The Foot "Fault"

[Cgkdisc]

You're missing the point about two seconds. You can still demonstrate balance while moving and in fact the options to pick up the mini or putting your other foot down involve motion during the two seconds. The two seconds is from the time the disc leaves your hand to the instant you make contact in front of the lie. The two second evidence was from the RC who judged the clips as faults or not without knowing the timing in advance. Without exception, when I made contact before two seconds, they called it a fault. When it was at least two seconds and I didn't stumble forward or fall, they called it good. That was after measuring the timing of each clip frame-by-frame.

So we didn't know what the "natural" feeling of "demonstrate" was until after the measurements. Turns out 2 seconds plus/minus a few milliseconds was it. That's why I've also used the term "two beats" which isn't exactly two seconds.

Consider that if there wasn't an intrinsic timing to "demonstrate balance" that under the current written rule, a player could say that you have to stand there as long as I say so before I consider you have demonstrated balance. As we all know, there are some who will never be "balanced" no matter how long we wait.

 

[JC17393]

DISCLAIMER: didn't read whole thread....

I would advice folks to never use the term "foot fault". I don't believe it is even mentioned in the rule book. (I haven't check this week, but I read it often)

I prefer Stance Violation. Probably nit picky on my part, the but the whole idea is picking at nits now isn't it?

QA37 contains the term foot fault, and the QA section is part of the official rules. But you are correct that the term doesn't appear in the text of any rules applicable to stance and stance violations.

 

[JC17393]

This means you have almost 12 inches to work with, I can see that being enough room to 'fall' into.

But at what point are you demonstrating balance?

I think the argument is that if you fall within the 12 inches (it's 11.75 inches to be exact), you aren't advancing past your lie and therefore balance isn't yet required anyway. But from what I understand of the OP's friend that started this discussion, we're talking about a step bigger than 12 inches in front of the planted foot.

Stepping within that 12 inches sounds more like Wysocki's step to the side style putt than Feldberg's step-through putt. In Wysocki's case though, he's snugged right up the edge of his marker with his plant foot but is not going forward at all when he steps with the off-foot, which is how he's legal when doing it.

 

[Harrishabitat]

You're missing the point about two seconds. You can still demonstrate balance while moving and in fact the options to pick up the mini or putting your other foot down involve motion during the two seconds. The two seconds is from the time the disc leaves your hand to the instant you make contact in front of the lie. The two second evidence was from the RC who judged the clips as faults or not without knowing the timing in advance. Without exception, when I made contact before two seconds, they called it a fault. When it was at least two seconds and I didn't stumble forward or fall, they called it good. That was after measuring the timing of each clip frame-by-frame.

So we didn't know what the "natural" feeling of "demonstrate" was until after the measurements. Turns out 2 seconds plus/minus a few milliseconds was it. That's why I've also used the term "two beats" which isn't exactly two seconds.

Consider that if there wasn't an intrinsic timing to "demonstrate balance" that under the current written rule, a player could say that you have to stand there as long as I say so before I consider you have demonstrated balance. As we all know, there are some who will never be "balanced" no matter how long we wait.

Once again what are these videos and examples you talk about. If its not in the rule book how can I as a player be expected to abide by it?

 

[peabody]

How bout "Within 30 , come to rest and take one step back before picking up mini/marker disc"?

 

[Harrishabitat]

You're missing the point about two seconds. You can still demonstrate balance while moving and in fact the options to pick up the mini or putting your other foot down involve motion during the two seconds. The two seconds is from the time the disc leaves your hand to the instant you make contact in front of the lie. The two second evidence was from the RC who judged the clips as faults or not without knowing the timing in advance. Without exception, when I made contact before two seconds, they called it a fault. When it was at least two seconds and I didn't stumble forward or fall, they called it good. That was after measuring the timing of each clip frame-by-frame.

So we didn't know what the "natural" feeling of "demonstrate" was until after the measurements. Turns out 2 seconds plus/minus a few milliseconds was it. That's why I've also used the term "two beats" which isn't exactly two seconds.

Consider that if there wasn't an intrinsic timing to "demonstrate balance" that under the current written rule, a player could say that you have to stand there as long as I say so before I consider you have demonstrated balance. As we all know, there are some who will never be "balanced" no matter how long we wait.

Are you also trying to claim I can demonstrate balance by still moving ad long as its over two seconds? that completely goes against the actual written rules in the book.

Also watch any top pro at a nt or major, they don't pause for two seconds on tap in putts... are you trying to tell me that all of these top pros are just blatantly violating the rules at these large events in front of all the eyes of the world and the rules committee ?

 

[Agricolae]

Perception of full control of balance

I wonder if, and how, the perceptions of the RC would change between putts from a straddle stance, with both feet on the ground behind the lie, and a staggered stance where the player finishes their motion balanced on one leg? Would the straddle stance get the "full control of balance" nod more often than the one-leg finish?

And, how does "demonstrate full control of balance" differ from "demonstrate control of balance"? Two feet on the ground should beat one, correct? And two feet might be good for one second or less, where a single foot on the ground might need two seconds or more depending upon how steady or unsteady the player is ...

 

[Steve West]

I suspect that all this not touching anything in front of the marker and demonstrating balance is just a bad way to try to say that a player shouldn't use the momentum of the body when putting. Perhaps a rule that more directly addressed that, like "a player's momentum must stop behind the marker" would be more clear.

However, even if I talk to the rules committee and they tell me "Yeah, that's what we meant", I'm not going to say that IS the rule until it is printed in the rulebook.

 

[coupe]

Funny that so much time and energy gets expended attempting to clarify/define what it means to "demonstrate full control of balance" yet no one seems to notice the glaring error in 802.04.D that nullifies the interpretation of the rule on which those attempts rest.

 

[mashnut]

Are you trying to play word games with part C that says "except when putting"? If so, part D specifically defines a "putt" (in the context of the rules) as a throw within 10m.

 

[JC17393]

Funny that so much time and energy gets expended attempting to clarify/define what it means to "demonstrate full control of balance" yet no one seems to notice the glaring error in 802.04.D that nullifies the interpretation of the rule on which those attempts rest.

Considering no one seems to be noticing this so-called "glaring error", why don't you spell it out for us like we're six instead of continuing to allude to it like it's going to magically occur to us all just because you mention it.

 

[coupe]

Are you trying to play word games with part C that says "except when putting"? If so, part D specifically defines a "putt" (in the context of the rules) as a throw within 10m.

Nope. The error is specific to 802.4.D.

Take a close look at the definition of "supporting point," then ask yourself, "What's missing from 802.4.D?"

 

[Harrishabitat]

Nope. The error is specific to 802.4.D.

Take a close look at the definition of "supporting point," then ask yourself, "What's missing from 802.4.D?"

seriously its annoying that you are being so vague. Explain your point or please stop posting

 

[Agricolae]

Nope. The error is specific to 802.4.D.

Take a close look at the definition of "supporting point," then ask yourself, "What's missing from 802.4.D?"

This better be REALLY good.

 

[Duane1985]

How bout "Within 30 , come to rest and take one step back before picking up mini/marker disc"?

Um... Try explaining that to a new player.

 

[bballr4567]

I'm waiting to see the glaring error.

 

[HiFi]

"The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target"

Common sense should take over from there. People can argue semantics all they want but a falling putt is like porn. It may not be definable but you know it when you see it.

 

[kerplunk]

Can we agree that a rule such as "A player must demonstrate balance by placing both feet on the ground behind her lie and remaining in that position for at least two seconds before advancing toward the target" leaves little room for ambiguity? Sure it is silly for tap-ins and short putts, but that silliness is worth it for a nice simple rule, IMO. And for the one-legged guy there could be exceptions, such as "If a player does not have two feet or is unable to stand on one or both of his feet, balance may be determined by a majority group ruling." But in reality I don't think that exception will be applicable very often.

I posted that in the other thread, and I stand by it. And it seems to me like Ckg analyzed the rulings of the rules committee in a rigorous manner and came to the conclusion that two seconds is the time required to demonstrate balance. While this probably can't and shouldn't be enforced now, I think it provides good precedent for a rule like the one stated above. I typically am in favor of rules that makes the game more objective and less subjective, and using distinct descriptions of timing and stance help with this.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

"The player must demonstrate full control of balance before advancing toward the target"

Common sense should take over from there. People can argue semantics all they want but a falling putt is like porn. It may not be definable but you know it when you see it.

Not if you look at the Will S thread that was started.. apparently its a grey area which people cant see through'

I tried to explain it in context and got robotic answers.

 

[araytx]

Folks, there is a difference between something being "required to meet the rule," and something being "a clear example which meets the rule." Every time I've heard Chuck discuss this and even on this thread, he's alluding to the fact that, if you demonstrate balance for 2 beats (seconds) behind your lie after releasing it, then you have met the requirements of demonstrating full control of balance. But even Chuck has asserted consistently that that's not the only way. So if you want to be absolutely sure, hold for 2 seconds. If you choose another method then you might/might not be called for a violation.