree, so it kinda didn't happen. Then Hokum does the same thing. Curious if Ryan did something similar on other tees to get attention on front foot placement.

Edit: when I slip off the front of tee pads I shank the shot, so probably no real violation as you say. Plus I'm ticked and my knee hurts, so pls, no commentary Ms Hokum. Haha.

If your foot is off the teepad, it is still a violation, regardless of the result.

From the still shot that Steve posted, it looks like her heel may be off the front of the tee pad.

 

[Rastnav]

I should clarify.
Since the disc defines the lie, you can't push the disc forward prior to releasing your throw, because that would constitute a supporting point in front of the lie = foot fault.

If you release behind the lie, and you happen to move the disc or mini forward with your foot on your follow-through, that's OK.

All that matters is releasing the disc with no supporting poing forward of the lie. Whether you move the marker disc on the follow through is irrelevant.

But if a marker disc is pushed by a foot, it's pretty likely that foot was a supporting point forward of the lie.

So, I had this weird train of thought.

If you were to actually end up putting your plant foot on the mini or disc, would that be a stance violation? Or would it be illegal equipment?

I think it would actually technically be the latter, assuming that non of your foot touches the ground past the lie. The marker disc isn't part of the playing surface.

 

[Rastnav]

If your foot is off the teepad, it is still a violation, regardless of the result.

From the still shot that Steve posted, it looks like her heel may be off the front of the tee pad.

It doesn't matter whether her foot is hanging off the tee pad, only if it's actually touching the ground. She clearly plants with the better part of the heel on the tee pad and the tee pad is clearly fairly thick. I don't see how she could have her foot in that position and be actually touching the ground at the same time.

 

[Smigles]

Pros dont call rules violations on themselfs? The whole system depends on that? We need referees?

 

[txmxer]

It doesn't matter whether her foot is hanging off the tee pad, only if it's actually touching the ground. She clearly plants with the better part of the heel on the tee pad and the tee pad is clearly fairly thick. I don't see how she could have her foot in that position and be actually touching the ground at the same time.

It's a tough angle to make a call IMO. There are frames where it seems like there is no way it is not a foot fault. OTOH, I don't see anything that is definitive that she did foot fault.

Tie goes to the runner

 

[biscoe]

So, I had this weird train of thought.

If you were to actually end up putting your plant foot on the mini or disc, would that be a stance violation? Or would it be illegal equipment?

I think it would actually technically be the latter, assuming that non of your foot touches the ground past the lie. The marker disc isn't part of the playing surface.

Clearly a stance violation based on 802.07.A.2- "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc"

Not sure how it could be construed to be an equipment violation.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Clearly a stance violation based on 802.07.A.2- "Have no supporting point closer to the target than the rear edge of the marker disc"

^This.

Doesn't matter if the marker disc is the thrown disc, or a mini marker: the rear of the marker disc defines the lie.

Although this next part may seem a little bit counterintuitive, I recall a discussion about it in one of the rules threads (pardon me for not linking appropriate thread).

Even when using the thrown disc as the marker, the lie is defined by the rear of the marker disc along the LOP. Even if you're willing to step on your disc to throw, it would be illegal because you'd have a supporting point in front of the lie.

So using a mini marker actually does give you an "advantage" equal to the diameter of the thrown disc.

I would also argue that if that 21 cm difference feels like it makes that big a difference, you need to practice your putting.

 

[dmoore1998]

Looking at it very slowly, I thought her foot was off the front (if you see the disc just BARELY out of her hand, her entire foot appears to be off the pad completely, before that it appears about 75% of her foot is off, but it's impossible to tell what is in front of the pad in terms of height of the ground). Watching it in real time, i thought it was obvious her entire foot was off the front, but it gets closer the more I slow it down.

 

[Countchunkula]

I wonder if pros who came to their form more naturally are aware of exactly when the foot pivots with respect to disc release.

Those of us who suck and have looked at slo mo and freeze frames while we tried to improve are well aware.