Foot Faults at World by Stokely

[gcr_russell]

Posted it on mobile, didnt realize it was coming in so small. It's posted to Stokely's facebook page in a comment I believe.

 

[Mulligan]

In HS, I never played on a field with a fence further than 350'. The pin positions you play on aren't the same as Tour positions. How often do you hit a putt that stops inches from the hole, then rolls into a lake? 3-point line in basketball moves. Courts seem to grow in size from MS to HS to college to pro (maybe just money issues).

I've used a driver from the fairway. It takes a good lie. I also know a lot of people that use tees when using an iron off the tee box. Just like, in DG, it takes a good lie for me to use a full run-up. The fairways often don't give me that good lie, and I have to adjust my run-up.

I see finesse golf being played a lot on the NT. Open fields and run-ups aren't related.
Finesse is equally even to power. They're both skill sets. Paul McBeth has both, so he's the best.

Sure, you can still use a driver if the situation is decent enough on the fairway, but you don't get to tee it up again. Some of its the quality of the lie, the other half is skill, to pull of an actually full on drive from the fairway.

My point is ball golf has a definite advantage embedded in the game from the tee, that does not exist elsewhere on the course.

In disc golf, we've integrated that advantage everywhere, and the result is crazy extra length.
If you could use a tee on every shot outside the green in ball golf, we'd probably have 1000yrd holes there too (i.e the equivalent of 1000 ft holes in dg). Imagine how boring that would be?
Its the difficulty of having to work your clubs to craft a shot that makes it great. Chi Chi Rodriguez, baby.

And, the difference of adding a foot or two to a three point shot (that can then be standardized and laid out on a court anywhere with zero cost or affect on the amateur game) or a few extra yards in a ballpark is not the same, by a long shot, to adding hundreds of feet to holes in NTs that you are not going to ever see on a regular basis anywhere else.
Its a symptom of a problem and mismanagement of the game by the PDGA.

I thought they weren't in the business of helping professional players make a living?
If thats the case then why are they setting up championships to cater to a few dozen folks that can bomb 600ft?

Finesse is always part of the game... my point is it should be the most critical over power.
Allowing a full x step on every shot does not equate to a fitness game.
I think after the drive a one step into plant is the most that ought to be allowed after tee off.
It'll change the game a little, sure, but maybe for the better.
Should definitely make foot faults a much more obvious and easy call.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Sure, you can still use a driver if the situation is decent enough on the fairway, but you don't get to tee it up again. Some of its the quality of the lie, the other half is skill, to pull of an actually full on drive from the fairway.

My point is ball golf has a definite advantage embedded in the game from the tee, that does not exist elsewhere on the course.

In disc golf, we've integrated that advantage everywhere, and the result is crazy extra length.
If you could use a tee on every shot outside the green in ball golf, we'd probably have 1000yrd holes there too (i.e the equivalent of 1000 ft holes in dg). Imagine how boring that would be?
Its the difficulty of having to work your clubs to craft a shot that makes it great. Chi Chi Rodriguez, baby.

And, the difference of adding a foot or two to a three point shot (that can then be standardized and laid out on a court anywhere with zero cost or affect on the amateur game) or a few extra yards in a ballpark is not the same, by a long shot, to adding hundreds of feet to holes in NTs that you are not going to ever see on a regular basis anywhere else.
Its a symptom of a problem and mismanagement of the game by the PDGA.

I thought they weren't in the business of helping professional players make a living?
If thats the case then why are they setting up championships to cater to a few dozen folks that can bomb 600ft?

Finesse is always part of the game... my point is it should be the most critical over power.
Allowing a full x step on every shot does not equate to a fitness game.
I think after the drive a one step into plant is the most that ought to be allowed after tee off.
It'll change the game a little, sure, but maybe for the better.
Should definitely make foot faults a much more obvious and easy call.

You want to take on McBeth on a pitch and putt? I'll bet on that match.

It's going to be as much about power with or without a run-up. Just like golf is about power whether you're hitting a wedge or driver. You want to throw bombs with Lizotte standstill? Be my guest.

 

[jeremyhilss]

The advantage of an elevated tee in ball golf is so much different than a run up in disc golf.

The height of the grass in ball golf plays an EXTREMELY significant part in the play of the game, in DG it does not (except for finding your disc). Thats why you just dont whip out a tee in the fairway in ball golf.

So are they going to start calling "foot faults" for people simply walking up to their lie? As long as you're throwing from where your disc came to rest, it shouldnt matter.

 

[krupicka]

That's why you go with a deliver and stay rule and not a stand and deliver rule.

 

[coupe]

The REAR EDGE of a circle is a single point, the second you deviate right or left you are no longer at the rear edge of the circle. The bottom of the clock face is at 6, not at just past 5 or right before 7, it is directly below the 6.

Actually, rearmost point of the edge is a single point. The rear edge is the entire half-circumference of the disc that's farther from the target than the midpoint of the disc.

 

[cjdiscgolf]

This has got to be the dumbest thread ever on here.

And for this crap show of a website which has 1 out of 50 comments actually insightful, that says a lot.

Here's all you need to know.

1 - Regardless of whether he foot faulted or not, according the letter of the law, he did. Because the rules clearly label what needs to happen for a foot fault to be official and they did. Scott had the right to appeal to the TD but chose not to. End of discussion.

2 - Video evidence isn't allowed to overturn calls. This is a bad rule and should be changed. But currently, this video is about as important as a $3 bill.

3 - Why do the people who are obsessed with S&D ALWAYS say "well if it wasn't for S&D this wouldn't happen." SCOTT CHOSE TO RUN UP. Nothing says he was required to. Just becuase a football player holds doesn't mean they got rid of blocking. Just because a hockey player trips doesn't mean they got rid of poke checking. If you CHOSE to do these things, they are consequences of messing up. It's 10 yards or 2 min in the box or in our sport, a penatly shot added to your score. I'm sure the S&D crowd thinks blocking should be allowed as well becuase people randomly hold.

4 - Brian Graham is an official and has the right to make that call.

5 - It was a clear foot fault.

 

[BionicRib]

6. Peoples brains are hurting

 

[j_mardis]

6. Peoples brains are hurting

And there it is.

 

[hook_nuts]

7. Yawn

 

[scarpfish]

3 - Why do the people who are obsessed with S&D ALWAYS say "well if it wasn't for S&D this wouldn't happen." SCOTT CHOSE TO RUN UP. Nothing says he was required to.

^
This. People seem to forget that if stand and deliver is so wonderful, they have the option of doing it right now. I do so inside of 100' almost religiously because I feel taking the moving feet variable out of my throwing mechanics increases my accuracy. Avoiding foot faults is just a bonus benefit.

They also have the option to enforce the foot fault rule for those who choose not to.

Actually, let me correct that, as the rules state that they have an obligation to. Maybe if we just enforced the existing rules, and that enforcement got people to correct their actions, there would be no perceived need to change the rules.

 

[Mulligan]

You want to take on McBeth on a pitch and putt? I'll bet on that match.

It's going to be as much about power with or without a run-up. Just like golf is about power whether you're hitting a wedge or driver. You want to throw bombs with Lizotte standstill? Be my guest.

That is exactly the point.
:wall:

 

[lyleoross]

Soooooo I think we are argreeing... But I would say that assuming that everyone has good moral fiber is not a way to govern the game and is also a little naive. People make references to ball golf but players do not always call there own penalties. I remember Dustin Johnson grounded his club in a bunker IN A MAJOR. he didn't call it. In fact a Marshall (after the round was over) penalized him. ... Michelle wie (spelling) was dq'd after the round again after taking an incorrect lie.

A change in the rules IS needed. But not whether to run up or not, but just who calls it. You are right that even with the growth of the sport there are not enough eyes for every card...... But there are for every 1st and 2nd card in NT's and majors. We already have rules in the rule book specific to A tiers and majors so let's not say we can't do this.

I believe in the integrity of the game. And I believe rules should be followed. I also believe that the rules should reflect integrity. Having my competition call my fouls (or perceived fouls) just does not make sense to me. I think we have our head in the sand if we believe players won't do every little thing they can to gain an advantage.

Btw. Don't know what you consider old but I am 38 years old. Starting playing when I was 5.

You make very good points, and for the most part, we do agree. I assumed you started after high school, it was the 81 that got me, that makes me old enough to be your dad.

When Dave Feldberg is on the the third card, and gains a significant advantage on card one because there is no official on card three, you still have a problem. I don't say this because I think Dave cheats, only because I think he poses a serious challenge to the players on card 2 and card 1. The truth is that if you can get caddies at majors, you can probably cover every card. It's the lesser tournaments where you go lacking. Perhaps that is good enough?

Given there is often enough video to provide evidence on most cards, perhaps video review or video based challenges should be allowed?

Perhaps it is my age, but my faith in integrity is less than yours. I believe that we should be honest, and play by the rules, but as a certified soccer referee, I see far more gamesmanship than an actual desire to follow the rules. Trying to get every advantage - legally - vs cheating is a slim distinction for many/most athletes. One only has to watch television to get this very quickly. My feeling is that the rules should enforce integrity, relying on my fellow human beings integrity seems a bust....

 

[JC17393]

^
This. People seem to forget that if stand and deliver is so wonderful, they have the option of doing it right now. I do so inside of 100' almost religiously because I feel taking the moving feet variable out of my throwing mechanics increases my accuracy. Avoiding foot faults is just a bonus benefit.

They also have the option to enforce the foot fault rule for those who choose not to.

Actually, let me correct that, as the rules state that they have an obligation to. Maybe if we just enforced the existing rules, and that enforcement got people to correct their actions, there would be no perceived need to change the rules.

Amen and hallelujah.

I've always believed that we don't really have bad rules, we have bad rules enforcement. The rules as written are fairly straight forward and easy to follow. The problem has always been a general reluctance by most players to enforce them properly. I mean, is there any clearer evidence of this culture than the notion of a rules "nazi"? Never encountered the attitude of the guy who strives to play by the rules is the jerk in any other sport except disc golf. No amount of changing or re-writing rules will make any difference as long as that culture continues to exist.

 

[lyleoross]

^
This. People seem to forget that if stand and deliver is so wonderful, they have the option of doing it right now. I do so inside of 100' almost religiously because I feel taking the moving feet variable out of my throwing mechanics increases my accuracy. Avoiding foot faults is just a bonus benefit.

They also have the option to enforce the foot fault rule for those who choose not to.

Actually, let me correct that, as the rules state that they have an obligation to. Maybe if we just enforced the existing rules, and that enforcement got people to correct their actions, there would be no perceived need to change the rules.

I think it's because you and cd are missing the argument being made. I think a run up is fine, if every player on every card, calls foot faults. If Scott is being called for a foot fault, and no one else in the division is being called for foot faults, the rule becomes a farce, and he is playing a different and unfair game. Kenny foot faults, I've never seen one called, Mr. Brown foot faults, I've never seen one called. Scott got three in a span of an hour. Did Scott foot fault? don't know, but lets assume he did. Yep, he can S&D, now he has a disadvantage to Ken and Mr. Brown. Can he call them equally, yes he can, but he can't call the guys on card two and if no one down there is calling the foul, then he is playing at a disadvantage.

There is a cultural problem when it comes to open field run ups. The PDGA, nod nod, wink wink, thinks they should be tolerated to make the game interesting. Many players don't call them period. That creates a problem. Furthermore, I suspect Ken calls them when it's convenient or provides an advantage that Ken wants. That is a big suspicion, and should be treated with a huge grain of salt. But if you have one player that calls foot faults only when its to their advantage, you have a credibility problem that has to be addressed.

 

[Noill]

a foot fault on an open hole is kinda ridiculous... someone said earlier that it is odd that we have these "patio-sized" teepads but a tiny area to land on for throws in the fairway especially when these are obstacle free and there is no advantage either way... I'd think a distinction should be made for run-ups and S&D shots...

basically, if you have an open and obstacle free shot... you essentially are looking at another teepad... why not make a rule that allows for a larger zone to throw from when it has no advantage either way... who cares if you are two feet behind your marker in this scenario...

if you are stuck behind a tree and really can't run up then sure... keep the rule as is for that b/c allowing a wider zone would be an unfair advantage to the thrower... just define the rule better... the idea is to not give an unfair advantage to the thrower...

we play a game similar to ball golf but it isn't exactly the same... the rules should reflect that better

 

[JC17393]

a foot fault on an open hole is kinda ridiculous... someone said earlier that it is odd that we have these "patio-sized" teepads but a tiny area to land on for throws in the fairway especially when these are obstacle free and there is no advantage either way... I'd think a distinction should be made for run-ups and S&D shots...

basically, if you have an open and obstacle free shot... you essentially are looking at another teepad... why not make a rule that allows for a larger zone to throw from when it has no advantage either way... who cares if you are two feet behind your marker in this scenario...

if you are stuck behind a tree and really can't run up then sure... keep the rule as is for that b/c allowing a wider zone would be an unfair advantage to the thrower... just define the rule better... the idea is to not give an unfair advantage to the thrower...

we play a game similar to ball golf but it isn't exactly the same... the rules should reflect that better

Who determines whether there is "no advantage either way" with any given lie? How close is close enough to a tree to make it fall under the rule "as is"?

How is that a simpler, easier thing to do than the current rule? I mean, how much simpler and straight-forward can you get than this is the foot-sized spot your foot has to be on when you throw a shot in the fairway no matter where in the fairway you are and no matter what obstacles you have to navigate?

 

[Noill]

Who determines whether there is "no advantage either way" with any given lie? How close is close enough to a tree to make it fall under the rule "as is"?

How is that a simpler, easier thing to do than the current rule? I mean, how much simpler and straight-forward can you get than this is the foot-sized spot your foot has to be on when you throw a shot in the fairway no matter where in the fairway you are and no matter what obstacles you have to navigate?

You have a reasonable question here... though almost all of the rules had reasonable questions and they were worked out.

I think this is a situation that could be worked out as well. The rule as is causes a lot of trouble as others have stated... so many are technically foot faulting and not being called on it... my opinion is that they shouldn't be called on it and that there is something wrong with the rule as well.

 

[bballr4567]

I think it's because you and cd are missing the argument being made. I think a run up is fine, if every player on every card, calls foot faults. If Scott is being called for a foot fault, and no one else in the division is being called for foot faults, the rule becomes a farce, and he is playing a different and unfair game. Kenny foot faults, I've never seen one called, Mr. Brown foot faults, I've never seen one called. Scott got three in a span of an hour. Did Scott foot fault? don't know, but lets assume he did. Yep, he can S&D, now he has a disadvantage to Ken and Mr. Brown. Can he call them equally, yes he can, but he can't call the guys on card two and if no one down there is calling the foul, then he is playing at a disadvantage.

There is a cultural problem when it comes to open field run ups. The PDGA, nod nod, wink wink, thinks they should be tolerated to make the game interesting. Many players don't call them period. That creates a problem. Furthermore, I suspect Ken calls them when it's convenient or provides an advantage that Ken wants. That is a big suspicion, and should be treated with a huge grain of salt. But if you have one player that calls foot faults only when its to their advantage, you have a credibility problem that has to be addressed.

Once again that is a CULTURE problem and not a rules problem.

People hate playing with Feldberg because he calls any violation he sees. Yet, he is just playing by the rules.

Why is the culture of disc golf to be so lax on the rules to where someone finally gets called and it suddenly is a rules issue?

Its not a rules issue.

 

[JC17393]

You have a reasonable question here... though almost all of the rules had reasonable questions and they were worked out.

I think this is a situation that could be worked out as well. The rule as is causes a lot of trouble as others have stated... so many are technically foot faulting and not being called on it... my opinion is that they shouldn't be called on it and that there is something wrong with the rule as well.

The rule isn't causing problems. The reluctance of players to make calls is the problem. I'm not sure how changing the rule changes that attitude. The rule is the rule whether the person tasked with making calls agrees with it or not. If I philosophically disagree with the OB rule, does that mean I shouldn't observe it or enforce it when I or another groupmate land in an OB area?